BLADE RUNNER - Director's Cut (1982)
Dir. by: Ridley Scott.
Starring: Harrison Ford, Daryl Hannah, Sean Young, and Rutger Hauer.
This is me putting aside all prejudice of films big and small that I have already seen based on the writings of Philip K. Dick. Me: stepping over all science fiction sins that claim to pay homage to this film. Me again! Attempting my very best to place myself in 1982 (aka Embryo Carol, whheeee!), and see these effects as new. As you can see, I chose to watch the Director's Cut, because narration by Harrison Ford over any movie would make it plain ridiculous and utterly unwatchable to me.
I enjoyed Blade Runner, much more than I thought I would. It's one of those movies everyone tells you to see, because you have to see it's a classic can't believe you never saw it, etc. But then they tell you it's slow and hard to get through. And cheesy. And seemingly hackneyed, even though it came way before Fifth Element and Brazil, not too mention Minority Report and A.I.- both based on the same story by Dick. (chortle) Those films took some things from Blade Runner, just as Blade Runner took some stuff from Metropolis, Close Encounters, and (insert name of any 80s thriller involving a saxophone on its soundtrack and girls with big hair).
Fact: This film is slow! Thank you, each of you, who told me this in advance. The best thing I can say about the pacing and the structure is that made the whole world a desert- in this future LA where anyone worthwhile has moved Off World, where these Replicants somehow got back but have to be "retired"/killed asap (even though they have a life span of four years that's almost up), where everything sucks and nothing is pretty and love is dead- in that kind of world, yes, I believe that things would go pretty slowly, and robots could have feelings, and humans could be much like robots. Sure. Unfortunately, the worst thing I can say is that I didn't make me care too much about human robots, or robot humans.
So, with a complete lack of characters to care for, I found myself watching the movie for its aesthetics (like Sofia Coppola's Marie Antoinette!). The production design is just so damn respectable.... The scenes involving gory deaths were satisfying, and I can only hope the inevitable remake will have some amazing improvements in splatter shots. Not too mention a little less stumbling through panes of glass... tell me SNL did something with that at the time....
The opening sequence of Blade Runner- the 2019 vision of Los Angeles- is exactly the picture I feel my family and friends on the east coast have painted in their minds of where I've chosen to live. LA in twelve years will apparently be a cross between Tokyo, Star Wars, and a giant iPod ad. In a world of endless possibilities, that could of course be true, but if this city hasn't crumbled into the Pacific by then, I envision a city with more open spaces, cleaner air, better public transportation, and less homeless on the street. Now THAT'S science fiction!! GET IT?!?! Actually, my only problem with Blade Runner's setting was the complete lack of a Latino community. Don't tell me all those illegal immigrants got safe passage to Off World. Throw a couple of taco stands in the drear of post-space-settlement South Land, and you have yourself a willfully suspended disbelief believer named Carol.
Self-Discovery through Blade Runner:
No matter how hopeless a fight or chase might be, I swear I would never think of climbing out the window to continue it from great heights with precious little footing.
No matter how much I love someone who just died, I swear I would never rub their blood on my lips, even in a blinding spell of grief.
No matter what you might think of me, I often enjoy Daryl Hannah's on screen performances. "We're stupid and we'll die." Easily one of my favorite lines.
My advice: You should watch Blade Runner, even though it's slow, out-dated, and is filled with annoying and inexplicable roaming beams of light.
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
Monday, March 5, 2007
The Baxter
THE BAXTER (2005)
Dir. by Michael Showalter
Starring Michael Showwalter, Elizabeth Banks, Michele Williams
Why did all my friends hate this movie? We all love Stella and The State, yet all I heard were terrible reviews. A certain amount of terrible reviews will ALWAYS provoke me to watch a movie (Brown Bunny, Last Days, etc.) out of self-destructive curiousity. Turns out I really liked The Baxter.
It was very simple. Mr. Showalter has clearly never written and directed a film. But he didn't fail, he just made a simple romantic comedy. I appreciated the fact that it was a TRUE romantic comedy, and not just a romantic movie, the way some recent romantic comedies claim to be funny and are not. The humor was simple too, employing Showalter's classic lines ("...another big word") and usual cast-mates. I never mind a jogging Michael Ian Black, never.
I even forgave the use of the Tiny Detail Wrecks Engagement technique. I can never buy it when couples doubt their wedding plans because of a small fight or action (Meet the Parents, Father of the Bridge, etc.). Here, I just pretended he was making fun of those movies. Which may be true. But probably wasn't. It was probably a lack of plot points. But I can pretend.
My advice: Only expect to like this movie if: 1. you already like Mr. Showalter's previous works and 2. you are in or starting a relationship. If you are single, avoid this movie.
Dir. by Michael Showalter
Starring Michael Showwalter, Elizabeth Banks, Michele Williams
Why did all my friends hate this movie? We all love Stella and The State, yet all I heard were terrible reviews. A certain amount of terrible reviews will ALWAYS provoke me to watch a movie (Brown Bunny, Last Days, etc.) out of self-destructive curiousity. Turns out I really liked The Baxter.
It was very simple. Mr. Showalter has clearly never written and directed a film. But he didn't fail, he just made a simple romantic comedy. I appreciated the fact that it was a TRUE romantic comedy, and not just a romantic movie, the way some recent romantic comedies claim to be funny and are not. The humor was simple too, employing Showalter's classic lines ("...another big word") and usual cast-mates. I never mind a jogging Michael Ian Black, never.
I even forgave the use of the Tiny Detail Wrecks Engagement technique. I can never buy it when couples doubt their wedding plans because of a small fight or action (Meet the Parents, Father of the Bridge, etc.). Here, I just pretended he was making fun of those movies. Which may be true. But probably wasn't. It was probably a lack of plot points. But I can pretend.
My advice: Only expect to like this movie if: 1. you already like Mr. Showalter's previous works and 2. you are in or starting a relationship. If you are single, avoid this movie.
The Birds
THE BIRDS (1963)
Dir. By Alfred Hitchcock
Starring Jessica Tandy, Rod Taylor
I recently saw this classic again at the New Beverly Cinema, a theater experience which I consider to be one of the best ideas anyone has ever had in LA. It was a second home to me when I first moved here: double features of new and old movies for cheap. Amazing. Anyway I saw The Birds, and I have to admit it was out of sheer boredom. I remember seeing it a long time ago and thinking it was alright, but definitely not my favorite Hitchcock.
Boy. Was I wrong. I think this movie is perfect. Start to finish, it is perfect in dialogue, plot, action, and character. If you took away the bird attacks, the film would be this cute little movie about a quirky rich woman and a boring lawyer, with the classic Hitchcock mother element. In fact, for the first thirty minutes or so, that IS the film. Which is just enough distraction to make you KEEP FORGETTING about the BIRD ATTACKS. It's quite amazing. The suddenness of those bird shots made people actually yell out loud in the theater.
Even more incredible was the laughter from the audience. I would love to travel back in time and watch this with a contemporary audience. I think I would be the only one laughing most times. Not that I think that the dialog in The Birds is how people really spoke back then, just as we don't talk like movie characters of this era. People were just used to that bizarre, old-fashioned moviespeak. I wonder if Hitchcock would be pleased at how hilarious this film has become...?
I keep saying The Birds is genius in the same way as Mr. T's "Be Yourself or Be Somebody Else's Fool" PSA series is genius. If a filmmaker tried to remake either, that person would fail. In each case, what we perceive those decades as now is a glorified and stylized distortion. It would be impossible to get someone act in a true 80s fashion, because no one would accept it. Plus, the new technology in film stock, cameras, sound, and editing would make it nearly impossible to compose the same look.
So, essentially I'm saying that I hope no one remakes The Birds, or Mr. T's PSAs, or anything other classic. Fuck remakes.
Dir. By Alfred Hitchcock
Starring Jessica Tandy, Rod Taylor
I recently saw this classic again at the New Beverly Cinema, a theater experience which I consider to be one of the best ideas anyone has ever had in LA. It was a second home to me when I first moved here: double features of new and old movies for cheap. Amazing. Anyway I saw The Birds, and I have to admit it was out of sheer boredom. I remember seeing it a long time ago and thinking it was alright, but definitely not my favorite Hitchcock.
Boy. Was I wrong. I think this movie is perfect. Start to finish, it is perfect in dialogue, plot, action, and character. If you took away the bird attacks, the film would be this cute little movie about a quirky rich woman and a boring lawyer, with the classic Hitchcock mother element. In fact, for the first thirty minutes or so, that IS the film. Which is just enough distraction to make you KEEP FORGETTING about the BIRD ATTACKS. It's quite amazing. The suddenness of those bird shots made people actually yell out loud in the theater.
Even more incredible was the laughter from the audience. I would love to travel back in time and watch this with a contemporary audience. I think I would be the only one laughing most times. Not that I think that the dialog in The Birds is how people really spoke back then, just as we don't talk like movie characters of this era. People were just used to that bizarre, old-fashioned moviespeak. I wonder if Hitchcock would be pleased at how hilarious this film has become...?
I keep saying The Birds is genius in the same way as Mr. T's "Be Yourself or Be Somebody Else's Fool" PSA series is genius. If a filmmaker tried to remake either, that person would fail. In each case, what we perceive those decades as now is a glorified and stylized distortion. It would be impossible to get someone act in a true 80s fashion, because no one would accept it. Plus, the new technology in film stock, cameras, sound, and editing would make it nearly impossible to compose the same look.
So, essentially I'm saying that I hope no one remakes The Birds, or Mr. T's PSAs, or anything other classic. Fuck remakes.
Little Miss Sunshine
LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE - 2005
Directed by Valerie Faris (r.i.p.) and Jonathan Dayton, Written by Michael Arndt, Starring Toni Collette, Steve Carell, Alan Arkin, etc.
Sometimes I don't know why I see movies anymore.
This Afterbirth is going to be about the movie, as well as the article on it by Josh Horowitz in Filmmaker magazine entitled, "Super Freaks". And a little background.
By amazing twists of fate, extreme luck, and great sex, I went to Sundance Film Festival this year. Not with my first feature, no, but with my then-new boyfriend, who works in the Music Industry. I posed as a fluid member of Rufus Wainwright's band and collected tickets to as many movies as I could. My two top choices were The Science of Sleep and Little Miss Sunshine. I ended up seeing Half Nelson, Sherrybaby*, and The Illusionist. (Half Nelson was phenomenal, and I saw it a second time two days ago. Writing an Afterbirth on it would be one big worshipy blow job, so I will leave it at "phenomenal".)
I am so glad I saw Half Nelson instead! Little Miss Sunshine wasn't bad, but it was nothing, and that's worse. I left the theater feeling like I should just stay home and watch Harold and Maude until my eyes bleed, and save my ticket fare.
In my latest issue of Filmmaker, I was saving the review of Little Miss Sunshine for post-viewing. I swerved into a coffee shop and dug in. Now, here is a movie that it's best to be aware of its history. Everything I discovered in this article was so obvious:
1. The script had been put of for years, gone from studio to studio, rewrite after rewrite. Of course it had! This is the kind of movie everyone was trying to make after The Royal Tennebaums. Trying. This movie was trying too hard. For meaning, for humor, but I'll get to that later.
2. The film had multiple endings. When the credits rolled, I blinked. Really? That's it? You want me to swallow that?! Fuck you. Did they just drive off into the sunset? Fuck you. Fuck fuck fuck you.
3. The directors' chief influences were, ironically, Harold and Maude, The Graduate, Five Easy Pieces... Faris said these movies have "the kind of humor that comes out of characters and situations rather than jokes." Oh my god, yes, you're right Valerie, yes. But the situations aren't ladden with AWKWARDNESS in those movies. Those movies are genius, every filmmaker wants to make Harold Maude, that kind of dead pan humor. The scenes in Little Miss Sunshine were manufactured and awkward. And it IS funny, I laughed a whole lot. But it was covering my eyes with embarrassment for these characters, especially the last scene, in the pageant. That scene is retarded, in every sense of the word. This movie will never be like those perfect films that the director claims to imitate. That's just it. Imitation. Fuck! Why do people think that putting wacky fucked up characters in wacky fucked up situation, a great movie makes? Are audiences that easy to manipulate? This movie was as predictable as the directors' obvious desire to be UNpredictable. You put a failed suicide case on screen, and in the end, every thing's okay and HE'S spouting cheery life advice to a teenager. Ohmygod this movie had no balls. This movie was ball-less.
...hhh. okay.
What really bothered me was Toni Collette's character, the only one in the film without crisis, without gain, loss, goals, besides I guess keeping her family together. Greeeeaaaattttt. Just where we want our girls. And this movie is about a little girl in a beauty pageant?! This is fertile fucking ground to say SOMETHING, ANYTHING about gender and sexuality. So I read in this article, and they start talking about characters, how every person in the family is rebelling in one way or another, and I'm thinking oh good they will answer my questions about Sheryl's character... and Faris says: "Even Sheryl, who I wouldn't normally call a rebel, when she's faced with the pageant has to decide, Do I support my daughter regardless of what is going on here?"
I went to Valerie Faris's house and stabbed her in the heart. Then I burned down Michael Arndt's house while he was sleeping.
This is Sheryl's rebellion, her struggle. The other characters face career failure, public defaming, heroin addictions, loss of dreams, I could go on. But Sheryl. Her struggle is the one that everyone in the family also faces. Oh my god. They admitted it right there in print and they deserved what I wish I did to them.
This begs the question: Why does it have to say anything about gender and sexuality? Does every movie have to change your life? Yes. It has to say something more about these subjects because it presents an opinion in the girls of the beauty pageant. In the conversation about body image. And Sheryl is the only adult female actress. I'm not saying she has to be neo-fem, make her pathetic, make her abusive, but make her have a voice of some kind. Please. And every movie should change my life, because I gave up part of it to watch it. Why else are we making movies.
I could have left the theater at peace. But I cannot make excuses for films with shitty crappy shit crap characters. Not Sundance movies, not independent films. No. The performances saved it. If you don't want a lead character, if you truly want an ensemble cast, then make every single character important to me.
And stop trying to be Hal Ashby, it's never gonna happen.
My advice for a pageant movie (call me trendy): Donnie Darko, Drop Dead Gorgeous.
My advice for offbeat humor, you guessed it: Harold and Maude.
*Do not ever see Sherrybaby ever, if you value cinema and your time.
POST SCRIPT...
I wrote this afterbirth a few months before the Oscars. I spent all of February avoiding conversations about this film. Then I would talk about it only by incorporating the word shit cleverly within its title, a barely remarkable task. By the weekend of the Oscars, the bottle of my pent up opinions effectively burst, driving away family, friends, and co-workers who did not share my belief (and none of them did). Come Oscar night, I was thankful for two things:
1. My boyfriend hated the film as well, otherwise that would have been one perfectly good relationship come to close and
2. At least it didn't win fucking Best Picture.
Directed by Valerie Faris (r.i.p.) and Jonathan Dayton, Written by Michael Arndt, Starring Toni Collette, Steve Carell, Alan Arkin, etc.
Sometimes I don't know why I see movies anymore.
This Afterbirth is going to be about the movie, as well as the article on it by Josh Horowitz in Filmmaker magazine entitled, "Super Freaks". And a little background.
By amazing twists of fate, extreme luck, and great sex, I went to Sundance Film Festival this year. Not with my first feature, no, but with my then-new boyfriend, who works in the Music Industry. I posed as a fluid member of Rufus Wainwright's band and collected tickets to as many movies as I could. My two top choices were The Science of Sleep and Little Miss Sunshine. I ended up seeing Half Nelson, Sherrybaby*, and The Illusionist. (Half Nelson was phenomenal, and I saw it a second time two days ago. Writing an Afterbirth on it would be one big worshipy blow job, so I will leave it at "phenomenal".)
I am so glad I saw Half Nelson instead! Little Miss Sunshine wasn't bad, but it was nothing, and that's worse. I left the theater feeling like I should just stay home and watch Harold and Maude until my eyes bleed, and save my ticket fare.
In my latest issue of Filmmaker, I was saving the review of Little Miss Sunshine for post-viewing. I swerved into a coffee shop and dug in. Now, here is a movie that it's best to be aware of its history. Everything I discovered in this article was so obvious:
1. The script had been put of for years, gone from studio to studio, rewrite after rewrite. Of course it had! This is the kind of movie everyone was trying to make after The Royal Tennebaums. Trying. This movie was trying too hard. For meaning, for humor, but I'll get to that later.
2. The film had multiple endings. When the credits rolled, I blinked. Really? That's it? You want me to swallow that?! Fuck you. Did they just drive off into the sunset? Fuck you. Fuck fuck fuck you.
3. The directors' chief influences were, ironically, Harold and Maude, The Graduate, Five Easy Pieces... Faris said these movies have "the kind of humor that comes out of characters and situations rather than jokes." Oh my god, yes, you're right Valerie, yes. But the situations aren't ladden with AWKWARDNESS in those movies. Those movies are genius, every filmmaker wants to make Harold Maude, that kind of dead pan humor. The scenes in Little Miss Sunshine were manufactured and awkward. And it IS funny, I laughed a whole lot. But it was covering my eyes with embarrassment for these characters, especially the last scene, in the pageant. That scene is retarded, in every sense of the word. This movie will never be like those perfect films that the director claims to imitate. That's just it. Imitation. Fuck! Why do people think that putting wacky fucked up characters in wacky fucked up situation, a great movie makes? Are audiences that easy to manipulate? This movie was as predictable as the directors' obvious desire to be UNpredictable. You put a failed suicide case on screen, and in the end, every thing's okay and HE'S spouting cheery life advice to a teenager. Ohmygod this movie had no balls. This movie was ball-less.
...hhh. okay.
What really bothered me was Toni Collette's character, the only one in the film without crisis, without gain, loss, goals, besides I guess keeping her family together. Greeeeaaaattttt. Just where we want our girls. And this movie is about a little girl in a beauty pageant?! This is fertile fucking ground to say SOMETHING, ANYTHING about gender and sexuality. So I read in this article, and they start talking about characters, how every person in the family is rebelling in one way or another, and I'm thinking oh good they will answer my questions about Sheryl's character... and Faris says: "Even Sheryl, who I wouldn't normally call a rebel, when she's faced with the pageant has to decide, Do I support my daughter regardless of what is going on here?"
I went to Valerie Faris's house and stabbed her in the heart. Then I burned down Michael Arndt's house while he was sleeping.
This is Sheryl's rebellion, her struggle. The other characters face career failure, public defaming, heroin addictions, loss of dreams, I could go on. But Sheryl. Her struggle is the one that everyone in the family also faces. Oh my god. They admitted it right there in print and they deserved what I wish I did to them.
This begs the question: Why does it have to say anything about gender and sexuality? Does every movie have to change your life? Yes. It has to say something more about these subjects because it presents an opinion in the girls of the beauty pageant. In the conversation about body image. And Sheryl is the only adult female actress. I'm not saying she has to be neo-fem, make her pathetic, make her abusive, but make her have a voice of some kind. Please. And every movie should change my life, because I gave up part of it to watch it. Why else are we making movies.
I could have left the theater at peace. But I cannot make excuses for films with shitty crappy shit crap characters. Not Sundance movies, not independent films. No. The performances saved it. If you don't want a lead character, if you truly want an ensemble cast, then make every single character important to me.
And stop trying to be Hal Ashby, it's never gonna happen.
My advice for a pageant movie (call me trendy): Donnie Darko, Drop Dead Gorgeous.
My advice for offbeat humor, you guessed it: Harold and Maude.
*Do not ever see Sherrybaby ever, if you value cinema and your time.
POST SCRIPT...
I wrote this afterbirth a few months before the Oscars. I spent all of February avoiding conversations about this film. Then I would talk about it only by incorporating the word shit cleverly within its title, a barely remarkable task. By the weekend of the Oscars, the bottle of my pent up opinions effectively burst, driving away family, friends, and co-workers who did not share my belief (and none of them did). Come Oscar night, I was thankful for two things:
1. My boyfriend hated the film as well, otherwise that would have been one perfectly good relationship come to close and
2. At least it didn't win fucking Best Picture.
Dave Chapelle's Block Party (Unrated)
DAVE CHAPELLE'S BLOCK PARTY (UNRATED) - 2005
Directed by Michel Gondry, Starring Dave Chapelle.
Black people are cooler than everyone, and everyone knows this. During this film, the only white person you will aspire to be is Michel Gondry, but that's normal for me. Or, okay, maybe it will just inspire to buy a Dead Prez album.
This is a surprising little documentary. It traces the creation and events of a block party that comedian Dave Chapelle held in Brooklyn. If you are unfamiliar with his work, or the work of musicians who perform, this is a great introduction. If the music alone doesn't stir your soul, then the Wonka-esque wish-giving certainly will. Finally, a millionaire doing something randomly fun AND provoking with those millions.
All the beauty in the filming, all quirky characters Chapelle encounters, and even Chapelle in his unconditional hilarity, truly take a back seat to the performances.
My advice: Listen.
Directed by Michel Gondry, Starring Dave Chapelle.
Black people are cooler than everyone, and everyone knows this. During this film, the only white person you will aspire to be is Michel Gondry, but that's normal for me. Or, okay, maybe it will just inspire to buy a Dead Prez album.
This is a surprising little documentary. It traces the creation and events of a block party that comedian Dave Chapelle held in Brooklyn. If you are unfamiliar with his work, or the work of musicians who perform, this is a great introduction. If the music alone doesn't stir your soul, then the Wonka-esque wish-giving certainly will. Finally, a millionaire doing something randomly fun AND provoking with those millions.
All the beauty in the filming, all quirky characters Chapelle encounters, and even Chapelle in his unconditional hilarity, truly take a back seat to the performances.
My advice: Listen.
Schizopolis
SCHIZOPOLIS - 1996
Written and Directed by Steven Soderbergh, Starring Steven Soderbergh.
How had I never heard of this film before? Why didn't I watch it every other day after high school?
A paranoid office worker finds his own life paralleled by an ordinary dentist, with whom his wife happens to have an affair. The plot unfolds around a popular new philosophy, Eventualism, and its conceiver. That doesn't sound half as circular and twisted as it is, but that's because I left out a lot. I don't want to ruin anything... Like the exterminator that uses the free word association of Eventualism to fuck housewives. See?
This masturbatory creation from Soderbergh is definitely for people who enjoy wacky movies, and movies in general. You have to want to see new narratives, let go your linear desires, and USE your own imagination during the viewing. Soderbergh achieved something mysterious too. Sometimes there are scenes in movies that are unbearably annoying. And then I think, Oh, the director WANTS me to feel annoyed, oh. Right away I usually think, But I am seriously annoyed, and I despise this stupid director and this movie. So, in Schizopolis, you feel annoyed, yet you forgive Soderbergh and the film. That is a really difficult thing to do. Then again, I love movies, and this movie was made for me. Schizopolis is not for the typical movie-goer. You must think to get the jokes.
I thought it was brilliant- hilarious, a great metaphor for this week's new philosophy, clever, and actually very well acted. The end of the second act dragged its feet, but it was worth it in the end. I will probably have to see it again, and again, as Soderbergh initially suggests. I wish more of his films were this true, this dedicated. Full Frontal was one of the worst dog shit films ever made and I can't believe I stayed in the theater. You have redeemed yourself, Mr. Soderbergh!! I will add this to my list of Movies I Tell People to See. And he's right, it IS your own fault if you don't get it, look alive!
Written and Directed by Steven Soderbergh, Starring Steven Soderbergh.
How had I never heard of this film before? Why didn't I watch it every other day after high school?
A paranoid office worker finds his own life paralleled by an ordinary dentist, with whom his wife happens to have an affair. The plot unfolds around a popular new philosophy, Eventualism, and its conceiver. That doesn't sound half as circular and twisted as it is, but that's because I left out a lot. I don't want to ruin anything... Like the exterminator that uses the free word association of Eventualism to fuck housewives. See?
This masturbatory creation from Soderbergh is definitely for people who enjoy wacky movies, and movies in general. You have to want to see new narratives, let go your linear desires, and USE your own imagination during the viewing. Soderbergh achieved something mysterious too. Sometimes there are scenes in movies that are unbearably annoying. And then I think, Oh, the director WANTS me to feel annoyed, oh. Right away I usually think, But I am seriously annoyed, and I despise this stupid director and this movie. So, in Schizopolis, you feel annoyed, yet you forgive Soderbergh and the film. That is a really difficult thing to do. Then again, I love movies, and this movie was made for me. Schizopolis is not for the typical movie-goer. You must think to get the jokes.
I thought it was brilliant- hilarious, a great metaphor for this week's new philosophy, clever, and actually very well acted. The end of the second act dragged its feet, but it was worth it in the end. I will probably have to see it again, and again, as Soderbergh initially suggests. I wish more of his films were this true, this dedicated. Full Frontal was one of the worst dog shit films ever made and I can't believe I stayed in the theater. You have redeemed yourself, Mr. Soderbergh!! I will add this to my list of Movies I Tell People to See. And he's right, it IS your own fault if you don't get it, look alive!
Seven Beauties
SEVEN BEAUTIES - 1975
Directed by Lina Wertmuller, Starring Giancarlo Giannini.
I have prescribed myself some Italian cinema lately, and this film is worth a write up. I rented it because Wertmuller was one of but TWO female directors prominent in Italian cinema at the time. After viewing Seven Beauties, I think you'll agree, it's true what they say: everything has been done before, possibly better, in the films of the 1970s. Ugh to be a filmmaker then, Lina, you lucky bastard!
I have this very forgiving love for watching movies without any warning to their subject matter. Sometimes this leads to watching Conversations with Other Women, sometimes it leads to remarkable gems. But oddly enough, I often fall into this Holocaust trap. With books as well, I will have no idea I'm in for concentration camps and torture, but there I am! Right at the heart of a time history I feel very strongly about (ohh I am so deep can you stand it?). Seven Beauties was such an event.
The first five minutes of the movie are an amusing foundation. Right away you know you're in for ghastly subject matter and laughter that should make you ashamed, but never does. A Holocaust prisoner trying to win his freedom by seducing a fat fuck Nazi... what do you do with that situation? Do you laugh or weep? I ended up doing both. And there are many similar scenes throughout, all linking together to form this staggering portrait of war, a terrible man, and brutal sexuality, where you find humanity at every turn. Does that sound like a film review vomit burp? It's really how I felt: like there was a prevailing human element in these inhuman actions. Every time a Holocaust movie jumps me in a back alley, I'm left with this inevitably romanticized version of dying, be it of spirit or body. But Seven Beauties was life in death, like humanity in the utterly obscene. Which is funny. Which is mortifying. Which is why movies are made.
My advice: Fuck Life is Beautiful. It was done before, better.
Directed by Lina Wertmuller, Starring Giancarlo Giannini.
I have prescribed myself some Italian cinema lately, and this film is worth a write up. I rented it because Wertmuller was one of but TWO female directors prominent in Italian cinema at the time. After viewing Seven Beauties, I think you'll agree, it's true what they say: everything has been done before, possibly better, in the films of the 1970s. Ugh to be a filmmaker then, Lina, you lucky bastard!
I have this very forgiving love for watching movies without any warning to their subject matter. Sometimes this leads to watching Conversations with Other Women, sometimes it leads to remarkable gems. But oddly enough, I often fall into this Holocaust trap. With books as well, I will have no idea I'm in for concentration camps and torture, but there I am! Right at the heart of a time history I feel very strongly about (ohh I am so deep can you stand it?). Seven Beauties was such an event.
The first five minutes of the movie are an amusing foundation. Right away you know you're in for ghastly subject matter and laughter that should make you ashamed, but never does. A Holocaust prisoner trying to win his freedom by seducing a fat fuck Nazi... what do you do with that situation? Do you laugh or weep? I ended up doing both. And there are many similar scenes throughout, all linking together to form this staggering portrait of war, a terrible man, and brutal sexuality, where you find humanity at every turn. Does that sound like a film review vomit burp? It's really how I felt: like there was a prevailing human element in these inhuman actions. Every time a Holocaust movie jumps me in a back alley, I'm left with this inevitably romanticized version of dying, be it of spirit or body. But Seven Beauties was life in death, like humanity in the utterly obscene. Which is funny. Which is mortifying. Which is why movies are made.
My advice: Fuck Life is Beautiful. It was done before, better.
Factotum
FACTOTUM - 2005
Directed by Bent Hamer, Starring Matt Dillon and Lili Taylor.
Holy crap! I just saw this gem last night, for two reasons: I know the Production Designer and I recently read Bukowski's Ham on Rye. Right out of the gate, Dillon is a great Bukowski. Just gross and haggard enough to portray an alcoholic dead beat asshole writer with potential. And his voice, frequently narrating and quoting text, was a wonderful raspy addition to the grit of the film. Lili Taylor, doomed to being perfect in secondary roles in tiny movies, was a of course perfect casting choice. And that's damn important in a film like this.
Noticeably great sound design!
The reason I found this movie to be of worth was that I did not know what the word factotum meant before seeing the first five minutes of the movie. It means having many jobs. And so this is relevant to me and my many job-ed lifestyle, and so I'm thinking the whole time: Good thing I'm not an alcoholic yet, Good thing I have a place to live, Gotta keep writing...
My advice: See it if you like Bukowski and slow movies. Factotum won't change your life, or... maybe it will. Maybe you'll be stabbed while watching it or meet your soul mate in the theater, how the fuck can I say?
Please note: I am the only person, it seems, with anything good to say about this film. That happens sometimes.
Directed by Bent Hamer, Starring Matt Dillon and Lili Taylor.
Holy crap! I just saw this gem last night, for two reasons: I know the Production Designer and I recently read Bukowski's Ham on Rye. Right out of the gate, Dillon is a great Bukowski. Just gross and haggard enough to portray an alcoholic dead beat asshole writer with potential. And his voice, frequently narrating and quoting text, was a wonderful raspy addition to the grit of the film. Lili Taylor, doomed to being perfect in secondary roles in tiny movies, was a of course perfect casting choice. And that's damn important in a film like this.
Noticeably great sound design!
The reason I found this movie to be of worth was that I did not know what the word factotum meant before seeing the first five minutes of the movie. It means having many jobs. And so this is relevant to me and my many job-ed lifestyle, and so I'm thinking the whole time: Good thing I'm not an alcoholic yet, Good thing I have a place to live, Gotta keep writing...
My advice: See it if you like Bukowski and slow movies. Factotum won't change your life, or... maybe it will. Maybe you'll be stabbed while watching it or meet your soul mate in the theater, how the fuck can I say?
Please note: I am the only person, it seems, with anything good to say about this film. That happens sometimes.
Conversations with Other Women
CONVERSATIONS WITH OTHER WOMEN - 2005
Directed by Hans Canosa, Starring Helena Bonham Carter and Aaron Eckhart.
Someone I recently met told me I would love this movie. I take these comments seriously and I don't know why. Even people I know for years don't know what movies I'll like, let alone this dude I knew for all of a week. Regardless, apparently, I went to go see Conversations with Other Women with my movie date friend, along with another friend I hadn't seen in a year. Laying my credibility on the line, all for an off-hand remark.
It may be obvious at this point that I didn't LOVE the movie. It wasn't terrible, but certain things about this movie are ingredients for cinematic failure. Now I shall list them. 1. Split screen. Ok, I get it, this was the Whole Point, right? That was the magic of the concept? Mmmhmm. I disagree. Split screen is spectacle. It's hard enough to suspend your belief for an on-screen attempt at reality that mimics your singular-perspective vision. It's downright impossible to attach yourself to a story if you don't know where to look. Just watch Timecode. No nonono don't watch it. Sorry. Just think about it if you've already had the error in judgement. 2. Flashback. Note: not all flashbacks are movie poison. But these were: younger versions of the two characters acting out the dramas their present selves discuss. Canosa, I have an imagination. Thanks for the help, but the flashbacks were annoying speed bumps. 3. The Trick. It was no M. Night Wacky Carpet Yanker, but slowly, over the last half of the movie, you realize that you were being led astray the WHOLE TIME. I thought it would have been much more interesting/less frustrating if instead of leading up to this one truth, that all of the situations could have been true. That she was a stranger, a one night stand, a lover, a wife, etc. Alas. I just don't like being psyched out, when there were no clues to the truth. 4. Adjacent title. Booo. Or... maybe I missed something?
My Advice: Watch Before Sunrise instead. Better dualing script, a plot with depth, one screen... If nothing else, Julie Delpy's hair won't be a third character cough cough like Carter's cough cough...
Directed by Hans Canosa, Starring Helena Bonham Carter and Aaron Eckhart.
Someone I recently met told me I would love this movie. I take these comments seriously and I don't know why. Even people I know for years don't know what movies I'll like, let alone this dude I knew for all of a week. Regardless, apparently, I went to go see Conversations with Other Women with my movie date friend, along with another friend I hadn't seen in a year. Laying my credibility on the line, all for an off-hand remark.
It may be obvious at this point that I didn't LOVE the movie. It wasn't terrible, but certain things about this movie are ingredients for cinematic failure. Now I shall list them. 1. Split screen. Ok, I get it, this was the Whole Point, right? That was the magic of the concept? Mmmhmm. I disagree. Split screen is spectacle. It's hard enough to suspend your belief for an on-screen attempt at reality that mimics your singular-perspective vision. It's downright impossible to attach yourself to a story if you don't know where to look. Just watch Timecode. No nonono don't watch it. Sorry. Just think about it if you've already had the error in judgement. 2. Flashback. Note: not all flashbacks are movie poison. But these were: younger versions of the two characters acting out the dramas their present selves discuss. Canosa, I have an imagination. Thanks for the help, but the flashbacks were annoying speed bumps. 3. The Trick. It was no M. Night Wacky Carpet Yanker, but slowly, over the last half of the movie, you realize that you were being led astray the WHOLE TIME. I thought it would have been much more interesting/less frustrating if instead of leading up to this one truth, that all of the situations could have been true. That she was a stranger, a one night stand, a lover, a wife, etc. Alas. I just don't like being psyched out, when there were no clues to the truth. 4. Adjacent title. Booo. Or... maybe I missed something?
My Advice: Watch Before Sunrise instead. Better dualing script, a plot with depth, one screen... If nothing else, Julie Delpy's hair won't be a third character cough cough like Carter's cough cough...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)