Luis Bunuel’s L’age d’or and That Obscure Object of Desire

I would reckon over the past decade I seem to post one blog for every three I write in my head beforehand. Sometimes it’s a matter of an idea slipping away, often it requires more research that I never get around to doing, and occasionally it just seems like the wrong time. I revisited Luis Bunuel’s first and last feature films over a week ago with the idea to write this here blog but with the world on fire I wondered if it wasn’t a little tone deaf. People have different methods of coping with external strife. Some people want to silence all voices not directly helping the cause, and some people just go silent so they don’t add any of their own noise to a crowded discussion. I personally have to wrestle with the double-edged sword of realizing that as a boring old white guy, I don’t need to chime in on how disenfranchised people are feeling. On the other hand, too many people are accusing others like me of being complicit in white supremacy by not actively posting things. Well damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

A lot of people within the film world are using this time to draw some attention to black filmmakers and their grossly under-represented stories. This is another reason why celebrating two surrealist gems from a Spaniard might seem a little out of touch. There are numerous resources to watch some important works from black filmmakers and nearly every streaming service is making it a little easier to spotlight some of these titles. I have been told that Criterion has made a number of titles free to stream for people who don’t yet have their channel. I would like to point out that removing Gone with the Wind from HBO Max shortly after launch seems to be missing the point, but kudos to them getting ahead of things.

I have never been a fan of blocking out films that are problematic. In fact I think it’s far more important to watch those films and learn from them. You should know what anti-Jewish propaganda looked like in 1930’s Germany. If there’s a film with white people in black face, take it in, take a good look at it, get angry, don’t pretend these things don’t exist. Are you watching a British film set in India with white actors in makeup donning an accent? Let that soak in and try to breathe in just how racist and tone deaf many film industries have been for decades. You should also take note of how things have changed, ask yourself if certain movies could be made today, and why things have changed to avoid it. I think it’s important to view cinema’s shameful past so that we can hopefully learn from it. Should we be “canceling” classics of cinema because modern audiences have evolved? Maybe, but pretending these films weren’t made is not the answer.

Again I should point out I’m a film historian and a straight white man, so take that under consideration when deciding if I have a valid point. I’ve always set out from the start to let this blog be exclusively about cinema. For that reason I tend to filter whatever might be happening in the world through the prism of my area of expertise. One of the most difficult things I’ve had to learn is when to just shut up and listen. So I’ll leave it at that and we can discuss Bunuel’s respective alpha and omega.

When I was a younger man getting into cinema I’d usually check out ten films at a time. I’d often do this 3 times a week, maybe taking a break if I had any time left over to watch things I recorded off of TV or dig into the ever increasing pile of DVDs I had. Being as systematic as I could, I would usually watch movies in the order of length, so longest movie first, shortest movie last. If I got more than one film from a director I’d watch those chronologically. Well three directors always got me a little more excited than others:  Michelangelo Antonioni, Jean-Luc Godard, and Luis Bunuel. For Antonioni there was something about the existential dread of the bored and privileged that resonated with my disillusioned younger self. I wasn’t as aware that subconsciously his elaborate long takes hit the right nerve centers in my brain. For Godard he was the wild-card. He threw out all conventional notions of filmmaking, and I wasn’t sure what I would get from movie to movie. Bunuel’s surrealism appealed to me greatly, but I think he was in many ways the synthesis of those two other directors. Bunuel’s films often lacked closure like Antonioni, his characters were often bored and rich, but he played with the language of cinema in some of the same ways Godard did. 

L’age d’or (1930) is not Bunuel’s first film. He collaborated with Salvador Dali on Un Chien Andalou, but that was clearly a short. Although L’age is barely over an hour, it still counts as a feature. Bunuel would follow it up with Land Without Bread (another short, this time a documentary) and wouldn’t make a proper feature film until 1947. So for the intellectual artists who dabbled in surrealism, L’age d’or stood as a great but singular offering. Cocteau also made his directorial debut in 1930 with Blood of a Poet, and instead of a grand wave of talking surrealist films, these proved to be aberrations. Perhaps it was due to complicated funding, technical limitations (both films were shot silent), but surrealism in film was soon relegated to experimental shorts (Meshes of the Afternoon) or the occasional dream sequence (Spellbound).

Dali’s contribution to L’age d’or has been the subject of debate for decades. His involvement is typically acknowledged as minimal to non-existent here. The collaboration had already soured before production began so many film historians cite this as Bunuel’s first solo work. Un Chien Andalou was deliberately conceived to have no plot, simply surrealist imagery and some loose dream logic. In an early film history class I was pointed out for being “no fun” when my teacher asked us to interpret the film and I mentioned it had no meaning. L’age d’or by contrast has some sort of story, one that links in many ways to his final film That Obscure Object of Desire. If you can boil the plot down, you can simply say a couple are trying to have sex, and religion, society, and nature keep getting in their way. Sexual frustration was deeply rooted in Bunuel’s work, and it became a lifelong obsession, which can be blamed on his Catholic upbringing, even if that is a potential over-simplification.

I often argue that Bunuel’s best work doesn’t rely on story, sure sometimes he can construct a great narrative to go with his imagery (Los Olvidados, Viridiana, Bell du Jour), but more often he takes a premise and works from there. The Exterminating Angel and Simon of the Desert are two works that align well with L’age d’or. You can describe the films with a single sentence, but that doesn’t begin to explain why they are great. That Obscure Object of Desire (1977) falls somewhat in between the two. It lacks much of the overt surrealistic imagery of some of his best work, but from a plot standpoint it is incredibly simple and straight forward. Essentially a wealthy middle-aged man is trying to have sex with a girl who does nothing but tease and torment him.

Sexual frustration might have been the overarching thesis in Bunuel’s work but it has never been so overtly the point as it is in his final film. Some directors seem to wrap up what they’re about with their final film (Ozu, Bergman), but with Bunuel it seems more happenstance. That Obscure Object of Desire isn’t a penultimate summation of a lengthy career, it just happens to explicitly hammer home a predominant theme. Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie feels more like that last grand statement, and perhaps Bunuel conceived it as such, churning out two additional films that in different ways were echoes of the past. That Obscure Object was one of Bunuel’s greatest hits, it earned him a pair of Oscar nominations and hit a pretty large international audience.

Both films take wildly different approaches to telling a similar story. L’age d’or is much more chaotic. Gaston Modot is the thwarted male lead, who appeared in a number of surrealist films as well as Rules of the Game in 1939. Over the past several years I’ve grown to love Rules of the Game a lot, but I never connected the dots before. He also appeared in Children of Paradise and Grand Illusion for what it’s worth. Lya Lys, his German co-star had a slightly less distinguished career who was out of the industry by 1940. Well known artists Max Ernst and Josep Llorens Artigas have small parts as well.

L’age d’or is the result of an amateur to put it plainly. It might be something of a masterpiece, but it betrays Bunuel’s youth. After the sensation of Un Chien Andalou this has the feeling of trying to top the previous film. It is somewhat sacrilegious, but also just absurd. Our “hero” is anything but, he assaults a blind man, kicks a dog, emphatically steps on a beetle, and is openly hostile. He even finds some time for some light sexual assault. This has the air of a story told by a young man who wants to piss people off. It was successful in that aim. The film was denounced by most church groups and sadly went unseen for decades in some places. Even the surviving print is in rough shape. Bunuel in an effort to conserve funds used nearly every foot of film he had for the 63 minutes. Essentially meaning there is an improvisational feel to the picture. There wasn’t the luxury for multiple takes and extra coverage, so there are some moments that feel like they were making it up as they went along. The charm works though, and it’s still a very fun film to watch. The running time certainly helps it’s cause.   

That Obscure Object of Desire has some source material. The Woman and the Puppet was an 1898 novel by Pierre Louys that was supposedly adapted several other times. Fernando Rey was often considered Bunuel’s surrogate in his later films, as Mastroianni was for Fellini. They first worked together in Viridiana back in 1961, and collaborated on three more pictures. Rey is perfect for this role as a man slightly out of touch with all the money and half the patience necessary for this task. He is just oblivious enough to not realize what is happening to him, vain to the point of blindness. For the female lead, Bunuel had an interesting idea. Although he didn’t name her specifically, it was believed that Maria Schneider was his first choice who had to drop out. After a few drinks Bunuel and producer Serge Silberman decided to use two actresses for the same role. This was hardly the first time someone had the idea to use one person in the same role, but instead of having different actresses play a role in different stages of their life, Bunuel used them interchangeably, sometimes even within the same scene. Although Carole Bouquet and Angela Molina look slightly similar they are clearly two different people.

That Obscure Object of Desire is less openly surrealist than most of Bunuel’s late work. It hearkens back more to his straightforward Mexican films. However those movies were always tinted with surrealism, slightly odd touches that made the film feel anything but normal. Here we have a chorus of left-wing terrorists committing random acts of terrorism as a backdrop throughout the film. Rarely are they commented on, but frequently seen in the background and usually offer no more than a line on turning around to avoid the traffic jam they caused. In Bunuel’s world political unrest exist but his characters are oblivious to it and often just roll their eyes at the inconvenience of it all.

This is arguably the central theme of Bunuel’s work. In Belle de Jour, Marcel is something of a gangster, but it’s more an object of fascination or excitement for Severine than any cause she needs to adopt. In this way Bunuel’s films always seem to show you how less popular people may be thinking. Let’s face it, as much as change needs to happen in this world, a lot of people are probably more concerned about blocking off streets or interrupting their shows with news conferences than actively dismantling white supremacy. Bunuel understood this and made a point of showing his main characters as oblivious to the serious issues around them. It makes them seem more petty and easier to laugh at. Rey’s Mathieu seems to be the only one not in on the joke. We all know that Conchita will perpetually tease him and lead him on, but Mathieu still thinks of himself as a worthy virile mate. His money and position allow him to think he’s worthy of a woman half his age, who despite having no money of her own, is in no way beholden to him. She knows she’ll survive and seems to only reconcile long enough to torment him some more. To quote Krusty the Klown, it's only funny when he's "a sap with dignity".

I might hesitate to call That Obscure Object of Desire a masterpiece. L’age d’or is, albeit a flawed one, and in some people’s estimates a masterpiece can’t be flawed. That Obscure Object of Desire is a more mature film clearly, as it was made by a man 47 years older than the director of L’age d’or. Bunuel’s sense of humor got a little more subtle, and he loved poking fun at the absurdity of high society, illustrated most succinctly in The Exterminating Angel and Discreet Charm. If for some reason you bemoan Bunuel’s surrealist tendencies and long for a more conventional narrative that’s just a little off kilter, this would be right up your alley. There’s a reason Bunuel was always among my top 10 favorite directors, he was great from the first to the last. He never got a chance to make another film although he lived for 6 more years after this.


  

HBO Max and the Early Films of Carl Theodor Dreyer

 

Before we dig into the exciting world of Carl Theodor Dreyer’s early films, I’d like to take a moment to discuss yet ANOTHER new streaming service, HBO Max. This debuted a couple of days ago and does anyone care? The answer should be no, but there are some good things about this service so I might as well get into it here.

The good news is if you have HBO Go or HBO Now you automatically have HBO Max. From what the fine print says I also believe that if you have a subscription to HBO via that good old fashioned cable, then you too have access, but I can’t swear on that.So other than the annoyance of having another app/service to browse I can’t really complain about “free” access. As a plus side this means I can probably ditch HBO Go, so essentially we’re just trading one for another. I don’t however know if updates for new shows will be instantaneous or not.

One of the supposed awful drawbacks of HBO Go and Now was the fact that you needed a subscription to HBO, which defeats the purpose of dealing with cable. Now there are add-on’s via YouTube TV, Hulu, Amazon Prime, and others, but the idea was to have access to HBO shows independent of cable. I’m not 100% sure that HBO Max has corrected this error, but if so that alone would be a huge plus.

Now for the service itself. The interface isn’t too different from HBO Go, which is slightly unfortunate. They still haven’t quite figured out the pace to binge shows, which honestly was perfected by Netflix. I’m not sure why other streaming services haven’t directly copied this process, and god bless skipping introductions. That said the only show I’ve watched on HBO Max thus far is Doctor Who, and I don’t plan on ever skipping that intro, because that theme song is a banger. You might also notice that Doctor Who isn’t an HBO show. This is the exclusive streaming home of it, and apparently if you’re into garbage, they are also streaming Friends and The Big Bang Theory. This is the carrot to dangle, offering things beyond the scope of just HBO. Sadly I thought the Max was for Cinemax and there’d be an endless library of softcore boobie pictures, but that does not seem to be the case. Also annoying is the fact that they have not yet made the app available on Roku, so we’re only able to access it through my Playstation 4, but I assume that will change soon.

The promos for this claim access to the Warner library of classic films, and logging on the first time you might get distracted seeing Gone with the Wind, Casablanca, and Citizen Kane available for streaming. This is undoubtedly good, but for the people who missed out on the short-lived Filmstruck, you might wonder where the rest of that catalogue is. The majority of the classic films listed under the TCM umbrella are actually Criterion titles. Since I have the Criterion Channel, this is largely superfluous, but if you don’t it’s a nice bonus. I hope in future months they add more random offerings from the MGM, Warner, RKO backlog, but that remains to be seen.

Exclusive streaming rights are arbitrary, but original content is clearly the biggest selling point for any new show. Unfortunately most people are at the point where it’s better to illegally download the one or two exclusive shows you’re interested in rather than subscribe to another useless streaming site (please don’t pay for Picard). The only original program I’m interested in is Doom Patrol, which might have started on HBO Now. Anna Kendrick has some show I’ll probably never watch on there, so not sure what gets to be on HBO and what is relegated to HBO Max. Overall I’d say it’s fine if you already get it for free, otherwise do a 7 day trial, binge Doctor Who and Doom Patrol then sign off.

Now onto some silent films

Carl Theodor Dreyer is in rare company among filmmakers. He’s one of a small handful of directors that had two entries on my last top 100 film list (The Passion of Joan of Arc, Ordet). He also spent the last several decades of his career as a reverse Terence Malick, averaging a film a decade. For his first decade though he was significantly more active. After a brief period as a screenwriter (which also included writing intertitles) he made his directorial debut in 1919. He made 8 films over the next 7 years, which surpassed his output from the last four decades of his life.

As unique and singular as his later films were, whose status has only become more legendary over time, his earlier films are much less distinguished offerings. Always conscious of the high art of the cinema, Dreyer was yet to develop a unique voice in his early work, and many of those films seem either derivative or right in line with contemporary cinema.That doesn’t mean they are bad, in fact all of them are worth checking out, they just aren’t the radical and transcendent films he would be known for afterwards. There is none of the radical compositions of Joan of Arc or the dreamlike surrealism of Vampyr. The long takes that got more extreme as he went on were also nowhere near as noticeable in these films. Even though many silent films shot in longer tableau shots, this is more typical than the mark of a revolutionary filmmaker.

You might be wondering the reason why I’m digging into all of these films. Well for starters I tracked down David Bordwell’s long out of print book The Films of Carl-Theodor Dreyer, and read through the first several chapters. It is a very academic read that is a little unnecessarily obtuse, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t some great points to be gleamed. Bordwell himself has lamented some of his musings in the book, but there is still a great deal of insight to be found. The other main reason is that thanks to the wonder of YouTube, all of his early silent films are available to watch for free. So over the course of a day I re-visited Master of the House, then watched The President, Once Upon a Time, Love One Another, and The Bride of Glomdal.

Admittedly it’s been years since I watched The Parson’s Widow, Leaves From Satan’s Book, and Michael so my memory of these is largely based on Bordwell’s chapters. Michael has gotten some more attention in recent decades for being one of the earliest depiction of a homosexual relationship, even if it is subtle. Leaves From Satan’s Book was a Scandinavian answer to Griffith’s Intolerance and an attempt to re-capture markets lost to American encroachment after the first World War. I have no thoughts on The Parson’s Widow, but as I said before it is on YouTube, so go nuts.

As for the films I did watch let’s review those individually:

The President (1919)

Dreyer’s first film is one of the more solid debut features of the silent era. Many filmmakers learned more or less on the job, but because of Dreyer’s years as a writer he had plenty of time to think about how he would make a film if given the chance to direct. Dreyer believed that cinema should lean into the traditions of literature and the stage, so like Welles and Kubrick, all of Dreyer’s scripts were adaptations. What is interesting is how mediocre some of his source material was, despite it’s popularity of the day. There was something of a robust Danish stage scene of the day, however all of Dreyer’s sources have faded into obscurity.

The President, which should more accurately be titled the Magistrate, has a rather novel construction for the period. There are multiple flash-backs and time shifts in the story with several principle characters. Many silent films and early dramas have plots that rely on conflict that is obsolete today. Things like infidelity, unmarried women having children, people being shunned socially, parents/guardians disapproving of a suitor, etc. This is one reason why most of the best regarded silent films either have more violent/supernatural premises or some avant-garde techniques. Dreyer’s own Joan of Arc hits both of those marks. The President essentially tells of two generations of upper class men who abandoned common women they loved to fend for themselves. In the process the illegitimate daughter of the title character winds up accidentally killing her own illegitimate child and has to face his trial. Dreyer himself was an orphan, so it stands to reason he would have an interest in a story of this kind.

Very sordid stuff, the film is most fascinating to watch because of its order. It begins with the father’s cautionary tale and flashback, then the present revelation, and eventually the story of the daughter’s woe. There is a prison break and some redemption but nothing ever gets too convoluted. It’s not hard to follow who is who and what time period we’re in, and Dreyer can also join Kubrick’s The Killing, and Welles’ Kane in telling non-linear plots in early films. This might be the best executed of his earlier films, but be warned the version of YouTube has a few letters on screen that are nearly impossible to read.

Love One Another (1922)

This film has several titles, but I’m going with the one used on Wikipedia. This to me was probably the most interesting film of Dreyer’s early period mainly because the story line is so much bigger than mere societal drama. It certainly appears early on that our main heroine would be the victim of village gossip and that would turn out to be the central conflict. However this quickly becomes moot when you throw in anti-semitism and the Bolshevik revolution. If anyone ever wondered what a Soviet film would be like if it focused on an individual rather than the collective and was also edited in a more conventional manner, this would be the film. It was Dreyer’s first film made in Germany with a cast of many displaced Russian jews.

My only complaint is the more half-baked melodrama in the earlier part of the film. A rumor gets a girl kicked out of school right before graduation. Not saying there weren’t pearl clutching harpies back in the day, but as a motivating incident to send our heroine to St. Petersberg, it just seems weak. Her brother’s adoption of Christianity and rejecting his Yiddish heritage are a much more compelling subplot. However once you bring the revolutionaries in the mix things get interesting. The final climatic riot is still a great sequence, and worth the price of admission. Even among the more obscure early Dreyer titles, this film seems to get very little attention. It’s a shame for it might be the best of his early work. There are apparently only four known prints of this film in existence, but it is on YouTube.

Once Upon a Time (1922)

This film was thought lost for a time, and frankly the version in existence is still a little incomplete. The current version circulating used a few production stills and an existing script to try and patch it together. The title would certainly suggest it’s a fairy tale, and it is of sorts, complete with the somewhat arbitrary handling of death so common in stories of this sort. There is a general lack of supernatural or fantastic elements, save one magic lamp that can glimpse into the future ever so slightly.

The problem with the film itself is that it doesn’t seem to lean far enough into the fairy tale elements while not making the more grounded sequences believable. As a result it seems awkwardly perched between two contrasting tones and it doesn’t mesh. This is strictly a historical curiosity for people digging deep into Dreyer’s work so I can’t in good faith recommend it except for the completionist.

Master of the House (1925)

Long known as Thou Shalt Honor Thy Wife, Master of the House is the only of Dreyer’s pre-Joan films to be given the Criterion treatment. For that reason I took a break from YouTube to watch this on The Criterion Channel. It is frequently cited as the closest thing to a comedy Dreyer made. For those expecting a silent comedy you will be sorely let down, and despite a somewhat lighter tone than most of his other films it’s not exactly a laugh riot. Dreyer was known to take exceptional care when designing sets for his films, and he built a completely enclosed apartment for this movie. There is a sort of claustrophobia and the oppressive nature of the housework is easily conveyed by the numerous obstacles throughout the house.

It is a domestic satire if you will about one husband taking his wife for granted. When she leaves to rest, he has to assume the household duties and learns the true meaning of Christmas or some shit. This isn’t pure misogynistic Mr. Mom stuff, but it does indicate that we could all be a little kinder to each other. Each member of the house is doing their part to keep things together. I’m not sure what the feminist take on this film is, if anything it could serve as a curious oddity to modern viewers. It is noteworthy more for what it points to in later films. Dreyer would return to the closed in set with longer shots in Ordet, but the claustrophobia would be much more pronounced in The Passion of Joan of Arc. There is a lot more information on this via the Criterion blu-ray so feel free to check that out. Overall though I would say the film is merely ok.

The Bride of Glomdal (1926)

Made in Norway, this was Dreyer’s last film before the international triumph of Joan of Arc. This film was barely a blip on the radar and honestly I wasn’t even aware of it’s existence. There are several versions of it ranging from about 70 minutes to 115, so no idea which still exists. It was made in Norway from an instantly forgotten novel by Jacob Breda Bull. As much as I wanted to believe that Dreyer’s final film of his early period would be leading to the culmination of everything before it, this is a boring mess.

The story is about two people on neighboring farms who essentially are in love. Another man asks to marry the girl, the father approves, and she runs off. She is disowned by her father, and with the help of the town priest, the families are reconciled and they get married. On the way to the wedding the jilted former fiance sabotages their transportation and a very boring sequence of the groom trying to cross the river on horse and trying extremely slowly to catch some logs so he doesn’t drown rounds it out. The climax reminds you of Griffith’s Way Down East, but without the breaking ice. No doubt the ending was meant as a showstopper and it certainly feels like it compared to the rest of the incredibly boring and pointless film. I would definitely pass on this one for anyone other than pure completionists.

So there it is, Dreyer’s early work. Passion of Joan of Arc was next, and it remains one of the greatest films of all time. I would recommend investigating some of his earlier work especially if you are relatively ignorant of what was once a very dominant Scandinavian film industry. A couple would be completely forgotten if it weren’t for the fact that Dreyer was attached. It is something of a miracle that all of his output as director survives, a fate that wouldn’t be as kind to others like Sjostrom, Murnau, Lubitsch, Ozu, and countless others. Are any of these films better than his later triumphs, that’s debatable, but find out for yourself.

The Coronavirus Film Festival

Hey all you cool cats and kittens, how’s life in quarantine? Same, anyways we are in unprecedented times and you might have noticed that things are different right now. Our society is learning that many of the arbitrary constraints of our government, society, and economic system are frankly useless bullshit. Here in Chicago our short meme-worthy mayor has told her cops to ease off parking tickets and towing, which makes me wonder why the hell they do this stuff regularly. Many people have eviction and/or rent freezes, and of course the ever-present need for free healthcare has become readily apparent.

I could spend a good amount of virtual ink discussing the myriad ways this has exposed our faulty infrastructure, listing reasons why this could lead to a patented socialist(ish) revolution, but this is a film blog, and I’ll stick to what I know. The big question regarding film is whether or not covid-19 can do what television, home video, cable, the internet, and streaming never could; which is kill movie theaters once and for all. As many studios have pushed back release dates on upcoming films, others have been pro-active about lending first run films to streaming platforms. We all know that no one needs to go to a movie theater, even dedicated cinephiles like myself can admit that watching in the comfort of your own home is quite acceptable. The gotta see it first mentality of going to a movie theater on opening day/weekend is what has largely driven the mainstream film industry in recent years/decades. It’s the reason that so much of a new release's success is measured by opening weekend box office. Only a few select art house pictures can gauge success on limited screens and growing distribution. For the average $100 mil+ budget CGI spectacle it’s all about how you do in those first crucial days.

Often these films are forgotten about instantaneously. If a film is deemed unsuccessful, most studios just cut their losses, hope they make it up in the international market, and call it a day. The fact that there are a single digit amount of companies that own all of the media, none of them are particularly devastated by a flop. There are so many additional sources of revenue that even a disastrous bomb like the recent Doolittle still can turn a profit. The theater though is where you get into “no spoilers” pop culture buzz. This was no more apparent with the recent Marvel movies and other lesser franchise pictures. Even before Rise of Skywalker came out, I thought you could spoil the shit out of that movie for me. I really didn’t care what happened, and after seeing it, well I care even less.

My current favorite of MANY Tiger King memes

 

This brings us to streaming, which is assuming the mantle as the dominant form of pop culture consumption right now. Netflix unleashed Tiger King, and holy shit is it magical. It’s been awhile since there was such a must-see streaming show (maybe Making a Murderer?) that has captured the public eye. The memes have been one of the bright spots in these dark and uncertain times. This series really has everything, too much to keep track of. We’re even discovering now that Joe Exotic’s country songs were actually sung by someone else and police have actually re-opened the disappearance case of Carol Baskin’s husband who was totally fed to tigers. Must-see TV indeed.

This has captured the public’s interest in the same way the last two Avengers movies have, albeit for wildly different reasons. Many people, myself included are not working during this lock-down. Quite a few others are working from home, so even they have extra hours in the day without a commute to consider. There are some essential businesses still open and of course medical professionals that are putting in serious over time. You’re all wonderful brave heroes and I hope you’re ok. For the rest of us, we got all the time in the world to binge.

There might be pressure to read a book, learn a new language, paint, and for far too many people start baking bread. The path of least resistance is of course movies/TV/video games. Think of all the shows you said you were going to get around to when you have time, well now you do. Did you see Parasite, no time like the present? Were you 30% through Red Dead Redemption 2, time to log some hours. I will say this loud for all to hear, YOU DO NOT NEED TO FEEL GUILTY FOR SPENDING THIS TIME WATCHING MOVIES AND TV. These are stressful times, and even a certified puzzle addict like myself has only so many jigsaw puzzles.

The catch-up mentality is only going to get more extreme in the coming weeks/months. Make no mistake this will go on for a few more months. I’d like to be optimistic and say life will be back to normal around Memorial Day, but this is based on wishful thinking. I’ll be lucky to be gainfully employed by July. So right now there is still new content coming out. Some movies like Mulan and Black Widow have been pushed back a bit, but it’s entirely possible they may see their debut on Disney+. Sony just recently announced all of it's 2020 summer films were getting pushed back to 2021. 

As for new means of distribution, Steven Soderbergh experimented with this back in 2006 with the release of his experimental and barely seen film Bubble. He released it on DVD the same day it hit theaters, and no one cared. Netflix did a similar tactic for awards consideration and legitimacy with limited theatrical runs for The Irishman and Marriage Story, but this is new. We may go straight to streaming first run features as our only alternative.

Most live action shows and a good many upcoming movie have been shot and edited, so with the exception of live TV, most programs will continue as is for the foreseeable future. Many network shows don’t run new episodes over the summer either so the delayed production could take some time to be felt. The solution is to hunker down and cross off all of those things you’ve been meaning to get around to. So let me take some time to show you what I’ve been doing with my suddenly oppressive amount of free time.

The Criterion Channel is a delightful streaming service. I did start a blog about it back in September, but never finished it. It is Criterion’s third attempt at streaming following their one-time agreement with Hulu, the short-lived FilmStruck which was run primarily by Time Warner, and now their own. It makes sense to have their own service, because of being somewhat screwed over by other hosts. Also by this point in time they’ve got a decent hold on what the hell they’re doing. Now as far as interface and features, this service has a good amount of ways to go, things that I no doubt feel will be optimized in the future.

Now I will say before anyone gets too excited, the channel does not have EVERY Criterion release available. Most of these titles are leased, and there are some complicated legal hoops as to who has broadcast or streaming rights. The good news is there are hundreds of films never released by Criterion that are available. Every month different films come and go, and I have noticed in general the library of available content has ticked upwards in recent months. Some long out of print Criterion films are available to stream, which is great considering a few of these have special features included.

When I say I’ve used this to catch up, that is quite specifically what I’ve done. If at any point over the past year or so I’ve wondered whether the channel has been worth it, I’ve gotten my money out of it now. Thanks to the Criterion Channel, I’ve finally crossed off 1961 in the 50 film department. So I’ve looked towards the past, tackling the 30s, 40s, and parts of the 50s. For some of these films they are just ticks. Me saying I have to see more movies from any given year so watching nearly anything available. I have noticed that Hollywood absolutely dominated film during this period. With all due respect to the myriad Japanese, British, Swedish, and French films I’ve watched they can’t hold a candle to the classic Hollywood studio picture.

The classic Hollywood studio film (officially until 1948 when the landmark Paramount anti-trust case was ruled) showed a remarkable and well run film industry. Hollywood’s dominance began during World War I, when their late involvement gave them an advantage in terms of production. Throughout the next few decades they made a point of snatching up as much foreign talent as possible. As Hitler’s rise to power came in Germany, all too many extremely talented Jewish filmmakers were more than happy to take those American paychecks. Hollywood also imported technicians, composers, movie stars, writers, etc.

One such star was Ingrid Bergman who saw her fame rise over a few years in Sweden during the late 30s. Eclipse put out a series of her early Swedish films, and thanks to the channel I’ve finally gotten around to watching them. With no exception they are, well unexceptional. It is fascinating to see Bergman’s individual evolution though. She would become one of Hollywood’s biggest stars, winning a couple of Oscars, alienating the entire industry with her out-of-wedlock affair with Roberto Rossellini, then eventually having a comeback for the ages. It makes it all the more fascinating to see her in her native language, often a bit player, stealing every single scene she was in. Sweden was known for beautiful women, and it makes it all the more striking when Bergman can stand out among that crowd.

From the otherwise forgetful June Night

The other unique star I was watching a couple of films from was Sabu. Truly one of the anomalies of film stardom, he was a one-named Indian who became a massive child star. Rarely seen without a shirt, he was a go-to in Alexander Korda’s lavish Technicolor films. He is perhaps best known for playing Abu in the 1940 Thief of Bagdad as well as Mowgli in the 1942 Jungle Book. I had seen Thief many years ago, but never watched Korda’s version of The Jungle Book. Since I had never read Kipling’s original story I couldn’t tell if this was much more accurate or a complete abomination compared to the Disney version. Knowing the massive liberties Disney took with source material I’m sure it is somewhere in the middle. The talking animals are to a minimum but it was fun to watch especially after Tiger King because there are real animals in this movie. Something to be said for actual sets and animals, although there are certainly a number of tricks employed here. Just forgive the massive amount of white people playing Indians, which sadly was the style at the time.

 

In addition to some of the random things I’ve watched, including two films starring Danny Kaye and Virigina Mayo (The Secret Life of Walter Mitty and A Song is Born), I’ve been playing a different kind of catch-up. Have you ever had someone ask you if you’ve seen a movie and you had to think a little too long about your answer? Well it happens to the best of us, and after watching many thousands of films, I can barely keep track of things myself. Often I’ll start watching something and recall it, other times I have to consult my list. I also hope that list is accurate, but some films always slip through the cracks. Despite my best intentions I will never see everything. When Sidney Lumet’s films The Fugitive Kind and Fail-Safe came out I assumed I had seen both years ago. After all, Marlon Brando was one of the first actors I sought out, and Fail-Safe I simply assumed I watched. Turns out I hadn’t seen either, as well as the much less remembered The Anderson Tapes.

Lumet was a strange figure in the history of cinema. By the sheer number of great films he directed, he has certainly earned his place among the all-time greats. However he defies the auteur approach considering there really is no unique Lumet style. There were certainly some films he seemed better suited to, but Lumet was something of a chameleon as a director. Counting his 5-star films would lead most people to believe he belongs in the upper echelon of filmmakers but something doesn’t ever pass the smell test with him. Perhaps after I finish the other two of his films on my list I’ll have a better understanding of what made him tick as a filmmaker, but perhaps he will remain an enigma. After all this is the man who directed Murder on the Orient Express in between Serpico and Dog Day Afternoon.

Back in late 2007 I focused my energies on watching all the available movies from my top 20 favorite directors. It led to a greater understanding of all of their work, and helped my completionist streak immensely. In the case of some directors this did them few favors, others I gained a deeper respect for. Sometimes you can’t always find every film. I pushed a few off to the side, or simply tackled what I could find and didn’t pay too much attention to films that were unavailable or considered lost. In the case of a few, I didn’t dedicate a lot of resources to tracking some down and kind of forgot about it. David Lean was a director that I thought I had done. I found a copy of The Sound Barrier which I remembered being his only feature that was unavailable. Turns out Facets, my main source for rentals at the time, had a lost/damaged copy of Madeline that I never got. Fast forward 13 years and after double-checking I added this long lost Lean film to my queue. Jean Renoir, whose run of greatness in the 30s might be the greatest single decade any director also had a gap. I always thought La Chienne was his first sound film, turns out he had one released earlier that year On purge bebe. I didn’t even know this film existed, and I missed it back then.

This quarantine has given me far too much time to be left alone with my thoughts, but also a great opportunity to plug up some of these missing gaps. Ingmar Bergman’s first English language film The Touch, was another movie I simply forgot I never sat through. It’s not often you find a film from the second greatest director to ever live that you never saw. Tomorrow (April 1^st) will reveal a new slew of titles to the channel, some of which might be well worth my time. Curious to see what’s included in the upcoming Columbia noir series. This is the studio responsible for The Big Heat and Murder by Contract, two of the all-time greats. Watching I Walk Alone, the first of many collaborations between Burt Lancaster and Kirk Douglas whetted my appetite for more hard boiled seedy stories.

The point through all of this is during the next several months we can all learn a little more about the history of cinema, dig into some deep cuts from our favorite directors and stars, and illuminate some dark areas of knowledge. We can also spend ample time wondering what the hell we want to be when we grow up, the lack of time excuse is temporarily moot.

Annual Pre-Oscar Post

So this might be the earliest I’ve ever done an Oscar preview, but that’s because this is the earliest the Academy Awards have ever been held (at least in my memory). A week after the Super Bowl once upon a time used to be when the completely pointless Pro Bowl was held, now we get the grand daddy of all award shows. Luckily I came prepared, so let’s get cracking on the what, why, who, and mostly wrong predictions.

In 2005, Hustle and Flow and North Country kept me from my lofty goal of having seen every best picture, actor, actress, director nominee before the nominees were announced. After scouring numerous prediction posts, other award shows, etc. I thought I was in good shape this time around. Well I never made it to the theater in time to see 1917, then was moderately surprised when Cynthia Erivo scored a nod for the very poorly received Harriet.  Once again my grand ambitions to see all the short films has failed, so look forward to blindly guessing on those categories. Anyways the categories.

Best Actress:

Cynthia Erivo - Harriet. It’s hard to knock this nomination because of how very white the Oscars are this year. Yet once again Hollywood is reminding us that they love black people as long as they play slaves, housemaids, or some other form of servant. Kasi Lemmon’s film is not good by any statistical measure. Like many other people I thought of 30 Rock and Tracey Jordan’s failed Harriet Tubman biopic with a hilariously difficult Octavia Spencer. I would have probably much rather enjoyed that trainwreck. Every year though there seems to be some poorly received film about slavery that’s meant to remind people that it was bad in case we forget. Erivo is fine in the role, but frankly Awkwafina was robbed on The Farewell, which could have made history of it’s own for a much better film. Lupita Nyong'o would have also been a better choice, but I guess her dual role wasn't enough of a slave.

Scarlett Johansson - Marriage Story. Big year for Scar-Jo. She starred in the biggest film of all time (End Game) then scored herself two nominations for Oscars. Marriage Story was my favorite film of the year and she was a big reason why. As far as the quality of the film’s featuring best actress nominees, this is uncontested as the best. A few times before we’ve seen actors and actresses nominated more than once, usually winning neither. This might turn out to be more of a happy for the nomination moment.

Saoirse Ronan - Little Women. A fine performance. Most of the cast is quite excellent here, and Ronan has gotten a handful of nominations before. I’m not hearing a ton of buzz for her actually winning, but the Academy can and probably will do worse.

Charlize Theron - Bombshell. Well the award for best performance in a mediocre film probably goes to Theron. She’s great, and in fact nearly everyone is great in this film. I would say I liked Bombshell but somehow this film was less than the sum of it’s parts. It’s hard to pinpoint exactly what made it fall flat, but nearly all the individual elements were excellent. The trio of Theron, Robbie, and Kidman were excellent. Fat John Lithgow also deserved a nomination in the very crowded supporting actor field. Theron has consistently proven herself one of the absolute best and arguably the most versatile actresses of her generation.

Renee Zellwegger - Judy. The star of Texas Chainsaw Massacre the Next Generation is back. After years of relative obscurity Zellwegger is here to remind us all that she can in fact act. This is the type of comeback performance that usually warms Academy voters hearts. The problem is this movie was a catastrophic bore. I groaned loudly when she collapses on stage and those two old gay guys start singing. This hits all the notes of troubled biopic, let’s mimic a famous troubled person, etc. The film itself was pointless and boring, through no fault of Miss Zellwegger of course but bah this will probably win because no one has any vision.

Best Actor:

Antonio Banderas - Pain and Glory. Well there are no shortage of deserving actors this year. I somewhat regret sitting through Rocketman because I thought Egerton was going to be recognized. Having seen Pain and Glory I was hoping Banderas would get some love. He’s been a regular of Almodovar for over 30 years, so fitting he gets a nod for essentially playing Almodovar. The film itself is his best in years and much of it is because of it’s lead. I can envision no scenario where this might actually win, but it’s certainly worth seeing.

Leonardo DiCaprio - Once Upon a Time In…Hollywood. I earned some new-found respect for DiCaprio when I found out he’s an avid action figure collector. The old narrative of the Academy hating Leo is pretty much gone after he finally won for The Revenant. With that trophy though it’s hard to see him capturing another for his turn as Rick Dalton. You can usually count on solid acting in a Tarantino film and this is no exception.

Adam Driver - Marriage Story. In most year’s I’d say this would be a clear front-runner. Driver is very well liked in the industry and he’s riding a Jennifer Lawrence in 2012 wave of good will. It also happens he delivered the year’s best performance in the year’s best film. I know a surprising number of people still haven’t bothered to get around to this film, but come on it’s on Netflix, just put it on and enjoy.

Jaoquin Phoenix - Joker. Phoenix is trying to do something only Robert DeNiro has done, and that’s win an Oscar for a role someone else already won an Oscar for. After re-watching The Master recently I could say Phoenix is trying to win an Oscar for a role he probably should have already won one for. Look I thought the Joker movie was amateurish hogwash as a film, but Phoenix is damn good. It’s that perfect showy role that gets people excited. It looks like a great performance, it passes the eye test, and you’re convinced you’re watching someone emote. Considering he received his first nomination nearly 20 years ago for Gladiator, this might be the time he finally gets one of those gold statues. I wouldn’t be mad about it, but he wouldn’t have been my first choice.

Jonathan Pryce - The Two Popes. This was the other surprise-kinda for the best actor nominees. Pryce did get a Golden Globe nomination but I was not picking him to get represented over DeNiro or others. Now if I had my way Eddie Murphy or Willem Dafoe would have taken the final spot for Dolomite is My Name and The Lighthouse, but it’s hard to argue with the High Sparrow getting recognized. He’s damn good as Pope Francis, and he is solid enough to convince you he’s an old man from Argentina rather than an old British actor. The film itself is one of those solid also-rans that no one will be talking of in a year, but Pryce and Hopkins carry the film.

Best Supporting Actress:

I didn’t see Richard Jewell so I can’t speak on Kathy Bates performance. Despite a relatively strong field here (stronger than the lead actress nominees), I’d have to make Laura Dern my pick. She’s been consistently great for years and like Gary Oldman before her, never seemed to get 1/10^th of the recognition deserved. This seems like her time to shine.

Best Supporting Actor:

The blind-spot in this category is Tom Hanks for A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood. A film I’ve missed despite being a huge fan of Heller’s earlier Diary of a Teenage Girl. My thoughts are not enough people saw The Two Popes, and Pesci/Pacino will cancel each other out. Time for long-time A-lister Brad Pitt to get his lifetime achievement award. Tarantino does have a habit of getting people supporting actor/actress Oscars so I expect that trend to continue.

Best Director:

Martin Scorsese - The Irishman. The great one is nominated again. When The Irishman first came out it seemed like a strong contender to get Marty his second best directing Oscar. This is everything he’s done great, and the film itself was well received and stood out without any clear front-runner. In the months since, more and more people have bitched and moaned about the digital de-aging so I’d say he’s fighting some uphill battle. Few directors could make a 200+ minute movie flow so breezily and keep your interest. He’s more than proven himself the greatest living director, but I don’t particularly love his chances here.

Todd Phillips - The Joker. Well if the director of Talladega Nights can get an Oscar nomination why not the director of Old School? Phillips is largely a hack who likes to bitch and moan that you can’t call people “Dr. Faggot” in movies anymore because we’re too PC. So he’s going to make Baby’s First Taxi Driver, and try and prove he’s some serious artist with a teenager’s concept of social justice and anarchy. The first half of Joker is a god damn chore to sit through, and the last act which actually is quite good isn’t enough to make me forget how amateurish and inept most of what precedes it is.

Sam Mendes - 1917. Sam Mendes won a best director Oscar for his very first film, American Beauty. That was shockingly 20 years ago because we’re all getting old and time slows for no man. It might have seemed like his career peaked very early, but here’s 1917 this year’s answer to the question “What if you combined Birdman and Dunkirk, but set it in World War I?” He seems like a safe choice here because there is enough technical stuff to make him a winner. Keep in mind the Academy members don’t always vote on their favorite film, or even what they think is the best, mainly what they think best represents their industry. That gives Mendes a strong chance to win his second best directing statue. Still wish he was doing the next Bond film though.

Quentin Tarantino - Once Upon a Time In…Hollywood. As I’ve stated many times throughout this blog, I am one hell of a fan of QT. Despite taking home a best screenplay Oscar or two (or three, I honestly don’t remember), he’s never directed a best picture winner or won a best director award. So it stands to reason that his boring, meandering, weakest feature since Death Proof would be the one that might actually get him that trophy. The Academy does love movies set in or based in Hollywood, and I’d be amazed if this doesn’t at least get a Production Design Oscar. As far as a job directing, this movie needed some serious trimming. It’s all set up with nearly no payoff.

Bong Joon Ho - Parasite. The Academy has never given a foreign language film a best picture Oscar, The Artist was the closest thing and we all remember that being silent. They are a little less allergic to giving a best directing Oscar to a foreign language film, as evident by Alfonso Cauron winning last year for Roma. Bong Joon Ho might see a similar consolation prize this year for what has been by far the most universally acclaimed film of the year. I will be rooting for him, but we’ll see how things shake out.

Best Picture:

Ford v Ferrari. Hey remember Atonement, Seabiscuit, Capote, The Queen, Frost/Nixon, etc? Yeah maybe you do, chances are you forgot every one of those movies existed until just this second. James Mangold’s newest film fits directly into that category. Mangold is a fine director who has helmed a few forgettable yet competent movies (Girl, Interrupted, Walk the Line) and this is no different. I enjoyed it, it was well made, entertaining, and I will never think about it again for the rest of my life.

The Irishman. One of the three best picture nominees that made my top 10 list this year. Scorsese’s late-career masterpiece is nearly everything the greatest director alive does well. It is definitely the senior circuit which gives it a little more weight than many of his earlier films. A great film from start to finish. I for one choose not to let the technical limitations in the effects/makeup department distract me from how great the story/acting are.

Jojo Rabbit. This film seemed to scream future cult classic when it was released. A type of movie that would probably find it’s audience a few years down the line and prove to be one of those wacky flicks too original for it’s time. Shockingly enough it found it’s audience immediately. Taika Waititi is proving himself one of the best and most unique filmmakers working today. He shows just how you can make an original and compelling World War II film despite the fact that we really didn’t need another. So many great things about this Jojo, and unlike some of the other nominees, I do think this will still hold up years from now.

Joker. There are always polarizing films every year. Movies that people seem to really love and defend with the type of blind devotion typically reserved for politics, and then the people who shit on it with the type of fervor typically reserved for politics. I would say I probably dislike Joker for reasons other than some of the common ones mentioned (it is not some incel fantasy). As someone who has longed for the day when comic book movies were treated with the same respect as other movies, I can’t help but feel like this is just not what I want representing the genre. There are gems of a good film here, and moments that could have been effective in a more subtle director’s hands. What do I know, this movie made a billion dollars, and I’m probably the idiot.

Little Women. My two-word review: “It’s fine”. In all seriousness, this was a competent, well-made movie that at least tried to breathe some new life into that book you were assigned to read in high school English. The loosely non-linear story-telling style was a nice change of pace but I just don’t think the world needed this film. Greta Gerwig is proving herself an extremely capable director, in addition to a great screen-writer, so forgive me if I would prefer more original ideas. This will also wind up on the heap of forgotten Oscar bait in approximately three months. Would have rather seen Midsommar in this spot.

Marriage Story. The best film of the year is from Gerwig’s other half, Noah Baumbach, who turned his own divorce into a very, very great film. Perhaps my only complaint is that he didn’t even remotely try and disguise the fact that it was his own life he was filming, what a twist he’s a theater director instead of a movie director. That’s a minor complaint, the reason this does work is because it does feel real, presumably because it is. I’ve made the comparison to Woody Allen before and I think this shows the best of his serious style. Hard not to repeat myself after all the praise I’ve heaped on it.

1917. After watching this my thoughts were “I bet people who don’t know a ton about movies will be very impressed with this.” After checking it’s score on imdb the barometer for people who know nothing about film, my suspicions were confirmed. From someone who thinks All Quiet on the Western Front is the second greatest movie of all time, I certainly have nothing against the subject matter. The gimmick of 1917 however and the very loose plot didn’t really grab me. There are some spectacular moments, but I simply found myself not caring about what was happening. Not sure if a more traditional narrative would have helped it more or not. Again this might very well win so what do I know?

Once Upon a Time In…Hollywood. I’ve gone over this film a lot and there isn’t much more to add. It looks great, there are some wonderful details, but it’s all details. The entire sprawling 3+ hours of this is just Tarantino wallowing in crappy TV, spaghetti Westerns, period details, and revisionist history. The world is great, but far too little actually happens. If there was an award for best 3 minutes of screen time, Bruce Dern would get my vote though.

Parasite. Topping Film Comment’s list of the best films of the year, as well as getting a rare 5-star rating from allmovie.com Parasite is the film no one seems to have a negative thing to say about. I’ve heard speculation from some people that it does have a better chance than I might give it credit for, but until it wins I think it has no shot. I appreciated Bong’s speech at the Globes about overcoming the one-inch barrier at the bottom of the screen, and wish more people take heed. I would also argue that Parisite will hold up the most down the road as a certifiable masterpiece. This is what should win, but it will probably be content with an International Feature Film Oscar.