The Cinema Pedant

One of a kind

2011-07-28T17:46:00.006-04:00

A and X by a statue of Charles III.

Last Year at Marienbad (1961)

Directed by Alain Resnais

Story and screenplay by Alain Robbie-Grillet

Criterion Collection Spine #478

There is no other film like director Alain Resnais’ Last Year at Marienbad. No other film is as completely subjective or demanding of the viewers’ minds. Penned by the champion of the nouveau roman (“new novel”) Alain Robbe-Grillet, Marienbad eschews traditional narrative and even eliminates any semblance of flashback structure. Instead, it is a continuously streaming conscious of fragmented memories from two characters whose viewpoints cannot be trusted as reliable.

The premise is simple. At a ritzy chateau inhabited by affluent jet-setters in the early 20^th century X (Giorgio Albertazzi) approaches A (Delphine Seyrig) trying to convince her they met one year ago at Marienbad and had agreed to re-unite and run off together one year later. A is staying with M (Sacha Pitoëff) who was at Marienbad last year and may or may not be her husband. This his all we know.

X: I must have you alive. Alive, as you have already been every evening, for weeks, for months.
A: I have never stayed so long anywhere.
X: Yes, I know. I don't care. For days and days. Why don't you still want to remember anything?
A: You're raving! I'm tired, leave me alone!

Marienbad demands the viewer buy in from the start with an open, active mind to piece together the unsolvable enigma. There may be no solution to puzzle but the beauty is in trying to understand. Resnais and Robbe-Grillet respected the viewer enough to allow the viewer to create one’s own interpretation and the result is a lasting work of cinematic art. Just like a trailer for the film says, it is the viewer who is the co-author and one’s experiences and mood are the determining factors.

The film is as equally hypnotic as it is puzzling. Resnais’ direction favors long, slow tracking shots through the chateau with its long hallways, high and ornate ceilings and often ghostly exterior and garden with a camera which always seems to be try to reveal something to us and the same time it seems cautious in its approach. Accompanying this is Sacha Vierny’s unforgettably haunting organ score which plays nicely to the level of the drama. A prime reason why I’m so fond of Marienbad and Resnais’ Hiroshima Mon Amour is the music in each film is different, evocative and especially moody. It elevates and compliments the mes en scene exceptionally well.

So we have a mind-bending and hypnotic narrative – so why is Marienbad a great film? Marienbad is undoubtedly impeccably directed, scored, acted and photographed in glorious black and white. However, the reason the film works and is great art is because it has infinite re-watchability and is ripe for a myriad of interpretations. One thing I often hear and read from those in the art world who write about or comment on paintings is a painting is “all about how it makes you feel”.

(left to right, X, M)
NIM, a logarithmic game, the secret to unraveling Marienbad?

The first two times I saw Marienbad on consecutive nights at the Cleveland Cinematheque I had an entirely different feel for the film then when I saw it three or four times later. My first two viewings (this film has to be seen at least twice) I saw X as a seducer. I thought he met A last year at Marienbad but that she had repressed those memories because of an event unknown to the viewer. With subsequent viewings I considered the picture to concern A’s struggle to cope with being raped by X (or M or someone else?) last year with her trying to repress memories and him trying to dig them up.

The famous over-exposed shot of X and A in the bedroom may support this theory. In another viewing I saw A as having had an affair with X last year at Marienbad with her denying those memories so as to not be found out by her husband M. A memory, however reliable, of M shooting A in her bedroom may support this notion.

As one can see, Marienbad is open to many, many interpretations beyond the few I’ve listed in this selection. The effectiveness of the film is allowing the viewer to determine his or her own story.

With Last Year at Marienbad I think Resnais and Robbie-Grillet have created a lasting, future-proof work of art, a high point of the legendary French New Wave, a technical marvel that has influenced Kubrick’s The Shining, David Lynch, high end designer fashion commercials, British rock group Blur’s “To the End” and will be discussed and analyzed for as long as there is cinema.

Paris, we love you

2011-07-28T17:41:00.002-04:00

Midnight in Paris (2011)

Written and Directed by Woody Allen

The artists:

Ernest Hemingway (Cory Stoll)

F. Scott Fitzgerald (Tom Hiddleston)
Zelda Fitzgerald (Alison Pill)

Salvador Dali (Adrien Brody)

Cole Porter (Yves Heck)

Luis Bunuel (Adrien de Van)

T.S. Eliot (David Lowe)

Gertrude Stein (Kathy Bates)

Pablo Picasso (Marcial Di Fonzo Bo)

Woody Allen’s knowledge of and his appreciation for the great artists of the past has always attracted me to his work. This is especially apparent in films like Annie Hall with its barrage of references and Manhattan (poking fun at the “Academy of the Overrated”) and even his newer work like Vicky Cristina Barcelona with the tip of the cap to Antoni Gaudi. The auteur’s latest picture Midnight in Paris takes his love of art and brings it to the forefront.

Prior to seeing the film I wasn’t sure being in good films was Owen Wilson’s thing. Thankfully, Woody and casting director Juliette Taylor know what they’re doing as Wilson tackles his role with charm and enthusiasm. He is Gil the romantic, a self-described Hollywood hack who would much rather write serious novels and live in Paris just like the great artists of the 1920’s. He appreciates the little things like Paris at night, Paris in the rain and soaking in as much culture as he can. His unsupportive and often hostile fiancée is Inez, played by Rachel McAdams. Some say this is a throwaway role for McAdams and the only thing likable about her in the picture is cinematographer Darius Khondji’s fondness for her posterior. McAdams has star billing but this film is Wilson’s and the scene-stealing artists he meets in Paris after midnight.

Adriana (Marion Cotillard) and Gil (Owen) enjoy Paris at night.

Gil is under the impression his life would be better if he lived in Paris of the 1920’s where giants like F. Scott Fitzgerald, Zelda Fitzgerald, Ernest Hemingway, Salvador Dali, Pablo Picasso, Luis Bunuel, Cole Porter frequented cafes, partied at Maxim’s, drank wine into the wee hours of the night and created magic. The bearded and pedantic Paul (Michael Sheen) describes this “false notion” as having contempt for the present. Naturally, the character of Paul is yet another shot at pseudo-intellectualism even though Paul is an “expert” in Monet, Picasso, wine and yes, even dancing.

Paul (Michael Sheen) is an expert in damn near everything.

The most fascinating parts of the film are when the clock strikes midnight and Gil is given a lift by literary and art icons each night and whisked away to a new adventure. Gil encounters Ernest Hemingway (scene stealing Corey Stoll) who speaks the way he wrote:

Gil: Gil Pender.
Ernest Hemingway: Hemingway.
Gil: Hemingway?
Ernest Hemingway: You liked my book?
Gil: Liked? I loved all of your work.
Ernest Hemingway: Yes. It was a good book because it was an honest book, and that's what war does to men. And there's nothing fine and noble about dying in the mud unless you die gracefully. And then it's not only noble but brave.

Ernest Hemingway (Corey Stoll -center-)

The same can be said of Woody’s Fitzgerald (Tom Hiddleston) who calls friends “old sport” much like Jay Gatsby. It’s also fun to see the unpredictably of Zelda (“She’s just as we imagined and read about!”) portrayed by Alison Pill. Zelda is insecure in her relationship with Scott, she clashes with Hemingway who hated her writing and friends note “her great talent seems to be drinking”. Viewers won’t be able to forget Adrien Brody as Salvador Dali and his rhinoceros monologue. Likewise for Kathy Bates’ Gertrude Stein, the friend to artists and the only one Hemingway trusted to provide feedback on his work. Gil confides in her for a critique on his novel.

Gil and the 1920's gang.

Running parallel to the endless array of artists making appearances is Gil’s love interest Adriana (Marion Cotillard). She’s an aspiring costume designer although she’s more of a mistress to a variety of artists like Picasso. This love angle evokes Purple Rose of Cairo because it works in its fantasy context only. Much like that film, Midnight in Paris explores fantasy versus reality, but with a denouement that is appreciative to both sides.

Midnight in Paris will delight movie-goers with its charm, romance and wit and should please Woody devotees who will smile at Woody’s almost Manhattan-like opening scene of Paris lovingly set to Sidney Bechet’s (his favorite musician) soulful “Si Tu Vois Ma Mere”. ****

Pull up a chair and let Dali (Adrien Brody) tell you about the rhinoceros.

Deep and dark with tall grass all around

2011-07-28T17:38:00.002-04:00

Just a little bit further...

Onibaba (1964) "Devil Woman"

Written and Directed by Kaneto Shindo

Criterion Collection Spine #226

The hole is deep and dark. It’s ensconced on all sides by tall grass and near it a swamp area. It’s the perfect place to dump the bodies of murdered samurai after stripping them of their armor and valuables. The goods are then exchanged with a merchant for bags of millet.

Such is the living of a young woman (Jitsuko Yoshimura) and her old, but spry mother-in-law (Nobuko Otowa) in writer-director Kaneto Shindo’s erotic horror piece Onibaba set in 14^th century Japan where skirmishes linger from a war that many believe to have been over. The two women work in tandem to ambush weakened wandering samurai by spearing them and dumping their bodies in the hole. It’s their only means of survival as they’d likely starve without the millet acquired from trading the samurai valuables.

Shindo’s noir-like canvas of tall reeds, swamps, smoldering hot nights where women sleep in the nude, shabby huts and suggestive score are ideal for this story. Complicating matters we’re introduced to Hachi (Kei Sato) who fought in the war with the young woman’s husband. The young woman falls for Hachi to the chagrin of the old woman who is determined to keep the girl away from him. She also thinks Hachi could have saved her son and even wonders if he is lying about him dying in the war. This is where things get interesting.

Like the best suspense films, Onibaba shows us just enough to get the adrenaline going without showing too much. Shindo introduces a wandering samurai complete with a strange battle mask to hide his “handsome face”. Later we see an apparition-like figure with the same mask.

We are to believe some of this may be the result of the young woman and Hachi’s midnight trysts which are a sin, accordingly to the old woman.

Even if one doesn’t buy into ghosts and curses, Shindo delivers with a suspenseful and thrilling narrative. Something must also be said for a creating a chilling environment to accompany such a tale. It’s so vivid and haunting one is not likely to forget it any time soon.

Still awe-inspiring

2011-07-28T17:33:00.001-04:00

2001: A Space Odyssey

Directed by Stanley Kubrick

Screenplay by Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke

From Clarke's story "The Sentinel"

The first time I saw Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey was in seventh grade science class. My teacher, Mrs. Trillo, had regularly shown some fascinating Carl Sagan documentaries during the school year. When she put on 2001 there seemed to be mixed reactions from the class. During the famous “Dawn of Man” sequence there were giggles from the class and a general feeling the film was boring. Such sentiment today would be greeted with dirty looks from cinephiles.

I don’t even recall if she had shown us the full picture as class time didn’t often permit such long viewings. I do remember being incredibly by awed by what I was watching. It was high-grade science fiction like I had never seen before. I was intrigued by the docking sequence and the use of a classical piece to accompany it (Johann Strauss’ indelible “The Blue Danube”. I was mystified by the black monolith and wanted to understand its role. Moreover, I was awed and inspired by this vision of space where advanced technology (both terrestrial and extraterrestrial) exists, space travel is frequent and easy and space is vast, beautiful and mysterious. I didn’t really understand the film but sensed what I was seeing was something special.

Years later when I viewed the film again it was like seeing it for the first time. To this day I still get chills during the docking sequence accompanied by “The Blue Danube”. By setting space to classical music Kubrick makes us of think of elegance, sophistication, refinement and beauty. Only Kubrick, the filmmaker who used Gene Kelly’s “Singin’ in the Rain” infamously in A Clockwork Orange, could think of this. Only Kubrick could think of ingeniously jump-cutting from the ape throwing the bone in the air to the space station.

The main reason I think 2001 continues to awe and inspire is it challenges us think, feel and imagine beyond the usual. The very notion that a supercomputer like HAL-9000 can manage an entire space station and crew was probably a wild idea in 1968. In 2011 it sounds conceivable although I think such artificial intelligence is still decades away. Also, 2001 cautions us that with advanced technology new wonders are possible but artificial entities like HAL can probably never replace human beings. Much in the same way advances in cinema and CGI have the ability to push cinema creatively there is no other experience like 2001. Kubrick showed us the apex of science fiction and reminded us of what pure cinema looks like.

Grow together

2011-07-12T23:56:00.002-04:00

The Tree of Life (2011)

Written and Directed by Terrence Malick

Original Music by Alexandre Desplat

Production Design by longtime Malick collaborator Jack Fisk

If you’ve seen any of director Terrence Malick’s (Days of Heaven, The Thin Red Line) films and didn’t care for them then there’s probably a fair chance you will not like The Tree of Life, but maybe you will gain respect and admiration for his craft. The one thing that often divides Malick devotees from those indifferent to the director’s films is his cinematic language. Like all of four of his films, Tree of Life is an exercise in show before tell, a love of nature, an examination of interpersonal relationships and a fondness for purity. More than anything Malick wants us to feel his picture.

In fact, The Tree of Life marks Malick’s movement towards the abstract and surreal. Quite often Malick prefers to convey feeling through montage, facial expressions, subtle gestures or even the now famous creation sequence. Just like his previous efforts it’s a film which could easily be reworked as a silent picture and not miss a beat – a very high compliment. It’s also comparable to The Thin Red Line in its narrative approach but much more free and loose. More than ever before Malick is less concerned with plot and more concerned with conveying feeling.

The first time I saw The Tree of Life was on its release date. I was overwhelmed by the film’s brilliant imagery, its poignant score and its examination of the life of a family in a sleepy town in Texas in the 1960’s. Malick’s focus on the three boys all close in ages and practically on the cusp of adolescence felt incredibly intimate, honest and relatable. Growing up the middle child of three boys I found myself relating to the joys and pain felt by the boys growing up.

Naturally, these boys grew up in a time when the father was the disciplinarian dishing out tough love. Brad Pitt is superb as Mr. O’Brien or simply “father” or “sir” as he demands his sons to politely call him. Mr. O’Brien believes anything is possible in life with a lot of hard work and a fierce will. He demands they do what is right even though he doesn’t always fulfill his words to a tee because he wants them to be prepared to be the boss when they grow up. The ethereal Jessica Chastain’s sweet and naïve mother is often the foil (sometimes to the chagrin of Mr. Obrien) to the boys’ father. Her thoughts and inner feelings are expressed through her beautifully natural face. Together both parents find ways to make it all work.

Malick’s portrayal of life from birth to the boys’ late childhood is exceptionally moving. The way he shows the early years of a child’s life could make a stone cry and the longest of faces smile. Then Malick shows us the boys start to think for themselves, get into mischief, have difficulty coping with disappointment and finding themselves attracted to girls – it’s all there and Malick presents it all so tenderly and vividly.

There’s the bad – when one of the sons gets the gumption to tell his father to be quiet at the dinner table and Mr. O’Brien gets worked up in a rage and demands his son to leave the dinner table. There’s the fun – when the boys get into the type of mischief that only boys can do and the proverbial schoolyard scenes Malick accompanies with a poignant piano piece.

Then there’s the irreplaceable. Consider a scene in which the father, a once aspiring musician but now a plant worker, is playing the organ and he glances over to see his young son already excelling at playing the guitar. The look of pride on the father’s face is priceless. It’s something as a kid I could never grasp because I couldn’t see myself through my father’s eyes to see the love and pride he had when he saw me succeed. Just as it meant everything to me to play sports well, it meant the world to my father to see me do well.

Much of the prerelease buzz over The Tree of Life concerned its lengthy creation sequence detailing the formation of Earth and existence and demise of dinosaurs. I’ve left discussion of this sequence to the end of this review because it compliments the story, rather than the story supplementing the creation sequence. The CGI visuals, of which Douglass Trumbull (2001: A Space Odyssey) had a part in, are spectacular to be precise, but naturally Malick’s hand maintains restraint and doesn’t let them veer into spectacle. I’ve seen The Tree of Life twice and I’m still processing my thoughts as to how this sequence and the story fit into place (Which is not a bad thing as the film has so much substance). There’s also the present day urban skyscraper-set story of the eldest son Jack (Sean Penn) who’s recalling his childhood, his parents and the loss of one his brothers at a young age. Penn doesn’t need to emote because his face, his body language and Malick’s direction juxtaposing small town Texas with the steel and glass urban environment of Jack’s work environment are more than enough.

To be sure, The Tree of Life is not for everyone. One has to buy into Malick’s cinematic language from the start or be lost in the stream of memories, feelings and sometimes surrealism. It’s also clear the film has a religious element but one’s faith shouldn’t prevent appreciation of this picture. I think it’s much too soon to rank this film’s place within the Malick oeuvre, because it will no doubt be discussed and dissected endlessly in the years to come. All in all, Malick has never disappointed and The Tree of Life is no exception to this rule. ****

Everybody needs a purpose

2011-02-04T08:13:00.004-05:00

Somewhere (2010)
Written and Directed by Sofia Coppola

There’s beauty in the way Sofia Coppola’s Somewhere unfolds. Its performances are brilliantly understated yet nuanced, its dialogue is natural and witty and Coppola’s patient direction always seems to make the right choices. The film is mostly subdued as its cadence is relaxing and never rushed. This is wonderfully illustrated in a scene in which the film’s main subject Hollywood star Johnny Marco (Stephen Dorff) sits, calmly breathes through his nose and waits for a special effects mold covering his entire face to dry. It’s incredibly serene as it’s such a departure from Johnny’s life.

Coppola’s first great move was the casting of Dorff as Johnny, the 30-something, black Ferrari-driving movie star who lives at the Chateau Marmont in his own La Dolce Vita—a life of booze, pills and readily available floozies (not the only subconscious homage to Fellini’s film). This is key as we don’t already attribute this lifestyle to Dorff, because frankly we’re not familiar with his career and he doesn’t seem to be in the tabloids much. Casting an A-list star would’ve resulted in a much different tone and possibly made the Johnny Marco character a caricature of another famous celebrity. This makes him more believable.

Johnny merely seems to be going through the motions of this rock star lifestyle and often looks bored (He falls asleep to the Shannon twins pole dancing in his hotel room!) and without a purpose. His drinking is frequent and his relationships with women are hollow and vapid—in fact, the only woman he can confide in is his ex-wife. Despite this we feel for Johnny because he is easy-going, likeable and generally good to people. Moreover, he’s chivalrous around his ex-wife and a decent father when he is around his daughter.

Elle Fanning’s performance as Johnny’s bright and well-behaved 11-year old daughter Cleo is very natural and quite believable. I applaud Coppola for not overwriting her character and making her overly precocious or resentful of her father. Instead, she loves her father and just wants to spend more time with him. Fanning’s best scenes are when she’s reacting to something or the expressions on her face when she’s hanging out with her father.

Consider the scene at the breakfast table in an Italian hotel when an ex-flame of Johnny’s is speaking and the camera pans to Cleo giving her father a look that says “I want to spend time with you, not some strange lady!” The beauty in this is the respect Coppola shows for her audience. A look is enough to convey Cleo’s thoughts so why use dialogue then cut to a drawn-out temper tantrum scene in the next scene? The audience is smart.

Despite the extravagances around Johnny, the time he spends with Cleo is in doing normal things that mean the world to Cleo. Somewhere really sparkles when Johnny must take care of Cleo for an extended time because her mother had to go away without explanation. He takes her to the ice skating rink, they play Guitar Hero together, they go swimming, she cooks breakfast for him, etc. The rhythm of scenes is just right as Coppola always seems to know when to let a scene breathe and when to cut. Thankfully, she doesn’t cut during the film’s best scene—a sublime poolside zoom-out at the Chateau Marmont. There’s no dialogue, just the right music and the building realization of Johnny’s purpose.

My fear with Somewhere is it will not be seen by nearly enough people—at least initially. This is mainly because the film doesn’t have a huge star in any of its leads and Coppola’s direction, while excellent, unfortunately doesn’t appeal to the casual movie-goer accustomed to editing tailored for those with short attention spans. Those with patience will find much to admire in Somewhere and much to smile about as it may just be the best film they see this year. ****

"The only person standing in your way is you"

2010-12-25T01:14:00.005-05:00

Black Swan (2010)

Directed by Darren Aronofsky
Screenplay by Mark Heyman, Andres Heinz and John McLaughlin

Thomas Leroy: The only person standing in your way is you.

t’s quite natural that a backstage drama about ballet draws comparison to Powell & Pressburger’s masterwork The Red Shoes. Nina Sayers (future Academy Award winner Natalie Portman) is an emotionally fragile and apprehensive woman but one who is an incredibly devoted ballerina to her company—a perfectionist. She is perfect for the role of the White Swan in “Swan Lake” but ballet director Thomas Leroy (Vincent Cassel) believes she lacks the passion and wild abandon required to also dance the part of the Black Swan. Any more comparisons to The Red Shoes end here (for the most part).

More than anything, director Darren Aronofsky’s film evokes Roman Polanski’s psychological thriller Repulsion. Much of what we see in Black Swan is from Nina’s terrifyingly distorted reality stemming from her inability to cope with the changes in her life after landing the prized role of Queen Swan in “Swan Lake”. Aronofsky’s camera is almost entirely subjective in its use of a shaky over-the-shoulder point of view and a plethora of close-ups.

The Orson Welles school of thought on close-ups (of which I generally agree) is to use them very sparingly so when they are used they’re meaningful and dramatic. Thankfully, Aronofsky doesn’t use them to remind the viewer he is the director. He uses the close-ups to get the viewer into the head of Nina whose world consists of her apartment where she still lives with her mother (Barbara Hershey) and work – backstage and on the stage. Aronofsky’s camera does well in showing Nina going to and from these places with blinders on, but because the film is so subjective we don’t always know what is real and this is what makes the film so terribly intriguing and gruesome at times.

The most fascinating of which is Nina’s relationship with rival dancer Lily. The way Lily (Mila Kunis) seemingly provokes Nina is central to the film’s conflict. Lily is loquacious and free-spirited. She smokes, arrives to work late and is on the prowl when she goes to a bar. She’s the antithesis of Nina and the White Swan, yet she tries to draw Nina out by being friendly and encouraging her to cut loose. In reality Nina may just be trying to be friendly and encouraging but through Nina’s eyes we see her as someone trying to seize Nina’s part in “Swan Lake”.

Lily, along with Thomas are the two chief external forces (internal being Nina) influencing Nina’s paranoia. Thomas is a brilliant ballet director but with a reputation of pushing his dancers by playing to their sexuality and taking advantage of them. He made Beth Macintyre (a barely recognizable Winona Ryder) a big star then cast her aside when she was past her prime. Thomas wants also wants Nina to cut loose. Nina knows of Thomas’ reputation but realizes his direction is paramount to her success in “Swan Lake” so she puts up with some of his advances and lewd suggestions.

Lily, Thomas and Nina’s delicate psyche contribute to an absorbing narrative that fluctuates between reality and what is imagined by Nina--- which naturally gets increasingly more frightening.

The Ballet

The ballet in Black Swan is excellent although not spectacular. Portman should still be commended for her devotion to this role. She was the ideal choice as she trained as a ballerina from age 4 to 13. Portman’s dancing is very good despite the use of a double at times and Aronofsky’s reliance on medium shots in the ballet sequences. Kunis also deserves praise for training five hours a day for seven days a week for three months to become a competent dancer.

* * * *

Best served cold and original

2010-11-21T21:55:00.006-05:00

Revanche (2008)

Written & Directed by Gotz Spielmann

In the hands of a lesser director Revanche is a cheap thriller. In the hands of writer-director Gotz Spielmann it is much more. The plot is B film noir. The laconic Alex (Johannes Krisch) works at a sleazy brothel where he cleans up after patrons, escorts girls to and from work and is a gopher for boss Konecny (Hanno Poschl). Alex’s girlfriend Tamara (Irina Potapenko) is one of the girls at the brothel--- although the two take great pains to make sure Konecny doesn’t know of their relationship. Both are trapped in a squalid existence, which usually means Irina getting slapped around by patrons hired by Konecny because Irina isn’t interested in servicing a wealthier clientele suggested by the boss. Alex can do little but appease the boss and hope things get better. That is until Alex decides to pull a bank job.

Everything leading up to the bank job (and its immediate consequences) is seemingly pedestrian but it sets the tone of the film and establishes Alex’s character and motivations. Everything which occurs after the bank job is the most memorable because Revanche can be so deceptive in its narrative. The film sheds the first act’s pulp and becomes an examination of one’s state of mind when overcome with a desire for vengeance while still feeling guilt for placing Tamara in a dangerous situation. The film really excels as a psychological piece in the second and third acts as Alex’s emotions are all over his face rather than spoken to others.

We get a sense of Alex’s guilt when he voluntarily helps his grandfather (Johannes Thanheiser) around the old man’s small farm.Throughout the second half of the film Alex performs a form of penance by diligently chopping and sawing enough firewood to last a couple winters. His desire for vengeance is stoked by the presence of someone living near his grandfather’s farm that witnessed the bank robbery and may have been partly to blame for the loss of Tamara. Then there is Susanne (Ursula Strauss), a friend of Alex’s grandfather, who connects Alex with the man he thinks he must eliminate for Tamara’s honor. All of this contributes to the foreboding feeling through the film.

Explaining anything more about the plot of Revanche might spoil one’s enjoyment of it in the first viewing and subtract from the thriller aspect (the film is more psychological on subsequent viewings). Although knowing who and what in this film is not as important as why and how. We learn the latter two but Spielmann ensures that it is like nothing one would expect. ****

Love and Dance

2010-11-14T16:22:00.013-05:00

The Red Shoes (1948)

Directed by Michael Powell & Emeric Pressburger
Screenplay by Emeric Pressburger

Boris Lermontov: Why do you want to dance?
Victoria Page: Why do you want to live?
Boris Lermontov: Well I don't know exactly why, er, but I must.
Victoria Page: That's my answer, too

The thing I love most about Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburgers’s The Red Shoes is the fact each character is passionate about something. The impeccably attired and impressively articulate ballet impresario Boris Lermontov’s (Anton Walbrook) passion in life is for his ballet company—it’s his religion. He lives to create grand ballet productions and believes human love can only prevent an artist from becoming great. It’s difficult to demonize Lermontov even when he coldly frowns upon romances within his ballet company because one is always trying to understand his character. There always seems to be the hope a man who can love his work so much can love other things in life, too.

Throughout the film there is a growing sense Lermontov loves Victoria Page (Moira Shearer). One thinks he may succumb to charms of the kind-faced scarlet beauty as she turns in stellar performances in his productions. However, the love we see growing is his affection for her talents and potential to become not just good but great. Vicky was once like Lermontov and only lived for her work and perhaps this is what first caught Lermontov’s eye. The same may be said for her lover, the ambitious young composer Julian Craster (Marius Goring).

There is a brilliant scene in the middle of the film when Julian and Vicky are in a heated debate about the correct tempo of music for a particular dance piece. They argue back and fourth then Powell cuts to Lermontov who isn’t missing a word of their argument. Suddenly, a big grin appears on Lermontov’s face. This scene is wonderfully expressive of the passion for art The Red Shoes is brims with for 133 minutes. True love develops alongside it for Julian and Vicky but not for Lermontov and this is where the prime conflict in the film is rooted.

The Ballet

While The Red Shoes concerns ballet, it is mostly a film about art and love for the reasons mentioned early in this selection. However, even if one does not have much knowledge of ballet (like this reviewer) it is not hard to enjoy the film’s ballet sequences. It’s easy to embrace something when it’s performed with so much zest and the intensity with which Shearer dances is incredible. In some instances where the direction permits close-ups and medium shots, one can see the look of determination, the willpower conveyed by her face. Shearer’s dancing is very much on the same level as Gene Kelly, Fred Astaire, Lesley Carone and others. It may not be the same style but it’s definitely done with comparable gusto. At times Powell, through some simple special effects, takes the performance to an awe-inspiring level by showing us dance through the often dreamy point of view of Vicky. We see her dancing on air and other times she appears as an angelic-like apparition.

The Look

The work of legendary cinematographer Jack Cardiff (The African Queen, Black Narcissus) on The Red Shoes is masterful. The film is easily one of the best looking Technicolor films ever made (maybe the best?). The colors are consistently vibrant throughout the picture and there are many notable scenes where a visual nirvana is achieved. One of my favorites is when the Lermontov Company travels to Monte Carlo. There is a jaw-dropping scene in which Vicky ascends seemingly endless sets of stone steps with the Mediterranean in the background glistening. Also, I marveled at the eye-popping colors on display during the film’s ballet pieces. One may say the passion of those who created The Red Shoes equals the passion of the characters in the film.

Where to see it

The ideal way to see The Red Shoes is to see the restoration print done by the UCLA Film and Television Archive and The Film Foundation (founder and chair Martin Scorsese was instrumental in getting the project off the ground) who performed an extensive 2 year 4K digital restoration. I had the pleasure of seeing this print twice at the Cleveland Cinematheque and it is among the very best theater experiences I’ve had in my life.

The next best thing is the Blu-ray issued by the Criterion Collection. They used the UCLA print for the transfer and the results are immaculate. It’s one of the very best Criterion releases.

She's more than highschool evil

2009-09-15T08:20:00.007-04:00

Jennifer's Body (2009) Directed by Karyn Kusama
Screenplay by Diablo Cody

Jennifer’s Body is the second original film from Academy Award winning writer Diablo Cody. When compared to Cody’s first film Juno one clearly gets the sense that Jennifer’s Body is the work of an auteur--- not from the director in this case but the writer. The film has the feel of a Diablo Cody film. It’s laden with Cody’s now trademark witty, sarcastic, tell-‘em what you’re thinking, pop culture savvy dialogue. It’s a combination of Billy Wilder on overdrive plus a dash of Woody Allen’s dry wit.

Despite Megan Fox playing the boy-eating title character, this movie is clearly Amanda Seyfreid’s from start to finish and she also turns in the best performance. She plays Needy, the Jan Brady-like best friend of the school’s most popular hottie Jennifer (Megan Fox). Fox’s work with Michael Bay clearly didn’t sharpen her acting prowess but her work here is passable. It’s a part that requires her to be sexy, scary and funny and she does well in this regard. In some ways it’s comparable to a Marilyn Monroe performance as Fox often seems pleasantly surprised with herself for nailing Cody’s acerbic dialogue.

Cody’s sense of humor seems to lend itself nicely to the horror genre because there are plenty of opportunities for snappy one liners even in the most dangerous circumstances. Consider a scene in which Needy’s boyfriend Chip (Johnny Simmons) seems to be in danger. His mother offers him a pepper spray to keep away crazy girls but Chip offers this:

“I can take care of myself. I’ve been using Bowflex”.

In another instance a scene of terrible violence is offset by a clueless teacher (J.K. Simmons) who hears screaming from afar and calmly remarks that the kids just need to let out their grief.

The one liners and Cody’s knack for not taking things too seriously is the draw for me with Jennifer’s Body. For fans of the horror genre there is plenty of gore, ample cleavage and sex scenes. I believe Cody does a decent job of balancing the gore with scenes in which the violence is left to the viewer’s imagination which is usually the scariest type of violent conflict.

Jennifer’s Body may not be a cinematic masterpiece or even an Academy Award caliber film but it is a lot of fun, plenty of laughs and some chills. In this regard it more than delivers and will certainly amass plenty of fans for those who enjoy the horror genre and even some casual movie goers.

*** (out of 4)

Quirk and circumstance

2009-08-02T21:13:00.007-04:00

500 Days of Summer
Directed by Marc Webb
Screenplay by Scott Neustadter & Michael H.Weber

500 Days of Summer has some positive things working for it. It features two likable actors in Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Zooey Deschanel and a plot which is atypical of most Hollywood romantic comedies. It’s billed not as love story but a story about love which examines a relationship between two 20-somethings with the good and the bad, the joys, the heartache, frustration and frequent miscommunication in young love. The film promises a realistic depiction of a relationship without the typical Hollywood story conventions and it delivers to some extent.

Unfortunately the film falls into the Indy hipster trying desperately to be offbeat and ultimately falls into the trap of being too quirky for its own good. Its pseudo-stream of conscious narrative structure and use of plot devices was no doubt inspired by Annie Hall, a film which is the apex of the genre, yet with 500 Days of Summer everything seems to be done to prove itself different and eccentric. The film uses split screen, toys with the aspect ratio, includes an unnecessary homage to classic foreign films, illustrates a reality versus desired scenario and even has a cringe-inducing impromptu song and dance number.

It also includes a myriad of things which have become hallmarks of annoyingly quirky films: obscure Indy bands and play lists, pretentiousness (a Belle and Sebastian yearbook quote), an all-knowing narrator, supporting characters who contribute very little to the plot,flashbacks to childhood, an abundance of superfluous pop culture references, thrown-in literary references to appear intelligent and a laughable and out-of-place reference to The Graduate. All of these were seemingly included to make the failed relationship between two young people seem all the more digestible.
500 Days of Summer is Tom Hansen’s (Gordon Levitt) story. Much of the narrative is from his point of view while Summer's character is only partly developed. Tom’s true passion in life is architecture but he settled for a job writing for a greeting card company because it pays the bills and perhaps taking a chance and trying to make it in architecture was too much of a bold risk for him. He’s somewhat content with his job and believes everything will fall into place once he meets the girl of his dreams. I’m not sure I’d call him a romantic but he’s definitely an idealist. Unfortunately for Tom he believes Summer Finn (Daschanel) is the one he’s waited for all his life.

Summer is proof that the term “jerk” is not exclusive to men and may be afforded to women as well. She’s the type of girl who is not interested in society’s expectations for herself and her gender and assumes others, mainly men, should know this and not be surprised when she contradicts herself. Her character really made me upset because she is the type of girl that dumps on decent men then expects everyone to be friends because she has pretty blue eyes. Summer lets Tom know that she’s not interested in having a relationship because she enjoys being independent. Most men would interpret this as Summer not being interested in Tom in a romantic sense and they would be right – to an extent.

Summer claims she doesn’t want a relationship yet she sleeps with Tom but then expects him not to see her as a girlfriend (“Why put labels on things?”). Tom isn’t in the friend zone but his relationship with Summer is complicated to say the least. He’s involved in a year and half relationship with a woman that will never make him happy yet he believes she is his dream girl. Essentially this is the crux of the story.

I believe this conflict between the two main characters is enough to base the plot around and the inclusion of the aforementioned narrative devices and hallmarks of quirk exist only to get in the way of the narrative—they’re just not needed. Moreover, it’s disappointing that a film with two likeable stars and suitable premise fails because it is so intent on proving to viewers that it is original. Very few films made today are original as most anything has been done before in some way as execution is key in producing an excellent film and that’s where 500 Days of Summer falls short. **

Woody returns to New York

2009-05-12T21:38:00.003-04:00

Whatever Works is Woody's followup to the stellar Vicky Cristina Barcelona. Larry David with a Woody Allen script? A must see. Plus, Patricia Clarkson is said to play a a nutjob and a nemesis to David's character. With Evan Rachel Wood, Ed Bagley Jr., and Henry Cavil.

Forget the half-baked action films, sequels and me-too films coming out this summer-- this is the film event of the summer (or at least it is for Woody Allen fans!).

5 of My favorite reviews

2009-05-03T13:02:00.007-04:00

Ace in the Hole (Wilder, 1951)
Comment: Wilder's best noir.

Before Sunset (2004, Linklater)
Comment: Arguably the best film of this decade.

Hiroshima mon Amour (Resnais, 1959)
Comment: One of the most beautiful films I've ever seen.

Persona (Bergman, 1966)
Comment: Bergman's greatest achievement.

Vicky Cristina Barcelona (Woody Allen, 2008)
Comment: Woody's best since Crimes and Misdemeanors. Here's hoping Woody casts the beautiful and talented Rebecca Hall again.

Most read reviews since January 2008
1. The Big Lebowski (Coen Brothers, 1998)
2. The Notebook (Nick Cassavetes, 2004)
3. Gilda (Charles Vidor, 1946)
4. There Will Be Blood (P.T. Anderson, 2007)
5. Before Sunset (Richard Linklater, 2004)

Much more than a horror film

2009-01-17T17:21:00.018-05:00

The Shining (1980)

Directed by Stanley Kubrick

The magic in Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining is the way in which one may perceive the nature of the events unfolding in the film. A simplistic view of the film would surrender to the notion that the horrors of the overlook experienced by Jack (Jack Nicholson), Wendy (Shelley Duvall) and Danny (Danny Lloyd) are in fact supernatural and the film is pure fantasy. The previous caretaker Delbert Grady (Phillip Stone), his two twin (Louise and Lisa Burns) daughters, Lloyd the bartender (Joe Turkel), the motif of gallons of blood gushing from the elevator and the seen and unseen in Room 237 can be explained as ghosts or illusions. It’s a simplistic view of the film which appeals to mainstream tastes and casual filmgoers. There’s nothing wrong with viewing the film this way, but The Shining can be enjoyed even more as a psychological horror piece by questioning the sights and sounds of the Overlook hotel—is it objective reality or fantasy?

A more sophisticated view of the film and one in which I tend to agree with is viewing the film as one of inconceivable imagination and madness. The cook Hallorran (Scatman Crothers) who possesses the same psychic gift as Danny describes the ghosts of the Overlook as being “pictures in a book.” It’s my opinion that the ghosts the Torrances see in the Overlook are imagined. Jack was never served Bourbon by the bartender, never talked to Grady in the garish red, pop art-like bathroom and furthermore, was never let out of the storage room by him. Everything that is seen is the byproduct of Danny’s way of coping with his surroundings—his psychic abilities and incredible imagination, or Jack’s descent into madness (and later in the film Wendy’s hysteria) and the fact he’s a recovering alcoholic with no booze available.

Kubrick introduces ambiguity in the narrative for those of us who believe this theory. There are the scenes when the characters of the Overlook physically intervene with the Torrances. I maintain Jack never did have a drink because there is no glass or bottle left over and furthermore, Wendy makes no mention of Jack falling off the wagon or smelling alcohol on his breath, etc. Jack’s psychotic behavior is the result of his fragile state of mind brought upon by the increasing feeling of sensory deprivation or the removal of external stimuli (often called cabin fever).

Another scene in which a ghost (Grady) seemingly intervenes with Jack is when he is locked in the food storage room by Wendy after being clubbed with a baseball bat down the stairs by her. More often than not, the popular notion held by many is that ghosts, if they exist, are non-living entities which often haunt the living, but they do not have the ability to alter the physical environment. This is why I don’t believe Grady let Jack out of the food storage room. A rational explanation says that Wendy never locked Jack (She does struggle with the lock) in the storage room and he only escapes from the room once he feels stronger after recovering from the malaise brought upon by the hit to his head. Although, some may say Grady does unlock the door for Jack because we hear the sound of the bolt unlocking. However, this is never certain because Danny does hear the two little girls asking him to play with them and they must be imaginary, right? How does one explain the marks of strangulation on Danny following his venture into Room 237? In each case, what is real and what is imagined is certainly open to argument.

One of the most chilling and suggesting scenes in the film is another instance when the supernatural seemingly intervenes physically with the real, concrete world is when Danny is playing with toy trucks and cars on the maze-like carpeting of the hallway and a pink tennis ball slowly rolls into the frame. As viewers we are given the same perspective as Danny. We wonder where the ball came from, think we know who rolled it, but can never be certain exactly where it came from. The Shining may have been the only horror film directed by Kubrick, but he understood the notion that the most fear and tension is created by the unseen and inexplicable (Alfred Hitchcock proved this to be true with crime pieces and it’s probably true for cinema in general).

Influences

As with any film directed by Kubrick, The Shining is impeccably crafted with its direction, editing and cinematography (let’s not forget those striking snap-zooms or Garrett Brown’s steadicam) being of the highest caliber. I don’t think there is any question Alain Resnais’ masterwork Last Year at Marienbad (1961) was a heavy on influence on Kubrick for The Shining. From the slow tracking shots in the Overlook’s hallways to the pink and gold colors of the ballroom (Marienbad was filmed in black and white and the interiors were dressed with pink and gold wallpaper) to the puzzling conclusion of the film which suggests the idea of a perpetual time loop and the instability of memory. Moreover, there is a Marienbad-like scene which evokes ‘X’(Giorgio Albertazzi) pursuing ‘A’ (Delphine Seyrig)where Jack discovers the waiter Grady is the previous caretaker who murdered his family.

Jack Torrance: You WERE the caretaker here, Mr. Grady.
Delbert Grady: No sir, YOU are the caretaker. You've always been the caretaker. I ought to know: I've always been here.

More than anything, as Resnais did with Marienbad, Kubrick involves us in the story and challenges us to be active viewers always questioning what we see. In this way these films illustrate cinema at the height of its power. This brand of us cinema entertains, challenges and suggests but it never fully reveals its secrets because to do so would divest it of its magic.

Unforgettable imagery

The Beauty of Steadicam

Garrett Brown’s invention is a stabilizing mount for motion picture cameras which isolates the camera operator’s movement from the camera. This allows for smooth shots even for quick movements or long tracking shots over uneven surfaces. There is no need to set up rails or use dolly shots. Brown followed Danny Lloyd with the steadicam mounted to a wheelchair just 2 to 3 inches off the floor. This scene is an excellent example of the steadicam at work:

A Sweet Ride

2009-01-11T16:08:00.002-05:00

Gran Torino (2008)
Directed by Clint Eastwood
Screenplay by Schenk. Story by Dave Johnson & Schenk.

At the age of 78 director Clint Eastwood is a marvel of the film industry. Every year or two he makes a picture which is either very good (like The Changeling) or great (i.e. Letters from Iwo Jima), and sometimes he even makes two pictures in one year! Thankfully, Eastwood shows no signs of slowing and doesn’t see any reason why a director’s later years can’t be spent making fine motion pictures.

The latest offering from the Eastwood treasure chest is Gran Torino, a meditation on xenophobia, fatherhood and the degenerative influence of gangs and lowbrow culture on impressionable youth. Gran Torino is uncompromising in its use of racial slurs, yet at the same time it is often very funny (but never trivial), poignant, tragic and hopeful. It is the mark of a great filmmaker that can make a picture which makes the audience laugh, cry and think.

Eastwood is Walt Kowalski, a veteran of the Korean War, a tough as nails, stubborn as a goat, mean ol’ growling son of a bitch never afraid to tell it how he sees it even if it means using racial slurs (on everyone, even his Italian barber played by John Carroll Lynch) or rifle in hand, telling people to get the hell off his lawn. After Walt’s wife passed away the old man is even more suspect of those living in his neighborhood, namely anyone different than himself, specifically the Hmong people and the two-bit gangbangers that give them a bad name. Walt refuses to flee the neighborhood and always keeps a rifle or handgun nearby. It conjures memories of Eastwood the gunslinger from his spaghetti western pictures. Walt is a man seemingly living on an island as the world passes him by, yet he still has his dog Daisy and his prized possession, a 1972 emerald green Gran Torino which he had a hand in constructing at the Ford plant he worked at for 30 years.

The impetus for change is set in motion when one of Walt’s Hmong neighbors, Thao (Bee Vang) reluctantly tries to steal the Gran Torino as part of an initiation into his cousin’s gang. Naturally, Walt threatens to kill Thao and orders him off his lawn on another occasion. Walt gradually mellows (just a tad) toward Thao’s family and this is due mainly to Thao’s sister Sue (Ahney Her), a spirited young woman who brushes off Walt’s coarse behavior and helps him to understand the Hmong. Walt even becomes a hero to the Hmong locals when he scares away the Hmong gangbangers who confronted Thao at home. The Hmong shower him with flowers and food and generally make him feel uncomfortable as he’s treated like a king (although later he cannot help but accept a gift of chicken dumpling). They revere him because they know what would happen to Thao if he were to join his cousin’s gang. Young Hmong males mostly join street gangs and die young while the women go to college.

Most may come away from Gran Torino describing the picture as mainly a discussion of racism. Although, one of the film’s main themes is clearly racism, it is certainly not the only theme at work. Gran Torino shares much in common thematically with Eastwood’s masterpiece Million Dollar Baby (especially when looking at each film’s third acts) and also involves the church and a persistent young do-gooder priest (Christopher Carley). Whereas that film was concerned with a father-daughter relationship, Gran Torino delves a bit into an examination of the father-son relationship. Walt is never able to really relate to his sons primarily because he admits that he doesn’t know how to be that kind of father. He even admits to having more in common with his Hmong neighbors than his own family. Though he may never show it, Walt feels satisfaction in being a father figure to Thao in securing him a construction job and generally showing him how to act like a man and be confident around women.

Gran Torino deals with a subject which has been explored endlessly in cinema—the negative influence of gangs on youth. However, in this case the subject serves not only to show us how gangs are evil but to help Walt understand the Hmong. It is through this theme that Walt begins to understand that no matter one’s ethnicity, gangs and injustice in general, have a negative influence on one’s people. I think more than anything, injustice and rudeness disgust Walt.

Gran Torino may deal with themes that have been explored many times before, but it is the way that Eastwood plays with genre conventions that keep the audience guessing. There are at least two major instances in which we think something is certain to happen but are surprised by a simpler and more effective outcome. Lastly, let us not forget Eastwood’s excellent jazz score, fine invisible camera-like direction or his ability to coax admirable performances from the untrained Hmong actors. Gran Torino is yet another great entry in the Eastwood cannon and should not be missed. ****

Two for the Road

2009-01-11T14:10:00.005-05:00

Revolutionary Road (2008)
Directed by Sam Mendes
Screenplay by Justin Haythe, based on the novel by Richard Yates.

If a little dreaming is dangerous, the cure for it is not to dream less but to dream more, to dream all the time.
-Marcel Proust

Some people are unhappy because they realize they could be working a job which gives them pleasure and fulfillment, being blissfully in love and living a passionate life. Many realize this is possible but few do anything about it. The few that try to achieve these ideals are our great romantics. These people must live and operate in a setting full of character and culture or they will suffocate. They feel and suffer more than others, yet they possess the innate gifts of expression and imagination- they are the dreamers.

Such is the case with Frank (Leonardo DiCaprio) and April (Kate Winslet), a young couple that appears happily married to others (especially to their archetype 1950’s married couple neighbors) but struggles to accept their prosaic suburban lifestyle in Connecticut in the 1950’s, an era when conformity ruled as many young people married after World War II, moved to the suburbs and started a family. Ironically, Frank and April met at a party where she was drawn to him because he was different. He didn’t know exactly what he wanted to do with his life but he knew it would be grand. Things didn’t turn out the way Frank had hoped as he nears thirty years old working the same dull office job his father worked for twenty years. Likewise, April’s ambitions of becoming an actress never panned out and she is instead relegated to producing dreadful school plays. Both are personal failures and naturally, it affects their relationship. April’s solution is to move the family to Paris where she will find a high paying job as a translator and Frank would have time to find himself.

More than anything Director Sam Mendes’ Revolutionary Road is built on marital conflict, a character-driven drama led by the charismatic DiCaprio and Winslet who can seemingly do no wrong in any role (Both have a penchant for taking on excellent projects). Although, to pigeonhole Revolutionary Road as a film merely concerned with suburbia as a hindrance to the American dream would be short-sighted. There are several subtexts below the surface.

The film examines the mundane moments in marriage, infidelity, pride in one’s occupation, familial responsibility, passionate love and the elements which are needed to maintain a happy and healthy relationship. DiCaprio and Winslet’s chemistry is strong throughout and despite the heavy subject matter at times and the mistakes made by each, it is difficult to take sides with one character. I say this because each character is flawed but wants what is best for each and the audience wishes only to see them happy.

The film boasts some fine supporting performances as well. The friendly but officious landlady Mrs. Givings played by Kathy Bates always seems to arrive at the Wheelers’ doorstep at inopportune times and she deals with conflict by ignoring it. This is in opposition to Frank and April having it out every so often in heated arguments. Mrs. Givings’ son John (Michael Shannon) provides some comic relief as a brilliant mathematician on leave from a mental institution. Ironically, John is the only one who fully understands why the Wheelers' desire to move to Paris. Others perceive it either as a hasty decision or fleeing from something at home.

All in all, Mendes’ latest effort is excellent, although it seems to be tickling greatness at times but cannot quite reach the next level of becoming a great film. It just seems to be one more memorable scene away from the necessary three once theorized by the great director Howard Hawks, although Revolutionary Road does have one of the subtlest, yet effective climaxes in recent cinematic history. To those who have seen the film I am not referencing the very last scene but the scene before it which is the real climax of the film in my estimation. In any case, Revolutionary Road is worth one’s time and money and will provoke plenty of thought and discussion. ***1/2

Ignoble

2008-12-07T14:12:00.004-05:00

Nobel Son (2008)

Directed by Randall Miller.
Written by Jody Savin & Randall Miller.

* (out of 4)

Director Randall Miller’s Nobel Son features one very good performance in Alan Rickman’s deliciously degenerate lothario college professor Eli Michaelson, a man of high intellect and even greater ego. Unfortunately, there’s not too much else to like as the film’s plot and the schemes within are largely preposterous. It’s the tale of a Nobel Prize winner nobody likes in Rickman, his absented minded son, a sociopath kidnapper, $2 million dollars and an overwritten, over-the-top scheme. Miller lacks any artistic vision with the picture and scenes are often cobbled together to just get a reaction out of the audience (Though one cannot expect much from an individual who directed an episode of Salute Your Shorts).

The most embarrassing scene in the film involves Sarah Michaelson (Mary Steenburgen) the mother of a kidnapped graduate student (Bryan Greenberg) and a media circus on the Michaelson’s front lawn. How does Mrs. Michaelson rid her front lawn of a nosey female news anchor? She threatens the newswoman by pointing a gun at her through the picture window (this scene is even much more cringe-inducing than the radiologist scene in Juno). In true bad movie fashion, the police officers that were with the Michaelson’s do nothing to stop Mrs. Michaelson who has essentially committed a crime.

Even worse than this laugher of a scene is Miller’s use of house techno music to accompany much of the film, especially the frenetic montages which detail the scheme unfolding. The film is a poster child for Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) and the personification of the “MTV” style of direction which sadly permeates much of the 21^st century landscape of cinema. I think this haphazard style of direction persists because many film dilettantes misinterpret this “hands-on/in your face/look at me I’m directing” style of direction as somehow having post-modern qualities. Essentially this style is pseudo-postmodern crossed with terrible MTV reality show crossed with an overbearingly quirky commercial.

Naturally, Nobel Son is one of those films which try to make up for the deficiencies in its screenplay and direction by throwing an abundance of quirky characters at the audience. The aforementioned preposterous plot builds fairly OK up until a certain point when the viewers will most certainly question the changing motives and loyalties of the characters. Miller tries to disguise such idiocy by giving us characters like Barkley Michaelson, a graduate student doing his thesis on cannibalism, his love interest City Hall (Eliza Dushku) - a beautiful but mentally deranged “writer”, a clever kidnapper that becomes dumb midway through the movie (Shawn Hatosy), a friendly neighbor recovering from OCD (Danny DeVito) and a detective and Michaelson family friend in Max Mariner (Bill Pullman) who is always two steps behind the scheme (If you thought Pullman’s line readings in Independence Day were terrible…).

Outside of Rickman’s amusing role there is really nothing else to like about Nobel Son. Also, I’m not sure whether to attribute Rickman’s performance to the fine actor’s skill or the fact he may have been miserable working with such a putrid script and an inept director. One star goes to the film for Rickman but this is still a film one will want to avoid like the plague.

My Homage to Woody Allen's Manhattan

2008-11-09T14:51:00.003-05:00

I was inspired by the opening of Woody's great film to create this short film of my own. The cinematography is not nearly as good as Gordon Willis' but I tried my best (shot with Sony Cybershot PSC D-73, $200 camera).

I hope you'll enjoy:

Familiar ground

2008-09-17T21:06:00.006-04:00

Burn After Reading (2008)

Written/Directed by Joel & Ethan Coen

* * 1/2

Last year's No Country for Old Men was the high watermark creatively and critically for the Coen brothers, even eclipsing the excellent noirish Fargo. With Burn After Reading, the Coens return to the familiar ground of a bizarre, convoluted comedy/crime piece. There are average citizens becoming involved with something over their heads, off-beat and often lewd humor, a plethora of profanities, over-the-top bloody violence and a slew of zany characters who somehow all become connected by a nonsensical caper.

All of this would seem much more original if had not been explored with more skill in the Coens' The Big Lebowski ten years ago. Essentially, Burn After Reading utilizes the same formula from that cult sensation. The Coens may be known for twisting conventional Hollywood genres but with Burn After Reading their unconventional style becomes predictable and at times stale. The best way to describe the complex plot is this: two employees of the local D.C.-area gym Hardbodies, Chad Feldheimer (Brad Pitt) and Linda Litzki (Frances McDormand) gain possession of a CD-R containing the memoirs of intensely paranoid ex-CIA agent Osborne Cox (John Malkovich).

Linda's hopes to extract a large sum of money from Cox to pay for several plastic surgeries she's been dying to get, while the easy-going and dim-witted Chad is just along for the ride to support his friend. Others become involved such as the womanizing Harry Pfarrer (George Clooney), the cold and controlling Katie Cox (Tilda Swinton), a gym manager (Richard Jenkins) the Russian embassy, divorce lawyers and the blase (and hilarious) CIA superior (J.K. Simmons, the film's standout).

As expected, the plot becomes increasingly muddled as the real draw of the film is supposed to be its outlandish characters. Just like The Big Lebowski, Burn After Reading is not about trying to make sense of the narrative, but rather, enjoying the characters and the predictably unpredictable story. Unfortunately, this time the course language and crass behavior of most of the characters wears thin at times. Granted, it is funny at times but other times I rolled my eyes at the sophomoric humor and over-reliance on four letter curse words (I prefer wit over profanity).

Devotees of the Coen brothers and those who enjoy Burn After Reading's brand of humor should find the film mildly entertaining. It's certainly not a bad film but it's far from the Coens' best effort. I don't think it's a "step back" creatively but more of a "step to the side", as the Coens definitely aren't showing any growth as filmmakers with their latest effort. Here's hoping their next effort explores newer territories.

Life, love and passion

2008-08-19T23:31:00.010-04:00

Vicky Cristina Barcelona (2008)

Written and Directed by Woody Allen

Cinematography by Javier Aguirresarobe

"Barcelona" Performed by Giulia y los Tellarini

* * * *

Vicky Cristina Barcelona is essentially to Barcelona what Manhattan is to New York City. Woody Allen’s latest film showcases gorgeous, sun-soaked Barcelona and its 2,000 year-old cultural history with its Gothic architecture by Gaudi, renowned museums, fine wines, rich foods, picturesque countryside, idyllic shoreline and warm, balmy nights wonderful for candle lit dinners accompanied by beautiful music from a flamenco guitar.

Like Manhattan, Vicky Cristina Barcelona is concerned with attractive, affluent, intellectual and artistic (Vicky is working on her masters in Catalan studies and Cristina is involved in film) people unsure of what they want in love and relationships. Even deeper below the surface there is an examination of an American male archetype versus European mores, the passionate life versus a routine, mundane existence and at the heart of the film is the question: what makes people happy in life and love? Needless to say there is a lot going on thematically in the film.

At the center of the story are the title characters and best friends Vicky (played superbly by Rebecca Hall) and Cristina (Scarlett Johansson) who ventured to Spain at the invitation of Vicky’s aunt Judy Nash (the always excellent Patricia Clarkson). Vicky has a pragmatic view of relationships and values stability (or so it seems) however unspectacular it may be. Cristina prides herself on being free-spirited, open to new things and likes a man that’s exciting, creative and spontaneous, or so it seems. The only thing for certain with Cristina is that she doesn’t want what Vicky values in a man.

Vicky and Cristina’s fixed ideas of romance start to change once they meet Javier Bardem’s Juan Antonio, a Spanish lothario and bohemian painter who believes life is meaningless, so it must be lived with spontaneity and passion. Juan Antonio introduces himself to the girls and propositions both of them for a weekend of fine wine, good food and lovemaking in Oviedo, the capital city of the principality of Asturias in Northern Spain. Juan Antonio’s advances and direct way of conversing with women may seem sleazy but it is coming from a charismatic man with no subterfuge or wicked intentions who believes in everything he says. Plus, Woody’s terrific screenplay and Bardem’s charm ensures that Juan Antonio remains likable and never devolves into absurdity.

One of the most fascinating things about the film is the contrast with Juan Antonio and Vicky’s fiancé Doug (Chris Messina). One of the funniest scenes in the film is Doug arriving in Spain clad in khaki’s and a button-down shirt. Doug is an accurate depiction of the under-cultured American male archetype frequently perpetuated by the mass media as the “average male”. He is a successful businessman who enjoys golf, new technology (Hi-Def Televisions and entertainment centers) and discussing sports and practical things that can be built or fixed. Naturally, there is nothing wrong with being this type of person if it makes one happy, but Doug seems like a square when contrasted with the exceedingly interesting Juan Antonio.

Ironically, Vicky’s aunt Judy Nash (the always excellent Patricia Clarkson) is bored and unhappy in her marriage to her husband Mark (Kevin Dunn) and craves a more passionate love. Vicky wonders if the same fate might await her with Doug and meeting Juan Antonio forces her to contemplate her once stringent views on love.

Juan Antonio’s ravishing ex-wife Maria Elena (Penelope Cruz is fantastic) is a painter, a hopeless romantic, an emotional firecracker prone to wild mood swings, somewhat of a poet and a tragic character (She once tried to kill Juan Antonio or was it the other way around? It’s uncertain). Among the four main characters Maria Elena is the most damaged but is the most knowing. She says her marriage to Juan Antonio should have been ideal because the two were perfect for each other but something was missing. Maria believes that because their love was unfulfilled it is romantic. Maria Elena and Juan Antonio change Vicky and Cristina’s conceptions of love and the role of passion in one’s life.

Leading up to the release of Vicky Cristina Barcelona much was made of a scene in which Cruz and Johansson kiss. Not surprisingly this was overblown by the media. Those familiar with Woody’s work knew to expect a less-is-more tasteful approach in handling this content (although rumors of the scene undoubtedly intrigued many casual film-goers). Later in the film the relationship between Maria Elena, Cristina and Juan Antonio is very similar to the bohemian relationship between Catherine, Jules and Jim in Francois Truffaut’s Jules and Jim (1962). I think Woody handles this very well as the relationship between the three does not go over-the-top nor does it overshadow the strong narrative. Those going into the film hoping to see something lewd and sensational will be disappointed (but that should never be the sole reason for wanting to see a film).

All in all, Vicky Cristina Barcelona is visually stunning, funny, sexy and an introspective film which should satisfy Woody’s devotees and casual film-goers. Not to go unrecognized is the exceptional cinematography by Javier Aguirresarobe. Not only is Vicky Cristina Barcelona Woody’s best film since Crimes and Misdemeanors (1989), but it’s also his best looking film this side of Manhattan (1979). Most of all, Vicky Cristina Barcelona serves as reminder to all that Woody Allen remains one of film’s premier auteurs.

THE GREAT SCENE

Without giving away too much, my favorite scene involves Vicky and Juan Antonio accompanied by some incredibly affecting flamenco guitar music and series of close-up lap dissolves. I cannot recall a Woody Allen film ever using lap dissolves. The music, the editing and the cadence of the scene is quite moving.

Godard's Band of Outsiders: Between Hawks and Tarantino

2008-08-19T23:08:00.037-04:00

CLASSIC FILM ESSAY

Bande à Part (1964)

Written & Directed by Jean-Luc Godard
Loosely adapted from the novel by Dolores Hitchens
Starring: Anna Karina, Sami Frey, Claude Brasseur
Length: 97 Minutes
Language: French

Riffing a-part Narrative

Bande à Part loses some of its texture in its English translation Band of Outsiders. Godard’s band are not really outsiders. They are, in fact, apart of the bourgeoisie, but they pretend to be separate. So what are they a part from? As the film plays off this wordplay in a myriad of subtle ways, we come to realize the nature of their isolation. Like any Godard film, Bande à Part is as much a work of art as it is a critical essay on the cinema. Both of which demand equal amounts of imagination.

In Bande à Part, Godard starts with people from real life – Franz (Sami Frey), Arthur (Claude Brasseur) and Odile (Anna Karina), all still in school. He gives them the group ethic and stylized mannerisms of Howard Hawks and sticks them in a B crime plot involving a heist, which he films with the bleak neo-realism of Roberto Rosselini. With these cinematic variables riffing off each other, Godard offers both a critique of their shortcomings and thus a richer portraiture of life: the petty self-interest of the B movie criminal persona (Franz, Arthur) taints the honor of their Hawksian group ethic, while the bleak gaze of Rosselini (whose focal point is guided by the more down-to-earth Odile) grounds their childish schemes in a cold reality which they can deny but not escape.

Naturally, the heist goes all wrong. It’s poorly planned. Odile’s aunt is accidentally suffocated and Arthur is killed by his shady Uncle, who is out to claim a share of their loot. Franz and Odile get away, but Odile’s life is a wreck of despair and she knows it. In their car ride afterwards, Franz reflects on how people are never a whole. They are always separate from each other. In more ways than one, this perfectly sums up the relationship between Franz, Arthur and Odile and to those around them. Even when they are together, they are always separate in some way: Franz and Arthur playing musical chairs in the café as they compete for Odile’s affection, and Odile compulsively lying to Madame Victoria about going into Mr. Stoltz’s room and allowing Franz and Arthur to rob him and assault her. Likewise, Franz and Arthur are never out of character as the petty B-movie criminals. They have rejected reality, like Michael Poiccard in Godard's À Bout de Souffle (1959), and have instead invented their own ideal fictitious one. In the end, we realize the true nature of Godard’s band; that they are as much apart of society as they are a part from each other and a part from reality. A far cry from Hawks’ group of professionals.

On top of the other layers of narrative, Godard steps between the audience and the story and offers a playful, sardonic voice-over commentary. Like a novelist, he provides the kind of psychological insight into the characters, which neither the camera, nor the dialogue could express. While Franz is dancing, he says, “Franz is wondering if the world is a dream or a dream of the world.” But not everything can or should be articulated. During the Madison dance, Godard comments, “We now might open a parenthesis on Odile's, Franz's and Arthur's feelings... but it's all pretty clear. So we close our parenthesis and let the images speak.” Here Godard, the novelist, yields to the supremacy of the image. It’s a reminder that he can exercise the tools not only of the novelist but of the filmmaker. He also speaks directly to his audience. At the 7 minute mark, he says, “A few clues for late comers: Several weeks ago… A pile of money…An English class… A house by the river… A romantic young girl…” That’s all there is to the plot, Godard might say. Those are all the pieces at play. We’ve all seen it before. Now we can move on with the story.

Who needs plot?

That story, though, is not the type of one typically shown in crime films. Instead, Godard continues what he started in À Bout de Souffle and takes the discarded scraps from those crime films – the moments in between the scenes of greatest tension or “downtime” – and clips them together. I am referring to those bonding scenes where the characters do the Madison dance in the café and break the record run through the Louvre. They don’t advance the action of the plot, but they humanize the characters as something more than a mere cog in a movie plot created by a screenwriter. They show their everyday human quality. This, Godard contends, is where real truth can be found. Again, Hawks’s name comes to mind. One of his greatest contributions to cinema was the stripping away of plot to allow for more genuine character moments. Rio Bravo (1959), a Godard favorite, and perhaps Hawks’ defining film, takes occasional breaks in the narrative to allow for those intimate bonding moments. There is the famous scene where Dean Martin, Ricky Nelson and Walter Brennan sit around and sing “My Rifle, My Pony and Me” and “Cindy Cindy”. “I don't think plot as a plot means much today,” said Hawks (and this was back in the 1940s), “I'd say that everybody has seen every plot twenty times. What they haven't seen is characters and their relation to one another. I don't worry much about plot anymore.”

Reining in this indifference to plots in the 1990s was Quentin Tarantino. His first two films, Reservoir Dogs (1992) and Pulp Fiction (1994), are loosely plotted films filled with genuine character moments, like the dance between John Travolta and Uma Thurman (an obvious homage to Bande à Part) and the “reservoir dogs” sitting around a café and chatting for nine minutes about the meaning of Madonna’s “Like a Virgin”, among other things. These are the scenes you encounter more in life than in cinema. It’s no wonder that Tarantino thought Hawks was the best storyteller in movies and cited Bande à Part as one of his favorites (he even named his production company after the film, much to Godard’s consternation). I would even venture to say that, considering the whole of Godard's New Wave Period, there would be no Reservoir Dogs or Pulp Fiction without Godard. Of course, there are countless other Godardian influences on Tarantino (and his contempories, like Kevin Smith, Hal Hartley, Richard Linklater, etc.) beside plot and characterization, but that's for another essay.

Bande à Part has been unnecessarily subordinated as a footnote in Godard’s oeuvre. Of course, it’s not as radical or experimental as À Bout de Souffle or Pierrot Le Fou (1965). But can Godard only be defined as a radical and experimental artist? Can he not make a straightforward and legible film like Truffaut? If we stop judging Godard only by his radicalism, I don’t see why not. Bande à Part is just as sad and honest in its playful guise as À Bout de Souffle. With one essential difference. Whereas À Bout de Souffle is like a glamorous watercolor pastiche, Bande à Part is like a charcoal sketch come to life.

Comments are always welcome. If you have any, please click on the "comments" link below. Thanks.

A darker, deeper Batman

2008-07-20T16:13:00.005-04:00

The Dark Knight (2008)

Directed by Christopher Nolan
Screenplay by Christopher and Jonathan Nolan. Story by David S. Goyer. Characters by Bob Kane

* * * *

I don’t think I need to go into the basic plot summary of The Dark Knight and describe all the characters to you. You will read a myriad of reviews calling Christopher Nolan’s film the best Batman film ever and perhaps the best film of the year thus far. Additionally, you will read how great Heath Ledger’s Joker is (definitely on Dr. Hannibal Lecter and Anton Chigurh’s level) and that it can easily be said Christian Bale is without a doubt the best Batman (he is). Instead of speaking in platitudes and echoing the praise of other critics, I will briefly outline why I think Nolan’s latest deserves four stars and possibly Best Picture consideration.

1. The Screenplay by Christopher and Jonathan Nolan

Ledger is exceptional as the Joker, an integral part of the film. However, one cannot overlook the screenplay’s part in his character’s effectiveness. Not only is it a brisk 152 minutes without an ounce of excess, but it puts the Joker’s character in the position to flourish by not overexposing him. Instead, he appears intermittently and unexpectedly, sometimes in disguise and other times strong-arming his way into the action. The Joker is much more than a criminal mastermind in clown makeup. He is an ultra-clever domestic terrorist whose wrath often extends to attaching psychological and moral dilemmas to his plots. Later in the film the Joker rigs two Ferries with explosives and provides each boat with the detonator to the other boat. Occupants on one ferry can save their lives buy blowing up the other ferry first.

At the screening I attended the audience was on edge whenever the Joker made an entrance and they sometimes laughed at his awkward brand of sadistic humor. There is some likeability to the Joker because he is so colorful and adept in sophisticated organized crime. Although, I still believe the audience ultimately pulls for Batman but appreciates the challenge the Joker poses to Batman and Gotham because it makes for fine drama and occasionally grand spectacle. Ironically, the Joker says things wouldn’t be as much fun without Batman trying to foil his schemes. All in all, the screenplay favors characters and drama over CGI – the main reason why The Dark Knight works so well.

2. Characters over CGI

Yes, there is plenty of CGI in the form of explosions, weapons, fires, Batman leaping from buildings and gliding through the sky, etc. However, Nolan doesn’t rely too heavily on CGI because his screenplay is strong, the drama is convincing and he has a superb ensemble – Christian Bale, Morgan Freeman, Aaron Eckhart, Heath Ledger, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Michael Caine, Gary Oldman, etc. The Dark Knight is slick and flashy at times but it doesn’t resemble a video game like other superhero films which I will not name. It is primarily concerned with relationships among people: the love triangle between Bruce Wayne, Rachel Dawes and Harvey Dent, Gotham’s relationship to the “vigilante” Batman, Dent as a symbol of hope for the city, the Joker’s pride in crime and view of mankind, trust among human beings, childhood’s affect on men (Batman’s desire for good v. Joker’s compulsion for evil) etc. From this it is quite easy to discern that the film is much more complex than good versus evil with a dash of CGI here and there.

3. Going beyond the comics

I’m not an expert on comics but I’d venture to say Nolan added a tremendous amount of depth to the Batman legend. The characters and the basic story seems to be intact but Nolan expands things by going darker and deeper. In Batman Begins we learned of Batman’s origins and his motivations for fighting crime. With The Dark Knight we are presented with the other end of the spectrum in the form of evil. Both Bruce Wayne and the Joker had horrible childhoods either because of tragic events or in the Joker’s case, verbal and physical abuse. In this way both men are similar, or freaks as the Joker might say, but why is one man driven to do good while the other is compelled to inflict terror on others? This makes The Dark Knight a double-edged sword – exciting action and first-rate drama.

All roads lead to fun

2008-07-13T00:05:00.011-04:00

CLASSIC FILM APPRECIATION

Roman Holiday (1953)

Directed by William Wyler
Screenplay by Ian McLellan Hunter and John Dighton. Story by Dalton Trumbo.

The big brown eyes, the honest face, the eloquent and perfect diction and a warm smile – Audrey Hepburn was blessed with a multitude of natural gifts as an actress. There may be other actresses with comparable skills but none of them possessed the unique charm of Hepburn. She had a face that was beautiful, kind and honest. The way she spoke and the way she carried herself (both on an off-screen) made it impossible for anyone not to believe her intentions were pure and often innocent. Even her mischievousness is amiable because we never sense any malice. Nothing she did onscreen ever felt forced or fraudulent – as a viewer we wanted to believe in her and she never let us down. One of my favorite Hepburn quotes sums up this unique charm:

”Only simplicity and the truth count. It has to come from inside. You can’t fake it.”

Audrey Hepburn’s Roman Holiday Screen test:

I believe William Wyler’s Roman Holiday (1953) is the greatest example of Hepburn’s charm. In fact, her son Sean Hepburn Ferrer believes the role of Princess Ann was the closest to the person that she was in real life (Audrey Hepburn: An Elegant Spirit: A Son Remembers). The story of an elegant princess bored and frustrated by a highly-regimented schedule who escapes her royal confinement to have fun experiencing life as most people do and at the same time fall in love with an American reporter in Joe Bradley (Gregory Peck) provided Hepburn with the perfect first starring role and an Oscar.

Roman Holiday is especially good even when considering that it features two very likeable leads that are essentially deceiving each other throughout the course of the film (It’s impossible to dislike Hepburn and despite Peck’s desire to cash in on a big story we give him a chance because he’s Gregory Peck and he usually plays heroic and just characters). Quite often in romantic comedies and musicals there is a love/hate element or some contrivance to bring the characters together. Even though Roman Holiday brings its two leads together by a chance meeting on the streets, it takes great care to maintain the integrity of the narrative by leaving many things unsaid. Going into
a full expose of the motivations of each character would be superfluous and wreck the light-hearted and fun tone of the film. The last scene is an excellent example of leaving some things unsaid, because faces can be so expressive and truthful.

In Roman Holiday there is hardly any overblown melodrama and even when Princess Ann has a fit or two of hysteria it’s not annoying or unbearable because Hepburn could never be nuisance. More than anything Roman Holiday is a lot of fun. The comedy is light but witty. Eddie Albert is excellent as Joe’s photographer buddy Irving:

Irving Radovich: Hey, er, anybody ever tell you you're a dead ringer for...
[Joe kicks him under the table]
Irving Radovich: Ow! Well, I guess I'll be going!
Joe Bradley: Oh, don't do a thing like that, Irving. Sit down, join us, join us.
Irving Radovich: Well, just till Francesca gets here.
Princess Ann: Tell me, Mr. Radovich, what is a ringer?

Joe Bradley: Oh. Er, it's an American term, and it means anybody who has a great deal of charm.
Princess Ann: Oh. Thank you.
Irving Radovich: [confused] You're welcome.

The action is sparse but incredibly entertaining in the form of an out-of-control Vespa scooter ride up and down the streets of Rome (shot on location) and a brouhaha at a dance on the barge by the river, for example. All in all, Roman Holiday makes all the right moves, doesn’t stretch its plot more than it should and is one of the most well executed romantic comedies of all time. It is a classic one can watch again and again.

Good and faithful

2008-07-12T23:57:00.005-04:00

Nineteen Eighty-Four (1984)

Written & Directed by Michael Radford.
Adapted from George Orwell’s 1984.

* * *

I was apprehensive going into Michael Radford’s adaptation of George Orwell’s landmark 1984. Orwell’s dystopian novel is one of the most fascinating, terrifying and thought-provoking books I have ever read. I was worried his vision couldn’t be adequately transferred to film.

Many book-to-screen adaptations either fail (Richard Brooks with Lord Jim and Ron Howard with Da Vinci Code) or fall just short of expectations (Brooks again with In Cold Blood) because the director isn’t bold enough in his or her approach to the film. Orson Welles once said the best way of adapting a book is to direct the picture like you wrote the book. This successful approach is clearly evident in Touch of Evil and The Trial.

Ironically, Radford’s approach to 1984 isn’t exceptionally bold nor does he totally play it safe – it’s somewhere in the middle but it works. Radford presents a totalitarian future that is bleak, austere and frightening. Oceania is a society in which “truth” is relative, thought crimes exist, children inform on their parents, black helicopters are always on patrol, love is absent and forbidden, wars are perpetual, information is controlled, language is constantly manipulated and the lives of people are always monitored through telescreens and Big Brother, a leader who may not even exist, but like Stalin, his portrait is everywhere, a reminder to all that they’re constantly being watched.

Winston Smith (John Hurt) works in the records department in the Ministry of Truth. His job is to edit old newspaper stories to fit the ever changing “truth” promulgated by The Party. For example, if an individual were to be convicted of a thought crime or exposed as a rebel then their very existence would have to be eliminated from all records and hence, they would have never existed. A similar policy was held by Stalin in regards to Trotsky and the old Russian guard after they had been eliminated.

Winston secretly loathes The Party and Big Brother, as does his love interest Julia (Suzanna Hamilton), yet they go through the motions of actively participating in the Two Minutes’ Hate (held daily in public, people watch films of enemies of The Party and verbally express their hatred for them) and attending public executions of thought criminals and rebels. They do so to avoid the suspicion of others who are always potential informants. Ironically, Julia is a member of the Junior Anti-Sex League whose aim is to eradicate the orgasm, yet she and Winston meet clandestinely for sex. Physical relations between a man and a woman are forbidden. Only approved marriages by the government with the sole purpose of approved reproduction for the good of the state are legal.

In his last screen role Richard Burton is a stand-out as O’Brien, a member of the Inner-Party who is privy to confidential information and the latest Newspeak (Oceania’s official language) dictionaries. He speaks calmly and confidently and his motivations appear ambiguous to Winston. Whose side is on O’Brien on?

Radford’s adaptation is pretty faithful to its source material. The aforementioned terrifying and oppressive feel is there, as are the Thought Police, memory holes, pneumatic tubes, telescreens, Victory Gin, fabricated nationalism, Room 101, various government propaganda, etc. Although the film is good, I don’t think it could have been great because not all of its source material is transferable to film. This is not Radford’s fault at all. What I think really made the book exceptional was its ideas and philosophy found in Ingsoc (English Socialism), doublethink (the 2+2 example is present), the newspeak language, doublespeak and others. As film is inherently a visual medium, including all of these ideas is simply not possible. In any event, Radford’s 1984 is an admirable adaptation of Orwell’s 1984. Those curious to see a visualization of Orwell’s literary opus and some fine acting from Hurt, Burton and others are advised to see this film.

Nineteen Eighty-Four was filmed during exactly the same time frame in which Orwell’s novel takes place – April 1984 – June 1984. John Hurt’s character wrote April 4, 1984 in his diary on April 4, 1984.

Shock and Outrage

2008-07-12T23:51:00.005-04:00

Standard Operating Procedure (2008)

An Errol Morris Documentary

* * * *

When news of the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal broke in May of 2004 it was immediately politicized by both parties. Conservatives claimed the abuse was committed by an isolated rogue faction and maintained it was highly-questionable if actual torture did occur at Abu Ghraib. Liberals used the scandal as an indictment on the execution of war in Iraq and generally as an attack on the Bush Administration. Very little effort was made to find out what, why and how the scandal took place.

Errol Morris’ latest documentary Standard Operating Procedure is not really concerned with the politics of the situation, nor does it seek to influence how people will vote in November. Instead, it is an investigation into the prisoner abuse scandal, specifically it tries to make sense of the photos taken by three members of the 372^nd Military Company, the group of soldiers along with the OGA (Other Governmental Agencies, i.e. The CIA), responsible for the accounts of abuse, torture, sodomy and homicide of Iraqi detainees. I will not delve deeper into a description of the graphic nature of the photographs because they are both disgusting and outrageous (Plus, this is a family site and I don’t want my blog blocked from any safe searches because of content). The photographs say more than I could ever describe.

Morris interviewed several members of the 372^nd company, a civilian interrogator, Abu Ghraib commander Janis Karpinksi and others. His investigation produced results that are illuminating, shocking and most of all – troubling. We are shown what the acceptable methods – standard operating procedure (S.O.P) - were for “softening up” detainees. Without going into much detail of these methods, I can say that the acceptable methods were basically anything short of death. Also, the film explains the difference between criminal conduct, torture and S.O.P.

What is even more troubling is that these were orders apparently handed down to sergeants from their military superiors, OGA and perhaps former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Allegedly when Rumsfeld visited the Abu Ghraib he conducted a perfunctory inspection of the facilities and left satisfied, a mere photo op. Additionally, an irate Karpinksi claims he signed off on questionable interrogation methods which violated the Geneva Convention. Perhaps not surprisingly, no individual above the rank of sergeant was reprimanded for Abu Ghraib.

The interviews with the members of the 372^nd company are especially intriguing and at times very upsetting. Lynndie England (you may remember her as the tomboy with the leash in the pictures) and others are given the opportunity to tell their story of the photographs. Many viewers will react angrily when they hear interviews in which military police rationalize their actions by citing the incessant shelling of the facilities and the stress of war. It’s hard to fathom what war is like if one has never been in the service but it is also hard to imagine human beings doing such perverse and sadistic things to other human beings. Furthermore, these methods were ineffective and very little information was attained from Abu Ghraib. In fact, foot soldiers were the ones who gathered information on the whereabouts of Saddam Hussein which led to his capture.

Morris’ latest documentary will probably compete with Werner Herzog’s upcoming Encounters at the End of the World for the Oscar for best documentary. Despite its quality, Standard Operating Procedure is a one-and-done type of film. People will go see it, learn more about the prisoner abuse scandal, become angry and not need to see it again. Even so it must be seen at least once and when one gets home it is probably best to take a shower immediately.