Current music - The Immortals - "Can't Keep A Good Man Down"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The following is a lesson in why I should post with regularity. 26 films. That's way too many to write or read about in one sitting. There's a lesson here that I'm sure I won't learn.
I posted my write-up for 'Land and Freedom' separately. It's really long, and this way it's easier for Stef to avoid.
THE PARALLAX VIEW (1974) - d. Alan J. Pakula
I'm amazed this movie isn't more of a household name. Sure, in the 70s, good political thrillers were as common as stupid-head evangelical Christians are today, and this isn't the most user-friendly entry in the genre, but still. I don't know, maybe I live in a cave and everyone I know really has seen it, but I doubt it.
Anyways, here's the deal: Warren Beatty is a whacked-out reporter for a junky newspaper somewhere in the Pacific Northwest. At the start of the movie, he witnesses the assassination of a senator-cum-presidential candidate atop the Space Needle. A couple of years down the road, a bunch of the other witnesses to said event are D-E-D. So, good old Warren, who's now off the bottle, but still pretty much a grizzly pseudo-hippy, goes on a mission to investigate. That's about all I should tell you, other than be sure you pay attention, because the movie has a level of respect for the viewer's intelligence, which would probably be deemed unpatriotic by the current administration. This isn't one of those shell games where the audience waltzes through with all the cards while our hero is trying to figure out how many nines have already been dealt. No, in this one, I actually felt like Pakula was baiting me, trying to drive me crazy by withholding, withholding, withholding...
The bulk of the film was shot on location throughout the PNW, and this is probably going to be the first and last time I throw props to a location manager for the job they've done finding the most angular, modern buildings to use in a film. Gordon Willis is behind the camera, and watching the movie, it's clearly one of his best efforts, creating images as modern as anything to come out of the early 70s. Most of the time the widescreen format is just an excuse to make things look prettier, but these guys are constantly giving the frame a workout, and there's all kinds of lessons in film technique available in this movie. Except for the dam sequence and the car chase that follows. Those are both kinda crappy. Good transfer on the DVD, zero extras.
THIEF (1981) - d. Michael Mann
No film on this list is screaming for a revival quite as loudly as 'Thief.' It's not the best movie ever made, but it's still something very special, and it's the first film written and directed by a guy who a lot of people think is an important filmmaker. I'm not a fan of 'Ali' (except for Emmanuel Lubezki's photography), and I think that 'Heat' is over-hyped, slow, and just a little bit too sucky at the center. I also couldn't hate 'The Last of the Mohicans' more. But still, this is the man who gave us Crockett and Tubbs, 'Manhunter,' and 'The Insider,' so it's hard not to call him important.
As far as 'Thief' is concerned, Mann pretty much pulls the 'emerging fully-formed from the head of Zeus' routine. All of his familiar motifs are on hand - big guns, big cars, shiny surfaces, neon, gritty realism - and they're wrapped in a beautiful little modern noir which features what has to be James Caan's best performance as a diamond-thief extraordinaire who's working for the normal life which he's never been allowed. The key to the film is that it's suffused with a crusty blue-collar grit, a harshness that not only ads to the narrative, but also suggests that Mann could've turned out to be the last of the great 70s filmmakers. If only he didn't arrive at the party a little late and los studios didn't decide to churn out only crap in the post-'Jaws' era. Instead, he turned back to TV, and his success there is well chronicled. It's a shame, though, that there aren't more Michael Mann movies out there, because even if he hits and misses, the hits are something special.
For what it's worth, the DVD is crap. The film is an amazing technical accomplishment, but the transfer is awful. At least the sound is good, and Tangerine Dream's excellent score comes through loud and clear. No extras, and that sucks, because supposedly Mann and Caan did a commentary track for a laser-disc edition. Also, I'd be stupid not to point out that Tuesday Weld and Robert Prosky are excellent as wife and nasty crime boss, respectively. I don't think Criterion is going to shell out the cash it would take to get the rights off of MGM, but someone has to do a better job releasing this thing.
TROUBLE IN PARADISE (1932) - d. Ernst Lubitsch
Wow. Wow. Wow.
The only Lubitsch movie I'd ever seen was 'Ninotchka,' which I loved. This is better. Ernst Lubitsch is God. Herbert Marshall is fantastic. Kay Francis is a babe. Extravagant, smart, and naughty as hell, it was Lubitsch's first perfect talkie, and - while it isn't screwball - it's the foundation on which screwball was built (screwball comedies came a little later in the decade). There isn't a better example of pre-Hayes Office filmmaking.
Excellent commentary track on the Criterion DVD by Lubitsch historian Scott Eyman; he's pretty much reading from a script, but whatever, you learn a lot about everything that makes Lubitsch Lubitsch. Can someone please help me figure out how I can get my hands on a copy of 'To Be or Not To Be'? Are there still any websites, which do the Netflix thing, except with videotapes? Please advise.
DAS FIDELE GEFAGNIS (THE MERRY JAIL) (1917) - d. Ernst Lubitsch
A German silent film from Lubitsch's pre-Hollywood years. Criterion packaged it on the 'Trouble' DVD. For a silent drawing-room comedy, the laughs are still pretty fresh. I haven't seen a lot of comedies from the pre-sound days - nothing that isn't Keaton or Chapman, at least - but this, though lighter than air, would rate against any competition.
ARIEL (1988) - d. Aki Kaurismäki
Fucking hell. Aki Kaurismäki should be a legend by now. He is in other countries, but nobody seems to want to see his movies here. Fuck that. Finland deserves better from you, America.
I don't really know how exactly to pin down what he does, what his 'thing' is. Logical reference points include Godard, Bresson, Jarmusch (definitely Jarmusch, who I think was throwing props to his buddy AK with the Helsinki sequence in 'Night on Earth'), Wong Kar-Wai, Hal Ashby, and Bergman, but none of those names really get at the heart of the beast. 'Ariel' is a beautiful movie - though not beautiful in the way its name suggests - and it was his first film which found a broad international audience.
FYI, it's actually in color.
The film is beautiful because of the lazy chaos it breeds, its totally immersive subversion. 'Ariel' is a crime film in all the wrong ways, all Scandy despair, blue-collar deadpan and old-fashioned awesomeness. It's what might happen if you took Seijun Suzuki into a corner, beat him senseless and then made sure the only reading materials he had access to while convalescing were 'Cracked' magazine, 'The Communist Manifesto,' and the collected works of Kingsley Amis. See it. See it now. See it often. See it on VHS, cause it hasn’t gone digital yet. Ask to borrow my copy.
Oh, yeah, the visuals are also amazing. A to the K is terrific at telling stories, and telling jokes, with his camera; he never needs dialogue to get the point across. Of the films I've watched since I started keeping this online journal/temple to my ego, 'Trouble in Paradise' is the only one which gives 'Ariel' a serious run for its money. And, yes, Stef, that includes our beloved 'Together.'
If I could read Finnish, this site would be even cooler. A map and tour of the locations in Helsinki which were used in the film:
Ariel Tour
EAT THIS NEW YORK (2004) - d. Kate Novack & Andrew Rossi
This doc came on the other night and I left it on, initially as background noise. It turned into a pretty good waste of time, a doc about restaurant culture in NYC. I ended up staying up past my bedtime to finish it. The film follows two dudes from Minneapolis with almost zero restaurant experience trying to open a place called Moto in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, it's a good watch if you're at least vaguely interested in the subject. The clincher is all the 'celebrity' interviews they get from chefs and luminaries of the New York restaurant world. They pull this off pretty impressively: I'd say about 80% of the big names in the restaurant game show up on camera at some point. If you don't want to hear Daniel Boulud or Keith McNally riffing on their background and/or watch near-crisis level events unfold because certain individuals who have decided to open a restaurant weren't really aware of what exactly they were getting into, this isn't the movie for you. If you do, there's a nice, efficient energy to the filmmaking - especially the editing - which carries things through the weaker patches.
VACAS (1991) - d. Julio Medem
Outside the big big names of European filmmaking are a whole stack of talented directors who don't get nearly the credit they're due, especially on our shores. Kaurismäki is clearly one of them, but another filmmaker who belongs high atop that list is the Spaniard Julio Medem, who's better known for two more recent efforts, 'Lovers of the Arctic Circle' and 'Sex and Lucia,' than this film, which was his first. His movies aren't for everyone as his particular taste for the cósmico doesn't necessarily translate to a broad audience, but I'm a big fan.
While 'Vacas' is very clearly a first feature, it's also a great example of a unique voice hitting the ground running. The story is set in the Basque countryside (Medem and Alex de la Iglesia are the two most prominent filmmakers who hail from the Basque region), during the early half of the 20th century. The plot isn't the reason to watch the film, but it revolves around two families living the agrarian life, their petty squabbles, generational politics, and romantic entanglements. If you're familiar with Medem, you know that there's always a thick vein of magical realism - á la García Márquez, Borges, Allende, etc. - running through his work. That funky hocus-pocus stuff is a big part of 'Vacas,' except here - and I haven't seen this in his other films - Medem mixes in the makings of a thriller, introducing slasher-film tropes along the way. The ideas he steals from the horror genre are mostly confined to the camera and movement, but there are enough running-in-the-woods shots that I started wondering if I wasn't watching 'Last House on the Left.' Really, though, 'Vacas' is to horror films what eating guacamole Doritos is to eating chips and guacamole, there's a hint of a scare around the next corner, but he's not interested in providing the real thing. This is going to seem like a reach, but I also kept flashing back to 'Bad Taste' - I think it was the impact of watching a major young talent using the kitchen sink approach to figure out what does and doesn't work for them. 'Vacas' ain't perfect, and Medem's storytelling has improved dramatically in the last 13 or so years, but there should be more than enough ideas here to keep you entertained throughout the 96 minutes of runtime.
THE KEEP (1983) - d. Michael Mann
Early-Michael Mann, set during the height of the Second World War. The Nazis, occupying a small but strategically essential town in Romania, turn an ancient and imposing fortress into their base of operations. Things go haywire (the fortress is evil!), Krauts start dying, and a Jewish family (gasp!) comes along to try and fix the mess, courtesy of some Kaballa-esque wisdom from Ian McKellen in the days before Kaballa-esque wisdom opened its Los Angeles flagship store. It soon turns out that McKellan's Cuza hasn't been reading the manual on how to be a good occupiee.
'The Keep' is based on an F. Paul Wilson novel, and the idea, and Mann's desire to adopt it, are inspired. The movie is stylish - complete with music by Tangerine Dream - and certainly aims for the pedigreed, big-idea horror of 70s films like 'Alien' and 'The Exorcist.' But it falls far short. At 96 minutes, the film's plot caves in badly; suggestions have been made that the studio had a hand in gutting the film, opting for brevity at the expense of coherent narrative, but I'm only half-convinced. Mann's only feature to this point was 'Thief,' and he had a ways to go before his black Amex/the-studio-leaves-me-alone days. Scott Glenn, Jürgen Prochnow, Gabriel Byrne and Ian McKellen are all in play, making you wonder just how a movie with a cast this strong can turn so hackneyed. On evidence of what's made it to the screen, I don't think anyone should be holding out for a director's cut. Even if you're a Michael Mann completist, you're not going to betray any geek ideals by skipping out on this one. Go watch some Crockett and Tubbs - or 'Thief' - instead.
JACKASS: THE MOVIE (2002) - d. Jeff Tremaine
So long as it turns out that my seed still works when some poor suckerette decides to take pity on me and breed, and so long as my children aren't too deformed and/or demented by my parenting to have children of their own, I intend to one day watch 'Jackass' - both the movie and the series - with my grandchildren. I'm sure that much edgier shit will be available by then, but I can't imagine that this is going to age poorly. You and I both know that the golf cart crash alone is worth the price of admission.
TREASURE OF THE SIERRA MADRE
I hadn't seen this since I was a little kid. Turns out that it's only partially the movie I remember.
I ain't done seen a lot of John Huston, but I've seen enough to have a pretty decent idea of what to expect from him. Beautiful photography, complicated characters which defy archetypes, etc.. More of the same here. Huston started out as a screenwriter, and his first run-out as a director came in 1941 with 'The Maltese Falcon.' 'Treasure' was only Huston's second feature behind the camera, and it's amazing how accomplished a storyteller he already is. The film is beautifully composed in black and white - as in 'Trouble in Paradise,' the frame is pre-widescreen - and everything from sound to editing is absolutely top-notch. If you aren't familiar with the story, it involves two American itinerants who've dried up in Tampico, Mexico. Crashing at the Mexican version of the Y, they meet an older guy who tells a lovely tale about the thrill of the hunting gold, spinning a yarn that's just plain impossible for our two 'heroes' to refuse. With a bit of good fortune, they find themselves with enough money to get started on the hunt, and soon enough, they're in the mountains, discovering a tasty claim and striking it rich. Things devolve from there, as greed inevitably corrupts, and the film opens out into a story about the evil that men do.
One thing you have to respect about Humphrey Bogart is that he's willing to play the bad guy. He may be in love with himself, but he's not so in love with himself that you won't see him play an absolute asshole if the story calls for it. He's an absolute asshole here.
My feelings about the movie are mixed. It's very, very good. It's exceptionally good. But I'm going to nitpick because I can. One of Huston's other classics is the 1951 adaptation of C.S. Forester's 'The African Queen.' 'The African Queen' is a movie I fucking hate. I know it's a 'good' movie, but I had three different English teachers who made me read the book and sit through the film in class, and each time brought me closer to the edge. Huston, as good as he is, isn't the most economic of storytellers, especially not in his earlier and later years. In 'The African Queen,' the pace is often glacial and the chemistry between Bogart and Hepburn isn't quite as special as everyone else seems to think it is. In 'Treasure,' I felt like both the first forty and the final twenty minutes could easily have been tighter. Especially the beginning of the movie, where I actually found myself waiting for the next cut, even within dialogue scenes. I'm not sure whether or not we're looking at a three-act structure, but the middle section of this film, atypically, is the strongest. Not a major complaint, and I wish this movie was a little fresher in my head so I could make a stronger case than I have, but whatever. It's just my opinion.
SHE'S GOTTA HAVE IT (1986) - d. Spike Lee
A lot of people think that Spike Lee gets too much credit. A lot of people think, deep down, that Spike Lee gets all the credit he does because he's black and a great self-promoter. A lot of people think Larry Bird gets all the credit he does because he's white. A lot of people say and think stupid shit about Larry Bird because they didn't watch him play or only saw him play once he was old and his spine was pretty much fused. A lot of people say and think stupid shit about Spike Lee because they haven't seen 'She's Gotta Have It,' Lee's first and best film.
If you haven't watched this movie, it's amazing - one of the best films of the 80s - and Lee throws down the gauntlet like Daryl Dawkins shattering glass. It's both comedy and commentary, owing a huge debt to both Woody Allen and the French New Wave, and it features a great jazz score by Spike's pops, Bill Lee. How in hell the AFI left it off it's '100 Years... 100 Laughs' list is beyond me. Spike's ethnicity and big mouth may play a part in his celebrity, but if you've seen this, you can't hate the game.
IRON MONKEY (1993) - Woo-ping Yeun
After the 'Honey' debacle, I swore to myself that I'd try to watch a better mix of movies, and while I've definitely been eating a lot more brain food lately, it's still nice to throw in for churros and a 40oz. of Country Club every once in a while. Actually, I'm not sure I could survive without them. This and the next film in the post, 'Full Moon High,' definitely destroyed a few brain cells.
To be fair, 'Iron Monkey' is an awesome fucking movie, even if it is empty-headed. Anyone who hasn't seen it is missing out, big-time. It's tons of fun, and it's directed by Woo-ping Yeun, who is one of the best fight choreographers on earth. It also benefits hugely from casting Donnie Yen as a lead. Yen isn't the best-looking dude in the world, but he sure can kung fu. It's actually ridiculous how good he can kung fu.
You'll rarely see this in Hong Kong cinema, but the budget is large, and the money shows up on screen. The photography is great, the sets are class, and the costume design is especially nice (I'm thinking of Jean Wang's pants and Yen's trés cool gear). Woo-ping's trademark wirework is in full bloom here, and he's at it again with the wide-angle lenses on medium-to-close-up shots. I'm not sure that the near-fisheye technique is unique to him, but he uses it all the time, and you basically know to expect it when you're watching his films. What happens is that the image distorts cartoonishly when the camera is too close to its subject so that, when feet or fists fly at the camera, they get huge while the rest of the body stays 'normal.' It's similar in style to what Jack Kirby does with foreshortening and adds distinctly comic book flair. A neat effect. So are 'Flying Sleeves.' The whole thing ends with one of the most stylish action sequences in the history of Hong Kong cinema, a battle to the death on top of flaming wooden poles. Ginchy.
I'm not one to talk up Quentin Tarantino, cinema historian, but his interview on the DVD is actually required viewing if you've watched the film as it explains some interesting nuances of kung fu cinema.
FULL MOON HIGH (1981) - d. Larry Cohen
Mild surprise. Larry Cohen is the guy who made the 'It's Alive!' movies (which I've never seen), directed 'Black Caesar' and 'Hell Up in Harlem,' and wrote 'Phonebooth.' He's kind of a legend in B-movie circles, but even in the minor leagues, he's something of a second-tier talent. The one thing Cohen really knows how to do is write, and this movie, about a teen who gets bitten by a werewolf while on a 'mission' to Romania with his father, has some clever and campy moments. It stars Adam Arkin, Ed McMahon (giving an awful performance in a distracting role), Maggie from 'Switchblade Sisters,' and Adam's daddy Alan (as the mother of all shrinks). The two Arkins consistently outshine the material. Cohen is willfully silly/campy - even self-reflexive - throughout, and lines like 'Come back here, you premature ejaculator!' fly fast and hard.
He may be a decent writer, but the man has no idea what to do with the camera; this is especially clear when they pay homage to the shower scene in 'Psycho' in the most ham-fisted manner possible. The movie's real claim to fame, though, is that it was the basis for 'Teen Wolf' a couple years later. Swap football for basketball and Romania for genetics, and the two films are so alike that I'm amazed Cohen doesn't have a story credit on the latter. The biggest difference between the two is that 'Teen Wolf' doesn't have Bob Saget wearing a gray wig and pretending to be a sportscaster.
A PLACE CALLED CHIAPAS (1998) - d. Nettie Wild
This is a damned good documentary which has an interesting approach to its subject. I'm eternally fascinated by Third World political struggles and, while there's plenty of debate as to whether or not Mexico is a Third World nation (I grudgingly vote 'No'), there's no debating that Chiapas, a state in southeastern Mexico, home to the only direct descendants of the Maya, and source of mucho conflict in recent years, rates as a Third World region.
'A Place Called Chiapas' is the result of nine months of immersion in the world of the Chiapan struggle and the mysterious Zapatista National Liberation Army (EZLN), and for director Nettie Wild and her crew, it was clearly time well spent. It's kind of a sexy story (Oliver Stone's been threatening to do something with it for ages now) and I'd love to fill up space with a lengthy dissertation on the ins and outs of the conflict, EZLN's savvy use of media, and their enigmatic figurehead Subcomandante Marcos, but I'm mostly here to write about movies, and other people have done a much better job of explaining Chiapas than I ever will. Also, I want to convince people to see this movie, rather than dilute its effectiveness, so we'll try to leave something to the imagination.
What makes 'Chiapas' so successful is the depth of Wild's reportage and some effectively layered storytelling. The film is beautifully shot - ah, to be Canadian and have access to both CBC and BBC money - on what I'm guessing was Super-16mm, and the exceptional visuals draw you into the frame in a way most docs just plain can't. The cinematographer, Kirk Tougas, has a great, slightly unconventional eye - the director is also credited on the photography end, so kudos all around - and you rarely feel like you're just watching another Frontline doc. Wild was unwilling to play fly-on-the-wall, and she's consistently rewarded for her efforts, developing a strong dialogue with the local villagers, the EZLN and the various groups of refugees she encounters. Her CBC credentials and outsider status also leave government officials to let their guard down and say things that, well, shouldn't ever be said. The crew is in so deep that there's a point in the film where a running camera is all that's preventing local refugees from a full-on assault by government 'peace-keepers' (the highly-illegal Peace and Justice Party). It's heady stuff, and the whole thing culminates in the ultimate coup in the crazy world that is Chiapas - an on-camera interview with Mr. Subcomandante Marcos himself.
Los chinos son muy cabrones.
This film is good (just short of great) stuff, both serious brain food and genuinely engaging. Unique to the storytelling is the fact that there's almost no introduction to the story. An editorial decision has been made to leave the bulk of Chiapas' dense history behind. Instead, you're thrown into the thick of things, and your experience is similar to that of the filmmakers. I doubt it works for everyone, but if nothing else, it keeps the film from growing stale, as you're still trying to put all the pieces together at the end.
Props to Zeitgeist Films for actually getting this film out to the American public. Not everyone would bother.
The following is a link to the Wikipedia's overview of Chiapas, there's links to info on the EZLN and Marcos from there. There's better stuff available online, but I'm nothing if not lazy. Right, Stef? - Chiapas
CHOROPAMPA: THE PRICE OF GOLD (2003) - d. Ernesto Cabellos & Stephanie Boyd
It was Latin-night on Sundance's 'DocDay,' so here we are with a tale of an evil mining company, an undereducated and impoverished Peruvian population, and a big, sloppy, horribly irresponsible mercury spill. Guess who likes this movie?
The truth is, 'Choropampa' isn't the stomach punch that 'Chiapas' was, mostly because it's a bit too beholden to the standard look and feel you expect from documentaries. Not every story tells itself, and while Cabellos and Boyd do an impressive job on a film full of powerful and painfully revealing moments, it never ratchets things up to the boiling point (it's all very cinema verité, so maybe that's the point). Still, a very good movie and a way too disheartening story about macro-scale corporate malfeasance and its impact on a human level. I don't think it's on DVD or VHS, so you'll have to look for it on the telly.
HOOSIERS (1986) - d. David Anspaugh
Well, it doesn't hold up completely, but it's still good. 'Hoosiers' is a big part of the reason I'm into basketball; I watched it constantly when I was a weejun, and I can still see why. As mid-80s heartland fluff goes, it don't get better. But, hey, there are issues, and it's my job to whine about them.
My biggest problem is that the story goes by too quickly, so that conflicts are introduced with no hope of satisfying resolutions, and the two major subplots (Gene Hackman and Barbara Hershey's romance and Dennis Hopper's battle with the bottle) are given a beginning and an end, but not enough middle. Nothing has much room to breath and, as much as Hackman and Hershey have good chemistry, their relationship still feels kinda false. That may be because there's no good reason for the cold-shoulder Coach gets at the start of the film; if nothing else, it's too much of a dead giveaway that they're gonna be playing some one-on-one by story's end. The movie works anyways because the story is universal, the look is right-on, and Norman Dale's pre-Big Game speech consists of the sentence 'I love you guys.'
The basketball isn't that interesting to look at, but it's better than the action in 'Blue Chips' (the gold-standard for making basketball look stupid in a movie) and the rest of the film has that awshucks rustic glow you instantly associate with corn country. Anyways, the thing that surprised me most, watching it for the first time in forever, is that the kids are such a small part of things. I don't know if I'd just revised events in my head because so many 'Hoosiers'-clones have put the kids front and center, or if it really even matters, but it was strange to discover that none of the ballers have more than six lines.
BORN TO WIN (1971) - d. Ivan Passer
George Segal plays a drug addict in the big city. Karen Black is the love interest. I'd wanted to see it for a long time because I have a thing for addict movies, and 'Born' was rumored to be above average. Also, the director, Passer, was a member of the Czech New Wave - one of my most favoritist of the new waves - and this was supposed to be his artistic peak. I gave up on it after half an hour - partially because night was closing in on morning, partially because it wasn't an expectation-meeter. The only thing it really has to recommend it is Hector Elizondo's unreal fur coat and even less real limousine. Segal is up for it, but Black isn't enough of an actress to stay in the game, and the movie ends up feeling like a wannabe 'Midnight Cowboy' with a heroin twist. I still haven't seen 'The Panic in Needle Park' (because it's had a checkered past on video), but I feel pretty safe saying that it's better.
CONDO PAINTING (2000) - d. John McNaughton
I wanted to like this. It appeared out of the blue on one of the indie channels, and I got my hopes up. John McNaughton's had as many hits as misses, but he generally gives good misfire. I didn't know George Condo before watching this movie, and now that I've seen it, I'm not sure I needed to. Here's the gist: low-budget documentary about Condo, a painter I don't like, made by a director whose style doesn't translate well to documentary. Condo's art is similar in spirit to that of Kustom Kulture artists like Robert Williams (think the inside cover of 'Appetite for Destruction'), Frank Kozik, and Shag, and you can easily picture it in the pages of Juxtapoz. The fundamental difference is that Condo's something of an art-world darling, and his work hangs in galleries like Pace Wildenstein, while the Juxtapoz crowd shows at La Luz de Jesus. To be fair, Condo's a bit more concerned with being a 'real' artist, but still, a guy like Williams is a whole lot kookier and would probably have been a much more interesting subject. I really ain't interested in hearing Condo spiel about his juvenile worldview for 90-something minutes. The whole thing is kind of dowdy, and ultimately, not worth anyone's time unless they were already into Condo's stuff.
Here's a couple of Condo painting's so you know what you're dealing with:
FOLLOWING (1998) - d. Christopher Nolan
Been a while since I'd seen this, but I was in the mood for something short and smart and 'Following' is both those things.
I'm a whore for movies made with zero money, and Nolan's first feature is no exception. Supposedly, the whole thing cost about $7,000 (before blow-up), and he shot it on weekends over the course of a year. The story's structure is extremely fragmented, and he got around the difficulties of shooting a warped narrative by heavily rehearsing his cast in the build-up to the shoot.
I've never gone through the process of watching the 'front-to-back' version of 'Memento' available on the DVD, but I'm willing to guess that, no matter how entertaining the story may be, the film is much better for running in reverse. Cutting up the narrative isn't a super-common practice, but some really great directors have effectively played that card in order to buoy thinner stories (I'm especially thinking of 'The Limey,' which was shot as a beginning-middle-end movie, but wasn't working until they went all Resnais on it). Anyways, the reality of 'Following' is that the story isn't all that strong, but the shifting, sliding narrative fills things out nicely. It's not perfect, but it's a nice first attempt.
A lot of comparisons are made between this movie and Darren Aronofsky's 'Pi.' There's some logic to that, as both films are flawed but stylish black & white thrillers shot on a shoestring budget, but there are huge ideological differences between what Nolan tries to accomplish in 'Following' and the never-ending head games of 'Pi.' In both cases, almost nothing is clear until the final scenes, but Nolan's film owes its debt to the French New Wave (rather than ripping off Shinya Tsukamoto's 'Tetsuo: The Iron Man'*) and seems to have greater faith in the audience's ability to hang on through the hazy stuff. Really, if it reminds me of anything, it's 'Suture,' the 1993 debut of Scott McGehee and David Siegel, the pair who made 'The Deep End.' There's a morose edge that this film shares with 'Suture's' slow-burn weirdness, and both leave an acrid, if effective, aftertaste.
*And, no, you will never ever hear me talk about 'Pi' without a mention of 'Tetsuo.' I have no beef with 'Pi,' it's just, well... watch them both and tell me I'm crazy getting annoyed about all the 'Eraserhead' comparisons when 'Tetsuo's sitting out there. And, yes, 'Tetsuo' is hugely influenced by 'Eraserhead,' I'm not stupid, just stubborn.
SHORT FILMS BY ROMAN POLANSKI (1957-1962) - d. Roman Polanski
Murder/Morderstwo (1957), Teeth Smile/Usmiech zebiczny (1957), Break Up the Dance/Rozbijemy zabawe (1957), Two Men and a Wardrobe/Dwaj ludzie z szafa (1958), The Lamp/Lampa (1959), When Angels Fall/Gdy spadaja anioly (1959), The Fat and the Lean/Le Gros et le Maigre (1961), Mammals/Ssaki (1962)
Yay, Criterion. The second disc of the 'Knife in the Water' set is a collection of Polanski's student and post-student short films. What you discover is that Polanski, in his early stages, was a lot more concerned with developing his style than he was with his storytelling and the experience of watching these films is pretty damn well heartening. Actually, watching most 'great' filmmakers' student and/or short work is generally pretty heartening. The one short of his that most film students have seen is 'Two Men and a Wardrobe,' and the throwback slapstick style of 'Two Men' is so successful, that Polanski returns to the format of two good for-nothing fools forming a vaguely-abusive partnership again in both 'The Fat and the Lean' and 'Mammals.' Of the films, 'Fat and Lean' - which also played the festival circuit - is probably the most successful; it has the inventiveness of the more stylish shorts, but couches it in a coherent narrative. 'When Angels Fall' was the director's thesis film at the Lodz Film School, and while it's beautifully shot and has a lot of interesting ideas, it doesn't nearly cohere. In fact, I wonder if you threw it in with a bunch of other filmmaker's student work, whether it would clearly stand out from the pack. Probably, but maybe not.
TROY (2004) - d. Wolfgang Petersen
Ugh, insipid, boring. The worst thing about this movie is that it could've been perfectly good. The script isn't bad. But this is inexcusable, Wolfgang, and you're moving dangerously close to 'hack' status. Two times in a row, you've wasted excellent material in the service of making cheesy, cheesy scheiße. No, wait, I just checked your credits, and you've been stuck in neutral since 'In The Line of Fire.'
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACKKKKKK.
Here's the deal, it looks pretty, it sounds pretty, and the majority of the cast is excellent. Eric Bana makes nice on his promise and delivers a good, human performance, proving that the guy in 'Chopper' isn't necessarily lost forever. Orlando Bloom takes on his most thankless role since 'Black Hawk Down' and makes a hash of it - there were girls in the audience yelling 'kill him,' so that about sums that up. Brad Pitt, who may not be Marlon Brando, but isn't James Marsden, either, gives a crap performance as Achilles and is totally outclassed throughout. Peter O'Toole plays Priam, the king of Troy, and is apparently too old to be making movies anymore. It was tough not laughing every time he walked on-screen, and I nearly had a fit when Achilles and Priam were in the same room together (one of the better-written scenes in the film, but as far as unintentional comedy goes, all it needed was a James Brown cameo). Diane (Heid)Kruger does a good enough job as Helen; I gotta think they could've done a much worse job casting that role. If nothing else, she's pretty enough to play the part.
May I never see the whiny surfer who plays Achilles’ cousin in a movie ever again.
I know the 'Iliad' pretty well, not really well, but pretty well, and I was constantly amazed at how many things had been changed 'in the service of the story' without actually serving the story. I'd pile on the examples, but we could be here all day. The three things that should definitely have happened, though, are as follows: We needed more of Helen and Paris while they were still in Greece; the story kicks in and all you're thinking is 'Man, these kids sure made a rash decision.' Their 'love' needed more development to make the whole thing actually convincing. My mom picked up on this, which makes me wonder why no one who made the movie did. The second thing is the much-hyped fight between Hector and Achilles. The fight is put together pretty perfectly, it's probably the highlight of the film. With that said, there's no excuse for the fact that it doesn't last ten times longer. In Homer's version, it lasts an entire day and ends with Achilles dragging Hector around the city of Troy a whole bunch of times. The first 100 minutes of the movie are essentially build-up to that one scene and, as good as it is, it's hard not to feel like you've been sold short. So, that scene should've been longer, but the rest of the movie should've been much shorter, unless there was more fighting. As it stands, 'Troy' is episodic and more sleep inducing than Tylenol PM (ask Chuck, who fell asleep in the theater). There are just way too many scenes with people talking talking talking, going on forever. In that sense, it's a lot like my movie posts.
Once we got past Hector v. Achilles, I spent most of the rest of the film singing the theme song to 'The Neverending Story.'
TRUCK TURNER (1974) - d. Jonathan Kaplan
Not a lost gem from the Blaxploitation era, mostly because it's kinda of boring. Marvin Gaye's incredible soundtrack is the best thing to come out of it. It's hard to root against anything starring Isaac Hayes, though, and 'TT' fits into a subset of the genre which was a little nastier and angrier than the standard routine. 'Superfly' was the height of this ideal, and the extra venom on hand here makes the bounty hunter thing extra-fun. Also, Lt. Uhura goes crrrrazy in it (keep your pal in your pants, G--g).
THE SHIPPING NEWS (2001) - d. Lasse Hallström
One of those deflating experiences which makes you wonder why anyone would want to keep on with this whole living thing. Kevin Spacey in frumpy mode, Kate Blanchett in oddly psychotic (though extremely hot Cleopatra-eye) mode, Julianne Moore sleepwalking, Judy Dench gone to waste, blah blah blah blah blah. Sometimes the movie is really beautiful to look at and sometimes you think you're looking at a Hallmark Hall of Famer. Lasse Hallström isn't much of a director, but this is inexcusable. Even worse was getting the feeling that they'd ruined a good piece of fiction in the process. There's probably a very good film in this story, but Miramax shouldn't have paid for it, Hallström shouldn't have directed, and it definitely shouldn't have been test-screened to within an inch of its life.
Oh, wait. What life?
THE MATRIX REVOLUTIONS (2003) - d. Andy & Larry Wachowski
Hey, I have an idea for the Wachowski brothers. Why don't you leave us alone? And, Larry, is getting a sex change really going to make you any less of a pussy? No? I didn't think so. 'Conan the King' better be fucking awesome, or I'm going to cut Andy's balls off, too.
I have seen Larry's future.
HOW TO LOSE A GUY IN 10 DAYS (2003) - d. Donald Petrie
I have a lady friend who can listen to Black Flag one minute and turn around and convince me that watching this movie is a good idea the next. I don't get how women can sit through shit like this. Though I'll acknowledge that men watch stupid shit, too. Like sci-fi.
I will have my revenge.
YOU CAN'T HURRY LOVE (1988) - d. Richard Martini
Joe Isuzu vs. Hotlips. Worst movie I've seen in forever and I only sat through it because I am a hopeless insomniac. Does include the cherry line 'I want you to beef her' and a soundtrack of relatively big-name songs by guys like Robert Palmer and Van Morrison. There's also a grody Sally Kellerman song at the end that reminded me of being touched by the cootie-girl in 3rd grade.
Try never seeing it.
No comments:
Post a Comment