Seven Samurai (1954) - Akira Kurosawa

    The beauty of a grand sweeping epic that we thought forever gone.  The restoration of Seven Samurai in 1998 proved to be one of if not the greatest miracles of film.  Since the initial American release of the film, the picture has been butchered.  Enormous amounts of the film were cut, which resulted in a still unsuccessful film.  Back was all its splendor and glory, and monstrously long running time.  Like all the best epics though, this doesn’t feel like three and a half hours.
    It was a monster from the beginning.  Akira Kurosawa had gone back to Toho, the MGM of Japan, and he planned to make his first real historical film, or jidaigeki.  He also wanted to put to shame the other jidaigeki that had been crowding Japanese cinema screens.  He did just that making an all inclusive epic set in the 16th century.  It follows the exploits of three groups of people.  There are the farmers, who are lower class peasants with a somewhat honest profession.  Then there are the bandits, the dishonest opportunists who prey off of the ill equipped peasants of the world.  Then there are the samurai, the defenders of the earth who are men of respect and integrity.
    All of these groups though become interchangeable through Kurosawa.  Toshiro Mifune’s samurai Kikuchiyo is the best case.  His parents were farmers, which means he could have easily picked up their trade.  Yet they died at the hands of bandits.  He wandered around and probably would have become a bandit, had they not murdered his family.  So he ends up a samurai, the most undisciplined one, but the most eager, exciting, and admirable.  He has no official rank and his inclusion in the group is based more on his daring and determination as he follows the other six samurai like a stray dog.
    He has nothing in common with Takashi Shimura’s head samurai Kambei Shimada.  He is portrayed as next to Jesus in this film. He never makes a wrong decision, and it is no surprise that he is the first samurai approached by the farmers.  Had he not been picked first the rest of the group may not have been formed.  It is through his respect and dignity that he manages to round up another six master less samurai or ronin.  Saint he may be, he is still a warrior, which means he does still kill.  It is after his selfless act of heroism, removing his sacred top knot and disguising himself as a priest in order to rescue a young child taken hostage by a thief, that a few samurai wish to be his disciples.  He is the first piece to fall into place and throughout the film he always knows the right move.
    The rest of the samurai have their own personalities, some of which are highlighted better than others.  Gorobei Katayama, a clever and good natured whose specialty is archery; Heihachi Hayashida, a good-humored samurai who makes up for his mediocre swordsmanship by cheering up the group; Shichiroji, an old friend of Kambei's; and Kyuzo, a master swordsman who initially refuses to join the group but relents.  Kyuzo is something of an idol for Kikuchiyo whose lack of swordsmanship he tries to make up for in bravery and fearlessness.
    The basic plot is that a village of farmers are attacked every year and they have had enough.  They hire seven samurai to help fight the bandits and protect them.  Although greatly outnumbered, and promised nothing but three squares and the fun of fighting, the samurai accept.  It is this that helps support claims that this is pro socialist.  No one is motivated by money, other than the seemingly evil bandits, or capitalists.  There is also the strength in numbers so common in communism.  The farmers can’t defend themselves alone.  It takes the samurai to get them to work together, and proof that the individual is virtually powerless.  Throughout the film Kambei has to reiterate how important teamwork is to everyone.  He is willing to sacrifice a few of the outlying houses in order to keep the village as a whole secure.  He goes as far as to berate Kikuchiyo for leaving his post in order to steal one of the bandits three rifles.  Despite how heroic the move might seem, Kambei realizes that it was reckless and could have cost them plenty.
    This is not the same collectivism of say the Soviet cinema as evidenced by the samurai being given distinct personalities.  They all have their own quirks and mannerisms.  There are also a few farmers shown in detail.  There is also the breakdown of the dream at the end when the farmers turn their back on the samurai, forgetting what they have done in order to concentrate on planting rice.  This may be used as evidence that eventually communism won’t work.  Either way, Kurosawa might not have had any political intentions in mind, but it was hard to make any film in the 50s without someone projecting political ideology on it.  Kurosawa, like Renoir before him was a humanist director.  People are neither good nor bad, and to quote Renoir’s Rules of the Game “Everyone has their reasons”.  Therefore it seems uncharacteristic how the bandits just appear to be pure evil in this sense. 
    There is a scene where Kikuchiyo returns with some samurai armor that we are only left to believe he got by killing a traveling samurai.  As he is berated, he states that the villagers needed the armor and that Kambei himself said he needed to get armor.  In an extended monologue Kikuchiyo goes on to rip apart the farmers for hoarding rice, food, and even sake but he says that they can’t be blamed after what they’ve been through.  Despite treating the samurai as their saviors they’re still holding out on them.  We see later on that when the farmers offer sake on the evening before the final showdown that perhaps this final wall is being broken.  After the samurai decide to start sharing their rice with some of the children who are forced to eat the much less appetizing millet, the class divisions in this society begin to break down.  It’s as if saying we can only be equal when we share everything equally. 
    The relationship between Katsuhiro and Shino is perhaps the most interesting in the film.  Shino’s father decides that his daughter is far too pretty and will likely be ravaged by the samurai when they arrive.  Like many of the farmers they feel they need the samurai but are terrified of them and wonder if they’ll be any better than the bandits.  He cuts her beautiful long hair and has her dress as a boy.  When he sees her in the woods picking flowers he asks her gender, when she replies she’s a boy he proceeds to berate her thinking she should be training for the upcoming fight.  It doesn’t take long for him to realize the truth and it involves a great deal of awkwardness.  This scene along with the one where her hair is cut are classic examples of the exaggerated acting style present throughout the film, and a lot of Japanese cinema of that era, but more on that later.  Their love seems almost tragic, forged in the heat of conflict at the end of the film she simply turns her back on him, which is perhaps one of the things that leads Kambei to declare, “Again we have lost”. 
    Not a moment of the film drags, even in the extended version.  Kurosawa makes certain of this, keeping his shots short and to the point.  Lots of senseless dialogue is trimmed out, and a great deal is implied rather than shown.  The battle scenes are all shown in great detail.  They are fast and moving, in more ways than one.  Before you know it this film will be over, so don’t worry for boredom.  Some people do still complain though, oddly enough preferring the John Sturges remake The Magnificent Seven (1960).  Hard to deny the running time, and so much of the film is set up in anticipation of the final showdown.  If these character building scenes bore you, just try to stay awake until the battle starts off.  Rather than have a symphony of destruction ala Sam Peckinpah, Kurosawa decides instead to show his action in bursts.  There are waves of attack and if you’re attentive you know that the magic number is 30 bandits.  A few are killed each attack, the second wave being the most costly for the village.
    Over the years Seven Samurai has gradually been accepted as Kurosawa’s best film.  Rashomon may have been the one to break the gate open, Seven Samurai seems to be the most consistently praised.  Seeing how it’s been over a decade since the monumental restoration a whole new generation has grown up watching this film without realizing there was ever a much worse alternative.  Not surprising there was some preference for the Sturges’ remake for years considering the only available version was butchered.
    I would hesitate to call it a perfect film though.  The acting styles take a lot of getting used to.  The general performance style in most Japanese films, particularly the jidaigeki was anything but naturalistic.  Everyone seems to be shouting or shrieking, people run fast and fall down, sentences are blurted out rather than spoken with any eloquence and this can all seem very foreign indeed.  Mifune was guilty of this exaggerated style perhaps more so than anyone else in the script but somehow hit fits his character who although brave is extremely reckless.  It’s fitting that his one last act of heroism is to charge at the one remaining bandit whose taken refuge amongst the village women.  He takes a bullet but charges with his sword perhaps showing that the time of the rifle was inevitable, but the sword was still mightier in this age.

Film Journal 2012 - July

Well golly it’s August 1st.  In less than two weeks I’ll be another year older (29), so feel free to buy me presents, and Chicago’s annual comic convention that is now referred to as Wizard World will be taking place.  None other than the legendary Stan Lee will be making an appearance, which in 16 years or so of going to this convention this is the first time that’s happened, so its really big news.  This is probably why they are charging an extra $10 just for Saturday, and even more if you don’t pre-order your tickets.  So for the first time in over a decade I’m going on Friday instead.  Why am I telling you this?  Why not, I’m pretty stoked poverty be damned.

Kinda went all over the place this month.  Started with a nice barrage of horror films, then got a few more of the Essentials in, and ended with some experimental films (which I already blogged about) and finished everything off with two of the worst films I’ve seen in damn near ever.  For the record my girlfriend’s birthday is today, so that’s the one and only reason why we watched Blank Check and Night of the Twisters.  Most of you are probably familiar with Blank Check in a “I kinda remember that movie sort of way” but probably have little idea about Night of the Twisters.  Well in 1996 a movie named Twister was really popular, you probably heard of it at some point, Van Halen did a sweet song for the soundtrack.  Anyways true to form a TV station decided to make a quick made for TV knock off with bad actors no one ever heard of, a small budget, and special effects that are laughably bad even by mid-90s standards.  I mean this film can’t even do a proper rear projection for driving scenes and this is 1996, Hollywood figured it out years ago people.

Anyways this insufferable mess continues with a whiny kid (all bad movies have a whiny kid I’m sure) and well no less than five tornadoes touch down in rural Nebraska and he finds his family they live happily ever after, now he has confidence to go bang some girl from school, and his “fat” friend who eats all the time continues to love food.  Sound like a movie you want to see?  Didn’t think so, if you’re thinking “it’s so bad it’s good” you’re wrong, this is bad-bad, no redeeming qualities whatsoever.

I will say that watching Night of the Twisters made Blank Check look like Citizen Kane.  As bad as the movie is this is one of those so bad it’s good films.  It’s very fast paced and there are enough dated mid-90s references and incomprehensible plot points that can make this a damn potent drinking game.  I was reminded of a day when Karen “Duff” Duffy was a relevant person.  Granted back in the mid-90s I watched a LOT of MTV because a long time ago the M used to stand for “music” and when you have summer vacation, that’s what I’d watch.  The fact that I completely forgot this person existed gave a nice whiff of nostalgia.  Truth be told she hasn’t exactly gone away, her most recent film role was as a voice in Fantastic Mr. Fox.

This is Duff, there saved you a Google search

There are plenty of other recognizable faces in Blank Check whose names you won’t know but you’ll recognize their faces.  Miguel Ferrer (yes son of Jose Ferrer and Rosemary Clooney), who you’ll recognize from Robocop (he did coke off a prostitutes breasts before being shot in the knees and killed by the dad from That 70s Show), as well as Hot Shots! Part Deux, and even Twin Peaks.  There is also Michael Lerner who you might remember as “the fat Jewish banker guy who always plays an asshole, usually in a position of power”.  He even got an Academy Award nomination for playing his typical part in Barton Fink, this time his resemblance to Louis B. Mayer was a good thing.  There’s also Tone Loc and Rick Ducommun who you’ve seen in Groundhog Day and The Burbs.  Anyways put all these C and D-listers together and what do you get?  That’s right crap.  The plot is so simple I remembered it from the trailer that I hadn’t seen since 1994, and I never saw the film either.  So many things don’t add up (mathematically as well as logically) and well you remember this movie was made for like 8 year olds dude, 8 year olds.  So that’s why I watched ’em, figured it needed an explanation.

The A-List

Ah the antidote to garbage, watch more of the 100 Essential films.  Since I’m also working on revising my all time top 100, this serves as a nice dose of extra research as well.  This month we watched:

Nashville (1975)

Nothing says “America” quite like watching Nashville on the Fourth of July.  This particular fourth, we were blessed with a million degree weather, a month long drought and as a result many local villages were cancelling their fireworks.  Since I have cable TV and the internet such primitive entertainments like fireworks don’t seem quite as exciting, so Nashville it is.  This is Altman’s best film by a long shot.  I love how the film looks like such a mess on the surface.  All these seemingly unrelated plot threads hanging around, everybody talking over everyone else, and even the songs which were written and performed by the actors themselves range from damn good, “Easy” won a best song Oscar and Ronnee Blakley  was a legitimate singer before making her acting debut here, and kinda bad (read Henry Gibson).  I pick up on more details each time I see the film and I still love it.  Whether it’ll be in my top 100 whenever that list is done remains to be seen, but if any Altman related film will be in, it’ll probably be Corn’s-a-Poppin’.  As a side note I also finished watching Star Spangled to Death on the same day, how's that for patriotism?

Rebel Without a Cause (1955)

After sitting through my least favorite Vincente Minnelli film to date Tea and Sympathy (I haven’t seen I Dood It or A Matter of Time), I needed a film about a troubled youth to redeem this decent in theory but unforgivably dated and awful melodrama about a boy who likes feminine things and his inexplicable social leprosy.  Well when discussing all time greatest troubled youth pictures does any film even hold a candle to Rebel Without a Cause?  This is the nth time I’ve seen it, haven’t really kept count and well Nicholas Ray was a god.  This is one of his best films for sure, and one of the few that he seemed to have some control over, as well as a budget.  You’ll notice the same decaying mansion from Sunset Boulevard (thank you Thom Andersen’s Los Angeles Plays Itself), a Planetarium which seemed a lot cooler in 1955 than before, and even a very young Dennis Hopper as Goon (not to be confused with Chick, Crunch, or Moose).  Even though this film is also dated, and 24 year old Dean was a bit old for the role, it still holds up remarkably well on two things alone.  One is Ray’s direction which employs any trick it can to put you on the same page as the characters, and the other is Dean who gives one of the screens greatest and most iconic performances here.  People want to say he’s overrated because of the legendary cult that surrounded him after his early demise, but looking back at this and East of Eden the man could rival Brando.

Here's Goon, Chick, Crunch etc

I will say I have no idea where all the adult supervision was on the field trip.  I mean there were no school buses to take the kids so they all drove themselves.  Then when Crunch, Goon, etc were tormenting Dean’s Jim no one seemed to be around to say “Hey we have to get back to school, etc”.  After his tire is slashed, Dean threatens with a tire iron only to throw it over the cliff in frustration, ok how the hell did he get his tire changed then?  Oh well that aside the film is still damn amazing and I can’t think of any film from the 50s (and many tried) to so accurately capture different stages of teenagers incapable of understanding their parents and vice-versa. 

Killer of Sheep (1977)

I first saw this on my 24th birthday at the Music Box.  This was one of the two films on The A-List that eluded me forever.  I even met Charles Burnett earlier in 2007 and asked him just what the deal was with Killer of Sheep and why it’s never been released on any format?  He told me it wasn’t meant to be screened commercially, he didn’t bother to clear music from the film, and looked at it more a personal film that was mean as much for himself than other people.  Thankfully Milestone did the leg work, and put it out on DVD after it’s brief theatrical re-release along with My Brother’s Wedding and several short films.  I was a little let down at first.  After all you look for a film for the better part of 6 years it’s hard not to be a little disappointed.  Watching it again though with fresh eyes I was amazed.  The film has no real plot to speak of but it is a landmark in many ways.  It is one of the few, if not the only film that shows a working black family just getting by.  No one resorts to drug dealing, prostitution, robbery, and these average black people don’t bother dressing in drag and bugging their eyes out at the camera like Tyler Perry would like them to.  Even Spike Lee, whose first feature She’s Gotta Have It comes close to this still resorted too much to being the entertainer whereas Burnett’s film feels almost like cinema verite. 

As a side note on this film, early on some of the neighborhood kids go to the train tracks and throw rocks at each other.  Seemingly insignificant scene, and it’s repeated later on when they are jumping across the roofs, but for those who’ve seen It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia will remember Dee and Dennis’ trip to the public pool where they get hit by rocks.  They make the point that only poor people and savages would throw rocks at each other for fun, cut to Charlie and Mack throwing rocks at one another.  I hadn’t seen this episode (don’t even think it was made yet) the first time I saw this movie, but I couldn’t help but chuckle the second time around thinking about it. 

The Marriage of Maria Braun (1979)

Well this is now the Rainer Werner Fassbinder film I’ve seen the most.  After watching it again I’m not sure too many new layers of depth emerged.  I was able to focus a little more on his camera work then before, and knowing the ending the film is such an ironic joke.  Fassbinder just toys with his Maria’s happiness, and gives her only the shortest glimpses of what a normal life could be like.  As she says late in the film she’s had “2 and a half days” of marriage.  There’s a reason this gets listed as his best feature.  It had a sizable budget by Fassbinder standards, and coming after the breakthroughs of Herzog and Wenders internationally it was part of a wave of West German cinema that was making huge strides internationally.  It was really the right film at the right time.  Although the other two films in the BDR trilogy don’t hold up as well, and they have nothing to do with Braun plot-wise, this film does easily stand alone and above nearly all of his work.    

…And the battle for the worst

Usually I watch only good movies.  Some are duds every now and then, and in some cases I don’t have any film worthy of naming the worst of the month.  July was the opposite, in fact the competition for worst film of the month is fierce.  I thought The Orphanage (2007) would be an early front runner, then came Amos Gitai’s self indulgent Arena of Murder (1996), a disappointing Garrel film Un Ete Brulant (2011), and an absolutely awful Zhang Yimou film Keep Cool (1997).  In fact Yimou was always one of my favorite directors, once upon a time To Live was my favorite foreign film ever, and after seeing Raise the Red Lantern, Ju Dou, and others I only thought higher of him.  I’m one of the few people that love his bloated over the top martial arts epics so Hero, House of Flying Daggers, and Curse of the Golden Flower are all masterpieces in my opinion.  However it seems the more I dig around the more bad films I find.  Not One Less was a disappointment (and that actually got decent ratings), A Woman, A Gun, and a Noodle Shop is downright awful (it’s a quasi remake of Blood Simple so go figure), but Keep Cool was just the worst of the bunch.  Former cinematographer Zhang seems to employ the attention span of a two year old here.  He takes his camera on a non-stop tracking and moving odyssey that might leave you with a bit of motion sickness.  Perhaps this is a cultural thing where things that are funny to the Chinese don’t translate well here.  After all this is a comedy, but good god try laughing at this film.

One of many infuriating and agonizing scenes from Keep Cool

There were plenty more bad films, Night of the Twisters has to take the gold on this one.  But even Guy Maddin whose films I generally love let me down tremendously with Keyhole (2011).  I wasn’t a fan of My Winnipeg when it came out and was looking forward to his next feature for redemption.  Then came this, and I thought oh no, he’s gone digital just like Lynch.  Despite a valiant effort, the film is a mess of incomprehension and by the end its hard to even give a shit about what it’s about or even trying to figure it out.  I’ve also watched a couple Otto Preminger films that left me cold.  The Moon is Blue (1953) was a box office hit apparently because the word “virgin” was used.  It was a play first, and the cheap production values and the fact that the characters never, ever, ever, ever stop talking even for a second means that this should have stayed on the stage.  Laughable to think this was controversial, could have used a little more banging and a lot less talking.  I also watched his forgettable Forever Amber (1947) which seemed quite a bit more salacious, but well I’m just done with bloated over produced Technicolor period pictures from Hollywood.  I think they were trying to make some version of Gone with the Wind transposed to England in the 18th Century, but it failed quite miserably.  I mentioned in the last blog how much a waste of time Blow Job (1963) was.

And there you have it, here’s the rest of the bunch:

7/1
The Orphanage (2007) 4/10
The Changeling (1980) 8/10
A Serbian Film (2010) 6/10
Mystery of the Wax Museum (1933) 10/10

7/3
Our Hospitality (1923) 10/10
Sherlock Jr. (1924) 10/10
The Amazing Spider Man (2012) 6/10

7/4
Star Spangled to Death 10/10
Ornamental Hairpin (1941) 8/10
Nashville (1975) 10/10

7/5
City Lights (1931) 10/10

7/8
A Summer at Grandpa’s (1984) 8/10
Reason, Debate, and a Tale (1974) 9/10

7/9
Tree of Life (2011) 10/10

7/10
Field Diary (1982) 6/10
Arena of Murder (1996) 3/10

7/11
A Mother Should Be Loved (1934) 6/10
Klondike Annie (1936) 7/10
Maranhao ‘66 (1966) 8/10

7/12
Miracles for Sale (1939) 9/10

7/13
Keep Cool (1997) 2/10
Un Ete Brulant (2011) 4/10

7/14
It Should Happen to You (1954) 9/10
Bhuvan Shome (1969) 9/10

7/15
The End of the World (1988) 7/10
Human Remains (1998) 9/10

7/18
Tres Tristes Tigres (1968) 6/10
A Movie (1958) 10/10
Cosmic Ray (1962) 10/10

7/19
King of the Jews (2000) 9/10

7/20
The Dark Knight Rises (2012) 10/10

7/22
Tea and Sympathy (1956) 4/10
Blow Job (1964) 2/10
Flesh (1968) 5/10
Rebel Without a Cause (1955) 10/10

7/24
Trash (1970) 6/10

7/26
Road to Glory (1936) 7/10

7/27
Little Toys (1933) 7/10
Indonesia Calling (1946) 7/10
Island of Flowers (1989) 10/10

7/28
Killer of Sheep (1977) 10/10
The Moon is Blue (1953) 6/10

7/29
The Marriage of Maria Braun (1979) 10/10
Keyhole (2011) 5/10

7/30
Forever Amber (1947) 5/10

7/31
The Bullfighter and the Lady (1951) 8/10
Blank Check (1994) 2/10
Night of the Twisters (1996) 0/10

Best Film of the Month - Tree of Life
Worst Film of the Month - Night of the Twisters
Best New Discovery of the Month - Island of Flowers

Celebration

This week is a time for celebration.  I’m an uncle for the second time, and at long last I’m done with Chemistry.  I know it was only an 8 week course but it felt like a full time job and was absolute torture.  This means one thing in particular, more time for movies.  I’ve seen the amount of movies pile up in my to watch bin without any sign of me catching up.  I aim to change that over the next couple of weeks, at least until the inevitable next classes begin, but let’s not look that far into the future. 

Still from Cosmic Ray (1962)

I haven’t been completely without cinema in this time.  I have been making an effort to tackle a more diverse group of films, in other words more experimental and documentary films, and starting very soon quite a few films from South America.  Of the better films I’ve been watching are the films of Bruce Conner.  For those who don’t know who Bruce Conner is go ahead and google that.  In particular I got to watch A Movie (1958) and Cosmic Ray (1962) which are two of the best experimental films I’ve seen in a long, long time.

Andy Warhol and Paul Morrissey

Less impressive was the Andy Warhol film projects I watched.  First up was Blow Job, which despite its awesome title is simple a shot of a guys face while he’s presumably receiving fellatio.  The fact that the camera never pans down and that’s all we see, it’s just the title and a sort of suggestive idea.  Not a bad concept, a bit of a tease, but horribly executed.  All silent and unnecessarily long 35 minutes it gets old quick.  This is nothing compared to his even longer and more pointless films like Sleep and Empire which are static shots of a person sleeping and the Empire State Building for hours.  He might be considered a genius in the art world, but the man was not much of a filmmaker.  He abandoned directing to Paul Morrissey later on, and they made something of a trilogy with the films Flesh (1968), Trash (1970), and Heat (1972). 

I’ve just recently watched both Flesh and Trash and well they aren’t terrible by some standards.  After all the rather frank depiction of sex and the odd characters make them an interesting if not a horribly chaotic experience.  Trash is in many ways a much, much better film than Flesh.  Don’t think I’m calling it a masterpiece but it achieves something that Flesh doesn’t come close to, which is to say it accomplishes something.  Flesh is a mess of a would be hustler trying to get money for a friends abortion and well it’s a bit boring, and very uneven.  Trash might not have a more coherent plot structure in any traditional sense but the films depiction of drugs is incredible.  Who would think that the greatest endorsement not to do drugs would come from an Andy Warhol film?  Rather than preach about drugs and dramatize horrible consequences instead Warhol/Morrissey allow the film to play out matter of factly.  Joe finds himself unable to get an erection despite the never ending amount of people who want to have sex with him.  He lives with a tranny named Holly (yes the same one from Lou Reed’s “Walk on the Wild Side”) who spends his/her time digging through trash bins and collecting various discarded pieces of furniture. 

Opening scene from Trash (1970)

Joe spends his days trying to get more dope and his days are centered around such.  He meets some strange, and at times horribly annoying females who are looking more for sex but Joe simply shoots up and passes out.  He even gets caught trying to rob an apartment in a very feeble attempt to get money for more drugs.  He’s cleaned up and even still can’t perform after given some heroin to shoot.  There is a fascination that many of the outside people he runs into have for his drug problem.  These people, many of whom are from more affluent backgrounds look at him with curiosity, wondering what it’s like to see someone shoot up, only to be naturally horrified by the experience and openly condemning the man they just watched plunge deeper into addiction.  The film ends with a hilarious exchange with Holly, Joe, and a welfare case worker that needs to be seen to be believed.  I can easily say though this film would do more to discourage people from using heroin than any after school special I’ve ever seen.

The Dark Knight Rises

Ok, of course you knew I saw this, how could I wait more than 24 hours after it came out to check out the most anticipated film of the year, or the last four years really.  Unfortunately some jack ass in Colorado decided to violate everything we hold dear about the cinema and I sincerely, honestly hope that someone mutilates his genitals, peels his flesh off, and makes him eat his own dick.  Unfortunately the Bill of Rights has a thing against “cruel and unusual punishment” so I guess I just have to hope for an angry mob to bust him out, but that won’t happen so whatever I’ll stop talking about it now, because it will only make me more upset.

The film itself was excellent.  I won’t say anything about the plot because what rock have you been living under that you either A:  Haven’t already seen the film or; B:  Haven’t already read enough reviews/commentary online?  Perhaps the only complaint is that Bane was about as hard to understand as I thought he'd be, gonna need subtitles next time. 

MMMMM Anne Hathaway

Now at first I have to sigh because I know this is the end of an era.  Not only will this be the last Batman movie directed by Christopher Nolan, it might very well be the last great super hero movie period.  As the genre keeps expanding the desire to make more crowd pleasing special effects laden films is going to keep anyone from trying to make the dark, philosophical films that Nolan and company were trying here.  DC and Warner Bros are attempting to make their own Justice League movie that they very foolishly believe can compete with the Avengers franchise, so don’t be surprised if Batman is back on the big screen very, very soon in a much sillier environment.  There’s no place for Nolan’s Batman in the DC Universe.  You can’t put this Batman in the same world as Superman or Green Lantern because that would ruin damn near everything great about these films.  Batman is great because he’s a man, an extraordinary one, but still a man, and to add him to that universe can work for comics because it’s always been like that, but it’s going to fail miserably in film.  So expect the next Batman movie to be more like Joel Schumacher than Nolan.

There are some bright spots however.  Another X-Men movie should be coming out at some point.  Mathew Vaughn’s X-Men First Class showed that Marvel can make great super hero movies with plenty of subtext.  I anticipate the next film should be damn good, I hope at least.  First Class was instantly better than all three of the previous X-Men films plus the Wolverine movie combined.  I just hope they don’t fuck it up. 

We can also look forward to Christopher Nolan’s next film.  Inception was damn fantastic, and Nolan has proven that he can not only create original works of art, but actually make a fortune in the process for any studio that wants to back him.  So he’ll probably have James Cameron like control and budgets the next time around and I can’t wait to see what he does (provided it’s nothing at all like Avatar). 

Anyways expect more blogage in the coming weeks, just wanted to post a bit here. 

Film Journal 2012 - June

Well another month down and we are halfway to 2013, are you excited yet?  Didn’t think so, anyways I’ll refrain from making another lame excuse but as evidence from the list of films below this was hardly a productive month for movie watching.  You will notice at least one trend particularly by the end of the month so oh boy stay tuned.  Since I don’t seem to be able to get too many blogs in per month, the journal is becoming my one stop shop for all things film.

Not much at all seen this month in general.  Towards the end sure plenty of horror films, a couple sporadic Rosenbaum films and a handful of films that I had no real rhyme or reason to why I watched them.  Sadly my only trip to the movie theater in the past month was to see Moonrise Kingdom.  Now it’s not bad that I saw this film so don’t misunderstand, it’s just that happens to be the only film I saw in the theater.  Not to say I didn’t attempt to see Prometheus in theaters, but was told my free movie pass wouldn’t be accepted even after two weeks of the movie being out, so to hell with Regal, might as well just throw out your Regal Crown Club card because they will tell you when and where you can actually use the free movies you spent a shitload of money to earn, but that’s another story.

I began and ended the month with an A-List selection.  We began things with The Bank Dick and finished everything off with The Godfather II.  So to carry on my policy of writing about each of the NSFC films we watch, I’ll just start there and do away with the formalities.

The Bank Dick (1940)

W. C. Fields has long since been one of those “critics darlings” if such a term can apply to someone like Fields.  As low brow and vaudeville as he is I’ve scarcely encountered any critic, at least any older critic who doesn’t love Fields and wouldn’t rank several of his films amongst their very favorites.  The Bank Dick for many is the de-facto best film Fields ever made.  Like many of his films Fields wrote the screenplay under the ridiculously silly alias of Mahatma Kane Jeeves.  Also like many of his other films he gives his own character a rather silly name, here Egbert Souse, which he constantly reminds anyone in earshot how to pronounce it.  His family of course hates him and he’s berated by an evil little daughter that proves that violence towards children can be hilarious, as well as a wife and mother in law who are clearly in league with the devil.  His one saving grace is a teenage daughter who actually gives him a break and whose fiance works at the bank that hires Fields to be security after he accidentally apprehends some bank robbers.  The gags are funny and the plot rather silly, but as far as Fields’ vehicles this is easily the most well balanced.  Most of the gags work, and the laughs are still quite good, so along with It’s a Gift this is definitely the place to start for those of you born after 1970 who have no idea who the hell W. C. Fields is. 

The Godfather Part 2 (1974)

The summer before I “discovered” great cinema the American Film Institute unveiled their 100 greatest American film list on TV.  A local video store known as Thumbs Up Video (RIP) had a section dedicated to the films on the list.  After spending nearly every day that summer watching countless horror films, we decided maybe we could check out one or two of these films, and among those were the three Godfather films.  Ironically I don’t think I’ve seen Part 3 since that summer of 1998.  Many people would understand why I feel that way.  From day one though I thought that the first Godfather film was easily the best.  As much as I loved the sequel over time I never thought there was any competition as to which was the better film.  I’ve probably seen the first twice as many times as Part 2, so I’m also far more familiar with it.  However as you may surmise that the more times you see these films the more things will start to clarify.  I highly doubt anyone can watch the first two Godfather films once and retain all the information as to the families and how everyone’s connected, keeping track of who tried to kill who, and so on.  It took maybe 3-4 viewings of the first film to really get things straightened out and well since this was about the 4th time seeing the sequel it makes sense that now it’s all into focus.  Now perhaps it’s the fact that I noticed a few “flaws” the last time I watched the first film, but this erased all of them, and inexplicably I may now consider this the better film, although that’s still up for debate.  Although we’ll get into that later, there’s a reason why this is the greatest sequel ever made.

Dare I say the best sequel ever made?

Oh the horror, the horror

Time Out London put together a list of the 100 Best Horror Films recently and well it got me thinking.  Well to be more accurate it got my brother thinking and he decided fuck it we know a lot of horror films why not do our own top 100 horror films list?  Well I’m always down for a list but this one will present some problems, such as:

1.  How do you define a horror film?  It’s easy to make a list of the 100 funniest films ever and simply put comedies in based on how they make you laugh.  Sure there are the unintentionally funny films that aren’t exactly comedies but may still count, but essentially if its funny its comedy.  Then there’s a Western which for the most part takes place out west, features some cowboys, six shooters, maybe some Indians, horses, and so on.  Horror gets way more complicated.  For starters we can’t simply make a list of the 100 “scariest” movies because well I have a penis so the list of movies that scare me consists of Paranormal Activity, and two films that traumatized me as a kid, The Shining and It.  So it’d be damn hard to come up with another 97 films for this list.  So well what is a horror film?

I have always found that studying a genre or trying to group films into specific genres is something for rather bad introductory film courses and quickly gets dismissed the more you know about film in general.  This is the reason why I’ve never offered any definitive list of any genre in the past.  However reading this list makes me think I should give it a shot.  So monster movies, ghost stories, and a few slashers certainly count as horror films.  What about say science fiction movies or films about serial killers.  Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer is nowhere near a slasher in the sense that Halloween is.  Psycho to many people is the definitive slasher film but I’ve always had a hard time even calling it a horror film.  Alien was in the top five on the Time Out list but it’s a science fiction film, are you starting to see the conundrum? 

Point is horror likes to mix and match with a few genres, which I guess is true of most genres.  So when is something a thriller and when is it horror?  When does a film edge more towards horror than science fiction?  Is Invasion of the Body Snatchers horror or is it pure sci-fi?  Are films like Silence of the Lambs and Se7en horor or just thrillers/mystery films?  If those serial killer films do count as horror, what about films about the search for serial killers like Memories of Murder or Zodiac?  You get where the grey area comes in.  How about an unclassifiable mindfuck like Lost Highway?  There are moments in the film that are absolutely terrifying and super creepy but is it a horror film, and if it isn’t just what the hell is it?  Eraserhead made Time Out’s list but several people have wondered if it is a horror film at all.  Ask my girlfriend and she’ll tell you it’s terrifying and freaked her out like few films ever have, so maybe it is horror after all.  For some reason Elem Klimov’s Come and See made their list at #100.  This is one of the best war movies ever made but never have I considered it a horror film.  Likewise this is not the first time Ingmar Bergman’s Hour of the Wolf has been listed as a horror film, but I never got that vibe from it the first time I saw it.

So we’re left with a few options.  The easiest is to say if it counts for the Time Out list it’ll count for ours.  This takes the blame off of us, and if anyone thinks “that’s not a horror film” then we can point to this officially sanctioned ranking as our evidence.  The other is to simply go on IMDB (I don’t ever recommend visiting this site mind you), and looking at what tags the film has.  If it has a horror tag, then bam horror it is.  For example Se7en has a crime, thriller and mystery tag, but no horror.  Eraserhead has a horror, sci-fi and fantasy tag, but Lost Highway doesn’t.  I actually kind of prefer the outside party definition so as to remove the degree of ambiguity.  Anyways more research needs to be done, so look forward to this list in the next month or two.

…And the Big One

It may seem odd that a listoholic like myself last made a 100 Greatest Movie list back in 2003.  You might even search this blog and wonder if I hadn’t already made that list (that was a purely objective essential list that you were thinking of).  So I was thinking, it’s been damn near a decade why not update the big one? 

This idea isn’t anything new mind you.  I tried putting together a master list of films that would make my list, along with some titles that I wanted to revisit back in about 2007, so clearly this has taken me awhile to put together.  More recently I thought about putting this list together after doing all that individual research for my decade lists.  However I decided against it for a few reasons.  For starters those lists took over a year to put together and that was just too damn much research.  I was burnt out on list making.  Also I was under the impression that my readers would be burnt out on it too.  It’s one thing to see several lists but to see the same person make several lists featuring the same films in different rankings would be overkill.  The other main reason why I didn’t want to make the list then is I realized that I would need to do more research, particularly for the 1920s-40s.

So why now of all times?  Well maybe it’s the fact that Sight and Sound is putting out there top 10 this year, or maybe it’s the fact that I realized I’m rapidly approaching a decade anniversary of my own.  Knowing my own long winded research periods for this, if I start now perhaps by the end of the year I’ll be satisfied enough to make my list.  I realize that it really doesn’t matter and there is no reason at all to obsess as much as I do.

This time around I’ve decided to change the rules a bit.  Even if I made a list with “No rules whatsoever” I’d still need some parameters, it’s impossible not to.  Now there will be no restrictions like one film per director, or a minimum of 10 films per decade, etc.  However there are some other things to get straightened out.  Much of it is formulaic and carried over from previous lists, but there’s at least one modification worth mentioning.  For starters this list is going to be of feature length films, but without a length requirement.  So that if say a film is completely self contained in 50 minutes or so that counts, 30 or so not so much.  This is going to be predominantly a fiction film list, but those quasi-fictional films are going to count.  That is to say like always The Man With a Movie Camera will probably be on my list, and this time might be joined by Sans Soleil, or hell maybe even Hour of the Furnaces, or the Battle of Chile.

I should also point out a separate requirement exclusive to this list.  Years ago I decided that in order for a film to make my top ten I needed to see it at least twice.  Well in the 9 years+ since that list was done I figured I’ve revisited most of my favorites, and covered a lot more with the previous by-decade lists so why not apply the twice minimum rule to every film on the list?  This will help make sure that all my favorites have held up and that I’ve at least given them a second shot to see how they hold up.  For this reason there are a couple of films I still need to revisit but really not that much, and even some films I’ve seen three or more times I still feel like I need to revisit. 

Now on the subject of film series/sequels/trilogies/etc I’ve had a slight change of heart.  If you ask me it is downright silly to rank Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi separately, to me they are one collective super long film that rules beyond belief.  Likewise talking about The Godfather earlier I certainly intend on “cheating” and putting the first two together, which gets me to another point.  Just because a film series has x number of titles doesn’t mean x number of titles have to be on this list.  For example there’s a third Godfather film so what?  I don’t have to put that film on my list.  There are also three Star Wars films that will never under any circumstances ever come anywhere near making this list, complete saga my ass.

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly (1966)

Now this can get interesting.  What if say I put Rocky and Rocky IV on my list and ignored the other four?  Sure why not I have the right.  Since I don’t like Rambo III nearly as much as the other three films I could leave this out.  The Planet of the Apes and Conquest of the Planet of the Apes are by far the two best films of that series, so why not those two and leave out Beneath, Escape, and Battle (we’re not getting into the two newer installments)?  Ok by my own convoluted system of grouping this could be acceptable, now the question is are any of those movies good enough to make my list? 

One group that I previously allowed that I no longer will is “thematic trilogies”.  Ever buy a boxed set of a trilogy and realize that the films although thematically linked actually have no linking narrative?  Hell even a few trilogies really stretch the “linking narrative concept” like say Kieslowski’s Three Colors trilogy.  Now this applies to two film series in particular, and they were both ranked pretty high some time ago.  For starters is Sergio Leone’s Man With No Name Trilogy.  Sure they’re all Westerns starring Clint Eastwood as a character without a name who wanders around, kills some people who are even bigger lowlifes than himself has a ridiculously awesome gun battle at the end, and so on.  However the character from Fistful of Dollars is not the same as the one in For a Few Dollars More or The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.  So I decided that this isn’t a real trilogy, at least not in the sense that Star Wars, or Lord of the Rings are.  The other is Andrzej Wajda’s WWII trilogy.  Now these actually take place at different times chronologically during WWII, but the characters don’t exactly transfer over into one continuous narrative, similar to Roberto Rossellini’s WWII trilogy.  So basically in the case of both of these would be trilogies I’ll simply have to put the separate films on or pick the best of the bunch to represent the lot of ’em. 

I should also point out that there won’t be any requirements about when a film was made.  If I say the 100 greatest films of all time all came out in the last ten years so be it, I’m not giving a five year span for films to “stand the test of time” or any such nonsense.  In this regard Tree of Life might be really, really high.  I also plan on waiting awhile before putting this list together because who knows just how damn good the new Dark Knight movie will be?   

6/4
The Bank Dick (1940) 9/10

6/7
You Are Not I (1981) 8/10

6/8
La fin du monde (The End of the World) (1930) 8/10
Home of the Brave (1949) 6/10

6/9
Repast - Meshi (1951) 8/10

6/10
Moonrise Kingdom (2012) 9/10

6/17
Her Man (1930) 6/10
The Window (1949) 7/10

6/19
Uzumaki (2000) 5/10

6/20
A Wife Confesses (1961) 9/10

6/22
The Life and Times of Rosie the Riveter (1980) 7/10
Lazybones (1925) 6/10
Le Parfum de la Dame en Noir (1931) 6/10

6/23
Aventurera (1950) 8/10
The Omen (1976) 6/10

6/24
Re-Animator (1985) 6/10
An American Werewolf in London (1981) 7/10

6/26
Cloverfield (2007) 8/10

6/27
Season of the Witch (1972) 6/10

6/30
Kill, Baby, Kill (1966) 8/10
Possession (1981) 10/10
The Godfather Part 2 (1974) 10/10

Best Film of the Month - The Godfather Part 2
Worst Film of the Month - Uzumaki (not terrible but something had to take this dishonor)
New Discovery of the Month - Possession

Possession (1981) - Good Times in a subway station

Film Journal 2012 - May

Well the merry month of May has ended with 50 degree weather and cold rain, go figure after a record hot Memorial Day, gotta love living in Chicago.  Anyways a lot has transpired this month, sort of.  The Avengers has completely dominated the box office, and on a personal note this month is a bit of a swan song for me.  I’m not going anywhere per se, but starting next Monday I’ll be taking a chemistry course that promises to consume 4 hours a day, 4 days a week for 8 total weeks.  In other words that’s 16 hours a week that could be spent watching movies that will be conducting wonderful chemistry experiments and needless to say with a condensed schedule the still remaining free time will likely be consumed with studying and what not.  Anyways consider that an early warning if my next post is skimpy, sorry in advance.

A few of the usual trends continued this month.  Pretty much every movie watched with Kate was from the A-list yet again (we did go to see Avengers which she hated mainly because she hadn’t seen any of the other films and knew nothing of the original comic books, go figure).  I did knock a few random films off of Mr. Rosenbaum’s list, which is always a plus. 

More of 2012

One of the other goals this month was to slowly get my self acquainted with 2012’s releases.  I don’t want to be making the mad dash towards 50 in December so any progress I can make on that front now, all the better.  Some of the individual films I posted about in the last blog, some of the others well maybe I just didn’t think were as interesting.   I just noticed now that I forgot to write down when I saw Kill List, and up to this moment I was still debating how to rate it.  If everything goes to plan I may just watch it again tomorrow so maybe by next month my rating will change. 

Some of the newer films I’ve seen seemed a bit formulaic for their directors.  Werner Herzog seems intent to make nothing but documentaries these days which sometimes is interesting but I lament the fact that the man who directed Aguirre the Wrath of God seems to be largely done with fiction.  Into the Abyss was ok for what it was, but a documentary about someone on death row is never exactly an uplifting subject for a film. 

Speaking of formulaic, Hong Sang-Soo’s The Day He Arrives is the latest in his never ending series of identical films.  They seem to always involve a director who uses a little bullshit to sleep with a few women and then move on.  For some people he’s a genius for others quite repetitive.  I haven’t quite figured which side of the fence I’m on.  Many directors have made reputations for making essentially the same film over and over again (Ozu, Kaurismaki for sure) and well they’re prone to masterpieces.  By that standard though The Day He Arrives is neither better or worse than any of his other films. 

Hirokazu Kore-eda who reminds me every couple of years that he is Japan’s best filmmaker working today, is also prone to make a film or two that misses the extremely high mark he set for himself over a decade ago with Maborosi and After Life.  Kiseki, or I Wish as it’s been released as in some parts of the world returns to a focus primarily on kids (as Nobody Knows did), but it seems to lose that overarching specter of doom that hovered around that previous film.  In other words there doesn’t really seem to be any drama here which makes it recall some of Ozu’s films with children.  Somehow the lack of drama made the film seem to be just “ok”.

Aleksandr Sokurov completed his Quadrilogy (if that’s the word) with Faust.  It’s an interesting adaptation that makes the Mephistopheles character a money lender who never becomes an outright devil.  Considering the enormous amount of adaptations of this fable (some dating over 100 years ago) it’s hard to add much new to the fable.  Jan Svankmajer did an admirable job by adding his trademark stop motion animation to his 1994 adaptation, but here the film seems a bit of a mess.  Sokurov seems to largely abandon his complicated long takes to employ far more in-scene editing that I’m used to seeing in his films.  It still has that same bizarre visual look that only his films seem to have (well maybe Tarkovsky) but I felt it was missing that sort of surrealistic hypnotic pace of his other films. 

Speaking of true to form, Frederick Wiseman’s recent offering Crazy Horse is well same Wiseman different subject.  One of the strengths Wiseman has always had was picking interesting subjects.  Since his style of documentary has always been as observer, fly-on-the-wall, or what the French called cinema verite you need an interesting subject on screen.  So what did he pick, a strip club in France that makes the claim to be the best exotic club in the world.  Based on the amount of preparation and agonizing over seemingly insignificant choreography choices it seems the reputation is well earned.  For those simply meandering into this to see what the director of Titicut Follies, High School, Hospital, and Public Housing is up to you’d be surprised to find that there is a whole ton of nudity in it, much as I was surprised. 

One film that will be showing up on a LOT of critic’s top ten lists by the end of the year is Jafar Panahi’s This is Not a Film.  Co-directed by Mojtaba Mirtahasebi it’s a very interesting film.  For those unfamiliar Jafar Panahi has been one of Iran’s best directors of the last twenty years or so.  Like many great Iranian directors he has a knack for offending authority in his country.  After his last film, Offside came out the Iranian government decided that he would be banned from directing movies or writing screenplays for 30 years, and possibly serve a prison sentence as well as not be allowed to leave the country.  It’s hard to imagine such a thing happening in civilized society and considering how many Americans love to bitch about their freedoms being taken away this really puts it in perspective. 

Jafar Panahi attempting to create a set for the film he'll never make

This would explain the ironic title of the film.  Essentially Panahi films himself in his house on New Years and invites his director friend Mojtaba over.  He has an idea for a film that was stopped in mid-production following his ban and he wants to discuss the film.  He reads scenes from the script, tries to set up the action, but the majority of the film is simply him at home, passing the time, talking on the phone (about his upcoming trial among other things) and visibly displaying his frustration for his situation.  It’s a profound film based on the real life nature of the story, but I’m not sure it exactly makes it a great film.  Certainly an important one and well worth checking out if you ever get the chance.

The Problem With Al Jolson

You’ll also notice randomly that I watched Mammy, the fourth talking picture Al Jolson made.  This got me thinking ,and it led to a rather interesting debate on Mubi.com about a star’s image.  I made the point that I don’t think any star’s image has aged worse than Jolson.  This is for numerous reasons.  For starters his singing style which he was greatly known for is kind of atrocious.  Whenever we hear singers of the 20s and 30s with that nasally wine to their voice it instantly comes off as terribly hokey and sometimes just plain terrible.  This is the reason why Louis Armstrong created such a revolution by actually singing with feeling and rhythm.  The next mystery to his stardom is the fact that by the time he made it to the cinema he was kind of an ugly dude with thinning hair.  Not quite the matinee idol you would expect in your movie stars.  Although the biggest reason his films are looked at with dropped jawed awe is the fact that he is the best remembered relic of the long forgotten Minstrel Show. 

Can't resist the black face in the corner can they?

One of the great pop culture fads of the 19th and early 20th century was the Minstrel Show.  Performers (many of whom were actually black) performed in blackface, acted an ignorant fool and performed what were affectionately titled “coon songs”, seriously that was a genre of music, look it up.  The fact that Jolson was in The Jazz Singer which forever will be linked with the talking picture revolution, and the fact that he appeared in blackface in that film, and that well that was his trademark makes his legacy severely tarnished.  By all accounts a standup citizen, and The Jazz Singer was far more about being Jewish than offending black people, but like The Birth of a Nation some images just stick with you longer than others.  Mammy features Jolson in an all white minstrel show (in other words all white people in black face) and the plot bares a striking resemblance to that same year’s Rain or Shine (which if you’ll remember was named the worst film of the month for April). 

Now from most of the biographical evidence on Jolson he was a standup guy.  He was an early supporter of civil rights, and was known to go above and beyond to help black performers whenever he had the chance.  Perhaps you can call it white guilt, but he genuinely seemed to go out of his way to prove he wasn’t racist and quite the opposite.  Things like that get to be forgotten when viewing his films out of context.  Mammy was unique in regards to the fact that it featured a color sequence, which used Technicolor’s very problematic and awful looking two-strip process before they were able to make three-strip Technicolor films in 1935, but well feel free to look up the specifics of that on your own.  Warner was trying to bank on perhaps using the same star that helped launch talking pictures into launching color films, but the fad didn’t really catch on because of the enormous cost and the fact that it looked terrible.  Rouben Mamoulian’s Becky Sharp is generally regarded as the first proper color feature, and it’s not a bad film at that, but I’ve always been extremely fond of Miriam Hopkins, but that’s for another blog sometime.

A few people had some interesting rebuttals for the topic of whose image has aged worse.  Some people mentioned Mel Gibson, I heard Lindsay Lohan, I suggested Pauly Shore, someone mentioned Eddy Cantor, etc.  I didn’t really hear anyone that outright topped Jolson for the simple reason that at the end of the day, Mel Gibson might be a anti-Semite lunatic but 50 years from now Road Warrior, Lethal Weapon, Gallipoli, and Braveheart will still be pretty bad ass movies.  Plus it’s not like Gibson runs around in those movies purposely chasing down orthodox Jews (his Passion movie is another issue though).  The other “stars” well never were as popular as Jolson so by sheer magnitude of how baffling it might be that Pauly Shore was an a-list actor for several years he’ll be lucky to be remembered about as well as Franky Avalon. 

Speaking of The A-List

Well continuing my previous trend I’d like to discuss each of the films from that book that were viewed this month, starting with:

The Bride of Frankenstein (1935)

With the possible exception of Star Wars there is no film on this list that I’ve seen more than Bride.  As a kid it was my favorite Universal film simply because the main character was the monster, rather than Dr. Frankenstein as in the first film.  Over the years I’ve grown to love the little details of the film.  The bizarre canted angles, the over the top camp of some of the performances.  Admittedly Una O’Connor who plays Minnie used to make me want to stab my ears with rusty screwdrivers but I’ve since learned to comically chuckle at her screeching hysterics.  Ernest Thesiger is so blatantly queer that I gotta feel his performance style was a knowing wink at the audience by director James Whale (who was gay, they made a whole movie about it called Gods and Monsters check it out sometime).  Sure they changed the hell out of the novel, just like in the first film but so what, this is still the best damn monster movie there is.  Sad that following this film Universal would start to significantly limit the budgets of their horror movie franchises so in many ways this was the last real A-list horror film for decades.

Modern Times (1936)

I’m not going to lie I wanted to make an entire blog about this film.  As you can tell however life got in the way and before too long I figured this little paragraph would have to suffice.  Chaplin’s last “silent” film has been regarded over the years as one of his all time best.  It was one of the first three of his films that I saw and the one selected by the NSFC.  I hadn’t seen it for quite some time so I wondered how it would hold up.  After all I had actually seen it twice before but again since the last viewing was over a decade ago tastes do change.  I found this time around that the film I felt didn’t have enough social commentary was littered with it.  Earlier I felt his jokes went on too long and he milked all his gags longer than necessary, here I felt the pacing was perfect and the timing excellent.  A few moments I noticeably had to laugh out loud.  For instance when he goes to the docks and is looking for a wedge and proceeds to accidentally send an incomplete boat into the ocean to sink.  There is also the great scene where he becomes the oblivious leader of a communist rally, and the similar scene during the factory strike where he accidentally starts a riot by stepping on a board which launches a brick at a cop. 

Chaplin was right not to have the Tramp speak.  When it seems we may finally at last hear his voice it turns out to be a song in Italian sounding gibberish.  Everyone who speaks in the film is filtered through some electronic device, whether a monitor or a phonograph.  I didn’t notice until the third time I saw the film that the sheep in the beginning features one black sheep.  I started to think, were these all lambs being led to the slaughter, or was this pointing out that Chaplin was the one who didn’t fit into the herd, the outcast.  Were these sheep mindlessly being herded into society, as the cutaway of pedestrians pouring out of a subway terminal indicates, or is there some slightly more specific relation to the Tramp, who here is listed in the credits as A Factory Worker?  What seems at first glance like a blatantly bush league use of symbolism turns slightly ambiguous, or maybe I’m thinking too much about it.

Amongst the reviews and commentary on the film someone made the point that this is sort of a pre-quel to the film The Tramp which was the first appearance of cinema’s most recognizable character.  For the first and only time Chaplin allows himself to walk off in the sunset with someone else, the Gamine played by Paulette Goddard who many figured to be the only leading lady he ever had that was his equal.  I like looking of the film in the light of it as an origin story for the Tramp.  After all we never know how he got to be in his situation even in that first film.  Here he isn’t a tramp but the Factory Worker, and after a series of mishaps and comical failures to fit into society he hit’s the road holding his chin up with that trademark sense of optimism.  A fitting end to film’s most legendary character.

A fitting end for the tramp

Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977)

One of the few times Steven Spielberg decided to write a screenplay resulted in this film, which was a monstrous hit, even by his standards.  Considered one of the few films to feature friendly aliens the tall thin alien figures with their odd shaped heads and huge black eyes turned out to be for many the universal standard of extra-terrestrials.  Spielberg recognizes his own limits as a writer and his extraordinary strengths as a visual storyteller by making the last half hour or so of the film almost completely wordless just focusing on visuals and sound.  It’s a spellbinding scene that does a lot to capture the wonder of the moment that goes by tremendously fast despite how much screen time it takes.  I don’t think this quite hits the mark of masterpiece like several of his other films.  Some of the scenes, particularly early on are a little on the boring side.  He gets a little personal dealing with his own broken home issues earlier.  He does a nice little homage to Howard Hawks and Robert Altman by constantly having the kids talk over everyone’s conversation much in the way kids really would interrupt everything.  I’ll give him credit, few films are so synonymous with mashed potatoes as this.

Metropolis (1927)

You knew eventually I’d finally get to see the most recent restoration.  I was amazed mainly because Kate stayed awake for the whole film, as she did with The Piano, trust me this is rare, but all kidding aside I didn’t get the feeling that the film was particularly different.  I was told that the majority of the science-fiction element was downplayed with this new cut, but it really seemed like the same old film to me.  Perhaps I don’t recall the other incarnations well enough to have noticed the specific differences.  The film is still pretty damn fantastic and although the acting still fits that laughably over the top style prevalent in so many silent films, particularly the German ones, this film does blend quite a few elements of the French school of Impressionism.  The attention to detail is incredible and there’s good reason why this is considered by many to be the most important science fiction film ever made.  The garden sequence early in the film has me wonder if this wasn’t a rather large influence on Adulous Huxley’s Brave New World, which has published about 5 years later. 

Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956)

Speaking of science fiction, now we’re talking.  Instantly one of my favorites and to me the high water mark of the respective alien invasion movies and the communist paranoia films that so aptly describe America’s pop culture in the Cold War.  What makes the film interesting is that in a lot of ways the aliens aren’t bad.  They simply take over their human host and everything is perfect.  Of course the element of love weakens the deal, but they make the argument that a world without emotion might be better after all.  It’s an obvious shot at communism, because of course true communists had no time for weak things like emotions (at least according to Americans in the 50s).  Don Siegel who would go on to direct Dirty Harry does a damn fine job and takes a page or two out of Robert Aldrich’s book with a wide array of disorienting tactics and plenty of interesting camera angles.  The story is rather simple but as it progresses it reveals more and more layers like the great movies usually do, easily one of my favorites ever.

The Piano (1993)

Thus we get to our last film of the month, or the last of the A-list.  Jane Campion’s film was that rare breed of art house box office success that earned several jokes on The Critic (how I miss Jay Sherman), as well as a few Oscars.  Odd to say but Anna Pacquin’s career has been all downhill ever since, because well how do you top an Oscar?  Holly Hunter impressed the shit out of people for her gimmick role and the fact that she not only did sign language but actually played piano in the film.  The film’s inclusion in the book is clearly the result of it’s director who along with Dorothy Arzner (Dance Girl Dance) is the only female filmmaker given a spot.  That said I was never a huge fan of The Piano, but after 12 years or so clearly I was due for another look.  Well I only found the film slightly better than the last time and it still seems to be a painfully self conscious attempt to beg for Academy recognition.  These are the types of films that come out every single year, sometimes they’re nauseating other times deserving, this falls somewhere in the middle.  I can make the argument that Sweetie and Angel at My Table were better films, but this was the one that really took off so I guess it’s status as an essential does more to say how mind bogglingly under-represented women are as directors. 

And there you have it, oh by the way, yes I watched a shit load of Buster Keaton shorts thanks to Kino’s newly put together 3-disc set.  As before I would have to give the edge to The Playhouse (which actually features Keaton in blackface as well as in every other role in the film) as his best short.  The Keaton-Chaplin debate however is still not entirely resolved.

5/1
Into the Abyss (2011) 7/10

5/7
The Day He Arrives (2011) 8/10
Glissements progressifs du plasir (1974) 8/10

5/8
The Visitors (1972) 6/10

5/9
From the Journals of Jean Seberg (1995) 8/10
Bride of Frankenstein (1935) 10/10

5/10
Mammy (1930) 6/10
The Avengers (2012) 9/10

5/13
This is Not a Film (2011) 9/10
Faust (2011) 8/10

5/15
Modern Times (1936) 10/10

5/16
Routine Pleasures (1986) 7/10
Monsieur Lazhar (2011) 8/10
Kill List (2011) 9/10

5/17
Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977) 9/10

5/18
Kiseki (2011) 8/10
Training Day (2001) 9/10
Machete (2009) 8/10

5/19
Metropolis (1927) 10/10

5/21
Two Arabian Knights (1927) 6/10

5/22
Crazy Horse (2011) 9/10

5/23
Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956) 10/10

5/25
The “High Sign” (1920) 8/10
One Week (1920) 8/10
Convict 13 (1920) 9/10
The Scarecrow (1920) 6/10
Neighbors (1921) 7/10
The Haunted House (1921) 8/10
Hard Luck (1921) 8/10

5/27
The Goat (1921) 8/10
The Play House (1921) 10/10
The Boat (1921) 6/10
The Paleface (1922) 8/10
Cops (1922) 9/10
My Wife’s Relations (1922) 7/10

5/28
The Blacksmith (1922) 8/10
The Frozen North (1922) 6/10
Day Dreams (1922) 8/10
The Electric House (1922) 8/10
The Balloonatic (1923) 8/10
The Love Nest (1923) 7/10
Hard to Handle (1933) 9/10

5/30
Narita:  Heta Village (1973) 8/10
The True Story of Jesse James (1957) 7/10
The Piano (1993) 8/10

5/31
Comedy of Innocence (2000) 7/10

Best Film of the Month - Bride of Frankenstein
Worst Film of the Month - None (tempted to give the nod to Mammy but it’s technical innovations are enough to let me be generous and give props to all)
Best New Discovery - Kill List

Seriously why haven't you seen Kill List yet?

The State of Cinema 2012 - Starring The Avengers

It’s mid-May and I’m sure by now you all are aware of this film called The Avengers.  Knowing my particular fondness for the nerdier side of life and in particular this group of super heroes you might be wondering if I was going to blog about the film, well I am, so get ready.

Marvel is a well built universe of comic characters.  Most of them reside in real locations, New York in particular, and throughout the history of the company characters have constantly appeared in each other’s respective stories.  Now I know DC has had plenty of Superman/Wonder Woman/Batman interactions and the Justice League has been around for damn near ever, but well DC has never been as cool as Marvel.  I’ve been waiting for an Avengers movie for the better part of my life, and when my particular favorite Iron Man came out in 2008 I was given the first little tease that the dream of an Avengers movie was soon to be a reality.

Now over the course of the last four years since Iron Man proved to be a hit there were a lot of things that could have happened to make this Avengers movie either never happen or be a disaster.  Not all Marvel movies are created equal (Daredevil, Fantastic Four, Ghost Rider which all seem to have gotten uncalled for sequels), but this new batch was sticking to the comic format of interacting.  It was clear that this was a long term plan and I’d have to anxiously wait for everyone to get their proper introduction before the big show.  It’s not really like the X-Men who were always a group and grew as superheroes and learned their powers as part of a group.  The Avengers were formed by a group of already established super heroes who when necessary would band together to tackle major problems. 

Some people might wonder why the Hulk would be part of this group.  After all he’s by far the least social member of the group and his power is generally a sign of severe chaos, but well way back in 1963 he was a charter member of the group.  Granted he quit almost immediately (by issue #2 to be accurate) but yes Hulk was an original Avenger.  So was Hank Pym (aka Ant Man, Giant Man, Yellowjacket, etc) and his wife The Wasp but well not too surprised they didn’t make the cut. 

The films although acceptable to a mass audience seem particularly geared with the nerd at heart.  We got a glimpse of Hawkeye in Thor as he grabbed a bow and arrow, Terrence Howard looked at the suit of iron and said “Next time”, here patience was the key.  My point is that not only do these films benefit from prior knowledge of the comics (the Leader origin in the last Hulk film, the Mandarin teaser in the first Iron Man), they also benefit from having seen all the previous films.  In the same way Star Wars helped build on what came before and how the pre-quels were supposed to serve as the backstory of things mentioned in the good films.  Walking into one of the random films might be fine, but it would be better if you saw what came before.  The fact that there virtually is no origin for the Avengers, simply the assembling (pardon the pun) of the group from previously established characters.  It helps allow the film to dig into the action more or less because by now we should know all about S.H.I.E.L.D and Nick Fury, we’ve seen Loki in action, and we know all about the cosmic cube (or whatever they decided to change the name to here), the fact that Captain America was thawed out, Hulk and his knowledge of gamma radiation, Iron Man and his self sustaining energy source, etc.  Likewise without knowledge of these things, a few times you might be inclined to scratch your head.

This is in direct contrast to last year’s X-Men:  First Class which went back to establish the group and how the mutants fit on each side.  Which made it infinitely better than the first X-Men film made in 2000 which seemed to skip right past a lot of those little details that made the last film so fantastic.  So perhaps because I'm measuring the film on a different level that I hesitate to say it is a masterpiece.  For once though I do feel like Hulk in CGI form just might work, although I still would prefer some juiced up body builder to play him.

Now I’ll admit the time I started writing this and the time I’m posting it has turned out to be quite a difference so if I’m re-treading on familiar ground my apologies.  As we hit Memorial Day, The Avengers has finally been toppled at the box office by a rather unwarranted Men In Black sequel, but whatever, does anyone outside of a movie studio give a shit about box office these days?  The thing I was reading in a recent Tribune article mentioned that The Avengers was crippling the competition as films like The Dictator, Dark Shadows and Battleship in particular opened to disappointing returns.  Well I wanted to mention this and say that it is hardly the fact that The Avengers is just this all powerful beast that’s keeping those films from finding their audience, the fact is no one really seems to give a crap about those films.

For starters The Avengers was an idea as a film that’s been brewing for a good four years, meaning in that time you’ve gotten little teasers and slowly building to a monumental release.  Not to mention even without the prior film’s tying in I’d still be stoked as shit for an Avengers movie simply because I’ve been an avid comic fan for the majority of my life.  So let’s look at these other three films and why they aren’t living up to expectations:

The Dictator - I’ll be honest I actually do want to see this.  For starters I didn’t even know when it was released.  Avengers I had my calendar marked for months waiting for it, and well I’ll be certainly on top of the next Batman film when that comes out.  Now this isn’t anything new with Mr. Cohen’s films.  Borat I saw probably two months after it was released, and was one of only two people in the theater.  Bruno I likewise saw several weeks after release so you might say for various reasons I’ve never made a point of catching his films opening weekend, despite the fact that I am a fan.  Other people I know have mentioned that the film looked rather terrible in previews and the fact that the character is an entirely new one (as opposed to his other three characters that came from Da Ali G Show) it doesn’t have a built in fan base or familiarity with it.  Instead of seeing Bruno or Borat because of the skits with those characters on the show, here you’d be seeing it largely because you liked what he did before, completely separate of this character.  Truthfully the film seems to be making steady money, so if anyone thought this would be some $300 million juggernaut they were probably kidding themselves.

Dark Shadows - Where do I begin?  Ok there are plenty of people of the older generation, or at least my parents and anyone in their late 50s-early 60s that remember the soap opera with vampires from it’s original run.  Perhaps you have a fondness for it, or even remember the prime time reboot of the show in the early 90s.  Ok but that’s where the familiarity ends, I can’t imagine too many people thinking that would be a fantastic thing to drag up for another reboot on the big screen.  Then we have the “please make them stop” combo of Tim Burton and Johnny Depp.  Ok, Edward Scissorhands was great and so was Ed Wood but can you honestly say another one of their collaborations was spectacular?  The Corpse Bride was the only remotely original idea these two have made in the past decade, and Tim Burton’s best film of the last 15 years is not surprisingly the only one made without Mr. Depp (Big Fish, go see it if you haven’t).  This is simply another reminder that once upon a time Tim Burton used to have a great vision and was a clever inventive filmmaker.  Now he simply rehashes someone else’s idea, casts his wife and Mr. Depp and proceeds to put him in pale creepy makeup and act eccentric.  Considering how boring and downright bad Sweeney Todd and Alice in Wonderland were, I’m giving up on Mr. Burton for now.  I mean how many times can you be burned with the same lackluster duo.  I mean Martin Scorsese and Leonardo DiCaprio have been churning out gold for the past decade, but even they decided to take a break while Scorsese made Hugo, but well comparing any director to Scorsese isn’t exactly fair.  This film bombing is simply inevitable.  Up next for Tim Burton, another remake, this time of his own film Frankenweenie.  I mean really how long before he decides to remake Pee-Wee’s Big Adventure with a 56 year old Johnny Depp?  I’m shuddering because I could totally see him doing it.

Battleship - Ok in the long line of movie based on board games we pretty much have Clue and  . . . . Ok so maybe the sub-genre of board games turned into movies is about as remarkable as video games turned into movies, so this one is really a head scratcher.  Let’s make a movie about the game battleship but let’s put aliens in it, wtf?  Who comes up with this shit and who decides it’s a good idea.  It’s like someone did some market research and realized their studio somehow bought out Milton Bradley at some point and wondered if those games could make good movies, then they got a focus group together and decided that aliens are cool, and people seem to really like this Rihanna singer, so let’s throw it all together and make a big pile of putrid filth and charge people $12 a pop to torture themselves.  Well apparently overseas the movie is going considerably better, so much for the rest of the world having better taste than Americans.  I admit I only saw one preview for the film but I really, really wanted to wash my eyes out with bleach after those five minutes of agony.  I’m not sure I’ve seen a film look worse since Jack and Jill. 

So how could the Avengers bury all this “competition” well I’m amazed these films made any money.  Now who knows if Rock of Ages can clean up?

Is there hope?

Well around the mid-point of the year I find it necessary to offer some insight as to the best films I’ve seen thus far.  Typically I expect to find a couple of decent pictures by this point but well pickens are slim this time around.  In fact the few good films that can be considered 2012 releases I actually saw last year.  So I’ll offer a few recommendations of films that good or great are at least worth watching.

Once Upon a Time in Anatolia - Ok I’ll come right out and say it, I didn’t get it.  This film can try your patience as not a lot happens in any dramatic sense.  Incredibly long shots and scenes of real time boring police procedural work, it does start to slowly build to something and if you have the patience to get through it you will be rewarded, but it’s a film I somewhat hesitate to recommend because well it’s not for everyone.  If you saw Distant or Climates and enjoyed them, this would be worth checking out if you’ve never heard of those films, rent them first then decide if you want to proceed to this.

The Kid with a Bike - Belgium’s Dardenne brothers have been making neo-realist dramas for quite awhile now.  Maybe you saw La Promesse, Rosetta, L’enfant, The Son, or Lorna’s Silence but either way they’ve done some damn good work.  I was particularly fond of Lorna’s Silence and it just missed my top 10 in 2009.  This film damn near made my top ten from 2011 until I realized that technically it’s a 2012 release, but sometimes foreign DVDs make their way here before an American distributor decides to release a film.  Opinion on this film is somewhat divided, but I consider it one of their strongest efforts.

The Turin House - Well if you know who Bela Tarr is I don’t need to say anything else about this film.  If you don’t well you may or may not find this to be a groundbreaking masterpiece.  Again Tarr loves his infinitely long takes, and in 1987 he pretty much decided he was never going to shoot a film in color again.  So if you’re partial to slow paced black and white Eastern European films with extraordinary cinematography he might just turn out to be your favorite director.  I’ve seen his 7 ½ hour Satantango twice so that might tell you how much I enjoy even his longest work.  I found this film to fit in with his canon quite well, some thinking it’s his finest film in ages, and most agreeing it was an improvement over The Man From London.  Either way I’d watch this 25 times before I sit through even the trailer for Battleship again.

Kill List - This film has me in a bind.  I can’t recall the last time I saw a film where I really, really, really wanted to discuss it with every living soul I could find, but this is that film.  Unfortunately I don’t personally know anyone else who has seen the film.  This puts me in a bind.  I’m not sure if it’s a masterpiece, and despite the brief description I read of the film before watching it, I wasn’t entirely convinced it was a horror film.  When something new, original, and ambiguous hits the horror movie circuit people generally seem to lose their minds over it.  After all no genre is more starved for anything worthwhile quite like horror.  This is why some people may go overboard with praise of an original idea (I admit I was perhaps guilty of this with Paranormal Activity).  I won’t say a damn other thing about the film, except, see it now, immediately and then we shall discuss.

And that’s all for now, I’ll have the month of May’s film journal up in the next couple of days so stay tuned.