I saw this film at the local Art House near where I live. It was an interesting film. I liked it. Ben Kingsley playing a Sikh character really brought the film to life. He should get an award or something. It was a rather short film, about an hour and a half. I lost track of the structure of the film. At about 35 minutes left in the film the resolution started. She does get her license and does go to Vermont to see her daughter. So the film has an up ending. I didn't know why she didn't continue to be friends with Kingsley's character? She could have. Perhaps it was too complicated. She was starting anew after her divorce. And he was in a marriage to and Indian woman.
The film is funny, yet dramatic. A true Rom-Com. There are relationship problems, there immigration problems, there is a car accident, there are many plot points in the film. The major one is when she gets a new apartment and passes her driving test. She also reveals that she is from Queens. This is interesting because before she reveals that she is from Queens she puts it down. She also talks about her father who was a bum. I liked the hallucination scenes. And I liked it when Kingsley calls her alone and crazy.
When the accident occurs I thought the worse. I thought Kingsley's character was going to be assaulted or arrested. Luckily the situation was resolved and the tension went away and we were left with comedy again.
This was an enjoyable film with an up ending. Life ends and a new beginning starts.
Wednesday, November 25, 2015
Wednesday, November 18, 2015
thoughts on Labyrinth of Lies
This was a compelling story. The acting was good too. It didn't come off as cliche or overdetermined. I didn't know how it was going to end. When he quit his job as a prosecutor I thought that might be the end of the film. But he returns to his post and the film ends with the beginning of a trial of former Nazis. This is the third of good German films that have been screened in the US. I saw Phoenix which I thought was brilliantly done. Then I saw Victoria which is a bit hard to believe. Yet it was very avant garde and played to my sensibility of youth. The characters are all young guys and one young girl from Spain. It's story centers around a bank robbery gone horribly wrong. Tonight I watched Labyrinth of Lies. Another very good film that deals, like Phoenix, with the aftermath of the Holocaust.
In Labyrinth a young Lawyer sets out to investigate former SS for crimes committed at Aushwitz. He runs up against a myriad of obstacles. And after much research he finds out that so many people in Germany were Nazis to prosecute them all would be to indict most of the country. Yet he continues his quest to bring the war criminals to justice. Even though many people in Germany don't wish to know or look at the true extent of the crimes committed in the camps. The young Lawyer becomes obsessed with a Nazi doctor who did experiments on children. Unfortunately, the doctor gets away and dies in a swimming accident. Not in prison like he should have.
The film is a quick two hours. I enjoyed most of the film. The youthful post-War exuberance of the young characters is fun to watch. The lawyer and his friends always seem to be drinking and dancing. There is also talk of Germany as a young democracy. So much has been written about the Nazi period or Weimar. I think of Rainer Werner Fassbinder's The Marriage of Maria Braun which focuses on the immediate post-War years. And also his Berlin Alexanderplatz which is excellent. But I haven't seen any films about the prosecution of War criminals recently. Of course I've watched the Trials at Nuremberg. It's a classic. As is Spielberg's Schindler's List. I'm sure there are many more that I don't know of.
The point this film drills home is that so many people were complicit in Nazi crimes. How can they all be punished? Where does responsibility lie? With only Hitler and the higher ups? No. The foot soldiers were guilty too. And they had to be brought to justice. That's what this film shows. Germany's coming to grips with the extent of the Nazis crimes. It wasn't only Hitler, or the SS, it was also mechanics, bakers, and other people who carried out orders. They too are guilty.
In Labyrinth a young Lawyer sets out to investigate former SS for crimes committed at Aushwitz. He runs up against a myriad of obstacles. And after much research he finds out that so many people in Germany were Nazis to prosecute them all would be to indict most of the country. Yet he continues his quest to bring the war criminals to justice. Even though many people in Germany don't wish to know or look at the true extent of the crimes committed in the camps. The young Lawyer becomes obsessed with a Nazi doctor who did experiments on children. Unfortunately, the doctor gets away and dies in a swimming accident. Not in prison like he should have.
The film is a quick two hours. I enjoyed most of the film. The youthful post-War exuberance of the young characters is fun to watch. The lawyer and his friends always seem to be drinking and dancing. There is also talk of Germany as a young democracy. So much has been written about the Nazi period or Weimar. I think of Rainer Werner Fassbinder's The Marriage of Maria Braun which focuses on the immediate post-War years. And also his Berlin Alexanderplatz which is excellent. But I haven't seen any films about the prosecution of War criminals recently. Of course I've watched the Trials at Nuremberg. It's a classic. As is Spielberg's Schindler's List. I'm sure there are many more that I don't know of.
The point this film drills home is that so many people were complicit in Nazi crimes. How can they all be punished? Where does responsibility lie? With only Hitler and the higher ups? No. The foot soldiers were guilty too. And they had to be brought to justice. That's what this film shows. Germany's coming to grips with the extent of the Nazis crimes. It wasn't only Hitler, or the SS, it was also mechanics, bakers, and other people who carried out orders. They too are guilty.
Tuesday, November 17, 2015
Thoughts on Anna Karenina by Stoppard (film and screenplay)
The screenplay is 199 pages, but the film is only 2 hours, which means there were substantial cuts to the screenplay. Tom Stoppard wrote the screenplay so it is a bit hard to follow. Stoppard is one of the best, if not the best, dramatic writer working today. Last year I went to two of his plays which were being staged on Broadway at the roundabout theater. Indian Ink was comprehensible for me. The Real Thing I didn't get. Perhaps it was travel hangover or my penchant for distraction when I don't have my medicine. Anyway they were both great shows. This Fall I went to see Kiera Knightley in Therese Raquin. After I read the book and saw the play I thought I might pick up another Stoppard title. The screenplay did not disappoint. It was filled with detail yet long passage. It is filled with short scenes that cut rapidly from one to the next. It's level of detail was a little hard for me to grasp. I usually have trouble with details. I like to say I'm a big picture guy, let someone else handle the details.
The film is excellent. Too bad it didn't get any awards consideration. Knightley turns in another great performance. Count Vronski is memorable. The love affair reminds of Lady Chatterly in it's treatment of forbidden love. Of unbridled passion let loose. How scandalous it all was. Yet couldn't it have been solved? Didn't Anna have an alternative to suicide? I remember John Stuart Mill's courtship of a married woman in 19th Century England. He waited decades for his love to divorce and be with him only. I suppose the context was similar in Russia. Divorce was not accepted as widely as it is in contemporary times.
The costumes and setting are incredible. It won an Oscar for best costumes. But it was snubbed in other categories like adapted screenplay. The cinematography and set design were unique. The setting are all in a theater, yet in a neighborhood, or outside with snow on the ground. I thought it was a very unique setup. I didn't know when it was in the theater or outside in the forest. Of course I always knew when we were at Karenin's house. His character was pitiful. When I read the screenplay and it talked about how he uses a reusable condom I thought it was gross. Yet that was part of his character very responsible. Perhaps too responsible and that is what drove Anna into the arms of Vronski. Vronkski on the other hand is all for passion in life. Conquest of women, drinking with his army buddies, and strutting around in his calvary uniform, portray him as the opposite of Karenin.
It's a nice juxtaposition of character. And it is tragic that Anna chooses Vronkski because they can never marry under Russian law. Her end is also tragic. Perhaps one of the most tragic endings in history. Why can't she sleep? Why does she take morphine? Why doesn't she wait to go to the country? And why does she commit suicide? Too many questions. So tragic.
The film is excellent. Too bad it didn't get any awards consideration. Knightley turns in another great performance. Count Vronski is memorable. The love affair reminds of Lady Chatterly in it's treatment of forbidden love. Of unbridled passion let loose. How scandalous it all was. Yet couldn't it have been solved? Didn't Anna have an alternative to suicide? I remember John Stuart Mill's courtship of a married woman in 19th Century England. He waited decades for his love to divorce and be with him only. I suppose the context was similar in Russia. Divorce was not accepted as widely as it is in contemporary times.
The costumes and setting are incredible. It won an Oscar for best costumes. But it was snubbed in other categories like adapted screenplay. The cinematography and set design were unique. The setting are all in a theater, yet in a neighborhood, or outside with snow on the ground. I thought it was a very unique setup. I didn't know when it was in the theater or outside in the forest. Of course I always knew when we were at Karenin's house. His character was pitiful. When I read the screenplay and it talked about how he uses a reusable condom I thought it was gross. Yet that was part of his character very responsible. Perhaps too responsible and that is what drove Anna into the arms of Vronski. Vronkski on the other hand is all for passion in life. Conquest of women, drinking with his army buddies, and strutting around in his calvary uniform, portray him as the opposite of Karenin.
It's a nice juxtaposition of character. And it is tragic that Anna chooses Vronkski because they can never marry under Russian law. Her end is also tragic. Perhaps one of the most tragic endings in history. Why can't she sleep? Why does she take morphine? Why doesn't she wait to go to the country? And why does she commit suicide? Too many questions. So tragic.
Sunday, November 8, 2015
Thoughts about Truffaut Documentary The Man Who Loved Film
I've seen this documentary twice. It's a short look at the life of Truffaut. I read a biography of Truffaut that was more current and detailed. The film doesn't make any mention of his father being Jewish. The book does. Instead it gives an overview of Truffaut's life with many commentators, most of whom are British. The film must have been done in the 80's by BBC or something like it. I would have liked to see interviews from more people that worked with him extensively.
I was disappointed that Jean Pierre Leaud or Catherine Deneuve were not interviewed for the film. Truffaut was like a father figure for Jean Pierre. And Deneuve was Truffaut's greatest lover. Truffaut even suffered are major bout of depression after Deneuve called it quits. It would be interesting to hear their opinions about Truffaut since they are the ones who knew him at such critical points in his life
The film does go into Truffaut's untimely death from brain cancer at a relatively young age. The film left me wondering what Truffaut would have done had he lived longer. Would he have faded? Continued to produce auterist Cinema? Or would he have made more commercial products? My guess is he would have continued to make films that he liked. Film was his passion. The only thing he loved doing.
Lastly, I was left wondering whether he would have made up with Godard. They became bitter enemies after Godard attacked Truffaut's Day for Night which many consider his best film. I wonder if Godard was jealous of Truffaut's success? While Truffaut was making films like Day for Night Godard spent nearly all of the seventies in the "wilderness" not making films. It was only in the 80's that Godard became a filmmaker again with his film Every Man for Himself. They didn't speak for almost ten years so I suppose it's logical to think they never would have become friends again. Too bad.
I was disappointed that Jean Pierre Leaud or Catherine Deneuve were not interviewed for the film. Truffaut was like a father figure for Jean Pierre. And Deneuve was Truffaut's greatest lover. Truffaut even suffered are major bout of depression after Deneuve called it quits. It would be interesting to hear their opinions about Truffaut since they are the ones who knew him at such critical points in his life
The film does go into Truffaut's untimely death from brain cancer at a relatively young age. The film left me wondering what Truffaut would have done had he lived longer. Would he have faded? Continued to produce auterist Cinema? Or would he have made more commercial products? My guess is he would have continued to make films that he liked. Film was his passion. The only thing he loved doing.
Lastly, I was left wondering whether he would have made up with Godard. They became bitter enemies after Godard attacked Truffaut's Day for Night which many consider his best film. I wonder if Godard was jealous of Truffaut's success? While Truffaut was making films like Day for Night Godard spent nearly all of the seventies in the "wilderness" not making films. It was only in the 80's that Godard became a filmmaker again with his film Every Man for Himself. They didn't speak for almost ten years so I suppose it's logical to think they never would have become friends again. Too bad.
Thoughts on Bed and Board by Truffaut
This was an interesting film in the Antionne Doinel series of films by Truffaut. It is a simple story. A man has a child then falls in love with a Japanese woman who he then breaks up with to go back with his French wife.
I was particularly taken aback by the beauty of the Japanese woman. I even started to think why does he go back to his wife rather then stay with Kyoko? Doinel dismisses her so easily. I thought it was a shame that he didn't stay with her.
The film is very French. There are numerous minor characters who give a distinctly French flavor. I liked how the film was set in a village within a big city. Everyone seemed to know everyone. The story develops slowly. Doinel plays a man trying to make a living by selling flowers. Eventually he does an experiment that goes awry and he must find a different job. This leads him to work for an American company. While at work he meets Kyoko. She loses a bracelet and when Doinel brings it back to her they fall in love.
It seemed like things were going well for Doinel until he meets Kyoko which exposes him to a different World. It would seem a no brainer to take up with Kyoko. Only she doesn't talk much. This causes Doinel to go back to his wife and they seem to live happily ever after.
Like the Soft Skin, this film is one of Truffaut's lesser appreciated films. It's enjoyable, but it's not great.
I was particularly taken aback by the beauty of the Japanese woman. I even started to think why does he go back to his wife rather then stay with Kyoko? Doinel dismisses her so easily. I thought it was a shame that he didn't stay with her.
The film is very French. There are numerous minor characters who give a distinctly French flavor. I liked how the film was set in a village within a big city. Everyone seemed to know everyone. The story develops slowly. Doinel plays a man trying to make a living by selling flowers. Eventually he does an experiment that goes awry and he must find a different job. This leads him to work for an American company. While at work he meets Kyoko. She loses a bracelet and when Doinel brings it back to her they fall in love.
It seemed like things were going well for Doinel until he meets Kyoko which exposes him to a different World. It would seem a no brainer to take up with Kyoko. Only she doesn't talk much. This causes Doinel to go back to his wife and they seem to live happily ever after.
Like the Soft Skin, this film is one of Truffaut's lesser appreciated films. It's enjoyable, but it's not great.
Thoughts about You Only Live Twice
I'm so reminded of controversies surrounding the Bond franchise. Especially this film. I read an article in the Japan Times which said that this film is hated by Japanese Feminists. I would really like to talk to Japanese feminists who don't like this film. I wonder exactly why they don't like it. Of course there is a lot of sexism. It portrays Japanese women as secondary and obedient to their male controllers. Like the character of Aki. She helps bond everywhere. She rescues him from near assasination twice. She plays a major role in the film. Then she is killed off by poison without any fanfare. Then, Bond takes up with another Japanese woman like Aki was never there to begin with. I guess they are special agents and people die in the adventure. But in the this film the women die first and often. I wonder if it's like that in all Bond films. Probably.
Aside from the sexism and cliche portrayal of Japanese women, the film follows traditional patterns of a Bond film. I was surprised to see that Roald Dahl had written the screenplay. I remember him as a novelist of the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. My oldest brother bought me the series one Christmas and I read them. That film has a lot of twists and turns, stunts and explosions, and sex. Yet it has a light air to it. It's almost comical how many times James eludes death in his pursuit of foiling the plot for World domination.
Bond is ridden with cliches and the story is almost always the same. Bond finds the bad guy. Bond foils the evil scheme. Bond ends up with the girl. If it is so ridden with cliches and bad writing, then why do people still watch? I would suppose it's for the action. For the intrigue. Isn't it fun to pretend your a secret agent working for MI6? And not only a secret agent, but the best one. The one who can't be defeated. Right. So?
You Only Live Twice is one of the better Connery Bond films. It was not a franchise low by any means. The franchise did reach a nadir in the late 70s when Connery was changed to Roger Moore. Then there was the Timothy Dalton Bond which many people didn't like. Yet the franchise seems to have turned it around with Pierce Brosnan and Daniel Craig.
The James Bond franchise has left an indelible mark on pop culture. I can only wonder at how many people pondered a life in service after seeing Bond films?
Aside from the sexism and cliche portrayal of Japanese women, the film follows traditional patterns of a Bond film. I was surprised to see that Roald Dahl had written the screenplay. I remember him as a novelist of the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. My oldest brother bought me the series one Christmas and I read them. That film has a lot of twists and turns, stunts and explosions, and sex. Yet it has a light air to it. It's almost comical how many times James eludes death in his pursuit of foiling the plot for World domination.
Bond is ridden with cliches and the story is almost always the same. Bond finds the bad guy. Bond foils the evil scheme. Bond ends up with the girl. If it is so ridden with cliches and bad writing, then why do people still watch? I would suppose it's for the action. For the intrigue. Isn't it fun to pretend your a secret agent working for MI6? And not only a secret agent, but the best one. The one who can't be defeated. Right. So?
You Only Live Twice is one of the better Connery Bond films. It was not a franchise low by any means. The franchise did reach a nadir in the late 70s when Connery was changed to Roger Moore. Then there was the Timothy Dalton Bond which many people didn't like. Yet the franchise seems to have turned it around with Pierce Brosnan and Daniel Craig.
The James Bond franchise has left an indelible mark on pop culture. I can only wonder at how many people pondered a life in service after seeing Bond films?
Thoughts about Truth
This film was a gripping newsroom drama. During the film I was reminded of All the President's Men which is a great film about the Watergate scandal. It also stars Robert Redford. Truth is about the military record of George W. Bush. Before the film I had wondered what happened to Dan Rather? I remember he stepped down from his anchor chair after the scandal. Truth fills in all the blanks and reveals how hard it is to be a journalist in the era of blogs and tweets.
The films best technique was when it showed Mary Mapes on the phone to Rather. Mapes was in Texas and Rather in New York. I really liked how it cut back and forth between the two places. Otherwise the film is not that great technically. The story is what drives the film. The wanting to know if the sources were solid. Wanting to know what would happen to Mary, Dan, and the rest of the crew really drew me into the film.
And I loved the characters who went on liberal rants. Especially Topher Grace. When he goes of on the TV executive about Viacom's control of the media market I felt like he was voicing a lot of the frustration that I and many others felt about the media in those days. The film is set in the days before facebook, twitter, and all the rest. Yet I think it speaks more to the point of doing journalism and searching for the truth when so much of the media is controlled by conglomerates who are concerned more with profit and market share than promoting a free media.
In the US there is freedom of speech. Yet as this film makes clear some of the freedoms lead to excess and hate speech. I really felt the Mapes character shows not only how a journalist works, but also as a female working in a male dominated industry. When she is chastised for bringing politics to journalism I wondered how fair that was. Doesn't Fox News bring in politics all the time? Isn't what they report on half truths and vituperative rhetoric? This was the era of George W. Bush. A time when journalists didn't have access to government. I remember Don Rumsfeld's treatment of the media. His famous statement about "unknown unknowns." When I watched that I wondered what was he talking about?
The film was great and I think Cate Blanchett should win some awards this year for her performance. Everybody was good; Redford as Dan Rather, Topher Grace as the struggling journalist, and Dennis Quad as the soldier in the trenches.
The films best technique was when it showed Mary Mapes on the phone to Rather. Mapes was in Texas and Rather in New York. I really liked how it cut back and forth between the two places. Otherwise the film is not that great technically. The story is what drives the film. The wanting to know if the sources were solid. Wanting to know what would happen to Mary, Dan, and the rest of the crew really drew me into the film.
And I loved the characters who went on liberal rants. Especially Topher Grace. When he goes of on the TV executive about Viacom's control of the media market I felt like he was voicing a lot of the frustration that I and many others felt about the media in those days. The film is set in the days before facebook, twitter, and all the rest. Yet I think it speaks more to the point of doing journalism and searching for the truth when so much of the media is controlled by conglomerates who are concerned more with profit and market share than promoting a free media.
In the US there is freedom of speech. Yet as this film makes clear some of the freedoms lead to excess and hate speech. I really felt the Mapes character shows not only how a journalist works, but also as a female working in a male dominated industry. When she is chastised for bringing politics to journalism I wondered how fair that was. Doesn't Fox News bring in politics all the time? Isn't what they report on half truths and vituperative rhetoric? This was the era of George W. Bush. A time when journalists didn't have access to government. I remember Don Rumsfeld's treatment of the media. His famous statement about "unknown unknowns." When I watched that I wondered what was he talking about?
The film was great and I think Cate Blanchett should win some awards this year for her performance. Everybody was good; Redford as Dan Rather, Topher Grace as the struggling journalist, and Dennis Quad as the soldier in the trenches.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)