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.