Review of Band a Parte by Godard

It took me awhile to appreciate this film. Anna Karina looks awful, like a pubescent girl who got a bad hair cut. And the narrative moves excruciatingly slow. The end is cool. I liked very much the duel between the two men over the money. I also liked the twist of Madame Stolzt coming back from the dead. Those parts were good. The rest of the film were mere scenes stitched together with some very crude voice over which made the film aspire to literary merit rather than aspire to cinematic greatness. Yet, the film does have a Breathless quality to it, and if I remember correctly, this was one of the films Godard tried to make after the success of Breathless. Perhaps this is Breathless 2? If it was supposed to be Breathless 2 it was a poor follow up.

Band a Parte is what Quentin Tarrantino named his production company after which he used to make Reservior Dogs. I don't know why he appreciates this film rather than some other Godard film. I guess I would have to do some research about why he chose this film in particular. Anyway, the film is supposed to be a gangster film, yet it is much too soft. There are dance scenes. The toughest gangster has a literary side which I found very hard to believe, and it has a happy ending which I also find a bit of a stretch.

I found fault with Karina's acting as well. It was way too over the top. She gets hysterical, in fact a little too hysterical. The other plot points, the locked door, the locked window, those were good in that they built tension to the dramatic conclusion. Godard makes these elements of the plot work really well. I enjoyed the last twenty minutes of the film. I just didn't like the setup. Why would gangsters be taking an English class? This was not one of my favorite Godard films. And in fact it was at a low ebb in the French New Wave that the film was released. Godard and Karina were on the rocks and Godard's compatriots in the New Wave were not getting many productions into theaters, even less so onto the International Theater.

Yet, Godard, unlike his fellow critic-director continued to make films and cut deals to get l'argent for his films. Some of his compatriots fell off dramatically in the later 60s which is too bad. Anyway, the film is not his best work. The ending was good.

Review of Godard's La Chinoise

I really enjoyed watching this film. Except for the part where the Vietnamese girl is screaming for the Soviet Foreign minister to help her. That was a little too campy. Living in America where Marxism- Lenninism is treated like a mental disorder this film puts a lot of philosophy in it's narrative which I like. I like the frank discussion of US Imperialism. Perhaps I've taken too many history courses, but it was compelling to watch the lecturers deliver their thoughts.

The film is typical Godard style of the 60's. This is when he was at his most productive and most creative. I am almost done with a book about Godard written by Richard Brody. It covers all of his films up to about 2006 when the book was published. If you want to know anything about Godard this book is the place to start. I was surprised to learn that Godard has been remarkably productive well into the 80's. I think that solidifies his status as film legend ridden in on the French New Wave.

Aside from the style of the film, the meaning also comes from the circumstance of the New Left sweeping French society that culminated in the protests of 1968. At the time France refused to be aligned with either the US or the USSR. It remained defiant of both, yet at the same time nursing a americaphilia and a sovietphilia. The French New Wave as a film movement was heavily influenced by American studio pictures of the Golden Age of Hollywood. What many Americans thought was mediocre or went unappreciated the French critics at Cahiers du Cinema took a great interest in. Howard Hawkes for example was looked at as a studio director who made a few good movies. John Ford also. Hawkes reputation was revived with the likes Godard and Truffaut. Truffaut was a big fan of Hitchcock.

The film reminded me of my days as an undergraduate. I was firmly against war. I saw American foreign policy as going in the wrong direction, particularly with the war in Afghanistan and even more so the war in Iraq. This film brought back some of those memories and rekindled an interest in the radical 60's. After La Chinoise and Weekend Godard assumed a large reputation in World Cinema. He began a lecture tour of American Universities and his films became tres chic in Art House theaters.

Sadly, Godard went through a "wilderness" period during the 70's. He had trouble getting a film financed, even though he managed to keep making films. Primarily with the aid of French TV. This film should be considered his most acute foray into radical Marxist- Leninist ideology. It is unlike his other philosophical statement made in other films. Her his anti-Americanism comes out frankly and acutely which is the best part of the film.

Review of Birdman

I thought this film was great. Perhaps I'm just regurgitating what other critics and commentators have said, but this is the front runner for best picture. It was edgier than Imitation Game and less partisan the American Sniper. And the acting was top notch, best out all the films in contention. Even better than Boyhood's performances which were commendable. I think Keaton deserves best actor, even thought it will probably go to Eddy Redmayne for his portrayal of Stephen Hawking.

This film is great at pointing out the current debates about the film industry. The character that Keaton plays stabs at the heart of the contemporary film industry. How does an actor attain critical success after playing an extremely shallow super hero? How does he get anyone to take him seriously? How does he survive as an actor? Frankly, I don't know. I don't think the superhero films provide much in terms of career futures. Take for example Robert Downey, Jr. whose performances have become so shallow and empty, I don't think I'd like him in anything else. If he is to be taken seriously he sure needs to change his direction.

Yet, on the other hand is Broadway the epitome of cultural sophistication in this country? I've seen several broadway shows that are not indicative of cultural sophistication. When the critic from the times comments that Keaton's character is akin to cartoons and pornography, what about cross-dressing and orgies which play on broadway along with the high class snob shows that play there season after season?

I don't think this debate is going away anytime soon. Cinema has famously been an art and business, whereas theater has been the staple of literary merit. Or so the argument goes. I'd be happy to see both flourish. And every film that comes out of Hollywood is not crap. This one certainly is not.

Notes on Schrader on Schrader

I read this book for my annotated bibliography for my screenwriting degree. It's a low residency program so I have to compile a reading list and write a feature length screenplay. I chose to start out with a book about Paul Schrader; read his screenplays and watch his films. So far I've watched Taxi Driver, American Gigolo, and Light Sleeper all of which were well done. I have written blog posts about these films, check them out if you like.

The first part of the book is about Schrader's background. He was born in Northern Michigan to a tight knit community of Dutch protestants. He was very religious in his youth. He didn't see a movie until he was seventeen. During college he took an avid interest in film. From there he went to UCLA and graduated from there with a film degree. After that he lived in LA and watched films and wrote for small publications. He had an opportunity to be a critic a major newspaper but passed on it to pursue work as a screenwriter. Soon enough he fell in with the right crowd, met Scorsese, and made Taxi Driver which catapulted him to stardom.

The more I read about Schrader the more I became aware of his political leanings and his opinions about film. He was one of a few, if not the only critic who dismissed Easy Rider as a crappy film. This caused me to reconsider the film in a new way. I disagree with Schrader's dismissal of the film as not good enough. I like the film. Easy Rider along with Bonnie and Clyde and the Graduate stand to me as the leading films of the New Hollywood. Taxi Driver is certainly in that group, even thought it came a few years later.

To me Schrader seems to be classicist. He deals a lot with biblical themes. A common theme in his work is the redeeming hero which comes through in the movies I have seen so far. Taxi Driver and Light Sleeper for sure have a redeeming character. American Gigolo not so much. Travis Bickel is right wing extremist who becomes a hero by killing gangsters and liberating a teenage prostitute. Willem Defoe in Light Sleeper becomes a hero by killing Tis who is Euro trash.

The films of Schrader's that I have watched are classcial. Most prominently in how they are structured. They all follow a linear structure. There are no distortions of reality. The hero is clearer revealed, the conflict is obvious, the resolution precise.

I am going to read and watch Schrader's further collaborations with Scorsese; Raging Bull and The Last Temptation of Christ and write further about Schrader's work as a screenwriter.

Review of American Gigolo by Schrader

I liked this film. However much of a timepiece it is to 80's culture, it is still not a bad film. Watching this film makes me want to buy a pastel suit and play Duran Duran really loud. It didn't win any awards and it was said to be a bomb, but it really does capture early 80's culture in a nutshell. It is also high concept, although I'm not sure what that means. Anyway, I liked the mercedes that Gere drives around. I like the music and decor.

The writing is tight. Like other Schrader screenplays it is written like a novel. It doesn't have act breaks, just chapter or scene headings. It is also a character driven screenplay. It focuses on Julian and his struggle to clear his name. The action builds and builds, one scene seemlessly transitioning into another.

The only thing different from the screenplay to the film is the omission about Julian's past as a street prostitute, before he became high class and dealt only with "rich pussy." Aside from that the film follows the screenplay. One plot point develops into another until we reach the climax which is when Hutton declares that she was with Julian the night of the murder. Schrader then uses an ending which is very similar to Pickpocket. It isn't bad. It's very simplistic yet very conclusive. In the end Gere has a partner to help him out the frame. They are truly in love. Who knows what will happen next?

I thought Gere put in a good performance. Yet, I kept having the thought that this was a prequel to Pretty Woman. It seems like the characters were similar. Both were good looking men, well dressed, upper class, with a good taste in women. I know he has played other characters and has a nuance as an actor., I just haven't seen it. Perhaps I should look at some of his other films.

Review of Light Sleeper by Schrader

I thought this film was really good. It seemed to be in the wake of the hyper 80's. I think Susan Surandon's character really brings that theme out. She is transitioning to a legit career in cosmetics and finding her way out of dealing drugs. The good times have passed. It's time for her to move on. The excess of the 80's; the cocaine, the easy money, the basquiat- style paintings, the refferences to Wall Street types, in Light Sleeper these cultural characteristics all seem to be in decline. Yet, Schrader's ability is not. It is a very tightly constructed film with a great performance from Willem Defoe.

The film omits several scenes from the screenplay. There is one scene where Defoe goes to his fellow dealer's apartment that is cut. Otherwise it follows the script which is written more as a novel than a screenplay. There are no act headings, only what could be called chapter headings such as "shootout" or something of that nature. The script is well done. The action builds up nicely. I totally didn't see it coming that Defoe's ex-wife would relapse and be murdered. That was a big plot twist. I also liked the character of Victor Garber. The fake German accent and tacky clothes really made me consider him with antipathy.

The film does get a little tacky itself. It reflects on New York a little too much. The shots of the car taking Defoe to his next deal are rather dull and uninspired. I suppose there needs to be peaks and troughs in the action, but I was bored. I did like the voice over and reflections of Defoe's character. There is not too many films who show a small time dealer with the humanity that Schrader does in this film. I would have liked to see where Defoe's life goes after prison.

 And I think Schrader did a very good job. The film checks in at about 100 minutes, not too long, but not too much like TV. He also used the pick pocket ending, like he did in American Gigolo which is so uninspired. Yet it still works. We see Defoe and Surandon becoming intimate, both clean and legit, clearly healing from the 80's excess that they were seeking to break free from.

Review of Taxi Driver by Scorsese

This was the third of fourth time I've seen this film. I saw it when I was in High School. I thought it was great then and I still think it's a great film. Everything is flawless. I, as a screenwriting graduate student, am studying it for it's writing. The screenwriter, for anyone who doesn't know, was Paul Schrader who I am studying. I read the screenplay and watched the film.

The film follows along the screenplay pretty much word for word. Some liberties were taken with shots of De Niro and his apartment, but otherwise there are no major omissions from the screenplay. The screenplay was written without scene breaks or act breaks so it reads more like a novel. The writing is dated. The film was made in the early 70s so much of what it writes about; the scum of New York City, a need for reform, a PTSD Vietnam vet, are all dated. NYC is clean compared to how it is depicted in this film.

Even though it's dated there are still some kernels of writing that still sparkle off the page. The conflicts in the story are still relevant in current discussions about human trafficking and the overwhelming Liberal consensus that does seem to, at times go unquestioned and imposed on it's subject population. This, I think, is what the theme of the film is. Schrader is a serious critic and interestingly enough he is not a fan of Easy Rider which seems to say the opposite of Taxi Driver. In Schrader's opinino NYC is a hell on earth, and in Easy Rider it is the familiar culprit in the American Liberal imagination of the Southern racist. I think both films present an interesting juxtaposition of stories. Schrader is obviously a conservative. The opinions that fill Travis Bickles's monologues sound like they were reiterated by Guliani in his mayoral tenure.

Furthermore, the character of Bickle is so helpless, so naive as to be sucked into the underbelly of the City. Schrader sets him up to be radicalized and has him not assasinate a liberal politician, but rescue a teenage prostitute. I was dissappointed that he doesn't go for the Presidential candidate like John Hinkley, Jr. instead he becomes a hero which I thought was in line with Schrader's dislike of Liberal permissiveness.

The story is character driven. The action stems from Bickle's obsessions, his rants, and his descent into radicalism and mental illness. After seeing the film several times the shock and intensity wears off and what is left is a vigilante hero who is upset with being just a cab driver. He can't accept his status of being a lowly cab driver. So he rebels. And what we get is Guliani and a new Times Square. I suppose it's good for the City, but that is another topic.