The Mandy/Ebert Project

Update your bookmarks if ya got 'em

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Fri, 01 Apr 2016 22:37:00 +0000

New site. New posts (probably). If you have this page bookmarked for some reason (KIRK), time for an update, my friends.

I'll miss you, Roger.

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Fri, 05 Apr 2013 23:05:00 +0000

I don't have a lot to say that hasn't been said. There have been some truly beautiful words written about him, which he is so deserving of. I think it's something that I might need a while to really get my thoughts together about. Especially to be relevant to this blog at all.

I'm going to miss him so much. Roger Ebert was a really great man - a fantastic film great, a unbelievable writer, a genuinely good person who cared deeply for others, and an awesome inspiration.

Had one for Ebert last night. Not sure if it was as good as he remembered it to be - but as someone who didn't eat meat for the last 13 years and only started again about a week or so ago...that was a damn good burger.

Rear Window

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Fri, 02 Mar 2012 04:20:00 +0000

Hey, a real post! So, Rear Window, directed in 1954 by Alfred Hitchcock, is what I ended up watching today. If I was doing this in any sort of order, I would have watched The Leopard, but that's long and I'm tired and my back is feeling wonky, so I had the internet pick something shorter. Plus, I sort of felt like watching this way more.

Probably we all know the plot of this movie. It's been referenced and remade many times. Two notable examples being Body Double (which I think I watched simply because of how much it's referenced in the book American Psycho) and Disturbia (which I didn't see but looked like it was about as awesome as a box of farts). Even though Rear Window is familiar, I personally have always found that it's still really tense and exciting to watch. I mean, I know what happens in the most tension-filled scenes, and I still find it makes me squirmy. We all know Hitchcock is amazing at tension. Can I contribute something new to this discussion? We will find out.

So. The plot anyway, because that's what I do in these posts and I obviously can't stray from that format. Jeff is a famous photographer who is currently confined to a wheelchair with a broken leg, the cast aching all the way up to his hip. He is trapped in his apartment, only visited by his nurse Stella and his girlfriend Lisa. He spends his time peeping on his neighbors in their apartments, giving them nicknames and watching their every move. He often checks in to spy on a man and his wife. She stays in bed all day and he must tend to her every need...until she disappears. Things are suspicious about all of it. The man, Mr. Thorwald, is suddenly packing up his things to leave. A dog that snuffles the flower beds outside too much is suddenly found dead. Jeff soon gets Lisa and Stella engrossed in this plot as well - was someone murdered, or are others just being drawn into Jeff's deluded conclusions?

Voyeurism is obviously wrong, but it's one of the things that really connects the audience with the movie. As Ebert points out in his review, aren't all movie watchers voyeurs? Plus, we love peeping. You can't deny it. I know that you, like everyone else, cannot resit the allure of creeping on Facebook. We cannot get enough of watching other people's lives. I think it's such a genius and easy way to get viewers immediately invested in the film. We get super engrossed right away, because we like this sort of thing, and we want to hang around more and put together the pieces with Jeff. Possibly this is why the tension feels so effortless and real - we're really invested and interested. And we are sort of complicit in the action, I guess. It's not in your face about it like Funny Games or something, but it's like, "Hey, you wanted to watch them, too. Here's what happens as a result."

I love, so much, that this movie has a forced perspective. We see everything from Jeff's point of view. When Lisa sneaks into Mr. Thorwald's apartment, we don't get to come with. We have to stay behind with Jeff and watch it from a distance, missing out on dialogue, missing the portions of the rooms that are obscured without windows. I don't want to say this because I feel like it could be misconstrued, but it's similar to why people get so scared by found footage movies. No no no, I am not comparing Papa Hitchcock, Master of Tension to something as shitty as The Blair Witch Project, but Hitchcock-level tension is sort of what found footage movies are going for, you know? By restricting our perspective, what we actually end up seeing, we feel more afraid - we fear what is happening just outside of the frame. And it makes us feel powerless. We can't stop things we see edging in on different shots. We're distanced from the action, just voyeurs...just like Jeff. For me, I end up really connecting with Jeff in this movie, partially because I really only know and see what he knows and sees. When he is threatened, I feel the suspense. Are the police coming to save him? I don't know - I'm not over there with the police. I'm stuck in Jeff's apartment with Jeff.

I feel like I have to briefly hit on how important montage is in the movie. Blah blah blah, something about Russian cinema and Battleship Potemkin. Here is the "my parents really want to not have wasted their money on all those film classes" summary of montage. Back in the day montage was this really new and exciting idea, because until some old Russian dude invented it, no one really used such techniques. It was a pretty big deal when people realized you could cut together unrelated images and people would come to some similar conclusion about those images on their own. It's dumb to explain montage now because it's so commonplace, we all inherently understand it. But this was like, a big subversive idea full of power and suggestion back in the day. Rear Window really couldn't exist without montage, because it's how we figure out there may have been a murder. We see unrelated things - the wife's empty bed, the husband packing, a saw, a dog digging in freshly altered flowerbed - and we are lead, via those suggestions, to a conclusion. Anyway, you could of read all this on the rest of the internet. I'm bringing it up because I think that it's part of what makes the film so effective and tense. I feel like we have more faith and investment in conclusions that we come to on our own. Think of how excited people get when they put together clues in a film and figure out the twist before the end (or just think they did). It's like a mini version of that. If we had just seen a murder, we'd probably be interested, but a little "eeeehhhh.". But because we think we figured out the murder (even though it was just suggested to us via images), we're a little more excited, more into the plot, because, hey, we put this all together, man. We're just...more manipulated this way. Which is pretty masterful.

That was long and holy shit, could I have named any more movies that are not really related to Rear Window at all? If you haven't seen it, you really need to watch it. It's really fun, it feels short and exciting, and it's just got a great cast and story. It's clearly masterfully made, and even knowing what happens next, I find myself still feeling tension whenever I watch it. Yay! This was certainly a post. Welcome back, Me.

Links:
Ebert's Great Movie Essay on Rear Window
Buy or rent it on Amazon
Bart of Darkness - the Simpson's parody of Rear Window.
I was going to link to a video but all the sites I found made me feel like I'd get viruses if I clicked so actually watching it is up to you.

Excuses, excuses.

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Fri, 02 Mar 2012 01:28:00 +0000

Alright, internet. Get your shoes on! I'm actually making a post. About a Great Movie! I didn't want to watch The Leopard which is like five hours long, so I let the internet decide between the two other Great Movies I had on DVD from Netflix - Rear Window or The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari. The lazy poll resulted in the selection of Rear Window (much thanks to those who texted or came into my goon laboratory to tell me). A post about it is coming up after the film is over & I have stuffed my face with Vietnamese food and white wine.

"Why has she not posted anything for so long?" you might be wondering. Unfortunately I injured my back right after Thanksgiving, and it was pretty painful and dumb. The sort of serious business medications they prescribe you for stuff like that are not so great for movie watching and blog postin'. I was lucky if I could stay awake past 8 p.m. before the combination of muscle relaxers, painkillers, and physical therapy knocked me out. My physical therapists were awesome, though, and managed to fix me. At least I wasn't still going through the Great Movies books. Now that I'm sort of back to normal (that's pretty relative of a term), it seemed like a good time to get back to something that really matters.

Anyway, I wanted to make a post explaining myself, so I didn't clutter up the movie post with bitching and moaning about my strange adeptness at injuring myself. So there you have it.

Nashville

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 24 Nov 2011 19:02:00 +0000

This is literally going to be the worst post ever because I didn't learn, apparently, that I need to post about a movie right after I watch it. I seriously finished watching this movie last Monday night and I've put off writing about it, because I don't really know what to say and I really have no reason to rush. That's pretty awesome to say, though - I could take like, over an entire week to write a post because whatever.

So, forever ago I watched Nashville, directed by Robert Altman in 1975. I sort of hated and sort of loved the movie. I hated it because I hate country music, especially the kind that I had to listen to for three hours over the course of the film. I liked the ending of it, though, where all the different characters came together and interacted. It's one of those things where I wouldn't have the satisfying ending if I didn't sit through the rest of it, but I still just didn't really care too much about it overall. I feel really lazy saying I just didn't really care for the music so I didn't care about the movie, but eh, it's pretty much how I feel.
Even Ebert sort of struggles to summarize the plot here. I'm struggling because of my overall apathy. To be honest, I've put off writing about this for so long that I'm starting to forget it. Ok, I know. Never again. The film has a bunch of different people involved with country music doing different things that vaguely relate to each other. There are a lot of characters and a lot of side plots, and they all come together during a concert at the Parthenon in Nashville. There's aspiring country singers who suck at singing, a weird politician who drives around blaring political commentary, a weird BBC lady who says she's making a documentary but is never seen with a camera crew, that sort of thing. I already feel like I've made it more interesting than it really is.

I don't what it was that didn't work so well for me. Some of the characters were interesting, and it had everything that I like about Robert Altman's style, like his mostly improvised overlapping dialogue. I just didn't find all of the characters to be too engaging, and I think maybe there were just...too many of them? I sound like such a whiny baby about it, but it was hard to really care strongly for anyone because there were so many different characters doing different things. I felt like sometimes I would start to like a character for doing something funny and it would either become overplayed (The BBC reporter eventually just got on my nerves) or the scene would end, and I'd be a little annoyed.

I feel really conflicted, because on one hand I really hated the bad country music and how long and boring a lot of the movie was, but there was also tons of good Altman stuff and a good ending. And I read on the interwebs that country music stars hated it because they felt it made them look bad, which made me instantly like it a little more. It also had Jeff Goldblum for a little bit which is good as well. It's described as a black comedy, but I guess I didn't find it funny enough to like it. Or I hate country music enough that even making fun of it isn't fun for me.

Sorry this is the worst blog ever. When I do watch Great Movies I promise I'll actually write a post right away so you don't have to read something this horrible. Honestly the only reason I still wrote and posted about this was because I had no desire to have to watch the movie again.

What's Next?

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 09 Nov 2011 04:57:00 +0000

So, if you've been reading my posts lately, you might have noticed something I snuck into yesterday's movie post - Yojimbo is technically the last movie out of Ebert's books. (!!)

"What does that mean?" you might be asking yourself. "Is this stupid project over or not?"

Well, yes and no. Mostly no.

Here's the thing. When I first set out to do this project, I said I was just going to do the Great Movies books. No more, no less. And hey - I did it! I went almost a year watching a movie and writing about it every. single. day. There were a few days I had to skip movies because our power was out, or I was too sick, or I because I didn't have a movie or had the wrong version. There's not too many, and I have a plan for them, which I'll go into in a second. I feel really good about what I did here. I learned a lot - it seems dramatic to call it life-changing, but it really was. I started the project because I was lazy and unemployed, and I thought maybe it would give me something constructive to do with my free time. My fantasy goal was to have the blog help me get a job where I could maybe write for the web. I landed a great job while I was doing this project, and because of my blog and knowledge of the intertubes, I'm going to start blogging for my company, and updating our website. I never expected to have steady readers and commentors. I certainly never expected Roger Ebert to notice! That meant a lot to me, and it was extremely cool to have the person I was sort of reaching out to actually notice that and reach back across the vast wasteland of the internet. Everything turned out way better than I could have hoped for.

"So, what now?"

Now that I've spent almost a year as a slave to my TV and netbook, to say the least, I need a break. "But", you cry, "what about those movies you skipped? You're not really done!" You're right. I'm going to give myself a little while, maybe a week, maybe more, to get myself (and my Netflix queue) in order. Then I'm going to watch the movies that I skipped. I am not going to watch them every day. I'll watch them in the order that I was supposed to watch them, but maybe just one or two movies per week. Maybe more than that. Who knows!

And after that? I'm not posting anymore until after New Year's. I need a serious break. I always feel like I whined a lot about how hard the project was, but man, it was tough. I worked a full time job majority of the time that I did it, and my life was honestly only working and blogging. I would come home, put on yoga pants, and start a movie. By the time it was over and I was done writing about it, I'd usually just go to bed. Two nights out of the week for the entirety of the project, I wasn't even home until after 9 p.m. It wasn't easy. The project was unruly. Want to go out with your friends on a Friday night? Have to work on the project. Family in from out of town? Better find time to work on the project. Power out? Better get hardcore and hook your TV up to a generator, because you need to work on the project. Out to lunch with your friends or co-workers? They'll probably want to ask you about the project. It was worth doing, 100%, but it was challenging! It sounds like it would be easier than doing something like, say, starting to run every day for a year, because I just had to sit on the couch and be lazy. But movies take a lot of time! Most of them were around two hours, sometimes quite a bit more. Then I'd work on my post. So you know, it took up a little more time than a half hour jog or something.

"Whatever. What the eff are you doing after New Year's?"

Most likely, I'll watch the Great Movies that Ebert posted online, probably just one per week. Look at it this way - he doesn't really post them every week consistently, and if I do them all in like, a month, I'll run out of stuff to watch and write about! This way, I can sleep at night and have, yunno, a life, and still keep up with my blog. Possibly it will be January and I'll be all, "Screw movies and movie blogs!" and I'll start doing something else. Probably not (uh, since I already bought some of the out-of-print movies I would need), but I'm dumb and unpredictable. I'll keep you posted if I branch out into any other endeavors that you might care about. Suggestions are welcome, as well.

"So, did you like, learn anything from this?"

Most certainly. It really was life-changing for me. Before this project, I was one of those people who would try to start something like working out or trying new recipes or going to bed before 2am, and after about a month or so I'd either have injured myself too severely to continue or gave up. Most people I know are like this, although I think they injure themselves less. But I did something I set out to do. I watched all of Ebert's Great Movies in his movie books. I watched one a day, every day, for almost a year, barring the handful that I had to skip due to natural disasters and roving plagues. Nobody's perfect and I knew I wouldn't be able to watch every single movie - I figured there would be some I wouldn't be able to afford or find and I'd have to skip entirely. I wish I could better articulate how happy I am that I actually completed what I intended to. It means a lot to me, and I know it's going to affect me from now on - I'll always know that I can make time to work on projects, that I can finish them, that I can challenge myself and stay with something even when it sucks.

There was a lot I learned about movies, as well. Movies, despite the fact that they aren't really as well-respected as like, books, can be really life-altering to watch. There were a lot of movies that taught me new things, be it about filmmaking or about life. I found new genres that I love, new directors, and saw so many different and great stories. I also found that it was could be very isolating. Probably what I learned about film could be it's own post or several posts, which maybe I will write if you plead with me extra nice.

Really, I'm just really happy that this project turned out so well. Sure, it wasn't a smashing internet sensation, but I got way more out of it than I had dreamed of when I started it. Thanks so much for your support, guys - you really rocked and were awesome motivators, and your comments and feedback meant a lot to me. I don't want to repeat myself, so instead, I'm going to have sort of celebratory beverage.

See you in about a week! :)

Yojimbo

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 08 Nov 2011 07:02:00 +0000

Hey, did you know that this is the last movie out of Ebert's books? Probably not, but I do, since I eat, sleep, and breathe these movies. :) I felt like I had to share. So, today's movie is Yojimbo, directed by Akira Kurosawa in 1961. I guess it's his most famous film, but I wouldn't really know that. It's quite good, though. It's based, I read, on a few different Dashell Hammett novels such as The Glass Key and Red Harvest. I'm pretty sure I read Red Harvest, but for some reason or another I can't really remember. I was a great student, you know?

Regardless of how much I actually learned in college, Yojimbo is pretty great. Samurai movies and Western films have always had a lot in common, but here, Kurosawa went out of his way to add in Western elements. Later, Sergio Leone would make Fistful of Dollars, which is, I've heard, extremely similar. I only point this out. I guess, to underline how much this movie is like a Western, since I think that's a neat aspect of the movie.

So, I've relocated my to my bed to finish this post, and am now locked in an exciting race to see if I can finish my post before my dose of liquid Nyquil kicks in. Yay for good motivation! Ok, the plot: Sanjuro (who's full name he gives himself means "thirty-year-old mulberry field", aka "The Man with no Name") arrives at a small rural town. When he learns that two rival gangs are fighting over the town, he s hired by both of them to defeat the other gang. Instead, he decides to pit them against each other to free the town.

The cinematography is really great. I love that Kurosawa has this calm, straight style. It's reminiscent of other Westerns, but the huge wide shots that unflinching face the action head-on are amazing. I love the scenes where you can see the entire gang spread out in front of the buildings. I think I just like really wide shots, especially when everything around the characters is sort of flat and desolate. It has a cool effect, and it really draws your attention to what matters. The editing in his films is always clean and sharp, too, and it's easy to follow all of his action scenes without feeling lost. It's not often that I feel like action-y scenes can be beautiful, but when Kurosawa does them, they really are.

The plot, for me, is comfortable and easy to watch. It reminds me of a lot of other things, and it even has some of my favorite things like "characters who no longer fit into the current trends/time period" (like in The Wild Bunch) kind of stuff. I don't want to make assumptions, but I think by the time people my age see this movie, the story, the character of the Man with No Name seem sort of "classic". Even if we haven't read books or seen movies involving them, we sort of know about it. I think a lot of this is because there are so many popular American movies influenced by Kurosawa, but it goes both ways. There are a lot of great Westerns (not all of them American, but all of them famous) based on his films, but he also based his movies on great Westerns. I guess I'm just bringing this up because I was thinking about how effortless this movie was to watch. I know that foregin movies can be daunting to some people (I still hear a lot of people declare that they can't stand subtitles, which I admit I don't think I can begin to understand), but this one doesn't feel obscure or difficult. The plot feels familiar, the characters, too. There's dark humor and exciting action, and a lot of the scenes mimic thing we are used to seeing in cinema. Hmm, I guess what I'm trying to say is that movies like this can maybe remind us that no matter what language we speak, we all enjoy the same kind of entertainment. I don't know, there are a lot of movies I've watched for this project that have made me think things along these lines, and just generally wonder why people often look at foreign movie as being so "different' when they really so very similar.

Ramble ramble. It's obviously time for sleep. For me, this is a really great, easy movie to watch, full of masterfully filmed action, amazing cinematography, and a really cool combination of genres. It has a lot of sophistication and style and a lot of fun, as well. No matter how many films exist that are based on Kurosawa films like this one or are inspired by them, his films always feel fresh and exciting to me, even when I've seen similar things already. Maybe it's the style that keeps it interesting, the clean lines of his shots and editing, but regardless, they're great works. They're not complicated to watch or think about, but you can make them be if you analyze them enough. I like movies like that, and I think they end up being really enjoyable for a lot of different people with different tastes in film. Or something. :)

Have any thoughts about Yojimbo? Share them in the comments!

Links:
Ebert's Great Movie Essay on Yojimbo
Buy it on Amazon

W.R.: Mysteries of the Organism

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 07 Nov 2011 03:08:00 +0000

You'll have to forgive me for any strangeness in my writing - I'm still pretty fuzzy from this cold. I tried to rest as much as possible today, but it's hard, there's a lot to do! I really can't miss work, since I have no sick time and I'm way too busy - probably why I got sick to begin with, what with how stress ruins your immune system and all that. I'm not sure that today's actual movie is going to get watched - I had planned on watching on Netflix instant, but all the subtitles are cut off and I can't read them. Might have to just move it to the end and get a disc.

Today I watched W.R.: Mysteries of the Organism, directed by Dušan Makavejev in 1971. I don't really know if I understood anything in the movie, possibly exacerbated by the fact that colds make me feel pretty out of it, but I sort of liked it. Most people I know would be probably put off by the film, but I'm not really the type of person who is shocked by nudity or sexuality, I guess. I probably was more confused by the movie because I'm not familiar with Wilhelm Reich, who has like, a mini-documentary going on in the film.

I don't really know how to explain the plot. Even Ebert seems to dance around the movie a little bit, writing mostly about his experiences with the director. The film starts out as a documentary about that Wilhelm Reich guy, who I didn't really learn anything about. He seemed like he was some sort of Freud type of guy who felt that there was some sort of powerful cosmic energy called "orgone" and generally did a lot of research and thinking about orgasms. Also, there's a plot having to do with two roommates, one whom is in love with a famous ice skater. There's other little bits and pieces in the film as well, that don't really have to do with any main plot, but have to do with sex and sexuality.

I wish I could say why I liked watching the movie, but I'm even at a little bit of a loss for words on that. I just thought it was interesting, I guess. One of the roommates goes on some rant about how if we repress sexuality, we become repressed and our society will turn to violence and addiction instead. That it's stupid to deny people pleasure, at any age. And why? Is pleasure dangerous? Revolutionary, even, like she implies? There must be something to it, since it's pretty hard to find films that deal with sex and nudity that haven't been banned or edited, or even to find a conversation about sex or sexuality that is frank. Is there actually something powerful inside our bodies that might be dangerous if tapped into, so we must always be shamed for our natural feelings? Hmm. It's interesting stuff, no matter how you feel about it.

It's interesting that the movie was banned right after it was made, but honestly, nudity is still considered something incredibly subversive and shocking. This probably would get a NC-17 today, and wouldn't be released in any theaters, or it would have to just be "unrated", which comes with it's own set of problems. Isn't it weird how uncommon it is to see something as normal as a human body in film? I can't say I've seen many mainstream movies that don't treat male nudity as anything other than a joke. I guess it can bother some people, but I'm one of those nutty "sexuality is probably way less harmful to watch than violence" people - I'm always sort of shocked at how movies with nudity (even in a non-sexual context) get slapped with R ratings or worse, and movies with a lot of violence and death can hang around at a P-13, no problem. I guess the movie just made me think of this sort of thing, especially during the "famous" scene where a woman makes a plaster cast of a man's penis. I couldn't really figure out why it was notorious other than the fact that it shows a penis for longer than five seconds and I don't know, lot's of people have those, it's not that big of a deal, yeah?

I don't know, I just liked the movie. It was trippy to watch and gave me a lot of interesting things to think about, even if they weren't super related to the plot. But that's me, the type of person who has seen Shortbus more than once (and even watched it in a screenwriting class). Stuff like that doesn't bother me, and I really honestly think that issues concerning sexuality are pretty interesting, yunno, in a scholarly type of way. Sexuality is something that our society is pretty obsessed with but still, shames people for having it. I could kind of keep going on about this, but a film blog probably isn't the best place off-centered but well-intentioned rants. Now I feel like Ebert, having written about the film without really talking about the film. I guess for me, it really just made me think about a lot of things, triggered by the images and history of the film. I really liked it because I like movies that make me think about different things. That's me, and I guess this was just my wacky experience with this movie. :)

Have any thoughts about W.R.: Mysteries of the Organism? Share them in the comments!

Links:
Ebert's Great Movie Essay on W.R.: Mysteries of the Organism
Buy it on Amazon
(it's also on Hulu, too).

Sick.

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 06 Nov 2011 04:32:00 +0000

Came down with a horrible cold - just one of those days where you wake up feeling totally sick even though you felt fine the night before. Since I'm a little out of it from working and too much Sudafed, I'm going to watch WR: Mysteries of the Organism tomorrow when I am hopefully feeling better. I'm hitting the Gatorade and Emergen-c and Throat Coat tea pretty hard so I have high hopes.

Woodstock

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Sat, 05 Nov 2011 08:22:00 +0000

Not really looking forward to being at work all day tomorrow, but it will be nice and probably stress-relieving to be able to get stuff done without interruption. Hopefully it goes quick! I'm glad to be home, now, though, and thought I'd be lazy and write this post at almost 3am in my warm bed.

So, earlier I watched the director's cut of Woodstock, directed in 1970 by Michael Wadleigh. I only mention that I watched that version because I think it bumps up the running time to almost 4 hours. Sounds a little awful, yes? It wasn't so bad. Once it started, I was really into it, and I really liked the editing and all of the musical performances. It was really cool to watch something where it had so much music, maybe 60%, so it was pretty relaxing and easy to watch. I must admit I don't know anything about Woostock other than what exists in cultural consciousness, so it was really neat to actually be able to see the crowds, see the people, and watch the performances. It felt like I was there, except with less bad acid. Yay!

In case you can't figure it out, the film is a documentary about Woodstock, the 3 day long music festival in 1969 that over 400,000 people attended. Tons of musicians and bands performed, and well, you know how it is. The documentary is shot really well. They had a lot of different camera angles and cool editing which really helped to convey the experience of being at the festival. I'm used to really boring concert DVDs or even VHSs, where the camera is mostly stationary. I really loved that in this film, it was really up close and personal with the performers. It almost seemed impossible that they were that close, and it was incredibly fun to watch all the musical segments. Plus, you know, the music itself was great. I liked that the director used a lot of split-screens in his editing, as well. It sounds like it might be overwhelming, but it was a really cool way to condense information. He could show people doing something during a performance, or people preparing for the incoming rain paired with a shot of dark storm clouds. Ebert mentions that Martin Scorsese actually worked on this as well and did some of the editing. Very cool.

I just loved that the film made me feel like I was experiencing Woodstock, not just learning about it or something. Actually, I learned very little about it, but I did get to feel a great deal. I loved seeing the huge sweeping shots of the crowds, the size was really shocking. The shots of people sleeping, getting high, skinny dipping, and other things, did a great job of capturing the culture and tone of the festival. I got to see the traffic jams, got to see people sneaking in, watched the moment where they decided it was going to be a free festival. The shots of the people there coupled with the hours and hours of great performances really just created this fantastic atmosphere. I don't really know how else to say how effective it was at making me feel like I was really there. I think it had to do with the fact that it didn't feel like a typical documentary. It didn't try to explain what was on screen or give you facts about the festival. It just showed me the festival and played all the music, which is far more realistic obviously.

I really thought that a four hour documentary would be painful, but it was really fun to watch. I'm not usually a person who watches recordings of concerts, mostly because the TV in my basement doesn't have external speakers and the sound really sucks. But this was a fun movie for me because of the music. Saw a lot of new performers (I sound so stupid. New to me, since I'm dumb), but saw a lot that I already really liked. It was just cool to actually hear what songs they played and check out what they were wearing and stuff. I know it sounds stupid but when you don't really know anything about Woodstock, it was pretty exciting. I didn't know that Santana was there, I really got a kick out of their crazy drummer. Stuff like that was just really interesting and neat and kept me engaged for the whole four hours.

I really thought that this was an awesome documentary - really one of the most unique documentaries, because I've never watched one that made me feel like I was actually experiencing the events it covered. I loved the brilliant editing and camera work, really enjoyed the music, and thought it was really awesome to be able to actually see what Woodstock was like instead of just hear it referenced. I know not everyone has four hours to watch a movie like this, but for anyone who likes any of the performers who were there, or music in general, I'd say it's worth the time investment.

Have any thoughts on Woodstock? Share them in the comments!

Links:
Ebert's Great Movie Essay on Woodstock
Buy it on Amazon

A Woman's Tale

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Sat, 05 Nov 2011 07:20:00 +0000

Sorry I didn't get to post this last night. I was honestly so tired that I was falling asleep while I was trying to read Ebert's essay. I figured I could either do it late, or post a garbled mess instead. I hate being so tired all the time, but man, things are stressful - in life and work. Then I have the project on top of that, and it's been pretty hard. I don't want to reduce the number of movies per week because I'm so close to being done!

Anyway, yesterday I watched A Woman's Tale, directed by Paul Cox in 1991. It's a very good movie, and a very sad movie. It's one of the few movies that deals with death in such a direct and honest way. This is coming from someone who has, for better or for worse, watched people die in documentaries on physician-assisted suicide, and enjoyed SICK. This was not nearly as blunt as either of those things, but a far cry from what we normally see in Hollywood.

The film follows Martha, an eldery woman, during her last days as she battles cancer. Despite her age, she loves life and is always helping others. She sets up romantic escapes for her nurse Anna and Anna's married lover, deals with her son who wants to just put her into a nursing home, and befriends others, from a prostitute to her neighbor with dementia. I think that a lot of other, normal movies might have given her some over the top poetic death, but here, death isnt so sentimental.

I really appreciated that the film shows death as being complicated, I guess. Martha still lives her life and fights - she refuses to go to the home like her son would like so she can die somewhere convenient for him. She keeps active, keeps giving to others. But we also see another side of her, the frail, small side. It's not as black and white as death is in other movies. She suffers in pain, her body is run down, but she still has things to live for. The role the actress plays is really tough, and I imagine it wasn't easy for her. The actress was actually sick and dying like her character, Ebert says in his essay, which just made the film more powerful for me. She was really sharing herself with us, not just the character.

Even though the movie is about death, I think that it overall is extremely life-affirming. I loved that Martha was so independent and was able to enjoy her last days. I love that she fought for herself and didn't let other people control her. For the actress, I felt that this was a pretty brave role to take, since it had to be a pretty personal film. It's not easy to share your frailty or vulnerability with people you know, let alone strangers watching a film. This is a really great movie, and I wish it was a little easier for people to see. I had a lot of trouble finding a copy, which is a shame, really. I thought it was a good film, different and beautiful - I'm glad that I was able to watch it.

Have any thoughts about A Woman's Tale? Share them in the comments!

Links:
Ebert's Great Movie Essay on A Woman's Tale
Buy it on Amazon

Withnail & I

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 03 Nov 2011 05:55:00 +0000

Ok, keeping this short so I can go to bed. Man, sometimes when it gets late like this, I wish I could just do like, a 3-sentence post to sum up my feelings. Alas.

Today I watched Withnail & I, directed by Bruce Robinson in 1987. It's a different sort of film, but I really enjoyed it. I really, really liked the characters and I had a blast watching them. Withnail and his friend ("I") were really funny and I liked their little escapades. I mean, it wasn't like it was constantly funny - there was that weird nagging feeling that if these were real people, their behavior would be incredibly concerning. However, since they weren't, I found myself enjoying in on a surface level on more than one occasion.
So, in the film, Withnail and his unnamed friend ("I") decide to get away from the disgusting city and take a much-needed (apparently, as both are unemployed and basically alcoholics) vacation. They travel to stay with Withnail's uncle Monty in his cottage in the country. Of course, when they arrive, it's not what they were expecting. It's rainy all the time and they basically have to rely on their survival skills to get by.

I really fell in love with the characters. They aren't really the best people in the world, but I sort of liked them. Withnail takes a lot of risks, drinking constantly (even once drinking lighter fluid, and only stopped before moving onto antifreeze because "I" cautions, "Don't mix your drinks!"), and really alienating those around him. He's kind of a jerk to everyone, but I guess I sort of enjoyed his audacity. He's not stupid, either, often quoting literature and being extremely witty. I don't know why I liked him so much. Maybe because, immaturely, I can see a twisted appeal in his way of living. I guess it's not so much the part where hes drinking himself to death, but the idea of it - of not caring if you insult people in public, not worrying about your health or your whatever. Eh, I don't know, I'm a pretty bitter person so maybe just the idea of being able to be freely nasty is a bit appealing to me.

I feel like Ebert and I watched a different movie, but his own life experiences surely affected his viewing. He writes mostly about the gloom of the movie. I certainly noticed the gloom, but it was so watchable still. It wasn't trying to teach a life lesson or make a statement about what we were watching. It was funny and witty despite the subject matter, and I really appreciated that. I'm having a hard time explaining how I feel about the tone. It reminded me of how people who have been through tough times are sort of the only people entitled to joke about them. I'm sure if people overheard the way I talk about some of the things that I've been through, they might laugh, but they might be a little disturbed. It's drama to anyone who hasn't survived it. Since I did, it's just another thing you have to live with, so you might as well try to have a sense of humor about it, you know? Maybe it's something similar with the director, who used many of his own personal experiences in the film. I'm not sure I'm making much sense here.

I wish I was awake enough to write something intelligent about why people like movies about subjects like these. By all means, there isn't really anything that should be funny about people living their lives destructively. Maybe it has something to do with the appeal of seeing a life that you might not be able to live, like how I was saying I sort of find something appealing about Withnail. I can't just snark at everyone I see, or drink everything in sight - I have worries, responsibilities. It's a little fun to watch characters who don't worry about these things, by choice or otherwise. Maybe we can relate, either from knowing someone destructive or from being so ourselves. I could keep making assumptions, but really, the point here is that it's a really good movie. It deals with something gloomy and serious without lecturing, and has great, memorable characters in it that I know will stay with me for a long time. And really, it's just such a funny, witty movie - the memorable dialogue is both truthful and really hilarious. It's good stuff.

Have any thoughts on Withnail & I? Share them in the comments!

Links:
Ebert's Great Movie Essay on Withnail & I
Buy it on Amazon

Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 02 Nov 2011 03:03:00 +0000

Much to the shock of pretty much everyone I know, I've never seen today's movie - Whatever Happened to Baby Jane? directed by Robert Aldrich in 1962.

I was expecting something sort of boring or dull, mostly because it had such a long running time, and I wanted to be driving around in my new car instead of stuck in front of the TV again. However, I was really surprised by how awesome this movie is! It's legitimately scary and weird, and I loved the performances from both Bette Davis and Joan Crawford. I wasn't expecting it to be...I don't know, actually good. There was just something about the story and the performances that really stuck with me. I loved that both main characters were women, as well. Not because I'm having a "the wimmins!" kind of thing, but because it's more rare, I think, to see actresses take roles like this. It's just a really good movie all-around, and I really enjoyed watching it.

The movie is about two sisters - "Baby" Jane Hudson and Blanche Hudson. When Jane was really little, she was a child star, famous for these horribly sickly-sweet performances of stupid songs. Backstage, she was a nightmare, always demanding things and being obnoxious. Blanche got no attention, really. The film fast forwards to the present, showing up that both sisters are now living together in their old age. Blanche has been paralyzed from the waist down in an accident, and Jane is...crazy. She wears caked-on makeup and dreams about reviving her show, performing the same musical numbers she did as a child and wearing similar costumes. Jane abuses Blanche, tormenting her and keeping her locked in the upstairs of the house. Blanche tries to call for help and tell doctors how insane Jane has become, but Jane has perfected mimicking Blanche's voice, and is always able to keep anyone from intervening. Their situation escalates until it becomes a seriously tense horror story (or at least it was for me!).

Like I said before, I'm really impressed with the performances. Bette Davis and Joan Crawford really went all-out. Especially Bette Davis - the role really required her to have no shame. She had to wear makeup that made her look horribly ugly, disgusting costumes, and had to go full-on crazy. I loved the scene where she tried to perform her famous song "I've Written a Letter to Daddy," and it's actually painful to listen to her, she sounds so awful. I'm not too familiar with either actress, because I'm stupid and young, but I could imagine that this movie could have potentially been image-ruining. There really aren't many actresses who take these sort of roles, ones that make them act horribly and look terrible. Sometimes women get lucky and there are some roles written that channel some real insanity instead of just boring like many roles for women (Black Swan comes to mind as one that channels some crazy) but they really aren't like, image-altering. They don't really require the actresses to look terrible or you know, showcase their utter lack of singing skills. Can you even think of an actress today who would put on one of Jane's dresses, or cake on clumpy mascara and bleeding lipstick? I really appreciated the actresses in this, although from what Ebert wrote about it, their performances weren't too off from their actual personalities. Yikes!

Ebert says in his essay that the movie is often viewed as being campy, which I guess I really don't get. Maybe it's just me, and I've seen some seriously campy movies, but this was way better than that. I thought it was really tense during a lot of scenes, and while I laughed sometimes (at things like "I didn't bring your breakfast, because you didn't eat your din-din! "), it was often because it was funny in a sort of unsettling way. Things got really tense for me as the film went on, especially during the scene where the maid, Elvira, is trying to open Blanche's door to rescue her and you know that Jane is coming back home and will be inside in any second. I definitely felt my heart pounding as I watched that. I don't know if I'm just stupid, but there was really something unnerving to me about this kind of out-of-control insanity.

I really loved this movie. I kept talking about it after I saw it to anyone who would listen, because I was so impressed by it and frustrated, I guess, that I never saw it before. I know so many people who would like this movie, and it's one I would buy if I ever saw it on Blu-ray. I love the performances, the weird claustrophobic set, and the absolutely out of control insanity. It was a really fun watch and didn't feel like it was long, either. If you haven't seen it, it's worth checking out. It could be insanely fun and campy, or legitimately scary, but either way, it's a great movie.

Links:

Ebert's Great Movie Essay on Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?

Buy or rent it on Amazon

Werckmeister Harmonies

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 31 Oct 2011 21:27:00 +0000

I was really glad to have a day off today - I got a lot done, and was able to get everything set so I can go pick up my car tonight. It was nice to actually get a movie finished before 10 p.m, too. I have to go in earlier on Saturday than I thought, but really, it was worth it.

Today's movie is strange and long, but I sort of liked it. I watched Werkmeister Harmonies, directed by Bela Tarr in 2000. I remember wanting to go to some film class on this movie when I first was at DePaul, but I was lazy. I then had the movie on my Netflix queue for the next five years. Glad I finally got to see it. It was really a weird movie, not like anything I've ever seen before. It's slow, moody, and felt like a nightmare. I could see that this could be really irritating to watch if you didn't get into it. It was odd - I felt like I didn't want to be watching it, but I really wanted to finish it and see what happened.

The film takes place in a small Hungarian town, where a weird circus has arrived. It's not really a circus so much as a strange truck with the body of a whale inside, and the Prince, who is rumored to have dark powers. People come from all over to observe the whale, and the whole order of the small town is disturbed. The main character we follow is Janos, a paper carrier who is well-liked in the the town.

The film is remarkable because it's done in only 39 shots, which is quite a feat for a film with a running time of about two and a half hours. All of them are long and lingering, as you can imagine, but many of them have a ton of movement. There is one shot where the camera follows a rioting crowd through a hospital, in and out of rooms and doors. I sort of shuddered imagining how long it probably took to get this shot right, to make sure everyone was coming and going on the right queues. Other shots are still, like when the truck containing the whale comes into town, first a tiny shadow, then growing as it drives closer. Is there a reason to look at a truck slowly driving toward a camera for like, ten minutes? Nah. But does it work well? Most certainly. It creates this really awesome sense of foreboding, of creeping doom.

I personally really liked the longer takes. They seemed to give a lot of meaning and purpose to everything that I saw. Like the scene with the truck - it was pretty commonplace, but the way it was filmed made it eerie. The whole movie is like this. The long takes create this great tone and atmosphere, and somehow make it feel more realistic, like the town really was driven mad by this weird circus. Something about more mundane, occasionally boring shots in a film always remind me of reality for some reason.

I just felt like the movie was full of intensity, despite the fact that it was long and slow. There was something about the camera movement, the characters, and the images I was seeing that just creeped me out a little bit and felt really purposeful and intense. The soundtrack was so perfect, and gave a lot of emotion and weirdness to calmer scenes. In intense scenes, like the raid on the hospital, no sound plays at all. It's very effective. The world of the film is just like ours, but was still very other. It was a weird film, but easy for me to get lost in - I do like films that are slow and sort of image-driven like this one. It's incredibly beautiful and strange at the same time. I'm really glad I was able to see it. Worth checking out if you're a fan of long and slow, moody, visual movies.

Links:
Ebert's Great Movie Essay on Werckmeister Harmonies
Buy it on Amazon

Waking Life

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 31 Oct 2011 03:58:00 +0000

Today I went out and bought some dry shampoo to try - the color I dyed my hair wears quickly, so the less I can wash it, the better. However, I'm an everyday-wash sort of person, and I've always hated having to skip a day or two (I used to dye my hair all sorts of unnatural colors but I would always hate trying to preserve the color. I'd either re-dye it a lot or make my own shampoo with dye in it to try to extend the color). I tried the one I got today and it was amazing. Life-changing amazing, because now I feel like I can keep my hair weird colors and not have it be gross 50% of the time. Sorry, boring, but I'm really excited!

Earlier I watched Waking Life, which was directed by Richard Linklater in 2001. I remember watching this in high school with my friend Jon. I remember slouching on his couch afterward and talking endlessly about things the movie made us think of. I also think we dozed off a few times during it, but it still made a big impression on me. I love dreams, and I was really into trying to lucid dream in high school. I also just thought some of the conversations in the film were really profound, and I like that it actually created some good conversations for me and my friend.

The film follows a man as he travels in different dreams, meeting with different people, a man who cannot figure out if he is awake or if he is dreaming. Lots of people have interesting conversations with him, and the whole movie is full of really strange and fascinating questions and answers. It's very talky, and I'll admit, despite how much I enjoy the film, it does make me a little sleepy at times. Maybe because it seems so much like dreams, hm?

The animation style here is really cool - I think people are maybe familiar with seeing this style in A Scanner Darkly or in some commercials on TV or something. Everything is always moving and shifting, the backgrounds and characters all undulating. It's strange at first, but I love it. It just fits the tone of the movie really well, and reminds me of some dreams that I've had before. Not that I dream in animation, but I've had dreams where I struggle to read text because it's swimming in front of me, and the style of the animation reminds me of that feeling at some points. I read that they used different animators for all the different scenes, which is why it changes in appearance so much and sometimes grows more strange as the movie goes on. That seems like a really cool idea, and I liked that it really made the movie look so unique and interesting.

It's got a ton of conversation, but I think it's good conversation. Ebert puts it so well when he says it's philosophical and playful at the same time. Some the conversations don't really strike me, but other ones, sometimes, they get stuck in my head and I think about them for a while afterward. The conversation about how time functions differently in dreams (minutes feel like hours) always interests me - if dream time feels like it lasts so long, and as you die your brain is alive for 15 or so minutes, we could be dreaming, but dying, one of the characters wonders. Weird stuff like that is all over the film, and I really enjoy it. Makes me think of some of the interesting and "profound" conversations that I would have in college. I think that's part of the enjoyment of the film, for me - reminds me of all those days I felt like I was working out the biggest issues in life over burritos in Pilsen or hookah late at night down the street from my dorm. And, it deals with dreaming, which I love thinking about. I don't think it every becomes too hard to follow or pretentious. There's something about the animation that keeps it playful and light, and even if you get bored with one conversation, there's a lot of interesting things to check out and watch, still.

I really like movies like this where you can tell the director is genuinely interested in his subjects, and really cares for them. It's a good feeling when you feel like the director is as interested in the characters as you are. I like to think about things like this, so I felt like I found a kindred spirit in the director, you know? I just really enjoy this film, it's unique and a little strange, and I always get something new out of it whenever I watch it. You do really need to be all there when you watch this, but since I never am, it's always full of new meaning and detail whenever I watch it.

Have any thoughts about Waking Life? Share them in the comments!

Links:
Ebert's Great Movie Essay on Waking Life
Buy it on Amazon

Vengeance Is Mine

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 30 Oct 2011 09:07:00 +0000

Today was all sorts of good. Got my hair done and I'm loving the new color that I did. I hate it when I have the same hair color for too long, so I really was excited for a change. I also ran out and got a new wine rack, since the one I had was bowing out and like, collapsing from the weight of my many wines. Feels good to have everything cleaned up and awesome.

Later, I watched Vengeance is Mine, directed by Shohei Imamura in 1979. It's really good, and not at all what I was expecting. It's about a serial killer, and I assumed it would be like most of the serial killer movies I'm used to watching - quick paced, and a clearly defined set of feelings about the killer. This movie didn't really have either of these things, but I found myself really enjoying it even thought it was so completely different. Ha, that's probably why I liked it so much.

The plot, in very few words, revolves around Iwao Enokizu, a serial killer in Japan who commits many gross, violent murders. The police chase him all over the place, but he always manages to evade them. The movie is only violent or gross twice, knowing that most things are more powerful if left to the imagination. There are also some subplots about Enokizu's marriage and also the family whose inn he hides inn, but honestly, while they were interesting, they were no where near as interesting to me as how I felt about the main plot.

I think I'm just really fascinated by how the subject of a serial killer was handled. I'm used to either seeing films that focus on tracking and arresting said killer (so clearly identify his actions as horrible) or focus on glorifying some aspect of the crime (like by having one of those suave killers we enjoy watching) or often, it's a combination of both. Very rarely, if ever, have I seen a film that doesn't feel like it does either. Enokizu is still an interesting man, but the movie, to me, felt more concerned with the nature of evil than things like motivations or whatever normal movies are concerned with.

That's another thing that the movie is lacking. Usually films about killers always try to explain why they are killing, hint at their motivation. The killings are rarely just random acts of violence, you know? The killer is trying to make a statement, or had some sort of screwed up something that affected him. Here, there's no concern with why Enokizu is killing. He simply is. Other films try to explain away evil, give it a reason so it's more comforting to viewers. "This person is messed up because of this event," is much nicer to process, I think, than something like this film, where a person is simply messed up. That's much more unsettling, I feel, and I liked it. It was different and it really worked well for me.

The camera reflects the neutrality of the whole film. It's calm, controlled, without a lot of jump cuts or craziness. I feel like it was very observational, and it fit really well with the whole tone of the movie. I liked that we didn't get to see all of the murders, but that's because I strongly believe that imagination is way more powerful than anything else. It really helped to build that neutral, observational tone, too - since we didn't see any gore or violence, there wasn't anything too sensational or exciting to get you going. There was no reason for the killing, no excitement for the viewer in the killing, no excitement in the camera over it, either. Very cool, the way all of it works together.

Overall, I really liked this movie because it was really different and unlike anything that I have seen before. It's sort of long, but sometimes it's nice to get cozy with some blankets, your favorite fall drink, and curl up on a chilly day with a longer movie, you know?

Have any thoughts on Vengeance Is Mine? Share them in the comments!

Links:
Ebert's Great Movie Essay on Vengeance Is Mine
Buy it on Amazon

Triumph of the Will

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Sat, 29 Oct 2011 08:19:00 +0000

My day was pretty much a wreck, except in the evening when I finally went to check out the car that I'm getting! The dealer brought it in for me from Indiana and everything. It was a really good experience and I cannot wait to drive my car home! Hopefully I'll be getting it Monday after work - maybe this will be the first Monday that I have ever looked forward to, hahaha!

So, today I watched Triumph of the Will, directed by Leni Riefenstahl in 1935. It's sort of a film class staple - anyone I know who has seen it has watched it in a film class, and everyone else has never heard of it or looked at it. It's a tough sell - it's hard to get people to want to watch Nazi propaganda, no matter how much you talk up the greatness of the movie. This is the classic example of a generally boring and crappy film that is made incredibly well. It is zero fun to watch this movie. It's dull, it's full of Nazis and Hitler giving long speeches and it's generally hard to watch. But it's made so well! The editing and cinematography are great, and I always thought it was probably a pretty effective movie in it's day.

The film doesn't really have a huge plot or story since it's a documentary basically. It follows Hitler and the Nazis as they do stuff like march around and give speeches, and do all kinds of things to make the Nazi party look like a fun time.

It's weird to watch a movie like this now since the whole idea of a propaganda film is sort of lost on a lot of people my age. It's not really like there are movies like this made anymore. It's also hard because it can be tough to look at this objectively. Hitler really isn't an easy subject for most people, and often, the subject matter turns people off before they even check this out. I don't blame them. Like I said, it's not really an exciting film or anything. But it is well made.

It's strange to praise the film for anything, but the director was talented, no doubt about it. The editing is really good - it uses montage about as well as humanly possible. Shots of smiling faces, babies, laughing, cheering, then a shot of Hitler. Obviously, we are to connect the happiness of the people with Hitler. It doesn't really work anymore, but I think it's easy to see that this could have been powerful or inspiring when it came out. Ebert mentions that you probably had to already be a Nazi to like this film, and that might be true. It makes the whole party look huge and impressive and strong, because it shoots these huge gatherings. There is a really effective soundtrack, and lots of cool aerial shots and all sorts of things.

But the movie is also pretty boring. Hitler gives speeches, and while they are well-filmed for the first minute, I don't want to see the whole speech, you know? It's full of marching and talking, and although seems important and masterful overall, I personally feel it's not really important to watch the whole film. We had to watch it all in film classes, but I think we all understood what was well-made and important after about 20 minutes and a few key scenes.I think that you an understand how well made the whole film is without having to struggle through the whole thing. I suggest the same for anyone curious about the movie. Read up a little about it and then check it out - it's always streaming online. It's a good film to check out, because it's historically and cinematically important, but it's also boring and long and full of Nazis, so it's got a lot of negatives. I probably could write more but it's almost 4am, and I think that I got my personal feelings about this film across well enough for today.

Have any thoughts on Triumph of the Will? Share them in the comments!

Links:
Ebert's Great Movie Essay on Triumph of the Will

Top Hat

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Fri, 28 Oct 2011 05:12:00 +0000

I am so ready for the weekend. I have a lot of stuff to take care of, but mostly fun stuff and hopefully it will be full of awesome. I'm excited to sleep in a tiny bit!

I always feel sort of bad when I don't really enjoy a movie, especially one that's funny and sweet. Do I hate fun? It is a real possibility. Today I watched Top Hat, directed by Mark Sandrich in 1935. His name is almost sandwich! Pretty sweet. It's not a bad movie by any means, which is how every post about Fred Astaire movies that I write goes. It's actually really good in every respect, except that I personally don't really like it. I don't know why dance movies don't really work for me. Too happy? Too flimsy of a plot? I don't really like musicals either, so there's just something about this sort of...idea...that doesn't really work for me. Don't get me wrong - I see all the things that make this movie good. The dancing is great and looks impossible, and it does wow me, but it just doesn't really do anything for me.

The plot is really simplistic and is based around a misunderstanding. I find these sort of things frustrating. Dale (Ginger Rogers, which I'm only saying because you might otherwise think that character is a guy) falls in love with professional dancer Jerry. She thinks, though, that Jerry is her friend Madge's husband Horace, so despite their feelings for each other, they don't really get together. The plot is sort of annoying to me because the whole plot could be cleared up in about one line of dialogue, but it never is. Argh.

The dancing is really great, if you like dancing. The numbers are really athletic and look really difficult and intense, but Rogers and Astaire seem to pull it off effortlessly. It's very impressive. And they have really good chemistry together. For people who aren't sacks of surl, it's probably really fun to watch them together, especially in the dance scenes. They are both clearly really talented actors and dancers, and really, for how doofy the plot is, they do a really good job keeping things energetic and fun.

I just didn't feel this movie. I think it's just personal preference, like how some people just aren't into horror movies for whatever reason. I like a lot of different genres, but I really always just seem to dislike anything dance-y or musical-y. I don't really know why, but I don't think that's strange - I know a lot of people who aren't into certain genres but can't really explain why. I think for me, personally, they're too scattered and remind me of a variety show too much. I don't like that the plots are usually really thin and unexciting, and I don't really love the style of music, either. I don't like the way the plots are often cliche but not campy (I can dig groan-inducing camp). I can see why these movies are good, why the actors and dancers are so talented and loved, but I'd never watch the movies again, or be able to say that I really enjoyed watching them. I don't know. It falls sort of flat for me, and doesn't work for me as escapism, which is what Ebert even says is what he likes so much about the film. So that's that, I guess.

Have any thoughts on Top Hat? Share them in the comments!

Links:
Ebert's Great Movie Essay on Top Hat
Buy or rent it on Amazon

The Thief of Bagdad

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 05:39:00 +0000

Ok, I really need to do this post quickly. I lost track of time and I have so much work to do tomorrow. I really can't wait until things get less busy there - this was a really hard time to start working there, I think. I keep being told that things are going to wind down after this year is over.

Today I watched The Thief of Bagdad, a fantasy movie directed in 1940 by Michael Powell, Ludwig Berger, and Tim Whelan, with contributions by Korda's brothers Vincent and Zoltán, and William Cameron Menzies. I thought I would hate it. The special effects are constant and old, so I figured that they would be laughable and dumb. I don't often like adventure-y, fantasy movies either, and I assumed I wouldn't like the plot. Once it started, there was singing and all sorts of nonsense, and I was immediately surly. But for some reason, one that I can't even put my finger on, I started to really enjoy the movie. I really liked it! I just had a lot of fun watching it - the effects were campy at many points, but it was just so endearing. I don't know what drew me in - the characters, the story, or just something about the bad blue-screen effects, but it was a really good time.

The movie is sort of like Disney's Aladdin, which I don't even really like to bring up but it does make the whole thing instantly easy to understand. Ahmad, the King of Bagdad, is told by Jaffar, the evil guy, to act like a poor person to get to know his subjects. Of course, this is just a trick and Jaffar throws Ahmad into the dungeon. There, he meets Abu, a young thief, who arranges their escape. During some stealing, Ahmad lays eyes on the Princess and he falls in love. However, she is supposed to marry Jaffar (her father likes the flying robot horse thing that he has). Obviously Ahmad and Abu try to save her from this fate, and along the way become cursed. Later Abu meets a weird genie who ends up helping him reunite with Ahmad.

The effects are horrible and awesome at the same time. There are a lot that look really good still, feel sort of fun and retro with all the bright colors of the film. The genie is super tall, and there are sets constructed that he climbs all over while the other actors are blue-screened in. Yes - the blue screen is not the best - but it still looks really cool and was impressive, especially when I reminded myself it was only 1940. Some effects I didn't like so much. The genie (again) can fly, and often a stationary image of him in an awkward "action" pose is used against a moving background. I laughed, but it was really more charming than anything else.

Like I said above, I'm not sure why I enjoyed this movie so much. It was just fun, I guess. I liked all the characters, although there were nitpicky things that bothered me about them. They were sort of simplistic but in a comforting way, like it was easy to get to know them and then just relax and have fun with the movie. It's not a film where you worry about motivations or inner turmoil. It's straightforward and easy, but something was sort of neat about that. Like the cinematic version of comfort food. The story is similar. You sort of know how it will go, but it's still fun and exciting.

I just enjoyed this movie a lot, and I'm still not 100% sure why. I think it's because it was simple enough that I could relax during it and have fun watching it, but still had a good story and characters couple with awesome visuals. It was simple but it was coherent. It was campy but in the best, most endearing sort of way. It was just a fun way to spend a little over an hour and a half. It's on Hulu right now, and is worth checking out if you have access. Alright, I really really need to sleep - a lot to do tomorrow!

Have any thoughts on The Thief of Bagdad? Share them in the comments!

Links:
Ebert's Great Movie Essay on The Thief of Bagdad
Buy it on Amazon

The Terrorist

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 26 Oct 2011 05:22:00 +0000

This is the worst image quality, this poster. Ah well. I'm too sleepy to find another one. Today I watched The Terrorist, directed by Santosh Sivan in 1998. I wasn't really sure what to expect from the movie, having never heard of it before. I was really surprised by how quiet and contemplative the movie was, and by how much I enjoyed it. I thought maybe it would be preachy or something, but I felt like everything was really left up to the viewer. I guess it was cast with mostly non-actors, which is why it felt so realistic and unscripted. I thought it had a really nice combination of good visuals and good story.

The film follows a 19 year old girl named Malli who is part of a terrorist organization. She has a strong resolve, inspired by her brother who gave his life for the cause. She volunteers to go on a suicide mission to assassinate an important opponent to her cause. We see her as she prepares for her mission, meeting new people and having new life experiences. Can she go through with her mission?

The story sounds like it could be difficult to watch and sort of, well, controversial. I was almost relieved that it didn't seem that way at all. It wasn't easy to watch, but it also just felt very neutral and unbiased. It wasn't trying, it felt, to support or defend Malli's actions. It really did feel like we were just following her last days, and I really appreciated that I never felt like I was being manipulated to feel one way or another.

In Ebert's essay, he brings up a quote from an interview where the director explains that other movies show a lot of violence and then try to make the point that it's not right. This film is different. We really don't see much of anything, which is why any sort of argument against war or terrorism is so much stronger. It's not inadvertently being made into entertainment or anything appealing. I know I've written before about how Truffaut said it was impossible to make an anti-war film, since by the very nature of the film, war is made appealing. Paths of a Glory is a movie that makes war looking unappealing, and this is another. It doesn't really deal with any of the things that sensationalize violence, but instead deals with the reality and everyday life of these kids. It's a sad one, as you would imagine a life would be in which the best thing that can happen to you is death.

Even though I feel like I've made the film sound like there is some ideology at work here, there really isn't. I can't really find one, honestly, and what I'm saying is more or less how I feel about what was presented. The movie feels so objective because it just focuses on this little snapshot of events. A girl's last days before her mission. There isn't so much about the reasons behind it, or the reaction to it. Just her side, her experience, and that's it. Make what you will of it. It's good stuff, and from what I read in Ebert's essay, was filmed on a small budget in a few days, the actors doing their own tough stunts. It's simple, and I appreciate it's no-frills approach and message. I feel like I haven't said much of anything, but really, it's like an incredibly simple but beautiful poem, and I love that it's just so open and straightforward. It's short, and worth seeing, if you want something different and interesting.

Have any thoughts about The Terrorist? Share them in the comments!

Links:
Ebert's Great Movie Essay on The Terrorist
Buy it on Amazon

The Shining

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 25 Oct 2011 01:47:00 +0000

I was so happy to watch The Shining, directed by Stanley Kubrick in 1980 today. I've been in the mood for horror movies, and there really is nothing more satisfying than a good creepy movie on a cool fall night. I got the Kubrick Blu-ray box set for my birthday, and I was so excited to finally get to watch one of them and check out the quality! It looked really great, and I had a lot of fun watching it. It's such a classic movie, and I think it aged really well - it doesn't feel super outdated to me, and it still seems scary.

I remember the first time that I saw this movie. I think I was in middle school. I was on vacation in Galena with my extended family, and we were, for some reason, all really excited about this made-for-TV-remake that was airing while we were out there. We made sure to be in and gathered around the TV every night to watch it. It was so terrible. The acting was awful and you could barely understand what anyone was saying. There was some point where the kid was mumbling about something and my cousins and I were convinced he was telling his parents that the voices told him "about dumber croquet." In any case, the TV version was so bad that it was decided to needed to rent the Kubrick version, so us stupid kids didn't grow up thinking The Shining is was a 3-part TV special. I don't think everyone remembered the amount of swearing, occasional nudity, and creepiness that was in the movie, and much complaining ensued since it was not appropriate for children (you know, like it's realistic to expect drunken abusive husbands to be all "shoot!" and "darn!" the whole movie)...but I loved it. I'm always happy to watch it, for the funny memories of the horrible TV version and because it was one of those movies that really made a big impression on me.

We all know the plot. Jack is a recovering alcoholic and abuser who gets a job taking care of a hotel during it's down season. He is excited because it will give him time to work on is book he's writing, and he thinks his family will love the hotel (and even thinks his wife will like that murders happened there, although it's never clear if he tells her about this or not). Their son, Danny, is sort of freakish and claims he has a little boy who lives in his mouth who he talks to, and who tells him to do things. Tony, the name of the voice, often shows Danny all sorts of awful things in the hotel, like blood pouring out of an elevator and scary girls. He's not he only one affected, however. Jack slowly loses it, culminating in the famous scene where his wife realizes that all he's been writing is "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy" over and over again. Jack, having completely lost his mind and drunk on imaginary alcohol, takes after his wife and son to try to murder them.

I have to say, first of all, I had so much fun watching this movie. I get a kick out of Jack Nicholson in this, his facial expressions are astonishingly good. I know that Stephen King wasn't a fan of how out and out crazy he seemed from the get-go (and that people associated Nicholson with One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest), but I think he's great. Anthony and I kept laughing, joking about what it would like to have Jack Nicholson as your dad. We decided he'd always be lurking around making faces from this film - you'd go to do laundry and he'd be there, with that chin-pointed-down-eyes-pointed up-face, and he'd raise one eyebrow at you. And he'd think it was funny, but you'd probably sleep with all the lights on a lot. Man have I written a lot of unfunny inside jokes and stories. Anyway, love Nicholson's acting here. I'm not too sold on Shelley Duvall, but that's because I saw that stupid Popeye movie before The Shining, so I always just think of her in that. I mean, she does a good job. It's not really the fault of her acting that I associate her with some other, dumber movie.

The atmosphere of the movie is so fantastic. I really like the bright colors and big windows. They make everything seem really elegant and wonderful, but also strange. Things like the red bathroom are sort of cool and unnerving to me at the same time. The big windows at first let in so much light and beauty, but as the film goes on, they become foreboding, showing the isolation and loneliness of the place. I think all of the Navajo artwork is interesting as well - it's a constant reminder that the hotel is built on an Indian burial ground, and therefore, part of something that is probably supernatural.

I think that the film is so interesting because it isn't even clear until the end that everything is supernatural (or not). When you have a group of characters who are pretty disturbed to begin with, it's easy to believe that a lot of this could be happening in their own heads. Danny is a kind of messed up kid, and I always thought that he could have just been imagining things. I mean, Danny and Wendy are a little off, but who wouldn't be, living in a traumatic situation? Danny's past "injury" and Jack's drinking are things that can really deeply affect people, so it makes sense that they might have more fears and such than other people. But, it become so clear towards the end of the film that they aren't just imagining things - something supernatural is going on. After Wendy locks Jack in the food storage, Grady, the previous caretaker (and uh, a ghost) comes to let him out and unlocks it. I mean, even writing that, I could argue for the next three paragraphs that there aren't any actual ghosts in the film, and the horror is only psychological. I think that's why this film works so well, because it's not perfectly straightforward and I think it's open to different interpretations. Just not that one about how the movie is proof that Kubrick faked the moon landing. Because that is the worst.

I don't really think there's anything else I want to say. I really love this movie. I have a lot of fun memories about watching it (I always remember my family's reactions to certain scenes and laugh), and it still creeps me out. I think it's because this feels more grounded in some kind of reality, even if it's a reality that only the characters experience and isn't...a thing. Like, instead of "Hey we moved into this house and now stuff is floating around and we're all seeing footprints on the floor!" it's more of "Am I hallucinating this because no one else is around to witness it, or is this legit screwed up?" I think it's so fun that you're never sure of what's happening in this film. The acting is great, the set is amazing, and the story is just awesome. I love the vaguely realistic madness and confusion. Really, I like the movie more every time I watch it.

Have any thoughts about The Shining? Share them in the comments!

Links:
Ebert's Great Movie Essay on The Shining
Buy it on Amazon (it's on sale!)

Secrets & Lies

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 23 Oct 2011 23:21:00 +0000

When today's movie started, I was expecting to be really bored by it. I've been in the mood for extremely scary and gross horror movies, and this movie - Secrets & Lies, directed by Mike Leigh in 1996 - is sort of slow and domestic. I figured it would be hard to get into, and I would be distracted by all sorts of other things I'd rather be doing. I found myself really engrossed in the movie, though, and really enjoying the story and characters.

It was too bad that the copy I had of this was an old VHS tape. I bought it new and still in the shrink wrap, but the quality was still really bad. I wish it was better - I hated the muted, washed out colors and other stuff that made it less fun to watch. It was tough to get into the movie, but once I did, the pay off was worth it and I really could relate to the story on a lot of levels. I thought it was a really real and meaningful family-drama sort of film, although I can't say that I've ever watched another family-drama sort of film.

The movie is about, as you could imagine, all sorts of secrets and lies that family members keep from each other. Hortense (who is black), adopted at birth, seeks out her birth mother. Her search leads her to Cynthia, a lower-class white woman with a daughter, Roxanne. Roxanne and Cynthia don't have a great relationship and both get on each other's nerves. Cynthia's brother Maurice is a photographer, and his wife Monica holds secrets of her own. Cynthia develops a relationship with Hortense, and eventually invites her to Roxanne's birthday party as "a mate from work". Of course, all these secrets need to come out eventually, and they do...

I thought the ellipses would make it sound less boring. The fact is, the plot sounds way boring. There are a lot of small moments of getting to know the characters and learning to understand them. I liked that, though. It was very realistic and normal. You got to know them and accept them for who they are, however flawed. At first I had trouble with this slowness, with getting into the film. I felt sort of bored or like the accents were too funny, and it was hard for me to get myself to focus on it. Really, it felt like half of the movie was really boring and not related to the plot I thought I would be seeing - but it really helped when the actual conflict at the birthday party begin

Despite how meh I felt during some parts of this movie, I was really affected by the birthday party scene. I guess I could relate to the frustration that Maurice voices once secrets start coming out - how is it possible that a family can love each other but keep so many secrets? It was really powerful for me, and I felt really emotional when I watched it. I guess I feel like we all have a certain persona that we wear - our work personality, our family personality, our "relaxed at home" personality - and sometimes, despite how we love our families, we don't let our real selves seep into our family persona. We keep things from the people we love, either to make them or ourselves feel better, and I've felt that very real frustration. Like, why are we not being honest about our lives, when these are the very people that are supposed to stick by us, no matter what? All the parts of the movie that I felt were boring before were perfect now, because I knew who everyone was so well and was totally involved in this scene. I felt their pain, their emotion. Getting to know the characters was slow for me, but it paid off and I was really moved by what I saw. I felt like I knew them and I didn't even realize it. I was really happy with this film.

I was shocked when I read on Wikipedia that Mike Leigh basically explained the idea of the movie to his actors and let them do the rest of the work. I never, ever would have imagined that anything was improvised. It felt so real and polished and made so much sense that it seemed impossible that it was mostly improvisation. When I think of improv, I guess, I think only of comedy, so it was new for me to see improv used in a drama, as well. If you had told me that fact before I watched the movie, I would have been skeptical that it would work - but now, wow! It worked so well, and the actor's performances felt so real and wonderful. I honestly barely have words for how amazed I feel about this. It seems easier to play off of someone's jokes and comedy than someone's serious drama, I guess, and it seems like an pretty incredible feat. Knowing this just enriches an already good movie.

It's not the most fun movie, or most exciting, but it is really good, especially when you realize it was mostly improv. For me, it was very meaningful and struck a chord that I could relate to personally. I was occasionally bored by some parts of it when we first get to know all the characters, because it didn't come together and make sense until the birthday party scene. When Maurice says that he's spent his whole life making other people happy, we understand, because we have seen how hard he works at pleasing people as a photographer (and before this scene, the many shots of him working seemed...gratuitous). It's not one of my favorite movies, but I really enjoyed it and related to it. Worth checking out, I think. I certainly never heard of this director or improv drama until today.

Have any thoughts about Secrets & Lies? Share them in the comments!

Links:
Ebert's Great Movie Essay on Secrets & Lies
Buy it on Amazon - link goes to VHS because the DVD is like, $35

The Scarlet Empress

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 23 Oct 2011 09:02:00 +0000

I had a great day today - it was really productive and somehow really stress-relieving. I was pretty preoccupied with cars lately, but I think I finally found the one for me. It's exciting and soothing to have made a decision and have less to worry about all the time! I really lucked out because I was able to drive the two cars I was most curious about back to back, even though one of them has been really hard to find. Really helped me make a decision, you know?

I was that my ability to make decisions carried over into how I feel about today's movie - The Scarlet Empress, directed by Josef von Sternberg in 1934. There were some things I sort of liked, but overall, I kept feeling like I didn't really "get" the appeal of the movie. This was further confused when I read Ebert's essay, which seems to frame the film as great because he finds Marlene Dietrich erotic (as does the director). The plot is maybe irrelevant, and while the movie looks cool, the charms of a lot of it were lost on me, I guess, because I wasn't really attracted to the actress.

So, the movie. Princess Sofia, the princess of Germany, is sent to Russia to produce a male heir with the doofy Grad Duke there. She doesn't so much care for him, but she likes other Russian men...and she does eventually produce an heir. Although not with Peter. Hmmm....

Other stuff happens to, and I sort of liked the plot, to be honest. Ebert dismisses it in his essay, but I kind of thought it was neat. I mean, it wasn't easy to follow. A ton of it is told through title cards, which I don't like, but once I got into it, it wasn't so bad. I liked that Sofia (renamed Catherine once she moves to Russia) wasn't a weak character, and was a bit manipulative. It wasn't the high point of the movie for me or anything, but it wasn't the worst thing ever, either.

The cinematography is the best here. I love that everything is Russia is apparently full of creepy statues and gargoyles that crowd every scene and loom over everyone. All the sets in Russia seem big, heavy, and imposing. It somehow sets up that they are in castle without ever really showing us a castle, you know? It's pretty cool. I really like the creepy gargoyles, I got a kick out of how weirdly they were leering over everyone and how strange they were. The black and white looks beautiful, and the director shoots Dietrich in some of the flattering lights and angles I've ever seen. It's really pleasing to look at, from the lavish costumes to the crowded rooms. I even appreciated the tablescapes of gross food, which just seemed to be good at setting a tone.

But my issue is that I didn't really get much out of this movie. The plot is alright, I guess. It looks good. But it really is all about Dietrich here. She gets a lot of special treatment on film, and honestly, is filmed pretty...erotically. She's always surrounded by feathers and lace and all sorts of things. It's fine, but it's not really for me, I assume, since I'm not a man. I appreciate that she's beautiful, but I don't share in Sternberg's gaze and fetish for her. So while I think many of the shots and situations she's in are cool, that's about it. Ebert spends most of his essay writing about her, and how wonderful everything involving her is - and that's all well and good. I guess my point is that as a lady, I don't really watch movies to look at other ladies. And while I appreciate her, I don't get a kick out of her scenes like Sternberg and Ebert do. Totally understandable, I hope, but it made the movie pretty blah at a lot of points for me.

This is one of those take it or leave it movies for me - I don't really care either way. I'm not really too overwhelming excited about the good parts, and the bad parts aren't really that offensive or annoying. It's just meh. It's not bad, but it's not great for me, either. I found that the historical (I should probably put that in quotes, since I doubt it's factual) aspects were occasionally confusing and heavy-handed (the title cards were often a chore to read and didn't really help me with anything). I felt like I tried really hard to watch this movie and put effort into it and didn't really get a lot back, unlike some movies that are worth the "work". I liked Dietrich, but not in way the director did, and I found his gaze a little tiresome to have to see. The movie's ok, I guess. It didn't really work for me.

Have any thoughts on The Scarlet Empress? Share them in the comments!

Links:
Ebert's Great Movie Essay on The Scarlet Empress
Buy it on Amazon

Santa Sangre

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Sat, 22 Oct 2011 08:14:00 +0000

Hey, it's finally the weekend! Sleeping in, test driving cars, getting my hair cut - I'm stoked. I'm so happy to have some time to get stuff done, finally.

I was really excited about today's movie - Santa Sangre, directed by Alejandro Jodorowsky in 1989. I actually bought the Blu-ray shortly after it was released because I just sort of figured that I would like it. I was totally right - this was an awesome movie. It's incredibly strange, and I imagine that most people would either get the horror movie aspect or laugh at the film. I guess you could do both, but I feel like you either accept the absurd world of the film, or it's just too bizarre to take seriously. For whatever reason, I completely accept and embrace all the weirdness, and I loved all the psychological horror that this film was full of. Whatever goes on is Jodorowsky's head is wonderful and macabre and strange, and I always feel almost privileged to get a glimpse of it.

The film is about Fenix, a boy who grows up in a circus (Circus Gringo, to be exact) with his aerial-performing mother Concha (heh) and knife-throwing, sparkle-wearing father Orgo. Concha is part of a cult that worships a young girl who had her arms cut off by rapists, their temple housing a pool of "holy blood". Orgo is having sexual escapades with that tattooed lady in the circus, who is part of his knife-throwing act (of which she gets an obvious erotic thrill out of). Concha catches them, and in her anger, she pours sulfuric acid on his genitals and in his rage, he cuts off her arms. Fenix watches in horror. Later, Fenix is older and in an institution which seems to only contain people with Down syndrome. He hears something call him out the window in his room there, and he sees that it is his mother. He escapes to help her - he acts as her arms, stepping close behind her to gesture while she speaks, feed her, scratch an itch. It's sort of unnerving, especially since it seems like Fenix can predict what his mother is going to do or say next. Soon, though, Fenix realizes that his mother can actually control his arms, and make him do things that he doesn't want to do...like murder.

So it sounds like I gave away a ton of the plot, but I really didn't - there are some more interesting twists and such that happen. I thought the plot was pretty cool - I liked the sort of overstated way that the director portrayed mother issues and that sort of thing. We all are really shaped by our pasts, just like Fenix, but the film is obviously an exaggeration of that issue. But it was cool to see that issue brought up, I guess, because I think everyone can kind of relate to it. I think we're all pretty aware that we are mostly just products of our environment. I think that by using an issue that we can all understand if not relate to, it grounds the film a little - the setting and characters and the other events are so strange and outlandish, but knowing why Fenix is doing what he's doing made it somehow easier to accept.

I like all the visual and psychological horror here, too. I'm not easily grossed out, but there were some pretty horrifying and icky images in the film. Jodorowsky certainly doesn't shy away from using wonderful gushing blood (of all colors, even). There was something about the color in this film that seemed to really make the fake blood pop, and seem even more gross and fantastic. Some scenes were really haunting. There is one scene where the elephant in the circus is dying and we see blood pouring from it's trunk. I hate seeing animals suffer, even if it's fake, and there was something really deeply unsettling about this scene for me. It wasn't something, I guess, it was the blood. Fenix gets really unsettled by it, but I totally understood why you would like, be permanently scarred from something like that.

And while all the visual horror is excellent, it just works so well with the psychological element. It's what elevates the movie, really, and makes it this great, as Ebert calls it, "adult horror movie". Not only do we see the mental and emotional impact of Fenix's awful childhood, but we see other fears and things at play here. The fear of not being able to break away from your parents, from always being controlled by them. The fear of not being able to control your own body anymore. Even, simply, the fear of not being able to escape the things from our past that impacted us and changed us. I found the movie so effective because I can relate to all of these fears, you know? I can't relate to the Circus Gringo, to his childhood, to his weird relationship with his mother, or really, to any of the surface-level things in the movie. But I can understand what's going on underneath all that. And that, I guess, is why I didn't laugh at things like the weird clowns that often show up at awkward times, the occasional bad acting, the strange costumes, stuff like that.

I love what Ebert says about this movie at the end of his essay. He brings up the fact that this movie is for adults because it doesn't just deal with the pornography of violence with no consequence. I love that. It's what makes this a masterful film instead of just a horror movie or a cult film. So many horror movies just exist to show gore, or have cheap jump-scares. The violence all happens in a bubble, just for thrills and excitement, which is fine, sometimes. What's really scary is the lasting impact that violence can have on people. Fenix is unsettling because he embodies this. Everything screwed up about him seems like it's clearly a result of the awful violent things he witnesses in his childhood. This is often, sadly, the case with real violence. Anyone who witnesses it or survives it is forever changed. And personally, I think that is really terrifying - that our minds could be so deeply changed and altered by something out of our control.

Have any thoughts about Santa Sangre? Share them in the comments!

Links:
Ebert's Great Movie Essay on Santa Sangre
Buy it on Amazon

Sansho the Bailiff

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 04:12:00 +0000

This might be my shortest post ever if I get my way - I was cutting the tags off of a stuffed narwhal I got in the mail and I sliced my finger really badly. Seriously badly. I sort of paused and looked it at and had that feeling of dread you get when you realize you filleted your finger with an extremely sharp pocket knife. I saw there was a huge, thick, flap of skin, and a big circular notch cut out of my finger, gross! It was a bloody, painful mess, and I just tried to sort of mush it back together and hope for the best. But it's really, really painful. It's hard to bend my finger and the entire thing hurts, not just the part that I cut. So typing sucks. A lot. I keep stopping to complain and whine. Because of this, I want this post to be really short so I can rest my hand. How dumb is my life, seriously?

Today I watched Sansho the Bailiff, an incredibly sad, powerful, and beautiful film. It was directed by Kenji Mizoguchi in 1954. It's great, but it's hard to watch. There is a lot of suffering and pain, and it's not really a movie that is probably easy to watch again. Ebert writes about a film critic who said how he loved it, but came away from it broken and doubting he'd ever watch it again. I certainly feel the same way.

The plot, briefly, involves a father, who is a governor, who is exiled. His wife and young children are separated, and his children are taken to slave labor camp run by the sadistic Sansho. He rules the camp with shocking brutality, branding attempted runaways and really just sucking in general. Most of the movie is about the suffering that the children experience. Other things happen, obviously, and the children spend time trying to escape, of course, but I don't want to ruin it and/or type more than I have to.

I really liked the cinematography, it's really elegant and masterful. He never gives away too much information in his scenes, but composes them really wonderfully. Ebert mentions that he never really directed his actors to stand anywhere in the frame, which is shocking because they always seem really carefully placed. I never would have expected that he didn't have insane control over everyone, but maybe that's why his movies seem so natural and real.

The story, although sad, is incredibly good. Ebert writes that the director had a hard childhood, and this film is almost autobiographical. The movie is shockingly real, because there really were slave labor camps like the one depicted, as well. I guess I bring these things up because it was important for me to see the film as realistic or truthful suffering instead of all fiction. I guess it wasn't important as much as it was powerful to know that, and just made the impact of the film even stronger. I think I often waffle between declaring that movies about serious issues are amazing and important and saying that I hate them because they depressed me because I was in a bad mood to begin with. This movie somehow compels me to say neither, and I think it has something to do with how...graceful, I guess, it seems. I feel irritated when movies show suffering or drama and it feels manipulative, like it's all engineered to get the most emotion out of you. This movie never felt that way to me (maybe because it had no leading soundtrack, lots of harsh moments are not shown on-screen, etc), and I think because of that, even with all the pain and sorrow, I didn't feel like emotion was getting dragged out of me, it felt natural and real. Not manipulated. Genuine.

The amount of suffering in the film, which all happens for no good reason, was tough. I definitely at some points would have rather been relaxing or doing something else just because it was so sad at times. However, I'm glad I stuck with it, because despite that, I just really liked it. It was that sort of catharsis sad, where it was a good excuse to get some emotion out, you know? I know I'm misusing the term, but I don't know a better one. If you're ever in the mood for a movie like this I highly reccomend it, but it is a rough one to sit through. Ok. Time to rest my hand/pass out.

Have any thoughts on Sansho the Bailiff? Share them in the comments!

Links:
Ebert's Great Movie Essay on Sansho the Bailiff
Buy it on Amazon