stormandstress

curious

2012-02-12T16:29:00.001-08:00

I just did a tour with a band that kind blows my mind and I could totally see you guys going bonkers for them. They are called Porches. I think they would find your favor, John included.

http://porchesmusic.bandcamp.com/album/summer-of-ten

Check em out pretty please.

back from tour

2012-02-12T12:43:00.001-08:00

Hey guys I'm stoked to be sitting on my couch in clean clothes post shower writing on my shitty blog. I missed you. Though tour severely restricts my ability to watch films I was surprised to find myself getting into a nice little dust up with mustache McGee and his little henchman. Actually, after the dust settled we all found that it was little more than a misunderstanding and kissed and made out. But it was fun all the same. BLOW UP remains a film of great respect for me even if I don't quite know why.

John, I love what you wrote about NARROW MARGIN. I think I severely underrated that film when making my 1952 list. It's a masterpiece and like you I share a love for all things choo choo. I think that it's a pure cinematic device to constrain action to a narrow vessel. There is something almost romantic about it. Something that screams I'm getting the hell out of my mundane life and going where the wind takes me. This is definitely an essential.

Like I said before seeing films on tour is pretty much impossible. We are constantly moving and the prospect of a film is almost counterproductive. I'm in a town that I don't ever go to, watching movies is very unappealing in that light. But I have always felt that being a musician has always been a war waged inside of me. Part of me loves the privacy and peace I get at home. The other part loves the unpredictability of art. Either way it's great to be back.

fight starter

2012-02-08T09:55:00.000-08:00

Hey there. Just wanted to point out that I wasn't in anyway trying to provoke a fight by writing "I would gladly go at this film because I'm interested to hear a defense from its fans. I get a feeling that it'll be a lot of mood and atmosphere vibes." What I was trying to say is that this is the type of movie that is probably heavily dependent on viewer engagement and interest. For instance, if I listen or watch something of BLOW UP's nature I usually find that my enjoyment is based on mood and atmosphere be it drug use or just being calm enough to be willing to have patience with it. So basically I got exactly what I desired from Jeff by accidentally "setting him off." I certainly wasn't implying that one couldn't validate their feelings for a film outside of shallow enjoyment. I don't consider mood or atmosphere shallow so eat that.

I wouldn't dream of arguing that the film lacks intelligence. I think that I'm almost intimidated by this overwhelming aspect.

Also I wasn't saying he was wrong about liking it but that I felt that Chris shouldn't feel the need to justify something's validation simply on the merit of a open ending. I wasn't attacking Chris, I like the dude too much. Just encouraging him to not be intimidated at the prospect of hating a film as respected as BLOW UP. Of course he's allowed to give points for admitting to liking the ending of this picture but he shouldn't feel pushed into it by Jeff Banner. Haha. Just kidding. wink wink wink.

Obviously neither of you are stupid enough to worry about an actor's questionable political leanings. But at the same time I get the vibe that a lot of members of Film Club are ultra aware of these things. Am I wrong in assuming this? If we are going to make that a factor here let's give everyone a fair witch hunt. I think you'd be astonished at how many dudes held bizarre beliefs.

Actually I didn't grow up on Bunuel and the first thing I heard about him is that he denounced Dali for coming out of the closet. One time I killed a frog in cold blood. Don't buy the new Summer People record.

Chris. I hope you don't feel that I'm attacking you in any way here. Your nasty wasty brother seems to think so. Next time we hang out I'm going to challenge you both to a mud wrestling match. I'll lose but it'll be my pleasure. Wink.

angry jeff

2012-02-07T07:51:00.001-08:00

My butt hurts. Jeff used his belt this time and I'm having trouble sitting.

I never said the film was worthless nor did I make any actual comments about the ending. I was responding to Chris' words about how the ambiguity of the ending somehow justified what HE considered to be a bad film. I was arguing that the mere open ended nature shouldn't somehow legitimizes what came before. The comments about the colors and the scene with the Yardbirds was my simple way of letting all of you know that I don't find the film completely worthless. It's a beautiful looking picture but one that didn't really work for me. Your accusations of me not giving it a fair shake are quite assuming. Your cinematic experience seems rich and meaningful and I envy that but I simply didn't have the same groundbreaking realization about this film's character. I'll definitely check it out again soon and elaborate.

Chris, I'm glad you are getting down with the Duke. I actually don't know much about his political stances nor do I care. His work stands on its own. I don't think someone's personal life should have much weight on the impact of their work. Wasn't Bunuel a homophobe?

Miss you guys. Fuck you Jeff. ;)

how about that ending?

2012-02-05T07:40:00.000-08:00

BLOW UP gets points because of its open ending? No way. It could get points for it's use of color and that great scene with the Yardbirds but let's not give it points because it chooses to leave us in the dark. I would gladly go at this film because I'm interested to hear a defense from its fans. I get a feeling that it'll be a lot of mood and atmosphere vibes. Let's get that conversation going.

Outside of his political beliefs why the John Wayne beef? Martin Scorsese said something great about him and I'll try to do it justice. He said that even though Wayne had virtually no range how many actors have created a character worth revisiting this many times? Chris your dislike for Wayne as an actor and a man who chooses his material is unjustified. Trust me.

Speaking of great endings how about DON'T LOOK NOW?

Tour is going great guys. The lost weekend is turning into a lost week.

1960: the year in film

2012-02-02T16:17:00.000-08:00

Already in 1960 you can sense a shift happening in the world of cinema. It makes sense considering the year that came before. 1959 gave us four landmarks from France (Eyes Without a Face, The 400 Blows, Pickpocket, and Breathless), one stunning debut from the newborn American independent scene (Shadows), and a good amount of weathered American auteurs making some of their most notable films (North by Northwest, Rio Bravo, Some Like It Hot, Ride Lonesome, Imitation of Life). The American movie landscape is changing at this point as the Hayes Code is being challenged (Anatomy of a Murder) with subject matter that was once swept under the carpet. Not all of these new freedoms led to good change as we saw less from some of the greats making way for the next generation. That generation existed largely outside of the studio system of old and found themselves less inclined to worry about the name on the marque. What was clear is that audiences were craving a fire built beneath their ass whether through racy theme or the new realism that was making its way into the zeitgeist. While I mourn the passing of the old I found plenty to celebrate in the dawning of the new. Here are the ten films that got me the most excited and if you have time check out the three amazing films that barely missed the list as well as the honorable mentions, all of which could probably make my list in 1968 and 1969 not to mention top my 2003 or 2010 list without any trouble.

10. The Bad Sleep Well (Akira Kurosawa)
I’ll admit straight up that I vastly prefer Akira Kurosawa’s more humorous material. He has a way with that sort of thing, perhaps due to his love of all things John Ford. Making a film with “social significance” can be a dangerous thing. Often times the good intentions get in the way of storytelling which defeats the whole purpose of making the film in the first place. But great directors have a way of rising above the same pitfalls that trip up their minions. This film is not unlike many of the corporate thrillers we see in this day and age (especially during the Bush years with Michael Clayton, Syrianna, and The Constant Gardener to name a few). Where it stands apart and where I feel it maintains preeminence in this tricky genre is in the revenge angle that adds a dimension to natural convoluted nature of these movies. Mifune’s vengeful son is undone by love, a disparaging conclusion only slightly remedied by the final encounter with the rich enemy alone in his office bastardized by his heirs.

9. The Magnificent Seven (John Sturges)
Speaking of Akira Kurosawa…. John Sturges’ remake of THE SEVEN SAMURAI impressed the Japanese legend so much that he sent him a ceremonial sword as a gift. I would consider that bragging rights. Sturges was a great craftsman and even though this is far from his best it proves how important and valuable this can be in light of the circumstance. As westerns evolved into what some considered heterodoxy we saw the once virtuous gunman become the mercenary. I couldn’t tell you when exactly this got started, perhaps with Robert Aldrich’s brilliant VERA CRUZ, but as the 60s trudged along we saw less and less Shane and more and more Wild Bunch. This movie is caught somewhere in between as the title characters work for hire while also maintaining their heroic nature. This is having your cake and eating it too but it works so damn well. In both films we have a group of warriors defending the vulnerable and teaching them to become enabled through violence. These guys deal in lead my friend.

8. Les bonnes femmes (Claude Chabrol)
This was my grand introduction to Claude Chabrol, a film that slowly evolves before your eyes at least three times. What starts out as a new wave version of Cukor’s THE WOMEN morphs into a love story only to become something much more disturbing. First we follow two of the women as they get picked up by a pair of pervs cruising around town prowling. In many ways this movie is about the often predatory nature of men and the way it ultimately destroys the women they come in contact with. Just when we think we've met a chivalrous dude he becomes something far more sinister. One of the best things about these Cashier alum is their way of showing us the town they know so well. We go deep into the underbelly of Paris with these girls as the film seems almost split into chapters building up to the sad and heartrending story of Jacqueline who finds love only to lose it in the worst way possible.

7. The Apartment (Billy Wilder)
This film has a great premise and sees it through. Jack Lemmon plays a sad sap insurance clerk who lends out his apartment to his philandering superiors in hopes to climb the social ladder. This is slimy and I can see some members of film club being turned off by this character enough to not care about the film altogether. So be it. I admit to laughing at this adulterous madhouse, a similar creep fest to the Chabrol film. Our used and abused protagonist doesn't expect to fall in love with one of the flies caught in web but thus is life. Hype seems to be the most damning aspect of this popular film. For me it ranks well below at least six of the director’s other features but that’s no reason to get all pissy about it. This is a great comedy and Billy Wilder has proven himself (to me) to be one of the greatest writer/directors ever. I officially disagree with his detractors.

6. Comanche Station (Budd Boetticher)
The final collaboration between Randolph Scott and Budd Boetticher doesn’t disappoint. The themes are similar, the riders just as lonesome, and the Technicolor popping more than it ever did. What came before in this legendary duo’s output was an examination of principle and valor when faced with the temptations of money, sex, and survival. The protagonist is almost always forced to break from his comfortable solitude to rescue and then ride with men who have fallen to the vices of hunger be it the literal or figurative kind. Each set piece seems to accurately convey the inner struggle be it a deceptively serene riverbed or a rocky contour. Lone Pine proved a great shooting location as it offered the crew every type of topography needed to keep this film visually fetching. In the end there is a sense of tragedy to it all as our fair hero is once again unable to convert his enemies to his moral way of life. It’s settled by a bullet and once again our stoic Randolph Scott saves the day only to ride out into the sunset one last time alone.

5. The Young One (Luis Bunuel)
I wasn’t expecting to be able to see this before making my list. Needless to say I’m very thankful to have found it. It brought to mind two of Jean Renoir’s American films THE SOUTHERNER and SWAMP WATER. We open with a woman repeatedly crying “rape!” as an African American man eludes a lynch mob all the way to a game preserve island off the Carolina coast. Here he encounters a racist/pedophile beekeeper and his recently deceased partner’s 12 year old granddaughter. Bunuel never shied away from taboo and he doesn’t lighten his material at all here and yet despite his rascally temperament he has made something completely moral and even moving. The two men vying for this young and innocent girl (though the fugitive resists his sexual desires to ensure her safety) end up somewhere completely unexpected. This is something that the imps of today don’t seem to understand, that personal complexity and creative unpredictability are essential when shaking the cage. This film shows that we are not necessarily bound to our nature nor are we doomed by our past actions and sentiments. The same men and women we prey upon might just find themselves surprised by our mercy and grace. This might be Bunuel’s bravest work.

href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-7c4t7TOAaug/TysogQ_tHGI/AAAAAAAABRk/AwzFg1hIaQE/s1600/ppeeping-tom-1960.jpg">

4. Peeping Tom (Michael Powell)
This is a picture so effective that it pretty much ended the career of one of England’s most loved and respected directors. The title character suffers from scoptophilia which is apparently the morbid desire to gaze. From this a homicidal hobby is birthed as he films women being murdered by a hidden blade in his tripod. Reading about the inception of this idea you can almost sense an acceptance of the eventual controversy in the way Powell stared off into the distance seemingly running through the consequences in his head before deliberating with “that’s mine, go and write it.” Selfishly I’m glad he had the balls to make this happen as I feel that this is easily one of the greatest horror films of all time. Audiences weren’t ready for this one and I can understand why but it’s a damn shame that this wasn’t welcomed with the same enthusiasm as my number 3 pick. Apparently British audiences were going gaga for the verite social realism stuff that was beginning to popularize in Europe. They didn’t have the capacity to understand and accept a visually dazzling psychosexual POV slasher film. Rescued by none other than Martin Scorsese (whose longtime friend and editor was married to Powell) this has thankfully been restored to legend where it fucking belongs.

3. Psycho (Alfred Hitchcock)
Alfred Hitchcock’s most recognizable film is also his most terrifying. Psycho introduced movie audiences to one of the most unflinching portraits of a serial killer. Anthony Perkin’s performance as Norman Bates is intensely creepy given his mild-mannered, soft-spoken persona. His accommodating nature instills a false sense of security in both Marion Crane and the audience. But what’s lurking behind the shower curtain is a monster who catches us at our most vulnerable point.
A superlative showcase of Hitchcock’s work, Psycho demonstrates how meticulous and influential he was as a director. We can talk about what it did for the horror genre, but we mustn’t shortchange what it did for film in general. To talk about certain scenes in Psycho is to evoke legend. Similarly, Bernard Herrmann’s haunting score is cued in our minds whenever we think of the film. It’s a score that matches the sadistic tone of the film and always seems to send chills down my spine.
And despite its popularity and iconic, cultural stature, Psycho remains one of Hitchcock’s most entertaining films. It’s an unabashed composite of trash and artistry that proves to be both nightmarish and creatively sublime. – Chris Howard

2. The Virgin Spring (Ingmar Bergman)
Ingmar Bergman’s THE VIRGIN SPRING could almost be a fairy tale before something so unspeakably brutal happens and the film is turned completely on its head. A young beautiful virgin named Karin must deliver candles to a nearby church, but to do so must traverse a dark and almost mystical forest. Along the way, she encounters three indigent herdsmen and offers to share her food and drink with them. While dining with them she tells them in jest that she is a princess from something of an enchanted castle. One of the herdsmen even seems to play along as a Big Bad Wolf character, complimenting aspects of her body. But we immediately realize that this is no game to the herdsmen, and that the fairy tale is really a nightmare–a sickening transportation from fantasy to the hideous reality underneath, from the lyrical and pastoral to the vile and depraved. Once the unthinkable happens, the film becomes perhaps Bergman’s greatest crisis of faith and moral reasoning, a test for Karin’s devout father and a test for our desires as an audience. To me, the film features two of Bergman’s most evocative and profound images of spiritual unrest; whenever THE VIRGIN SPRING is mentioned, I instantly picture Karin’s father (Max von Sydow) wrestling a small birch tree to the ground before carrying out his vengeance and him later crying out to God in anguish with his back turned to the camera, a gesture that explicitly refuses spectacle. Both images represent everything I love about Bergman as a film artist of incredible emotional depth, visual richness, and spiritual/intellectual/moral complexity and profundity, just as THE VIRGIN SPRING represents everything I love about film as a medium that can simultaneously enrich and challenge you to the very crux of your soul. Bergman’s masterpiece may be the greatest film about the crisis of vengeance ever made. –Jeff Howard

1. Shoot the Piano Player (Francois Truffaut)
Looking at the films that came before it’s hard to argue that anything surpasses anything past the number five spot. Indeed all of these films mark a high point not only for the respective genres they adorned but also cinema itself. So why put this one above all of the rest? To be honest I’m not really that sure. It doesn’t have the bizarre guileful humanism of THE YOUNG ONE, the lush multifarious psychological dimensions of PEEPING TOM, the impeccable craft and unmatched moral reckoning of PSYCHO, nor the soul shattering and reviving impact of THE VIRGIN SPRING. What it DOES possess is perhaps a little of it all in one of cinema’s greatest homages from a director who claims to have been saved by its power. I wrote more about the man and this film here: http://www.poopnoises.blogspot.com/2010/02/truffaut-and-hitchcock-roundup.html. In the meantime I obviously suggest that you all get out and see this one if you haven’t already done so.

Here is my official list along with some other categories to mix it up a bit:

The best, meaning my favorite films, of 1960:
1. Shoot the Piano Player (Francois Truffaut)
2. Psycho (Alfred Hitchcock)
3. The Virgin Spring (Igmar Bergman)
4. The Young One (Luis Bunuel)
5. Peeping Tom (Michael Powell)
6. The Magnificent Seven (John Sturges)
7. The Apartment (Billy Wilder)
8. Les Bonnes Femmes (Claude Chabrol)
9. The Bad Sleep Well (Akira Kurosawa)
10. Comanche Station (Budd Boetticher)
11. North to Alaska (Henry Hathaway)
12. Black Sunday (Mario Bava)
13. Spartacus (Stanley Kubrick)

Honorable Mentions: Two Women (Vittoria De Sicca), The Bellboy (Jerry Lewis), Swiss Family Robinson (Ken Annakin), When a Woman Ascends the Stairs (Mikio Naruse),

Let’s try again sometime: La Dolce Vita, Ocean’s Eleven, Elmer Gantry, The Sundowners, House of Usher, Lavventura.

No Thanks: The Alamo (sorry dad). Impressive scope but hackneyed. I like it’s attitude and I respect the vision here I just didn’t come away with any feeling other than it’s finally over.

One night stand: The Time Machine, Village of the Damned. One sloppy but earnest the other just doesn’t appeal to me outside of one viewing. It’s got great atmosphere but I’m perhaps too familiar with it to truly appreciate it at this point in the game.

Am I missing something? The critics don’t seem to love Henry Hathaway’s NORTH TO ALASKA but I find it so smooth and joyful. It’s got a nice sense of community. I think people perhaps file this under flippant but that’s precisely why I love it so much. I’m not a fan of the theory that all film must possess some “serious” aspect in order to both exist and be relevant.

I’m going to go ahead and make recommendation based on what I think I know about each of you as movie goers. You each get one film. Lisa gets THE APARTMENT(whip smart romantic comedy), Ben gets The Virgin Spring (a second shot at Bergman perhaps), Jason gets PEEPING TOM (horror freak), Adrienne gets BLACK SUNDAY (I sense a horror fan here), Chris gets Shoot the Piano Player (because he is doomed to a violent death via the mob), Jeff gets THE YOUNG ONE (his creepy fascination with young girls), and John gets COMANCHE STATION (the Randolph Scott boner).

Last and most shamefully…..

Wanted to see but either was too lazy, too stupid, or too unimaginative (meaning I couldn’t find it anywhere): The Savage Innocents, The Cruel Story of Youth, The Grass is Greener, Bells Are Ringing, 13 Ghosts, Devi, The Cloud Capped Star, Saturday Night Sunday Morning, The False Student, The 1,000 Eyes of Dr. Mabuse, Wild River, and Zazie dans le metro.  Sadly sometimes I let my list be once I get ten solid selections. This is how I feel about my list. Not a single throwaway and yet I could obviously expand my knowledge of history and auteurism via the discovery of new directors and films. The only good thing about this is that I’ll be seeing and possibly revising my list with time.

I’ll be on tour for the next nine days so please post away. I’ll catch up when I get back home.

jeff's recaps

2012-02-01T15:46:00.001-08:00

Hey Jeff. I’ll play this game with you.

Agreed on the possible January overload fatigue, I’m starting to feel the effects of watching too many films. Surprisingly though I feel revived a day or two later. The only downfall to watching this much stuff is that I feel certain films don’t get a fair shake. For instance, I think that I gave MY LIFE TO LIVE less of my attention because I had just seen Ozu’s excellent AN AUTUMN AFTERNOON. I wouldn’t argue that Godard’s film could touch noses with that film but I felt it got unfairly dwarfed because it had to follow it up. I’ve seen a bunch of films on your list so I’ll gladly bite.

The Descendants: It seems like faint praise coming from your corner and I can’t say I blame you. I came from the same perspective of feeling that the film would suck and being pleasantly surprised. I agree that a lot of it was cliché and perhaps a bit cruel at times. Like I said to you earlier, I felt the scene where the girl’s friend made fun of the lady with Alzheimer’s was among the worst things I’ve seen all year. It was stupid and unrealistic, a total potshot moment that harkened some of Payne’s earlier failures. Even the excellent payoff couldn’t wash the taste out of my mouth. But like you said the movie has those moments of pathos and tenderness that set it apart from perhaps films like DAN IN REAL LIFE (which I haven’t seen). This is a movie about a man who inherits a lot of things at once and I think everyone involved does a fine job of making this transition a lot of fun to watch.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes: I have to say that I side more with John on this one. It understands what it is more than most films do. Its ridiculousness is completely deliberate and for that reason alone it felt like deep breath of fresh air. One of the worst things that has happened to the summer blockbuster (outside of the barrage of pop culture references) is the fact that these films have become so heartless and disconnected from humanity. There is something cruel and inhumane about them all while being completely yoking, so the audiences that show up in droves are all celebrating their hatred for lesser humanity. This film celebrates lesser humanity’s justified hatred of the status quo.

Gilda: Yeah, Hayworth really takes my breath away. I like this film but it requires another viewing. I’ll say more about it then.

Letter from an Unknown Woman: Yes! Ophuls was a showoff in the best sense. He allowed his touch become a part of the essential storyline and emotional impact. This way it didn’t distract us from what was happening within frame. Effortless talent is crucial in art, the audience shouldn’t have to sweat and bleed with you. It should be something that we only realize after the fact “holy shit that probably took a lot of planning to get that shot.” This movie boasts two of the greatest long takes in cinema history. Did you spot em Jeff?

The Naked Spur: One of the angriest films I’ve ever seen. Stewart is pouring over, his hatred and bloodlust is something to fear and admire in equal measures. Mann, like Boetticher, shot on a lot of different countryside giving us a good variety of indigenous land cover and it seemed that each “set” matched the emotional terrain of our always torn protagonists. It would be hard to rank my favorite collaboration between Stewart and Mann.

Pursued: One of my biggest regrets in doing that 40s/50s list was watching films in such a short period of time. I often get this movie mixed up in my head with Sam Fuller’s FORTY GUNS. It made it pretty high on my list if I recall. That probably means I saw it right before I made it and then threw the list together. I’ll have to check it out again. One of the things I plan to do after I eventually finish my thirties list (sorry 70s, 80s, and 90s I don’t fucking care enough to even think about attempting it right now) is to revisit a lot of the films that I remember having a good time watching. It’ll be my treat to me.

I’ll be posting my top ten list for 1960 soon with some guest paragraphs peppered in.

John, I can do that star rating but only in something like a monthly recap. That seems like a cool idea!

breaking the silence

2012-01-29T13:05:00.001-08:00

I’ve been watching a lot of 1960s films lately. I think most of you know about this. It’s actually surprising how many films I’ve seen that won’t rank once I make my final list. Some of the deemed classics are considered timeless for a reason. Go figure. The best year I’ve come across so far (perhaps ever) has to be 1962 in which Francois Truffaut, Akira Kurosawa, John Ford, Howard Hawks, Sam Peckinpah, Jean Renoir, Luis Bunuel, David Lean, John Frankenheimer, Yasujiro Ozu, and Robert Mulligan made some of their best films. To say that is to say a lot if you ask me and I’m dreading ranking these pictures. On top of that I have to take into account some very good films from Stanley Kubrick, Igmar Bergman, Robert Aldrich, and more. I do have to admit that I’ve tried the Godard film from that year (My Life To Live) and can’t get through it. I’ll keep trying but I’m not connecting with it. I know that this probably give Jason great delight but I’m saddened.

I owe you guys some capsule posts on the films that won’t make my list as well as THE DESCENDANTS. I’ll get to that soon. I leave on tour next Friday for about 8 days so I’ll be movie free during that time. It’ll be a much needed break.

Jeff I like your top ten of the decade even if I didn’t find your picks all that surprising. Sometimes the classics deserve to be such.

I really want to see THE GREY. Anyone else stoked about that one?

oh brother why aren't thou born again?

2012-01-25T12:33:00.001-08:00

Sorry it took me so long to respond. It seems that there isn’t much to say about the film itself other than what everyone has said. I WILL say that I read Jason’s post twice through. It was fascinating. Not many films deal with “fundamentalism” without being tempted away by the freaks. It would be really nice to see a film that perhaps reflected Jason’s upbringing and passage into adulthood. I would actually like to hear more about it. What type of fundamental teachings were you subject to? How did this effect your relationship with your parents? Did you have a rebellious faze while knee deep in the bubble? I guess this movie opened up a lot of avenues to discuss the differences between those who “need” that stringent rigidity and those who seek to discover “truth” on their own and without fear of a higher power.

I have a very strict younger brother. His views on life and purity differ from my own despite sharing both of the same parents. We weren’t necessarily raised in a “fundamentalist” home but that had more to do with WHEN my father converted. When you wrote about those who need this type of thing to pull them out of the depths I thought of my dad. It would be interesting to read up on how many of these men and women veer towards militant belief because of their a: fear of backsliding into temptation and b: insane gratefulness for being “rescued” from sin.

Like you Jason I find it problematic (that’s me being easy I would probably use the word disgusting) to see these same group of “redeemed” people persecuting other “sinners.” In this film it’s the disassociation that I find frankly stupid. Why would you ever disassociate yourself from your flesh and blood unless that person posed a danger to you and your family? I don’t have the answers but I’m glad this film, and more specifically Jason, posed them.

Onto the VAMPYR debate. Sorry Jeff, I don’t have anything to add here. It seems to boil down to preference and I could have told you that John doesn’t really go for this sort of thing. I WILL add that I’m surprised because part of me thought of him as a diehard Dreyer enthusiast but that had more to do with his professed love for Tarkovsky, Bergman, and Herzog. Just to piss some people off, I far prefer VAMPYR to THE PASSION OF JOAN OF ARC. How’s that?

jeff's roundups

2012-01-24T05:58:00.000-08:00

No disrespect sir, none at all. You saw ten films fresh whereas I had seen a bunch when I was younger and in many cases went on my original reaction which, if you think about it, is really disingenuous. So if anything your lists are more impressive in every way shape and form.

I love that you love Antonioni. I think everything you wrote about his mastery is dead on and yet after viewing my third film by him I still remain on the outside looking in. I’m not sure what it is about him but something isn’t clicking, at least not on the first viewing. I will admit that while watching LAVVENTURA I was really taken aback with the way he placed the actors in frame, specifically on the island where their troubles both inward and outward seemed dwarfed by their sheer insignificance. I found myself thinking “damn I wish this film was in Technicolor.” But at the same time I will freely admit that while doing a list oriented era project you find yourself ultra-aware of films that go on and on and on. This being the case I wondered how much of his work couldn’t have been just fine at 70 minutes. If you can’t already tell I’m all for movies no lollygagging.

Agreed on Ozu.

THE DEFIANT ONES is a film I grew up on, one that I would watch a lot as a kid. I’m not sure that it holds up because I haven’t seen it in a long time. My father was a huge Sidney Poitier fan and had us watch all of his films together. I gained a huge respect for the man and so I think part of me is afraid to revisit some of those pictures in fear that they won’t withstand the test of time and “maturity.”

Ophuls rules. That rhymes. I think I liked LA RONDE the least out of all of his films that I’ve caught with perhaps the exception of CAUGHT. Now I’m on a roll. I’m not trying to be a troll.

SHADOWS is one of the greatest debuts in film history announcing the start of DIY filmmaking. Anyone who enjoys genres like mumblecore can thank this film for it. I think I just threw up in my mouth.

“Is there anything more beautiful than snow shot in black-and-white?” Snow shot in color. I really liked ODD MAN OUT too. Carol Reed really got shafted on the whole auteur discussion.

I think I need to see more Ozu now.

LOLA MONTES at times seemed like the most beautiful film ever shot in color. Take that TREE OF LIFE. It’s funny because I seem to recall some amazing “snow” shots in this one.

The fist fight in SHE WORE A YELLOW RIBBON is rivaled only by the longer fistfight in THE QUIET MAN. It’s just about the opposite of Ozu. Here Ford argues that the only way for peace is through drinking and beating the shit out of one another from time to time. It sounds barbaric but it makes sense. Being in a band where confrontation is taboo sometimes I wish we would all just act like a John Ford film and swing.

Still haven't seen that Born Again movie. Whoops.

my new project

2012-01-19T14:34:00.001-08:00

I’m sorry I haven’t posted anything lately guys. I’ve been watching films that I plan to write about later. I’m working on something. I’m going to extend my 40s and 50s list to the 60s. I’m doing this with the intention of doing it better. Thanks to Jeff and my pal Alex I’ll be able to accomplish something here. My goal is to watch as many films as possible as opposed to simply fulfilling a quota. Getting to ten is enough of a hassle but I think that this time around I’m less concerned with the ranking as the seeing and experiencing. When you choose to attack a feat like this it has its ups and downs. One of the downs would be the way you ration your time. Time becomes the enemy and you start making an imaginary priority list with hopes to reach a goal. Jeff and I know this all too well. This time around I’m not imagining a ticking clock. I’m a naturally obsessive personality therefore this, in some ways, overtakes a lot of my mental space. I’m going to enjoy myself this time around.

The positives are obvious, getting to watch terrific films and knowing more about this young art form. Getting to know film from a historical perspective is really important to me. I like the idea of connecting a work of art with a human and seeing what it is about that work that illuminates those little fissures in our souls that we can’t put into words. I want to see this form of expression shared to those who are willing to look for it. I want cinema to teach me, to make me feel a little better or worse. So far I’ve been rewarded with at least 5 films that won’t make any lists. That would have driven me crazy back when I was in my 40s/50s stupor but now it just feels like another work of art to consider. The 60s are interesting in the way they seemed to converge old Hollywood style with the young hip European “new wave.” It’s funny because a lot of the new wave was a result of fandom albeit intellectual fandom if there is such a thing. There is the sense of pushing forward and yet inadvertently burying the parents.

I know that these types of posts don’t usually warrant much feedback and I’m ok with this. I understand. It’s hard to comment on films that we all haven’t seen. Hopefully I’ll be able to connect it with modern cinema (specifically the films you all will be seeing). I’ll still watch new shit. I’ll still take part in conversations. For instance I recommend you all get out and see THE DESCENDANTS even if you know you are going to hate it. It’s got discussion written all over it.

Everyone go and congratulate Jeff for his 30s list. It’s truly impressive. A lot of love was put into that I can assure you.

top ten woody

2012-01-14T10:24:00.000-08:00

1. Broadway Danny Rose
2. Crimes and Misdemeanors
3. Hannah and Her Sisters
4. Bananas
5. Annie Hall
6. Zelig
7. Sleeper
8. Midnight in Paris
9. Manhattan
10. Everything You Wanted to Know About Sex (But Were Afraid to Ask)

for jeff and ben

2012-01-14T10:13:00.001-08:00

Hey guys. Great lists. Let’s get started.

As Ben pointed out there are three Film Club darlings from 2011; TREE OF LIFE, THE SKIN I LIVE IN, and MEEK’S CUTOFF. Ben’s number 1 pick and Jeff’s number 10 is certainly a brave film. One of the great trends I’m finding in 2011 is relatively new and established filmmakers exploring the world outside of their comfort zone. As Ben pointed out Kelly Reichardt continues her examination of loneliness and disaffection in our modern culture. In MEEK’S CUTOFF we have a forsaken group moving aimlessly into a perpetual desert guided only by a man whose intentions could either save them or destroy them. In her previous two films we had characters uncertain of which way to go or what lies ahead waiting. It’s that ambiguity that she seems so taken by, it’s the cinema of faith.

Jeff is right about the compositions here. On a technical level Reichardt has stepped up her game. Like I said before, this is a nice new trend in 2011. I still love Jeff’s coined “myth of progress,” I think it perfectly sums up the director’s feelings towards our nation’s callous affinities. I wonder if she’ll be able to top this one.

THE SKIN I LIVE IN is just plain bonkers. Would you agree? It takes an already preposterous plot and persistently does the inconceivable. I think the “stylistic exuberance” is the key to its success. While these young guns are slowly learning their way around the cinematic semantic guys like Pedro work their graceful visual bluster to keep the plot tied to the ground as it tries so desperately to fly away. It’s that visual command that keeps this thing engaging and brilliant. His “unraveling of perceptions” and his manipulation of our desires continue to make me laugh whenever the film is brought up. I’m glad that it’s found favor in at least three Film Clubbers 2011.

It’s really easy to make fun of a Malick film but mostly because of how successfully he gets his points across. His fans (I include myself in that lot) are almost a cult. He leads them in an illusory reverie through his vision leaving out any room for doubt or denunciation. This is all a testament to both his cinematic authority and the power that cinema can have over those who give themselves up to it. I can’t argue with either of you about this film, I also loved it. But I need that second viewing before I put on the robe and start chanting Myoho Malickge kyo. I re-ranked it based on Jason’s system realizing that it belonged on the best of the best list simply because of what it accomplished.

I will say that I find the Sean Penn explanation a bit of a stretch. I’m sure that it has an explanation and perhaps Jeff is dead on but that doesn’t necessarily make it good cinema especially in light of what exists around it. This is the danger of making a film like this. So while I agree with most of what you guys are saying, the tracts don’t work on me. I think it’s bizarre that a film like this can’t possibly contain flaws, at least not any that anyone wants to admit to. It looks like the debate continues.

Without criticizing placement or picks I wanted to respond a little to what you wrote.

Ben, I think TINKER TAILOR is the polar opposite experience of say THE TREE OF LIFE. It’s a cold film and one that requires scrutiny as its main function is to visually lull us just long enough to catch us in its web. I found it extremely scary and unsettling but I also found it deeply moving at the most bewildering times. I’m really happy you added this one to your list.

I won’t get into BLACK DEATH that much. Like I said before I don’t really agree with you, John, or Jason about it. I think it is mediocre filmmaking at the service of a potentially interesting story. That’s my lazy dismissal but I’m glad you liked it. Sorry guys.

I haven’t seen CIRCUMSTANCE, TRUST, BOMBAY BEACH, or ANOTHER EARTH. Which one do you think I’d be the most into? I think we share more common ground than we know. Remember last year? We had a lot of similar feelings towards things, specifically the triumph that was PRODIGAL SONS.

I’m really happy to see MELANCHOLIA on your list. I love that film as well. I think a lot of people get too wrapped up in what a number ranking might say about the person’s feelings. I LOVE this film, albeit with certain trepidations. This is why I lumped it with THE TREE OF LIFE. I think both films are impossibly ambitious but admirable and beautiful. It’s that simple for me. I have written a lot about both pictures and had some honest moments on the love and hate spectrum without ending up indifferent (which is the true opposite of love if you ask me). Like I said before the two films would make a hell of a double feature.

Jeff, I haven’t seen A SEPERATION or THE MILL AND THE CROSS. Needless to say I’ll get to those films eventually. I might see the Dardenne’s film. I wasn’t a huge fan of what I’ve seen thus far. But I’ll gladly stand corrected.

I’m surprised by the placement of TAKE SHELTER, not because it doesn’t deserve to be there but rather that I thought you were more impressed than smitten. Nichols is certainly shooting up in the ranks. I also loved LE HAVRE despite how creepy little Bob was. Haha.

I think it’s interesting to read you refer to the driver as a maniac. I like that take. It gives the film some nuance that it didn’t have before. I’ll have to watch it soon with that in mind. That being said I don’t see why such a glossy spectacle can’t be just that and still be great. Some of the films on all of our lists are seemingly given this spiritual dimension in order to justify our love. I find this peculiar.

HUGO is such a nice little gift. I was talking with John about where he might potentially rank it given that he used the word “love” when describing it. He doesn’t usually write this word so I figured that it’ll be up there on his list. He said that he sort of wants to rail on it for its “love letter to the cinema” urgency but I think this film is so much more. If we can call something like THE TREE OF LIFE personal I think we owe it to Scorsese to acknowledge the same here. While he is beckoning audiences to brush up on their movie history he’s also reminding us to consider the notion that with everyone we encounter there is a lifetime of complexity beneath. He’s asking us to look deeper with compassion.

Again, great lists. Let’s keep up the discussions.

jason's list

2012-01-12T15:08:00.000-08:00

I’m going to do what Jason did because I’m getting all paranoid about my own list.

Best of the best:
The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo
Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
Certified Copy
Hugo
Tree of Life
Melancholia
13 Assassins
The Skin I Live In
Moneyball
Take Shelter
Drive
Meek’s Cutoff
Le Havre

Almost made it:
Rise of the Planet of the Apes
A Dangerous Method (fuck you Chris)
Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives
Cold Weather
Nostalgia for the Light
War Horse
Winnie the Pooh
Carnage
Warrior
Midnight in Paris
Source Code

On the Fence:
Poetry
Tuesday After Christmas
Contagion

One Night Stands:
I Saw the Devil
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows Part 2
La Quattro Volte
Young Adult
Rango
The Green Hornet
Paul
Super 8
J Edgar
The Ides of March

No thanks:
Bridesmaids
Scream 4
The Green Lantern
The Thing
X-Men United
The Green Lantern

These Belong in the toilet:
Crazy Stupid Love
Cowboys vs Aliens
The Mechanic
Insidious
The Human Centipede 2

Overrated: Martha Marcy May Marlene, We Need to Talk About Kevin.

Underrated: Winnie the Pooh.

Couldn’t Get Over the Ending: Super 8

most anticipated in 2012

2012-01-12T14:12:00.000-08:00

This’ll be simple. No order. Movie title. Explanation. End of story.

Brave: New Pixar movie. Kelly MacDonald.

Cogan’s Trade: Directed by Andrew Dominick (Assassination of Jesse James) reteaming with Brad Pitt (Cool World). Gangsters.

Cosmopolis: David Cronenberg. Sex, murder, limo. A little worried about Robert Pattinson has me a little worried but what can you do? Juliette Binoche!

The Dark Knight Rises: Preview looks shitty. Inception mostly stunk. But Tom Hardy has me excited about it.

Django Unchained: Everything about this gets me excited. The cast, the subject matter, obviously the director. Finally a straight up western from a guy who has been just outside the genre for essentially his entire career.

The Grandmasters: New Wong Kar Wai. First action film since Ashes of Time. Tony Leung. Need I say more?

Gravity: Alfonso Cuaron. George Clooney (One Fine Day). Space. Pretty space looking stuff.

The Hobbit: Palpable to those of us who loved the trilogy. John rolls eyes.

Inside Llewyn Davis: Coens! Subject matter doesn’t really interest me but I’ve learned not to let that let the air out of my balloon when dealing with them Coens. This one has me excited for the sole reason that the Coens are directing it.

Life of Pi: Despite my “take it or leave it” feelings towards Ang Lee, I’m excited about the sharks and the tiger in this one. Who am I kidding? I probably won't watch this one.

Lincoln: Spielberg (Always). Daniel Day Lewis (Nine). John Hawkes (I Still Know What You Did Last Summer). Joseph Gordon-Levitt (Third Rock From the Sun). Jared Harris (Mr Deeds).

Looper: Rian Johnson (Brick). Good cast. Futuristic stuff. Guns. Bruce Willis (Hudson Hawk).

The Master: PTA. Phillip Seymour Hoffman (Patch Adams). War. Religion. Probably my most anticipated of the year with Django a close second.

The Turin Horse: Bela Tarr. Gorgeous b&w cinematography. Slow moving. Long takes. Hmmm, maybe I’m not excited about this one.

Moonrise Kingdom: Good cast. Wes Anderson (back to his old tricks it seems). Bruce Willis (The Whole Nine Yards). Bill Murray (Osmosis Jones). Preview has me worried however. Looks like a big step in no direction.

Mud: New Jeff Nichols (Take Shelter, Shotgun Stories). Interesting Cast and synopsis. Matthew McConaughey (Fool's Gold). The South.

Only God Forgives: The Gos (Murder by Numbers). Nicholas Driving Refn. More violence. More hype. An angry Ben. Another Katz vs Refn comparison fight.

A Place Beyond the Pines: Director of Blue Valentine. Violence. The Gos (Remember the Titans). A happy Ben.

Red Hook Summer: Spike Lee returning to Red Hook. Supposedly a sequel to his masterpiece. Clarke Peters (The Wire). He hasn't made a good feature film since INSIDE MAN so he's well overdo.

Rust and Bone: directed by Jacques Audiard (The Beat my Heart Skipped, A Prophet). Marion Cotillard (hubba hubba). Sounds a little like Amores Perros. That doesn't excite me. We shall see.

Seven Psychopaths: Director of IN Bruges. Colin Farrell (SWAT). Sam Rockwell. Stolen dog. John and I are stoked for this.

Under the Skin: Aliens want to eat us. Scarlett Johansson (Eight Legged Freaks). She is one of the aliens that wants to eat us. Directed by the dude who made SEXY BEAST. Could be terrible.

The New Malick film: Malick (Jeff’s Golden Calf). Ben, Chris, and Jeff will cream their pants I'm sure. What else do you need?

The Wettest County: Third most anticipated. John Hillcoat (The Proposition). Guy Pearce (The Time Machine). Tom Hardy. Script and score by the great Nick Cave. Depression era gangster film. Can’t fucking wait.

Low Life: New James Gray (Two Lovers). Not sure what this one is about. Good cast. Jeremy Renner (Senior Trip). Marion Cotillard (mamma mia).

Love: New Michael Haneke. Yeah, I’m excited for this one. Are you surprised? A new dead horse to kick? Perhaps I'll sell all of my possessions and slit my throat when it's over.

Something in the Air: New Olivier Assayas (Summer Hours). I really need to learn how to read.

Like Someone in Love: Abbas Kiarostami (Certified Copy). Takes place in Japan.

Night Moves: Kelly Reichardt. I don't like Peter Sarsgaard that much. I like Paul Dano (Taking Lives). After Meek's Cutoff count me in for eternity.

This Is Not a Film: Jafar Panahi (Offside). Don't know much about this one. I just love the director.

Spring Breakers: Harmony Korine. Just kidding. Tuck it in John.

Frankenweenie: You guys remember that short film? Now it’s going to be a feature length. Two Tim Burton films in one year!

Dark Shadows: Tim Burton. Vampires. Remember that television show? Johnny Depp (The Tourist). Good cast.

I probably missed a bunch. Jeff? Onto you.

Ps, going to reply to Ben's list real soon.

responses to Jason

2012-01-12T12:00:00.000-08:00

I agree Jason that the war stuff here is riveting and it should be pointed out that it takes up a lot of the film. I would argue that most of SAVING PRIVATE RYAN with the exception of the perhaps a few scenes is quite excellent. Show me another film before it that seemed to capture the horror and anxiety of war so accurately. I think that we have to accept that Spielberg will always have his disparagers and even something like that opening scene on the beach in Normandy will be met with shrugs. But it is worth pointing out that he does have a lot of iffy propensities that almost always get in the way at the wrong time. Nevertheless, when the man is on he’s seemingly unmatched, at least in the big budget Hollywood director respect.

I think the gaudy colors in the beginning and perhaps even more at the end are appropriate, at least I felt that way. My biggest problem with the film, once again, is Albert. That’s perhaps why I loved that final shot of Joey peacefully removed from his human companions staring out at an open field that he’ll spend the rest of his days running through. It moved me albeit in a manipulative way. Fuck it, I don’t mind being manipulated as long as the guy or girl doing the manipulation is as good as say Steven Spielberg. We live in a culture of widespread self-awareness so it should come as no surprise that a film like WAR HORSE is being laughed at by the cool kids. Juno would hate this movie.

I’ll most certainly be using that glasses analogy. Thanks for flexing the copyright.

I think that the mc genre came along both as a response to sensationalist dialogue and action as well as frustration that cinema as an art form was restricted to studios and producers. In that spirit it shares a lot of commonalities with the DIY music scene, which I happen to be a part of. Obviously in that way I respect it and will fight for its right to exist and even flourish. Where I think I have a problem with it is in the way it ties sensationalism with action and energy inevitably replacing it with that sense of boring voyeurism. Not all of the films do this (Cold Weather is certainly an exception) but like any scene there are pitfalls to look out for. I find a lot of the mc musical equivalents to be equally as boring and lazy, letting their built in audience nurture their fear of branching out. Am I making any sense here?

I should note that I’m a ZELIG fan as well. It’s an ingenious film but unfortunately I haven’t seen it in so long. I would comment on what you wrote but that wouldn’t be very insightful or interesting. I loved the way they added him to pictures and historical footage. That alone makes it worth watching.

It seems that the TREE OF LIFE discussion is perhaps in full bloom (get it?). I, as well as John, have pointed out that we like and probably love it so there is no need to worry.

poppin capsules 1/11/12

2012-01-11T16:17:00.000-08:00

Jason I loved your post on COLD WEATHER despite not really wanting it to be in a ring with DRIVE for the simple reason that I liked both films. It’s like when you have two really good friends who constantly talk shit on each other and then finally duke it out behind some bar (I’ve experienced this unfortunately). I also love the city of Portland and it was nice to spend some time there via Katz and his cast. I love it when films inhabit their environment. A lot of films this year did an excellent job of feeling like a part of something (a city, an island, a forest, a mansion, etc.) bigger.

I also loved how they took that genre (one that I admittedly feel fairly cold about) and built a fire under its ass. I like the idea of natural conversation leading to better character development via creating and facilitating connections but I often find their chatter to be annoying and meandering. It goes from feeling scripted to badly scripted and poorly acted. I don’t find myself invested in them. If I wanted to hang out with self-absorbed thirty year olds I would go to the local watering hole and eavesdrop. As I’ve said before, COLD WEATHER didn’t succumb to those pitfalls for me. I hope Katz continues to broaden his horizon while perhaps upholding that “mc” spirit that he seems to transcend.

I’m similar to you Jason because I bring my glasses to each and every film. I rarely walk blindly into one, almost always knowing how to prepare myself for what I’m about to see. This is probably the perfect segue to talk about some of the films I’ve seen but haven’t written about. Let’s start with Steven Spielberg’s WAR HORSE.

I’ve read Adrienne’s thoughts already and can’t argue with anything outright. It’s corny, manipulative, and stagey but none of that (outside of some of the performances) seemed to stop me from falling for its charms. Like I said before, I didn’t like some of the performances especially Jeremy Irvine’s whiny Albert. But damn I loved those histrionic backdrops and the way Joey stood stoic illumined in the golden light. I’m not a fan of the lost pet genre but somehow Spielberg managed to make this something more and at times I felt it had some of the greatest images of the year. I’ve accused John of putting too much emphasis on moments rather than wholes but some of the scenes in this film easily made up for the superfluous schmaltz. The scene where the soldiers come out of the tall grass, the scene where the machine gunners duck beneath horses without riders, the barbed wire sequence, and the final image of Joey are some of the most moving images I’ve seen from the great director. So while I can affirm that a lot of what you say is absolutely true I came away from this one with a different feeling. I’m pretty sure that I loved it. Perhaps I got spooked from including it on my top ten list. Then again, I liked most of WAR OF THE WORLDS.

YOUNG ADULT is a reasonable progression or regression for Jason Reitman and Diablo Cody. It’s narcissistic, spiteful, mordant, occasionally charming, and a slave to pop culture. The title character, played superbly by Charlize Theron, is a tween soap opera ghost writer who returns to her Minnesota hometown to win back her married high school sweetheart. Oh, and he is also a new father just to make the situation even shittier and more uncomfortable. As reprehensible as she is at times the script allows her momentary glimpses of poise and humanity. I would call it out and say that all of this is comes too seldom and too late but this is precisely the point of the film, to observe a person who isn’t ready to change. I loved the Patton Oswald character enough to ultimately like YOUNG ADULT despite my probable hostility to this type of film. It’s a step perhaps in the right direction.

TUESDAY AFTER CHRISTMAS looks uncompromisingly at a father/husband who decides to live for himself. He is sleeping with his daughter’s dentist despite everything that he seems to have going for him. His rendezvous with this much younger girl are all shot in real time with long takes. Actually, the entire film is shot this way to both an uninhibited and astringent effect. I don’t think the technique should have been used so dutifully, at times I wanted to see facial reactions up close. Minor quibbles but quibbles nonetheless. I wore my “disturbing Romanian New Wave glasses” and found that instead this was devastating rather than appalling. It’s not as good as 4 MONTHS 3 WEEKS AND 2 DAYS but it burrows into its subject matter in a similar way.

the tree of life is the worst movie ever made last year

2012-01-11T15:16:00.000-08:00

I kid I kid. We better be careful. Jeff and Chris might lunge at us over the table like Brad Pitt.

I have to say that every time I see John at work and have a second to sit and chat it makes me miss the days when he was my boss. We would seriously talk about film for 6 hours a day (note to potential employers: hiring John and I in the same agency is a huge mistake). He’s a great friend and I just want to climb a house and shout it from the rooftops “l love my friend John….. boop.” As for MIDNIGHT IN PARIS, I like Owen Wilson a lot and his presence really helped me get past some of your complaints. I wonder if anyone will have that one on their list. CARNAGE is a comedy and a good one at that. I don’t know if you’ll dig it though. My favorite quote of the New Year is that you’ve “grown into Vonnegut” but that’s just because it sounds naughty. I love growing in and out of “things” it’s one of my favorite things to do. Sorry guys.

I’m glad you share my affection for RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES. It really understood what it needed to do and did it. Does that sounds stupid? My little brother’s review via text was great “I like when bad guys get killed by the good guys they torment. I guess I really like revenge as long as it’s restricted to film.” Priceless. The double feature idea sounds fantastic.

Thanks for the kind words on my list. I’m feeling really good about it. I agree that Jeff is DRIVE’s best champion; he really knows how to illuminate its reason to exist as well as its reason to garner so many serious fans. Good job Jeff, you’ve taken the work load off me. Now onto you.

I’m honestly jealous that you were able to see A SEPERATION before me. I was taking pride in being the guy in film club that saw everything first. It made me feel superior and now I feel only slightly superior. I’m not going to read your review until I see the film. Damn you.

As for you and your TREE OF LIFE hugging brethren, I think it’ll be alright. We all appreciate it and I’m sure it’ll be higher on everyone else’s list (Adrienne aside) and even if it isn’t it has topped nearly every critic’s list in existence so I’m sure Malick can handle it. I loved it albeit with some misgivings but as I explained this is typical for me in regards to my Malick initiation. I’ll drink that Kool Aid soon enough.

Chris. I don’t see a need to refute anything you have written about A DANGEROUS METHOD other than to note that it really does fit nicely with his earlier films and this certainly makes a difference in how I view it. I think it’s fantastic. As I already wrote, I’ve been expecting some backlash.

Now why don’t you see how people could perceive TREE OF LIFE as pretentious? Even if I had the same reaction as you and Jeff and Jason I could totally understand people coming away from it rolling their eyes. This is not to say that your reaction isn’t valid but rather that Malick can be lofty at times. As for the “how is this different from other Malick films you naughty Malick fans” I would argue that every Malick film approaches its subject matter from an extremely auteurist standpoint and perhaps sometimes his form of expression won’t always work with the type of film he is trying to create. Or perhaps he can do no wrong. I’m not arguing either way. Like I said, I love the film but not as much as I loved those other ones, at least for now. I WILL note that I am the guy that got all huffy puffy about people not appreciating my #1 pick so I can understand being butt hurt.

Ps, I have THE COURT JESTER. It rules.

Ben. Sorry I haven’t been responding to your DRIVE posts. It seems that you’ve slowly grown to like it the more you write about it. Is this way off track? I’m really excited to read your thoughts on LE HAVRE, THE SKIN I LIVE IN, and TINKER TAILOR SOLDIER SPY. Obviously I’m a huge fan of all three.

Adrienne! Welcome! It’s really great to have you in Film Club we’ve heard nothing but great things from Jason. Let’s talk about your list.

I haven’t seen CEDAR RAPIDS but I’m a huge John C. Reilly Fan. Have you ever seen his segment on TIM AND ERIC? I think that’s the funniest stuff he has ever done. I have to admit that I found BRIDESMAIDS really annoying. I wanted to love it if that’s worth anything. YOUNG ADULT was really nasty. I have an upcoming post in which I wrestle with my feelings about it. I think it’s easily the best thing that Reitman and Cody have done but I’m starting to think that I’m destined to miss that boat. Patton Oswald certainly gives one of the year’s best performances though.

You’ll get no grief from me in regards to TREE OF LIFE. I live and am married to its biggest hater. Every time the name is brought up I can hear her blood boil. I was also disappointed by RANGO.

Haven’t seen PARANORMAL ACTIVITY 3 but my older brother insists that I’ll like the ending. As for INSIDIOUS, you and Jason are nuts. Sorry. That movie fell apart like a cookie in a glass of milk.

I’m also a girl who has her watching limits and I also won’t be giving FAST FIVE a chance.

Other than my belief that THE DESCENDANTS could be a great film I won’t comment on your movies that made you hope for humanity. One of the films on that list made me hate humanity.

Not sure if you’ll dig it but I highly recommend NOSTALGIA FOR THE LIGHT in the best documentary category.

Like you, I also can’t wait to see the new HAROLD AND KUMAR movie. Great list! I think I’ll do something similar real soon.

Lisa, do that list and throw some logs on the fire if you know what I mean.

Jason. Wow great posts all around. I have one response for you in regards to COLD WEATHER. It’ll be up soon my friend. I can’t really comment on THE WAY BACK because I haven’t seen it. I love me some Weir though.

I don’t think that disliking one unhappy ending qualifies you for a hater of sad endings. Your track record speaks for itself (Cabin Fever anyone). I’m not sure what to say about the ending of DRIVE. I liked it but I was sort of annoyed by it at the same time. He could have killed the bad guy and got the money and headed for South America. Why not? He wasn’t stupid, he know the guy was going to attack him. He had a weapon on him right? Fucking stab the guy first you moron. The difference between our reactions, it didn’t bother me enough to really get down on it. It also didn’t bother Jeff and Chris enough to go down on it.

2012 is wily thus far.

thanks jeff!

2012-01-10T12:14:00.001-08:00

Thanks for responding Jeff. I spent a considerable amount of time on that the list making sure that I said everything I wanted to say to elaborate why I loved these movies so much. Believe me; I’m not changing my mind about THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO any time soon even though I’m sure to get a wave of attacks from these people insisting that NOW THEY HAVE TO SEE IT. It’s an easy film to pick on but even easier to defend thanks to Fincher’s vigilant bravado. I was deliberately subjective here because it’s silly to claim that any list is impartial but I would argue that all of the films on my list are, once again, easy to defend beyond simple sentiment and preference.

I was hoping that someone would bring up my placement of TREE OF LIFE. It’s obviously a Film Club champion (Lisa! Where are you when I need you) but I feel that it has certain deficiencies that seem to go unmentioned. I’ll have to see it for a second time before getting into my grumblings but I can start by saying that they start and end with Sean Penn. Everything else, as I said in my little explanation, indicates that this film will continue to blossom with time and perhaps become the masterpiece that everyone seems to claim it is. I’m willing to believe in this movie, I’m just not a tree hugger yet. But don’t you worry George W. Howard I’m sure I’ll be “with you” sooner or later.

I will point out that no Malick film has initially made my top ten lists, which basically means that it took time for me to warm up to both THE THIN RED LINE and THE NEW WORLD. I think that both faltered initially for the same reasons; I didn’t like being stolen from the forest. Being dropped into dirty England or even a skyscraper really takes the piss out of it for me….. initially. So I guess what I’m saying is that like every other list I’ve ever compiled it’s constantly going to be changing in my mind and heart. The TREE OF LIFE that you seemed to fall head over heels for is a smoother and more consistent experience than the one I saw and thought should have ended about twenty minutes before it did.

I don’t expect you to change your mind on the Fincher film. It’s not nearly as sophisticated as TOL, it almost urges you to write it off. I can’t wait to hear your thoughts on TINKER, for me it rivals ZODIAC and you’ll know exactly what I mean when you lay eyes on it. THE SKIN I LIVE IN is without question Almodovar’s best film thus far in the aughts. It seems to have turned off a lot of VOLVER fans and for that I only love it more. I still can’t read so LE HAVRE was a pure visual delight. I liked the bright colors and animals and food. I also like boats and water and flowers and mustaches.

I’m hoping that I get more feedback for this damn list. I want to continue the discussion here. I need to go to bat for Spielberg’s WAR HORSE even if it wasn’t nearly as great as I had hoped. I think a lot of the bickering is related to how much it relies on traditionalist nostalgia. Some of the images in this film could put even THE TREE OF LIFE to shame. Unfortunately it also has a few really weak characters and performances so I can’t really go too hard for it.

Can’t wait to read everyone else’s lists.

my favorite films from 2011

2012-01-09T13:13:00.000-08:00

2011 left me with the complete opposite dilemma I had last year. I loved too many films to limit my list to ten selections. So here are the top 16 films from the previous year, a great one if you ask me. Please feel free to disagree, discuss, and make fun of me. Here are my favorite films of 2011:

1. The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo (David Fincher)

The film that brought the house down was also, for me, the film of the year. It seems that when discussing the work of David Fincher you can’t help but wrestle with his demi-god status and how that measures up and relates to his talent. To these eyes THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO represented a perfect marriage of theme and atmosphere. Fincher’s three previous films studied the nature of obsession and alienation in the wave of modern culture. These characters struggle to adjust to social norms and seek out their place in a society decidedly out of step with their unique character.

Here we have two shunned members of Swedish culture; a disgraced investigative reporter and a battered surveillance agent. On the surface there is a derivative mystery to be solved but beneath I found comfort and acquaintance in the seemingly insignificant routines of our protagonists. Fincher seems similarly taken by their habitual vices making sure to note each one like an entry in a journal. Their cottage is the quintessential nest for these pariahs, a rustic sanctuary full of visual cues and post it notes. The art of solving a crime is the art of fixating and finally seeing. Some would disagree but I found the film incredibly tender when dealing the seemingly unearned romance between Mikael and Lisbeth. I think a lot of people miss the point here because they are looking for a reciprocated act or emotion. Lisbeth’s past makes it completely sensible for her to feel this way so quickly and given the film’s emphasis on the importance of simple gestures you could understand the impact of Mikael’s kindness. The film ends poignantly as one character is drawn back into civilization while the other fades into the shadows.

2. Certified Copy (Abbas Kiarostami)

Ques que ce? I’m still not sure but when I think about CERTIFIED COPY I think about the may or may nots. Could they be this? Did they actually do that back then? In the end I find the lack of tangible certainty to be the highest selling point. The first half of the film had me believing in a certain reality only to have the rug seemingly pulled out about a third of the way in. As we listen to James speak of the mysteries of authentic origin and the question of importance in regards to copies and archetypes we are lulled into Kiarostami’s rhythms and fooled to believe that his film is content to be what it seems on the surface. With time the conversation’s quarrelsome manner intensifies and just then a bomb falls ostensibly onto our laps. Our understanding of this interpersonal reality has been tainted leaving this viewer tempted to try and pry an answer out of it. But then I was suddenly moved in a way that felt magical or even hallucinogenic as She (the great Juliette Binoche) begs James to “sejour….sejour” as their time together begins to fade. Perhaps these characters have sunken deeper into their own game. Perhaps they were once lovers before. Perhaps they still are. Either way I found their metamorphosis to be perfect in every form.

3. Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (Tomas Alfredson)

Immaculately textured and totally immersive, TINKER TAILOR SOLDIER SPY opens in an apartment full of dread and disorder where an old man known as Control tells us nearly all we need to know about the organization known simply as the Circus with his face. There is a sense of hurt and betrayal in his sunken eyes as he speaks of a double agent in our midst a chilling commencement to one of the new great cinematic chess games. Within the first ten minutes I was implored by Tomas Alfredson’s careful compositions to pay attention and hang on for dear life. Once again we have an examination of a mystery, a film as concerned with why as who what where and when. We intermittently go back to one crucial moment in the spies’ lives, a Christmas party where the end of their boy’s club is lamentably acknowledged by all in this crazy circus. I can’t help but fall for films with this type of thorough construction especially when most of its complexity is set right before us with crisp shot after crisp shot. Though a story like this can’t help but to indulge in various forms of exposition, TINKER TAILOR is decidedly more concerned with showing/feeling than speaking/explaining.

4. Hugo (Martin Scorsese)

Martin Scorsese spent most of his childhood on rooftops and cinemas. His asthma had a profound impact on his perspective, an observer of human behavior and an interpreter of character. He took that experience all the way through that crucial crossroad decision to be either film director or priest. Since then his cinema has been the cinema of guilt, crime, betrayal, loneliness, sexual frustration, moral magnitude, brute force, and ultimately the study of art history via the movies. His careful lapidary technique is a blend of unbarred passion and a compulsive handling of visual details. With HUGO he relives those lonely years of isolation and discovery via early 1930s France. The film is generous, rewarding those lucky enough to see and feel it with the director’s seemingly unmatched sense of cinematic wonder. The only true villain (as Jason pointed out) is the war, it’s impact is felt in perhaps my favorite scene of 2011 where a station agent and a flower girl share a tender moment through both loss and hope. Scorsese encourages us to share in his collective dreamscape.

5. The Skin I Live In (Pedro Almodovar)

Pedro Almodovar continues his pursuit of identity, desire, and guilt in his batty but earnest THE SKIN I LIVE IN. Outside of being one of the cinema’s most tremendous visual stylists, Almodovar is almost peerless in his understanding of melodrama. He knows enough to let the story run free without a wink, to let us do what we will with the material. He is also a master of narrative structure, making sure that each recurrence and double back can carry and thrust the story in the direction it needs to go. He knows that we need to learn the nature of our mad scientist’s obsession first before we can understand the complexity of his beautiful odalisque. Her body is the core of this genre bending gem, the director’s best in a very long time.

6. Le Havre ( Aki Kaurismäki)

It’s great to see a movie cling tight to its intransigent buoyant ideals regardless of how it might be perceived in our postmodern cynical film culture. LE HAVRE doesn’t try to hide or disguise its fanciful sense of good will towards men instead making a bold plea for benevolence and altruism in the face of hardship. But while those values are good enough to sustain Kaurismaki’s idiosyncratic tale I clung more to the sense of harmonious community, like Jeff said it felt like something from the Golden Age of cinema.

7. Attack the Block (Joe Cornish)

It was a great year for genre pastiches. The best of the lot for me was ATTACK THE BLOCK, a sci-fi comedy thriller about a gang of inner city kids protecting their neighborhood from furry aliens. We get to know these kids first via an act of inexcusable violence but soon learn that beneath their tough exterior they are just children, scared and on their own. The potential end of the world only augments their admirable sense of loyalty and all around decency as they transform from oppressors to protectors. Director Joe Cornish uses their amiability to make us genuinely fear each deadly encounter with the “gorilla wolf looking mother fuckers.” We grow to love this ragtag Hawksian bunch well before they become the local heroes.

8. 13 Assassins (Takashi Miike)

Takashi Miike’s samurai epic announces the birth of the modern man via “total massacre.” The goal is simple here; make sure that the evil Naritsugu doesn’t make it home alive on the road from Edo. Assemble, train, find, and kill. This is the objective. The final hour of this picture is hands down the best all out action spectacle in years. This is pure craftsmanship without the big wink.

9. Take Shelter (Jeff Nichols)

TAKE SHELTER is about the fear of what’s coming, the terror of losing it all. It’s about the uncertainty of what and where. It’s about hedging that bet correctly lest you find yourself and your family completely unprepared for this “something that is not right.” Will it come from the sky or my body and mind? Some nerd in film club noted that we are constantly in the presence of fear and anxiety—always in the presence of potential catastrophe be it small disasters or earth shattering catastrophes. The camera doesn’t miss the passing of money from hand to hand or from pump to gas tank. But Jeff Nichols isn’t afraid to toy with the idea of all out science fiction disaster and horror apocalypse as oil falls from the sky and turns mammals into homicidal maniacs. Everything and everyone from the family dog to the loyal housewife transform before our eyes and then we wake up to wonder if it’ll all come true. The finale (which grows better and better with time and theory) finds our family finally united and ready for whatever blows their way.

10. A Dangerous Method (David Cronenberg)

The birth of psychoanalysis proves a fitting prolongation of David Cronenberg’s distinguished themes and fascinations. The fear of what we harbor has been the heart and soul of his thesis though I wouldn’t dream of limiting him to that distinction. Here he has orchestrated a dense but fluid war of words and theories; a tale that manages to squeeze its labyrinth of ideas into a smooth cohesive whole without the feeling of convolution and fatigue. The characters seek a greater truth but have fundamentally different ways of getting there. One chooses autonomy via the release of sexual repression. Another chooses integrity and the belief that science doesn’t bend to conform to our fancies. Another transforms from the afflicted to the healer being the benefactor of a mixture of two styles allowing her to understand herself and help others. A DANGEROUS METHOD avoids the pitfalls of homage in favor of establishing historical fact and consistent atmosphere. In a career that doesn’t seem to stop moving forward this is just the latest evolution in the great director’s metamorphosing oeuvre.

11. Drive (Nicolas Winding Refn)

Cultural politics, hype-mongering, and comparative criticism aside, DRIVE was a great time at the movies. It’ll never exist in a vacuum, at least not here at Film Club, but it brought back a refreshing sense of raw instinctive filmmaking. Though it plays with genre conventions it doesn’t feel lofty or above the material. I liked its flow, its colorful sense of atmosphere and danger. It felt new even as it felt familiar. I’m probably not making any sense and I’ll admit freely that many fans of the film (myself included) can’t seem to put together a good case on its behalf, but I guess we just feel it. Like Jeff and Chris I walked out of the theater revitalized.

12. The Tree of Life (Terrence Malick) and Melancholia (Lars von Trier)

Lars, Terrence, always you wrestle inside of me. – Always you will. What a great double bill this would be, the world created and destroyed in about six hours. I have serious problems with both films but also hold out hope that they still have a lot to teach me. They might as well be masterpieces.

13. Meek’s Cutoff (Kelly Reichardt)

As John pointed out MEEK’S CUTOFF is a parable. Parables exist to instruct and instill principle as well as alert us to the importance of strength and character. Here we learn that some know the way while others don’t and as Jeff pointed out this caravan has been misguided by the myth of progress perhaps destined to wander in some form forever.

14. Cold Weather (Aaron Katz)

COLD WEATHER is a prudent mystery in the best sense. The mystery itself isn’t really that interesting so it’s a good thing that Katz bestows his film with good characters. At the center we have a brother and sister and Portland Oregon, shot sagaciously by Andrew Reed. I’ve said it before and I’ll gladly say it again, the finale is one of the best scenes of 2011.

15. Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives (Apichatpong Weerasethakul)

The passage from life to death is shown with exquisite patience and grace in UNCLE BOONMEE WHO CAN RECALL HIS PAST LIVES. For me the connection here is our relationship to the land we were raised in and the way we always seem to return either in body or spirit.

16. Nostalgia for the Light (Patricio Guzman)
Bones and stars share more than calcium in Patricio Guzman’s NOSTALGIA FOR THE LIGHT. Behold the Atacama Desert, where astronomers search the skies above while families and archeologists comb the sand beneath for answers. The scientists pursue answers only to unveil new ones while families seek closure for something that can’t ever be restored. Guzman seeks the connections between the blanket above and the soil beneath and finds that we can carry the complexity of a universe within our souls.

It grieves me to leave these wonderful films off my list: Moneyball, Warrior, Tuesday After Christmas, Winnie the Pooh, Carnage, Poetry, Source Code, Rise of the Planet of the Apes, Le Quattro Volte, War Horse, and Midnight in Paris. It feels like a cop out to call them honorable mentions because they all felt high above that distinction for emotional impact, great writing and acting, exceptional direction, and good old fashion audacity. If I didn’t think that all of you would go seek these out yourselves I would have made room on my list for 10 more.

I wish I could have seen A Seperation, The Adventures of Tin Tin, House of Pleasures, Mysteries of Lisbon, This Is Not a Film, A Bright Summer Day, Margaret, To Die Like a Man, Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol, The Mill and the Cross, and The Descendants before making this list. Perhaps someday I will.

Summer People in a Japanese skating video

2012-01-08T17:11:00.000-08:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=BvD4IT610u4#!

So stoked for this!

top ten of 2010..... again

2012-01-08T12:22:00.000-08:00

Since you guys are doing it I’ll revise mine. I’m still holding to my original system in which I consider a film based on when it gets an official US release. That being said I’m really not sure if ESSENTIAL KILLING was ever released in the US. That being the case I will revise this list with that film in mind. It deserves a bigger audience and more awareness.

1. Shutter Island (Martin Scorsese)
2. True Grit (Joel and Ethan Coen)
3. Alamar (Pedro Gonzales Rubio)
4. Essential Killing (Jerzy Skolimowski)
5. Toy Story 3 (Lee Unkrich)
6. Vengeance (Johnny Tu)
7. Prodigal Sons (Kimbery Reed)
8. Everyone Else (Maren Ade)
9. The Ghost Writer (Roman Polanski)
10. Blue Valentine (Derek Cianfrance)
11. Sweetgrass (Lucien Castaing-Taylor)
12. Fish Tank (Andrew Arnold)

Honorable Mentions remain the same.

blind robot love

2012-01-07T12:38:00.000-08:00

I was going to take John’s bait and respond to his anti-WARRIOR rant but I got one paragraph in and realized that I didn’t really care. I think it essentially boils down to feeling. I liked Tom Hardy’s character quite a bit and John didn’t. He’s a cold bastard. I’m a nice guy. My paragraph went a little something like this:

“It makes sense that the girl who just got her new Iphone wouldn’t be into a film about UFC fighting. He’s probably tweeting about how swell Hugh Jackman is as I write this. WARRIOR is certainly not for everyone, a lot of what John wrote is dead on but there is a difference in sympathies here. I really like Tom Hardy’s character and found his reasons for being “whiny” legit while the king of Film Club insists that he should suck it up and be a man. This is tyranny. Right now he’s probably sitting lonely in his Xanadu playing rock em sock em robots.”

I watched WARRIOR with my family and it’s actually become quite a rarity for the Musa clan to do this. I think the audience factor really settled it for me. We were all choked up during that finale. It felt earned. What can I say? I loved it.

It’s funny, as I was trying to write this I caught a great fight scene in John Ford’s SHE WORE A YELLOW RIBBON. It starts with John Wayne’s Captain Nathan Cutting Brittles ordering five troops to arrest Victor McLaglen’s Major Quincannon. Needless to say it’s the finest fist fight in perhaps the history of cinema, a real gut buster.

John, for the record I never said that I don’t believe you when you say you prefer one film to another. After the train wreck that was COWBOYS VS ALIENS I can believe you like anything.

Wow, we’ve started out 2012 with a bang.

you go lisa!

2012-01-05T14:34:00.000-08:00

Hey Lisa. I meant to get back to you about that third paragraph in your wonderful THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO post. I want to be really careful here for two reasons. The first is that I don’t want to take the issue of rape lightly simply because it’s not to be taken lightly. Second I don’t want to insult your friends as I am also sort of infuriated by their response to the “revenge” scene. So let me tread lightly, at least for the first paragraph or so.

The scene in question is not necessarily a revenge scene. There are many motivations that they are simply missing here. The first would have required them to listen closely to Lisbeth’s new terms with the rapist pig. She has to give up her financial freedom meaning that any expenditures have to be passed by him before she can receive that check. The first time she asks for money, after her laptop is broken, he forces her to perform oral sex on him as a quid pro quo. This immediately leads Lisbeth to put the camera on her bag and go to his apartment where she planned to record and blackmail him into giving her a large list of favors including freedom to spend her money as she pleases. She doesn’t count on him being as sick as he truly is.

This leads to her “revenge” which is actually a mixture of revenge and opportunism. Her actions, though brutal, reap a plethora of rewards for both her and anyone who is under his supervision. She has to assume that he is doing similar vile things to his other clients therefore he gets a nasty tattoo on his chest. The dildo up the ass is not exclusively for revenge but also to let this man know that she is dangerous, not the victim who remains such. She wants to make it very clear that this won’t happen again to anyone. In that way she is creating justice where it wouldn’t otherwise exist. Also, she basically becomes free from the care of a legal guardian therefore free. So I guess I don’t consider this revenge as much as taking back control of a situation.

As for their views on it being more disturbing to see a metal dildo shoved up a rapists bum than to see a women tied, gagged, and anally raped I say you need to check yourself. If you want to blame it on your exposure to pornography then I say check yourself. If you say that it is because you are used to seeing women get raped in some semblance I say check yourself. Then I say go fuck yourself. If I were to advise someone who was the victim of sexual violence whether or not to see this in theaters I would say skip it. I would also say having conversations with men who find rape scenes preferable to scenes where rapists get their comeuppance is also not advisable. Again, I hope you aren’t mad Lisa that I’m being so disrespectful to your friends but this is really disturbing to read.

I’m glad you liked the movie a lot. I think that it’ll probably end up very high on my list of top films in 2011. I saw it a second time and found that it holds up just fine. Keep postin Lisa!

Quick question: Who the hell are these people you speak of?

let's get him!

2012-01-05T12:24:00.000-08:00

He doesn’t like DRIVE? Jeff….. bro, let’s wait for Ben outside the bar and make him eat the curb! I’ll stomp him like Gosling while you shove a fork through his neck. What’s that? You don’t want to go to jail? Well let’s push him or hit our chests against his and call him a faggot. Then we can back into the bar and tell Chris, John, Jason, Adrienne, and Lisa that we beat some dude up outside.

Now that I’ve gotten that stupid shit out of my system, BEN!!!!! Your post was totally awesome! I have been feeling a slight backlash in my mind and heart towards DRIVE but it honestly didn’t go anywhere. I’m really happy to see you shit on this movie for some reason. Probably because I like to see people really let loose---- “Shut up, the movie is about a criminal mechanic who steals and kills and wears the same dumb jacket. He's very careful about getting caught unless it means taking off his blood soaked scorpion coat. Pretty people, hip music, blood, brains and veins. Cars!”--- that’s hilarious man. I think you are onto something however in the comparison you have drawn to certain artists who attract a moronic young white male audience.

I think that Refn is personally above this charge and I’ll try to explain why. But before I do that I wanted to discuss the backlash this film has suffered and what that ostensibly means in light of personal tastes and critical proclivities. I recently read both Michael Phillips Movie Club dis as well as David Edelstein’s year’s best performances takedown in regards to DRIVE and both felt illuminating to me. Neither critic addressed the film all that much outside of “slick formulaic genre trash disguised as art” (this is the go to insult for the highbrow critic in regards to anything violent or genre based) but they took the time to point out that the fans of this film must in fact be FANBOYS!!!! Not only is this an insult to anyone pretending to “take film seriously” but it’s a poor understanding of both history (I doubt either critic would make such bold pronouncements about a Peckinpah/Hill/Karlson film) and genre itself. NOTE: Ben I’m not in any way linking you to that crew just slowly getting to my point.

What is my point? I’m not sure. I think it has something to do with the fact that preference becomes apparent when these types of films catch fire. DRIVE is a film about violent people. It depicts violence as a way of life and therefore, in its own way, justifies and glorifies it. Some people don’t get down with this type of mentality. This is why genre pictures find a certain favor in some circles whilst being banished in others. This is all fine. What isn’t fine is when members of the critical establishment patronize the film’s supposed fan base with charges of immaturity and lack of cinematic ambition. Sorry, I’ll take DRIVE over MARGIN CALL any day.

But that last sentence says more about me than it does about either film right. This is why I love how Ben brought the discussion back to COLD WEATHER (a film that I also love). He’s admitting a certain partiality here and I think that it’s nice to see that out in the open. Truth be told this is one of the best things about Film Club, that we can all come to one film with so many different tastes and perceptions. I like violent cinema and don’t require a moral rationalization to do so. This is probably a well-known fact at this point. It sounds like Ben has other opinions on the matter. I can’t wait to read them. Thanks dude for giving us a discussion to start 2012 with!

Jeff, it’d definitely tough to be lumped into a group of people based on simple taste. I have been battling with this for years. Hands down, the worst group that I can imagine being associated (even in theory) to is fucking frat boys. I am predisposed to despise them. I’m probably stereotyping them by saying this but I find that culture totally dedicated to reciprocate strong homophobic, misogynist, racist, and batty right wing sentiments all while enjoying the freedoms and privileges of higher education. ----NOTE: I realize that I’m being totally hypocritical here as I just whined about those two critics lumping a bunch of people into a categorized pit with a sign that reads “beware fanboys below”---- That’s why I opened with that nasty paragraph above.

Violent cinema has always been viewed as inferior no matter how you dice it. It is always accused of desensitizing us, arousing us, and downright enraging us with unimpeded images of sensationalized depictions of death and serious injury. But I think that it still speaks to a common thread in our human connection, the capacity to stoop to ANYONE’s level. I need to make that top ten revenge film list.

Sounds like Ben and Jeff got the ball rolling. Great job guys!

In sad news, J. Hoberman got laid off today. Bummer. Great critic. Great writer. Went to Binghamton U. Fuck Village Voice.

One more thing really quickly. What the hell is not to like about the Gos' jacket? You have terrible taste in fall wear.

i hear ya

2012-01-04T13:15:00.000-08:00

I know how you feel Jason. I think we all do at some point. There is a specific frustration when you take time writing something and get no reply. I often know why people aren’t really responding (older film or coming late to the discussion) but it still sucks. Maybe that’ll be my new year’s resolution, to respond to posts about films I’ve seen regardless of when they roll in. To start off the New Year the right way let’s talk BLACK SWAN.

So reading my original post I see that I was a fan of the film but in no way knocked flat by it. It reminded me that I sat behind this moron who kept farting out lame one liners to his douche bag friends. That really annoyed me. Actually it has a strange effect on the viewing experience as you are aware that “mature” material will soon pop up on screen (sex, violence, insanity) and you can’t help but dread his loud take on it. But enough of that.

I’m hot or cold when it comes to the mosaic approach to filmmaking. I think that a lot of directors know how to make a satisfying whole but often times we are left with checklist type references that have little or nothing to do with the actual story and a lot to do with the genre that particular film is obviously aping. I don’t think BLACK SWAN fails in its attempt to evoke a wide variety of films about showbiz. But I had a fair share of grievances with this film as well as most other Aronofsky pictures.

My first would be the stock shocks and sight gags. I found the mirror scene to be incredibly out of place in the otherwise consistent vibe. I also hated the WHAT LIES BENEATH face changing scene/scenes but only because I felt that this film was actually above that cheap gimmick. I also didn’t much like the Lilly obsessions but I’ve gotten over that I think.

I also liked the ending Jason. I think that it couldn’t have been executed better with the swelling of the music and the pace of the dance building, like the plot, to a climax. Her death (I believe that she will indeed die) gave me some goose bumps even though I felt he stole Tarantino’s punch line from INGLORIOUS BASTERDS. I also loved the horror elements here but secretly wished that the director would take that a little further. Do you ever get frustrated when a filmmaker holds his work back for what seems like highbrow approbation? This movie felt like a slight cop out at times. Still, I’m playing the devil’s advocate because I rather liked it though I wouldn’t rank among the best of 2010.

I’d like to welcome Adrienne to Film Club!!!!! I can’t wait to read your posts on a regular basis. Jason, thanks for talking her into it. This is going to be a fun year.

Next up I have little capsule reviews for RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES, CAVE OF FORGOTTEN DREAMS, TUESDAY AFTER CHRISTMAS, MONEYBALL, and hopefully TINKER TAILOR SOLDIER SPY (which opens at Regal on Friday).

carnage

2012-01-03T14:29:00.001-08:00

We all deal with guilt differently. Some of us pray, other’s deny and quash, some do the necessary propitiation to appear accountable, while others accept our collective inherent evils and simply move on. Roman Polanski’s CARNAGE drops four guilty souls in one apartment and seemingly traps them there like hamsters a la The Twilight Zone. It isn’t some invisible force that keeps one couple from going down the elevator but instead four completely different egos battling for the last word. The reason for their unblessed union is a violent dispute between their two sons. Nancy (Kate Winslet) and Alan’s (Christoph Waltz) son Zachary struck hosts Penelope (Jodie Foster) and Michael (John C. Reilly) son Ethan in the face with a stick knocking two teeth out and leaving a nerve exposed. As the argument progresses ostensibly passive partakers take off their masks to reveal their inner Neanderthal.

The trick with this kind of film is to let things progress gradually without any unnecessary idle time. It needs to move along quickly with a good deal of emphasis on walls and barricades both figurative and literal. This is perhaps why Polanski is the best man for this job, his understanding of space and confinement is seemingly unparalleled. Like Hitchcock’s ROPE he needs to familiarize us with the environment without letting us get too comfortable. He needs to introduce the ticks and triggers that will ultimately send the dispute further down the path to chaos and carnage.

The first yank on the leash occurs outside the elevator only minutes into the film. Alan and Penelope’s palpable disdain is the first layer to be peeled off the surface. Snap judgments and introverted exasperations lay waiting beneath the surface until civility turns to insolence at the drop of a hat of a sneaky statement. Alan isn’t afraid of such honesty and gladly coaxes everyone, including his wife, to tell it how it is. Michael eventually appreciates him for this as it allows him to break out of the shell that armistice has forced upon him. This allegiance gives birth to another though it should be noted that neither sexes can stick together. As we all know, especially John and I, arguments cannot be settled without a little humility and not just the superficial kind.

CARNAGE gets a little too obvious towards the finale as characters become more and more intoxicated and exasperated. What I didn’t expect however was the way that this temper tantrum spirit gave birth to a certain tranquility and acceptance. The characters can be easily split into their respective political/social/personal circles but they all remain remarkably united in both their collective guilt/immaturity and hope for resolution. This unpleasant meeting has served as something of an exorcism for both parties involved.

I have to point out that I like the director quite a bit and perhaps suspended my disbelief as characters made their way towards the door only to be sucked back in. After all, I’m the only guy who loved THE GHOST WRITER. I just love his use of confinement and the way he turns it into a character closing in on the unsuspecting infantile adults. With each lofty remark, blurted out just as things begin to subside, the room seems to get smaller and the characters start to lose that precious space that keeps them somehow detached from one another.

2011: the best year in film club history

2012-01-03T11:53:00.003-08:00

I’ll toast to that. We’ve certainly had a great year and I would agree that it is the best in Film Club history thanks to the new additions. I can’t promise that I’ll be any less busy as far as rock n roll is concerned but I can promise to keep up the pace as much as possible. This is fun and fun things tend to get priority in my life. I love talking about film and consequently life with all of you even if we are wrapped up in a fierce disagreement. As John has already pointed out everyone brings something fresh to the table and can be counted on to rescue any given discussion with that unique perspective. If there is anything to learn in 2011 it’s that there are many ways to view film and evaluate it. I think Lisa taught us that the most.

As for my favorite moments of the year there are certainly too many to name but I’ll give it try. I tend to like our discussions of modern film more than the supposed golden age. This probably comes as a surprise as I have made no secret of my love and preference for everything pre-1970s. But when it comes to talking amongst ourselves I think the dialogue and excitement is more refreshing in regards to modern cinema. When I write something about an older film I’m just doing that to get it out of my system and I’ve noted that most people tend to ignore it when writing their own posts. But when a new film comes out we all get involved and evaluate our own opinions in light of each other’s observations. Basically I learn a lot just reading your perspective.

I really enjoyed Lisa bashing John and Jeff’s heads together during the TOL deforestation. I loved the MIDNIGHT IN PARIS debate between John and Jason even though I hadn’t seen the film at that point. Mel Gibson got the group chattering more than usual and even led to me thinking that Jeff was at the bridge pulling a George Bailey. THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO had me on the ropes. DRIVE, a film that seems to evoke a fair amount of lively debate everywhere, had us all both impressed and bickering.

If I’ve learned anything from 2011 it’s that nobody should be ashamed to be that dissenting voice. It makes for good writing.

I’m currently making my top ten list and I hope it inspires some fiery debates as well as some fiery agreements. But before I go back to writing about some of the best films of 2011 I want to point out one big problem I had with John’s last post. He referred to me as the king and this simply isn’t the truth. Here is the brief story (from my POV) of how this wonderful gathering of nerds got started.

I was working at a place called Community Options working with developmentally disabled adults. I heard from my friend Justin that ACHIEVE was a far better agency in this particular field as it provided staff with more freedom and support. I applied and got the job. Before my first day I asked Justin who I would be working with and he told me that the guy’s name was John Owen. I followed that with “you are going to like him a lot. He knows a ton about movies, probably more than you do.” This immediately pissed me off. On my first day I wasted no time picking at my new boss’ brain (yes John was my boss at one point). I quickly realized that he was a huge Herzog fan and that he had a certain wary disdain for modern cinema. I made it my goal to change his mind about that and one film seemed to break down the wall, Paul Thomas Anderson’s THERE WILL BE BLOOD.

I was surprised to hear his reaction to this movie. He loved it. This was not typical John Owen reactions when discussing film. We later decided that we would start a little club where we would exchange movies and give them a star rating. The other guy would have to try and read their tastes based on what they thought of said film. For example I sent RAGING BULL John’s way thinking it was in the bag. John gave it two out of five stars and then we spent the whole day talking about why. He would send something like ANDREI RUBLEV home with me and I think I gave that one five out of five stars whilst complaining about the horse killing scene. This lasted for about four months and then John decided that he hated his job (this was due to really awful boss change).

At that point we would only be able to discuss film briefly which really bummed me out. Then one day John came into the room I was working in and created my blog account. He is the dumbass who came up with poopnoises.blogspot.com. He is the one who got this whole thing started. We began slow and sparse and my writing style was very lame indeed. I was tepid at first not wanting to disagree with John because of how well he could articulate an argument. I think it was LET THE RIGHT ONE IN that really started the John vs Brandon wars. I learned a lot about debate via John and now look at us.

So long boring story short, I’m not the king. John is the guy who came up with this great idea. He’s the one who encouraged me to write about film. So without getting too sappy I owe him a big thank you.

Ps, Black Death is soooooooo overrated.

midnight in paris

2012-01-02T19:39:00.000-08:00

I’m coming about six months late to the argument here. While I’d love to root for the underdog here I have to join the caravan and admit that Woody Allen’s MIDNIGHT IN PARIS charmed the pants off me. Now I tried to read as much from the little debate that occurred back in June before writing this just so I could get an idea what the hang up was here. I understand where John boy is coming from to a certain extent and he admits outright that there were certain factors that contributed to his mostly negative reaction.

One of them makes complete sense to me, that would be the kneejerk pat yourself on the back “tee hee hee oh he’s referring to THE DISCREET CHARM OF THE BOURGEOIS” audience reaction. I think that would annoy the shit out of me as well. He’s right, the mocking of the pedantic snoot is a bit hypocritical as Allen himself often seems like the snobby voluntary tour guide guiding us through 1920s and 1890s art culture with his “oh look over there it’s Dali and ooooo Degas!” But as my beautiful wife astutely pointed out, there is a strong undercurrent here about the depressing difference between the upper class of then and the upper class of today. This is a crucial point here; there is a reason that Gil is experiencing this intense nostalgic wanderlust.

Honestly I can’t say that I disagree with a lot of John’s trepidations. The only difference is that I didn’t mind a single one of them. I know that the characters are actually caricatures; I know that this is simplistic stuff but I don’t give a rhinoceros’ ass. If this is nostalgia porn get me some baby oil and a box of Kleenex and leave me alone for an hour and a half. Not all cinema needs to challenge us and I would offer that many of the so called thought-provoking films that SOME OF US laud in favor of films like this are actually reinforcing many of the same things albeit a “circle jerk” for euro trash miserablists.

There is a real sense of an old artist having fun with an era that obviously takes him away and I think that he does a fine job of making that affection contagious. And this bourgeois paranoia is a bit much for me. The idea that rich filmmakers can’t make films about rich writers on a dream vacation in Paris without being charged with bourgeois fluff for bourgeois folk feels extremely forced and false to me. Jeff and Jason are right, it’s better for modern audiences to hear about some of the authors and painters in this film than to get a twitter/twilight/ipad facial via Steve Carrel and Julianne Moore. But I’m coming way too late to this fight (or is it officially a dog pile now?) so I’ll just say that I found it really charming and don’t think it warrants hate of any kind outside of annoyance via hype and stupid audience reaction.

Some more random notes, I love Owen Wilson. I love it when Allen opens his films with location shots and Cole Porteresque jazz or pop standard numbers (should I pat myself on the back?). I would talk about the Transformers 2 comparisons (perhaps even talk a little about the possible motivations behind it) but that would get me into a lot of trouble. This is not a review so maybe I’ll elaborate on what I find “charming.”

viewing log (yuletide edition)

2012-01-02T14:32:00.001-08:00

Nobody can claim that Steven Soderbergh is a one trick pony. The guy will try anything and for that I find him both essential and uneven. I tend to like him most when he’s working in between art house darling and populist conciliator, though to be completely honest I prefer his mainstream work to his more esoteric output. CONTAGION seems to exist in between the two worlds. On one hand it’s a fairly straightforward concept about a group of people fighting a new a deadly virus in their own way. On the other it’s handled with, shall we say more artistic care than your average Hollywood biological thriller? The script is good, very interesting stuff if you stop and listen (and let’s be honest there isn’t much else you can do with this film). Like Fincher he focuses a lot on the small details, the amount of things we touch and our immediate exposure to other people’s germs. This is like the anti-CRASH, the realization of our common thread of humanity doesn’t set us free, it kills us. The cast is big and notable, not necessarily for the Winslets and Laws (though they do fine) but for the inclusion of the Cranstons and Hawkes. I can’t say that the film had the infamous “just like Jaws did for the ocean” effect in regards to hand sanitization but I found that particular suspense device handled extremely well. My two big problems came at the beginning and end of the film. One was the characterization of the Hawkes’ janitor (first as the guy who didn’t know the final letter of AD……hmmmmm could it be HD?). The contrast of his good hearted simpleton dwarfed by Fishburne’s good natured doctor really rang false to me. And can somebody please make U2 songs illegal in motion pictures? That also made me sad. Other than that I think CONTAGION is well above average.

I’m in total agreement with everyone who loved Chang dong- Lee’s POETRY though I’d like to gripe a bit about the running time. Perhaps it was my own fatigue but I found it overlong and occasionally meandering. This didn’t stop me from loving it, mainly once the film’s protagonist begins to find her conscience upon meeting the SPOILER rape victim’s mother. That scene is one of the most perfect of the year. The picture also ends with one of the more stunning epilogues of recent years, a scene that connects her plodding identification with the victim to her finding her poetic voice. It’s a beautiful matrimony of empathy and justice.

I SAW THE DEVIL couldn’t be more estranged from dong- Lee’s quiet meditation on the effects of misogynist violence. Whereas the previous film decides that identifying with those who are in pain will lead us to the right answer this film chooses to simply hurt those who hurt. I don’t like these kinds of films, the ones that treat revenge as some sort of tangram of moral lessons and failures. We all know that exacting pain and suffering on those who make others suffer is a fleeting pleasure and one that only brings us closer to the darkness that these men and women inhabit. We all know that it cannot bring true peace in the way that forgiveness can. We all know that through violence one can and will lose their soul. But these pictures insist on teaching us something new about our darkest internal aptitudes. But somehow this picture managed to overcome many of the snags that seem to ensnare the likes of SAW and company. It’s ultra-violent, full of sick scenarios often dealing with the torture of women. These scenes are unsettling to say the least and they have the exact result that director Ji-woon Kim wants in regards to the cause and effect/cat and mouse retribution. When our avenger takes his revenge it feels earned albeit in a hmmmmmm this contradicts my liberal sensibilities kind of way. The finale is weak but I found this to be likable genre garbage if you have a soft spot for the horror genre.

I always want to come out of the theater raving about the latest Clint Eastwood film. I love the guy and probably bring more of that into each film than I would like to admit. That being said I haven’t been able to connect with some of his recent output despite myself. I didn’t much like INVICITUS and decided to forgo THE HEREAFTER altogether but wasn’t about to miss J. Edgar for the world. The Cinema Saver was freezing on the day I went to see it, I found myself readjusting my position to try and keep warm. I must have looked like a junkie. Not that it matters but I’ve found that people seem either hot or cold in regards to this one while I found myself rather warm. It’s handsome and refreshingly old fashioned; there isn’t much in the way of flash and pizazz. The picture is narrated by a man who can’t be trusted, a man who seemingly forgoes the pleasures of life to nurture an institution that will supposedly change the way we solve crimes. A lot of those changes were good simply for taking the time to look and organize details and to build cases with evidence that didn’t exist prior to that point. Many of the changes were in fact a breach of privacy, an excuse to look at one another with suspicious eyes. J Edgar sought to purify his country before he could even dream of tending to his own personal complexities. The love story (if that’s what it is) is fittingly repressed with two or three acts of vociferous sexual frustration. In the end of this long sad life we have a bloated corpse with an empire now in the hands of men and women he didn’t trust (which was pretty true of everyone). Eastwood and Dustin Lance Black handle the material with care and class but I wonder if they were a little too chaste here. I admire it, don’t love it unfortunately.

i also love film club

2011-12-28T13:54:00.001-08:00

It is fairly remarkable that John and I started this thing with no other intent than to argue and make our film viewing more meaningful. I'm thankful for that. You all can't imagine. It's a great way to suck more meaning out of life. I know that sounds heavy but watching movies is good enough, writing and discussing them with friends is the motha fuckin cherry on top.

To echo John's sentiment, it's such a pleasure to have all of you involved in this. You don't get paid. You mostly get shit on. For that I have to thank all of you for a great year. I can see this continuing for a long time.

I saw John today and felt immediate shame. I went too hard on my last two posts and feel like a complete asshole. I have to admit at the same time that part of my reading process is attaching motivation to the written word. It's a really bad part of me and I need to work on it. Part of interpretation requires well........ interpretation. I happen to get the wrong idea often.

But I had no right to make it personal. Rest assured that John and I will continue to have our memorable spats, I'll keep on farting on his lap so to speak. But it seems that at least once a year one of us makes the other mad (albeit very very briefly). I'm going to make it my year end resolution to consider feelings before writing. I have to admit that I thought (deviously) that some of my lines might send my friend through the roof. I was sore about the Fincher whore post and wanted to inspire similar feelings of discontent. Mission accomplished and yet it just made me feel even more sad.

Anyway, I'm fucking proud to have such excellent nerds for friends. Ben, I need to meet you and toss a few down the hatch.

Coming soon: reviews of Poetry, Tuesday After Christmas, Nostalgia for the Light, Contagion, I Saw the Devil, J. Edgar, and Midnight in Paris.

my final word

2011-12-27T11:52:00.001-08:00

Sorry. I didn't think anything I wrote would actually anger you. I was just trying to keep up. I DO read your posts all the way through even if I don't always interpret your ideas the right way. I was being honest about how I read (or misread) some of what you've written. No need to dig a bigger hole for myself. I'm in soooo many doghouses today.

let's keep the chris in xmas

2011-12-26T12:58:00.001-08:00

Of course I’m aware of comparison/contrast essays. I guess I’m just surprised that you bring up these points to come into terms with your own already cemented opinions. My bad. I get a totally different vibe from your comparisons. I get the vibe that you like to knock films off their pedestal and use lesser appreciated films that you love to do it. I get the vibe that you get annoyed by these films because of the love they are getting while other films get largely ignored (indiewire poll anyone?). I’m not saying that it’s wicked or wrong, just pointing out the obvious.

To say “well a guy with a turtle bomb attached to his head is far better than a golf club to the face” pretty much ends the conversation for me. Yep John, you are right. “I much prefer an ATM falling on someone’s head to a metal dildo being kicked up a rapist’s ass.” I guess I’m a damn fool for having liked it in the first place. Example better understands pulp than example b. Ok, I guess you know best. Better not think of admonishing something pulpy before regarding everything that can be considered pulpy and better. Do you get what I’m saying here? I’m not saying that you don’t have the right to see connections in your head but rather that when you make them I could just as easily state “well I wasn’t aware that GWTDT was aspiring to be Breaking Bad.”

Nothing is taboo here. You aren’t being attacked. Read the paragraph again and you’ll see that I’m just pointing a fact out. That fact would be that your weapon of choice when debating something’s worth is often the use of comparison. Nothing wrong with it per say just not sure that I buy it all the time. But please continue to utilize this as maybe I’ll learn to connect the dots eventually.

“At the same time, I readily admit that the story is compelling in an "I can't stop looking at that anal rape" kind of way.”

I understand that you are joking here but this is what got me into this argument in the first place. The idea that the story is an easy target for those who believe that the director is above this sort of thing. I sort of cringe at the idea that they laugh off that part of this story. I know you could care less but I think that the story isn’t all about lifting its skirt up at the ball. If you can get all emotional about a moist napkin in that Denzel Bible movie then I can certainly find a heap of little non narrative driven moments that make this so much more than that movie with that nasty scene. But even that scene serves a purpose outside of the obviously perverse exterior. To me, a lot of people won’t entertain the idea. This is why I DO find it a bit of an underdog, at least to Fincherites.

All of this also makes me wonder what each of us think in regards to directorial emphasis. I can honestly state that since joining Film Club I’ve been more interested in those little moments than the overall story. I think a lot of that has to do with John’s influence here. I also let films pass or fail on the poignancy of a gesture or facial expression. I sometimes feel that it seals the deal. A director has to know to look for that. I don’t want to talk about the film specifically but I’ll say that I recently loved a movie with a tiny moment like this. It moved me enough to make me fall head over heels for it.

I bring up Fincher’s talent to point out his awareness of these things. John, you seem to think that I’m only taken aback by his “oh so gorgeous” framing or whatnot but I’m not referring to that. I heard someone say recently “so what! A screensaver can be breathtaking.” I am more enamored by his ability to show and teach by way of shooting, cutting, splicing, and editing. He’s not a big one take guy. He throws a lot of the film’s responsibilities on his shoulders but he often delivers. I think that this film is a great collaborative piece of art. I think Chris is agreeing on this point. There is a great union of actor and director here. Fincher knows what to shoot and his actors know how to breathe life into these characters.

I don’t know. I guess I’m still on the ropes here. At least I sort of have Chris by my side.

i'm hittin that corner for my pimp david

2011-12-26T10:54:00.001-08:00

Yeah I must be carrying Fincher’s water. You know how I was so in step with everyone the last time he made a movie right? I thought that I mapped out my affection for this film pretty well but apparently I can’t be trusted. I just can't leave him no matter how hard he slaps me. I’m just paying the pimp so to speak.

But despite John’s insistence that I made up my mind before I walked into the theater I would say that I was quite nervous about the film beforehand. I wondered if in fact it would turn out ok given the narrative juggling that would have to happen in order to tell everything from the book. After seeing the TERRIBLE Swedish film that John can't seem to make up his mind about I was really nervous that this wasn’t meant to be. You can either choose to believe me or not but I assure you that I’m telling the truth. Of course I was rooting for it, I love the director just as I love the Coen brothers but I try to avoid blind love. I try to be honest. I don’t have a chip on my shoulder.

I’m not going to repeat my review about the film in question, I actually think my original post was quite objective. But I will say about John’s defense of the Swedish film (perhaps to avenge his nasty post) that perhaps he’s been watching too much television. That film could make CSI: Binghamton look like M. You boil craftsmanship and vision down to mere flashy. To quote Glenn Kenny “critics who call Fincher’s one any kind of copy of the original have 0 conception of framing, blocking, or editing. And this is a fact.”

But thanks for sitting me on your lap John. I farted before I got off.

Jeff, I totally believe you man. I wasn’t questioning your honesty just arguing that the argument that Fincher is somehow above this material (or any for that matter) is kind of weird. I think he knows what he’s doing, either that or he’s hunting down a paycheck so he can do shit like ZODIAC. I don’t think he is that kind of guy but then again what do I know I like that button movie right? Honestly I don’t question nor find offense in your honesty. I promise and I apologize if I’ve come off a little cantankerous here. I’m just going to bat for a movie. Hopefully this rope a dope will end soon. Go watch a movie or something guys.

Chris, where the fuck have you been my friend? These buzzards have been circling me for days now. I guess the whole “airport novel” argument is hip nowadays. I don’t begrudge it. Larsson makes some peculiar decisions but I think his aim is true. It is certainly pop art, and perhaps inevitably flawed for being such, but still it takes us remarkably deep into the investigative process via a reporter’s perspective. I was happy to learn about that point of view whilst being sheepish in defending it to people who seem to look down on it (even if those same people worship a young wizard). I will say in closing that argument that most haven’t read the said book in question sooooooooo.

“Sometimes we need these seedy underbelly stories to remind us that all some people have ever known in their lives is evil, and that much of the evil in our world consists of sexual violence against women.” I agree and I’m convinced that the only reason so many people are reading so far into this one is that they secretly take it very seriously especially now that “one of our best directors” has decided to adapt it. I just got Aldrich’s KISS ME DEADLY from Santa and I doubt that Hitchen’s can find any love amidst the sex or any heroism amidst the violence there (may he rest in peace). I happen to find heroism and love present in Fincher’s film. But do films need love and heroism to be good? Do films need humanity? I’m not so sure.

John is the king of stating he prefers one thing to another. We’ve already had this out several times but he likes to take one work of art (in this case a television show which is far different from a movie) and hold it over another to prove his point (Cold Weather vs Drive, The Green Lantern vs Melancholia, etc.). What can I say? I don’t know how they relate or where that point is coming from but I can’t really comment too much about Breaking Bad. It seems that it has universal appeal. Not sure how this relates to Fincher’s film but who cares right? John, I love you and I love Tarkovsky and the Coens and Katz and Korine and TERROR IN A TEXAS TOWN and MURDER SHE WROTE so please don’t get mad. You have to admit that this is one of your indulgences and it often perks its little head up when you want to rub someone’s face in shit, specifically when they profess love for something (Jeff and Drive me and this film or me and Melancholia). So while I’m sure steam is shooting out of your ears please remember that I don’t mean this as a personal attack, just an observation.

I don’t think that anyone is arguing that ZODIAC is somehow lesser than this film. I don’t know how I’d rank anything at this point. I think that my argument is instead that while many Fincher fans seem to feel that this is one of his lesser achievements I would call it a major one, perhaps # two or three behind aforementioned movie. I WILL admit that I far prefer it to SE7EN. But honestly who the hell cares?

I hope I don’t sound negative guys. I am sensing a certain defensive tone that may or may not stem from a misunderstanding of what I’ve written. It’s hard to imply sarcasm when writing.

Chris, I love the review but in the future please rephrase “shit movies like IRREVERSIBLE and THE HUMAN CENTIPEDE.” They are both turds in the same toilet.

jeff the quaker

2011-12-26T08:28:00.001-08:00

This wasn’t a scuffle, just my need to hear you elaborate. I feel like I’m slowly chiseling an answer from you in regards to what specifically you didn’t respond to and I still remain a skeptic. It sounds like you made a huge mistake watching that Swedish film first. In fact I would argue that anyone who watched that film, myself included, made a huge mistake. I don’t understand the whole “I need to be surprised” argument but that’s ok. It sounds like the other film was far too fresh (or is it rotten?) for you to fully enjoy this one. I was kind of hoping to elaborate on the idea of bad stories (as perhaps you would classify this one) being made into great films but I guess it just boils down to where we place this on the Fincher meter. I’ll bet my meter is better than yours.

merry christmas ya filthy animal

2011-12-25T11:52:00.001-08:00

I think my first post mapped out exactly what I found great about the material. I like the mood, the setting, the sense of atmosphere, and the two lead characters. I like the emphasis on routine, adult routine. I agree that this is cookie cutter thriller that decides instead to focus on the process, the obsessive and sequential procedure of solving a crime that only exists in the present in the form of pictures, journals, subjective interviews, and codes. I like the cat. I like the idea that Mikael goes from father figure to sexual partner to love interest. I think that Fincher observes the source material as opposed to adapting it. He sees the flaws in character and simply presents them in more honest way. This is my point about the difference between mere source material and cinema; a script can be transformed if it’s in the right hands.

Also, we cannot ignore the performances here as opposed to the Swedish film. They are like night and day. I’m not only arguing Fincher’s authorial presence here but the collaborative brilliance that he evokes as director. I think this film is warmer than the original. The romance is there whether you are familiar with these characters in a written sense or not. Then again I haven’t seen this proven since the only other two people who seem to love this thing as much as me are Jesse and Graham, both being people who have read the book. We know that a film is more than its initial plot and if anyone would like to debate this it would be my pleasure. A great film thrives on more and as I’ve already written this film has so much more. Haha. Peace and good will towards Jeff.

patronizing at best

2011-12-25T07:00:00.000-08:00

That's what most praise of this film adds up to. But it's much better. Don't watch it though because based on that post you obviously already know how you are going to feel about it. My point being that most people seem to hate the story so much that not even Fincher can deliver it from evil. They would prefer a story about facebook so they can compare it to Citizen Kane. My point would be that he elevates the material not only in a cinematic sense but also an emotional one. You argue that this is a bad world in which bad people do bad things to one another. I think that's a lazy interpretation at best. It's a dark world where dark people do dark things and then get caught by good people and revenge is exacted. Now if you are one to find offense in revenge or perhaps justice then this is not your thing. I can't say anything good or bad about the "front runnner" Breaking Bad so I'll leave that one alone.

You have never really sung the praise of Fincher which would imply that this film won't tip the scales so I won't try and sell this one to you. Lord knows we don't want to go back to Button territory. Go back to watching television. Love you John. Merry Christmas.

my new cross to bear

2011-12-24T18:21:00.000-08:00

I wonder what it is about the “material” that people seem to resist here. What is it about the story that bothers you specifically? I’m not asking because I doubt you but because I have read this argument several times and still feel in the dark about what shortcomings exist here. I can grant the one ending where Lisbeth takes down the corporation; it’s unnecessary but relatively brief. Is it the mystery? I have no allegiances to the book despite having read it and I can honestly say that I’m judging the film the same way I would judge say SHUTTER ISLAND. I bring up that film because I truly believe that if I had read the book I would have hated it. This isn’t literature, this is cinema. So when I write about Fincher’s film I’m judging it based on what he put up there. If I was concerned about the book I wouldn’t have hated the Swedish, it’s actually more in line with the novel.

To me the two films are incomparable. Fincher buries any memory of it. Forgive me for sounding defensive but I think that until somebody elaborates as to what about the story is below a director of this caliber I’m not sure what to make of their opinion and therefore have to step away from the discussion. Until then I’ll gladly state that I vastly prefer this film to SE7EN and THE SOCIAL NETWORK. ZODIAC is fairly incomparable; it’s not a piece of pop art like this and will always be Fincher’s BARRY LYNDON since audiences seem to avoid it like the plague.

But all of this is kind of pointless. I realize it is futile to try to talk anyone into sharing my very strong opinion. I guess I just feel that this film is a true underdog amongst the critical groupthink though many, like Jeff, seem to be willing to throw it a bone because it’s Fincher. I find it interesting that his last film was swooned over by so many when this one, to me, has much more heart and soul. Its scarlet letter would be the source material which most people haven’t read. In the end this movie is great, not good. Love you Jeff.

ps, I think I may have seen a film that will surprisingly crack the top ten. I'm not sure that I'll write about it until I make my list just to surprise everyone.

the girl with the dragon tattoo

2011-12-22T13:29:00.000-08:00

David Fincher continues his cinema of obsession with Stieg Larsson’s THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO. It’s a mystery; one set mostly on an island though characters occasional dip out to take care of personal business. The island is cold and remote with some very creepy inhabitants. We spend most of our time in the cottage with Mikael, Lisbeth, cat, and a spider web of photographs and stick it notes. But even with this icy atmosphere, the sense of evil lurking around in shadows there is still a remarkable sense of comfort and safety. Every time we follow the camera through that unprotected front door we are meant to feel a sudden calm, even when bullets could easily pass the barriers of glass and old wood. This is not the feel bad movie of the Christmas season.

I’ve read the book, the one that most distractors like to reference when claiming that “not even the talented Fincher can overcome such a stupid blah blah blah.” I can’t really defend it because I’m not really sure what they may be holding it up against. I thought it was good trash, an enormously entertaining pulpy yarn with a notable pair of lovers/gumshoes at its core. Larsson’s enthusiasm for his characters is often misperceived as quasi-feminism or a self-righteous male fantasy. I get the second charge if Mikael is indeed the author’s proxy. This story truly is his way of living out a naughty fantasy whilst only exposing the cool aspects of his flawed nature (likes sex, cigarettes, coffee, and booze but makes up for it by respecting women’s rights and taking down big corporate slime and woman killers).

The feminism is a little more complicated. My best bud Graham pointed out that he doesn’t think of Larsson as anything more than an old man who admires the youth of today. He’s refreshingly out of step with punk culture and feminism taking his time explaining what is on Lisbeth’s shirts or obsessing over her piercings and tattoos. He sees her sex life as something that she has control over and grants that same “freedom” to Mikael and anyone at the Millenium that he considers moral. He contrasts that with Nazi rapists or conservative social workers who like to lure girls to their lair where they do unspeakable things to them in exchange for virtually nothing. He’s obviously sickened by these men and has a hard time holding it back in service of his story. Fincher does not have this problem. He sees the actions of the evildoers as moments of power that can only be overcome by the taking back of power. Lisbeth embodies this, Mikael….. not so much.

The film starts by quickly establishing the Blomvkist character, specifically his professional downfall at the hands of an evil billionaire CEO. Simply put, he lost and must move on if he wants his paper to stay afloat. Luckily he is being sought out by another wealthy business man to solve a murder. This is intercut with Lisbeth’s loss of her beloved social worker and the subsequent man who will take his place. That scenario gives birth to the first acts of sexual violence. Let me warn anyone who is planning to see this that Fincher is not about to let us off easy.

The first act is less violent than vile. Jesse and Graham agreed that it is, in many ways, more disturbing because of two specific factors. The first would be the sound of a floor cleaner working right within earshot of the act. The menacing repetitious sound of a machine polishing is enough to get your blood pumping not to mention the idea that help or even an eye witness is right outside the door. The look of control on the perpetrators face is enough to make anyone want to jump through the screen. This is all rubbed in via an overhead shot of elation once the act is finished followed by the victim immediately cleaning the mess in the sink.

The second scene is exactly as vile and disturbing as anyone would fear. To say that it’s effective is probably beside the point. I can’t imagine how this moment would make a real life rape victim feel if they happened to see it. I don’t want to imagine. This is not to say that it shouldn’t be here but rather that I would not expect anyone to put themselves through it if it brought back feelings.

This is a mystery that deals with sick men’s need to dominate, humiliate, and scar their female prey. It’s about men who don’t ever think that they’ll have to face the consequences for their sickness. It’s about a girl who turns the tables without mercy. I will point out that Larsson made it awfully convenient for this particular character to possess so many valuable traits to combat these evildoers (mainly her photographic memory). But Fincher seems interested in the game aspect, the “who will slip up first” type of suspense, the kind where the cat and mouse often switch places. The pig from the earlier scene finds himself looking the “eye for an eye” straight in the eye.

Mikael’s investigation brings the two together. He discovers her via his own background check and decides to hire her for his own research. She’s immediately surprised by him, mostly the way he gives without needing to receive. Rooney Mara expresses so much here with her face, it’s truly a remarkable performance. Craig’s Mikael doesn’t react much to her prudence letting her be herself but reassuring her that he won’t ever let her entertain the idea that he could be one of the men from her past. He doesn’t patronize her and for that his stature starts to grow in ways that seem to surprise Lisbeth.

David Fincher does an excellent job telling this story in sequence. Everything is done with his trademark precision and sometimes it’s the little chores that feel the most important. We, the audience, are never left out of even the smallest detail, something that must have been chosen well beforehand when decisions were made about which actions should be taken from the source material. I was hoping that he would pay close attention to some of the smaller things (smoking, drinking, eating, showering, making coffee, scanning pictures, doing internet searches, feeding the cat, riding into town and returning over that ominous bridge making a fire) and I wasn’t let down. That sense of routine, of lifestyle, is what drew me to story in the first place. The idea that we could somehow vicariously become investigative reporters turned amateur detectives with all of the cigarettes, bottles of scotch, cups of coffee, and sandwiches at our disposal is enough to keep me baited for two and a half hours.

I was surprised by the love story, the way worked without much in the way of discussion of feelings or deliberate flirtations. It’s felt and acted upon, and the notion of sexual freedom is actually questioned in the film’s final scene. I didn’t expect this from Fincher but I’ve learned that though he has a very specific style and technique you can’t put anything past him. New territories lie ahead for sure.

I didn’t see a content pyramid here, all things worked together to get this thing where it needed to go. For instance the showdown between killer and investigator is handled quickly and efficiently just like everything else. I actually liked the speechified rant that followed the capture, not necessarily because I cared about why but for the smaller things. I liked how the killer sat for a moment to consider where to stab first, mimicking the motion a few times and then resting his arm while in deep thought. I also liked how the victim’s restraints were as modern as the technology they used to crack the case. The hydraulic hanging device was perfectly disarming, the way it moved so violently and swiftly. Likewise the killer’s fate is handled with similar speed and precision; a golf club to the face followed by the body hitting the floor with teeth spilling everywhere, Mikael is ungagged by his savior and said savior asks “may I kill him” to which he replies “yes” which is followed by a high speed chase that ends quickly enough for the epilogue. Everything can be charted; nothing is missed in the rapid pace. This is the cinema of obsession, the cinema of sequential efficiency.

Even as every action is a centerpiece I didn’t find this picture overwhelming. Instead of throwing useless information onto the puzzle board I found that everything eventually assembled to a satisfying whole. The camera often puts us behind the actions, big and small. We are often left looking at someone looking at something. We see only when they see, we feel only when feelings are sprouted. We fear the same things they do. We are implicated like a third wheel. This leads to rewards and punishments beyond your typical mainstream Hollywood film. The punishments are harsh, as in the scenes when characters are bound and gagged. We even get to see what it’s like to have a bag over your face; we get to hear the panic with each deep breath. But with great punishment comes great relief/reward.

THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTO is as smooth as it is brisk. It has the feel of a great slapstick comedy from the late thirties and early forties. It has great characters that come alive through great interpretations and performances. While it deals with heavy subject matter it rarely holds our head under the muck. Like any great mystery there is a sense of triumph and connection when the job is finished and like any great potential trilogy there is the strong sense of yearning for the next entry to hurry up and get here.

the skin i live in

2011-12-21T11:57:00.000-08:00

The first thing you should know when entering an Almodovar film is that anything can happen. Not only can it happen but the characters and dialogue won’t wince, smirk, or even pump the brakes when it occurs. He loves his melodrama and, to be fair, he’s one of the few modern filmmakers who seem to know what to do with it. THE SKIN I LIVE IN is one of his zaniest films in a long time, it’s also one of his best. His typical auteur influences are there (Hitchcock, Sirk, Fassbinder, Bunuel, Cukor, and Ophuls) but also some new ones, Franju’s EYES WITHOUT A FACE and Almodovar’s own TIE ME UP TIE ME DOWN being the film that I spotted the most. Like many of his films it moves around via flashbacks (the good ones that are shot in real time with long takes and a lot of juicy dramatic material) informing us of the present and hinting towards what might be ahead.

If you haven’t read anything about the picture yet I urge you to stay away from reviews. I wish I hadn’t read one big spoiler in particular. Go into it with no knowledge even if that means that you stop reading now. If you decide to keep reading I promise I won’t spoil anything major. The story is about Robert, Marilla, and Vera. Robert is a surgeon whose main interest is developing and manufacturing a new skin that won’t burn. If you really want to know why you’ll have to see the film, his past will light the way. Marilla is his loyal servant who watches over Vera his prisoner and lab rat. He loves them both for various reasons but mostly for their loyalty. He’s starting to lose his mind.

Through flashbacks we learn about Robert’s connection with Vera. This happens while the two lie in bed together; the camera pans slowly towards their faces and dissolves into memory. From there the already nutty plot gets even nuttier but thankfully our fair Pedro knows enough to play it straight, to allow the schlock to just be and to continue to intoxicate us with his incredible eye for cinema. He and cinematographer Jose Luis Alcane ought to be listed with the best director cinematographer collaborators in movie history. They have a true distinct look, style, and movement that will be aped for years to come. Also, Alberto Inglesias have worked well together in his past melodramas but here he does a great job adapting to the horror and thriller musical cues needed for certain scenes.

I love this movie because of the genre elements toyed around with. Every Almodovar film in existence will somehow deal with broken hearts and complicated love affairs. There is also a lot of double crossing and a huge emphasis on sexual identity. Who would have known that all of this would go well in a mad scientist film? I’ll admit that without talking about specifics I’m not really getting anywhere in this post so I’ll wait until you guys see it to write something a little more in depth and perhaps personal. Go see it though, it’s a lot of fun.

take up your cross John

2011-12-20T20:40:00.000-08:00

I wouldn’t get too bummed on the Film Comment list. You know that critic’s polls rarely mean anything along the lines of vindication. Though to point five fingers right back at myself I cringe at the thought of how much people seemed to dig BRIDESMAIDS.

“It’s my favorite time of year for being a movie nerd.”

Me too. I am getting over my list fix though. Once I read a few of my favorite critics I get over it real quick. I’m getting excited to make my own list, I have about seven movies to go before I feel comfy doing it. I have accepted the fact that I probably won’t be able to see A SEPERATION before I make it. I just found out that MYSTERIES OF LISBON is on demand but it’s also over five hours long. Yipes.

As far as you saying that you aren’t excited about the films that you haven’t seen that are listed I can’t really blame you but for some reason I really want you to have a more positive outlook man. Turn that cinephile frown upside down.

I agree that CHRISTMAS IN JULY is up there on the Sturges list. I love the reoccurring cast.

“Hitler is now a joke. Chaplin has won. The subversive element here is undermined because we all now think that Hitler was a ridiculous little man.”

You better not let Lars Von Trier hear you say that.

I have to admit that I’m really excited that you loved HUGO. Part of me thought you were going to be the contrarian here. It seems that Scorsese is doing something interesting in his last two films, both being love letters to cinema.

I’m still convinced that Ben doesn’t exist.

I have seen three films since ESSENTIAL KILLING; POETRY, I SAW THE DEVIL, and THE SKIN I LIVE IN. I’ll hopefully get a chance to write about them soon.

Tomorrow I am going to enjoy me some Fincher.

essential killing

2011-12-19T17:09:00.001-08:00

Similar to NAKED PREY and RUN OF THE ARROW, ESSENTIAL KILLING observes the complexities of being both the hunter and the hunted. That’s just a stupid way of saying this this is a chase film and a great one at that. It will please Jason to know that the surroundings were a large part of its inception. Most of the film takes place in the Polish Masurian forest, a snowy mountainous woodland with a heavy coniferous presence. Director Jerzy Skolimowski came up with idea after hearing a rumor that the CIA used a nearby airfield to transport Middle Eastern POWs (I read this on the internet). He lives there and had imagined the story in light of almost getting into an accident while driving home. The land is what evens the playing field, what allows the chased to alternate between prey and predator. He found his story in his home, in the woods.

Here’s the catch. The man being chased is what many of us would consider a “terrorist.” Here’s the funnier catch, he’s played by Vincent Gallo. The film opens in an undisclosed country; we could probably guess either Iraq or Afghanistan. From the get-go this man is being hunted and right off the bat we see him kill to prevent being either killed or captured. After killing three men with a bazooka he is captured and brought to yet another unidentified location. Here he is screamed at, kicked, and water boarded. From there he is transported (and freed via car accident) by van to the great Polish forests where we spend the rest of the film.

Once freed the man has no choice but to survive. He has no shoes and no coat and is alone in -35 degree temperatures. The chase is almost dialogue free, there is certainly nothing in the way of exposition or explanation. ESSENTIAL KILLING is proudly stripped of context and political motivation. It’s solely about a man being hunted like an animal. It’s a fantasy, the scenarios are big and dramatic. The moral implications are there (whether to kill or to turn the other cheek, to drink from a lactating tit or to starve) but Skolimowski remains fiercely dedicated to the simplicity of his story. The title says it all.

we need to talk about kevin and the ides of march

2011-12-19T11:39:00.000-08:00

So Jeff and I made an afternoon and evening of watching films that could potentially make our upcoming top ten lists. John’s post about checking up on the indiewire polls is evidence of how weird we get when dealing with year-end lists. Jeff and I started with a film that has made many of them already, Lynn Ramsey’s WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT KEVIN. Let’s talk.

The first thing we need to talk about is how I missed the boat when writing about MARTHA MARCY MAY MARLENE. What I should have written to save you all time, if you indeed read my long winded post, is that the film’s characters and scenarios lacked any hint of complexity. What I meant is that every scene played out just the way we knew it would, catastrophically. Likewise this film suffers from a lack of intricacy, each character walking trancelike to their respective dooms. We’ve talked about the cinema of predestination; well these two pictures to me exemplify the worst of what that idea has to offer.

I wouldn’t dream of saying that either film is bad, in fact I can totally understand either winning over the best of us. I don’t say that to patronize anyone and in fact I freely admit that my own resistance may have something to do with where I am now rather than anything objective. So take it as a subjective and hopefully honest point of view. I didn’t like either film despite their skill and occasional value. This particular film is telling a contemporary story, one that hasn’t left our nation’s psyche since Columbine. The idea that one student could plan and execute a mass murder inside of the safe zone that is school has terrorized and intrigued writers and filmmakers alike as it should. This film handles the material from the family point of view, the idea that a mother’s greatest gift can in fact become her biggest nightmare. My problem is that the damn kid should have been locked up well before he brought his bow to school.

I couldn’t say with any confidence that we don’t have any characters worthy of our sympathy here. There are certainly gentle and warm moments with almost all of them with the exception of Damien Kevin. The father is a loving man albeit a completely oblivious dope (wonderfully played by John C. Reilly). The mother though tortured and obviously at her wits end, fuels her son’s fire when she should be instead plotting wisely against him. All of the co-workers are grotesque caricatures. The families of the victims are all blindly rancorous and unforgiving. What a wonderful world this film inhabits. Is it that far from reality? I fucking hope so.

WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT KEVIN uses the spliced non-linear plot device to tell its story. The opening image is striking, a sea of people covered in berry juice and berry chunks. I would call it an orgy but I didn’t see much of the old in and out going on. From there we go to a house covered in blood red paint and at this point it would be wise to note the length of Tilda Swinton’s hair.----- Swinton is getting to the subhuman talent level at this point---- For the rest of the film we skip back and forth from three different time periods; infancy (medium hair length), teenage years (short and black), and post massacre (long and with bigger bags under the eyes to signify emotional fatigue beyond our wildest nightmares).

The film doesn’t grant anyone much outside of their respective broad personality traits. Mom is snooty and fed up (reasonably) with her son. Dad is unusually unmindful of obvious warning signs. Daughter is innocent, the polar opposite of her big brother. Kevin is evil, perhaps plotting this butchery very early on in his rich and spoiled life. There is absolutely NO sympathy for him here and I think it’s probably fitting. The problem I have, outside of insulting scenes where kids play violent video games and yell “KILL!,” is how constrained the scenes become. There were one or two scenes where Kevin defied my expectations and showed a little warmth and kindness towards his mother. Other than that it was a predictable art house thriller that probably thought it was being far more cautionary than exploitative.

George Clooney’s passion for politics works to his benefit in THE IDES OF MARCH, a dark and cynical film that FINALLY!!!! grants its characters some room to defy their respective natures. Here we have double crosses, suicide, surrender, underage sex, abortions, lying, cheating, smoke screening, and character assassination all living side by side with honesty, loyalty, progressivism, compassion, and morality. The picture itself is as clean cut as its director and it moves along nicely thanks to a lack of glut unnecessary elucidation. We are told only what we need to know and shown only what we need to see.

There is no doubt that this is safe Hollywood filmmaking but as such I found it an award season pearl. I don’t have much more to add to Jeff’s post, I also prefer it over WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT KEVIN. Then again, I’m a fan of this type of thing. I like the way we get to see the interiors, all of the things that happen before and after what ends up on our television screens. I like watching candidates talking with their staff. I like seeing the staff and team working to smear the opponent. I like the reminders that everything that is earned comes with a price, usually one that compromises the moral core of those who want to do the right thing. I like how it reminds us that our heroes are almost always flawed. I liked how everyone was implicated. In the end it argues that politics are the dirtiest game on earth and that we as the implicit spectators will almost always be in the dark.

hang in there jeff

2011-12-18T18:24:00.001-08:00

I'll post about those films real soon. Just got home from Cleveland. Got about 4 hours of sleep the entire weekend. Good times. Long live punk rock.

fright night

2011-12-14T19:20:00.000-08:00

FRIGHT NIGHT is not the kick back I was expecting. It’s more in line with something like the last film I watched, a slave to its own time. But damn if it doesn’t have a lot of fun despite that fact. It’s admirable and disappointing, it goes back and forth. It seems that most straight genre picks (Crazy Stupid Love, Cowboys vs Aliens, Fright Night) are stunted by the shallow audiences that they are being pitched to. It’s as if we are going slowly back to the studio age but with way less hope for artistry sneaking through. Then again, maybe I’m just hopeless but I’d throw down my enjoyment of this film as proof that perhaps someday I’ll adjust to our postmodern cinema, one that can’t seem to ignore everything that’s going on around us.

So if you don’t know already this is a remake of a fun 1985 vampire flick. It switches things around just enough to feel fresh; once again (as in Let Me In) it’s set in Las Vegas. This works well with the plot as the housing market works in favor of Collin Farrell’s head honcho who kills many of the locals and counts on people chalking their disappearance up to “just passing through.” Plot= former nerd dates popular babe, dude stops hanging out with old friends, vampire moves next door and kidnaps former friend, kid works with famous magician (the dude from Doctor Who) to defeat the suave bloodsucker.

Farrell’s casting is a really nice touch, and I’ll admit that I enjoyed the lead roles despite not knowing much about the cast. Aton Yelchin and Imogen Poots do a great job….blah blah blah. Good performances DO help movies. John, we'll have a little talk about this later.

I wrote a preemptive text to most of you saying “this movie is rad” or something. This occurred right before the disappointing CGI action sequences mashed in at about the 3/4’s mark. It’s not enough to sink the ship but it certainly slowed it down. Don't you hate it when characters speechify whilst battling? Luckily it only lasts about 15 minutes and then the movie finds its way once again.

The stuff that really had me hooked was the dynamic between Yelchin and both his girl and his former best friend. It was that need to evolve that ultimately causes his childhood friend SPOILER to die at his hands (a moment that begins hokey and stupid and barely redeems itself). High school movies have a wellspring of potential entertainment value. This movies mines that really well. I'm not going to bore you with comparisons to the old one, it really doesn't matter how it measures up. I liked it enough to recommend it to anyone interested in some fast and nasty entertainment. It’s the Hollywood horror film of the year, which may not being saying much.

crazy stupid fucking love

2011-12-13T21:18:00.001-08:00

CRAZY STUPID LOVE might as well by me least favorite film of 2011. It almost seemed like it was taunting me. Where the hell do I start? The film deals “openly” with adultery. A husband and wife go out to dinner, a good deal of visual emphasis is put on the husband’s attire, cheating is revealed…. cue the laughter. From there we have the process of divorce as seen through the eyes of the modern day romantic comedy. The husband moves out whilst the wife cries and talks of Twilight and whatnot. Meanwhile a young girl studying to become a lawyer meets a suave chauvinist in a fancy bar. The fancy bar is where we will spend a lot of our time as our aforementioned husband and lady’s man work together to get some mojo back.

Pop culture references are like oxygen, this shitty film can’t even imagine surviving without them for more than a few minutes. Jesse Martin and I counted over sixty. One of the most sickening aspects of the film is the way it implies that comfortable style of dress somehow warrants infidelity. “I wasn’t trying hard enough,” says our newly liberated square of a husband right before revealing that he had a wild night with his son’s teacher. Yes, keeping up with the times is very important if you want to deservedly keep your spouse from fucking their co-worker. This means maxing your credit card on clothing that makes you feel uncomfortable and getting a decent haircut because you, as you are, is just not good enough. You must not be “fighting” hard enough for them to treat you with decency.

If the film argues otherwise in the end I apologize but I’ll add that it’s too little way too late. The plot contrivances shouldn’t surprise anyone; we’ve been nursing on that tit for some time now. The modern day romantic comedy must send in their script to some warlock who checks it out and makes sure that certain things happen right on time (montages- check, awkward misunderstanding- check, big stupid speech to clear shit up- check, somehow every character ends up in the same fucked up family- check). The soundtrack is readymade for any poor soul who shops at Target and hits up Panera on their way home just in time for Glee or Grey’s Anatomy. This film is a sign of the end times.

And what of our beloved Ryan Gosling? He’s doing his worst David Putty impression from Seinfeld. Or was it Will Smith from Hitch? No, it must have been Tiger Woods. There is a scene where he and Emma Stone reenact a scene from DIRT DANCING (pop culture reference number 42 I believe) and all I could hope for was a scene from ROAD HOUSE instead. Ladies and gentlemen, we should demand more than this.

martha marcy may marlene

2011-12-13T13:11:00.000-08:00

The problem with MARTHA MARCY MAY MARLENE is that it has such a hard time finding a middle ground. It deals with heavy subject matter, specifically the troubles of being in a cult. Let me give you a brief synopsis; girl escapes cult and goes to live with rich sister and her husband, flashbacks ensue, troubles with sister and husband escalate, perhaps delusions occur. Basically Martha is having trouble adjusting to any sort of life be it one that exists in terror or one that exists in monotony. She has as much trouble at the dinner table as she did breaking into rich people’s houses or waking up to the cult leader (the always dependable John Hawkes) taking advantage of her. There is very little middle ground, nothing that can last or won’t be ruined by contrivance. The script and plot live to make us squirm in discomfort, they set these characters up just to knock them down.

Take one scene in which a nice day is nearly ruined by Martha’s inexplicable decision to laugh as loudly as possible. She’s on a boat ride with her caricature rich English brother in law having a grand old time when he tells her that they are planning on having a baby. She laughs loudly which sparks the question “why is that so funny?” The reply is a snide “I just can’t imagine it, Lucy having a baby.” If this was an isolated incident it might not matter but I have a hard time spending my night with characters that can’t seem to take a break when they get one. It’s that love for one’s own sadness that contributes to the perpetual down and out status and Martha most certainly has a thing for being bummed out.

The cult life is more interesting albeit in a “yeesh” kind of way. The community exists peacefully at first but we already know that this won’t last via the first scene. You can see why she is initially drawn in but once we skip back to her first night with the leader Patrick I wonder why anyone would stick around. Brainwashing is a tricky thing I’m sure but getting drugged and raped is certainly reason enough to leave. I know we are dealing with tricky stuff here and I’m not trying to be at all insensitive, the director here handles the harsher stuff with a decent amount of care and respect if there is such a thing when regarding this type of degradation. The problem isn’t in the way he handles the cult although I would have liked to see a little more reason as to why anyone would want to be a part of it. The problem I had was more with the scenes at the lake house with Martha’s family.

I suppose the motivation here is to juxtapose two entirely different extremes in order to give us a clue as to how and why Martha ended up in the clutches of such an evil group. The problem is that the director and writer use the laziest and most recycled clichés to achieve this. The wife is your atypical sensitive rich girl, more concerned with boring social conventions than the wellbeing of her little sister. The husband is an entrepreneur whose hospitality is always one step away from becoming a total bourgeois asshole. The scene that really took me out of it was a dinner scene in which he just couldn’t help himself from asking her what her “plans” are for life. This is the easiest and laziest way to play out a dinner table dustup and it’s executed with even less inspiration. The film’s interesting bookends are let down by the junk in between.

There are some powerful moments and I particularly liked the ending for at least going down the thriller road both figuratively and literally. This film is certainly worth a look for the performances alone but also for the possibility that this type of this will appeal to you. Rest assured it’s extremely well made but that doesn’t seem to mean much these days.

This picture suffers from a lot of the same ailments I find in any given Michael Haneke film. Big moral issues are important here most of them played like a game. One scene finds Patrick telling Martha to shoot a cat because it’s dying of cancer. The only difference is that the ice king would have actually shot a cat on camera to get his lame self-righteous kicks and to make his target audience cringe and then pat themselves on the back for “learning” something. But what do we actually learn? Sometimes people get caught up in bad things? Sometimes biological family is just as bad as weird homicidal covenant family? I think the lesson I took from this is that some people think they are predisposed to sadness while good things sit right in front of them.

the machine i'm raging against

2011-12-12T12:16:00.001-08:00

Jeff, your post on TAKE SHELTER is great. I really like how you also saw the little hints and reminders peppered in to lure us into Curtis’ anxieties. I forgot about the gas pumping scene, I remember stressing out while watching it. Also, the crayon scene is great because it shows us what’s at stake here. He could lose a beautiful family if he doesn’t play his cards just right. In the end it would imply that he loses, he bet on tails when it was heads all along.

The film is all about fear and anxiety. It’s about the broad spectrum of terror from embarrassment to death itself. I guess the ending worked for me because the film is, in my opinion, a proud horror picture. Jason would probably argue otherwise and I think he’d be more knowledgeable in that area of expertise but I’m throwing it out there. The finale is the classic gotcha moment. I really love what Chris wrote in regards to the ending or rather what Jessica Chastain said. It’s true that the dreams are notable for that feeling of abandonment, the feeling of hopelessness. Perhaps the scariest aspect is the fact that when the storm begins he and his daughter are all alone. I really love that movie.

I have seen few films lately but don’t really have it in me to write much so bear with me.

CRIES AND WHISPERS is a beautiful thing to look at. It’s also the coldest and most brutal Bergman film that I’ve encountered thus far. This isn’t to say that I didn’t like it, I felt quite the contrary. I couldn’t help but feel that if the film had been directed by a different man or woman I might have loathed it. This perhaps illustrates my own weird sense of comfort in regards to certain filmmakers. Does this happen to any of you? I wonder what Bergman was facing in his life when he directed this one.

Robert Zemeckis’ A CHRISTMAS CAROL is the best adaptation I’ve encountered of Charles Dickens’ novel. It’s also extremely appropriate for these greedy years. It teaches not only how to give but also how to receive, with grace and gratitude. This is not the Bah humbugidydooo romp that I thought it would be, it’s remarkably dry and straight making the finale all the more merry.

I’ve been hot and cold when it comes to Brian De Palma. When he’s good he’s damn near great and when he’s struggling I find his work almost unbearable. THE BLACK DAHLIA is fairly lukewarm albeit in a grand way. It goes for it all the way the entire time. I appreciated this but I also wanted it to end. I’d seen it before and had fond memories of certain sequences. In the end I think it’s a noble failure if there is such a thing. The casting and the convoluted nature of the script contribute to this reaction.

As I said before COLD WEATHER is a very nice holiday surprise. I think that after I got out my initial snooty remarks aimed at John Boy I felt a lot better. But I still need to explain myself. I think I sort of cringe every time someone implies that current cinema has a low number of director’s worth getting excited about. I don’t remember when or if you actually wrote this but I seem to recall reading it fairly recently. To imply that Kurtz or Nichols are all we have to cherish is to ignore a long list of directors both famous and underappreciated making good to great films year after year. The fact that all of us are able to put together top ten lists is a testament to that. I find the idea very irrational. Sorry if you haven’t made any such claim I just attached that idea to you for some reason and decided to play the role of the troll and to attack you in full to see if I could pull at your soul and force you to take a stroll down my train of thought which you stole.

take shelter

2011-12-09T14:26:00.000-08:00

Curtis LaForche is afraid of many things. He’s a protector and as such has much to fear. He’s unstable at times. He makes irrational decisions. He loves his wife but could live without her if need be. His number one objective is to protect his daughter, and who could blame him? Like many great Cronenberg films TAKE SHELTER is also about the fear of what our bodies are capable of. Curtis wonders what beast is coming out from within, at the same time holding onto the belief that his “delusions” will someday come true. Paranoia is a powerful energy as Curtis will soon find out.

The picture opens with a nightmare. It seems that we can be tipped off to our protagonist’s conscious state by the size and structure of the clouds in frame. If the sky looks weird we know that he’s sleeping. His dreams don’t fade quickly after waking; sometimes the pain he encounters lingers long after. He is dreaming of a storm, one that brings the potential end of the world. Of course he’s the only one having these dreams and those around him begin to see his sanity wither away. The storm brings a rain like motor oil falling from the sky; the rain and the air make mammals crazy and bloodthirsty. He is Noah but instead of an ark he builds a storm shelter.

He’s trying to protect his family from the impending disaster, this thing that is “not right.” He’s also actively aware that his brain may not be a thing to trust. So this makes for some problems as well. He must also think about protecting his family from that possibility. It’s hard to banish these types of thoughts completely, the seed remains and the prospect slowly grows stronger and more powerful. I’ve dealt with this from time to time and it seems that the more time I have to think the worse it gets. This is why sitting alone in his sanctuary is a dangerous habit to form. And keeping these visions to himself doesn’t help matters.

I like how director Jeff Nichols makes a huge emphasis on money here. I felt the bank account draining slowly. The vacation envelope is shown several times being filled and emptied; sometimes it’s the only thing in frame. Curtis’ co-pay, his psychiatric appointments (downgraded to psychology), his meds, and all of the other necessities are all just outside of his reach. The storm shelter is a terrible investment from the point of view of the non-believer. Once he loses his job his mind might as well go with it as almost everyone he knows abandons him, even his wife briefly.

It comes to a sort of apex at a local dinner where he’s faced with the men and women who once considered him a friend and a neighbor. Then out of nowhere it seems that he may have been vindicated as the town siren howls in the distance. That storms leads to an incredibly tense moment involving something as simple as a padlock. I’ve been very impressed with this and COLD WEATHER, specifically the power they possess with such frugality. These are good minds at work.

I can’t really blame John for his feelings towards the finale but I think I actually liked it quite a bit. I wonder if there is a decisive point in which we can see the film burrow exclusively into Curtis’ beaten brain. Or perhaps he’s a prophet after all and not just chicken little. Either way I’m not even slightly disappointed by this picture. Let’s start talking TAKE SHELTER.

i kid i kid

2011-12-09T13:42:00.001-08:00

Before I write about TAKE SHELTER I wanted to let John and everyone know that I don’t have any beef. I’m just trying to be antagonistic for the sake of being antagonistic. I love the guy. COLD WEATHER rules!

lose the attitude john

2011-12-08T19:57:00.000-08:00

Sounds like we mostly agree with each other in regards to COLD WEATHER minus the genre statements only because that brings us back to the previous posts which almost made me not want to watch the movie in the first place. I loved the score. It’s been written before but it reminded me of NORTH BY NORTHWEST a lot. It’s the second score this year to evoke Herman, the other being the underrated SOURCE CODE.

I saw TAKE SHELTER tonight with the incomparable Howard brothers. I’ll be posting a lengthy review tomorrow.

I’m disappointed in John’s participation or lack thereof in our director of the month. You’re lucky you aren’t being graded.

Read the subject and adhere.

cold weather

2011-12-06T20:54:00.001-08:00

I don’t see how COLD WEATHER is considered mumblecore. I also don’t think it’s revolutionary though I have been tempted to use the word new. Still, I loved it. The characters are fully fleshed and interesting. I like watching them interact even if I knew they were reciting lines. They are loveable and as the tension builds (and I was very surprised at how much it actually did build) I found my heart beating rather fast for a film thrown carelessly into this stupid subgenre. Why? Because I cared. No budget constraints can stop a good director from making my toes curl at the sign of danger for characters that I’ve grown to love. With the proper skills an auteur can take a simple suspense scenario and rank it with the best and most expensive. That’s how I would rank the final fifteen minutes of Katz’s film, damn near the best. The finale is one of the best things to happen in cinema all year.

The film is also consistently dealing with amateurs. The detective angle is great and carefully developed. I felt that it may have been a little too obvious in the beginning but that’s not even a valid concern. I felt invigorated when our pair of slapdash sleuths went digging around the hotel room looking through garbage cans and scribbling on notepads. It’s appropriate that our lead actor isn’t much of an actor at times. He actually reminded me of my next door neighbor Kevin, socially awkward in the best possible way. I loved the brother/sister dynamic. I loved Gail. Consider Trieste Kelly Dunn officially on my sites. It’s hard to take your eyes off of her.

This is also beautifully shot. I love it when a director takes pride in each composition, especially with his or her use of color. This film matches better than my aunt Mary. The beautiful northwestern bionetwork isn’t wasted on Katz and crew. The shots here are mighty fine.

There John, I agree with you. To take it a step further I’ll say that I sort of resent the notion that this is in any way a slight film. I think it’s actually pretty major, even if the history books don’t recognize it. But as I agree with any fan of this film as to its quality I also wonder if we are coming at this for the same reasons. I guess it doesn’t matter. I just hope more folks get a load of this.

a dangerous method

2011-12-06T12:18:00.001-08:00

David Cronenberg’s A DANGEROUS METHOD is about many things. It’s about the friendship of Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung tracked all the way down to that final severed tie. It’s also about Jung’s extramarital relationship to his patient Sabina Spielrein as well as her ties with Freud as well as the way her condition and consequential “healing” began a new form of treatment. Throw in Jung and his wife for good dramatic measure and finally Jung and Otto Gross, a degenerate doctor turned patient turned psychologist. With all of these powers combined we have the birth of psychoanalysis from one of cinema’s modern masters.

The relationship between the Arian Jung and the Jewish Spielrein is the glue of the film. She is the first person we see; screaming, quailing, jolting, and distending in obvious torment. Her mouth is the most notable part of her during these scenes of hysteria; it’s as if unspeakable things are being suppressed. Suppression is one of the most important elements of this film. As we see her transformation there is still the hint of panic beneath her controlled appearance. Whatever has been healed still waits to be released, a fitting theme for the man who made us afraid of our physical, emotional, spiritual, and psychological capabilities.

She is studied by Jung, a man who hints at his discontentment with monogamy quite obviously. His wife is rich and sweet and I suspect slightly insecure. I’m guessing that this comes as a result of being married to her husband, a man who can’t help but make her his occasional guinea pig. He soon finds that his patient suffers from triggers, things that allude to her past most of which deal with her father. She feels vile because of her sexual responses to punishment and eventually finds a partner in Jung. Jung’s break with monogamy comes with the aforementioned Otto Gross. He openly admits to having multiple partners outside of marriage and even sleeping with patients. He even coaxed those who didn’t think it was the right thing to do into his bed.

Through the enthralling Gross Jung contemplates the dangers of repression while forgetting the dangers of freedom. -----The film doesn’t need to emphasize the atmosphere of repression as the period itself looked and felt constrained enough (look at the clothing).----- Jung forgets that one man’s pleasure and happiness often comes at the price of other’s pain and torment. This begins a downward spiral for Jung and those he loves (his wife, his mentor, his lover). Conscience and consequences play a large role in this film. In some respects there is the repression of the first, the way our good doctor justifies his actions in light of his guilt.

Much of our guilt comes with the presence of something or someone greater, a teacher and father or mother figure. This is what Freud represents here. Through the manifestation of guilt come the famous rivalry and the ultimate breaking of ties. Cronenberg obviously loves and admires Freud (his previous films also hint towards this notion) as his character as played by Viggo Mortensen represents a calm and unbending integrity, one based on careful thought and fact. Jung is the romantic, a man chasing after meaning and losing himself along the way. Freud is the voice of reason, the constant reminder that science should remain such.

But he is not without his own burdens. Throughout the film he is seen as someone haunted by his ethnicity. Jung was a Christian German, a good looking man and a good ambassador for psychoanalysis. But he then goes and joins with Spielrein, reminding her that they are both Jews. She was killed later by a German SS Death Squad while he was exiled and live to see the deaths of four of his five sisters in concentration camps. Jung spent the war in comfort probably enjoying his boat.

This all probably sounds academic and I’ve heard that a lot of grippers have complained that the film is a fancy version of Masterpiece Theater. That’s bullshit. I was never bored by this one and the tension, though mostly dealing with words and theories, is continuous and exhilarating. The acting is great even if you feel that Knightley is “overboard.” I think it’s quite the opposite. The camera is always interesting, especially during the sequence in which Jung, Spielrein, and his wife are involved in the questioning. Watch the choice of lens and camera placement, watch the scene where Knightley puts her hands where Jung’s wife just had hers. This is cinematic stuff for sure.

Cronenberg is an extraordinary filmmaker, a man who seems to have perfected his craft. He knows how to show us perspective, how to SHOW subjectivity. He has proven many times that he can shoot action and guide the best performances out of his actors. He is a student of film but I more often than not he avoids the pitfalls of homage. He cares more about the intellectual and emotional impact of his subject material. He takes great care establishing fact and atmosphere through research and collaboration with his cast and writers. A DANGEROUS METHOD is a great introduction to this part of history and psychology. It’s a continuation and evolution of his themes and a great teaching mechanism for dummies like myself who missed the boat on the subject. Obviously I feel that it’s one of the year’s best.

1939: year in film

2011-12-05T13:25:00.000-08:00

Ben, I have been happy reading your recent foray into classic film. I’m not trying to imply that you haven’t seen older pictures but that I’ve been reading more and more about it and so I thought I’d get back to yearly lists whenever possible. 1939, it has been said, is one of the best. Though my list only contains one foreign film (I was really hoping to see the Carne and Mizoguchi movie at some point) I feel fairly confident in it. I didn’t have to wrestle with many films on my list though one three and a half hour juggernaut gave me uncomfortable pause.

GONE WITH THE WIND requires no introduction. Its legend is part of our history and its history is the thing of legend. Like I said, the film is burdened with racial and historical inexactitudes. The South is portrayed as a cheerful Eden where slaves and owners lived happily until the evil bearded devil waged war and turned it into a paradise lost. Of course we know that slavery is no such walk in the park and that hooded underground societies hoping to resurrect the old South are not exactly the French Resistance. To overlook the film’s evils is to not actually see the film; blind love is for the weak. Like the vile legend that is BIRTH OF A NATION this picture views the South through two transitions. The first being the idealized and the second being the torn and reconstructed. But history is not the primary focus here. That would be the villainous Scarlett O’Hara.

It’s a testament to Vivien Leigh’s beauty and acting chops that I still rooted for her despite her attitude and ruthlessness. I’m one of those schmucks who fell for the otherwise bleak ending, one that would probably alert a sane person to the fact that our fair lady is losing it. I’ve always put perhaps too much of the fall on the director because I mostly buy into the auteur theory. This film however-- perhaps more than any that I’m aware of-- negates the absolution of that theory. Sure, the first half of the film (reportedly directed by Cukor) features most of the great stuff (the crane shot, the burning of the King Kong set, the journey back to Tara, and the beautiful backdrops) but the second half doesn’t imply much of an artistic departure. So where should the credit here go? Let’s get socialistic with it and maybe divvy it up equally. Let’s give a little to the great William Cameron Menzies, a little to the cast and crew, a good deal to Victor Fleming, and perhaps the most to David O Selznick. GONE WITH THE WIND makes my list for many reasons but mostly because three and half hours go by quicker than most cartoons. I’m sure I’ll catch some grief for it but that’s what Film Club is for. Perhaps I should have just posted this Sarris link instead: http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/73mar/sarris.htm

Onto to more historical fiction, this time from the great John Ford who made at least two monumental films in 1939. I’m sure he’d disagree with me. The invisible villain of GWTW is in fact the humble hero of YOUNG MR LINCOLN, a murder mystery/court room drama shot in lovely black and white. The film first fictionally recounts honest Abe during his early years in New Salem with Ann Rutledge, it then moves to Springfield for some Ford Americana and a chance to show our protag learning his way around the law, and finally ends up examining a crime. YML makes sure to reestablish Lincoln’s mythos as a relentlessly keen and just man of integrity, one who knows to check an almanac before sending an unpopular bum to the gallows. It’s a “work of true harmony” as Sergei Eisenstein once wrote. A call to morality and a portrait of a man who sought to live out his ideals in hopes to inspire others to live better. It’s also shot to near perfection, each montage in perfect unison with its surrounds be they a creek, a forest full of conifers and whippoorwills, or a fair full of idyllic pie eating men and women. Despite having read Zinn I would say that this is hagiography at its very best. Print the legend.

John and I were talking about how hard it was for us to stay awake for RULES OF THE GAME even despite its quality. It’s true that a film’s success has much to do with our viewing circumstance and fatigue can battle even the greatest works of art. Sleep is the ultimate siren to great cinema; it tempts me astray far too often. ----note: this film is in no way difficult or boring. Any fatigue was strictly work related---- So I gave it another honest shot, this time with an adequate amount of coffee running through my body and immediately realized that I was watching it the wrong way. I didn’t pick up on the comedic elements at work here. This is a very funny film that handles rather grave subject matter in light way not unlike Lubitsch. Dave Kehr wrote “ “The rules of the game,” said Jean Renoir, “are those which must be observed in society if one wishes to avoid being crushed.” His protagonist, a pilot (Roland Toutain), breaks the rules: he believes that his love for a wealthy married woman (Nora Gregor) is strong enough to lift him above society, above morality. At a weekend hunting party, he learns it is not—that nothing is.” Enough said.

Oh the horse opera. I’ve been under its spell since I first laid eyes on one. I can’t be sure which it was but I’d wager EL DORADO. I don’t remember when I first saw John Ford’s STAGECOACH, I think it must have been fairly recently (by that I mean in the early aughts). It’s the kind of film that makes me want to ride off into the sunset with my new prostitute wife and be safe from the blessings of society. Natani Nez (the tall leader), as the Navajo once called Ford, had a specific adventure in mind, a treacherous ride through Apache territory that’ll bring a small group of opposites together. Like YOUNG MR LINCOLN, this is a film about harmony. The aristocrats must respect the proletarians, the pure must accept the unclean, the law must respect the wanted, and the sober must respect the drunk. What’s more, they must depend on one another if they want to reach Lordsburg alive. I would argue that Wayne’s Ringo Kid is the star here. Indeed the verbal beating that Wayne endured paid off in close up after close up and a role that would up his pay grade quite a bit. Here once again the location (Monument Valley) played a large part in the atmosphere. The stagecoach looks mighty helpless in the presence of such epic opulence. But vengeance drives our kid and in the face of even the most calamitous circumstances we know that there are some things a man can’t run away from.

The thing about gangsters is that they all used to be a big shot. The rise and fall of the gangster (especially the doomed Warner Bros kind) could embody a certain reviewer’s complaint about A SERIOUS MAN. I believe it went a little something like cinema of precise predetermination, the kind that lays out the cards before you even get to your seat. I’m acknowledging the cycle here and saying that in the hands of a great storyteller and cast it doesn’t matter what you think you already know. THE ROARING TWENTIES is a great example of the flaw in that criticism. These “unbendable” characters still manage to live and draw out hope for bloodlust resolution but to no avail. I like how the war sets things into motion, much like this year’s HUGO. The returning soldiers find themselves like a lot of returning soldiers, forsaken. Well you know when you got a job to do, get somebody else to do it. Cue the liquor and we got ourselves a decent racket. Sure THE ROARING TWENTIES unravels without a snag but that doesn’t dwarf it one bit. The characters fall is realized fully in a discussion about life in the suburbs, where a house with flowers and kids is just a dream that’ll never come true.

I need to thank John, Jeff, and Chris for introducing me to DESTRY RIDES AGAIN. I almost didn’t watch it. This is one of my big problems with adhering to that damn auteur theory, if I haven’t heard of the director I throw him/her on the backburner. ---note: the problem is not with the auteur theory but rather with me---- Well George Marshall gets a posthumous apology from this guy. This one really gets the job done starting with the pacifist sheriff whose dilemma eerily mirrored the dawning of 1940 and the elephant in the room that came with it. You don’t usually see a good western hybrid (though John would argue mistakenly in favor of Cowboys vs Aliens) but this one remarkably harnesses it all in. DESTRY has all the right ingredients for its three principle genres (musical, comedy, western). It has a great barroom brawl, a character that orders milk at the bar, Marlene Dietrich’s voice, a good shootout, etc. Hopefully more people will get behind this one.

John, I’m so happy that you’ve gotten off without a hitch with Lubitsch. Whenever I see a film with what we’ve come to know as his “touch” I find it hard not gushing over it and I’m sure you guys have rolled your eyes a few times on my account. Well comrades it’s time to roll em again. NINOTCHKA is lovely. Advertised with the two words “Garbo laughs” it was pitched as such "Russian girl saturated with Bolshevist ideals goes to fearful, Capitalistic, monopolistic Paris. She meets romance and has an uproarious good time. Capitalism not so bad after all." This beaut was written by Wilder, Reisch, and Brackett with the intent to playfully mock the “why so serious” attitudes of Russia whilst slyly admonishing them at the same time. The only complaint I have is actually not a complaint at all. Melvyn Douglas looks a little too much like a person I don’t like. I could barely shake it whilst watching him. This didn’t stop the movie at all, it didn’t even slow it down. It’s nice to see Garbo let loose, seeing her act drunk is intoxicating (get it?).

Lisa recently wondered if we had posted our “no girls allowed” sign on the door. Hopefully not and to prove it I humbly offer my love for George Cukor’s THE WOMEN. I think it takes a special guy to make a film like this. Most of us don’t have any right or idea in regards to the uninhabited world of women. Many have written that this picture “teaches” us dunderheads what is really happening behind closed doors. I’m certainly not an expert on the subject (though myself and our guitarist Alex earned the nickname “lezbros” from our terrific female touring companions) but I still can appreciate it. Cukor knew how to pay tribute to these women without overemphasizing the whole “catty” nature of their union. I feel that Almodovar does a similar thing today; I guess you could say that it’s the love of women that really makes it work. I will admit however that the ending here is a bit problematic for me even if it’s specifically addressed in dialogue. Simply put, I didn’t want Mary to go crawling back to that invisible entity known as her husband. But that’s just me. I really enjoyed the structure of the picture, the way we are thrown into a room with these characters and not immediately asked to immerse ourselves in what will soon be revealed as the plot. I like to just listen and laugh sometimes, to get to know the characters on the power of the actresses and writers alone. The plot really does a great job exploring the effects of adultery, how devastating and selfish it is. I’m not sure if the ending demeans what came before but for now it’s number .

JAMAICA INN begins as a horror movie. A ship has crash landed on a stormy night, out of the rocks emerges a group of monsters out to kill and rob the destitute crew. From that point I would say that the picture becomes something like an absurdist horror picture with a hilarious performance from Charles Laughton. I’m running low on steam so I’ll just tell you to watch it a and find out for yourselves.

I’ve posted much about my #1 pick and most of you have seen it so I don’t feel the need to elaborate at the time. The number 11 speaks for the quality of the year as a whole. If you think I’m crazy for leaving THE WIZARD OF OZ off the list then I would be inclined to agree. I completely understand and agree with anyone that thinks the world of that film or even MR SMITH. I’m not refuting this. I’m just reacting to bad nostalgia. All of the 11 spot films deserve an adult viewing and rest assured that they will get their due justice.

1939:
1. Only Angels Have Wings (Hawks)
2. Stagecoach (Ford)
3. Young Mr. Lincoln (Ford)
4. Ninotchka (Lubitsch)
5. The Rules of the Game (Renoir)
6. The Roaring Twenties (Walsh)
7. Destry Rides Again (Marshall)
8. Jamaica Inn (Hitchcock)
9. The Women (Cukor)
10. Gone with the Wind (?)

11. Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, Gunga Din, Love Affair, The Wizard of Oz, Another Thin Man, Wuthering Heights, Drums Along the Mohawk, Dodge City.

bored to death

2011-11-28T13:40:00.001-08:00

X-MEN FIRST CLASS is all about the spaces that lie between: hatred and love, anger and compassion, war and surrender, etc. So it should come as no surprise that the newest superhero reboot is a middling experience, caught somewhere between watchable and awful, passionate and uninspired. To the film’s credit, I found it more often watchable specifically because of certain performances. I was very surprised by James MacAvoy’s professor Xavier impression and not so surprised by Michael Fassbender’s Magneto. Both actors do a fine job. Most of tween mutants pale in comparison but that’s to be expected. The messages here are noble but closeted and therefore blunted. Matthew Vaughn has the chops to do this sort of film but it’s been clear for some time now that the comic book/superhero genre altogether has worn out its welcome. We need some time off.

Sidenote: the Wolverine cameo was hilarious, I could have used more of that type of humor.

After seeing ENTER THE VOID (a film I strongly disliked) I would have thought that Gasper Noe’s talents would at least make this one interesting. Not a chance. IRREVERSIBLE is amateur at best, an ugly film with a frustrating sense of entitlement. The pace is similar to ETV, slow and boring. The cinematography however is what really surprised me. It looked like somebody was playing catch with the camera. The rape scene is as ugly as its reputation had implied which may have meant something if the picture had even a slight sense of purpose. I’m really baffled that so many intelligent people with good to great taste would ever fall for this pretentious stunt. I should have listened to Dennis Cozzalio.

THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT handles adultery rather clumsily to these eyes. At first it’s simply an uncomfortable gag, the old Seinfeld “awkward pause” trick. By the time the breadwinner finds out about her wife’s infidelity I already felt that the two were better off apart. That’s not to say that I didn’t like the two together but rather that Moore’s hippy had no intention of stopping and therefore what’s the point? The trust is gone. The hurt is unfathomable. The adults aren’t alright. I guess I have a different perspective on the subject. The parenting in this picture is more interesting here. I liked that dynamic quite a bit despite the peculiar decision to pair the children up with the parent they popped out of. The inclusion of the sperm donor is undercooked, simply writing off that character in the end as the fall guy, the reason why this couple lost their way. I’m willing to admit that I misread this however; perhaps I was unprepared for its complicated view of marital and parental devotion. Truth is I was caught off guard by the rampant selfishness and immaturity of Moore’s character (note: these are really strong performances). To me it often went unchecked.

The picture also chooses to depict the one non-bourgeois character as a heinous piece of shit. The skateboarding, pill popping, vulgar and stupid friend of the son is quite the cruel caricature. By the time he decided that pissing on a stray dog was a good idea I wanted to ask the director “how do you really feel about Monster guzzling skater-mall-punks?” I’ve learned not to worry about the salary of the characters involved but this is another problematic attitude that seemed to go unchecked by the time the film ended. Still, complaints aside I found the film very enjoyable and occasionally earnest. Probably a take it or leave it diversion disguised as progressive high art comedy but fun all the same.

I’ve been enjoying the hell out of Jason’s posts lately. I feel that I’m being put to shame by everyone else in regards to writing about HUGO, a film that’ll most definitely crack the top 5 at the end of the year. I agree that the film is not about film preservation and I really wanted to keep the focus off of that when writing about it. More than anything else it seemed concerned with connection and specifically the trouble we have forming them. Art and suffering serve as the common bond, the way one heals the other though in the case of the station agent it seems to be war and abandonment. I have yet to see Allen’s film so I can’t comment on the similarities/differences yet but I like what Jason wrote specifically, selfishness vs. benevolent. Similar to Jeff’s feelings towards TREE OF LIFE, I find myself extremely protective with this picture. I hate it when that happens.

I suppose I’ll stick to my guns however that a big part of the film’s power, for me, comes from the starving artist’s standpoint. I have been considering bowing out of the touring game for the last few months. I’ve felt underappreciated, exhausted, and morally overwhelmed to the point of downright apathy. Seeing this picture reminded me of what I would be missing out on. This isn’t to say that it cured my restlessness but rather that I made me think about the unfulfilling life of an artist who throws in the towel. It hit home.

I will say that I found a lot of gripping about the trailer in reviews, specifically Chris’s. I’ve found that bad trailers usually indicate good film for whatever reason. Good trailers (WATCHMEN, TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE, LITTLE CHILDREN) almost always= bad movies. I’m sure there are exceptions but that seems to be more often the case. The HUGO trailer was disconcerting to say the least, giving me more of a LEMONY SNICKET vibe. Scorsese’s trailers have been lackluster lately. I guess that’s a good sign.

Jason, I love when directors allow their surroundings to play a huge part in their story. Some obvious rustic examples in my opinion would be NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN, TRACK OF THE CAT, OLD JOY, THE PROPOSITION, AGUIRRE, and the westerns of the great Anthony Mann. The city can also play a big part like in BLAST OF SILENCE, TAXI DRIVER, FORCE OF EVIL, CHINATOWN, KISS ME DEADLY, and EYES WIDE SHUT. What the environment is saying about the characters inner struggle varies obviously but I love when a director knows to utilize this valuable tool. Rooms can also serve as a good character especially if paranoid and suffocated is what you are going for. Polanski is a master when it comes to this. Good topic.

the stuff dreams are made of

2011-11-25T13:49:00.001-08:00

I used to love the scenes in CINDERELLA where the camera would follow the mice into their holes taking us deep into the walls and floorboards. I would wonder what it would be like to be that small and to use a matchbox as a bed. Hugo Cabaret lives within the walls of a train station, fixing clocks and stealing his meals whilst trying to avoid the attention of the station agent. The best thing that a pair of 3D glasses can offer is immersion and though I agree with the harbingers of cinematic doom I would say that here the technology worked extremely well and right off the bat.

But HUGO has something bigger in store for us, not only the importance of film preservation but more importantly the importance of artists sticking to it even when they don’t feel appreciated. Scorsese probably knows as much as anybody the frustration in failing, the feeling that your talents are not needed and the temptation to throw in the towel. It’s horrifying and indicates that something has been broken, that some parts are missing. All it takes sometimes is a child’s faith to mend that or perhaps an author or a curator. Even when your work is reduced to heels on a shoe there is still the possibility of creating and sharing that collective dreamscape as Jeff beautifully put it.

The film mostly centers on one mission, to fix Georges Melies. If you don’t know who he is you’ll find out when you go see HUGO. What needs fixing? His heart, his confidence, and his belief in the power of magic through the projector. Here comes the film preservation speech. He sold much of his work to keep his family afloat; most of that celluloid was melted down to make heels for women’s shoes. The clicking haunts him as he works at a toy store within the train station. It’s the existence of his beloved automaton (looking very much like it belongs in a certain Fritz Lang picture) that sets the story in motion. This mechanical artist is the final gift bestowed to Hugo by his late father. I didn’t notice Hugo crying once about the death of his father, a lot of that sorrow seems locked up until that final moment that Chris pointed out. I choked up a bit myself when our little protagonist broke down.

I understand where Chris is coming from when talking about Asa Butterfield’s performance, at times I think it had a lot to do with his hair and getup. But none of that made any difference to me, I never left the trance so to speak. I think all of the performances work really well here. I think that Cohen’s station agent is a huge part of this film, a movie with no true villain. He is a war veteran and an orphan, one of those folks who’s childhood has shaped his current state of mind in a lot of bad ways. I used to have a boss who was treated poorly as a child and used that anger and frustration to abuse us every chance she could get. This is the problem with taking your job too seriously, you lose.

One thing that should be noted about the end of the film, the prolonged chase sequence, is that it makes sense in light of the films that are receiving tribute here. Earlier in the film we watch the characters watch Harold Lloyd hanging from the clock tower in SAFETY LAST!, then Hugo gets his shot at it. We see the audience flinch not once but twice as a train pulls into the station and then the act is mirrored in this picture not only in a dream sequence (loved the part where Hugo turns into the automaton) but then for that grand finale. So I think it fits really well and went on just long enough. I would attribute your restlessness to restlessness. 10:30 showings make each minute more crucial.

I may be wrong here but I think that after Hugo shares cinema with Isabelle she says something along the lines of “thank you for this gift” and immediately I wanted to extend the same gratitude to the film’s creator. It’s been pointed out that this film is lacking in cynicism and I found this to be its greatest strength. Maybe I’ll write a proper review at some point but for now I’ll just gush. John I can’t wait for your daughter to see this, specifically the Lloyd section.

Ps Not to puff myself up but I was actually thinking about LA BETE HUMAINE during that train sequence only to see today that Wikipedia had already drawn the comparison. I think it was the conductor’s dirty face that made me think of it though I wasn’t sure which Renoir film it may have been referencing.

the great deflector

2011-11-24T22:14:00.000-08:00

I was supposed to go see HUGO with Jeff and Chris on Friday but bailed due to some things going on around the house. Going to a movie at 10:30 at night really bums Tara out. I felt like shit for doing this but I also didn’t want my viewing to be at all deterred by guilt or stress. So on this wonderful day in which we give thanks for those things and people who make our lives better I decided to hand over the evening to a director who gives back what he has taken. Consider this picture the fictional extension of his incredible four hour “personal journey through American movies,” a history lesson and love letter to cinema made without a hint of cynicism. Scorsese has always tried to deflect his own acclaim and shoot it towards the men and women who enchanted and intrigued him as a youngster. I’m still trying to pick my jaw up off the ground. More later.

1945

2011-11-22T19:59:00.000-08:00

John, yes I do have CASINO ROYALE. I was anti-George Stevens for a very long time but started seeing some really interesting and impressive work from the late thirties. Ginger Rogers brought out the best in every director especially him. Like I said, go check out VIVACIOUS LADY when you get the chance. It’s a lot of fun. He might be an interesting director of the month at some point. Jeff get on that.

Onto Jeff’s 1945 list……..

Looks like we share the top slot here. I agree with your friend about CHILDREN OF PARADISE, it moves along very briskly without much slog. I have to admit that I should see much more from Carne and therefore I’ll have to add him to that long embarrassing list of “director’s to watch.” Isn’t this film called “the French Gone with the Wind.?”

I DO find your second choice a bit peculiar. Questioning the work of Hitchcock gives me much pause and trepidation but I remember this one being under par for some reason. I’m not sure what it was, perhaps Peck in that main role. I’ll have to see it again mainly because it’s been so long and as you know, so much of our opinion is based on frustrating variables such as drowsiness, temper, and even who you are reading and being influenced by at the time. I know that I was probably aware of its sort of bad reputation whilst watching it which couldn’t have helped. I don’t buy the whole “dated” argument, old fashioned is a big part of why I watch old movies to escape post modernism. Brave pick.

Curtiz isn’t quite at George Marshall disregard but he’s often penalized by auteurists for being so main stream. It might be fun to make a list of directors unfairly forgotten by the auteur junkies. Anyway, this is one of his very best, a film that I avoided for some time mainly because I thought I didn’t like Joan Crawford. One thing that can always be said about a Curtiz film is that he was abnormally talented and made some of the best looking pictures in the game. This was one of the big surprises when making my lists. I sort of thought I was wasting my time watching it, I already had a decent 11 films for my list but something made me change my mind. Thank God I did. The daughter is such a turd, a world class turd. But this film noir is all about self-sacrifice and drive. My favorite twist of the film has to be the husband’s transformation from philandering sleazebag to….. well I shouldn’t spoil it.

That final image of Edward G. in SCARLET STREET makes the hairs on my neck stand up. Like many great film noirs we get to see that awful downhill trajectory caused by one seemingly innocent bad decision. One leads to another and then another and the next thing you know you are stabbing your mistress through a thin bed sheet (another shocking scene given the time). Lang was on fire at this time, the noir genre was bringing out the best in him. With this, THE WOMAN IN THE WINDOW, THE HOUSE BY THE RIVER, THE BLUE GARDENIA, THE BIG HEAT, CLASH BY NIGHT, and even his WWII noirs Lang seemed almost more comfortable with the Hollywood machine.

Totally didn’t realize that Zachary Scott was the lead in Renoir’s THE SOUTHERNER. I actually prefer that film to Ford’s THE GRAPES OF WRATH, and I’m not just doing this to be difficult. The comparisons are legit and I think you are right Jeff, Renoir’s humanism wins in the end.

Just to be a pain in your ass, in regards to economy wouldn’t “tell don’t show” be more ideal? Other than that stupid question I would say right on in regards to Lean and his ridiculous gift for storytelling.

I never knew about Clair’s reputation when watching this movie as a kid. I remember this movie being fun, I loved the mystery here but I especially loved the creepy return to the mansion ending. We know as well as she does that somebody is waiting for her in there so that anticipation is bubbling up. The old man’s voice is already alarming but learning more about his motives only causes further trauma to a young kid.

I have seen I KNOW WHERE I’M GOING and somehow forgot to mention it on my list. Somebody please put it in FALLEN IDOL’S place!!!

I need to see THE LOST WEEKEND again.

Make sure you see LEAVE HER TO HEAVEN Jeff. Your jaw will drop. It’s easily one of the most offensive early films, one that features all types of horrendous schemes. Gene Tierney is certainly one of the most beautiful women in the history of the world but here she is ugly (on the inside).

Good list man.

john's list

2011-11-21T18:26:00.001-08:00

Hey man, I never said that I didn’t still have a crush on Randolph Scott. You aren’t riding lonesome on in that.

I like your list. Sorry if it ruined your family life. That actually does suck. My bad.

I haven’t seen LANCELOT OF THE LAKE. Do you have it?

I’d really like to hear your opinion about CASINO ROYALE. I think you would love it.

Am I the only person who likes A CHRISTMAS STORY in Film Club.

We should have a GODFATHER II night soon.

What would be your second and third favorite Joe Dante films?

What are your thoughts on De Palma?

I kind of thought meh for a while in regards to Fellini but NIGHTS OF CABIRIA changed my mind for now.

Do you still have SHOCK CORRIDOR? How about THE NAKED KISS? You need to see RUN OF THE ARROW. I love that picture.

Interesting Gilliam pick.

I need to see RAWHIDE.

You need to see DOWN BY LAW.

I thought you hated ADAPTATION.

Do you have A FACE IN THE CROWD?

Get off your ass and sit down again to watch CERTIFIED COPY.

John, YOU NEED TO SEE PATHS OF GLORY!!!!

I need to see THRONE OF BLOOD again. It didn’t really do much for me but I was on a tight movie watching schedule.

I agree about Landis, THREE AMIGOS is great.

I want you to see some of the Lean pictures that came before 57.

I have been cold towards Ang Lee lately. Not only because you have been slowly talking me out of it but also because I have been bored on my second and third viewings. Something feels off.

I can’t wait for you to see more Lubitsch.

You a George Miller fan?

How is Polanski’s Macbeth?

HUGO is going to rule!

I would say meh to Stevens as well but have seen some great pictures as of late. Don’t give up yet dude. Go get VIVACIOUS LADY.

Truffaut pick…….. really?

Verhoeven makes good trash.

Good list. Again sorry if it ruined your life.

Hey guys how about we have director’s months? Each month a different person in film club selects a director and we all do writings based on viewings and personal opinion. Jeff, you come up with December’s director.

paths of pooh

2011-11-21T17:58:00.001-08:00

So everyone was right about WINNIE THE POOH, it’s fantastic. Pooh’s films have always been about virtue, altruism being the main one. Pooh’s moment of awareness comes when he his talking tummy fails to precede the need of his tailless friend. You can be a bear of “very little brain” and still save the day and your reward, beyond a giant pot of honey, is piece of mind. I loved the Abbott and Costello word play and thought the songs, give or take a couple, all worked. A.A. Milne’s work continues to enlighten us with each journey to the heart of the Hundred Acre Woods.

PATHS OF GLORY looks great on TCMHD! I’m as baffled as I am moved by the final moment in this film. The scene comes directly after Kirk Douglas’ lashing of General Broulard which follows the execution of three innocent men. The men were executed for cowardice but really lost their lives to political war posturing, morale as they say. Anyway, he Douglas walks down the street to hear a loud and obnoxious bar full of soldiers. These men are hooting and hollering, banging their mugs on the table, their faces almost deliberately macabre. They look like zombies calling out for brains. The man bringing them their entertainment looks as though he is about to sell some magic elixir. Instead he brings out a scared German girl and proceeds to mock her up and down and then forces her to sing. What follows is one of the most mesmerizing moments in film history. I think this is easily Kubrick’s best film.

Speaking of that film I think a happy birthday is in order for Ralph Meeker, one of great underrated actors. The man did some great things.

list humpers

2011-11-20T11:14:00.000-08:00

Yes John, MAYBE fill in those holes. Doing lists like this makes you realize that a lot of the newer guys are really lacking. Start with the classics and if you find that it’s not your thang, keep trying.

Yeah Cassavetes really does bridge the gap between old and new. He certainly ushered in a new style and technique that guys like Scorsese aped which in turn became the norm. I would like to borrow some of your films for sure; I have A CHILD IS WAITING here. Not sure why I haven’t gotten around to that. I see so much of him in Scorsese specifically in the dialogue and the way conversations go. Both men were obviously Hawks fans. Both seem to emphasize the importance of male companionship.

As for Korine, he’s made very few films over the past 15 years. The two I’ve seen have been a waste of time. He should stick to directing music videos and commercial s for clothing companies. He sucks. I wonder how his teeth are doing.

MR. AND MRS. SMITH is far from bad. It’s probably a gem. Korine won’t make anything remotely close to it if he directs films for the next 40 years.

Your face is a waste of time. Actually, I also found this list frustrating and ultimately unfulfilling. Can’t wait to read yours.

the mortal storm

2011-11-18T13:19:00.001-08:00

THE MORTAL STORM is incredible, a film with a simple message, delivered before we entered the war. Why emphasize this? Because the film is all about courage over safety, about thinking freely and not oppressing others with your belief. It’s also about skiing. Needless to say this film was banned in Germany. Another notch on Borzage’s baseball bat. On a less heavy note, I love black and white films that feature snow and conifers. Throw Jimmy Stewart, Margaret Sullivan, Frank Morgan, Maria Ouspenskaya, and Dan Daily and I’m a happy camper. I unfortunately followed this beaut up with a film about crust punk whiny shits. I would like the film if they all weren’t such weenies. It was a funny transition to watch a film about a country being brainwashed and indoctrinated by fascists to watching a film about punks exploiting and each other. Humbug.
1940:
1. The Shop Around the Corner (Lubitsch)
2. His Girl Friday (Hawks)
3. The Great Dictator (Chaplin)
4. Rebecca (Hitchcock)
5. The Mortal Storm (Borzage)
6. Pinocchio (lots of people)
7. Foreign Correspondent (Hitchcock)
8. Christmas in July (Sturges)
9. My Favorite Wife (Kanin)
10. The Philadelphia Story (Cukor)
11. Night Train to Munich (Reed)
12. They Drive By Night (Walsh)
13. The Westerner (Wyler)

Honorable: Go West, The Grapes of Wrath, The Mark of Zorro, One Night in the Tropics, The Sea Hawk, Fantasia

the names on that list certainly vary in quality

2011-11-18T09:10:00.001-08:00

Elia Kazan: B=On the Waterfront haven’t seen a bad one yet but find STREETCAR is bit overrated.

Sidney Lumet: same as Chris (not a big fan)

Chris: SMALL SOLDIERS is amazing. Take that meh and shove it up Zack Braff’s ass.

Howard Hawks: This is tough for me because I have so many favorites. I’d be torn between ONLY ANGELS and RIO BRAVO. He made so many fantastic films. AIR FORCE is easily my least favorite.

Christopher Nolan: B= The Dark Knight W= Batman Begins

Cameron Crowe: Haven’t liked a single film thus far. I’ve been mildy amused I suppose. I sound like a total snob.

Same goes for Jean Pierre Jeunet.

Mike Nichols: Um, best would be WHO’S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOLF or perhaps THE BIRDCAGE and worst would probably be CLOSER.

Sam Mendes: Best is easily JARHEAD and worst would be AMERICAN BEAUTY.

Note: I would probably focus on the older directors first and then MAYBE check out some of the newer ones. Mizoguchi, Aldrich, Preminger, Lang, Sturges, Lubitsch, Cluzot, Borzage, Bresson, Dreyer, Anthony Mann, Melville, Minnelli, Peckinpah, Powell and Pressburger, Sirk, Tati, Vigo, Wellman, Wyler, Fuller, and Cassavetes are working on a far better level than most of the names on the list.

respondin

2011-11-17T20:23:00.000-08:00

I totally forgot about BEFORE SUNSET. I'm a doofus. I guess I should have specified that I'm not saying the second name on the list is necessarily "bad" but my least favorite, which in context of director's like Hitch, Lubitsch, or Chaplin would still probably be great films.

I would add THE GOLD RUSH to my fave Chaplin films.

Do you think PANIC ROOM is a bad film? I quite like it.

Interested in your Kurosawa picks. I'd probably rank IKIRU pretty low along with RASHAMON. This isn't to say that either is bad but they don't really resonate with me like his other films.

I would argue that Kubrick isn't really capable of bad but FULL METAL JACKET, as I've written before, is not really up to par with his other films. I actually think I would change my pick to PATHS OF GLORY, which blows my mind.

I agree on Lean, he knows how to make a film. I would say that BLITHE SPIRIT and SUMMERTIME are noble failures and by failures I mean that they didn't rank on their respective top ten lists. So they were merely "very good" in my book. Lean detractors work very hard for nothing.

I'm actually a fan of the TWIN PEAKS film, I can't stand his early experimental stuff. I'm too much of a Philistine.

I'm an AVATAR fan, not sure why.

Jeff, catch up with some of those directors. I think you'll find some good stuff.

Watched a bunch of SWEENEY TODD with Jesse and Graham tonight. That film is excellent. John, you're dead wrong about this one. Anyway, we are planning on making a camcorder version of it. It's going to be shitty/hilarious.

director's best and worst

2011-11-17T15:47:00.001-08:00

B for Best W for Worst...... note that worst doesn't necessarily mean bad just not nearly as good as the best.

Lars Von Trier: B= Melancholia W= The Dogme Movement
Alfred Hitchcock: B= Rear Window W= Mr. and Mrs. Smith (John is going to hate me)
Martin Campbell: B= Casino Royale (though The Mask of Zorro is nipping) W=The Green Lantern
Curtis Hanson: B= LA Confidential W=In Her Shoes
Woody Allen: B= Broadway Danny Rose W= Hollywood Ending
Martin Scorsese: B= Goodfellas W=Cape Fear
Neil Jordan: B= The Crying Game W=Breakfast on Pluto
Fritz Lang: B= M W=The Return of Frank James
George Stevens: B=Vivacious Lady W=Woman of the Year
Max Ophuls: B=The Earrings of Madame de... W=Caught
Clint Eastwood: B= Unforgiven W=The Eiger Sanction
Stanley Donen: B= Charade W=Funny Face
Frank Capra: B=It’s a Wonderful Life W= Mr. Deeds Goes to Town
Carol Reed: B=The Third Man W=Oliver!
Robert Altman: B= Short Cuts W=MASH
Francis Ford Coppola: B= The Godfather II W=Jack
Werner Herzog: B= Grizzly Man W= Even Dwarves Start Small
John Ford: B= The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance W=The Grapes of Wrath
Joe Dante: B=Gremlins 2: The New Batch W= The Howling
Wes Craven: B= Red Eye W= New Nightmare
John Carpenter: B= Assault on Precinct 13 W= Prince of Darkness
David Cronenberg: B= Eastern Promises W= Shivers
George Romero: B=Dawn of the Dead W=Island of the Dead
Stanley Kubrick: B= Eyes Wide Shut W= Full Metal Jacket
The Coen Bros: B= No Country for Old Men W= The Ladykillers
Wes Anderson: B=Bottle Rocket W=Darjeeling Limited
Tim Burton: B=Sleepy Hollow W=Alice in Wonderland
Preston Sturges: B= Unfaithfully Yours W= The Lady Eve
Ernest Lubitsch: B=To Be Or Not To Be W= Design for Living
Michael Haneke: B=Time of the Wolf W=Benny’s Video (the first minute at least)
Sergio Leone: B=Once Upon a Time in the West W= Duck You Sucker
Pedro Almodovar: B=Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown W=Bad Education
Robert Aldrich: B=Kiss Me Deadly W=The Longest Yard
Michelangelo Antonioni: Haven’t seen enough
Igmar Bergman: B=The Virgin Spring W=Time of the Wolf
Jean Luc Godard: B= A Woman is a Woman W= Alphaville
Francois Truffaut: B=Shoot the Piano Player W= Fahrenheit 451
Henri Georges Clouzot: B=Quai des Orfevres W= Le Corbeau
Olivier Assayas: B=Summer Hours W=Carlos
Frank Borzage: B= Moonrise W=A Farewell to Arms
Jacques Tourneur: B=Cat People W=I Walked With a Zombie
Jim Jarmusch: B=Down by Law W=Stranger Than Paradise
Robert Bresson: B=Diary of a Country Priest W=Pickpocket
Luis Bunuel: Ashamed to have not seen enough
Claude Chabrol: Likewise
Charlie Chaplin: B= Modern Times W= The Great Dictator
Jean Cocteau Not enough viewings
George Cukor: B=The Women W=My Fair Lady
Brian De Palma: B=Femme Fatale W=Scarface
Jonathan Demme: B=Neil Young: Heart of Gold W= Beloved
Claire Denis: B=35 Shots of Rum W=I Can’t Sleep
Carl Theodor Dreyer: B=Ordet W=Joan of Arc
Federico Fellini: B= Nights of Cabiria W=La Dolce Vita
David Fincher: B= Zodiac W= Alien 3 (easy way out here though I’d probably go with either Social Network or Panic Room next)
Terry Gilliam: B=Brazil W=The Brothers Grim
DW Griffith: not enough experience here
Jia Zhangke: “
Buster Keaton: “
Abbas Kiarostami: “
Brad Bird: B= The Iron Giant W= The Incredibles
Harmony Korine: Nothing has impressed me thus far
Akira Kurosawa: B= The Hidden Fortress W= One Wonderful Sunday
Kenji Mizoguchi: B: Ugetsu W=Streets of Shame
David Lean: B=Lawrence of Arabia W=Blithe Spirit
Joseph H Lewis: B= Gun Crazy W=Terror in a Texas Town
Henry Hathaway: B= The Sons of Katie Elder W=True Grit
Richard Linklater: B= Waking Life W=Fast Food Nation
Joseph Losey: B=The Prowler W= The Boy with Green Hair
David Lynch: B= The Straight Story (with Mulholland Drive nipping) W=Eraserhead
Terrence Malick: B=The Thin Red Line W=Badlands
Joseph L. Mankiewicz: B=All About Eve W=The Barefoot Contessa
Anthony Mann: B=Winchester 73 W=Cimmaron
Michael Mann: B= Miami Vice W=Manhunter
Leo McCarey: B=Make Way for Tomorrow W=The Bells of Saint Mary
James Cameron: B= The Terminator W=True Lies
Jean-Pierre Melville: B= Army of Shadows W=Bob le Flambeur
Paul Thomas Anderson: B=There Will Be Blood W= Boogey Nights
Quentin Tarantino: B= Inglorious Basterds W=Reservoir Dogs
Danny Boyle: B= 28 Days Later W= The Beach
Vincent Minnelli: B=Meet Me in St. Louis W= Gigi
Sam Peckinpah: B= Ride the High Country W=The Ballad of Cable Hogue
Arthur Penn: B=Little Big Man W= The Chase
James Whales: B=The Bride of Frankenstein W=The Old Dark House
Todd Browing: B=Freaks W=Dracula
Edgar G Ulmer: B=The Black Cat W=Bluebeard
Robert Zemeckis: B= Who Framed Roger Rabbit W=Beowulf
Powell and Pressburger: B=The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp W=Thief of Bagdad
Yasujiro Ozu: B=Late Spring
Otto Preminger: B=Anatomy of a Murder W=Exodus
Nicholas Ray: B=In a Lonely Place W=Flying Leathernecks
Jean Renoir: B=The Grand Illusion W=
Nicolas Roeg: B=Don’t Look Now W= The Man Who Fell to Earth
Eric Rohmer: haven’t seen a thing
Roberto Rossellini: B= Rome: Open City
Douglas Sirk: B=All That Heaven Allows W= Magnificent Obsession
Steven Soderbergh: B=Out of Sight W= Oceans 12
Steven Spielberg: B= Catch Me if You Can W= Jurassic Park: The Lost World
Andrei Tarkovsky: B= Solaris W=Andre Rublev
Jacques Tati: B= Mon Uncle W= Mr. Hulot’s Holiday
Paul Verhoven: B=Starship Troopers W= Hollow Man
Jean Vigo: nuttin
Raoul Walsh: B=The Roaring Twenties W= Manpower
John Waters: B=Serial Mom W=Pink Flamingoes
Peter Weir: Not sure
Orson Welles: B= F for Fake W= Macbeth
Wim Wenders: B=Paris, Texas W=The Million Dollar Hotel
Billy Wilder: B=Stalag 17 W=The Seven Year Itch
William Wellman: B=The Oxbow Incident W=Wild Boys of the Road
William Wyler: B= The Best Years of Our Lives W=The Children’s Hour
Wong Kar-wai: B=In the Mood for Love W= 2046
Zhang Yimou: B=House of Flying Daggers
Victor Flemming: B=The Wizard of Oz W=Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde
Mark Robson: B=Von Ryan’s Express W=The Ghost Ship
Robert Wise: B= Curse of the Cat People
Josef Von Sternberg: Haven’t seen a single film
Sam Fuller: B= The Steel Helmet W=I Shot Jesse James
Roman Polanski: B=Chinatown W=Frantic
John Cassavetes: B=Shadows
John Boorman: B= Point Blank W= The Exorcist II
Tobe Hooper: B= The Texas Chainsaw Massacre W= Eaten Alive
Robert Rodriguez: B= Desperado W=Machete
William Friedkin: B=The Exorcist W=Cruising
John Huston: B= Treasure of the Sierra Madre W=Moby Dick
Mike Leigh: B=Happy Go Lucky
Kathryn Bigelow: B=Point Break W=Blue Steel
Oliver Stone: Hasn’t made a good film
Spike Lee: B=Do The Right Thing W=Get on the Bus
Gus Van Sant: B= Elephant W=Paranoid Park
Hayao Miyazaki: B= Spirited Away W=Howl’s Moving Castle
George Miller: B= Babe: Pig in the City W=Happy Feet
Daren Aronofsky: B=Black Swan W=Black Swan
Spike Jonze: B=Being John Malkovich W= Adaptation

another dumb reason to make a list

2011-11-17T14:05:00.001-08:00

So Jeff and I were pondering the use of the word “masterpiece” a while back which led us to pick up the ol dictionary to find out exactly what it meant and found that it both means “a great artistic work and/or an artist’s best work.” Being a natural list guy I thought it might be fun to go through a list of directors and name their masterpiece and their low point. If you guys are down I’ll make a little list off the top of my head. Don’t sweat it if you don’t know the director’s work, just ignore it and move on. I’m going to try and not limit this to titans so we can stray a bit from the hero worship for a while.

Lars Von Trier
Alfred Hitchcock
Martin Campbell
Curtis Hanson
Woody Allen
Martin Scorsese
Neil Jordan
Fritz Lang
George Stevens
Max Ophuls
Clint Eastwood
Stanley Donen
Frank Capra
Carol Reed
Robert Altman
Francis Ford Coppola
Werner Herzog
John Ford
Joe Dante
Wes Craven
John Carpenter
David Cronenberg
George Romero
Bob Clark
Stanley Kubrick
The Coen Bros
Wes Anderson
Tim Burton
Preston Sturges
Ernest Lubitsch
Michael Haneke
Sergio Leone
Pedro Almodovar
Robert Aldrich
Michelangelo Antonioni
Igmar Bergman
Jean Luc Godard
Francois Truffaut
Henri Georges Clouzot
Olivier Assayas
Mario Bava
Frank Borzage
Jacques Tourneur
Jim Jarmusch
Robert Bresson
Luis Bunuel
Claude Chabrol
Charlie Chaplin
Jean Cocteau
George Cukor
Brian De Palma
Jonathan Demme
Claire Denis
Carl Theodor Dreyer
Federico Fellini
David Fincher
Terry Gilliam
DW Griffith
Jia Zhangke
Buster Keaton
Abbas Kiarostami
Brad Bird
Harmony Korine
Akira Kurosawa
Kenji Mizoguchi
David Lean
Ang Lee
Jerry Lewis
Joseph H Lewis
Henry Hathaway
Richard Linklater
Joseph Losey
David Lynch
Terrence Malick
Joseph L. Mankiewicz
Anthony Mann
Michael Mann
Leo McCarey
James Cameron
Jean-Pierre Melville
Paul Thomas Anderson
Quentin Tarantino
Danny Boyle
Vincent Minnelli
Sam Peckinpah
Arthur Penn
James Whales
Todd Browing
Edgar G Ulmer
Robert Zemeckis
Powell and Pressburger
Yasujiro Ozu
Otto Preminger
Nicholas Ray
Jean Renoir
Nicolas Roeg
Eric Rohmer
Roberto Rossellini
Douglas Sirk
Steven Soderbergh
Steven Spielberg
Andrei Tarkovsky
Jacques Tati
Paul Verhoven
Jean Vigo
Raoul Walsh
John Waters
Peter Weir
Orson Welles
Wim Wenders
Billy Wilder
William Wellman
William Wyler
Wong Kar-wai
Zhang Yimou
Victor Flemming
Mark Robson
Robert Wise
Josef Von Sternberg
Sam Fuller
Roman Polanski
John Cassavetes
John Boorman
Tobe Hooper
Robert Rodriguez
William Friedkin
John Huston
Mike Leigh
Kathryn Bigelow
Oliver Stone
Spike Lee
Gus Van Sant
Hayao Miyazaki
George Miller
Daren Aronofsky
Spike Jonze

Ok so feel free to not comment or say something along the lines of “has never made a good movie” or even “has never made a bad film.” I want to see what you guys think of these directors. Add some if you wish. I have way too much free time.

john has the hots for randolph scott

2011-11-15T21:00:00.000-08:00

As much as I would hate to agree with John, aka Mr. oooooo I like old movies sooooo much more than modern film smart alec smarty ass pants, I am also done with MELANCHOLIA for now......... until I make my top ten list! muahahahahahahaha.

Ben, your post was smart. Your posts are always smart. Me no write so good as you.

Jeff's words on punk are cool. I think somehow the movie above that I said I wasn't going to talk about and lied fits that description. You just don't get it because you are too punk. John is the punkest of us all, riding off into the sunset with Randolph.

I grew up on Laurel and Hardy and I remember WAY OUT WEST. Wish I wasn't in Syracuse being a responsible adult. I'm sure it was like ten times better than stupid movie above that I am totally not writing about.

Jason, welcome back my man. I didn't think about PICNIC AT HANGING ROCK's connection with MEEK'S CUTOFF. Of course you forgot to point out that it isn't worth talking about because it wasn't made pre-1959. Whoops.

You missed the horror discussion big time. I could have used you man. These barbarians had their way with me.

Chris, back to that movie I'm never going to talk about again. I think there is plenty of humor in that movie. The dad, the wedding planner, "unbelievable," bitches in the tub, and I'm sure I could come up with plenty more if I didn't vow to stop talking about that film.

Did you use humility and Von Trier in the same sentence question mark

In regards to the tub stuff, I've had friends who suffered from severe depression. Not being able to move is common and it seems to come and go.

You are right about ONLY ANGELS HAVE WINGS, I'm glad you feel that way.

That movie I mentioned above is slightly better than HOUR OF THE WOLF.

shit quake

2011-11-13T08:49:00.000-08:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcQW04AQ_Ok

lars still has his teeth

2011-11-12T15:19:00.000-08:00

"I think the lack of any vituperation coming from John and Brandon completely proves my point that this is one of the safest von Trier films yet. You know, something really is different with this one. It does seem less cynical, which surprised me."

Big word dude! Maybe you are right and perhaps you figured out why I have responded so much to this film in comparison to some of his earlier stuff. I guess I don't want "mean" from him. As for the spec of dust joke, yeah that would have been cool but it probably would have destroyed everything that came before (no pun intended). I agree with John that this is the happiest he has ever been and for that I'm also happy. But where you seem to find it compromising I find it transcending. Perhaps I'm a sissy.

It sounds to me like you are not happy with his personal progress man. Haha.

I think we watched this thing from completely different perspectives, you see it as a joke whilst I took it perhaps way too seriously. And by the way don't even quote the whole Cannes "this is a comedy" line because he also said he like Hitler or something like that.

Didn't DOGVILLE take itself way too seriously?

I don't know that I want to get into another nihilism debate but I will most surely debate your definition of punk here. By punk you seem to imply immaturity and I would argue that most of the bad punk bands are just snotty kids railing against a system that they haven't taken the time or energy to understand whilst a lot of the good punk (still angry) is far more dangerous because their ideas are as rooted in knowledge as visceral emotion. To me, vT has been on the right track in his last couple of films, he's channeling that anger, hurt, and perhaps nihilism into films that actually are saying something honest (not always positive) about himself and even the world around him. Note: I haven't seen BREAKING THE WAVES, THE IDIOTS, or BOSS OF IT ALL. I'm probably focusing a lot of my negative energy on DOGVILLE and DANCER IN THE DARK.

I'm all for nutty "punk rock" infantile art but I'm not so sure that vT did it all that well dude. While we are on it, who do you think does it well?

I wouldn't call this film "more mainstream" than any of his previous films. It's just better :)

Chris wins for best title. He wins in a landslide.

To quote Eastwood "deserve's got nothing to do with this." That's the beauty here, nobody's decisions, good or evil, can save them. It isn't hateful. It's a strange way to express it but I think that final moment was his way of giving them a big bear hug.

In the end it's all about subjectivity. Indifference vs heartbreak. It sounds like you and Jeff were looking for your vT to deliver something like DOGVILLE, a hateful scorn on either America or society. I honestly can't remember which it was nor do I care. In my opinion that film took the easy way out. This one argues that you don't know what cha got til it's gone.

BTW: I respect DOGVILLE for both its craft and passion but in the end I was just frustrated that the town was unable to do a single decent thing. It's like he was holding a gun to their head.

It sounds as though the two disappointed brothers (Justine and Claire) may warm up to this one with time. Now back to John.

Point well taken now that it has been elaborated. I would have never thought that anyone could get so much out of comparing the two films but you've done just fine. But seriously, am I out of the doghouse yet? I kid, I kid.

That image of Reynolds on the rocks looking up at the yellow dusty thing gave me a huge boner.

"she wins her personal struggle against the world and against herself only by Melancholia crashing into earth. This is the true strength of Melancholia. Justine's depression is vindicated. She's not cured. Everyone else is. Death to everyone."

I think we are winning this fight John thanks to lines like that one. I know it probably won't happen but I'd be interested in your opinion of ANTICHRIST a film that's essentially viewed as "punk" or "prankish" that felt quite the opposite to me. Eve has a similar revelation, through death and genital mutilation she is freed from her burden. I would vote for MELANCHOLIA over that for now.

And let's not forget the guy who saw the film first. I like the revert statement a ton. She crawls inside of herself and only the glow of the planet can draw her out. I would love to sit down and chat it out. PODCAST!!!!!

i'm a complete idiot

2011-11-11T22:59:00.001-08:00

So I can officially say that THE HUMAN CENTIPEDE II is the vilest, stupidest, and most disgusting film I’ve ever seen. Big surprise. But honestly what were we expecting once SAW, with its laughable moralist chip on the shoulder, got mainstream America creaming their pants for torture. This is just the logical aftermath, the results of a country bored with decency and obsessed with a safe distance viewing of atrocity. Atrocity is everywhere and the closest we seem to get to it is through the news….. unless we rent garbage like this.

But even as I use these embellished words to describe Tom Six’s pointless sequel I have to admit that the final thirty minutes are actually effective. By effective I mean stomach turning, soul staining, and downright embarrassing. Watching a baby birthed and then stomped under the pedal of a car will take the piss out of any decent person. Then again, decent people shouldn’t be caught dead watching a picture like this. Whatever was implied in the first film is out in full view here. Knee’s being removed, teeth being smashed out, diarrhea shooting out of stitched jawlines, and yeah dudes jerking off with sandpaper.

I’ll bet the critics who once praised Six are now regretting that decision. Or perhaps they aren’t. I’m over this trend in filmmaking, part of me hoping that we all come to our senses. I’m playing right into Six’s hands here so I’ll probably just try to fall asleep now. I would urge him to try something a little less obvious next time. If offending everyone is his plan then he should continue with what he has started but he should rest assured that the best he could hope for is a drunken knucklehead like myself wandering into the wrong room of a party. Otherwise he and Todd Phillips have a lot more in common than he and his supporters ever dreamed.

rapid fire post

2011-11-11T20:15:00.000-08:00

We talked a bit about Stephanie Zacharek before the movie. I think this review is proof of why I read her even when she's shitting on a film I love.

http://www.movieline.com/2011/11/review-lars-von-triers-melancholia-offers-a-glorious-peep-into-the-sugar-easter-egg-of-doom.php

ps

2011-11-11T20:08:00.000-08:00

Jeff, I can see how people like myself would be annoying in times like these. By this I mean that I’ve been fairly hard on the vT in the past and now suddenly find his recent high production bum outs intoxicating. I feel kind of like the kid who started liking The Pixies after seeing Fight Club. But something HAS changed, I just can’t put my finger up it. I actually find these two films lacking in cynicism. Why is that? Jeff and Chris, lovers of DOGVILLE and DANCER IN THE DARK, help me.

is that a banana in your pocket or just a clitoris

2011-11-11T19:56:00.000-08:00

Sorry dude. I really did love the review I just didn’t LOVE that paragraph as much as I loved the rest. I wasn’t accusing you of Armondian Trollism just stating that the only thing I see relatable about these films would be the fact that you have seen them recently and they are all from 2011. RACHEL GETTING MARRIED is warranted because it’s also about really melodramatic people ruining a wedding with their problems. But honestly man THE GREEN LANTERN isn’t about the end of the world, DRIVE is also artsy fartsy and somewhat lauded but other than that shares nothing theme wise (though lauded meaning a high percentage on the tomato thing), and the list goes on. My Tarkovsky comparison came about only because I am all too aware of the director’s love and influence and the only reason I could conjure up as to why he decided to give Justine the power to “know” is because of the daughter in STALKER.

Again, I think the sole reason of this paragraph is to size up one 2011 film against a bunch of others with the intention of drawing any similarities possible out of it. Not a bad thing but not in any way measuring up to what I read before. But the more I write about it the more I realize how it could be taken as a negative thing. Not the case. Just a little out of sync with the tone you set before which sort of had me envying you.

I know you are externalizing the list making process and I love it. I don’t know how or why you don’t care about a film that you would rank behind the Film Club prince (a film that I find myself liking less day to day). The first thing I thought after seeing this film was “I’m going to go round for round on this one” and it’s looking promising thus far. I’m really confused about my reactions to the past two Von Trier films, I’m trying figure out why I’m suddenly on board. Jeff, you are a vT purist, what the fuck? Chris, get off your lazy ass and sit down on the couch and type up a review.

John, now that I'm out of the doghouse can we talk about the movie?

the discreet charm of the bourgeois

2011-11-11T17:16:00.000-08:00

Melancholia is blue just like Lars Von Trier.

It opens with a close up of a very sad person’s face, that person being Kirsten Dunst. This is a movie about sad people, rich sad people….. filthy rich sad people. In the prologue we get to see the world end in extremely stylized slow motion. This assemblage of images immediately made me think of the beginning of Von Trier’s previous film in which the world ends for a couple of bunny rabbits who just can’t seem to stop screwing each other. Both look like a music video, both go in slow motion with an emphasis on falling objects, and both prophesy the doom ahead.

I would argue that the opening sequence is a dream from Dunst’s Justine, a character who later reveals that she “knows things” perhaps a nod to the daughter of Tarkovsky’s STALKER. As soon as the grandstanding ends it’s time for the imp to take us to a far more apocalyptic event. From Tristan and Isolde we jump to a rural driveway where a limousine is having a hard time making a sharp turn. It’s a light moment, one of the last to occur in the entire picture. Once we get to the wedding reception the laughter becomes few and far between, the countdown officially begins. Before the newlyweds even step foot into the dining hall they are greeted by an angry Charlotte Gainsbourge (clitoris intact) and Keifer Sutherland. We immediately know that Claire and John denote wealth and anxiety. Justine and her husband (the buck toothed vampire from True Blood) represent the opposite, but only for about five minutes.

The speeches are all awkward, none more than the mother of the bride. She sucks so much that I was convinced that we would find out she didn’t actually exist a la fight club dichotomy twist. Her dad is a weirdo pervert with a couple of “betty’s” by his side. What oh what bail her out of this scratchy mess? It’s Melancholia to the rescue. But before our planets get into a fender bender Justine has to royally fuck up her life and the lives of almost everyone around her. How does she do this? By playing super bouncy with a guy she met twenty minutes earlier. Before the wedding night even ends her husband packs his things and tries once again to figure out that nasty curve in the driveway.

By dawn the castle and 18 hole golf course are at the disposal of Justine, Claire, John, and their son Leo. Justine is crippled with depression, a predicament that Von Trier found himself in not too long ago. Baths, dinners, and all other simple tasks are heaped on the shoulders of ball smasher Claire. She is adoring to a fault, a caregiver who secretly tallies inconveniences at the cost of a big fat grudge. Her husband finds this unbelievable. But soon none of this matters as we become spectators to the end of the world.

Jeff you bring up an incredible question; “can depression ever be well done without making you hate the character/characters who are depressed?” I’m not going to attempt an answer here but I feel the need to point out that this it depends on the character. Justine is selfish and at times cruel, she knows the toll her melancholy takes on Claire and doesn’t give a shit. She knows and seems to almost relish the pain she has thrust upon her caring husband or ex-husband. She still decides to act. This is the difference, she turns this FEELING into an action. She materializes it in similar ways to Eve from ANTICHRIST, she forces others to suffer. The biggest failures of this picture happen when Von Trier seems to be begging us for sympathy.

But as John pointed out in his incredible review (incredible until he starts comparing it to other non-relatable films), this is not a defeatist film. Von Trier is hoping to pass through death into resurrection, he is destroying in order to create. Jeff, I loved this movie despite its glut of frustrations. It’s much easier to ridicule and this is part of the charm here. More so than any film I’ve seen by the director I feel that he is taking big risks and I guess by admitting this I’m saying I completely disagree with you.

I’ll get into my biggest frustration just so you are aware that I’m not without reservation here. I don’t like DOGVILLE, mostly because I don’t see the point in watching a group of characters without the chance of redemption. Justine’s boss is nothing more than a contrivance, a vice for guys like Haneke and Von Trier who like to make shallow observations about society and humanity in the form of evil men and women. We’re much better with Justine’s final denouncement of humanity; it’s more honest and delivered without the rascally smirk. So basically I didn’t see the need for this man to be in this film. He’s a reoccurring stain on the director’s soul. He needs to die already.

I felt that the second half of the film did almost everything right. The moon bathing scene is great, it’s almost as if she is summoning the impending catastrophe wooing the planet and urging it to forsake its path. She’s a siren. When it beckons her call she suddenly finds her worth as the great comforter leading us to one of the great finales of all time. Yeah I said it, the ending ranks with the best.

The “makeshift planet viewer” is an ingenious suspense mechanism. The morning of the end of the world is paced so expertly, first with the disappearance of John and finally with the horrific revelation. I loved how the maternal instinct leads back to Justine, calm and waiting for her lover to arrive. A golf cart can’t outrun a super earth.

Boring part: I loved almost all of the performances here and loved the casting of Udo Kier as the wedding planner. Von Trier is an excellent director of actors as it turns out. Ok so I’m with Ben here obviously. Bring it bitches.

the green lantern

2011-11-09T17:28:00.001-08:00

As it turns out Martin Campbell’s abnormal talent is no exception to the “CGI action scenes automatically bore me to death” rule. THE GREEN LANTERN shoulda, coulda, woulda warranted a recommendation but it makes zero effort to deviate from the modern day comic book extravaganza. Try and pick it out of a lineup. I did like the cast, specifically the two leads. Ryan Reynolds does a fine job here, especially when he isn’t speechifying. Blake Lively still impresses me though this is no match for her underrated performance in THE TOWN. What can I say? Once you get past the origin material (the budding romance, the family stuff, a cool fight scene outside of a bar) the movie eats shit. My love for Campbell remains the same but I hope this experience scared him away from any more superheroes.

baby of mine

2011-11-07T14:22:00.000-08:00

I’m sure you can tell that I love playing tennis with your top ten lists. It’s always a nice way to look back and reevaluate my decisions. I say decisions because that is ultimately what a list adds up to, a choice that you have to sleep with until you change it (which is what I always end up doing). I love the list as an always evolving being, something that changes with discussion, time, insight, and that one great viewing that didn’t happen before. Keep em coming sonny.

Your words on CITIZEN KANE really got me thinking. I saw that film after being aware of its cultural significance. I then put stock in what AFI deemed worthy of their annual 100 Years lists. Now I could care less, though I DO love watching them and admit that I miss the hell out of them. I haven’t seen the film in a long time but I sort of regret not being able to see it without that chip on its shoulder. Alas I’ll never truly know.

The HIGH SIERRA discussion reminded me of the TRUE GRIT one in which a certain EBERT PRESENTS host briefly joined us to defend himself. The idea that a code can dictate the direction of a story should disappoint but I kind of love it. Is surprise overrated?

As far as HOW GREEN WAS MY VALLEY IS CONCERNED let’s just say that I think I’m wrong here… dead wrong. This is a film that I remember being extremely beautiful and well-made but something about the time I watched it made me feel a little strange. I think that I certainly prefer the lighter Ford material and perhaps found this one too heavy. As for the GRAPES OF WRATH, sometimes Steinbeck doesn’t do it for me.

THE MALTESE FALCON is brilliant don’t get me wrong. I was just being difficult.

DUMBO should be much higher on both lists. I re-watched it today and I’m convinced that it just may be the greatest of its kind and by that I mean feature length cartoons. It is truth. It is love. It is perfect.

In honor of DUMBO:
1941 redux:
1. Citizen Kane (Welles)
2. Dumbo (motherly love)
3. Ball of Fire (Hawks)
4. The Maltese Falcon (Huston)
5. High Sierra (Walsh)
6. Sullivan’s Travels (Sturges)
7. Buck Privates (Lubin)
8. Man Hunt (Lang)
9. The Lady Eve (Sturges)
10. How Green was my Valley (Ford)
Honorable Mentions: Shadow of the Thin Man, Suspicion, The Wolf Man, Sergeant York, The Strawberry Blonde, Keep em Flying.

let's talk 41

2011-11-05T22:57:00.001-07:00

So I don’t think the cultural vegetables conversation is going to work out as well as I had hoped. No worries. Jeff, thanks for your response. I was intrigued not by the chore of watching films that seem uninteresting on the surface but rather to viewing those essentials and having to come to terms with your negative reaction. It was hard to admit that I didn’t get into LA DOLCE VITA or BLOW UP; I couldn’t imagine being a professional critic and admitting that. I was hoping this discussion would lead to further posts but I can’t imagine it after a line like this: “Isn't it his job to pick through the murk of a film and find its deeper significance and theme(s)? Even if a film is bad and there isn't much below the surface, there is still something there to uncover, interpret, and ultimately criticize.” That sums it up just fine.

Onto Jeff’s 1941 list…..

I have to start by apologizing for not interacting more with your lists. It was hard to do any posting whilst on tour, the computer was like the toilet and I felt a lot of pressure each minute I spent on the internet. The guys/girls would hover over me like vultures waiting for an injured animal to die. Plus, I lost my ability to write so nothing would have been worth reading anyway. Better late than never, 1941 is a great year to start it back up.

CITIZEN KANE: What can either of us say that hasn’t been said before? This truly IS an American myth, one of the few irrefutable classics. The naysayers all appear to be jealous contrarians hungry for attention, hoping that their spit in the wind won’t shoot back into their face. We should wish them good luck and hand them a moist napkin.

HIGH SIERRA: I’m all for humanizing the criminal even if it leads to the dreaded fetishism that always seems to follow. One thing Walsh and his disciples did extremely well was to hook these unlikely heroes into one last tragic job right as they are about to embark on the road to lawful sobriety. Throw a girl into the mix and it’ll get us every time, wishing against our better judgment for the unbending will of the Hayes’ Code to lapse just long enough for Bogie to ride off into the sunset with Ida Lupino and their little pooch. COLORADO TERRITORY actually improves the ending here, I can’t wait for you to see it.

SULLIVAN’S TRAVELS: Like this year’s brilliant ATTACK THE BLOCK, Preston Sturges never lets his message bog down his picture. Make em laugh and then hope that they take some time to think and feel. While I wouldn’t deny that this picture wears its cynicism proudly (stop trying to change the world already) it also doesn’t knock anybody for hoping to better our collective circumstance. It should come as no surprise that the Coen brothers took the title of McCrea’s fictitious film and made it into a comedy of their own. Jeff, I think we can agree that Sturges was one of the best writers to ever work in film. His fluid and rapid fire dialogue serviced the story, moving forward rather than solely drawing attention to itself. This is another connection that ATTACK THE BLOCK and this film share, the remarkable success each has with landing their unremitting jokes.

HOW GREEN WAS MY VALLEY: Ford is a lot like Hitchcock in that he seems to have been born with the gift of directing. It looks as though it comes easy to him; the same shots that lesser filmmakers hope to have in one frame of their movie exist in scene after scene without the appearance of sweat and struggle. And you are right Jeff, despite his cantankerous reputation he was a man who obviously cared about the downtrodden and subjugated. I’m hoping that we have director marathons eventually, months dedicated to discovering and re-watching important and underrated films from great directors. Ford is only deterred by his occasionally bizarre allegiance to America. Even while saluting it’s clear that he was seemingly unable to botch a shot. I feel that the Coens have a similar talent and it’s led some to accuse them of hollowness. As much as I love to see a less talented artist make up for technical handicap (Ramones!) with honesty and creativity, I often long for the Fords, Hitch’s, Hawks, Rays, and Truffaut’s to blow my mind. None of this directly addresses HOW GREEN so I’ll add quickly that I need to see this one again in order to fully appreciate it. I’m not a huge GRAPES OF WRATH fan so part of me wonders if this picture fails for me in a lot of similar ways to that film.

THE MALTESE FALCON: Huston was another of those born talents. I do not love his oeuvre as consistently as Fords however. I actually find that somewhat endearing however because his failures are almost always noble. He had balls. But when he was on the results were near perfection. This picture, like NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN or DRIVE, seems to produce its detractors on account of its technical bravura. I would argue that Hawks did more with Bogie in the subsequent pictures that seem to come out of the same vein. This is not a knock to Huston and company; it’s just hard to rival THE BIG SLEEP and TO HAVE AND HAVE NOT. This is another picture that I desperately need to revisit, not because I need it to prove anything to me but because of how fun it is. I hate to use the word indisputable but come on guys, this is the stuff that dream are made of.

BALL OF FIRE: Though I obviously ranked this one higher I’m nonetheless happy to see it crack the top five. It’s root, zoot, cute, and solid to boot. But while I’m often tempted to hand all of the credit to the great Howard Hawks I have to point out that this picture was written by a young Billy Wilder. The careful selection of “seven dwarves” is another of the film’s seemingly unheralded strengths while the two strong leads finally seal the deal. This film knows what it has and runs with it; it’s hard to imagine anyone not surrendering to its charms. I’m astonished when I think about how many times Hawks was able to pull this off. His skills as a writer were matched by his intelligence as a director. He might have been the best at taking complicated dialogue and marrying it to a simple narrative without asking the audience to notice the unholy union. In less confident hands this movie would have felt like a marathon, instead it’s like a light jog through the park.

MANHUNT: One thing that seems to tie all of these films together is seasoned writers/directors doing what they seem to do best. Ford=epic, Walsh=bang bang, Hawks and Sturges=laughter, Welles=milestone, and Huston=smart entertainment. Lang was a thriller guy first and foremost and this film was just one of his contributions to the anti-Nazi effort. This is the guy who was offered a job by the maniac himself, an offer that inspired Lang to leave the country with nothing but the clothes on his back. I have seen this movie twice but can’t seem to remember that much of it. Let’s hope that director month spurs me to revisit it.

THE LADY EVE: Sexy, smart, and remarkably similar to the superior BALL OF FIRE. I love this movie mostly because I love the way Stanwyck seduces me. She had a great year. She had a great career. I love stories about guys who wouldn’t know love if it sat on their lap, as frustrating as it is to watch a guy pass on a gal like Jean half the fun is in watching her lure him in despite himself. It’s also hilarious to stop and think about the censors too stupid to pick up on the sexual innuendo. What a bunch of squares.

SUSPICION: I don’t know that I agree that the ending here is necessarily cheap but it is fairly odd. I did think that Grant’s character got off the hook simply because going from murder to embezzlement is a step in the right direction. Not one of my favorite Hitch movies but head and shoulders above most films all the same.

DUMBO: Yeah this one brings back great memories for me as well. It’s one of those movies that really made me appreciate my mother.

THE WOLF MAN: I’m not so sure that this picture ought to beat out HOW GREEN, DUMBO, and SHADOW OF THE THIN MAN. My 41 list is problematic to say the least. I could easily tweak it and feel a lot better about it but I’ll leave it for now.

attack the block

2011-11-05T21:22:00.000-07:00

A gang of young teens introduced first by their tag on a wall near their apartment complex, mug a young white nurse’s aide as fireworks light up the London sky. The act/scene is unabashedly nasty showing us the lengths these kids will go to in order to intimidate their potential victims. The same bravery and brutality these kids muster up during this assault will later come in handy when protecting that same woman from an invasion of “gorilla wolf looking mother fuckers.” Given the presence of the aforementioned fireworks, London authorities won’t be coming to the rescue (not that they seem to care about this section of town anyway) in fact they will be doing quite the opposite. I can’t remember the last time I saw a film so cagey about the blue thunder.

The unforeseen coalition takes this congenial sci-fi comedy and grants it some unexpected affluence. The gang’s bond is central to the film’s suspense and ATTACK’s lack of gore is exchanged for a real sense of danger. When we realize that these kids can and will die we dread the presence of the aliens more than ever. I can’t remember watching a movie with my friends in which they jumped and groaned, not because of gratuitous violence or loud noises, but rather because they watched a prized character lose their life. This is a refreshing horror picture, one with real characters as opposed to guinea pigs wandering around a sadistic maze. It shames the majority of modern thrillers by showing the significance in getting to know the potential prey before tearing them to pieces. It takes no pleasure in death, no satisfaction in blood and guts.

I’ve heard that a lot of people have taken issue with the film’s exaltation of teenage criminals. Fuck that. There is redemption here, the kind that most audiences seek in facetious Oscar baiting garbage like CRASH. As Sam begins to trust her assailants she also realizes that they are children; scared, dangerous, and bored. This doesn’t excuse their actions; it merely adds insight to their motivation. The invasion becomes their moment to channel their frustrations into something constructive, even heroic. Moses’ accountability saves the block and earns him the designation of neighbor and protector from the same woman he attacked with such ferocity. We are complicit in her awareness and rewarded in that final scene where we finally get to see him smile.

ATTACK THE BLOCK is easily one of my favorite films so far this year. I can’t remember the last time I saw a film this graceful. I laughed, jumped, smiled, and choked up at its tender beckoning. The message never muddles the fun, the fun doesn’t dull the message, and as the film finished I felt like I could go for two more hours.

cultural vegetarian

2011-11-01T15:06:00.001-07:00

I could watch anything with Fay Bainter (Make Way For Tomorrow, The Secret Life of Walter Mitty). She is one beautiful and enchanting older woman. Add Merle Oberon (Wuthering Heights), Franchot Tone (The Phantom Lady), Rex Ingram (Sahara), John Qualen (His Girl Friday, The Searchers), Elisha Cook Jr (The Killing), and the great Thomas Mitchell (Stagecoach, It’s a Wonderful Life) and you have yourself one hell of a cast. Throw Andre de Toth in the director’s chair and we have ourselves a movie. DARK WATERS could have been forgettable if any number of elements were missing (the acting, the staging of events, the pacing, the atmosphere and tone), it’s one of my favorite films from 1944.

Let’s change that list real quick:

1. Meet Me In St. Louis (Minnelli)
2. The Children Are Watching Us (de Sica)
3. To Have And Have Not (Hawks)
4. The Curse of the Cat People (Wise)
5. Double Indemnity (Wilder)
6. Laura (Hitchcock)
7. The Woman in the Window (Lang)
8. Dark Waters (Andre de Toth)
9. Hail the Conquering Hero (Sturges)
10. Lifeboat (Hitchcock)
11. The Princess and the Pirate (Butler)

Honorable Mentions: Arsenic and Old Lace, The Fighting Seabees, Going My Way, In Society, Ivan the Terrible

Jeff, first I would argue that WAR OF THE WORLDS has earned its status even if I wouldn’t include it on my own personal list. Eric Henderson, the guy who put it together, is a huge fan and based on the film’s first half I would totally side with him. The end is where it fails for me but up until that point I feel that it borders on masterpiece. So put that in your bowl and smoke it.

I agree with everything you said about SUSPIRIA but somehow end up feeling quite the opposite as far as affection is concerned. This makes me think about the Dan Kois debate that’s been raging since his “Cultural Vegetables” piece debuted in The New York Times. I’ll try and summarize the piece which you can find here (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/01/magazine/mag-01Riff-t.html?pagewanted=all).

Kois starts with a story about his 6 year old daughter who was somehow intimidated into watching a kid’s show that was above her head. She felt pressured to advance her intelligence and taste to match that of her older friends, which brings us to her father. This sad scenario reminded him of sitting in a dark theater watching MEEK’S CUTOFF, a film that he calls “as closed off and stubborn as the devout settlers who populate it.” He openly admits that his attempts to endure these types of “grueling” films are a result of his respect for certain writers and friends, giving in to peer pressure so to speak. He calls this “aspirational viewing.”

He then talks about having his arm twisted about SOLARIS, a film that he speaks openly, honestly, and ultimately condescendingly about. He lied to his friend about his feelings, claiming that the film was “amazing” while harboring the secret that he actually found the film boring (it sounds as though he fell asleep several times whilst watching it). This experience caused him to associate slow moving films with integrity. The guy obviously is scarred by his lack of interest, he notes that other critics are smarter than him in what appears to be a last ditch attempt to deflect the wrath of those Tarkovsky fans who’ll be knocking on his door once they read the NYTimes.

He admits to be somewhat lazy and having a short attention span. This is ok, that’s the way he is but there is a feeling of surrender in it all. His taste remains stubbornly his taste. But he remains torn about the time he as saved avoiding Antonioni and Hou-Hsiao-hsien in contrast to the cineaste he may never become. He ends with his white flag waving for all of us to see.

I found his philistine guilt annoying mostly but I think that there is something to be said about his honestly and specifically the way some of us struggle with certain aesthetics. Most of you have aired your grief about the horror genre and I’ve stated my own list of cinematic allergies and we all remain friends and respected film clubbers. Lisa’s string of posts about TREE OF LIFE remain some of the most interesting and honest words written here about the struggle to join in when others applaud a seemingly pretentious or perhaps difficult film. While I didn’t share her opinion I completely understood it as I’ve struggle with some of these “cultural vegetables.” But where Kois seems to have given up I remain fervent in my desire to get to know these films (pat me on the back). Still, I get the frustration at not “seeing” what everyone else is “seeing.”

I guess if after you try and try again you don’t succeed you eventually have to admit defeat or put together a good argument to support your conclusion. I don’t know why I don’t like SUSPIRIA but after one late night viewing I concluded, for the time being, that it’s not my thing. It must be tough in the world of film criticism, constantly watching your back. No wonder a lot of critics seem disingenuous even when they are praising something. Look at the film festival coverage, intelligent critics looking carefully over their shoulder and ultimately writing lukewarm reviews to satisfy both sides of the divide.

Kois’ piece put him on the slab and there he remains, his piece debuted in April. Charles Taylor called the reaction “bullying masked as erudition” and the debate continues. I think the fact that Kois is a paid film critic makes him a fair target here, basically the guy admits that he doesn’t want to be bothered with actual work even if he’s getting paid to sit in the theater to watch a film that you and I travel to Ithaca and fork over 7 dollars to see. I’m just a guy who works a fairly shitty job to support his pipedream of becoming a paid musician, I have the right to push the stop button.

John and I had a similar discussion about the “chore” of watching film. Perhaps John could put up a link to that. I wrote this to get some sort of dialogue going here about Kois’ point or lack thereof. What sayeth film club about the importance of eating your cultural vegetables?

i hate the holiday

2011-10-29T15:08:00.001-07:00

Simply the worst. If girls or guys claim to love the near extinct romantic comedy genre then they should demand better than this garbage. I want to piss on it.

not a top ten list but a list of solid suggestions

2011-10-27T16:30:00.001-07:00

Ok so I made that list of best horror films of the aughts and totally forgot GINGER SNAPS. Shame on me. I’m not ready to make a list of favorite horror films yet so I thought instead I would show you a little taste of what might have appeared. There are a few deemed “classics” missing from the list and if you notice them missing feel free to ask why, I would love to tell.

John, given your recent love for Lewton I think I’ve steered you in the wrong direction. Modern horror doesn’t hold a candle to any of these pictures. I'm not sure why I feel this way but at times I think the modern examples of the genre have strayed too far from the element that made these pictures great. I'm not trying to sell that nostalgia porn but something smells funny to me. Part of it may be who's making them today. A lot of it falls on who is directing. One thing that I can say about my list is the quality of auteur here. We have a lot of genre masterminds but we also see Kubrick, Burton, Roeg, Ulmer, Seigel, Bergman, Bigelow, Powell, Hitchcock, and Clouzot. Great directors.

To me this list represents the cream of the crop, the indisputable if there is such a thing. I had to wrestle with some of the 70s established classics that made their way in but ultimately it think they withstood it. If you want my honest advise as far as viewing is concerned I’d have to say that starting with the horror films of the 30s (Bride, Black Cat, Freaks) and 40s (Lewton owned it) is the best way to go. I think the 50s brought us excellent foreign horror films from France and Brittain while the 60s kept that going. The 70s are well represented here (Dawn, Don’t Look, Exorcist, Jaws) while the 80s gave us some of the great “body horror” pictures (Cronenberg and Carpenter). The special effects had a lot to do with the storytelling, gone were the days of Lewton's suggested terror. I think I only have one 90s film and that’s Tim Burton’s SLEEPY HOLLOW which I would describe as one of the most beautiful looking horror films ever made. I’m sure I forgot plenty and I would love for you guys to point out my sins.

I have a long way to go as far as the genre is concerned. I still have yet to see that Argento film that will make me a fan for life. I have to see a lot of Polanski’s early work. I need to see POSSESSION. I should make it a priority to see the early silent pictures. And what if I discover another SPIRAL STAIRCASE (or a great film that seems to go completely off everyone’s radar)? I could always get more Bava. I’d love to see DARK WATERS. SALEM’S LOT has always looked scary to me. What about the 90s? John, I know that you are being mostly hyperbolic when you say that the genre sucks and I know that after you see a few of these films you’ll change your tune.

Here is that list:

The Shining (Kubrick)* Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein (Barton)* Vampyr (Dreyer)* Dawn of the Dead (Romero)* Jaws (Spielberg)* Cat People (Tourneur and Schrader), Halloween (Carpenter), The Thing From Another World (Hawks), King Kong (Cooper), Rosemary’s Baby (Polanski), Bride of Frankenstein (Whale), Nosferatu (Murnau), The Fly (Cronenberg and Neumann), Black Sunday, Frankenstein (Whale), Freaks, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (Hooper)* The Thing (Carpenter) Videodrome, Gremlins 2, Dead Ringers, Psycho (Hitchcock), I Walked With a Zombie, Don’t Look Now, Sleepy Hollow, The Burbs, The Seventh Victim, Near Dark, The Exorcist, Peeping Tom, Curse of the Cat People, The Black Cat, The Changeling, The Brood, The Leopard Man, Curse of the Demon, The Innocents, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, Eyes Without a Face, The Horror of Dracula, The Spiral Staircase, Hour of the Wolf, They Live, Diabolique, The Most Dangerous Game, Day of the Dead.

the texas chainsaw massacre 2003 aka the shitty one

2011-10-25T18:48:00.000-07:00

Wow was I wrong about this one. This is why we are warned against remakes, not only does this Michael Bay sanctioned stinker conveniently leave out all of the possible social/political allegories presented by Tobe Hooper, it also gives us no reason to root for any of the possible victims. To put it bluntly, they suck balls. Their insensitivity to the death of the only credible victim (a suicide, one of the only good performers in the entire picture) only makes their eventual deaths more merited. Yeah, I’m siding with Leatherface in this one. Bring on the meat hook and save one for Bay and company.

It’s serviceable enough and works alright once the chainsaws get grinding but that’s not enough. Marcus Nispel has a decent eye every once in a while but there is something fishy about a grimy premise being filmed with such a silken disdain for its source material. This is what we’ve come to expect from the folks over at Platinum Dunes, a company always looking to chop up their next cash cow. I would commend this picture for its lack of pretention if it actually lacked pretention. I’d go down the Roger Ebert route if I thought it would do any good. This isn’t nearly effective enough to warrant such a rant, it’s simply too stupid and inept to wage a moral battle.

I’ve always been afraid of Hooper’s original and to be completely honest this fear of being hunted down by a chainsaw wielding maniac in Travis County has been the cause of many a nightmare. That age old phobia allowed even this garbage to scare me when I first saw. I feel like a sucker now. This movie is for the status quo, the idiots who show up in droves to see movies like THE HANGOVER 2 or TRANSFORMERS: PINK FLOYD (note: if you went to see these I’m not calling you an idiot, I’m just saying that you shared the theater with a bunch of em). So anyway this movie sucks balls.

the 11 best horror films of the aughts

2011-10-25T17:09:00.001-07:00

Last night I watched a special about horror films on TCM. The basic gist of the program was to allow Stephen King to talk for an hour about the history of horror in relation to his life and work. I wasn’t expecting much considering the fact that I don’t really care for much of King’s output but I found myself pleasantly surprised at how charming he was. Not only was most of his taste impressive but he also speaks about film in an interesting way. One comment struck me particularly hard in regards to the diminishing effect of horror cinema. Basically he said that with each viewing a good scary horror picture stultifies and forces you to find other reasons to appreciate it. I agree with this as this genre and comedy are a tougher pill to swallow the second or third time around.

He got into the whole Kubrick debate and lost once again. I understand him being protective of his work but his interpretation of what Kubrick was doing is totally off. There is more substance in what the late auteur took from the novel than anything in the novel itself. King ought to be grateful. That aside, I learned to like the man and trusted his opinion much more than I did before. In fact he inspired me to make a few horror lists for my brethren here at Film Club who seem to like the genre to take its place at the foot of the table.

The Best Horror Films of the Aughts:
Antichrist- This appears to be the film that validates the already thriving horror genre to the unbelievers. And yet I still don’t begrudge it that title. By excluding it from my list of faves in 2009 I feel that I gave off the wrong impression. I was/will be critical of Von Trier and specifically the way he panders and browbeats the same men and women who pay for his mansion Denmark. I’ve never denied him his talent I’ve just always thought that his own desire to be known as cinema’s Damien got in the way of him actually saying something. Then he made this picture, a film about loss leading to guilt leading to doubt leading to ripped/smashed/torn genitalia. It’s an honest picture to these eyes and one that made me think twice about the puck who created it.

Halloween II- I’ve tried and tried and tried to validate this movie but nobody seems to care, not even Jason. I still think it’s spectacular enough to overcome the weaker moments (and I do realize that there are plenty). The opening sequence alone justifies its spot on this list.

28 Days Later- Many would argue that the sequel is much better but I’m sticking with this one. It’ll probably get the least grief from you ragtag bunch of yellow bellied sap suckers. The only reservation I have in heaping praise on this beloved/hated “zombie” classic is that the director is stupid enough to feel as though he’s above the genre. Every scene of suspense is indebted to the films that came before and Boyle is lucky to be able to learn from such masters. Still, I would be a liar if I said I was completely in love with this picture. The sequel rules too.
Trouble Every Day- I’ll talk more about this film once my 2002 list gets posted but in the meantime all I can say is that this Claire Denis film always gets me in trouble, therefore I hesitate to tell people about it for fear that they will come back to me and say “that was disgusting and boring, thanks for wasting my time and brain.”

Pan’s Labyrinth- Not sure that this even qualifies as a horror film. I love it and I don’t really understand anyone who doesn’t. Don’t you hate it when that happens?

The Others- This is a film that I’ve had a long relationship with. I’ve probably seen it 5 times (the most out of any film on this list) and each time it gets better and better. This is actually the contrary to King’s point about diminishing returns. There is real substance here and great atmosphere. The twist completely works as well. I’ll talk more of this when we get to 2001.

Cabin Fever- Jason and I both love this movie and I think that it may just stay that way. This is horror movie lover’s horror movie.

Sweeney Todd- I find it telling that this is the best Tim Burton film to come out since SLEEPY HOLLOW. The genre beckons you.

Death Proof- Again, this is probably not a horror film but it certainly claims to be one (at least half of one). I really hope this isn’t the last time we see Tarantino wandering in these parts of the forest.

Let the Right One In- This is about the horrors of being a kid. It’s about the horrors of being different. It’s about the horrors of dating a transsexual vampire. John thanks for calling me out about my optimistic reading of the film’s romance, it actually made me love it more.

The Descent- I admit that this is a prime example of a film that I loved that went down in quality with each new viewing. Is it fair to commend and hold a film in high regard based on the reaction you first had to it? This film scared the shit out of me; it had me curling my toes throughout its running time. I still find myself panicky during the claustrophobic scenes but the monsters really don’t do much in the way of scaring me. That was a first time thing. Still, I hope for many more films just like it.

Plenty More: The Devil’s Backbone, The Strangers, Wolf Creek, Land of the Dead, War of the Worlds, Drag Me to Hell, Bug, Let me In, The Orphan, Seed of Chucky, and Audition. I’m probably forgetting a ton. Let me know guys.

three quickies from films that i saw about an hour of

2011-10-24T18:33:00.000-07:00

I watched about half of I NOW PRONOUNCE YOU CHUCK AND LARRY based on the recommendation of Armond White (strong), Nathan Lee (strong), and Fernando Croce (mixed). Supposedly an expensive apology from the film’s star and producer for past sins, the film follows two firefighters pretending to be gay and married to get life insurance for their family or something along those lines. Of course neither is gay (that would be gross right?) but in faking it they find out that the word faggot is really nasty and that you won’t be penetrated automatically by your gay acquaintance whilst playing basketball or showering. We also find out that firemen are great, gay kids can tap dance, Rudy Giuliani is supposedly great, and Rob Schneider really loves Mickey Rooney in BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY’S. Stereotypes abound and basically nothing is discovered about anything other than the intent of the creators.

But the surprise here is that the intent is probably earnest and for that the film ought to earn a few points for sincerity and goodwill. Sandler knew that his demographic (is it safe to assume that many of them are homophobes or perhaps closeted bigots?) suffers a bit from gay anxiety and this was his way of setting them straight (no pun intended). This is not to suggest that he gets anywhere with his target audience but it’s a start. It’s painful however to see him throw that audience (who honestly should know better than to bully others on the basis of their sexuality/race/sex) a bone (again no pun) in the form of a lame love story. Jessica Biel is in this film for one reason, to ensure that this antsy audience doesn’t forget that Chuck is still a womanizer just like the rest of us.

I like Sandler and to be honest this film is far from worthless. He is well aware of his cultural standing, he’s a pop icon. He’s talented, PUNCH DRUNK LOVE and SPANGLISH confirmed that for me (though I have to admit that I’m a fan of BILLY MADISON homophobia and creepy misogyny aside). But while it’s easy to shit on this movie let us be honest, he risked one year of being on top of the box office standings to make a public apology/use his influence to stop bullies (his fans) from beating up/heckling/hating homosexuals. Good work.

The finale, a lame Capra rip off, summarizes the shallow/good natured thesis here. Homophobia is bad and all one has to do is stop, not find the root of their feelings and confront them, just stop. As honest as it felt at times I wondered why Sandler and company wanted so desperately to have their back’s patted by the community that they were essentially apologizing to. The gay community sits outside the jail and Sandler and crew are reassured that they, once again, have become “heroes” to the same group of people that they exploited. I’d be curious to find out if anyone was converted by this picture.

DREAMCATCHER remains one of the dumbest movies that I’ve ever seen. Still I applaud it for being willing to be this stupid. The finale in which a mentally retarded man with a Scooby Doo lunch box becomes a giant alien and saves the day whilst yelling “I Duddits!” earns it points for blunt audacity.

HELLBOY II should have made my 2008 list. This creature feature has enough ideas for a dozen films but somehow Del Toro fits it all in here quite nicely. For those of you in love with PAN’S LABYRINTH (count me in) and its Lovecraftian monster design, you’ll be pleased to find that the director doesn’t hoard his talents exclusively for his art house fans. It’s the product of the same imaginative mind, a man whose talent is often matched by his passion and we are the beneficiaries. At the heart of both films is the bond between father and son, note how the bad guy here murders his in an act of revolution. On the contrary our hero lives by the words and memory of his own, the little sense of morality that this demon possesses (no pun once again) is thanks to the guidance of a good father.

You can’t blame the bad guy for wanting to break the truce between his people and us humans above. We are destroying the earth after all. His motivation is one of the reasons this film stands tall above most of its big blockbuster peers (have you seen anything like the troll market in the X-Men movies?). This is a villain with a plug. His protagonist is just as complicated. He’s tough and brutal, killing when he needs to but a sap beneath the gruff indifference to being a total freak. He’s a big softie. It’s this complexity of report that makes this movie so special. If you don’t buy what I’m selling you can at least pour over the beautiful visual detail here. Check this one out ladies and germs.

Currently watching a doc on TCM about horror films. The host? Stephen King. Will write about it tomorrow.

i'm horrorible

2011-10-24T14:24:00.001-07:00

Yeah I am horrible. That list made me realize why I love and hate making lists. If I had to do it all over again I would and then regret it and want to change it within the hour. But I like every film on that list all the same and so I’ll let it stand for now. I just checked out Slant Magazines top 25 horror films of the aughts and liked it despite some interesting omissions. It seems that they wanted to deliberately avoid some of the more popular pictures in favor of the unsung, big surprise. But they bring some underrated films to the forefront and for that reason alone the list is worth a look. I wondered why they left TROUBLE EVERY DAY off. I knew why they would leave two of my favorites (The Others and 28 Days later) but held out hope that CABIN FEVER would make an appearance. It appears as though Eli Roth’s post Hostel reputation has diminished that films popularity with those that once held it in high regard.

Ben, I’ve certainly been tempted to clean up my house of its film clutter. It happens to me three or four times a year. I look at my shelf and wonder why I even bother owning anything. But it goes away eventually and I’m glad that I kept the films that I’ve kept.

I still hold to my opinion of the first episode of season 2 on THE WALKING DEAD. The second episode is even stronger in my opinion. I expect the wtf? moments so perhaps that’s why I’m a little kinder. The second episode of BOARDWALK EMPIRE was great as well though I’ve read some grumblings from respected critics in regards to its “cartoon violence.” In the words of Henry Rollins and William Shatner “I can’t get behind that.”

Ben, I also share some of your enthusiasm about TOL and MEEK’S. I like the latter much more but I feel that Malick’s film, much like his earlier work, will make its way into my heart eventually. I’m just not a fan of the Sean Penn stuff.

Jeff I owe you and some of the others a proper horror list. 25 is too much but maybe I’ll put something together soon. I just feel really daunted when I think about it; there are so many films that shouldn’t really be in competition with one another. I don’t know. Plus there is the classics factor. I don’t want to bore you with cliché picks like JAWS, DAWN OF THE DEAD, THE SHINING, and BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN but they deserve to be on any list outright (at least in my opinion. So I guess that makes the comment section important. We shall see.

chris, start with the classics

2011-10-23T08:09:00.001-07:00

To be honest Chris I mostly prefer horror from the 30s, 40s, and 50s. I’m really into the films of James Whales, Todd Browning, Jacques Tourneur, Mark Robson, Robert Wise, Jack Arnold, Edgar G. Ulmer, Robert Siodmak, and Georges Franju. Some films to recommend out that bunch would be BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN, FREAKS, CURSE OF THE DEMON, CAT PEOPLE, I WALKED WITH A ZOMBIE, THE SEVENTH VICTIM, CURSE OF THE CAT PEOPLE, THE LEOPARD MAN, THE CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON, THE BLACK CAT, THE VAMPIRE BAT, THE WOLF MAN, THE SPIRAL STAIRCASE, EYES WITHOUT A FACE, THE THING FROM ANOTHER WORLD, or THE INVISIBLE MAN. Also check out some of the early German Fritz Lang movies like M, THE CABINET OF DR MABUSE, or even METROPOLIS.

I haven’t seen these films but I really would love to check out Andre De Toth’s DARK WATERS and Siodmak’s THE PHANTOM LADY. Don Siegel made one of the best in the genre with INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS. I think you’d love that one. I also like THE BLOB although that one is more for the campy B-movie crowd. On the higher end I completely recommend the great Henri Georges Clouzot’s DIABOLIQUE.

The 60s brought some great horror films from overseas. Even some established auteurs not associated with the genre made some genre staples. Though you can totally see some horror influences in BLACK NARCISSUS it must have been a shock to see Powell’s PEEPING TOM. Hitchcock was the king of the thriller but PSYCHO winds up a few steps beyond the thriller forest line. His THE BIRDS and FRENZY wander a little further while even MARNIE creeped me out.

The 60s gave us Mario Bava, Roman Polanski, Terrence Fischer, Roger Corman, and George Romero. I am not nearly as versed in 60s film as I should be and the 70s aren’t much better in that regard. I can recommend all of the Bava pictures as well as the Polanski ones. Fischer was a Hammer director so some of his pictures are probably take it or leave it. Corman is always my favorite but I love his ethic and when he’s on he’s dead on. Romero has some iffy pictures but you can’t really go wrong with the Dead series or Martin.

I could give you a list of films beyond this point but you already know most of the essentials. To be honest a lot of horror films started to waver for me once the splatter pictures got going. That’s not to say that there aren’t great horror films post 1960, in fact some of the best came after that point. I understand your lack of interest in a lot of these pictures. I think the best way for me to show my love for horror films is to rank them not amongst each other but amongst other films. I made lists from the 40s through the 50s and you’ll see a lot of horror films shoulder to shoulder with some greats. That’s just my ranking and honestly most of that is bullshit but it shows that I feel strongly about the genre when it’s done right.

I would like to have a horror discussion before Halloween. It’s an annual tradition.

eyes without a face revisited

2011-10-22T11:37:00.000-07:00

I love those Saturday mornings when the house is empty with the exception of Lou and Bella. I wake up and skip breakfast, move from the bed to the couch and try to enjoy a film uninterrupted. This morning I sat down and popped in Georges Franju’s EYES WITHOUT A FACE (the last three minutes in tact). I’ve seen once before and it left a good enough impression to outrank some great films in the year 1959. It’s a great picture for this time of year, the perfect fall film without a doubt.

Dr. Genessier has made a mess of his life destroying the face of his beautiful daughter in a car accident. The mixture of guilt and clout convince the good doctor to conduct some evil experiments on unsuspecting young women. Hoping to reconstruct his daughter Christiane’s face he sends his assistant and probable love interest out into the streets of Paris to lure beautiful young blondes to his mansion. Here he attempts to graft their faces onto Christiane’s without much success. There is very little question of the inherent immorality here, it’s clearly wrong to deny young women the right to their facial features, but somehow Franju managed to gain mild sympathy for the Genessier trio. This is not to say that I mourned their downfall, in fact I rejoiced, but that somewhere in between the mad scientist chestnut moments and the gross out surgery scenes I managed to like the man and his deranged assistant.

Interesting facts. The same two people who scribed Henri Georges Clouzot’s incredible DIABOLIQUE and Hitchcock’s monumental VERTIGO also breathed some tenderness into this otherwise dire project. Their script focused more on the guilt than the madness. There are some minor moments in which you question the doctor’s motivations, one in which he toys with the idea of selling his achievements, but otherwise it’s clear (at least to me)that his justifications for committing these atrocities lie in both his love for Christiane and the weight of his culpability for making her what she is.

The film is notable for its graphic skin grafting sequence, a scene that apparently caused many to faint at the Edinburgh Film Festival. Franju’s response, “now I know why the Scotsmen wear skirts.” In defense of kilt wearing sissies, I had to avert my eyes this morning. Even in this day of “anything goes” gore and graphic violence EYES WITHOUT A FACE is astoundingly effective. And perhaps because of this scene alone it joined the long list of great films that only found their deserved audience many years later. Too arty for horror dunderheads and too gory for bourgeois snoots, it ought to be seen by everyone here at Film Club especially the non-horror fans.

Look at the scene in which the necrotic effects set in after a seemingly successful graft. I won't spoil it for you, but I doubt you will find anything like it pre-1959. The death of tissue.

The score is remarkable and no I’m not referring to the circus theme attributed to Louise. The cinematography is flawless, apparently Eugene Shufftan worked with the likes of Lang, Pabst, and Ulmer.

So yeah, this is one of the great ones, a horror picture that knows the importance of atmosphere. It also knows and heeds to the importance of humanity, drawing us in only to tear us down. It’s not cruel; it just knows that the only way to end well is to end. It’s not above the genre and it doesn’t seek to somehow improve it but Franju had no interest in tracing lines. We’ve talked about revolutionary cinema, well here it is.

horror movie quizzzzz

2011-10-22T07:40:00.000-07:00

Instead of compiling a list of favorite horror films, which I may still do, I figured I’d answer a few questions from one of my favorite movie websites. If you guys haven’t been there yet you should all hit up Sergio Leone and the Infield Fly Rule. It’s fantastic.

1) Favorite Vincent Price/American International Pictures release.
Answer: Leave Her to Heaven/The Pit and the Pendulum

2) What horror classic (or non-classic) that has not yet been remade would you like to see upgraded for modern audiences?
Answer: The Ghoul

3) Jonathan Frid or Thayer David?
Answer: Jonathan Frid

4) Name the one horror movie you need to see that has so far eluded you.
Answer: Either Repulsion, The Tenant, Possession, Blood and Black Lace, or Dark Waters.

5) Favorite film director most closely associated with the horror genre.
Answer: James Whales, Jacques Tourneur, and David Cronenberg

6) Ingrid Pitt or Barbara Steele?
Answer: Tough one. I’ll go with Steele because of Black Sunday. I have a huge crush on Pitt.

7) Favorite 50’s sci-fi/horror creature.
Answer: The Beast from 5,000 Fathoms

8) Favorite/best sequel to an established horror classic.
Answer: The Bride of Frankenstein (Honorable Mentions: Texas Chainsaw II, Dawn of the Dead, Curse of the Cat People)

9) Name a sequel in a horror series which clearly signaled that the once-vital franchise had run out of gas.
Answer: The Fly II (the 80s film)

10) John Carradine or Lon Chaney Jr.?
Answer: Carradine but not necessarily because of the horror genre.

11) What was the last horror movie you saw in a theater? On DVD or Blu-ray?
Answer: Scream 4 (booo), Sleepy Hollow (Yay!)

12) Best foreign-language fiend/monster.
Answer: Doctor Genessier Eyes Without a Face

13) Favorite Mario Bava movie.
Answer: Black Sunday…. Contrarian answer Planet of the Vampires

14) Favorite horror actor and actress.
Answer: Karloff and Lancaster

15) Name a great horror director’s least effective movie.
Answer: Prince of Darkness

16) Grayson Hall or Joan Bennett?
Answer: Bennett

17) When did you realize that you were a fan of the horror genre? And if you’re not, when did you realize you weren’t?
Answer: Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein age 5.

18) Favorite Bert I. Gordon (B.I.G.) movie.
Answer: sadly haven’t seen one

19) Name an obscure horror favorite that you wish more people knew about.
Answer: Curse of the Demon, The Leopard Man, or perhaps Trouble Every Day although everyone who takes up my offer to see it gets really mad at me.

20) The Human Centipede-- yes or no?
Answer: Ultimately no but I have to admit that it’s a genuinely shocking premise.

21) And while we’re in the neighborhood, is there a horror film you can think of that you felt “went too far”?
Answer: Only films I haven’t seen for very deliberate reasons (Cannibal Holocaust, A Serbian Film).

22) Name a film that is technically outside the horror genre that you might still feel comfortable describing as a horror film.
Answer: Night of the Hunter or perhaps Time of the Wolf

23) Lara Parker or Kathryn Leigh Scott?
Answer: don’t really know

24) If you’re a horror fan, at some point in your past your dad, grandmother, teacher or some other disgusted figure of authority probably wagged her/his finger at you and said, “Why do you insist on reading/watching all this morbid monster/horror junk?” How did you reply? And if that reply fell short somehow, how would you have liked to have replied?
Answer: It’s never really happened. If it does I’ll reply with a “take a giant step backwards and fuck yourself.”

25) Name the critic or Web site you most enjoy reading on the subject of the horror genre.
Answer: Sergio Leone, Cinepassion, and The Movie Morlocks

26) Most frightening image you’ve ever taken away from a horror movie.
Answer: crab walk

27) Your favorite memory associated with watching a horror movie.
Answer: making out with Tara for the first time in a theater during the shitty Sixth Sense.

28) What would you say is the most important/significant horror movie of the past 20 years (1992-2012)? Why?
Answer: Pan’s Labyrinth because it might end up leading to a major studio release of At the Mountain of Madness.

29) Favorite Dr. Phibes curse (from either film).
Answer: the rats

30) You are programming an all-night Halloween horror-thon for your favorite old movie palace. What five movies make up your schedule?
Answer: Curse of the Demon, The Brood, Curse of the Cat People, Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein, Shutter Island.

movie geeks from another world

2011-10-21T14:34:00.000-07:00

Great night. Not only did we get to see the grand finale of the craptastic FLIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD but we also were treated to about 14 minutes of James Gunn’s deliberately awful SLITHER. Sandwiched between was Howard Hawks/Christian Nyby’s THE THING FROM ANOTHER WORLD from 1951. I hadn’t seen it in ages (some might argue that I’ve actually never seen it, at least the last 30 seconds) so it made sense on this cold October night to pop in my dad’s old VHS tape and enjoy. I haven’t outgrown this one. I still find its intermittent moments of suspense to be completely effective. The first real look at the vegetable monster is worthy of its legend and that kerosene sequence deserves its place right beside it. Jeff was right about the doors, each time one opened I wondered who was entering. Also, the blinking lights and the beeping sounds of the Geiger counter kept the pulse racing. I actually cared about this ragtag bunch of science haters. Their overall lack of concern really sets this film apart from virtually every other, these guys and girls couldn’t care less about the very real danger approaching. I’d call it ONLY ANGELS HAVE WINGS with a blood craving veggie alien.

The caricatures here work. There is exactly 1 evil scientist at the base. He’s nuts, initially reasonable but with time and a lack of sleep a total loon. There is at least one scientist who sides with the logic of survivalist reason (John Dierkes). He knows that all of this knowledge isn’t worth shit without a walking talking human to record and spread it. The air force dudes are your typical brutes, lovable but practical. They think up theoretical solutions and try them until they succeed. They don’t fret when things don’t work out. They are the polar opposite of the paranoid crew in John Carpenter’s film. It’s interesting how his film contrasts this one in nearly every aspect. That film is actually the anti-camaraderie version where trust and loyalty will get you killed. In this picture it’s the only thing that’ll keep you alive.

I’m probably not going to do that horror film list. You already know most of the must see movies in that genre. I’m just not up to it right now. I have to admit that I prefer the pre-cynical/bloody/sexually explicit entries simply because I was only able to see them as a kid. John, I disagree with you about the genre in regards to cinema. I think it has way more than a handful of good/great films to claim. I’d like to debate this. I need to get better at it. Let’s make this happen. It’s that time of year after all.

top 50 horror films?

2011-10-20T13:45:00.001-07:00

I’m a big Glenn Kenny fan. He recently made a top 50 horror films list all by himself with at least a paragraph to explain each pick. Do we dare? I would suggest doing not only your favorites (which will undoubtedly be interesting considering the fact that there are exactly 2 horror fans in film club) but those films that actually scare you. If anything it'll force us to be creative with our picks. 1 sentence (minimum) is required or each pick. Wanna try?

tomorrow night

2011-10-19T17:11:00.001-07:00

Hey guys. I won't be able to rent Melancholia tomorrow night. This means we will have to postpone it until next perhaps. But that doesn't mean that we can't get together. John, you down to bring VERTIGO? Let me

the walking dead returns

2011-10-17T18:08:00.001-07:00

I’ve been switching between the euphoric and triumphant HAIL! HAIL! ROCK N ROLL and the stupid but unreasonably fun SURVIVAL OF THE DEAD. The latter reminded me that I had seen and enjoyed the hell out of the season 2 premiere of THE WALKING DEAD. It featured a scene in which a herd of “walkers” approached via the opposite end of an apocalyptic traffic jam. The survivors had no choice but to hide beneath whatever car they were standing in front of, leaving mother and child separated and helpless. I can’t remember ever feeling such excruciating tension in a modern day zombie flick much less a television series. This show is the real deal.

surly

2011-10-17T16:49:00.001-07:00

Before I engage myself in light debate with my good friend John I want to point out that I was being deliberately prickly in my first response back. I don’t want to go soft and find that he is one hell of a sport and totally understands that I’m mostly joking and not nearly passionate enough about anything to hurt a friend’s feelings.

“I agree. But, Cold Weather is cinematic in the way that Bergman's films are cinematic or Ozu's films are cinematic. It is not cinematic IN THE SAME WAY that most people mean when Drive is described as such.”

I still haven’t seen this picture and trust me when I say that I’m really excited to catch up with it as soon as I get a chance. I think this is the heart of the debate right here. You find spiritual consummation with those directors and I can honestly say that I do as well. It’s great to watch a picture and actually feel as though you’ve learned something about yourself and humanity. LATE SPRING and THE VIRGIN SPRING actually changed my day when I saw them whereas something like GUN CRAZY or even my personal favorite film of 1946 THE BIG SLEEP admittedly offer way less in regards to spiritual enrichment. Looking back at my lists I noticed that most of those pictures have something to say and I got the message loud and clear. So basically I’m saying good point here.

“Basically, the point is that Godard was making movies "about" movies. Truffaut was making movies "about" Truffaut. The distinction breaks down because of course Godard's movies are "autobiographical" and of course Truffaut's films are shaped by the movies he loved. Still, there's a distinction.”

I think you may have messed that up a bit but because I think Godard made movies about the movies he loved and Truffaut was more of a meditative director. At the same time I would argue that filmmakers who are bound by their love for cinema can transcend their obsession. I thing Jean Luc often did but only when he let the medium simply be the vessel of communication. I don’t think great filmmakers often omit their personal beliefs and feelings, it seems nearly impossible. You just have to look harder. Right?

“The unclear point that I was trying to make comes down to the simple idea that I find Cold Weather more spiritually edifying than Drive. That's about as blatantly obvious and biased as I can get. You can disagree with me, but that's what it comes down to. In the end, it's a matter of taste.”

Yeah I was thinking that this was the crux of your argument and honestly what else is there to say? I need to see this movie.

“Dang, I missed you.”

Missed you too.

“This is just silly. I like Godard twice as much as you do and I like Tarantino just about as much. I'm not the one saying, "Good for you Jason for crapping on Breathless. I don't like Godard. He's a poseur. He never made a sexy killer in the woods genre film. Let's have a sleepover and watch Bride of Chucky. We can share a toothbrush."

How did you hear about that sleepover? I told Jason not to tell anyone. I doubt that you like Godard twice as much as me, maybe one and half times more than me but definitely not twice. I do like Godard but like many directors including Tarantino I think he needs to shut his yapper and let his films speak. Also, I’m tired of these final pronouncements that he has now twice put at the end of his films. I don’t like that he is so aware of his own legend. I don’t like it about Tarantino either. It’s one thing to be cocky but feeling as though you have the right to declare cinema dead is just annoying.

“You might not like how I described their work, but it's no less accurate for you not liking it. Neither one of those bozos can be a Sam Fuller or a Joseph H. Lewis or a Budd Boetticher or anyone else. It's just a different type of film-making. Completely self-conscious and devoted to serving at the Temple of Cinema.”

Yeah it is self-conscious and all the better for it. The devotion to the Temple of Cinema is part of why I find their (mostly Tarantino) work so stirring. They might be bozos, like I said both need to avoid running their mouths and instead run a movie camera or a typewriter, but I don’t think they are trying to be anyone but themselves. That would be like you saying that Katz is trying to be Ozu or Bergman. You’re right it can’t be done but that doesn’t prevent, nor should it, artists to pay homage and/or share with one another. You are saying that Katz is not as restricted as this certain type filmmaker and I could see that being the case. But I happen to find that method of filmmaking fantastic when it’s done right (or perhaps when the director is drawing from the right concoction of influences). Like I said in my last post (which you need to respond to) all cinema is derivative.

“No. Just no. It is not. It's an abstraction of a straight forward picture about a guy who likes a girl and goes to dangerous and violent lengths to protect her.”

I don’t agree with you. Why do you think that it’s an abstraction? What in particular leads you to this conclusion? I wish I had seen Katz’s film so that I might call it a generalized version of THE THIN MAN.

“Okay. I agree. But showmanship is only half the story. I'm sure that the dudes burning on stakes to light up Nero's courts made quite the awesome spectacle. Jolly good show. Brilliant lighting choices (pun absolutely intended). One hell of a good showman, that Nero! I'm not really comparing Drive to an historical atrocity. I'm only trying to make an exaggerated point.”

Sure. But a lot of films don’t get that half right. That was my only point.

“In a sense, it does matter. If something's not being talked about, then it's likely been forgotten. The whole reason we argue about anything here is because we think that certain films are worth remembering (and that other films should be forgotten).”

I was responding to you responding to Chris so I was responding to both of you. It matters perhaps in a historical sense but as time has shown the better film often gets forgotten at least until some nerd uncovers it and writes a long essay in Film Comment. I don’t think anyone is arguing that either film should be forgotten.

Let’s keep this up. John, read my DRIVE review and utilize that quote thingy. Jeff, argue with John. Chris, stop being a pussy. Ben, watch DRIVE and join in. Jason, have fun in Europe and when you get back write about our conversation at the Bug Jar. Lisa, miss ya.

drive

2011-10-16T15:23:00.001-07:00

I think the mere fact that DRIVE was originally supposed to be a Hugh Jackman action blockbuster tells us that this is elevated material. Jeff your review basically says it all for me. I think that some of the strongest moments involve people staring at one another. Good actors need to know how to convey things via the face and Ryan Gosling understands this. I also loved the harsher moments, not only ones involving heads being stomped but also glares and words. Perhaps my favorite scene came when the driver’s breakfast is interrupted by a former client. It’s the first moment in which his violent nature and amorality is implied. The ferocity in his face is enough to convince this underworld moron to step away and spare his teeth.

Even the 80s synth Pitchfork soundtrack felt somehow elevated here. I typically hate that style of music but somehow this film made it work. I know Chris is with me on that. A lot of people seem to hold some contempt for this picture because of the “cool” factor. I can understand this but going along for the ride is much more fun. It seems that the style here really adds substance to the story.

As for those who take issue with the violence here I have nothing new to say. This is a film about criminals and most criminals get where they are via violence. The film sets up an interesting quandary; a guy receives protection in prison and finds himself unable to pay back his debt so the thugs come gunning for him and his family. The job exists only to repay the debt but the goons have evil opportunistic clandestine motives. Their need to profit brings our “real hero” to their doorstep and it becomes kill to protect. Violence to prevent violence. Of course in any good crime story the perpetrators are chasing their tails and eventually they all wind up dead. Moral of the story = eventually it catches up to you.

John, I don’t think the film needed a backstory at all. The driver’s motivations are immediate to the story at hand. We are given just enough in the opening scenes to understand all I needed to know. He’s efficient and adheres to a strict code. That devotion keeps him alive and out of prison, five minutes no more. He looks up to his Shannon perhaps as a father figure, he cares enough to shed a tear when he finds him with his arm sliced open. Irene changes everything. A good girl can bring a man out of the shadows. The driver depends on his acting skills a lot as well. He needs to get points across without using a weapon. He uses his face and his words to convince others to do what he says. The driver does this quite often (Cooke, Blanche, dude at the diner) and avoids further conflict as a result. He wants to be a father. To him that means protector hence the skull stomping.

That was enough for me to feel as though I understood this man. It was also enough for me to care about him.

I’m not sure that I disagree with you in regards to the sustenance argument John. I enjoyed this picture a pure genre escapism. I put myself in the driver’s seat. I don’t like the sewage reference because poop is gross but I understand why you would argue this point to put COLD WEATHER in the winner’s corner. I also get the cool and nourishing points as well. This is a cool movie and perhaps in some ways an empty one. It has a moral point but that point has been with us for a very long time now therefore this is simply a good show. But I’m ok with that and it sounds like you are too. What are your thoughts about other crime films (preferably from the past) that lack such sustenance? Where would you draw the differentiating line? You are an unabashed fan of THE ASPHALT JUNGLE, IN A LONELY PLACE, THE BIG HEAT, BAD DAY AT BLACK ROCK, TOUCH OF EVIL, and THE NARROW MARGIN. Have you been playing in the sewer with the rest of us?

DRIVE does frame its action on the shoulders of previous films. Most movies do. A lot of them are really good and some of them are great. I’m pretty sure that COLD WEATHER is no exception even if its frame is rooted in human interaction first. Call it realism or mumblecorism or whatever but unless it’s THE TREE OF LIFE I call it derivative. Great directors don’t allow their “reassembling” to become their dead end and I think Refn (though not great in my book yet) is proving more and more that he has the chops to do this. I can almost guarantee that your boy Katz is a bit of a Modern Prometheus as well. He just goes to a different graveyard.

back and dumber than ever

2011-10-15T15:05:00.000-07:00

I’m back fellas and my first order of business is to reply to reply to certain things that caught my interest in the past few weeks. So I’ll do that quote thing and respond accordingly. By the way, I missed this a ton.
John:

I actually saw a box in Boston with VHS tapes in it and picked up a copy of WINGS OF DESIRE. I actually haven’t seen this film so I’m really stoked to hopefully agree with you.

I wouldn’t rank ROPE nearly as high as you did but it’s a remarkable film with a ton of substance despite the lack of movement. I would actually have to admit that REAR WINDOW is probably my favorite Hitch picture and that film is also restricted to a confined space.

I don’t’ know why DRIVE and COLD WEATHER are being compared other than for the sake of debate. I haven’t seen COLD WEATHER so I can’t say where I stand. That being said I haven’t liked a single “mumblecore” movie to date so it’s got an uphill climb in that regard.

I will agree with you that DRIVE has very little to say, it’s a style picture but one that works remarkably well considering. It’s rooted in good cinema and I would say that like most crime pictures it leaves you feeling a little cold at times (no pun intended) but I felt that there was a real heart to it despite its emphasis on style.

Relational personalism? I think I just fell asleep writing that.

I hate everything you wrote about Tarantino and Godard. I’ve heard you rant on that before and it’s even more flawed now.

I don’t think that DRIVE is nearly as Frankensteinesque as you seem to imply. It’s a straight forward picture about a guy who likes a girl and goes to dangerous and violent lengths to protect her. Just because a film has its roots in classic cinema doesn’t make it a zombie. I doubt that COLD WEATHER is without its comparisons and in fact you point out its similar roots to French New Wave cinema. I’m sure you are going to come back at me for the last two points so I’m interested in hearing you elaborate.

What may I ask is so cynical about DRIVE?

I refute the idea that showmanship is anything to stare down your nose at. You just attempted to watch a bunch of films made by true showmen, films that could just as easily be considered a stunt in comparison to Rohmer or Truffaut. It sounds as though you are going down that dreaded “soulless route” with this one. It’s easy to consider genre cinema a slick machine but I don’t think it applies here. DRIVE may be violent and simple but it’s not impersonal. Remember when it was cool to call NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN slick but soulless? That was lame.

Films should have plenty of varying goals. I would be extremely bummed if we only got films like DRIVE and vice versa.

It doesn’t matter what movie people are talking about years from now.

I love the playful antagonism John so I’m eagerly awaiting your rebuttal.
John, you found a single moment of transcendence in THE LAST EXCORCISM a scene that brought to mind Jacques Tourneur’s NIGHT OF THE DEMON. It lasts about 15 seconds and comes at the tail end of one of the worst plot twists in recent memory. The execution of that awful plot twist ranks with the worst of all time. This film started with promise and quickly blew the little load it had stored up in its moldy sack.

Ben I’m reminded of William Carlos Williams when I hear about things like Dogme 95 and mumblecore. While an artists can’t control the labels thrust upon them they should never seek to join in a movement. I heard once that Williams was often beckoned by the beats to become a part of their group and his response was “I’ve worked my whole life to be an individual, why would I throw that away to be a part of some club?” This may or may not have happened but I found that inspiring.

The dude who said that there is no point in making films that others have already made has no point whatsoever. Belonging to a hip movement such as mumblecore doesn’t strengthen his argument either.

I’m kind of in your shoes Ben because I haven’t seen COLD WEATHER. I thought it looked really good and based on the two recommendations I would expect to like it quite a bit. Perhaps it’ll be my first mumblecore love.

Chris, as I’m reading all of these posts I’m realizing that I need to see COLD WEATHER to be a part of this debate.

I’ll write up a little review for DRIVE and hopefully it’ll be a lot better than this. Sheesh! I’m real rusty. I no write too good.

I am also going to be writing a summary of my amazing conversation with Jason at the Bug Jar the other night. I’m not going to lie, it’s not going to be nice. I’ll have to wait until I’m feeling a little more inspired however because I don’t want it to be as shitty as this post.

i'm not done shitting on bridesmaids

2011-09-26T15:25:00.000-07:00

Ok so this film is getting far too much love for simply replacing the atypical annoying male asshole cast with a female one. Make no mistake this picture does not stray at all from the path of the modern day raunchy comedy. On top of this it also deals with weddings because, you know, a lot of shit can go wrong with those. When shit goes wrong we get to hear a shitty light rock song during a cliche montage where the main character sleeps in, watches movies and cries, and thinks about what went wrong with their self absorbed life. I think I'm probably being too hard on this one but I think this has a lot to do with the fact that I have been film deprived.

i'd rather be talking drive

2011-09-26T15:12:00.001-07:00

I finally saw two films and they both sucked really bad. The first was LITTLE FOCKERS the third or fourth installment of the perfectly shitty franchise that got unjust praise upon its inception. This film sucks for the same reason that every other family tragedy comedy falls flat on its ass and still manages to make shit tons of money. The only redeeming quality here is Owen Wilson, a comedic actor who makes me laugh even with weak material such as this.

But just when I thought that it couldn't get any worse I saw a critically acclaimed comedy that has already appeared on a lot of critic's best thus far. It's called BRIDESMAID and it really truly sucks. Comedies, for me, can easily be measured by both their ability to land their jokes/gags and to keep our attention. This did neither. It's very occasionally funny with most jokes eating shit, there is exactly one funny gag and it takes place on a plane but even that admittedly funny scene is peppered with mostly unfunny junk happening at the same fucking time. Our guitarist Pete perfectly summed up this garbage "I kept wanting the next scene to come but as soon as it got here I got sick of it." This replaces COWBOYS VS ALIENS as the year's worst film for me.

I can't wait to see DRIVE.

BOARDWALK EMPIRE has returned to us and it's first episode hit the ground running.

TAKE SHELTER opens Friday!

sorry guys

2011-09-19T19:10:00.000-07:00

I haven't been able to watch anything still. Tour is busy and fun but movie-free which is sad for me. John, I thought Seth Rogen was doing a Seth Rogen impersonation not an Alf one. He doesn't seem capable of much else but for some reason I've been able to tolerate this in both of his 2011 releases.

But to dish it back to you I can't take anything seriously from you considering that you like COWBOYS VS ALIENS, easily the worst film I've seen this year. Talk about dumb and irritating.

I'm going to try and sneak away from these assholes for a few hours and enjoy DRIVE. My anticipation is still very high for this one. Negative feedback in regards to the graphic violence on makes me want to see it more. I'm so over this whole sensitivity towards fictional depictions of violence.

The fall is looking really good to me. I'm really excited for most of the films you've listed Ben. I can't wait for A DANGEROUS METHOD, Cronenberg is easily one of my favorites. I can't wait for THE WAR HORSE either. It's going to rule, just wait and see. Miss you cats.

ps

2011-09-11T08:17:00.000-07:00

Miss you and hope you are well. Tried to sneak into RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES but don't have the balls to do that sort of thing anymore. I should have gone to a film down here at the legendary Alamo Drafthouse Cinema but I'm broke as a joke. Toronto Film Festival has started and we have plenty of reviews trickling in. Check em out.

i didn't say that

2011-09-11T08:15:00.000-07:00

I said that I liked it more. I realize that the other is probably the better of the two films but don't really care. I like the cast here a lot more and responded more to the material. John, go listen to The Replacements or something hipster.