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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)