I saw this film last week at the local Art House theater where I run an Indie Movie group. The turn out was very good for a Tuesday night. Sadly, no one came to the group. So we didn't have a discussion about the film afterwards. It was too bad because Woody creates films that should be talked about.
Cafe Society was often hilarious in all the changing and swirling around among a family who leads a rather drab life in New York. I was astounded by the change in Jesse Eisenberg's character. He goes from almost like a virgin when he moves out to LA to suave playboy when he moves back East. The film thrives on sexual situations and various other subplots which all come to a head in the end.
This film was Allen's first movie to deal with a historical period in quite some time, the immediate post-war era in the US. The period decor is very much displayed. The khaki colored party attendees show how well people were living off of movies in those days. And the contrived situation the Steve Carell, Eisenberg, and Kristin Stewart find themselves in is intriguing. Woody also dramatized the past in Midnight in Paris another of his films which I like so much. For a few years he was mostly in Europe. Midnight in Paris, You will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger, Vicky Christina Barcelona, and To Rome were all set in Europe. Last year's Irrational Man with Joaquin Phoenix was set in Rhode Island. I wonder where next year's film will be set?
The film got a great audience reaction after the credits rolled. Almost everyone in the audience stayed seated and kept looking at the screen. I got up and left before the lights came on. I don't know why I don't stay seated? It takes a lot of people to make a film and I should learn to appreciate all the work in goes into to make a film.
Can't wait to see next year's film. I guess I could get by on the amazon.com series Allen is doing? Perhaps.
Sunday, December 31, 2017
Thoughts about My Sex Life or How I got Into an Argument by Desplechin
Last night I watched Arnaud Desplechin's three hour homage to academic life My Sex Life or How I Got Into an Argument. The film was like a graduate film program thesis. Except it was much longer and had more layers. The characters were nuanced and had depth to them. I particularly like Paul Dedalaus played by Matheiu Amalric. He seemed like so many academics are; struggling to complete his doctorate degree, seeking to move up from adjunct status, all the while trying to maintain some level of sanity and social life.
The women of the film are good too. Dedaulus has many girlfriends; Valerie the disturbed one, Sylvia the petite one, and Esther his longtime girlfriend whom he wants nothing more than to break up with. Along with the commentaries about academic life in France, the film does veer into the relationship drama genre. There is a lot sleeping around and switching of partners. It's too bad I live in a dung heap of rural area where there is no dating scene. I often think of moving to Paris and living there. Perhaps that's why I've studied the French language and watch French films? Because I think France is better than the US? Maybe. Well, watching films will do that, they will make you reflect on the place you live and compare to the place dramatized in the film. And, hopefully we'll understand ourselves and the World we live more than at the beginning of the film. We don't watch films just to escape, we watch films to understand our selves, our world, and our surroundings.
Desplechins debut film shows signs of auteur distinction. I saw his latest film My Golden Days, which is similar in some ways to My Sex Life. Golden Days deals more with High School and college years than a philosophy doctorate students struggles to finish his degree and end up with the girl. It's a great first film. It has similarities to Francois Truffaut who was a master at creating characters and conflicts. Perhaps not as technically sophisticated or risk taking like Godard or Resnais, but he tells a good, complete story which is entertaining. Perhaps Golden Days is where Desplechin takes more risks. In that film he deals more with memory and has Dedaulus as an adolescent and a middle aged man reflecting back on his lost youth.
The women of the film are good too. Dedaulus has many girlfriends; Valerie the disturbed one, Sylvia the petite one, and Esther his longtime girlfriend whom he wants nothing more than to break up with. Along with the commentaries about academic life in France, the film does veer into the relationship drama genre. There is a lot sleeping around and switching of partners. It's too bad I live in a dung heap of rural area where there is no dating scene. I often think of moving to Paris and living there. Perhaps that's why I've studied the French language and watch French films? Because I think France is better than the US? Maybe. Well, watching films will do that, they will make you reflect on the place you live and compare to the place dramatized in the film. And, hopefully we'll understand ourselves and the World we live more than at the beginning of the film. We don't watch films just to escape, we watch films to understand our selves, our world, and our surroundings.
Desplechins debut film shows signs of auteur distinction. I saw his latest film My Golden Days, which is similar in some ways to My Sex Life. Golden Days deals more with High School and college years than a philosophy doctorate students struggles to finish his degree and end up with the girl. It's a great first film. It has similarities to Francois Truffaut who was a master at creating characters and conflicts. Perhaps not as technically sophisticated or risk taking like Godard or Resnais, but he tells a good, complete story which is entertaining. Perhaps Golden Days is where Desplechin takes more risks. In that film he deals more with memory and has Dedaulus as an adolescent and a middle aged man reflecting back on his lost youth.
Wednesday, December 20, 2017
Review of The French Connection
In line with my study of Crime films I read the screenplay and watched The French Connection twice. The film is based on a true story and there is a sequel to it set in France. I don't know how good the sequel is. It is not directed by Friedkin or written by the same screenwriter. I feel compelled to watch it to see what happens to Popeye and Frog 1. Popeye is what drives the film forward. He is brash, outspoken, and racist. In the film he tells his partner to never trust anyone. He is a hard nosed New York City detective looking for a big score. But to what end? That's a question which came to me after the end of the film. How many nickel and dimers do you arrest before the war on drugs seems futile? And it seems the detective duo were always busting black men.
The story doesn't center around small time dealers. It centers around a big smuggler from France who is trying to move in millions of dollars worth of heroin. Fernando Rey plays the smuggler with typical Frenchness. He is exceptionally cultivated and is shown dining at a fine restaurant while Doyle eats a slice of pizza freezing his ass off in the street. The film is a thriller so it follows a pattern of need to knows or reveals. The action really picks up pace when Rey's hit man does a job on Doyle. He doesn't get Doyle and a chase ensues. The chase scene is the best part of the movie. It has Doyle racing through Brooklyn following a subway car with the sniper on board. The action heats up until the subway crashes and Doyle kills the sniper. I was really impressed with the cinematography in the chase. The camera was at bumper level while Doyle was driving through the street. He crashes several times and almost hitsa lady with a baby carriage. I thought that was a nice touch that Doyle misses the lady and finally catches the hit man.
Along the lines of other film noirs or detective films the cops stake out Sal Boca and the French connection in painstaking ways. The viewer is constantly wanting to know what will happen next. Will the cops get incriminating evidence? Will they make a bust? In a very well done scene a chemist is shown testing the drugs which adds to the tension building as the criminals get closer to making a big deal and avoiding the police. It seems there is always a need to know and complications that heighten the drama as the film progresses. There are levels of police bureauacracy that the two detectives have to deal with. Popeye is just an NYPD detective. His boss brings in Feds and the two don't mix well. So there is conflict within the police and the criminals seem to be getting away with bringing in the heroin.
The World of the film is also very grungy. Most of the shots in the beginning happen in seedy bars in Brooklyn or take place on the bridges linking the boroughs together. It's definitely an upgrade from the old film noirs of the 40's. The realism of the New Hollywood really shines bright in this film. It reminded me of Scorsese's Mean Streets. Both films show the grittiness of New York City far from any tourist destination. The topic of heroin smuggling is also new. The Maltese Falcon or The Big Sleep didn't deal with heroin smuggling or Feds or a character like Popeye. Compared to Popeye, Bogey is a cliche that walks out of a novel, not someone you could really find in 1970's New York. It really shows how film was changing with the rise of the New Hollywood.
The characters, the fact that it's based on a true story, the editing, and the cinematography all make the film a great two hours to watch. The story progresses from one event to the next while building in seriousness from one scene to the next. It does get a little tedious with all the police tailing that really seems boring. It seems to be a pattern of stasis and action, stasis and action, until the final scene where Rey gets away. There is another scene of police tailing where Popeye and Rey go back and forth until Rey leaves Popeye on the subway platform and gives him a little wave. In the final bust scene Popeye gives the wave back to Rey. It is a little humorous and a bit of a false hope given that Rey escapes.
The story doesn't center around small time dealers. It centers around a big smuggler from France who is trying to move in millions of dollars worth of heroin. Fernando Rey plays the smuggler with typical Frenchness. He is exceptionally cultivated and is shown dining at a fine restaurant while Doyle eats a slice of pizza freezing his ass off in the street. The film is a thriller so it follows a pattern of need to knows or reveals. The action really picks up pace when Rey's hit man does a job on Doyle. He doesn't get Doyle and a chase ensues. The chase scene is the best part of the movie. It has Doyle racing through Brooklyn following a subway car with the sniper on board. The action heats up until the subway crashes and Doyle kills the sniper. I was really impressed with the cinematography in the chase. The camera was at bumper level while Doyle was driving through the street. He crashes several times and almost hitsa lady with a baby carriage. I thought that was a nice touch that Doyle misses the lady and finally catches the hit man.
Along the lines of other film noirs or detective films the cops stake out Sal Boca and the French connection in painstaking ways. The viewer is constantly wanting to know what will happen next. Will the cops get incriminating evidence? Will they make a bust? In a very well done scene a chemist is shown testing the drugs which adds to the tension building as the criminals get closer to making a big deal and avoiding the police. It seems there is always a need to know and complications that heighten the drama as the film progresses. There are levels of police bureauacracy that the two detectives have to deal with. Popeye is just an NYPD detective. His boss brings in Feds and the two don't mix well. So there is conflict within the police and the criminals seem to be getting away with bringing in the heroin.
The World of the film is also very grungy. Most of the shots in the beginning happen in seedy bars in Brooklyn or take place on the bridges linking the boroughs together. It's definitely an upgrade from the old film noirs of the 40's. The realism of the New Hollywood really shines bright in this film. It reminded me of Scorsese's Mean Streets. Both films show the grittiness of New York City far from any tourist destination. The topic of heroin smuggling is also new. The Maltese Falcon or The Big Sleep didn't deal with heroin smuggling or Feds or a character like Popeye. Compared to Popeye, Bogey is a cliche that walks out of a novel, not someone you could really find in 1970's New York. It really shows how film was changing with the rise of the New Hollywood.
The characters, the fact that it's based on a true story, the editing, and the cinematography all make the film a great two hours to watch. The story progresses from one event to the next while building in seriousness from one scene to the next. It does get a little tedious with all the police tailing that really seems boring. It seems to be a pattern of stasis and action, stasis and action, until the final scene where Rey gets away. There is another scene of police tailing where Popeye and Rey go back and forth until Rey leaves Popeye on the subway platform and gives him a little wave. In the final bust scene Popeye gives the wave back to Rey. It is a little humorous and a bit of a false hope given that Rey escapes.
Wednesday, December 13, 2017
Review of The Long Goodbye
This film is a neo noir that gained popularity in the 1970's. Along with Point Blank and the biggest neo noir of the 70's Chinatown it shows the resurgence of the private eye film. The film isn't flawless. Philip Marlowe is the hero, but it's not a hero's journey film. He doesn't have a mentor and there aren't a whole lot of obstacles that he has to overcome to reach his goal which is to solve the murder. Instead it is more of a need to know film. It is more of a light who dun it with overtones of reflexivity and discourse on film history then a real thrilling pot boiler like Psycho or the aforementioned Chinatown. That being said I must admit that I did read the script before I watched the film. And the second time I watched the film everything became so obvious that I absorbed some more of the esoteric aspects of the film. Such as the security guard who does impressions of famous celebrities or the playing of hooray for Hollywood at the beginning and ending of the film.
The film is a lot of style with some substance. I did like Eliot Gould's performance. He does seem like an evolution in the private dick character. Of course there was Bogey, and now we have another incarnation of Philip Marlowe. This Marlowe is rather a smart ass. He leads the cops on, he can't find the right cat food, he talks to himself, and lives alone next to a group of yoga practicing women who want brownie mix for their hash. It's all very 1970's. And it works. I liked the world it was set in. But I couldn't get over how stupid the Marlowe character is presented. He is lied to by Terry Lennox about having killed his wife and he believes everything the Nina von Pallandt character tells him. It does seem plausible the first time around. But seems utterly unbelievable the second time through. How could he not see through them? Why is he such a smuck?
The film does incite some need to knows and that's the basis for thrillers. To create need to knows that keep the story moving along and the audience interested. There is a need to know who killed Terry Lennox's wife? Is Terry Lennox really dead? Was the famous writer having an affair with Terry Lennox's wife? And so on until the very end when Marlowe makes his journey to Mexico and satisfies all the need to knows that the film generates. Terry Lennox killed his wife, ran away with Augustine's money, and faked his own death. Finally it's revealed that Lennox was playing Marlowe as a fool. And Marlowe doesn't like to be played like a fool, so he shoots him dead. By the final ten minutes we know that Lennox and Pallandt were having an affair. We know they plan to run off together. And we know that Lennox faked his own death. It's wrapped up without any loose ends.
The film does have some great technical qualities that must be mentioned. The song The Long Goodbye is played over and over for about the first half hour of the film. It is a seductive song that brings you into the film melodically and stylistically. It creates an ambience of a jazz club or night club from the era of the 70's. It was written by John Williams who I think also did the music work for Star Wars. Another great aspect of the film was the cinematography. It was done by Vilmos Zsigmond who did a lot of work in the New Hollywood period of the 1970s. And of course the direction was well done by Robert Altman who is always mentioned as a quality director from the New Hollywood. I thought everything was sophisticated; the acting, the music, the cinematography, the editing. It all came together in a film that adds to the genre of the private eye film.
The film is a lot of style with some substance. I did like Eliot Gould's performance. He does seem like an evolution in the private dick character. Of course there was Bogey, and now we have another incarnation of Philip Marlowe. This Marlowe is rather a smart ass. He leads the cops on, he can't find the right cat food, he talks to himself, and lives alone next to a group of yoga practicing women who want brownie mix for their hash. It's all very 1970's. And it works. I liked the world it was set in. But I couldn't get over how stupid the Marlowe character is presented. He is lied to by Terry Lennox about having killed his wife and he believes everything the Nina von Pallandt character tells him. It does seem plausible the first time around. But seems utterly unbelievable the second time through. How could he not see through them? Why is he such a smuck?
The film does incite some need to knows and that's the basis for thrillers. To create need to knows that keep the story moving along and the audience interested. There is a need to know who killed Terry Lennox's wife? Is Terry Lennox really dead? Was the famous writer having an affair with Terry Lennox's wife? And so on until the very end when Marlowe makes his journey to Mexico and satisfies all the need to knows that the film generates. Terry Lennox killed his wife, ran away with Augustine's money, and faked his own death. Finally it's revealed that Lennox was playing Marlowe as a fool. And Marlowe doesn't like to be played like a fool, so he shoots him dead. By the final ten minutes we know that Lennox and Pallandt were having an affair. We know they plan to run off together. And we know that Lennox faked his own death. It's wrapped up without any loose ends.
The film does have some great technical qualities that must be mentioned. The song The Long Goodbye is played over and over for about the first half hour of the film. It is a seductive song that brings you into the film melodically and stylistically. It creates an ambience of a jazz club or night club from the era of the 70's. It was written by John Williams who I think also did the music work for Star Wars. Another great aspect of the film was the cinematography. It was done by Vilmos Zsigmond who did a lot of work in the New Hollywood period of the 1970s. And of course the direction was well done by Robert Altman who is always mentioned as a quality director from the New Hollywood. I thought everything was sophisticated; the acting, the music, the cinematography, the editing. It all came together in a film that adds to the genre of the private eye film.
Tuesday, December 5, 2017
thoughts about Lady Bird
I really liked this film. It reminded of My So Called Life and other teen wreckage dramas that have been made. I saw it at the Regal Multiplex near where I live. I thought it was well written and directed. There weren't too many boring scenes. I did think it seemed to go on for a while without any direction. It wondered around directionless like it's lead character Lady Bird and so many teens who are trying to find there way in life without giving up too much. The big conflict in the film is Lady Bird graduating from Catholic High School and moving on to College and the promise of a better future. Along the way there are various subplots which are very focused on the experiences of a teenager. She finds a boyfriend who turns out to be gay. She finds another love who is too paranoid. Then she has a friendship with a rich girl that doesn't work out. Finally it is time to decide about College. Will she go the local state school near Sacramento? Or will she travel to the other side of the country and go to school in New York City? She eventually decides to go to the city. That's where the film ends. With Lady Bird in what appears to be the village, drinking too much and ending up in a hospital. In the last sequence she meets a boy, asks him if he believes in God, hooks up with him and ends up going into a Church. After Church she calls her parents and wants to talk to her mother. She gets the answering machine. I guess she is finally on her own. Alone in the city without any of her family around to take care of her.
Saorise Ronan does a great job as the confused, ambitious, and desperate teen Lady Bird. The emotions she evokes were genuine. It spoke to me. I started to remember my teenage years and compared my situation to hers. The depiction of class differences in High School brought out some uncomfortable situations. She was ashamed to be middle class and envies her classmates who are wealthy. Eventually she realizes she is not one of them and rejects their friendship. Then she reunites with her friend who is not perfect. It was this sequence where I started to detect some plot holes. Would her jilted friend take her back? Would Lady Bird really have the courage to dump her boyfriend and go back to the prom? I wondered that she might not. I guess that makes this film a courage film in some ways. Lady Bird summons the courage to make the right decision. To show empathy rather than be a phony and suck up to rich people. That was a great sequence in the film. I was so happy when she does it. I wish I had had the courage of Lady Bird to have empathy and not reject people because they aren't rich or fashion models.
I also found the world or atmosphere of the film very easy to identify with. It was so 90's. Lady Bird's dyed hair and her hemp necklace. The downsizing that affected her father. The fact that it seemed like all the adults had depression. The 9/11 attack, the War in Iraq, the gay kid who has trouble coming out, those were the issues that I remember being important during those years. I was in college during 9/11 and the war in Iraq. And the gay marriage debate was becoming more and more current in a public debate that would end in the Supreme Court recognizing the legality of same sex marriage. It made me recall those days when I was in my late teens and early twenties. How I moved to New York City. I also fought with my parents about my future. They didn't seem to understand. I was so stubborn. And wanted to live my life. I could really identify with Lady Bird in some ways. Still it is a movie and my life was never that great or complicated.
Great film.
Saorise Ronan does a great job as the confused, ambitious, and desperate teen Lady Bird. The emotions she evokes were genuine. It spoke to me. I started to remember my teenage years and compared my situation to hers. The depiction of class differences in High School brought out some uncomfortable situations. She was ashamed to be middle class and envies her classmates who are wealthy. Eventually she realizes she is not one of them and rejects their friendship. Then she reunites with her friend who is not perfect. It was this sequence where I started to detect some plot holes. Would her jilted friend take her back? Would Lady Bird really have the courage to dump her boyfriend and go back to the prom? I wondered that she might not. I guess that makes this film a courage film in some ways. Lady Bird summons the courage to make the right decision. To show empathy rather than be a phony and suck up to rich people. That was a great sequence in the film. I was so happy when she does it. I wish I had had the courage of Lady Bird to have empathy and not reject people because they aren't rich or fashion models.
I also found the world or atmosphere of the film very easy to identify with. It was so 90's. Lady Bird's dyed hair and her hemp necklace. The downsizing that affected her father. The fact that it seemed like all the adults had depression. The 9/11 attack, the War in Iraq, the gay kid who has trouble coming out, those were the issues that I remember being important during those years. I was in college during 9/11 and the war in Iraq. And the gay marriage debate was becoming more and more current in a public debate that would end in the Supreme Court recognizing the legality of same sex marriage. It made me recall those days when I was in my late teens and early twenties. How I moved to New York City. I also fought with my parents about my future. They didn't seem to understand. I was so stubborn. And wanted to live my life. I could really identify with Lady Bird in some ways. Still it is a movie and my life was never that great or complicated.
Great film.
Monday, November 27, 2017
Review of The Big Sleep
This was the longest crime script I've ever read. I remember watching the film a few years ago in a film history class I took. I didn't remember how the film was resolved until I read through the script. And in a few days or weeks I may not remember either. The Big Sleep is a long convoluted script that has many twists and turns. Only in the last ten pages is everything made crystal clear. Yet there are a lot of great things about the screenplay.
The descriptions might be too long for contemporary tastes, but the action sequences are told well enough. When I read the script I starting imagining Humpphrey Bogart in every descriptive scene. Often he would be wearing a fedora and a trench coat with rain coming down all around him. It seemed like it was always raining which brought to mind Blade Runner another film where it seemed like it was always raining. After the gambling house scene Bogart and Bacall ride together in a car on a desert highway. This scene was so evocative of a desert highway that seemed to go on forever. It reminded me of the car scenes from Chinatown where Jack and Faye are riding to her house with the villains in hot pursuit.
Maybe the big sleep served as inspiration for Chinatown. I think it did. Since Chinatown was a neo-noir that riffed on a lot of the old film noirs from the thirties. I'm not sure how many acts there were in the film. It seemed like there were at least four parts. The beginning with the setup of the blackmailer being killed off. Then that was resolved by Bogie going to the police. Then it transitioned to the gambling house. Then that part concluded with Bogie escaping from Canino. Then the final thirty or forty pages that revealed Carmen as the one who accidentally shot Shawn Regan and her sister and Eddie Mars as the ones who covered it up.
The script moves rather slowly. Perhaps the film has aged a bit. It's a half century old or so. But there don't seem to be any gaps. It falls from one scene into the next, and the next and the next. There is always some form of action to keep you interested in how Bogie is going to find out who is blackmailing the Sternwoods and whatever happened to Shawn Regan. Bogie is a tough character with high moral principles. Yet he is a rather simple man. He wants to find out what happened to Shawn Regan because he knew him. This is reason enough to stick his neck out on the line.
I don't know how many film noirs Bogey made. I've seen The Maltese Falcon and this film, The Big Sleep and the characters are very similar. Philip Marlowe could easily be exchanged for Sam Spade. They are both tough, no nonsense, but not quite John Wayne. They are vulnerable. They get beat up and seem to be searching for answers the same way readers or viewers are searching for how the crime will be solved. The films are similar too.
But I think people like The Maltese Falcon better. It's simpler, easier to follow and it rolls out better. There is more history and its not as convoluted. It gets to where it's going faster and without too many turns that might be added on or non essential. I suspect viewers feel the same way. It seems like The Big Sleep takes itself too seriously, tries to be slick, sexy, and complicated and it comes off as being too pretentious. Still I did like it immensely. The black and white images that flooded my conscience as I read the script were great. The image of Bogey with his fedora on, standing in the pouring rain, was delightful.
The descriptions might be too long for contemporary tastes, but the action sequences are told well enough. When I read the script I starting imagining Humpphrey Bogart in every descriptive scene. Often he would be wearing a fedora and a trench coat with rain coming down all around him. It seemed like it was always raining which brought to mind Blade Runner another film where it seemed like it was always raining. After the gambling house scene Bogart and Bacall ride together in a car on a desert highway. This scene was so evocative of a desert highway that seemed to go on forever. It reminded me of the car scenes from Chinatown where Jack and Faye are riding to her house with the villains in hot pursuit.
Maybe the big sleep served as inspiration for Chinatown. I think it did. Since Chinatown was a neo-noir that riffed on a lot of the old film noirs from the thirties. I'm not sure how many acts there were in the film. It seemed like there were at least four parts. The beginning with the setup of the blackmailer being killed off. Then that was resolved by Bogie going to the police. Then it transitioned to the gambling house. Then that part concluded with Bogie escaping from Canino. Then the final thirty or forty pages that revealed Carmen as the one who accidentally shot Shawn Regan and her sister and Eddie Mars as the ones who covered it up.
The script moves rather slowly. Perhaps the film has aged a bit. It's a half century old or so. But there don't seem to be any gaps. It falls from one scene into the next, and the next and the next. There is always some form of action to keep you interested in how Bogie is going to find out who is blackmailing the Sternwoods and whatever happened to Shawn Regan. Bogie is a tough character with high moral principles. Yet he is a rather simple man. He wants to find out what happened to Shawn Regan because he knew him. This is reason enough to stick his neck out on the line.
I don't know how many film noirs Bogey made. I've seen The Maltese Falcon and this film, The Big Sleep and the characters are very similar. Philip Marlowe could easily be exchanged for Sam Spade. They are both tough, no nonsense, but not quite John Wayne. They are vulnerable. They get beat up and seem to be searching for answers the same way readers or viewers are searching for how the crime will be solved. The films are similar too.
But I think people like The Maltese Falcon better. It's simpler, easier to follow and it rolls out better. There is more history and its not as convoluted. It gets to where it's going faster and without too many turns that might be added on or non essential. I suspect viewers feel the same way. It seems like The Big Sleep takes itself too seriously, tries to be slick, sexy, and complicated and it comes off as being too pretentious. Still I did like it immensely. The black and white images that flooded my conscience as I read the script were great. The image of Bogey with his fedora on, standing in the pouring rain, was delightful.
Wednesday, November 22, 2017
thoughts about La Femme Nikita
This was the French version, not the American version starring Bridget Fonda. I remember being at a video store trying to get the French version and not being able to. I was disappointed. Still, life moved on in those early days of adolescence. Tonight I watched with rapt attention as Nikita transformed into a killer government agent. She started out as a drugged out hysterical killer and was turned into a lethal killer. The film starts out with a bang. The world, the story, the character are all established by minute 15. Then the film goes through a training phase. And when the film gets to the restaurant scene I was totally taken aback. I didn't see it coming at all. A present of a gun. Who she is to kill. It all happens in rapid succession. It's great filmmaking. Line into line, scene into scene the film is action packed. That's also another theme; Nikita's struggle with death. I was reading a screenwriting book last night which talked about the obstacles that happen during an action movie. It says the most common theme in them is the struggle with death. In La Femme Nikita she has to struggle with death throughout the whole movie. When she is in training she has to prove herself or else get killed. Her former life eliminated, she is in a life or death struggle to remain alive. The government agent makes demands of her. Tells her if you don't comply, your only alternative is death. Even at the end of the film she has to struggle with death. She runs away to escape the government which represents death. She has mentors throughout the film. First it is the government agent and the older woman. Then she is set on her own as an undercover agent living in the World undetected except when the phone rings and a person on the other line asks for Josephine, her code name.
I was thoroughly engrossed in the film. It kept my attention. Especially through the last half hour. Even though the assasination scene in Venice was a little too predictable. The entrance of Jean Reno really shakes things up. At first I didn't know who he was. I asked myself who is this actor? I should know who he is. He has been in a few films. I checked on IMDB.com and sure enough it was Jean Reno.
I couldn't get enough of the action and intrigue that the film plays to high emotion. It leads you on with false starts like the hotel bug job. What did happen anyway? It was a great film. It's no wonder it was made into a TV show. There could have been a sequel.
I was thoroughly engrossed in the film. It kept my attention. Especially through the last half hour. Even though the assasination scene in Venice was a little too predictable. The entrance of Jean Reno really shakes things up. At first I didn't know who he was. I asked myself who is this actor? I should know who he is. He has been in a few films. I checked on IMDB.com and sure enough it was Jean Reno.
I couldn't get enough of the action and intrigue that the film plays to high emotion. It leads you on with false starts like the hotel bug job. What did happen anyway? It was a great film. It's no wonder it was made into a TV show. There could have been a sequel.
Tuesday, November 21, 2017
thoughts about Reservoir Dogs
Tonight I read the screenplay of Reservior Dogs and then watched the film. It's a short script and the film is short too. The film is creatively written. It opens up new forms of structuring a film. Not that any of the things Tarrantino does in the film haven't been done before. Citizen Kane also uses a non-linear structure. He does create a film that tells a good story with strong characters and a Shakespearian ending that reminded me of the final scene from Hamlet. The film isn't as good as Pulp Fiction. That film is similar and probably could be watched as a double feature that shows Quentin's style and his subject matter. It seems that Reservoir Dogs is a precursor to Pulp. Without doing Dogs I don't think Pulp would have been as good. Also several scenes have been shown to be mere reproductions of other films. Like the scene where Kietel takes down two cops with his twin .45's. That was actually done first in a Hong Kong action film. So were the suites. They were taken from Japanese Yakuza films. Still it does retain a neo-noirish quality that makes it eminently enjoyable. Even the disgusting scene where Madsen takes off the cop's ear. It is a classic scene that shows beauty in brutality. The song, the little dance, and the sheer terror in the cop's face do show originality and immense creativity. And the final scene as I've mentioned before reminded me of Hamlet set to a Mexican stand off. Another brilliant mash up. Tarrantino is a great writer-director who ushered in a new era in filmmaking. He makes other films look old or very old. His style is brash and bold. His language is vulgar and profane. But it all comes together for a damn good film. And audiences love it.
Review of Goodfellas
Tonight I watched Goodfellas for the I don't know how manyeth time. I used to watch it in High School at a friends house and really thought it was great. This timle I didn't think it was so great. It struck me as a rather typical Scorsese film. Q the stones. Q the period, tacky dress. Q the stylized violence. I read the script too which was good but not great. I used to think Scorsese deserved more awards. In particular Goodfellas. After I read the script and watched the movie again I though less of the film. It just didn't have the emotional pull that it did when I was a teen. Perhaps I've seen it too much. I could see myself watching Goodfellas at a bar. It seems like a bar film. Lots of rock music. Drugs, sex, violence, crime all things that you would find at a seedy bar like the ones in the film.
Still it does seduce you into "the life" as Henry Hill refers to it in the film. To watch the Mafia revealed in all it's glory is very entertaining. The names of the characters; Big Pauly, Jimmy Conway, Jimmy two times, and son on. It really drew me into the film. It caused me to ask myself, wouldn't it be great if I was one of those guys. If I was a "goodfella?" That part of it really appeals to viewers of the film. I'm not the only teen or young adult who saw the film and wanted to be part of the film. In fact it's kind of a cult film. Young kids see all the glitz and glamour. The money and the lifestyle. And they think how great. How crappy my life is. How boring to be a working stiff. It's better to be a gangster.
And the technical details of the film are unassailable. The giant crane shot of Karen running away from a suspected hit on her by Jimmy Conway is great. The perspective reveals everything in the shot; Karen, Conway, the dark alley, the street sign revealing a no name street in the maze of the city. All great. The acting is also top notch too. When Jimmy Conway learns Tommy has been killed you want to reach out and hug him. Comfort him in his loss. I thought all the roles were well played. From "Big Paulie" to Lorraine Bracco they struck me as genuine, real, and human. To go through what they go through requires a tough skin.
Goodfellas is a great film. Maybe it didn't win all the awards, but it's popularity is proof that the film endures and will endure as a portrait of not only life in the Mob, but life in New York City during those years when the city was much different than it is today. Before Giuliani and John Gotti and all the events that surrounded those characters. Before Zoo York became like Disneyland; clean, passive, and safe.The film is also a turning point in Scorsese's ouevre. From Good fellas Scorsese found his niche, the gangster film. Casino, The Departed, great films that built upon Goodfellas and will be remembered as great films done by a great director.
Still it does seduce you into "the life" as Henry Hill refers to it in the film. To watch the Mafia revealed in all it's glory is very entertaining. The names of the characters; Big Pauly, Jimmy Conway, Jimmy two times, and son on. It really drew me into the film. It caused me to ask myself, wouldn't it be great if I was one of those guys. If I was a "goodfella?" That part of it really appeals to viewers of the film. I'm not the only teen or young adult who saw the film and wanted to be part of the film. In fact it's kind of a cult film. Young kids see all the glitz and glamour. The money and the lifestyle. And they think how great. How crappy my life is. How boring to be a working stiff. It's better to be a gangster.
And the technical details of the film are unassailable. The giant crane shot of Karen running away from a suspected hit on her by Jimmy Conway is great. The perspective reveals everything in the shot; Karen, Conway, the dark alley, the street sign revealing a no name street in the maze of the city. All great. The acting is also top notch too. When Jimmy Conway learns Tommy has been killed you want to reach out and hug him. Comfort him in his loss. I thought all the roles were well played. From "Big Paulie" to Lorraine Bracco they struck me as genuine, real, and human. To go through what they go through requires a tough skin.
Goodfellas is a great film. Maybe it didn't win all the awards, but it's popularity is proof that the film endures and will endure as a portrait of not only life in the Mob, but life in New York City during those years when the city was much different than it is today. Before Giuliani and John Gotti and all the events that surrounded those characters. Before Zoo York became like Disneyland; clean, passive, and safe.The film is also a turning point in Scorsese's ouevre. From Good fellas Scorsese found his niche, the gangster film. Casino, The Departed, great films that built upon Goodfellas and will be remembered as great films done by a great director.
Thursday, November 16, 2017
what I did last night
last night I watched a few films and drank a few martinis along with them. It was a rather cold November night. I had the gas fireplace going and had the lights out. I sat in the dark alone watching and drinking. I thought it was fun. I wasn't depressed or paranoid. I thought I was actually doing something toward finding work in writing. I'm constantly stressed about not being produced or published. It seems that I don't really work at it and it's something that I have to get over and spend some time with if I want to amount to something as a writer. I haven't written on my screenplay in two months. I've set a goal for myself to write for two hours a day when I don't work at my part time job. It was a fun night. I read the New York Times and got the Hollywood Reporter in the mail. I haven't read it yet. It's terrible about all those sexual harassment scandals that are ruining peoples' careers. I suppose they are on the wrong side of history. it sure is a thorny topic to discuss. I just hope it doesn't turn into something like McCarthyism where people are hunted down for what they did years ago. I remember being in law school and having a tremendous amount of pressure put on me by feminism. It seemed that all the women were radical feminists. It was thrust upon me. It was a "new" reality. It drove me crazy. There was even a woman Professor who, when using the socratic method, was described as "the lape rape." I thought that was really bad. I flucked out my first year. I think it's too bad that women have become above criticism and beyond reproach. I remember back to prohibition where women were the motive force behind that failed experiment. I hope we don't go down that road again. I live in upstate New York. There are many women leaders. There is a US Senator who is a woman. Our local assembyman is a woman. There are many women that work in many professions. I dare say there is equality between the genders. Last night as I was reading the New York Times Opinion page I came across an article that described the present political mindset that seems to plague not only New York but the country as a whole. It described the "seige" mentality. In the end it led the writer to say that we are obsessed with being a victim. Either on the left or right, it seems that we all think of ourselves as victims somehow. I thought the article was very perceptive. And when I started my day today I thought that this will be one day when I don't think of myself as a victim. It seems an impossible task when everyone around you thinks they are a victim and the burdens of history are so heavy, but so far it has been a rather enjoyable day. Further on I remember a woman I met back in grad school. I was wearing a shirt that said "brooklyn" on it. She asked me if I were from Brooklyn. I responded that I was not. She said I couldn't wear the shirt because I was not from Brooklyn. I thought that she was ignorant. And that she was continuing some tribal way of thinking about the World. With the holidays upon us the World often becomes so divided between religion, race, geography, ethnicity, and nationality. It's too bad that there are still people like this woman in the World . It would be a far more peaceful World if people accepted other people and their ways and opinions. We all have to live together. Even with people from Brooklyn.
Wednesday, November 15, 2017
thoughts on White Heat with James Cagney
This film was on a list of crime films that I received from my screenwriting professor from graduate school. It's an old film, in black and white, and has served as a joke or satire for another film; Johnny Dangerously starring Michael Keaton. The film is rather good and has several twists and turns. And of course Cagney makes it enjoyable. His signature accent and psychotic gangster manners are entertaining. I most enjoyed when the government agent is revealed and Cagney musters out "a copper, and I was gonna split 50/50 with a copper!" It is a great piece of dialogue that only Cagney could do.
The film was written well. It transitions from one scene to the next without ever becoming too boring or too much style without much substance. Even the jailhouse scenes contain some entertaining bits. Like when Big Ed's agent attempts to kill Cagney by dropping an engine on him.
It's too bad I've seen Johnny Dangerously more times then probably should have. It really ruins the independence of this film. A number of parts are taken directly from this film into that one. I enjoyed watching the film. I could watch it again. It really does show some of the instruments that crime films use to engage the viewer. The government agent. The psychotic gangster with headaches and mommy complex. The blonde dame. The underling who tries to take over the gang. These are all used well by the writer of the film. A good film. Cagney has done quite a few good gangster movies. It's too bad they don't make 'em like they used to.
The film was written well. It transitions from one scene to the next without ever becoming too boring or too much style without much substance. Even the jailhouse scenes contain some entertaining bits. Like when Big Ed's agent attempts to kill Cagney by dropping an engine on him.
It's too bad I've seen Johnny Dangerously more times then probably should have. It really ruins the independence of this film. A number of parts are taken directly from this film into that one. I enjoyed watching the film. I could watch it again. It really does show some of the instruments that crime films use to engage the viewer. The government agent. The psychotic gangster with headaches and mommy complex. The blonde dame. The underling who tries to take over the gang. These are all used well by the writer of the film. A good film. Cagney has done quite a few good gangster movies. It's too bad they don't make 'em like they used to.
thoughts about Murder On the Orient Express
I had high hopes for this film. I thought it would be a bright spot for the serious season in the movies. I was a little more satisfied then disappointed. I liked the charactetrs, the period decor and costumes. I liked how it was set on a train and several scenes were shot from outside the train as characters walked through. At first I liked the high angle shot of characters scurrying about over Johnny Depp when he is murdered. But it was a little disorienting and I didn't like it so much afterwards. The story is rather roundabout too. Johnny Depp is linked to a heinous murder that he avoided trial for. By the end of the film everyone is implicated and as Piorrot uncovers everyone on the ensemble cast had a role in his murder. I didn't like this ending. I was hoping it would be a classic whodunit with a vile villain on which to hang the odious crime on. I was rather disappointed by the ending.
I don't have any knowledge of Agatha Christie or her books. In fact this is the first exposure I've had of her in my life. Maybe this makes me rather young? I get the impression that her novels are sort of like Murder She Wrote. But maybe she is deeper then that. The film is full of tension, especially as Piorrot interviews each of the passengers on the train to see who is the killer. The tension is built and built. I was exhausted after an hour and a half. I just wanted to find who did it. Who was the killer? The black doctor was a false ending. Piorrot finally reveals all in a big finish with the entire crew at a dinner table in a train tunnel. It seemed very theatrical to me. Finally the train is repaired, it is put back on it's tracks and the film ends.
The film really didn't inspire me to check out Agatha Christie more. In fact I was sick of the film with about a half hour left. I just wanted to go for the exit. It did have a strong conflict and very clear resolution. I liked these qualities. I suppose it would have been better if I were an Agatha Christie fan. After all the bluster about the cast, costumes, and shots Istanbul and the mountains I was left without much enthusiasm for the rest of the film. A good film, but not one that I would watch again.
I don't have any knowledge of Agatha Christie or her books. In fact this is the first exposure I've had of her in my life. Maybe this makes me rather young? I get the impression that her novels are sort of like Murder She Wrote. But maybe she is deeper then that. The film is full of tension, especially as Piorrot interviews each of the passengers on the train to see who is the killer. The tension is built and built. I was exhausted after an hour and a half. I just wanted to find who did it. Who was the killer? The black doctor was a false ending. Piorrot finally reveals all in a big finish with the entire crew at a dinner table in a train tunnel. It seemed very theatrical to me. Finally the train is repaired, it is put back on it's tracks and the film ends.
The film really didn't inspire me to check out Agatha Christie more. In fact I was sick of the film with about a half hour left. I just wanted to go for the exit. It did have a strong conflict and very clear resolution. I liked these qualities. I suppose it would have been better if I were an Agatha Christie fan. After all the bluster about the cast, costumes, and shots Istanbul and the mountains I was left without much enthusiasm for the rest of the film. A good film, but not one that I would watch again.
Wednesday, November 8, 2017
thoughts about The Sweet Smell of Success
This was a film that is on the list of films to watch from the film section of the handout I got for my MFA. It's a really good film that gets into the power journalists have over the public. In the end though it becomes about scheming and how people get hurt. Tony Curtis stars as a press agent who is endlessly scheming to get his clients into the press. The film is dated. I guess nowadays it would center around the internet and what gets posted and goes viral. But in the context of the film we see Burt Lancaster having the power to influence politics and expose scandal or anything that someone in power wouldn't want revealed.
The film has some great cinematography of old New York. Great shots of Times Square and the streets crowded with taxis and people. So romantic. The film is anything but romantic. The sequence where Tony Curtis forces his girlfriend to befriend a rival journalist of Lancaster shows what a slime bag his character was. There are several incidents where Curtis shows his disgusting nature and how it is played off as just business as usual.
The character of Lancaster reminded me of Bill O'Reilly the now disgraced Fox news anchor whose cable show was must see TV and books charted the New York Times bestseller list. The film shows how the JJ Hunsiker character is devious and out to ruin whoever gets in his way. He is also obsessed with his sister. He tries hard to control her, but the tighter he tries to grip her the further she slips through his fingers.
An interesting film. A film I probably wouldn't have watched if it hadn't been on the list of films to watch.
The film has some great cinematography of old New York. Great shots of Times Square and the streets crowded with taxis and people. So romantic. The film is anything but romantic. The sequence where Tony Curtis forces his girlfriend to befriend a rival journalist of Lancaster shows what a slime bag his character was. There are several incidents where Curtis shows his disgusting nature and how it is played off as just business as usual.
The character of Lancaster reminded me of Bill O'Reilly the now disgraced Fox news anchor whose cable show was must see TV and books charted the New York Times bestseller list. The film shows how the JJ Hunsiker character is devious and out to ruin whoever gets in his way. He is also obsessed with his sister. He tries hard to control her, but the tighter he tries to grip her the further she slips through his fingers.
An interesting film. A film I probably wouldn't have watched if it hadn't been on the list of films to watch.
Monday, November 6, 2017
thoughts about Romance and the Yellow Peril
this book is very erudite and makes me reconsider some films and aspects of the history and politics of how films are presented. Marchetti's thoughts about gender and racial identity are revealing. i picked up on some of these aspects in the films she analyzes, yet she goes far beyond anything I have thought. the nationalistic contexts which the films are set really makes me look deeper into the film and to wider implications for the politics of the film. for instance she makes the statement that Japanese propoganda during the war simply became propoganda reformulated in post-war Japan. In her analyses of Sayonara, a film I had never heard about before, she talks about how the film deals with gender roles of the main character. How she is saved from gender bending in the name of male domination and the continuing of heteronormativity in not only Japan but the US.
She also talks about the three relationships int the film between white and non white, japanese in this instance. she says that marlon brando and miko taka relationship could survive becasue they are rich. in the case of red buttons and his japanese lover they committ double suicide because red buttons doesn't have the money or power to fight the US military. the question occurred to me, why doesn't buttons serve out his time, then come back to Japan as a civilian if he loves her so much? I guess that would be a cop out in some way.
there are several other films that deal with prejudice against asians. like the rape fantasy in DW Griffiths Broken Blossoms and The Cheat by De Mille. These films don't allow any interaction between White and non -White. If they did there might be a riot at the theater. Further on it is allowed in the Love is a Many Splendored Thing and the World of Suzie Wong William Holden kisses the Asian Woman on the mouth. Times changed . in Love the character of Jennifer Jones represent the city of Hong Kong. She is half Chinese and half Asian. Which will she choose to be Chinese or European? Unlike Hong Kong she gets to decide.
The films are great and deal with Asian history and politics from the beginnings of film to the early eighties. I have about sixty pages and five films left to watch.
She also talks about the three relationships int the film between white and non white, japanese in this instance. she says that marlon brando and miko taka relationship could survive becasue they are rich. in the case of red buttons and his japanese lover they committ double suicide because red buttons doesn't have the money or power to fight the US military. the question occurred to me, why doesn't buttons serve out his time, then come back to Japan as a civilian if he loves her so much? I guess that would be a cop out in some way.
there are several other films that deal with prejudice against asians. like the rape fantasy in DW Griffiths Broken Blossoms and The Cheat by De Mille. These films don't allow any interaction between White and non -White. If they did there might be a riot at the theater. Further on it is allowed in the Love is a Many Splendored Thing and the World of Suzie Wong William Holden kisses the Asian Woman on the mouth. Times changed . in Love the character of Jennifer Jones represent the city of Hong Kong. She is half Chinese and half Asian. Which will she choose to be Chinese or European? Unlike Hong Kong she gets to decide.
The films are great and deal with Asian history and politics from the beginnings of film to the early eighties. I have about sixty pages and five films left to watch.
Can't watch. what the f*** is wrong with me?
Last night it was the fourth night in a row that I didn't watch a film. Or a TV show. I watched music videos on youtube. I enjoyed the music videos. But, why can't I watch films? What the fuck is wrong with me? Watching block? Film fatigue. Whatever it is when it hits I can't shake it. So, I guess I should read some, do some research, then it usually unblocks me for awhile. Until I freeze up and can't watch again. Writer's block too. I've got some new ideas for my screenplay I wrote for my creative writing degrees, but I haven't yet looked at the script. I need to look at it. I need to think about it. And write, for fuck's sake! it's watch and criticize, not write. not make a film but stand back and look on. thinking that film is crap and that one too. without admitting that it is hard to make a film. it's like making sausages. they taste good, but no one wants to see how they are made?
Tuesday, October 10, 2017
thoughts about Brad's Status
I saw Brad's Status for the first time tonight at the Art Mission theater. I thought it was a very good film. It really put into film many of the emotions and thoughts of someone in middle age. Or anyone who is dealing with troubling thoughts or emotions. I have been reading up on how to deal with aging myself. There are numerous internet articles about life in your 30's or 40's or older or younger. None of them presents them with such emotion and reality as this film does.
At first I was a little negative about the voice over. Then it won me over. It is rare that a film uses voice over. This was one of the films of recent memory that uses voice over to reveal Ben Stiller's character's thoughts. It really does provide insight into what a middle age man is thinking. His career problems. His social anxieties.
After the film reaches the point of visiting Harvard and Tufts, I got the impression that Stiller's character was actually more of a villain than someone to empathize with. All of his fears and anxieties were just his exaggerated imagination. It's no wonder he wasn't invited to the wedding of one of his friends. And when his famous writer friend brings him to the reality that he has avoided he reacts so negatively. He leaves in the middle of their dinner. It becomes obvious that Stiller's character was living in an imaginary world of suffering that he had created to make himself feel better. Maybe he was suffering from depression?
When he is in conversation with his son's friend he is brought back to reality again. She asks him, "do you even know any poor people?" and reacts similarly. He denies reality and wants to continues in the false belief that he is a victim. That no one except himself has problems in life. He is selfish and doesn't show the least bit of empathy. He complains that he feels rejected at dinner parties. He doesn't even think of people who never get invited to dinner parties or are starving or living in poverty.
I think Brad's Status shows symptoms of our time. Feeling like a victim. Refusing to see the wider World. Becoming so self obsessed that everyone else is better then you. Not realizing that everyone gives up something to become what they are. Everyone experiences regret or failure. Everyone has imagined themselves as something else, something better.
A great film that depicts life in America. A great character too. Stiller plays it terrifically.
At first I was a little negative about the voice over. Then it won me over. It is rare that a film uses voice over. This was one of the films of recent memory that uses voice over to reveal Ben Stiller's character's thoughts. It really does provide insight into what a middle age man is thinking. His career problems. His social anxieties.
After the film reaches the point of visiting Harvard and Tufts, I got the impression that Stiller's character was actually more of a villain than someone to empathize with. All of his fears and anxieties were just his exaggerated imagination. It's no wonder he wasn't invited to the wedding of one of his friends. And when his famous writer friend brings him to the reality that he has avoided he reacts so negatively. He leaves in the middle of their dinner. It becomes obvious that Stiller's character was living in an imaginary world of suffering that he had created to make himself feel better. Maybe he was suffering from depression?
When he is in conversation with his son's friend he is brought back to reality again. She asks him, "do you even know any poor people?" and reacts similarly. He denies reality and wants to continues in the false belief that he is a victim. That no one except himself has problems in life. He is selfish and doesn't show the least bit of empathy. He complains that he feels rejected at dinner parties. He doesn't even think of people who never get invited to dinner parties or are starving or living in poverty.
I think Brad's Status shows symptoms of our time. Feeling like a victim. Refusing to see the wider World. Becoming so self obsessed that everyone else is better then you. Not realizing that everyone gives up something to become what they are. Everyone experiences regret or failure. Everyone has imagined themselves as something else, something better.
A great film that depicts life in America. A great character too. Stiller plays it terrifically.
Tuesday, September 5, 2017
Thoughts about The Little Hours
If The Beguiled was the dramatic hit of the Summer, then The Little Hours was the raunchy comedy hit of the Summer. I saw the film twice at the Art Mission and Theater. It was very funny. It poked fun at the Medieval Catholic faith. I couldn't help but laugh at all the cursing and situations. And the sex scenes were funny too. There were a lot of SNL alums in The Little Hours. A very funny film.
Thoughts about The Beguiled
this was the critical darling of the Summer. Sophia Coppola, the director, won the award for best director at the Cannes film festival in the Spring. It played at the local multi-plex which means it had a wide release. I don't know the box office numbers, but people on the facebook page I edit were very enthusiastic about the film. When I saw it I thought it was a very good period piece. Full of romance and intrigue. Colin Farrell was great as the wounded soldier. And the women were great too; Nicole Kidman, Kirsten Dunst, and Elle Fanning were all very good. To have prestige picture do well was a nice surprise in a rather lackluster Summer of franchise flicks which had gone on for too long. I didn't see any of the films. And I'm not regretting the decision to not go to any of those films.
I won't spoil the film by giving away it's ending or any of the dramatic scenes. It held my attention for a solid two hours which is really good for a film during the Summer season.
I won't spoil the film by giving away it's ending or any of the dramatic scenes. It held my attention for a solid two hours which is really good for a film during the Summer season.
Wednesday, May 17, 2017
Thoughts about Two Weeks in the Midday Sun by Ebert
This is a great book. I've been a reader of Roger Ebert for many years. I've read his reviews of most of the films I've seen over the past five years. This was the first long form book of his that I've read. The book is a memoir of his time spent at the Cannes Film Festival in the mid 80's. It starts out simple enough; Ebert is on a plane to France. He has trouble connecting to the wire service where he can send out his reviews. He takes a walk down the main strip at Cannes. Along the way he imparts advice to other critics and interjects anecdotes about past films and the history of the festival from years past.
He talks about when Francis Ford Coppola came to the festival with Apocalypse Now. He reminisces about past characters like "Silver Dollar" Baxter who would do anything to promote himself and the films he distributes. he also talked about his big dinner with the Prince of Wales and Lady Diana. It all seems like a dream until the last night of the festival. Ebert describes the scene a large group headed by Martin Scorsese is trying to get a table at a restaurant in France. Eventually they secure a table and all is well.
If you've never been to Cannes, and most of us haven't, this is a great book to give you the experience of being there without having to pay for airfare. It is a portrait of the most famous film festival in the World. Sometimes I couldn't help but laugh out loud at some story Ebert was telling. Other times he seemed to be depressed about the current cinema subtly stating that there were no good films anymore. Then he talked about a film that I haven't seen yet; Barfly. Ebert was no stranger to bars or drinking so his endorsement of the film comes as no surprise. I'll have to watch it one night.
Two Weeks in the Midday Sun will last as a testament of Ebert's quality writing. His stinging criticisms and his nuanced descriptions show how great a writer he was. Perhaps next year at around this time, which coincides with the beginning of the Cannes Film festival, I will pick up this book again and relive the stories and characters. And hopefully one year I'll get to Cannes.
He talks about when Francis Ford Coppola came to the festival with Apocalypse Now. He reminisces about past characters like "Silver Dollar" Baxter who would do anything to promote himself and the films he distributes. he also talked about his big dinner with the Prince of Wales and Lady Diana. It all seems like a dream until the last night of the festival. Ebert describes the scene a large group headed by Martin Scorsese is trying to get a table at a restaurant in France. Eventually they secure a table and all is well.
If you've never been to Cannes, and most of us haven't, this is a great book to give you the experience of being there without having to pay for airfare. It is a portrait of the most famous film festival in the World. Sometimes I couldn't help but laugh out loud at some story Ebert was telling. Other times he seemed to be depressed about the current cinema subtly stating that there were no good films anymore. Then he talked about a film that I haven't seen yet; Barfly. Ebert was no stranger to bars or drinking so his endorsement of the film comes as no surprise. I'll have to watch it one night.
Two Weeks in the Midday Sun will last as a testament of Ebert's quality writing. His stinging criticisms and his nuanced descriptions show how great a writer he was. Perhaps next year at around this time, which coincides with the beginning of the Cannes Film festival, I will pick up this book again and relive the stories and characters. And hopefully one year I'll get to Cannes.
Sunday, April 30, 2017
Thoughts on Personal Shopper by Assayas
This film was definitely an Autueristic film. It was written and directed by Oliver Assayas a French autuer who has directed several films without becoming too "hollywood" or "big budget." And it casts Kristen Stewart who the French love.
The film is rather short, checking in at an hour and 40 mintues or so. And a lot of the action takes place in the last half hour. Otherwise it is about the life of a shopper for the stars. It tells a very personal story of someone who doesn't get much press or appreciation. I found it rather boring. Kristen Stewart rides around on her moped doing errands for her employer who is some kind of celebrity. Stewart's character is a rather parasitic person. She doesn't seem to have any redeeming qualities. I guess that's why the film has the subplot of Stewart's character trying to contact her brother from beyond death. The film switches from the celebrity slave plot to the making contact with her brother throughout the film. It is only in the final scene of the film that both plot lines are resolved.
The film is not without merit though. The satirical look at how celebrities function provides some interesting scenes. And when the film finally reaches it's end, I thought it resembled the best of a thriller. I even compared it to Edgar Allen Poe and some of his dark tails of humanity like Murders in the Rue Morgue. The build up to gruesome murder scene was a masterful exposition of detail. Every text message was keeping me more and more on the edge of my seat wondering who it was that was texting her? When would it be revealed? The murder scene hit me unexpectedly. But the revelation that it was the bitter ex-petite ami was a little bit too obvious.
Like Elle it was a white male with a good tailor. I find that all too often it is an over aggresive White male that takes the fall in French film. I don't know if there is any evidence that it's true that White males in France are more inclined toward murder then other groups. But in film it seems so.
This film is like Elle, but is more in your face. It shows the glamour of celebrity and the groveling character of Stewart who finds nothing better to do in life then shop for a mean celebrity. Are the fancy clothes and jewelry that she doesn't get to keep really worth it? I thought of her character as rather pathetic. Doing the bidding of an obnoxious celebrity and trying to contact her dead brother? Not the kind character I like in film. At least she's unique.
The film is rather short, checking in at an hour and 40 mintues or so. And a lot of the action takes place in the last half hour. Otherwise it is about the life of a shopper for the stars. It tells a very personal story of someone who doesn't get much press or appreciation. I found it rather boring. Kristen Stewart rides around on her moped doing errands for her employer who is some kind of celebrity. Stewart's character is a rather parasitic person. She doesn't seem to have any redeeming qualities. I guess that's why the film has the subplot of Stewart's character trying to contact her brother from beyond death. The film switches from the celebrity slave plot to the making contact with her brother throughout the film. It is only in the final scene of the film that both plot lines are resolved.
The film is not without merit though. The satirical look at how celebrities function provides some interesting scenes. And when the film finally reaches it's end, I thought it resembled the best of a thriller. I even compared it to Edgar Allen Poe and some of his dark tails of humanity like Murders in the Rue Morgue. The build up to gruesome murder scene was a masterful exposition of detail. Every text message was keeping me more and more on the edge of my seat wondering who it was that was texting her? When would it be revealed? The murder scene hit me unexpectedly. But the revelation that it was the bitter ex-petite ami was a little bit too obvious.
Like Elle it was a white male with a good tailor. I find that all too often it is an over aggresive White male that takes the fall in French film. I don't know if there is any evidence that it's true that White males in France are more inclined toward murder then other groups. But in film it seems so.
This film is like Elle, but is more in your face. It shows the glamour of celebrity and the groveling character of Stewart who finds nothing better to do in life then shop for a mean celebrity. Are the fancy clothes and jewelry that she doesn't get to keep really worth it? I thought of her character as rather pathetic. Doing the bidding of an obnoxious celebrity and trying to contact her dead brother? Not the kind character I like in film. At least she's unique.
Thoughts about Land of Mine by Zandvliet
This film screened at my local Art House movie theater. The "Art Mission" has two screens and the chairs for the audience are somewhat askance to the movie screen. It's not too big of a deal. it's just that you have to turn a little in your chair to see the screen. I lead an Indie Movie Night at the theater, so I usually go there every Tuesday night. Last week's film was Land of Mine which is an extremely tense film set in Denmark immediately after WWII.
The premise is rather simple; the Nazis have laid thousands of land mines on the coast of Denmark and German POWs must remove them. By hand. With rudimentary tools. The POWs are the focus of the film. They are young boys ranging from teenager to young twenties. The Sargent in charge of the operation is the most compelling character in the film and one of the most compelling characters I have seen in film so far this year. He begins the film full of hate for the German POWs. Gradually he realizes what a bad lot they have drawn. They are not given any food. Only meager accomodations. And their chances for survival are next to none. By the end of the film only four of the boys are left alive. In film filled with redemption and forgiveness the Sargent tracks down the remaining boys and frees them to return to Germany.
Before that the tension is escalated to a breaking point. Each cut reveals the large coastline of Denmark. And each shot of the beach reminds the viewer of the horrible task the boys must accomplish. In one nerve splitting explosion after another, the POWs are killed off. In one final, unexpected explosion several of the POWs are killed.
Far from MASH or other similar programs that poke fun at war, Land of Mine is a serious film about the anguish the Danes felt towards Germans at the end of the war. I suppose the situation was similar to that of France. In France there have been several films and books about the Nazi occupation and the Vichy government. I don't know if there is any literature about the Nazi occupation of Denmark. I'm assuming that Nazis being Nazis the terms of occupation were similarly brutal. This film certainly alludes to the brutality of the Nazis.
This film is an incredible study of how to take an event and have it be expected, but unknown at the same time. There are many films that use timed devices to accelerate tension in the audience. Land of Mine does it exceedingly better than other films who do the same thing. In every scene that the POWs are removing mines from the beach, I was thinking about when one would go off. Who would be next? Would they survive at all? I was at a loss for predicting the outcome of the story. I thought that the Sargent would become sympathetic. But I didn't see the big explosion coming. And the continued hatred from the Sargent's superior reinforced the brutality of the Nazis and how the Danes wanted revenge.
The story made for an excellent film full of turns and emotion that made me feel sympathetic towards the young POWs. I really felt like the Sargent by the end of the film. I was asking myself, couldn't there be a better way of removing the mines? An excellent movie.
The premise is rather simple; the Nazis have laid thousands of land mines on the coast of Denmark and German POWs must remove them. By hand. With rudimentary tools. The POWs are the focus of the film. They are young boys ranging from teenager to young twenties. The Sargent in charge of the operation is the most compelling character in the film and one of the most compelling characters I have seen in film so far this year. He begins the film full of hate for the German POWs. Gradually he realizes what a bad lot they have drawn. They are not given any food. Only meager accomodations. And their chances for survival are next to none. By the end of the film only four of the boys are left alive. In film filled with redemption and forgiveness the Sargent tracks down the remaining boys and frees them to return to Germany.
Before that the tension is escalated to a breaking point. Each cut reveals the large coastline of Denmark. And each shot of the beach reminds the viewer of the horrible task the boys must accomplish. In one nerve splitting explosion after another, the POWs are killed off. In one final, unexpected explosion several of the POWs are killed.
Far from MASH or other similar programs that poke fun at war, Land of Mine is a serious film about the anguish the Danes felt towards Germans at the end of the war. I suppose the situation was similar to that of France. In France there have been several films and books about the Nazi occupation and the Vichy government. I don't know if there is any literature about the Nazi occupation of Denmark. I'm assuming that Nazis being Nazis the terms of occupation were similarly brutal. This film certainly alludes to the brutality of the Nazis.
This film is an incredible study of how to take an event and have it be expected, but unknown at the same time. There are many films that use timed devices to accelerate tension in the audience. Land of Mine does it exceedingly better than other films who do the same thing. In every scene that the POWs are removing mines from the beach, I was thinking about when one would go off. Who would be next? Would they survive at all? I was at a loss for predicting the outcome of the story. I thought that the Sargent would become sympathetic. But I didn't see the big explosion coming. And the continued hatred from the Sargent's superior reinforced the brutality of the Nazis and how the Danes wanted revenge.
The story made for an excellent film full of turns and emotion that made me feel sympathetic towards the young POWs. I really felt like the Sargent by the end of the film. I was asking myself, couldn't there be a better way of removing the mines? An excellent movie.
Thoughts about Frantz by Francois Ozon
I saw Frantz two weeks ago at Cinemapolis in Ithaca, NY. It only ran for a few weeks so I couldn't watch it more then once. I live in Binghamton which is about one hour from Ithaca. Not too long of a drive but long enough to prohibit multiple viewings.
The director drew me to the film. France has quite a few directors working the Art House circuit. Ozon gained prominence over the last ten years. About a month ago I watched his film Swimming Pool which was a good genre film about an older Englishwoman who goes to France to write her next novel. So I decided to check out his latest feature.
It didn't disappoint. The film might turn off people who don't like foreign films or who don't like to read subtitles. Neither of these things turned me off. Yet the continual back and forth was a little hard to follow and I imagine that some of the translation wasn't as good as it should have been Even though, it was still an intriguing film.
It starts out in Germany and ends in France. It is sometime between the First World War and the Second. The main character is a German woman who lost her fiance in WWI. She is grieve stricken and mourns her fiance by going to the cemetery every day. While there she sees a mysterious man who is at the grave site of her dead fiance. Eventually the two meet and he reveals himself as a close friend of Frantz, the dead fiance. The woman and the mystery man become friends. He befriends Frantz's family too. We find out that Frantz was a Francophile at heart. He loved Paris and spent time there before the war. Even Frantz's father comes around to forgive and accept the mystery man.
Yet all is not what it seems. It a dramatic scene the mystery man reveals he is not a great friend of Frantz's but rather the man who killed him during the war. The film here goes into several flashbacks of battle between French and Germans in the trenches. They are well directed scenes that show the calamity of war. By this time in the film Frantz's ex-fiancee has fallen in love with the mysterious Frenchman; Adrien.
Adrien has left Germany in disgrace and has gone back to France. He writes a letter to Anna. Anna sets out to find Frantz to make sure he is steady psychologically. Eventually she finds her way to him only to find out he is engaged and living with his overbearing mother. In a fateful train scene Frantz and Anna are saying their goodbyes to one another. In the next scene she is the Lourve looking at a painting.
The film is flawless technically. It was shot in Black and White. And the drama is tense. It builds and builds to the big scene where Adrien confesses that he is not who he says he is. This revelation comes at about half way through the film. From there the rest is a journey by Anna to find Adrien and consecrate love between them.
I don't know of too many films that have dealt so in depth with the conflict between the French and the Germans. There is certainly a lot of material there. Two World Wars, the Occupation, the rivalry between the two countries. And Ozon's film is a great contribution to films that have dealt with WWI and it's aftermath. The film will get more attention in France and Germany than here in the states. I'm so glad it made it to a screen where I live. I would definitely pay it another viewing.
The director drew me to the film. France has quite a few directors working the Art House circuit. Ozon gained prominence over the last ten years. About a month ago I watched his film Swimming Pool which was a good genre film about an older Englishwoman who goes to France to write her next novel. So I decided to check out his latest feature.
It didn't disappoint. The film might turn off people who don't like foreign films or who don't like to read subtitles. Neither of these things turned me off. Yet the continual back and forth was a little hard to follow and I imagine that some of the translation wasn't as good as it should have been Even though, it was still an intriguing film.
It starts out in Germany and ends in France. It is sometime between the First World War and the Second. The main character is a German woman who lost her fiance in WWI. She is grieve stricken and mourns her fiance by going to the cemetery every day. While there she sees a mysterious man who is at the grave site of her dead fiance. Eventually the two meet and he reveals himself as a close friend of Frantz, the dead fiance. The woman and the mystery man become friends. He befriends Frantz's family too. We find out that Frantz was a Francophile at heart. He loved Paris and spent time there before the war. Even Frantz's father comes around to forgive and accept the mystery man.
Yet all is not what it seems. It a dramatic scene the mystery man reveals he is not a great friend of Frantz's but rather the man who killed him during the war. The film here goes into several flashbacks of battle between French and Germans in the trenches. They are well directed scenes that show the calamity of war. By this time in the film Frantz's ex-fiancee has fallen in love with the mysterious Frenchman; Adrien.
Adrien has left Germany in disgrace and has gone back to France. He writes a letter to Anna. Anna sets out to find Frantz to make sure he is steady psychologically. Eventually she finds her way to him only to find out he is engaged and living with his overbearing mother. In a fateful train scene Frantz and Anna are saying their goodbyes to one another. In the next scene she is the Lourve looking at a painting.
The film is flawless technically. It was shot in Black and White. And the drama is tense. It builds and builds to the big scene where Adrien confesses that he is not who he says he is. This revelation comes at about half way through the film. From there the rest is a journey by Anna to find Adrien and consecrate love between them.
I don't know of too many films that have dealt so in depth with the conflict between the French and the Germans. There is certainly a lot of material there. Two World Wars, the Occupation, the rivalry between the two countries. And Ozon's film is a great contribution to films that have dealt with WWI and it's aftermath. The film will get more attention in France and Germany than here in the states. I'm so glad it made it to a screen where I live. I would definitely pay it another viewing.
Tuesday, January 10, 2017
Thoughts about Hitchcock/Truffaut (book)
I'm not a huge fan of Hitchcock. I've seen several of his films. The Birds. Vertigo. North by Northwest. I've seen his films as part of Literature or Film Studies classes. And the images and music of Psycho are etched on my brain so much that I will never forget them. Yet, I'm more of epic/dystopian then a thriller/suspense kind of movie goer. Aside from that Sir Alfred's filmmaking career was long and came about with hard work and a never give up attitude that is a really good example to follow for an aspiring filmmaker. The book takes the reader from when he was making films in England to the glory days of his Hollywood works under David O. Selznick.
The Hollywood days include his most memorable films which I have mentioned already. In the final chapter of the book Truffaut summarizes the final years of Monsieur Alfred's output. I haven't seen any of those films. I really should take a look at Marnie which starred Sean Connery and Tippi Hedren. In the book Hitchcock comes off as a workaholic who never did much else than make films. That much seems true, but little is mentioned about the personal life of Hitch which might reveal a more nuanced character. I guess I should read a biography if I want that kind of material. This was rather an interview about films and filmmaking.
Hitchcock sure knows his technical stuff when it comes to filmmaking. Several times that stuff went over my head. I don't have much of a background in cameras and such. Yet it also revealed what a micromanager Hitchcock was. It's too bad he never won an Oscar for directing. You would think he would have for Psycho? Or Vertigo? But no, it was not to be. His films were however successful at the box office for years until attitudes and fashions changed. His later films were flops made with no name actors. It wasn't like the late 50's and early 60's when Hitch was working with actors like Jimmy Stewart and Cary Grant. Actors whose time in the spotlight had passed.
Hitch went out with more of a sputter then with a bang. But his films still live on and are remembered by generations of film fans.
The Hollywood days include his most memorable films which I have mentioned already. In the final chapter of the book Truffaut summarizes the final years of Monsieur Alfred's output. I haven't seen any of those films. I really should take a look at Marnie which starred Sean Connery and Tippi Hedren. In the book Hitchcock comes off as a workaholic who never did much else than make films. That much seems true, but little is mentioned about the personal life of Hitch which might reveal a more nuanced character. I guess I should read a biography if I want that kind of material. This was rather an interview about films and filmmaking.
Hitchcock sure knows his technical stuff when it comes to filmmaking. Several times that stuff went over my head. I don't have much of a background in cameras and such. Yet it also revealed what a micromanager Hitchcock was. It's too bad he never won an Oscar for directing. You would think he would have for Psycho? Or Vertigo? But no, it was not to be. His films were however successful at the box office for years until attitudes and fashions changed. His later films were flops made with no name actors. It wasn't like the late 50's and early 60's when Hitch was working with actors like Jimmy Stewart and Cary Grant. Actors whose time in the spotlight had passed.
Hitch went out with more of a sputter then with a bang. But his films still live on and are remembered by generations of film fans.
Star Wars Rogue One, thoughts
Nothing like Star Wars to take you away from Earth for awhile. I was on the edge of my seat as everything collided in the end. Can't beat the Empire for villains or the rebellion for heroes. I guess it's box office that everyone seems to talk about when talking about a franchise film like Star Wars. Last I checked it was rocketing to a billion dollars. Will it reach a billion worldwide? I don't know. I think people would be disappointed if it doesn't. People will say it's not as good as a movie that's involved in the trilogies and such.
I went to see the film with my Dad and my brother and his family; his wife, my two nieces, and my nephew. Halfway through the film my sister in law changed seats. I think she was embarrassed that she got stuck sitting next to me. Oh well. It seemed like everyone enjoyed the film. We went out for ice cream after. Maybe we should have went out for pizza? No one could decide. It seemed like everyone wanted to go home and do their own thing. Myself included. It was a Wednesday so I guess they were off schedule.
Anyway the theater was packed. The only seats available were in the very front. It's been like that at all the screenings I've been to in the last month or so. Star Wars is good for Hollywood. And in particular Disney. Disney had taken the lion's share of profits from North American theaters. It's a record year for the film industry. Yet there were some flops and misses. Like Superman vs. Batman. Analysts have said that film should have gone on to a billion dollars at the box office. It didn't. Also the Ang Lee picture Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk really bombed.
Well we'll see if Star Wars continues it's massive popularity. The next film is due out in December of this year, 2017
I went to see the film with my Dad and my brother and his family; his wife, my two nieces, and my nephew. Halfway through the film my sister in law changed seats. I think she was embarrassed that she got stuck sitting next to me. Oh well. It seemed like everyone enjoyed the film. We went out for ice cream after. Maybe we should have went out for pizza? No one could decide. It seemed like everyone wanted to go home and do their own thing. Myself included. It was a Wednesday so I guess they were off schedule.
Anyway the theater was packed. The only seats available were in the very front. It's been like that at all the screenings I've been to in the last month or so. Star Wars is good for Hollywood. And in particular Disney. Disney had taken the lion's share of profits from North American theaters. It's a record year for the film industry. Yet there were some flops and misses. Like Superman vs. Batman. Analysts have said that film should have gone on to a billion dollars at the box office. It didn't. Also the Ang Lee picture Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk really bombed.
Well we'll see if Star Wars continues it's massive popularity. The next film is due out in December of this year, 2017
Thoughts about Fences
This was the best acted film I've seen in quite awhile. Denzel Washington and Viola Davis put forth performances that are rewards season gold. Washington also does a good turn at directing. I haven't read the play or script of the movie, but I did read an August Wilson play as part of a course on Playwriting in grad school. It seems one of the most unique qualities of Wilson's plays are his language use. The dialect comes across as unique to the American South and African-Americans. I think I liked that par the best. Once I got a hang of the dialect the movie was much more enjoyable. The opening sequence really pulled me in. Perhaps it lags in the middle, but I thought it was a very good movie. It really speaks to how American black people were mistreated under segregation for so long. The lament that Washington's character has about not making it in baseball is funny and sad at the same time. That opening monologue is entertaining and emotionally moving.
Perhaps it will get a bunch of noms and put the Oscars So White controversy on the ash heap of Oscars history? I hope so.
Perhaps it will get a bunch of noms and put the Oscars So White controversy on the ash heap of Oscars history? I hope so.
Hacksaw Ridge, thoughts
I saw this film twice. And the first time was awe inspiring. The second, perhaps not as much. The battle scene on the ridge was epic. American and Japanese soldiers battling to the death in the final stages of the Pacific War, what a sequence! Mel Gibson really knows how to show the gruesome details of the battles of the Pacific. Heads exploded, arms were shot off, it was an emotional and shocking sequence. The final scenes of the Japanese committing seppuku were also good. I saw Letters from Iwo Jima a decade ago and that was a film that dealt with the Pacific arena. I really liked that film too. It was done by Clint Eastwood and starred Ken Watanabe. The story in Hacksaw is based on true events. And it seems almost unbelievable, yet the doc footage at the end of the film reveals that Andrew Garfield's character was a real person.
The film was shot in Australia of all places. It's supposed to be the American South, but I didn't notice any difference at all. The back story of Andrew Garfield's character is also based around the American South. It's a small town and it seems like everyone knows everyone else. It recalls a time in America when things were much different from what they are today.
I liked the film. I guess it's also the comeback or rehabilitation of Mel Gibson? I haven't heard that he apologized for any of his remarks during his DUI debacle. I hope he makes more films that are as quality as Hacksaw.
The film was shot in Australia of all places. It's supposed to be the American South, but I didn't notice any difference at all. The back story of Andrew Garfield's character is also based around the American South. It's a small town and it seems like everyone knows everyone else. It recalls a time in America when things were much different from what they are today.
I liked the film. I guess it's also the comeback or rehabilitation of Mel Gibson? I haven't heard that he apologized for any of his remarks during his DUI debacle. I hope he makes more films that are as quality as Hacksaw.
Monday, January 9, 2017
Cinema and Sexuality
The Art Mission, the Art House cinema that I go to frequently keeps showing films that deal with sexuality. My sexuality is determined; straight white male. I've never been with a man. I guess that could change? Yet, I'm 36, perhaps it's too late? Anyway I have thought about whether I could be gay and usually reach the conclusion that on the spectrum I tend more to the middle while staying on the heterosexual side. A friend of mine explained sexuality as more of a spectrum than black and white. Anyway they have screened a number of films that deal directly with sexuality. Moonlight, which was released recently, deals with a gay black teenager in Miami. He is teased and bullied by everyone in the movie except a drug dealer who becomes a father figure for the young boy. In The Handmaiden the lead actress and her handmaiden become lesbian lovers. The love scenes seem like softcore porn from the seventies only updated with handhelds. And JT Leroy which is a doc about a fake author who says he's a gay boy, only to be revealed as a girl, and the whole story of his past is revealed as a phony.
In each of the stories sexuality plays a role. Is JT Leroy heterosexual or homosexual? Is he a gay boy or a straight girl? The definitions of gender are played with over and over again. In Moonlight the story seems to be that the gay teenager is still gay even after growing up and becoming just like the father figure drug dealer. It seems to say that you are born the way you are. You can't change you're sexuality. In The Handmaiden it is less about where you are on the sexuality spectrum and more about the plot to deceive the man of his intentions to marry the young heiress and bilk her out of her inheritance. I suppose that points to more of an Asian definition of sexuality which is more fluid then the Western one. In Asia Buddhism is a big religion. And in Buddhism, Buddha can be man or woman. There is no gender bias inherent in the Abrahamic religions of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam where God is very much a man.
All the films are great yet none of them were breakout hits and big successes like Milk or Brokeback Mountain which really seemed to signify a change about acceptance of LGBTQ characters in film and in society. Those films seemed to normalize gay characters. It also seems that these films were harbingers of things to come. After those films, LGBTQ people gained the right to serve openly in the military, then the Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage was legal. Two major victories for LGBTQ people and their allies. I don't know where the gay liberation movement is headed next? Perhaps more acceptance of their lifestyles? It seems that it has come along way in the past decade or so. And film has been instrumental in those political changes.
In each of the stories sexuality plays a role. Is JT Leroy heterosexual or homosexual? Is he a gay boy or a straight girl? The definitions of gender are played with over and over again. In Moonlight the story seems to be that the gay teenager is still gay even after growing up and becoming just like the father figure drug dealer. It seems to say that you are born the way you are. You can't change you're sexuality. In The Handmaiden it is less about where you are on the sexuality spectrum and more about the plot to deceive the man of his intentions to marry the young heiress and bilk her out of her inheritance. I suppose that points to more of an Asian definition of sexuality which is more fluid then the Western one. In Asia Buddhism is a big religion. And in Buddhism, Buddha can be man or woman. There is no gender bias inherent in the Abrahamic religions of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam where God is very much a man.
All the films are great yet none of them were breakout hits and big successes like Milk or Brokeback Mountain which really seemed to signify a change about acceptance of LGBTQ characters in film and in society. Those films seemed to normalize gay characters. It also seems that these films were harbingers of things to come. After those films, LGBTQ people gained the right to serve openly in the military, then the Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage was legal. Two major victories for LGBTQ people and their allies. I don't know where the gay liberation movement is headed next? Perhaps more acceptance of their lifestyles? It seems that it has come along way in the past decade or so. And film has been instrumental in those political changes.
Blog about The Handmaiden by Chan-wook
I saw this film about two months ago. I thought it was really good, perhaps a tad pretentious in all the flashbacks and back stabs, but that's what makes it such a good film. I think it should at least be nominated in the Foreign Film category for the Oscars. I saw it at the Art House theater near where I live. It was a Tuesday night. The time had just changed so the days were getting shorter and daylight only lasted until about 5:30 in the evening. I've been hosting an Indie Film night now for almost two years. There was a member of the group there and we talked about the film afterwards. We both agreed that it was a good film. The film is rather sexually explicit. It veers into softcore. And it reminded me of Blue is the Warmest Color, a French film about young lesbians who fall in love hard. That film leaves little to the imagination. Neither does The Handmaiden. Yet I really enjoyed the film. So many turns and twists in the story. It went from one person's perspective to another's then bakc to that person then on to another. I thought it worked well. I wasn't confused at all.
I hope the film gets some awards. I'll probably watch it again sometime.
I hope the film gets some awards. I'll probably watch it again sometime.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)