Review of Nicholas and Alexandra

I really, really, really, enjoyed this film. Derived from apparent primary sources this was a film that portrayed history from the side of the czar. A side that, perhaps, doesn't get told very often. This film isn't partisan in it's support of the Czar, but it makes a point that the Czar and his family suffered an grotesque death at the hands of overzealous and bloodthirsty revolutionaries. According to film even the Central committee wanted the Czar back in Moscow for trial. It remains to be seen whether the Czar or his family would have fared any better than they did.

Lavishly costumed, decorated, and set the film reveals the Czar and the Russian nobility in all it's grandeur, grotesque or not. Lawrence Olivier puts in a cameo appearance and the performances are not great, but they are not bad. The film doesn't have the intense passion of Doctor Zhivago, but it does have the feeling of historical change. That the characters place in society was changing dramatically, even if the events, as portrayed in the film, were not as celebrated as in Warren Beatty's Reds which presented the revolution in grandiose exposition. I suppose that's the point of the film, that the revolution was not felt by the Czar and his family as much as it was endured.

The production comes across as Zhivago-like. It is against the Soviet experiment. It has some good shots, but unfortunately the man behind the camera was no David Lynch. It doesn't have those incredible wide angle shots of the Russian tundra like Lynch so masterfully presented in Zhivago. I was particularly peeved by the shots where the Czar and Czarina go into their hemophiliac son's bedroom. They are in a totally different location, but enter a very similar door at the same angle. It was like a repeat in two, supposedly, different locations. Also, there aren't any tight close-ups of the Czar alone or with the Czarina. It would have made the emotional quality of their relationship much more intense. Yet, it could have been a qualitative choice about not being too much like Zhivago which had been made only a few years before this film.

Some of the acting and writing was quesitonable too. Josef Stalin makes an appearance than disappears altogether from the film. Strange. It's very odd to introduce him and only have him say one line. Lenin is portrayed in lengthier scenes, but, the revolution gets scant attention. This is no Eisenstein's October.

As a history buff, though, this film follows the arguments that Nicholas was a weak Czar who made bad decisions as the Czar and led the country to ruin. Russian history fans would really enjoy this film. It could serve as a source for a course about Russian history.

Review of The Cherry Orchard

This was an adaptation from the play by Anton Chekhov. It had a lot of high quality drama and incipient criticism of the pre-revolution Russian aristocracy which I enjoyed. Perhaps that was the best part of the film. Watching the aristocrats struggle to deal with change was excruciating and heartbreaking, but proved for great entertainment.

I thoroughly enjoyed the use of symbolism in the representation of the cherry orchard as a thing of something close with nature, but is eventually chopped down to make way for vacation cottages that may or may not prove a good investment. Not only the representation, but also the the main character's reaction to the trees being chopped down. It was like a part of herself was being chopped off.

I thought this film aptly described changes that were ongoing in Russia during Chekhov's time. The industrial revolution, however lopsided or in whatever form, came to Russia. The train sounds like an alarm during the play and it is a business man who buys the estate from bankrupt aristocrats who are unable to maintain their lifestyle. I think that was, perhaps, the main theme of the film. Modernization had come to Russia and the old ways of doing things were being broken down; the aristocracy, landed estates, inherited status all rendered obsolete by the train, the liberation of the serfs, and market economics.

Review of Blue is The Warmest Color by Kechiche

I saw this film at the local arthouse film theater near where I live. I chose to watch the film rather than watch the New York Giants vs. Dallas Cowboys football game. I think my father was somewhat disappointed that I chose to see a French film about young lesbian love rather than watch a football game. I thought this predicament to be a humorous choice that I had to make. I'm sure some of my cousins who are Cowboys fans would hold me in contempt for my choice to watch the movies instead of the game. Yet, I think I made the better choice. The movie was very good and I could see why it won the top prize at the Cannes film festival. I'm so glad that we have an arthouse film theater in my home town to bring works like Blue is the Warmest Color to places outside of major cities. On to the film.

The most effective scenes in the film were the love scenes. They were not hardcore porn. More like softcore. Yet, you really feel the emotion that the lovers loved each other with which makes the, spoiler alert, breakup between the two women so much harder to bare. Aesthetically, the sex scenes were not glamorous. They were suited to an Arthouse crowd. The scenes were full of passion. It was young lesbian love in full display. Like in Bertolucci's Stealing Beauty, the first time with a woman for the young woman was full of ecstasy and discovery.

The film raises awareness about what it's like to be a young lesbian in France. The main character Adele experiences hardship because she fantasizes being with a woman. She gets into fights with students at school, she doesn't tell her parents she is a lesbian, and she lives in shame about the fact that she likes girls. Through her we see how difficult life is for someone who lives in the closet, ashamed about who they are. Yet the film is not a total dramatization about lesbians. There are some scenes that celebrate being a lesbian. Of course, as I've already mentioned, the sex scenes, but there are also art exhibition gatherings, dinners, etc.

This film is more concerned with narrative and theme rather than style and technique. There is nothing special about any of the aesthetics of the film. The cinematography is typical. The camera is pretty much just there, recording events. The story is a linear one. It follows a chronological path. So why did the film win the top prize at Cannes? My speculation is that the content, the story more than made up for what was lacking in camera or editing techniques. It was one of the first films in which lesbians were portrayed in a serious light. The passion the characters had for each other and the heartbreak that comes because Adele is unable to accept being a lesbian are intense drama some of the best I've seen so far this year during the serious season for cinema.

Review of The Counselor by Scott

I had some high hopes for this film. Ridley Scott and Cormac McCarthy working together along with a star studded cast would probably make for a very good film. Yet, it wasn't that great. I completely lost it when Cameron Diaz does a nude split on top of a Ferrari and humps the windshield. I suppose it conveys the theme of the film; these characters live a life of utter excess. They have no morals left. All they want is material pleasures like cars or cougars which we saw a lot of, and of course drugs. Not that the film wasn't without it's entertaining points, it just wasn't great. The ending is deeply disturbing, but it's a little cliche to have the pure-hearted slaughtered by the evil. Perhaps it's even biblical?

I suppose this film could engender a discussion about the stylized violence that made up so much of the film. There are several decapitations, shooting, and strangulations. Throughout the whole movie I like Javier Bardem's character the most. With the gaudy clothing and wild hair style he comes across as the most entertaining character of the film. Brad Pitt's character has some memorable lines but he is inconsequential to the film. As I"ve said before Cameron Diaz plays a role which displays a lack of moral compass, an obsession with materialistic possessions, and a ruthless demeanor in becoming a big time drug dealer. Perhaps she is returning to her role in Gangs of New York, rather than the major flop of, what was it called? Bad Teacher? Awful. She does add sex appeal, but my friend and I were both mutually dismissive of Diaz's performance as overly glamourized, and, at least in my case, hard to believe.

The last 45 minutes of the film contain all of the good action. It is when the Mexican mob starts killing everyone, the drug deal goes bad, and Penelope Cruz is kidnapped and killed in a snuff film. On further reflection, the violence is what makes the film. Without it, the film would be a noirish gangster movies set in the southwest.

Review of 12 Years a Slave by McQueen

This is not the first Steve McQueen film I've seen. I also saw Hunger about the Bobby Sands hunger strike and I was not let down. 12 Years a Slave was a similar experience for me which is why the film will garner signifcant attention come awards season. I thought the film was flawless in terms of performances and story as well as in cinematography and editing. So I will discuss both of these in seperate paragraphs.

The acting was just great. I can't say enough about Micheal Fassbender's acting as the mean slave owner. He was so accurate in his emotion. Especially the scene where he whips the young slave girl whom he has sexual relations with. In that scene I felt that the whole apparatus of slavery was such an abomination of humanity. I felt shame to be an American and have that as part of our collective National past. The whipping, the shots of the blood dripping out of the girl, really were well done to incite such an utter disgust with slavery. I could stop here, but there is much to discuss about this film

The story structure was not unique, but it was creatively written. The film follows a circular narrative. The beginning shows scenes which I had no idea what they were about. Eventually the film moves back to the beginning and it all makes sense. I thought this was an innovative way to tell the story. I wonder if it could have been done with a linear story though. Would it have made the film better? I see this technique used in a lot of movies nowadays. Does it reflect the human experience? Or is it just a way to tell a story? To enable the audience to interact, to confuse, to guess about what will happen next in the story? My feeling is that it is the former. It is for entertainment value. I suppose it might be part of a recollection on behalf of the main character. Anyway, I like how 12 Years a Slave was structured. It kept me wondering about what the film was about and how it would be resolved.

Technically the film had a lot of high value shots. Aside from the whipping scene, the scene where the main character was almost lynched by a gang of whites was gripping. It was a long shot, showing him on his tippy toes, hanging by a rope from a tree, struggling to live. The shot was held for at least a minute the overseer cuts him down. As I've alreay mentioned the narrative structure of the film was non-linear, so the editing was crucial to the exposition of the film. The opening scenes revealed some clues, but they were cut so the viewer didn't know too much. One scene was of the main character writing a letter. This showed that he was trying to escape, but it didn't show where he was or any of the other context of his predicament.

I think this film is really well done. Like Hunger it tackles some controversial political topic and uncovers the barbaric actions of those in power. The British in Ireland, slave owners in the South, these are not superheroes who come to the rescue. McQueen exposes the shortcomings of humanity. He shows us who we have been, thus raising the question of who we are.

Review of Pierrot Le Fou by Godard

I've returned to Godard, like encountering an old friend after a vacation to find he hasn't much changed. Pierrot Le Fou is a film that leaves the viewer with a sense of ambivalence. About where the characters are heading and about where Godard is taking film as an art form. The typical Godard style is there; the hyper closeup, the music, the car rides, the noirishness of the film. Godard is truely a cinematic master. The more I watch his films the more I understand, or at least think I understand, his style of filmmaking. I will refrain from any summation of the movies and just describe the best scenes of the film. As well as try to analyze what Godard did with cinema as an art form.

The beginning sequence of the film strikes the audience as colorful, now it strikes me as "retro." It has color taints which look very old from 2013, but they add style to the film. The next scene I found most interesting was the car scene between Belmondo and Karina. It reminded me, as did alot of the film, of a Hitchcock film. The two character are riding along talking, lights are flashing on Karina's face, they are plotting their escape. Belmondo strikes a classical face. He seems to be a cross between Bogart and the actor Steve McQueen. Always has that cigareette dangling from his mouth. Always bounding from place to place. Like in Breathless Belmondo comes off as a flawed character escaping the law, escaping from bourgeoisie banality, he chases women only to sink more and more into directionless wandering and further crime.

Where I think Godard does well, but was typical of French movies in the 1960s, is the self reflexivity. Godard almost asks the audience "to where should this movies go?" The sequence where Belmondo and Karina are alone on the island seems to be a display of Godard's inner thinking. Belmondo's character seems to want a studious life. Perhaps the line I liked best is when Karina says "enough with this Jules Verne life, we have to get back to the gangster film we are in with fast cars, guns, and explosions." I think this shows that Godard wants us to acknowledge that it is a film. The narrative is not so important as is the technique and style of the film. I agree with Roger Ebert when he says "Godard's films are exercises in style." Belmondo, Karina, reflections by Godard in the film, the shots, the cuts, the action, the self-reflexivity, all make Pierrot Le Fou one of Godard best films.

Review of Fellini's Amarcord

This film was a sweet, sometimes hilarious, reflection on Italian life in a small coastal town. It is shot in a simple way that reflects the light hearted humor which permeates the film. The series of vignettes reveals much about the Italian character. From school to church, from seasonal rituals to trips to the store, this film depicts the little moments in life that seem so banal, but a talent like Fellini turns into comedic and nostalgic moments of youth, parenting, life and death.

The lead character, if there was one, was the woman who shakes her hips. She is idolized by the local boys. The camera, in it's scarce use of close-ups reveals her hips shaking. I found the sexual humor to be the funniest part of the film. Perhaps the most comical sequence is when the boy goes to the store for a cigarette and encounters the female clerk with big boobs. She smothers him with her breasts until he can't breath. It reveals the coming of age theme that Fellini portrays in several of his films. We see it in La Dolce Vita. It can apply to 8 1/2 as well in the evolution of the director and the course his next film will take. A movie I haven't seen is I Vitteloni which is all about coming of age. Fellini is a master at showing the anxieties of life and depicting them as comical, nostalgic, or even romantic.

The other sequence which I like the most in Amarcord was the political satire or nostalgia for Mussolini and the Fascist regime. It's almost as if Fellini has a romantic soft spot for the regime. None of the brutality of the regime is shown as in other films, Bertolucci's The Conformist and 1900 come to mind. Fascism seems to be an absurd, comical quality in Amarcord. The parade with the big Mussolini float is so nostalgic for the fascists. The culmination of the sequence must be when the record player is playing the internalional throughout the town. Even the conflict between the Fascists and Communist is comical. All is a farce in Amarcord. Yet, there is a funeral scene.

I agree with ebert.com that Fellini's most productive period spanned his films of the fifties and sixties and Amarcord which was released in 1973. Those films are indicative of a distinct artistic style. The romantic way life in Italy is depicted, the way the problems in life seem to flow by like waves, there is truly something to watching a Fellini film

Review of Jarman's War Requiem

Where do dead German soldiers go after they die? To heaven? This was one of the questions that Jarman's film about war inspired in me after watching the film. There are so many amazing visual scenes in this film. Perhaps the most powerful scene in the film is when Sean Bean enters into the camera's view with a red rose wreath to lay at the human monument to English war dead. Prior to that scene I was thinking about where dead soldiers go after they die?

The film is decidedly artistic. In fact I'm not exactly sure what to classify it as; is it a narrative? Is it a documentary? Is it experimental. I would say yes to all those because there are elements of each in the film. The most narrative part of the film is where Sean Bean fights with the British soldiers and is killed. The other narrative scenes are of Tilda Swinton being a nurse. But these are beside the point, the film has no linear progression, no classical narrative structure, perhaps Jarman had a progression mapped out in the screenplay, however there is no dialogue so the notion that the screenplay can provide some guidance is probably ill formed.

I was astounded by the visuals. Totally unlike the contemporary films with quick cuts Jarman uses long takes, slowly moving close-up shots, and archival footage to tell the story. The pensive shots of Swinton were perhaps the shots I liked best. As well as the shots of Bean looking off into, I presume, the light. These scenes are cinematic flourishes where a facial expression says more about the character than a line of dialogue ever could.

The meaning of the film is told through visual exposition. Mostly archival footage and the aforementioned shots of characters. The archival footage is mostly gruesome footage from wars past. The sequence in which rows of skulls are displayed are telling that the film is a condemnation of war. Add to the row of skulls footage of the atomic bombings of Japan and it becomes a subtly, but powerful message about the horror of war.

The nytimes.com reviewer, Vincent Canby, didn't like the film. Although, I don't think the film is a popular or commercial success I do think it pushes the cinematic art form in new directions. I think Canby makes short shrift of the film. He doesn't give Jarman enough credit. He calls the images "redundant" but doesn't offer any analysis of what the images meant. He certainly doesn't entertain the idea that the film has a deeper meaning and aspires to a higher form of cinematic art than the standard narrative film.

I have seen two Jarman films; The Last of England and War Requiem and I liked both. They are both highly expressionistic or formalist. Both films are based in reality, but the way in which the story is told was, at the time, innovative.

Review of Fassbinder's Ali: Fear Eats the Soul

The back story to Ali reveals interesting facts about the film. The man who played Ali was Fassbinder's lover. According to Ebert.com he stabbed three people and hung himself in jail. Ebert alludes to the possibility that the old woman is actually Fassbinder. Fassbinder had similar insecurities as the old woman so it is plausible that her character is based on Fassbinder.

This movie is simple, yet it has a powerfulness to it. The settings, the characters are simply put forward. The theme of xenophoia and racism make the film powerful. Perhaps the most dramatic scene is when the woman introduces Ali as her new husband. Her children are shocked. One kicks in the TV. They all walk out unable to accept that their mother has married a foreign worker. Despite this, Ali and the woman go away, when they return everyone seems to accept Ali and reconcile with the woman.

This film has significance for not only Germany, but all of the developed World who experience an influx of immigrants who work low wage jobs. It presents the predicament of Ali. It presents the racism of Germany against foreign workers. This film was made in the 1970s so, perhaps, racial tensions were more acute in those years. Yet, the film still has contemporary relevance. Germany and the European Union have strict immigration laws. This film clearly shows those issues.

This was one of Fassbinder early films. It was well received by critics. It definitely is a European Art house film. Compared to other Fassbinder films this one is similar. However, I like the Marriage of Maria Braun and Veronica Voss better. I think they have more emotional impact. The end of Ali isn't so jarring as the endings in Bruan or Voss. It simply leaves the hospital where Ali is convalescing. Still, it does present Ali's predicament and the choices that foreign workers have to make; stay in Germany and make low wages, but live in the industrialized World, or go back home to possible unemployment, low standard of living, and a host of other problems. Ali is one of the few films that take on the issue of foreign workers and all of the problems they endure.

Review of von Trier's Dogville

The nytimes.com critic said this film will make viewers either enthusiasitc supporters or vile condemners. I tend to stand with the supporters. I have long been a fan of von Trier's work and, eventually, I came around to Dogville. It took awhile for the film to develop, but what should I have expected from an art film which was written, directed, and shot by von Trier himself? There several things about the film that stand out. First is that it is like a stage play with a camera. It has a very austere setting; shot on a sound stage without any props save for a desk, some chairs, and some other miscellaneous things.

The cinematography is also vintage von Trier. The camera hovers around the action with extreme close-ups, jumping from one character to the next, the camera is infused with an anxious energy typical of other post-dogme von Trier films like Dance in the Dark, and most recently Melancholia. The story is also typical of von Trier. When the film started I thought to myself, what is going to happen in the end? I had no idea, which is great for a film. All too often I know whats going to happen in the end.

Furthermore, von Trier doesn't "mashup" different films into a new film, like Tarrantino so often does. Von Trier is better than that. Dogville, which is austere the likes of Ingmar Bergman and Carl Theodor Dreyer, is something unique. Unlike the Moulin Rouge, which I reviewed last night, Dogville revels in the cinematic art form. By the end of the film it stakes out difficult questions about human nature and the myth of small town America. It certainly is a departure from manistream cinema found at the multiplex

Von Trier takes risks. The set is an austere, minimalist expression of the Depression years in America. To not have any sets, perhaps, represents the poverty of America which is depicted at the end of the film. In comparison to other von Trier films this one has similar themes. Like Dancer in the Dark, which I reviewed on this blog site, we see a woman in duress; unjustly condemned for crimes she didn't commit. Unlike Dancer, Nicole Kidman's character gets revenge. She has the gangsters execute the townspeople, with the exception of the dog. Thus the characters in Dancer and Dogville meet different endings. Von Trier's Melancholia also has a damsel in distress, except, unlike in Dancer in the Dark or Dogville, freedom is brought about by the apocalypse.

So what does the film mean? What is von Trier's purpose in making Dogville? Why does he continue to make films about mistreated women? It is rumored that von Trier has an anti-American opinion and, if this is true, than Dogville could be, as I mentioned earlier, an iconoclastic film exposing the myth of smalltown America as a very pious, ethical place. Perhaps, the character of the Doctor's son reveals this theme the most accurately. He is very high minded, has ideas about morality and ethics, and aspires to be a writer. By the end of the film his philosophical views of humanity are shattered. Instead of viewing the townspeople as "good" people, he has become just like them; morally corrupt, ethically bankrupt. In the end Kidman's character shoots him gangster style in the head.

The final scene is perhaps von Trier's most obvious indictment of America. The scene is infused with violence and revenge which seems to present the version of American justice. Like one reviewer said, it may be von Trier's depiction of American fascism. The gangster are unopposed. The police are on the take. Small town America is not polite, pious, and filled with cookies. It is dominated by underworld thugs who committ mass murder. The violence, the revenge, the myth, the high minded talk of "good" people; only in America.

Whatever it's meaning, Dogville is a film that stands out from the garbage that is produced for mass consumption.

Review of Baz Luhrman's Moulin Rouge

This Summer, well it's almost last Summer, I watched the Great Gatsby with much attention. I believe I even wrote a blog post about it. I'm always interested in the latest theatrical, literary, or historical adaptation. I don't know why exactly I like these kinds of productions, but I do. Perhaps I can consult a psychiatrist to unearth the memories. Sorry, I've been reading film theory and how psychoanalysis affected it. Anyway, I also watched Mark Cousins The Story of Film which features a segment with the director of the latest adaptation of Gatsby and the subject of this blog Moulin Rouge. Luhrmann struck me as a director who has a deep knowledge of film. So I borrowed Moulin Rouge from the library and watched it. I must say I'm not a big fan of musicals. And Moulin Rouge is certainly a musical of, as the nytimes.com reviewer put it, an achievement that surpasses MTV.

At first I was somewhat bored and thought where is this film going. A lot of glitz and glamour, but little plot. Eventually the story comes together. A doomed romance that happens by chance. Poor writer and dancer get together. Dancer wants to be a star. Enter Duke who can make her dreams come true. Alas, she can't do it. She loves the writer too much. The story is fraught with class conflict, it is set in 1900, Paris, a traditional love story. Sadly the narrative is tragedy, the dancer dies in the end. The story is simple, straight forward.

Yet, the music and dance numbers are not. They mix together different songs from different eras. Very much reflecting the post-modern idea of a patchwork of other films and songs. I really like what Luhrmann did with pacing and camera shots. The pacing goes right along with the emotional build up of the film. When the plot veers into anxiety and the action is rising, the cuts are shorter, scenes are interlaced, the music seems to become louder. In contrast, when the film's action slows, the cutting is slower. The shots are long and slow. I think he even uses film for the slow shots. The coloration is different, the slow images have the grainy quality about them. The fast paced shots have a digital quality. There are also many, many jump cuts, elipses, time and space are all relative. One shot in the writer's apartment, thirty seconds later at the Moulin Rouge. It all works, it's all a patchwork, a "pastiche" of different styles and techniques. It's really enjoyable to watch such a well shot, edited, and directed film. I have to agree with Cousins when he said that no one else was doing anything like Moulin Rouge.

The acting was good for a musical. Towards the end there was some depth, but, I have to agree with the nytimes critic, that there wasn't a whole lot of range in emotion for any of the characters. The audience never sees any of the hang overs after partying. I may be redundant here, but was there talk about Nicole Kidman being too old for the lead role? And how about McGregor, could Hugh Jackman have played the role better? Luiguzamo plays a comic relief role which isn't bad. And the Duke a representation of elite society, an evil, effeminate man. Lastly, I thought Jim Broadbent played a very good MC. I think this was one of his first roles before The Iron Lady or Cloud Atlas.

All in all, the film is worth a watch just for it's mix of films, songs, cinematographic styles, film stocks, and digitally enhanced settings. I might even show it in my World Cinema class.

Review of Campion's The Piano

This was a great film. An exhibition of restraint, of Victorian, 19th century values that had taken hold o the British Empire, including where The Piano is set, New Zealand. All of the sets, the costumes, the relationships of the whites with the natives, the moral repression of female sexuality, they all serve as narrative action that finally blows up in the seduction of the mute woman by Harvey Keitel. From there the film moves quickly with much plot development.

The big conflict is between the farmer who had an arranged marriage with Hunter and Harvey Keitel who has seduced his wife away. It reminded of Lady Chatterly. There are similarities between these two stories. Both are stories of affairs between people of different classes. I was thinking this as the film picked up speed and went racing to it's conclusion. I think a plot point of the second act of the film, perhaps even a turning point is when Sam Niell picks up his hatchet and marches back to his house. From there I thought he was going to destroy the piano, but he does something more gruesome then destroy an object. Instead he cuts off a finger.

From there the action dissipates into a scene where we see Hunter and Keitel leaving New Zealand for some other place, England perhaps? In the final dramatic scene Hunter pushes the piano into the ocean. She then sticks her leg into rope attached to the piano. In, perhaps, the best shot of the film we see her slowly drowning with the piano, but in a gasp at living manages to free herself from the piano. She does not drown with the piano. Instead her and Baines go onto live a life where she teaches piano.

I thought this scene was very well done. I don't know the exact details of how the shot was pulled off, but it looks like it was shot underwater. After she comes up for air, the pace of the camera slows down. When she is breathing, being saved by the natives, and pulled back onto the boat, her voice comes on again. From there the film concludes.

I have several questions about the film. First, and perhaps, foremost is what does the piano symbolize? Her loveless life? Her Victorian morals? Only Campion can tell us what it truly means. I think the performances were top notch. Hunter really pulls off her character well and Harvey Keitel is perfectly cast as the other man. I liked the use of voice over, I felt the pacing was good. It moved a little slowly in the beginning, but I think that works well to build up the tension in the movie leading up to the romance between Keitel and Hunter. Very good film.

Thoughts on Bondanella's book about Italian Cinema

I don't know why, maybe it's growing up in New York, or living in the City, or having Italian friends and girlfriends, or studying Italian History, or, perhaps it's just the fact that they are so damn good, that I like Italian films. I remember in High School watching Taxi Driver and Raging Bull, Apocalypse Now and Streetcar Named Desire with Brando. In college it was Fellini. I bought 81/2 at Barnes and Noble in Vestal. I watched and kind of understood it. Living in Shanghai introduced me to Bertolucci whom I, excuse my French, adore. I don't know how many times I've watched Last Emperor. At least five. I've got the special edition with all the extras. It is one of my favorite movies ever. It combines two things of which I'm very fond of; Italian filmmakers and Chinese History. Furthermore, last Summer, this summer I've been busy with the GRE and beginning photography, I watched La Dolce Vita an instant hit, Bertolucci's 1900 which was great, I love history, The Conformist, and Rosselini's War Trilogy. I wanted to study Italina Neo-realist films. In fact I was planning on studying abroad in Italy next Spring, but I got a job teaching film. Sadly, not Italian film, but I'm attempting to persuade my boss to allow a trailer course about Italian cinema.

Anyway, sorry for the long digression. The book starts out with a brief history of silent Italian film and progresses into a discussion of Italian Cinema during the Fascist period. Two films, which I would like to watch, have so far come to my attention, Cabiria which is a silent film and inspired D.W. Griffith's Indifference, and Ossessione which was the spark that lit the fire to Italian Neo-realism and really animated the whole of film history in the post-WWII era. So much came from Italian Neo-realism, the French New Wave, it influenced Third World Cinema, as well as American, and West Germany's cinema productions.

Since I'm not going to Italy I thought I'd read as much as I could about Italian Cinema and write a blog about it. I will, as time permits, read the book and other materials, and write my thoughts in this blog.

Thoughts about Robert Stam's book Film Theory

I recently re-took up, after a considerable absence due to the GRE, an introductory text about Film Theory which is the title of the book. It is by Robert Stam and I must say it is a very informative and pleasurable read. I came across such critics like Kracauer, Metz, and others. I was really moved by the Third Cinema writings of Latin American writers. I never thought that films were divided along the same lines as international relations; the first world, the second world, and the third world. This movement put forth many apt criticism about European, American, and Japanese Cinema, but at the same time didn't accept without critical debate the Cinema of the Soviet Union and it's satellites. I was very impressed with the anti-colonialist writings of Frantz Fanon, particularly his comments about film and the films it engendered in Africa.

Metz also put forth interesting ideas about how film language is contructed. How the words used in films become codes and symbols for meanings that we readily adopt in our understanding of achetypes, genres, and films. Furthermre, I was particularly taken with Metz's and others writing about psychoanalysis and Cinema. It really made me think about the viewing experience. It also talked about how Cinema is like a dream. It is an escape from reality or is it? Clearly I would have to side with the idea that Cinema is a dream. When you go to see a film or you pop in a DVD, or watch something on Hulu, it is the beginning of a dream like experience. For two to three hours you are lost in a make believe world, even if it is something based in reality like a Rosselini film, cinema is a dream. It creates characters that you feel for, that you talk to, that you identify with.

This is an ongoing blog about film theory as presented in the book and from other sources I may come across.

Review of The Wolverine

I know, I know, I know. A "super-hero" movie? What about all those great film's from Cinema History? What about all of that high "fullutin'" language about Cinematic Art? To be completely honest I was not blown away by the visual style of this film. There were some great shots of Japan and the skyline of Tokyo, but then there was the use of what appeared to be handheld DV shots of Hugh Jackman running in the street which was also used in Man of Steel. I suppose the "shaky" look has become standard in movies. Having seen it in such pop culture productions as The Wolverine and The Man of Steel, I think, is evidence that the "shaky" look is a mainstream fad in cinematographic technique.

Let's face it, it's popcorn season so a story like Wolverine is not going to be heavy in theme or character. And there was certainly both lacking. But, there was some clever revelations in the movie. If you haven't seen the movie yet, stop reading, because the grandfather is the metallic samurai which I knew from when the grandfather and Hugh Jackman met for the first time. Its a superhero flick, no big surprises. Also when the weird Japanese girl breaks into the lab, I thought it was "chinsy." A fortified place with tens of ninja guards around is that easy to penetrate. To me that is indicative of non-creative screenwriting on the part of the writers. On the contrary, when Wolverine loses his claws was definitely a shocking sequence. I didn't expect him to lose his claws.

Yet back to the visual style of the film. I thought there was an over-emphasis on revealing Japan to viewers. Perhaps I'm an over exposed Westerner to Asian culture, but I thought some of the scenes stayed a little too long on the natural beauty of Japan. I thought the editing could have been sharper with some scenes shorter. Less emphasis on the beauty of Japan, although Japan is a beautiful country, it just seemed to me that the intro to Japan could have been done away with. It also struck me as a very "Western" way of viewing Japan.

I found the scene with Hugh Jackman fighting the son backlit by a blue color with the raining coming down as very good shooting on the part of the DP and Director. Also the shots where the audience looks down the stairs in the lab were pretty good even though they were digitally manipulated. I saw this movie because I saw the trailer and it had a metalic samurai. That's what sold me and it didn't disappoint.

Review of Kurosawa's Ikiru

So, I have just read the nytimes.com review of Ikiru and boy do I have an objection to the reviewer's analysis of Ikiru. He says that the film "dies" during it's final expository sequence recalling the last few months of the protagonist. I think it is highly imaginative and creative to tell the story from the perspective of others. Kurosawa uses this technique to, perhaps, even more dramatic affect in Rashomon where a murder is reconstructed from recollections.

Unlike the nytimes.com reviewer who's article was published on the first American screening of Ikiru in 1960, I find the narrative technique of reconstructing the story from flashbacks and recollections to be a re-freshing and innovative narrative structure. The film could have progressed along classical plot lines, perhaps, like the nytimes reviewer speculates, ending in an ironic twist.

Yet, I disagree. Kurosawa and his screenwriting partners did a fantastic job by recreating the final months of the protagonist. It brings out the character of not only Shimura's character, but it exposes the hippocracy and self-aggrandizement of the government officials from city hall. It also reveals overt references to Japanese society which bring a whole other dimension to the film for international audiences. I marveled at the setting of the mourning of Shimura's character's death. His portrait hung there, surrounded by flowers, intercut to close-up, provided a somber reminder of his life and the themes of the story.

This film provides a lot of material for analysis. It serves as a satire of not only the Japanese bureaucracy, but also of government bureaucracy everywhere. Secondly, it has deep philosophical meanings; how should I live my life? It inspired in me questions like; who would go to my funeral? Am I really living? What have I done with my life? Before I began watching the film on Hulu I heard a voice that told me this film will change your life. Perhaps, perhaps not, but it will cause you to re-evaluate how you live, what you do at work, how your relationships with family members, co-workers, and friends are, and what kind of legacy you have left to the World.

I suppose you could compare this film to other contemporary works. The most glaring one that jumps out at me is Death of a Salesman by Arthur Miller. Shimura's character, prior to his rehabilitation at his mourning comes off as similar to Willy Loman. Both are facing the end of a career; one as a government bureaucrat, the other as a salesman. Both have accomplished little. The are the epitome of the organization man, of middle class ethics and morals. They are both alienated from a society that they seem so distant from. After so many years working, saving, raising a family it all seems to be coming apart at the end. Yet Ikiru has more of a sweet after taste then Death of a Salesman which has a tragic ending. Yet they are similar stories. Both about alienation in modern society. What does one do when your workplace of so many years is gone? When your family only sees you as money or worse? What happens when you face death? Shimura's character comes out far better than Willy Loman, but I think both films are a criticism of the conformity, sacrifice, and discipline so cherished by modern industrial societies in the 50s and 60s.

Having seen a substantial proportion of Kurosawa's work this movie reveals a different quality than the films I saw as an early Kurosawa fan. His later works were the most familiar to me. I remember one Sunday while I was living in NYC I watched all of Seven Samurai on the Ovation Network. It was a great experience that I shall cherish for the rest of my life. Ikiru, though, was anything but a Samurai classic. It was a meditation on life and the crisis which we all must face, realizing our own mortality.

Review of Kurosawa's Drunken Angel

This was Akira Kurosawa's first post- WWII film. In some of the scenes it shows how destroyed Tokyo was after the war. There is a polluted pond where people are dumping garbage into without trepidation. But, Drunken Angel is not a film about the war or anything like that. It is a film about lost souls who cannot break free from the Tokyo underworld. It reminded me of Elia Kazan's On the Waterfront. The mob controls everything, gangsters are out of control, there are no police around, everyone is struggling to survive. A very realist film. There is one dream sequence, but the realism and degradation of the characters stood out most to me.

This had to be Toshiro Mifune's break through performance as well as Akira Kurosawa's first hit. I've seen several of Kurosawa's films of the war period and they were not as good as Drunken Angel. There were some good scenes and the final fight scene between Mifune's character and Okada is a truly memorable sequence. I sat in awe of the development of the scene. One take with no cuts shows Mifune slipping and falling, narrowly avoiding death. The audience doesn't know what will happen, will he die? Will he kill the other yakuza? Finally he is killed with a knife to the stomach.

I thought that sequence was the best part of the movie. Also Mifune's character is frank, perhaps naive, when he barges into the Big Boss's house and finds Okada with him. Furthermore, he makes another bold move when he barges into Okada's apartment and tries to kill him. Truly, Mifune's character leads a tragic life. He is a low ranking Yakuza who is dying of TB. He refuses to quit his partying lifestyle and betrays the trust of several people, most of all the doctor who tries to help him change his ways.

I thought the film had some flaws. For example when Mifune tells the Doctor he tore up the x-ray. I thought to myself there is no way he tore up the x-ray because there would be no way to move the story forward. Mifune would have to go get another x-ray and that would take way too much time in a movie that was slowly developing. Another flaw, or obvious plot device, was when Mifune moves strongly for confrontation. Perhaps this is because he is a yakuza, but I thought it was more to move the story forward. Without the confrontation there was no story. I thought Mifune's character could have plotted more, maybe a surprise attack on the Big Boss or Okada? Yet, it flows well. There is a narrative progression that brings the film to a dramatic close and leaves the audience with a sad, tragic sense. the scenes get shorter building tension to the climatic fight scene, and, tragically, to Mifune's death.

I thought this was a good film. It had elements of film noir, gangster, and social problem films in it. I think Kurosawa showed progression in his style and narrative.

Review of Mark Cousin's The Story of Film: An Odyssey

This was a marvelous documentary series. Mark Cousins does a fantastic job of analyzing the currents in film history. I think he should receive an award for completing such a grand work that spans the entirety of film history. There are other documentary films that I've watched that have delved into film history, but I haven't found one, in English anyway, that presents World Cinema History is so excellent a fashion. Perhaps it's a bit dense for the casual film fan, but I think most people can appreciate even it's most esoteric ideas. I've watched Martin Scorsese's films about American film history and Italian film history and they were no less informative and sparking analysis than Cousins film. Yet, I was reminded time and again of the Robert Sklar book which I read last summer about World Cinema. Watching this film made me want to return to that book and read it again because I think I missed a few details or could use, perhaps, a more detailed analysis which might be provided by reading the book. The film is like a World cinema history class in itself. If I was going to teach a World Cinema class, and I hope that someday I do, I would certainly use parts of this film. At the very least I'd reccomend it to the class. I was planning on using it for a Cinema class I'm teaching this Fall. Anyway I enjoyed watching every minute of it. The interviews with filmmakers especially. To attempt an analysis of the film would exceed the length of a blog post. Compared to other documentaries of similar length it does come of as new and employs different stylistic techniques. Showing film clips, interviews, and unique sequences that show where the film or filmmaker actually worked or was made.

I really like how it talked about the New German Cinema. I find it difficult to find any high quality documentaries about the New German Cinema in English. Although the criterion collection is coming out with an early Fassbinder collection that I'm looking forward to. I liked the interviews with contemporary filmmakers like von Trier, Van Sant, Baz Luhrman, and others. It really brought me up to date with film history. And like I said before, it made me want to watch or re-watch numerous films that were talked about over the course of fifteen episodes. Excellent documentary. Will watch again.

Who is the better director; Godard or Fassbinder?

This might be the subject of a term paper about post-war European Cinema. Both of these directors have produced so many films that to decide which one is better would take a concerted effort in studying film. I have seen Godard's Breathless about 5 times and each time I'm amazed by the fluidity of the cuts and shots. I have watched Fassbinder BRD trilogy once and it was a truly memorable film experience. My Summer watch list has Fassbinder's Berlin Alexanderplatz at the top of the list. It is fifteen hours long. It has been called the longest narrative film ever.

Perhaps choosing these two director is limiting. Perhaps I should widen the comparison to the French New Wave and the New German Cinema and write about which one was better qualitatively and which produced the most works of a high standard. There are so many works to choose from. Thus limiting the comparison to the two most famous and prolific directors of each movement will probably yield a study that is shorter but more precise.

This comparison is a work in progress. Perhaps by the end of the Summer I will have watched or re-watched enough Godard and Fassbinder films to write intelligently and at length about which director is better. Anyway I'm sure I will enjoy watching such good European Cinema!

Review of Dreyor's Joan of Arc

Dreyor was clearly a master of the Cinema. I came across this film while I was watching The Story of Film. I watched it on Hulu.com. I really like Hulu.com, it has so many famous films, so many criterion collection films. It is truly a new instrument through which to view films. It has expanded the breadth and depth of my film knowledge. Whereas before I had to go to Barnes and Noble to buy any Criterion collection movies or to Amazon.com because Barnes and Noble was too expensive, now I can go, most of the time to Hulu.com and it doesn't cost too much.

Anyway the film is a silent film made in the last era of Silent film in the 1920s. Dreyor, correct me if I'm wrong, is Danish. He made numerous films of which Joan of Arc may be his most famous. I would also like to view Abel Gance's Napoleon which was made at around the same time as Joan of Arc. But I digress.

The film has a serious tone to it and it moves with an energy that keeps the audience interested. But it doesn't pander to the audience it reaches for high Cinematic artistic expression and it achieves it's goal. In an era of Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton, Dreyor certainly could be classified with the likes of D.W. Griffith and Gance. He takes on a subject wrought with political and historical ovetrtones that still resinate to this day. Dreyor shows the Church bureaucracy as men who are all too willing to condemn Joan of Arc and send her to the stake.

Without sound or dialogue the film makes use of facial expressions and camera angles. Joan's face is almost always in a state of tension. Her eyes are big and full of fear. She is, for the most part, shown looking up. Clearly in a position of inferiority. The priests are always depicted at eye level or elevated. They usually have stern looks. The head priest has a very long nose, wrinkled skin, and a stern disposition on his face.

There is effective cross cutting used in the film. Firstly, in the scenes where Joan is being asked to repent, the camera cuts from her face to the priests. This continues throughout the film until she is burned at the stake. The cuts get quicker as the tension rises. Then, the camera cuts from Joan on the stake to the military guards and priests, to the village people who revolt as Joan is burned, only to be violently suppressed by the soldiers. The sequence is similar to Griffith's Birth of a Nation sequence where the KKK rides in to save the family from the carpet baggers. And, both scenes are pulled off with a cinematic flourish that is the high point of Silent cinema.

Dreyor is clearly an example that Scandinavian Cinema has produced some of the best films, not only in European, but also in World Cinema history. Dreyor in the Silent era, Ingmar Bergman in the post-war era, and Lars von Trier in the present. I'm sure there are many other filmmakers from Scandinavia who have made excellent films. In fact I'm going to show Vinterburg's the Celebration in a film course called Cinema and Digital Technology. I'm showing it because it is, perhaps, the first film to use digital cameras in a film totally and to a high standard.

Review of Kobayashi's The Human Condition

This monumental work by Japanese director Kobayashi is a micro-history of Japan's war time experience. The sweep and grandeur of the story are epic the likes of which are rarely seen in these days of youtube clips and first person shooter video games. It was released in the early 1960s on the heals of other films by Yasujiro Ozu and Akira Kurosawa. This period is commonly referred to as the golden age of Japanese Cinema. A period which produced, arguably, Japan's greatest film directors. Not only Ozu and Kirosawa, but also Kobayashi, Mizoguchi, Oshima, and many others I am certainly leaving out. I apologize for the digression, but a film like this is truly monumental for not only Japan, but for the World too. So rarely do we see a portrait of what is a rare breed in Japan; a humanist and a pacifist. The character of Kaji defies so many of the stereotypes of Japan. Kaji is not militaristic, he focuses on the rights of the working class and is suspecting of being a socialist. He is always fighting against the aggressive, authoritarian, abusive, corrupt, Japanese military-industrial complex. He is very dedicated to his virtues.

The Human Condition exposes the Japanese Imperialist military for what it was. But the character of Kaji and the story that is told presents a story of Japan that is rarely told. Especially in the constant wrangling for power in East Asia between Japan and its neighbors. Japan hasn't apologized for its war time atrocities, but this film, at least, shows that Japan has a humanist, liberal side that isn't so taken with war fever.

I used to think that Japan was all too much of a former Imperialist country that wanted nothing but expansion, new markets and more profits at any cost. This film shows how not all of Japan wanted war. There was a well reasoned resistance to the Imperialist war machine.

There are several very well done sequence in the film. The struggle of Kaji against the corruption and complacency in Japanese Manchuria are well played. As are the war scenes. Perhaps the most dramatic scene is the ending where Kaji dies starving and frozen somewhere in Manchuria, denied the only thing he wanted, his wife Michiko.

It took me about three weeks to get through the whole film. I watched it on Hulu.com. It is in black and white with subtitles, so it doesn't appeal to too many people outside of Japan. If Kurosawa appeals to an international audience, then Kobayashi appeals more to a domestic audience. Kurosawa films, the ones he is most famous for, show Japan in its Medieval splendor. Kobayashi's The Human Condition reveals a corrupt, immoral, defeated Japan. It is very much a realist film which ends tragically.

Review of Run Lola Run

This short film by Tom Tykwer is a gem of late 90's cinema. It's a masterpiece. Perhaps I'm partial to it because I have studied European history, culture, languages, and cinema. I suppose you could call me a Europhile. I am usually in awe of anything from Europe and this film was no exception. The film had several shots of amazing camera work, the narrative was not formulaic, it always kept you guessing, there was no use of the star system, archetypes, etc. The narrative is simple and short. It is told three times over with each time resulting in a different ordering of the events and the consequences of those events.

I think the way the story is told is, perhaps, the most unique thing about Run Lola Run. I liked how each story changed. It was self referential in the way it referred to itself. This film was clearly a post-modern film. It used nonlinear narrative structures and the editing was commendable as it totally violated some of the rules of Hollywood editing style. For example the giant crane shots that swirled around Franka Potente's character was something that was, at the time, new to Cinema. It was shots like these that demonstrates how Run Lola Run is a truly innovative film.

The film could be compared to several films like Pulp Fiction and the recent Tykwer collaboration with the Waichowski's Cloud Atlast. I haven't seen any other Tykwer films so I can't speak with any authority about how Run Lola Run fits into his ouerve. But, Run Lola Run was an international hit primarily on the festival circuit. Run Lola Run is clearly a precedent for a film like Cloud Atlas because of both films manipulation of film narrative structure. In both films the narratives crosscut between characters, time, and place. One shot that is a clear example of this is where Franka's character is running to stop Manni from robbing the grocery store. This shot shows Franka, Manni, and a clock ticking by. It reminded me of some 70's American films like Shaft. Whatever the genesis of the shot it was engrossing and built tension to the final resolution of the film.

The film does slow and ebb a bit when Franka's character goes into the Casino. I'm not much for gambling so, perhaps, that is why I found the sequence uneventful. All in all a great, albeit short, film. I would have liked it had the film gone on or another hour or so. But, again, I'm a self confessed Europhile so, perhaps, I'm a little biased.

Review of Stranger than Paradise

Does Jarmusch aspire to be the American Jean-luc Godard? I think he tends to imitate Godard especially with this film. Again, as is typical of not only Jarmusch films but also Art films in general this film has little action, little dialogue, but, it does have a superb ending. As I was watching the film I kept thinking to myself how much this film tries to be like Godard's Breathless. There other homages to Godard throughout the film. The scene where they are in the movie theatre is an homage to Godard's movie theatre scene in Masculine Feminine. The scenes of driving to Ohio and Florida are reminscient of the road scemes from Breathless. The style of the two films are similar, and upon further reflection Jarmusch resembles Godard in some ways. Jarmusch is more understated and minimaist.

One thing that jumped out at me while watching Stranger Than Paradise, besides the similarity to Godard, was Jarmusch's lack of use of close-ups. There aren't any in the whole film. Perhaps this is to adhere to some unglamorous look of the film. The sets, the drab, small, apartments and house are also unglamoruos. As I was watching the film I thought to myself that the Italian neo-realists would be proud of Jarmusch for his emphasis on real settings, real people, and the utter aimlessness and apparent pointlessness of the people in Stranger than Paradise.

Like Down by Law it has a "Noirish" style. The characters are struggling to survive. They have little money, they are itinerant, they have nefarious schemes. They wonder around and come into money by chance and theft. I like this film better than Down by Law, but both are similar. Both are shot in black and white, both are films that can be reduced to some basic human need. Both are not formulaic films, you don't know where they are going or how they will conclude.

It takes some effort to appreciate Jarmusch, but when you put forth the effort the return can yield some positive results I think Jarmusch incites ideas about how we live, how people survive, how people make it through life. I think his films revolve around the basic human condition, at least in Down by Law and Stranger than Paradise.

Review of Capitalism a Love Story

I really like Michael Moore films. His perspectives are refreshing. He brings new information to light in his latest film Capitalism a Love Story. From the title I thought the film would be some kind of quasi- Marxist/Socialist narrative about how unjust and unequal America has become. And in some respects the film is just that. The film is decidedly leftist. It presents the anger, outrage, and disgust that many Americans felt during the Economic Crisis of 2008. It precedes the 99% movement in NYC by about a year. Perhaps it was inspiration for the Occupy Movement? Moore exposes the malfeasance of corporations and how the mantra of "greed is good" has corrupted America's political and economic systems.

The film follows the Moore template. He follows a narrative that begins in his hometown of Flynt, MI. The narrative grows to encompass all of the US from Wall Street to Main St, Congress to local neighborhoods. I have to admit that I thought some of the plot lines were propogandistic. He portrays his childhood as something golden as if the 50s and 60s in the midwest are better than in other parts of the country. He evokes a distinct bias towards his dear Michigan which engendered in myself a sense of displeasure. I thought he was a grouchie old man. Yet, he keeps within range. He doesn't overplay his hand. He sticks to bread and butter political issues without getting to "eggheady." A lot of his opinions are similar to Paul Krugman from the nytimes.com. The fifites and sixties were a golden age for America and Reagan and the neo-cons brought in boom times for the wealthy but left the middle and working classes behind. A few years ago, around the time this film was published, there was a lot of literature published about the economics of neo-liberalism. David Harvey has written an excellent book about neo-liberalism and the economic inequalities it has wrought not only in the US but also in the UK. Yet, this is material for a poly sci class not film criticism.

I thought Moore pulled it off well. The indictment of politicians left and right, of CEOs, bankers exposed the corruption and malfeasance so deeply ingrained into how the political system works. After watching this film there were no stones left unturned. I especially liked the police tape around Wall Street. Moore exposes American Capitalism as grossly corrupt and wholely at odds with Democracy. His film accurately reflects the way the country was feeling in 2008 after several financial institutions had gone bust. The US looked to the Democrats and Obama for leadership and inspiration in a time where there was little good news. Moore's film shows how grassroots political movements brought about political change and renewal. Those days are a memory, how distant of a memory is a matter of debate. Some say the economy has recovered, some say it is still in the doldrums. The same goes for Obama. Has he led a political renewal in the country? Has he brought about lasting change? Or is it business as usual in DC? With the country more divided into red and blue states than ever, this film shows how exploitative and corrupt the Bush years were. Moore reveals that more than any other film I've seen about the financial crisis.

Review of World War Z

I usually don't watch Zombie films, but this past week I saw part of one and all of World War Z. The other film which I saw the end of was I am Legend starring Will Smith. Watching both of these films it becomes obvious how Zombies have evolved over the past decade or so. I think my first encounter with Zombies was in Michael Jackson's music video Thriller where the Zombies moved slowly, didn't bite as ferociously, and were few in number. With both of the films I've seen Zombies have become faster, rapid biters, and disbursed on a global scale.

World War Z was an interesting movie. It was a Brad Pitt vehicle with a somewhat believable plot. It asserts that the UN would play a major role in combatting the spread of Zombies which is contrary to the US centric World order, but that is debate for a history or poly sci class, not in a film criticism. The film moved fast it was action packed typical of Hollywood popcorn movies during the Summer. I had read about World War Z at nytimes.com and that sparked my interest to see the movie. I suppose the film presents some hypothetical situations and plays on the fear incited by those questions. For example how would the World respond to a fast spreading global epidemic which kills millions quickly? It's an interesting hypothetical and the film exploits the fear of disease, death, and catastrophe well. The beginning and ending are montage sequences that relate the events of the film similar to Citizen Kane's news on the march sequences. The action sequences are nothing special. They were like participating in role playing shooter video game. Perhaps the best scene of the film is when Zombies scale the wall around Jerusalem.

This movie will not win any awards. It is a formulaic narrative that revolves around Pitt. He is the hero and it is his journey that we follow. The narrative is predictable. It ends on an up note. I was entertained, but not impressed.

Review of Dances With Wolves

I don't know what else I can say that hasn't already been said about Dances With Wolves. Roger Ebert reviewed the film in 1990 as did Vincent Canby for the New York Times. Ebert's review was glowing. Canby's was less than fantastic. Some of the criticism Canby leveled against the film is that it was like a "boy's life" story. I can't deny that what he says has some validity. The film is like a child's dream. Cowboys and Indians on the grandest scale. But, I don't think Canby gives enough credit to Costner and the re-interpretation that the film makes about the Western as a genre and the way it challenges our pre-conceived notions about Native Americans and the settlement of the West. It is for this reason that I like Ebert's review better and agree with it more than Canby's review.

Both reviews celebrate the film's cinematography. The shots of the frontier are amazing. The buffalo hunt is incredible. I was wondering the whole time how they pulled it off. Where did they shoot it? How did they get so many buffalo? Were any buffalo hurt during shooting? Perhaps I should watch the extras. It truly is the bringing to life a boy's, or anyone's, imagined conception of the West. Vast, expansive, unsettled. The acting is understated in the Costner way. As Roger Ebert wrote he has an understated coolness to him. I think he handles the evolution of Dunbar's character well. The direction is admirable, I think Costner won an academy award. Shot selection, performances all hit the mark. I must also say something about the editing. There were a number of scenes where the editor could have crosscut between rising action, but didn't. Specifically when the Pawnee are attacking the village there is plenty of build up to the battle, but there is no showing of the Souixe tribe preparing for battel. We are left unknowing whether the tribe is prepared for battle, whether they will be annihilated. There is a subtle spacing between reactions of different characters. The cuts are delayed to some degree which makes it a more enticing cinematic experience. Yet it does retain qualities of traditional film editing. There is the 180 degree rule. There are plenty of shot, reverse shots. And, of course, the buffalo hunt sequence is edited well. Plenty of action footage cut together, with some great detail shots.

What makes this film so great, and Ebert makes mention of this in his review, is that it goes against the history of the Western genre. At one point in the film I compared Dances With Wolves to John's Ford's The Searchers; a film that depicts Native Americans as blood thirsty savages that have no redeemable values whatsoever. Dances With Wolves presents Native Americans in a nuanced light, yet not totally civilized. There are some brutal scenes against white settlers. It is not a totally naive depiction. However, the film, unlike any film I can remeber, brings the audience into the Teepees of the souixe. The film humanizes Native Americans and shows the dark side of White settlement. The American military is seen as brutal killers who had no sympathy for Native Americans. I found myself, as I'm sure many viewers did, cheering for the Native Americans when they free Costner from bondage. After all those years of seeing John Wayne films and arguing with my American history teacher in High School about the appalling treatment of Native Americans by the American government along comes Dances With Wolves and shows it through film in the grandest way. Dance With Wolves is cinema at it's grandest.

Review of Wim Wenders Wings of Desire

This film was very good. Perhaps I say that alot about European films, what can I say I like the Europeans. The film's action is slow. It is not full of action. The most exciting things that happen are when the young man comitts suicide and when the descended angel finds his love interest. It's shot in black and white, even though it was made in 1987. It is well past the end of what is called the "New German Cinema" movement which lasted from the late sixties to the early 80s. But Wenders is always included when the New German Cinema is discussed. With good reason.

Wings of Desire has several techniques that make it a unique and likeable film. Although it wouldn't receive the kind of exposure that a superhero does, it pushes the cinematic art form in new directions. The voice over of peoples' thoughts are, I think, the most unique aspect of the film. I liked how the peoples' inner voices swirl and mix and jump from one person to another. There are also several memorable shots that probably cost alot of money to shoot. Like the shot where the angel is on top of the monument that overlooks traffic in Berlin. I was mesmerized by the shots of Berlin, not just of the grand boulevards but also of the trains and industrialized, run down areas. The shots brought grandeur and realism to the film.

The story was also unique. Technical aspects of the film aside, it has a compelling story that unfolds slowly reaching the climax of consummate love between the angel and the trapeze artist. The most dramatic turn that the story takes is when the angel falls from grace. From there it takes an almost comedic route. He sells his armor, he has no money, and no place to go. Also, the Peter Falk character plays a comedic foil; he is a former angel and is aware of the fallen angel's status. The narrative is compelling, yet you are not on the edge of your seat, waiting with anticipation as to what will happen next. It is a love story, unmolested by exploitative plot techniques. It doesn't squeeze your emotions or turn your guts into mush. Yet it is not too heavy, there is an "up" ending.

The film is brilliant technically; shots, editing, scenes, and narratively; the story, the characters, the performances. Both are very good.

Review of Jarmusch's Night on Earth

Review of Jarmusch's Mystery Train

Review of Jarmusch's Down by Law

I thought this film was very minimalist. There was very little action, dialogue, and sets were simple. Like the previous Jarmusch film I have seen Limits of Control, there seems to be no point or theme to the film. The stylistic elements of the film are very reductionist. The camera moves little. The editing is uncomplicated. Like Ebert says in his review, the style of the film is very "noirish."

Analyzing Jarmusch films could probably constitute a whole course. Comparing it to other films like Limits of Control yields some points of comparison. Limits of Control has more action and a definitive climax. Perhaps it does not, like Down by Law, have a plot or metatextual meaning.

I enjoyed watching the film because of what it does for Cinema. It purposefully eschews blockbuster style filmmaking and puts forth an artistic creation. Some of the shots were very well done and the cinematographer should be commended. The story and style of the film grow out of Noir films. All of the characters are struggling to survive in the urban jungle that New Orleans is. Each of the three characters paths intersects, and, by the end of the movie, all three characters have again gone their separate ways.

Down by Law is a film about struggling to survive. In each character we see someone who is setup to take a fall and has ended up in jail. The film is an interesting story that tells of random occurrences with no apparent meaning. Aimless, wandering, typical Jarmusch.

Review of Side by Side

This film was a documentary about the transition from traditional film stocks to digital production processes. It was a very revealing film that went into considerable detail about the future of the movie industry and how technology is changing the way films are made from shooting to post-production and distribution. Last Fall I took a class about Cinema and Digital technology. This coming Fall I'm going to teach that class and I plan to show this film on the first night of class. I think it is a great, if brief, overview of the current debate about the transition from film to digital.

It talks about how digital technology, primarily cameras, has evolved from handhelds that looked like home videos to the latest camera technology that can create images that look like the highest quality of film 35m. The film also discussed how distribution is changing, moving from traditional film projectors to digital video projectors. Almost all the major theaters have changed from film to digital, even Art house cinemas have made the transition.

All this technological evolution leads to the question that the film posed to many famous film directors over the course of the film; is film as a method of capturing images dead? Has or will digital replaced film completely? George Lucas, prior to the film, said that "film is dead." Other filmmakers such as Christopher Nolan, who made the recent Batman movies says film is still of use. Other directors also weighed in on the future of film. The consensus was the film is, indeed, dead. Although it still might have some use, like in the recent movie The Master which was shot in 70m. But, more and more, as the camera technology improves so that digital produces that grainy, painterly quality image that film cameras produce, using digital cameras, which are much cheaper, is becoming the instrument of choice among filmmakers.

The debate about digital or film is fleshed out in detail in an article by the two leading movie critics of the New York Times. They provide are better analysis than I could and provide a nice compliment to the film. I will be assigning the article in class.

I think the transition to digital has already usurped the movie business. From dogme95's The Celebration, which I will be showing the second week of class, to the big budget Superhero movies, digital cameras are becoming the method used most by filmmakers. I think it is a positive advancement that digital cameras can now capture video that is the same or very similar quality to 35m, or even 70m.

I just think about what to do with all those old films, lying around in canisters, slowly wasting away?

Review of the Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest

This movie was a tour de force. It had the gripping suspense that held viewers attention in the first installment of the Girl With the Dragon Tattoo series, but was sorely lacking in the second film. I thought the story was the strongest aspect of the film. A government conspiracy, a girl who had been so wronged by a corrupt and perverted system, and a group of dedicated freedom fighters working for justice. Great film! Great trilogy!

In film class we are currently talking about the hero's journey. We are reading a book by Vogler who writes about the steps and sequences the hero goes through. He argues that stories can be boiled down to their essentials to reveal that there are not so many different stories throughout time and across cultures. I think Lisbeth, the hero of the the Girl With the Dragon Tattoo qualifies as a hero who goes on a long and difficult journey. In the first film she is an avenging angel. She works outside of Swedish society to help Mikael solve the crime. In the third and final film she is cleared of any wrong doing and her rights and sanity are restored.

In the third film we see the hero's journey come to a climax. The events of the previous two films lead up to a trial where Lisbeth must prove her innocence and legal competence. In a number of plot twists it is revealed that Lisbeth accusers, the psychiatrist, her legal guardian, and her father are all guilty of a vast conspiracy to help Zalachenko and keep Lisbeth institutionalized. The suspense builds to a peak and all of Lisbeth's enemies are dealt with leaving her free.

Aside from the hero's journey Lisbeth goes on, and Lisbeth is quite a hero. First, she is a woman who is abused by white men. The film is a clear indictment of the patriarchical Swedish society the Lisbeth lives in. She must fight against entrenched corruption  with only a few resources and few allies. Yet she does come out on top.

I also found the use of technology interesting in the film. It is such a film that reflects how digitally connected we are. Lisbeth uses her skills as a hacker to find information, her allies hack computers to clear her name, and cell phones are very common. I like the whole "cypherpunk" style and attitude of Lisbeth. I like how there is a constant tension as to how she is going to succeed. How is she going to expose the villains and evilness of Swedish society. It also goes well with the current activities of hacktivists, anonymous, and current debates about the internet, government secrets, openness, abuse of power, systematic repression, and corruption in government. With the trial of Bradley Manning and the legal status of Julian Assange in question this film is very relevant to today's World.

I think this film is a very good conclusion to the Girl With the Dragon Tattoo series. It ties up all the lose ends, there is a definite conclusion. The film has some classical aspects to it, but with a postmodern influence. There are "good" people who help Lisbeth and there are villains just like in a classical story. Yet all of the events and use of technology make it a story that is very contemporary.

I'm teaching a course this Fall about Cinema and Digital Technology and I'm debating about which film to show; the first film or the third film? I will take a survey of the class to determine how many students have seen the first film and if there are a lot of students who have seen the first film, then I'll probably show the third film.

Review of Fritz Lang's Metropolis

This film is great. It is one of the progenitor of Science Fiction film. along with Griffith's masterpieces like Birth of a Nation, and more importantly Intolerance, Fritz Lang can be considered a legend of Cinema.

His film Metropolis presents all the worries of his contemporary era in film form. Even more so are his references to biblic themes such as resurrection and redemption. The futuristic setting is phenomenal even to this day. In the 1920s and silent film era, audiences must have been astounded. I can see some similarity between Lang's Metropolis and Blade Runner.

Yet Metropolis captures the fear of the 1920s better than any other film of it's era. Class conflict, revolutionary struggle, the correct path to social advancement are all addressed in this film. The conflict between the master of metropolis and the workers presents class conflict in the 1920s in starkest terms. Although filmmakers in America rarely touched on such a concept, filmmakers in Germany had a free hand to address such concerns, and with the emergence of the Soviet Union, those concerns were at the forefront of public debate.

This film is set in the future, but it is an obvious reference to the 1920s. Germany was in the midst of economic catastrophe in the Weimar years. There was constant struggle between the working class and management. Like so many other sci fi films to follow the idea of revolution takes paramount importance. It is only further complicated by the fact that the messianic figure is an evil robot set out to lead the workers to their own destruction. I think this film is a precursor to other films of the dystopian, revolutionary genre. George Lucas's THX evokes such ideas of revolt against an all powerfuly, all controlling state. As does some themes in the Waichowski's laest film Cloud Atlas.

I am seriously considering showing this film in the class I'm going to teach about Cinema and Digital Technology. I know, it has nothing to do with Cinema and Digital Technology, but it is so relevant to the genre of Sci- fi films. It one of the first, perhaps the first, in the myriad of dystopian films that have been released.

Thoughts on German Expressionist Cinema

I have watched several German Expressionist Cinema films. These include the Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, The Testament of Dr. Mabuse (twice) and Metropolis both by Fritz Lang. The former is the shortest and, perhaps, most stylish and abstract of the, at least, three Expressionist films I have seen.
The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari is short and very artistic. The sets a done in a manner which can be seen is an Otto Dix painting. I like the style of the German Expressionists and Dr. Caligari does not let down in style. Yet the film is short, only fifty-two minutes.

The Testament of Dr. Mabuse is longer. I'm not even sure if it can be considered Expressionist, because it is after the Weimar period, 1933, but before the Nazis and the post WWII period. It is also a talkie, which Cabinet and Metropolis are not. I have seen Mabuse twice, once before this post and once specifically for this post. Everything about the film is of high quality. It is probably comparable to any James Gagne films or Gangster movies of the times. The narrative is full of twists and turns and has several expressionistic flourishes.

Metropolis is, perhaps, the best Expressionist film made during the Weimar period. It's camera work is beyond average, and the futuristic models create an atmosphere unlike any film for it's time period. It's theme pre-dates other films that deal with the crisis of Capitalism and class conflict. The film is futuristic but very relevant to the 1920s. I have seen the film at least twice and each time I have been mesmerized by its stage designs and narrative. A great film.

German Expressionist Cinema came about during the inter-war years. It significantly reflects the painting style of German Expressionism. The warped stage designs are no accident. As well as the dark lighting. It amazed me how much these films resembled the painting of Dix and others. I really enjoyed watching the films They were such a departure from other films of it's era.

Review of The Girl Who Played With Fire

I have seen the first in the this trilogy and I must say that the first in the Girl With the Dragon Tattoo trilogy was much better than the second film. I will be writing a subsequent blog post comparing and contrasting all three films. Yet, this blog is about the second in the trilogy, the Girl Who Played With Fire.

First of all let me say how much I like the style of these films. I really like to cyber-punk style of each film. It gives the films a post-modern style that is copied, but never repeated by any other film. Yet this second installment leaves viewers wanting more. It is not suspenseful, even when Lisbeth is buried alive, you know she's going to win, somehow. All that is obvious from the first movie. Yet the plot twists and turns are entertaining. It is a good film, but not as great as the first one.

Lesbian sex scenes aside, this film could of used some more action. Noomi Rapace doesn't talk so much. The narrative is interesting, but the degenerates into a James Bondesque film when Noomi's character is revealed to have the roots of an ex-KGB officer. No wonder why she is so elusive and consequential. She is clearly the hero in a perverted, white-male dominated world. She works against the male dominated world to overthrow all of the power structures that are so firmly in place to keep her down. That is the most interesting part of the film. How she gets revenge against her rapist social work, her father, and the system that does nothing to help her, only lets her be abused and almost killed.

The proto-feminist narrative is the best thing about this film. A woman, odds stacked against her finds a way to come out on top against her enemies who seem to have every advantage against her. She exposes the underworld, corruption in the government, and the keystone cops who are too slow or incompetent to solve a setup against her. Yet, the film comes off as too predictable. Even as she is shot several times, you know she is going to triumph. Perhaps it isn't inevitable, there is some doubt, but, alas, how can you kill of the main protagonist? Maybe the ending of this film was spoiled by the fact that I knew there was a third installment?

Anyway, this film doesn't stack up to the suspense and thrilling conclusion of its predecessor. The ending is all too obvious and the lead up isn't climatic at all.

Review of Minority Report

This was antother adaptation of a Philip K. Dick novel. It was an entertaining story that was good in the beginning, but, in my opinion, flagged towards the end. I don't know exactly what it was. maybe an all too obvious ending, a Tom Cruise vehicle, or something I can't verbalise. I liked the film until I knew the ending then all became inevitable. It was a Tom Cruise picture where he was going to solve the murder and end up on the side of good, having another child with his wife. Perhaps if Tom Cruise hadn't been cast I would have like the picture more. Perhaps if he wasn't in the movies I wouldn't have liked the picture.

I thought about showing this film for a class I'm teaching. I thought I could show this film and relate it somehow to the hot topic in technology "big data." It has some relevance, but it doesn't quite make it. It wraps up everything very tidely. I was hoping for a more convoluted ending. I didn't want Tom Cruise's character to ending up solving the murder and having another child with his wife. That was just to sterile. Too predictable. Perhaps too much of a "Hollywood" ending?

Yet the first thirty minutes to an hour are science fiction film at it's best. The use of pre-cogs to identify future crime is very cutting edge. It brings to mind some of the debates about "Big Data." I'm sure Civil rights activits would have a field day if this film ever attempted to become reality. There is no way the Courts would allow human beings to be exploited to predict crime. And the dubiousness of the offense would sure cause an uprising against convictions for crimes that were committed in the future. Yet, currently, governments are using predictive analytics to predict human behavior. Anyway the film touches on some of these issues and illustrates there abuses, but I just didn't feel that much with this film. It was too predictable.

I may still use this film. But, I'm keeping my options open.

Review of The Great Gatsby

In spite of what the critics at the Rolling Stone and New Yorker have written I enjoyed the adaptation of Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby. Although I thought some of the scenes were overplayed, particularly the scene where Gatsby throw some of his shirts on Daisy to be overplayed. Perhaps it could have been jewelry instead. I don't know, the scene just didn't work for me. Also the ending was somewhat long and drawn out. I didn't really notice it too much until my friend pointed it out. I think the ending was drawn out to point to the tragedy that Gatsby endured. Certainly you could not find a more romantic and wronged hero in all of literary history, and cinematic history. The character of Gatsby is comparable to the epic characters of Shakespeare. Hamlet and King Lear certainly endured some of the hardships that Gatsby endured.

Those hardships. Of which any viewer of the film is bound to think. Gatsby from dirt poor farmers who wants the hand of a rich girl for marriage. He is doomed from the start. But, he believes in the American dream in the promise of progress of advancement. Like so many people who believed the same dream back in the halcyon days of the 1920s, and like so many people, had his bubble burst. Gatsby strikes me as a tragic hero. He attains the highest of economic highs; he throws lavish parties, has the finest clothes, the fanciest car, he has everything that should qualify him for the highest class position in American society, but, alas, he is rejected by that very society. He cannot have Daisy. This emotion is showed most cleary when Gatsby utterly loses it when Tom Buchanon reveals his shadowy past. Gatsby flies off the handle and drives away Daisy. Poor Gatsby. All of this is fairly obvious to even the most lazy analysis of the film. Yet it is the presentation of the story that is unique. The film starts, refers back to, and closes with the character of Nick Carraway in a sanatorium. This was not included in the 1970s version of the film. Neither was the angry scene in which Gatsby flies off the handle and loses Daisy. Instead the 1970s version had Mia Farrow proclaim that awful, fateful line that "rich girls don't marry poor boys" and aside from that adhered closely to the book.

I thought the film had very high production qualities. The party scenes were incredible. The acting was good, some may say subpar, but aren't the character in this tale all phony? I think so. I thought the character of Tom Buchanon was well played, perhaps even upstaging Leo's character, a good casting choice. Many of the scenes were wonderfully shot. I can't imagine how much it cost. The CGI was somewhat out of place as was the documentary footage, but it lended a realist touch for the film.

This was the first 3D film I have ever scene, or can remember seeing. I think it is the quintessential tale of 1920s America; driven by a bloodlust for money and success. In a time when the top book was how to make friends and influence people, Gatsby comes off as the most poignant criticism of the enormous lust for money that drove the 1920s boom and ended, like Nick Carraway, in a state of depression and deep introversion. I think Gatsby is not only a tale about 1920s America, but comments more broadly about America throught the years. The yearning for money and status has been found in every decade of American history, not just the 1920s. It is a commentary on the money elite, the striving for a conception of the American dream, that one can become a part of high society if one attains enough wealth, but alas, as become so tragically apparent in Gatsby, money can't buy everything.

Review of Life of Pi

Another recent film that has been talked about and which was considered for many Oscars. I borrowed this from the local library because I missed the film when it was out. Again I may not add to the already voluminous reviews of this film but I like to scribble down some of my own thoughts.

The director of the film was Ang Lee. He won a best director Oscar for Life of Pi. As I was watching the film I thought to myself, "how does one recognize great directing?" I knew before the film started that Lee had won the award for best director in the most recent Oscars, so I was interested to see the film and see what the Academy had deemed so deserving of the best director Oscar.

Well after viewing the film I would so that it cleared up what thoughts I had about what great directing is. The film was beautiful. The tiger, the ocean, the fish were all great shots. If you can make a two hour film which the bulk of time is of a teenage boy floating around on life preservers attached to a life boat interesting and engaging then you should win the best director award. There were numerous shots in the film where I asked myself "how did he pull off that shot?" I was mesmerized, yet not terrified because we see that the boy survives to become a middle age man.

I thought the film was an interesting story. Perhaps not kin to a lot of what Hollywood mainstream features are all about today. Even though there was CGI effects the story is a very personal journey of survival against the odds. It is not a movie where you have to suspend belief. I'm not sure if it's a true story but parallels could be drawn to Castaway with Tom Hanks. Both movies deal with against the odds personal victories over nature. Both films are devoid of real suspense or action, yet there are both undeniably real.

I think it is a triumph for Lee. After his last two pictures; Lust Caution and Taking Woodstock I think he hit some rough spots after an astounding beginning with Crouching Tiger and Brokeback Mountain. I saw his Eat, Drink, Man, Woman which was delightful and I love his adaptation of Sense and Sensibility. I always like watching that film in the Springtime for some reason. Perhaps it reminds of the first time I was romantically involved with anyone. Or, perhaps, it reminds of the first time I saw it in Shanghai where I was teaching English. Yet, I digress.

Great film, great director.

Review of Argo

I know, I know, I know, it's way past Oscar season so what am I doing reviewing Argo which has been reviewed by all the major media outlets? I just wanted to scribble a little. Perhaps I can offer a different perspective, perhaps I'll only regurgitate other critics. Anyway here it goes.

The best scene in the film is the ending. Would they just get on the plane and away to safety! I was twisting and turning in anguish as I watched the fake film crew make it through customs on there way to freedom. The sense of relief was a great feeling. I clearly understand why it won best picture. The other scene I like in the film was where the Americans disguised as Canadians drive through central Tehran among protesters, this heightens the sense of panic that they might get caught. It is foreshadowing the big escape to come and Afleck does a great job building suspense showing little details that increase anxiety

I liked the film. I'm interested in Iranian Cinema. Reading a book called the Net Delusion which describes and analyzes the Green Revolution which occurred in Iran a few years ago. I've also seen a great animated film called Persopolis in an animated film course I took. Both films and the book deal with Iran's tumultuous past and it's current authoritarian government. If we compare the two films perhaps it will shed light on current depictions of Iran and Iranian history from two different perspectives. Argo is an American account that largely portrays Iran without much sympathy. We are bombarded with images of unruly protesters and revolutionary guards storming the American Embassy in Tehran. Ben Afleck is clearly the hero. The hostages are freed. The great Ayottolah has been tricked and there was something salvageable from the hostage crisis. It all makes for a very good story between clearly defined bad and good.

Yet, if we look at Persopolis we get a different view of Iran. We see a nation torn apart by political struggle and one authoritarian government after another. The protagonist is a girl who turns into a women and is forced to live in exile from Iran. In Persopolis we see a different more nuanced portrait of Iranian society; a society where people long to be free but are repeated subjected to authoritarianism.

Which leads me back to the Green Revolution. This movement was violently snuffed out by the theocratic regime. It was a grassroots movement to bring an end to authoritarianism in Iran. And as Evgeny Morozov writes in his book social media greatly affected the way the protest was staged. Perhaps it wasn't as big a force as disaffection with the fake elections, but it clearly led to greater participation and global awareness of what was going on in Iran.

Anyway, I digress. Both are great films. Both provide some insight into Iranian history and culture.

Book Review of Peter Biskind's Easy Riders Raging Bulls

This book was great. Even the parts about Paul Schrader and Bob Rafealson were good and those were the parts that filled in the space between the big stories about Coppola, Scorsese, Lucas, and others. Learning about how what has come to be called "the New Hollywood Cinema" developed into a movement with Warren Beatty, Robert Towne, Billy Friedkin, and others all producing great Cinema that was supposed to be of high Cinematic quality. It was a break from the past. A stab at the heart of the old studio system era. It would turn the power of production over the directors like never before, and perhaps since. Sure there comes along some new talent, but not like during the late sixties and early seventies. Perhaps the Independent Cinema of the 90s is comparable.

This Fall I'm scheduled to teach a course about American Cinema called American Masterworks. I plan on using this book to assign readings and prepare lectures from. I had heard of many of the directors referenced in the book. I had also seen many of the films before, but it caused me to watch Bonnie and Clyde for the first time. We had watched Easy Rider in class and I had seen it once before back when I was 17. It brought back memories and provided more substance about the Godfather. I had screened the Godfather to my classes when I was teaching English in Shanghai. I'm not sure if I will show the Godfather II, which I think is, perhaps, the best film of the 70s.

Yet, I read the book until the end, up until Friedkin's The Sorcerer, Scorsese's Raging Bull, and Coppola's Apocalypse Now. Each fell from the peak of their careers, with the exception of Scorsese who went into a funk, but eventually came back to, perhaps, even bigger success then what he had tasted with Taxi Driver and New York, New York. Several of the filmmakers; producers, directors, screenwriters, actors, etc who were prominent in the period of the New Hollywood, 1968- 1980, fell off the earth in the 80s and the prevailing tastes of the Reagan-Bush years. Like Friedkin and Peter Bogdanovich, praised as auteurs there status quickly evaporated with flop after flop.

There is so much to write about from this book. One blog post wouldn't do it justice. Biskind talks about George Lucas and Steven Spielberg and the enormous success they had. But, Biskind also talks about the costs that each endured; the critical rejection of their movies, how their circle of friends became smaller and smaller, how their movies changed Hollywood, perhaps for the worst in terms of Cinematic art. In perhaps his most poignant discussion of the film industry Biskind talks about how Star Wars was a total game changer for the industry. He present Lucas's side of the story; how he created a "Disney" movie that was unpretentious. But, he also presented some of the critical reception that the film received and that Lucas had to endure. Particularly harsh was Robert Altman who said Star Wars ruined movies. I hope to read further into Lucas's life and learn more about the changes in the film industry and how, perhaps I'm wrong, but I think Star Wars has become the model on which so many of the Superhero movies are based. The concept that film is like a publishing franchise begins, I think with Star Wars and I think Biskind makes the point that it was a not so subtle transition in how films were produced, marketed, and cross promoted.

Biskind gives the dish on many famous directors who crumbled on the pressure and substance abuse, particularly Scorsese and Hal Ashby. According to Biskind not a few didn't make out of the 70s alive. The last call for the New Hollywood movement came with Cimino's Heaven's Gate. This film caused all the studios and anyone with money to finance film production to become extremely risk averse, especially toward anyone associated with the New Hollywood. Heaven's Gate was a disaster. I don't know what the loss would be in today's dollars, but it would be massive. If the movement needed a clear ending point this was it. I suppose you could talk about changing political, social, and economic trends and that would be valid and the clearest expression of those trends would be the utter failure of Heaven's Gate. By 1980 many of the famous directors, like Coppola, were taking great risks and would fall into bankruptcy, not to make a return until the 90s, if even then.

To understand 80s Cinema I think you have to understand the New Hollywood movement. The 80s Cinema represented everything that the New Hollywood movement sought to destroy or at least render to a lesser power. The New Hollywood director reinvigorated a profitless, moribound industry that was producing large scale musicals to an audience that wanted new stories, not the recycled, bland tales of the previous era in Cinema History. The New Hollywood movement was a watershed period where young directors could rise to immense fortune and fame, only a few had lasting success.

Very interesting book. I'm looking forward to Biskind's other film history title about the 1990s Independent film movement.