Week in Film: 10/31/16-11/6/16

Week in Film: 10/31/16-11/6/16

Film of the Week: La Notte
   Year: 1961
   Director: Michelangelo Antonioni

       L’Avventura may be more well known, but I honestly think this is the better film. Actually, by quite a bit too, although I need to see the other again. That feeling of emptiness is so much more expanded on in this from the previous in Antonioni’s loose trilogy. Not only the best of this director, but one of the best things I’ve seen this year.

   Rating: A

The Rest:

The Silence of the Lambs

   Year: 1991

   Director: Jonathan Demme

       Essentially flawless. This doesn't make it an all time great for me (although it is a great film), but it does make it in that rare breed that sometimes mingles, sometimes doesn't with those select few in my own list. There are many all time great films that aren't perfect (something like "Lawrence of Arabia"), as well as "perfect" or near enough movies that aren't in my top 50 or so (like this). There is not a performance, shot or moment out of place. Nothing to fault.

   Rating: A-

Kwaidan
   Year: 1964
   Director: Masaki Kobayashi

       I think of a Japanese Mario Bava. A closer relative would be “House,” although this is nowhere near as wacky is that film. It has an artificiality that I like, a way with it’s images that gives it an unreality but not fakeness, which is my main problem with the (admittedly little) Bava I’ve seen. Haunting at it’s best.

   Rating: B

Black Girl

   Year: 1966

   Director: Ousmane Sembene

       Those moments of glory, moments of beauty, moments of transcendence. I’ve called it pure cinema before. Moments of clarity, of honesty, of truth. I’ve had a difficult time deciding how to grade this, teetering between B+ and A-. It has a couple of those perfect moments. Is it enough? There are things that don’t quite work, but when it does work, it becomes profound.

   Rating: B+

Ride in the Whirlwind
   Year: 1966
   Director: Monte Hellman

       Pretty weak stuff. Something just felt… off. Not like unsettling or anything purposeful, but just kind of incompetent. Something in the dialogue, something in the cutting is just awkward.

   Rating: C

Antoine and Colette
   Year: 1962
   Director: Francois Truffaut

       Nice to see Antoine as he matures. It’s no “400 Blows” though, not that it was trying.

   Rating: B-

Lola
   Year: 1981
   Director: Rainer Werner Fassbinder

       Lesser Fassbinder, and the weakest link in the BRD trilogy.

   Rating: B-

Veronika Voss
   Year: 1982
   Director: Rainer Werner Fassbinder

       And now the best of the BRD trilogy, and one of Fassbinder’s best period (from what I’ve seen). Captures that 50s melodrama feel, but also a Hollywood just a little before that era as well.

   Rating: B+

Tristana
   Year: 1970
   Director: Luis Bunuel

       Little touches of Bunuel’s signature surrealism work perfectly for this tale of corruption and moral erosion. Not his best work, but pretty good nonetheless.

   Rating: B

Alice
   Year: 1988
   Director: Jan Svankmajer

       Incredibly disturbing. Not for kids, unless you’re looking to traumatize someone.

   Rating: B

Mr. Arkadin
   Year: 1955
   Director: Orson Welles

       There are only so many times you can tilt a camera before it gets gimmicky. This is Welles usually wonderful style overripe and unfocused. Kind of annoying, really.

   Rating: C

Suzanne's Career
   Year: 1963
   Director: Eric Rohmer

       Just as inconsequential as “Bakery Girl of Monceau.”

   Rating: C-

The Lost Honor of Katharina Blum
   Year: 1975
   Director: Volker Schlondorff, Margarethe von Trotta

       Relevant today as I’m sure it was then.

   Rating: B

Ikiru
   Year: 1952
   Director: Akira Kurosawa

       Reminded me of “It’s a Wonderful Life” for some reason. Maybe it’s the snow, and the redemption. Takashi Shimura is excellent. This is not Kurosawa’s best film, but certainly some of his best work at moments.

   Rating: B+

Ordet
   Year: 1955
   Director: Carl Th. Dreyer

       Knowing it as being often considered one of the greatest films ever made, I was expecting more. No, that’s not quite right. It was what I expected, I suppose, but I expected to have a different reaction. Maybe it’s because I’m not religious, but I found myself unaffected, indifferent. I must admit there were surely moments of brilliance, it is a very good film, but not enough for me to put it in my personal canon.

   Rating: B

Medium Cool
   Year: 1968
   Director: Haskell Wexler

       Kind of a mish mash of things that work and things that don’t so much. Cool 60s score though.

   Rating: B-

High and Low
   Year: 1963
   Director: Akira Kurosawa

       Very few directors had their craft so perfected like Kurosawa’s is. This guy really knew what he was doing with a camera, and it shows from the first moments to the last. Mifune is great as always, showing more range than he seems to be given credit for.

   Rating: B+

Killer's Kiss
   Year: 1955
   Director: Stanley Kubrick

       Even at such an early age, with his first “real” movie (he disowned “Fear and Desire,” and for good reason honestly), Kubrick proves he really knows how to shoot something. Having a background as a photographer payed off pretty well for him.

   Rating: B

Week in Film: Catching Up (Again)

Week in Film: Catching Up (Again)

Stromboli

   Year: 1950

   Director: Roberto Rossellini

       My initial impression was a drift away from the neorealism style that Rossellini had come out of, but with a couple months retrospective, the things that stand out to me the most are the things more tied to that style than not. I think of the only truly great scene in the film, the one with the fishing. That is the most obvious example, but also there's a realness to the situation Ingrid Bergman's character finds herself in. Some of what I saw as more melodramatic at the time (the final scene, which apparently is genius, but didn't work for me at all) has become more about the style of performance and less about the content and vision of the picture as a whole.

       That doesn't make this a particularly good movie though. It seems to have become better than what my initial reaction indicated with time, but only slightly. I remember the better aspects, but that's the danger with getting behind on something like this. It becomes too distant and the freshness of your thoughts have become far overripe and have changed flavor. Maybe the perspective of time makes the past clearer, but something tells me if I were to watch this again my rating could drop at least a half grade.

   Rating: C

Europe '51
   Year: 1952
   Director: Roberto Rossellini

       This is the weakest of the Rossellini/Bergman criterion films. This one has left my memory considerably more so than "Stromboli," and for that I'm giving it a lower grade. No particular scene stands out in my memory, and I don't recall much that elevates it above merely okay. I do think Ingrid Bergman is a pretty good actress though, and by pretty good I mean better than serviceable, but nothing very impressive. She's not what I was expecting.

   Rating: C-

Journey to Italy
   Year: 1954
   Director: Roberto Rossellini

       Easily the best of the set. Reminded me a lot of Linklater's "Before" movies and Kiarostami's "Certified Copy." Surprisingly, this one may have faded the most out of the three, but the feeling of it has remained strongest over time. It feels less forced, more natural, more real than the others. And Ingrid Bergman gives her best performance here. Out of them I would see this one again before the others, both because it was good and because I can't remember exactly why.

   Rating: B

Joy Division
   Year: 2007
   Director: Grant Gee

       An informative documentary not just about the titular band but also the landscape of late 70s/early 80s England. It was engaging and interesting throughout, as a good documentary should be (or any film for that matter). Ian Curtis seems like he could have done so much more. It's a shame what happened.

   Rating: B-

Kurt Cobain: Montage of Heck
   Year: 2015
   Director: Brett Morgen

       Cool to see an artistic touch to this one what with the animations and such. It's probably the better film in my rock n roll suicide double feature (the other being "Joy Division," see above), but I didn't get as much out of it as I did the other. Another example of wasted potential.

   Rating: B-

The Filth and the Fury
   Year: 2000
   Director: Julien Temple

       The second time I've seen this. I'm not entirely sure why I decided to watch this again, this time with my dad, but something drew me to it. Maybe it was the string of music docs I was watching, or just wanting another kick of energy that it gave me the first time. It's still good, but seeing something like this so recently and watching it again isn't a great idea. It doesn't have the freshness that is often important in documentaries of this sort.

   Rating: B

Ministry of Fear
   Year: 1944
   Director: Fritz Lang

       A strong, claustrophobic, Kafka-esque beginning disappointingly devolves into something much more standard. M and Metropolis (both of which were slight disappointments themselves, but only because of their reputation as being great) are much better Lang pictures.

   Rating: C-

The Night of the Hunter
   Year: 1955
   Director: Charles Laughton

       I wish he directed more movies. This is a masterpiece, and the kind of fully realized, beautifully executed piece of work that is extremely rare in first time directors. It's a fairy tale in tone, not the Disney kind mind you, but the Grimm ones. It's images are ethereal and evoke the world of childhood, which is fitting for a film about childhood. So many brilliant moments. Robert Mitchum is the scariest.

   Rating: A

Bride of Frankenstein
   Year: 1935
   Director: James Whale

       I went into this expecting waves of nostalgia (as a little kid I was super into the Universal monster films), but was surprised to find I didn't really remember any of it. While "The Wolfman" and "Dracula" are deeply ingrained in my childhood, I guess this one just didn't stick. Odd, given that this is likely the best of those movies, at least from those I've revisited in the last few years.

   Rating: B

The Story of the Last Chrysanthemum
   Year: 1939
   Director: Kenji Mizoguchi

       There's a beautiful tracking shot from a low vantage point of two people walking along the edge of a river of some sort. I feel I should have waited for the Blu-ray release though, the streaming print was pretty bad.

   Rating: B

The Life of Oharu
   Year: 1952
   Director: Kenji Mizoguchi

       The buds of Mizoguchi’s early films blossom fully here. The compositions and camera work are great, as are the performances. Really, truly heartbreaking at times.

   Rating: B+

Ugetsu
   Year: 1953
   Director: Kenji Mizoguchi

       This is what Mizoguchi has been building to. So many breathtaking scenes and images: the boat in the fog, the father’s spirit humming in the dark, the welcome home. Absolutely beautiful.

   Rating: A

Island of Lost Souls
   Year: 1932
   Director: Erle C. Kenton

       The first part of the film, the one set on the boat with the creeping dread and the strangeness that exudes from the setting and the images is actually pretty awesome. And the jungle sets on the island help to perpetuate that feeling as the film goes on. But Bela Lugosi is a shit actor and it all just becomes too predictable. Charles Laughton is fun though.

   Rating: C-

Day of Wrath
   Year: 1943
   Director: Carl Th. Dreyer

       Dark beauty. The whole thing feels uneasy, in a good way. Nothing feels safe, everything sinful. So much dread, but seductive dread. The kind you're afraid might consume you. If you lived in times like those, at least.

   Rating: B+

The Haunted Strangler
   Year: 1958
   Director: Robert Day

       Probably the best movie of the criterion "Monsters and Madmen" films, but not my favorite. It's hard to judge it because of that.

   Rating: D+

The Atomic Submarine
   Year: 1959
   Director: Spencer Gorden Bennet

       This is where I find the most difficulty in reviewing films. This is by all accounts a bad movie. It's also the most fun I've had with a movie in a while. How do you rate something like that? Artistic value, or entertainment value? This is the eternal question that is grappled with when considering a film which you are reviewing. Usually I'd give this a D-, but considering how unintentionally hilarious it was, I just can't do that and keep a clear conscience.

   Rating: D

Weekend
   Year: 1967
   Director: Jean-Luc Godard

       Such mixed feelings about Godard, and especially with this film. I really like the experimentation, when it works, and the feel of his movies overall. But they can be very heavy handed and disjointed. Also I goddamn hate french car horns. Actually, that scene, the incredibly long tracking shot of a traffic jam, is a prime example. It would've been so cool if it weren't for all that infuriating honking. That's a metaphor.

   Rating: C

The Devil's Backbone
   Year: 2001
   Director: Guillermo del Toro

       It's odd when original material is executed in a fairly, dare I say it, conventional way. This is not a conventional movie, mind you. It has del Toro's mark all over it, and anything with that kind of auteurist stamp is bound to be fairly unique. But something about it is... not plain, but Hollywood maybe? I can't judge a movie for that though, that wouldn't be fair. Maybe it reminds me too much of Spielberg at times (one of the most overrated of filmmakers), or maybe I've just been watching too much Godard. It's good though, this film. That inescapable feeling of convention is probably just in my head. But I am ignoring what the film does that others don't: bringing brutal reality into the equation. I say conventional, maybe, yes, possibly, I don't know, but I'm sure I'm not saying contrived. I should write my own definitions for words, so people can understand what I mean. Or maybe I should just practice.

   Rating: B

First Man Into Space
   Year: 1959
   Director: Robert Day

       There were some moments, like the monster wandering the corridors, that were such pure perfect 50s sci-fi B-movie that I couldn’t help but feel an odd and surreal sense of wonder. It was moments like that, that created that specific feeling, where I think I understood the cult appreciation of these films, at least to some degree. But yeah, it's still terrible. Terrible, terrible movie.

   Rating: D-

Cronos
   Year: 1993
   Director: Guillermo del Toro

       Weak. The pacing seems off, and it has a couple of unfortunate moments that are hard to bounce back from. The concept is interesting, the execution lacking.

   Rating: C

Mala Noche
   Year: 1985
   Director: Gus Van Sant

       I think Gus Van Sant is an artist I can connect with on a basic level. I feel like I understand his films. I may not be gay or living on the streets, but there's something in the foundation of this and "My Own Private Idaho" that I identify with, for reasons I can't really explain. There's a sense of familiarity, an intimacy that is at once undefinable yet very close. This strange sensation of home, or being away from it.

   Rating: A-

Pan's Labyrinth
   Year: 2006
   Director: Guillermo del Toro

       The best, most artistic, most creative of the Guillermo del Toro films I've been watching of late, and probably my favorite too (but with time, I feel "Devil's Backbone" creeping back into my consciousness more frequently). What del Toro does so well is balance, and mix, the worlds of childhood and adulthood. This can be an incredibly violent film,  but it's also a fairy tale. Just one that's more honest.

   Rating: B

Ashes and Diamonds
   Year: 1958
   Director: Andrzej Wajda

       All kinds of strong finishes lately. This is the best of Wajda's trilogy, which is pretty impressive considering how strong "Kanal" was. Much of this has to do with the strength of the lead actor, who is pretty damn good. Some striking imagery, too.

   Rating: B+

Cat People
   Year: 1942
   Director: Jacques Tourneur

       An instance of reputation being larger than the film merits. It would have been better with a little more ambiguity, I think making the turn into definite supernatural elements was a mistake. It's still a good testament to the rule of the imagination being greater than anything that can be shown. At least for the most part, until it turns out to be just a big cat.

   Rating: C

Equinox
   Year: 1970
   Director: Jack Woods, Mark Thomas McGee, Dennis Muren

       Some cool special effects, but other than that not worth investing time in.

   Rating: D-

Germany Year Zero
   Year: 1948
   Director: Roberto Rossellini

       I wish I could remember "Rome, Open City" more so I could say this with more confidence, but I think this is the best of Rossellini's war trilogy. It's probably his best period (again, wish I could remember "Journey to Italy" more). At any rate, it's far better than the highly incompetent Paisan (another film I can barely recall). You know, I don't think Rossellini is a good match for me. The ending was a real shock though, and a great and powerful moment.

   Rating: B+

Corridors of Blood
   Year: 1958
   Director: Robert Day

       This isn't a horror movie, and I feel a little cheated because of that. If I'm going to watch things I know aren't going to be any good, they should at least have the decency to be the kind of not good I expect. It doesn't have the hilarious unintentional humor value of the sci-fi movies in the criterion "Monsters and Madmen" series, and also doesn't have whatever made "Corridor's of Blood" not a failure. But this isn't a failure really, just kind of a standard B movie of the era, which simply means it's not going to be good. I will say that Christopher Lee is the bomb though, and Boris Karloff is pretty good too.

   Rating: D

Redes
   Year: 1936
   Director: Emilio Gomez Muriel, Fred Zinnemann

       A small picture about standing up to the man and being a low income fisher and all that stuff. I liked the shots of the characters against the background of the sky, very Ford-esque. A decent but not particularly great introduction to Marin Scorsese's World Cinema Project.

   Rating: C

In Vanda's Room
   Year: 2000
   Director: Pedro Costa

       I had been avoiding this one for a while because of my negative reaction to "Ossos," but because of the impending departure of the criterion collection from Hulu, I've been trying to finish of various films and film series or trilogies or whatever else I suspect may not be available when the new home of the collection, Filmstruck, comes out. So I came to "In Vanda's Room" with a slight sense of dread, treating it more as something that I have to do more than something I want to do (which is not a good frame of mind when going into anything, and honestly a poor reason to watch anything to begin with). To my relief this is a much better, if not much easier, viewing experience.

       It seems to me that Costa's films are ones you're gonna have to submit to. They are long (this one nearly three hours) and slow, and nothing much happens. But they probably need to be that way. They are immersive experiences, ones that reveal subtly and honestly aspects of the human condition that are often not seen, or at least usually shown very differently. It's a film about poverty, but it isn't about squalor. It is, I guess, but it's not demeaning. The characters are people, not victims. You feel connected to them in an intimate way where another film would leave you pitying them from a distance. Sometimes you feel unbearably close to them.

       The best thing about "Ossos" is also the best thing here: the cinematography. I haven't seen anything quite like it. The deep, solid colors, the abundance of shadow, the blinding light and intricate framing. It isn't ominous darkness either, but something more comforting. Maybe not comforting, but certainly warmer. It perpetuates that feeling of intimacy. It's one of the only times I've thought that having subtitles might have detracted from the experience. It is something visual above anything else, and I'm willing to bet you could still get a lot out of it with them off.

   Rating: B+

The Phantom Carriage

   Year: 1921

   Director: Victor Sjostrom

       I have to admit, sometimes I have a slight aversion to silent films. In my mind, I stereotype them as dated and slow. Then I actually watch one and realize how foolish this false perception is. Or, unfortunately, sometimes that stereotype is reinforced. This is a case of the former, and one that makes me want to delve deeper into that part of cinematic history I have for a while neglected. There are moments here that play the nerves better than anything I've seen in a while, and it is clear it's influence is far reaching.

   Rating: A-

Touki Bouki
   Year: 1973
   Director: Djibril Diop Mambety

       Despite some cool stuff, it doesn't work. Maybe it's just my aversion to brutal and bloody animal slaughter, but I had a hard time getting close to this. And I didn't understand a lot of the motivations behind the characters actions. I was left largely indifferent to these people.

   Rating: C-

Review: Gilda

Review:

Gilda

 (Criterion Review #1)

   Year: 1946

   Director: Charles Vidor

       "Gilda, are you decent?"

       "Me?"

       I wonder how many takes they did of that one shot before they got it right? It's so perfect yet so spontaneous that I'm drawn between a either a hundred or just one very, very lucky one. Probably neither is the answer, but Rita is so natural, so confident in her performance that you really do believe it was probably the latter. With a single hair flip and a one word line of dialogue, Ms. Hayworth cemented her place in cinematic history. That doesn't mean that the film itself earns it's place alongside her, however.

       While Rita Hayworth certainly makes the movie what it is, and the rest of the cast do a fine job, this isn't quite a masterpiece of the film noir genre. This is mostly due to the fact (or, I suppose, opinion) that this is not really true noir. It may have the look and a few elements, but it's more just a drama, albeit an especially sleazy, seedy one. Hayworth is not a femme fatal in the classic sense, she's not evil in the end, just kind of a mess, as are all the characters, in their own ways. But getting back to the films quality, it's mostly fine brought up to higher heights by Hayworth's performance. There's some cool stuff, but it is by no means the classic it is sometimes regarded as.

       Gilda is less the story about Gilda than it is of the two main male forces in her life: her husband and her ex-lover, and their own, rather serious, personal problems. Johnny (Glenn Ford) is a back alley gambler who is in the process of being mugged one night when he is rescued by a big time casino owner, Ballin (George Macready). Johnny is led to the casino and eventually hired, and after a little time, works his way up to the position of Ballin's right hand man. When Ballin takes a wife, it throws a wrench into their operation and betrays the strict rules they had put down for their business, chief among them "no women". To complicate things, this new wife of Ballin's is an old flame of Johnny's, a relationship that apparently didn't end very well. Things escalate with Gilda's increasingly risky behavior as Johnny tries to save the old man's pride. There's a faked suicide, people get killed, blah blah blah. I don't believe in the review as a plot summary, and I already feel I've given too much of that already,

       What's really interesting in Gilda is the tensions and the relationships going on, particularly between Johnny and Ballin. The two have an inexplicable liking to one another, maybe because in Ballin Johnny sees the powerful man he'd like to be, and in Johnny Ballin sees... I'm not quite sure, possibly a remembrance of a younger him. What is obvious though is that Gilda is, for the most part, a kind of playing piece, reduced to an object by these two men's strange attraction for one another. I'm not necessarily insinuating homosexuality, because I don't believe it's there, but there is something to be said about Johnny's longing for the good old days between him, Ballin, and Ballin's "little friend" (a cane he carries with him wherever he goes, at least in the literal sense).

       That being said, if Gilda is a playing piece, she is certainly not one that likes to be played with. She does whatever, says whatever, and "dances" with whomever the hell she wants. She's the most interesting character in the picture, and most of that is due to Rita Hayworth's incredibly sexy, spirited, suave and electric performance. My god is she good in this. Every gesture, every move is intoxicating. If she's on screen, your eyes don't leave her. She dominates with indomitable screen presence and charm in spades. It's her complete control over the situation in the beginning that eventually reveals itself to not be in her control, but in the hands of Johnny.

       And that's where we get to what's really going on here. Gilda is a woman who is free in herself, who gets away with anything and everything, and to whom no one can tell her what to do. But that isn't the truth, as we discover that (spoiler alert) she only does what she does to make Johnny jealous, who she has been in love with all along. It's a twisted blend of hatred and lust that drives her, and eventually Johnny, to commit acts of emotional violence against each other, constantly attacking to see the other one brought to their knees in agony. That's the film in a nutshell, a male fantasy about bringing a strong willed, uncontainable, uncontrollable woman to her knees. Gilda goes from impossibly confident and in control to being trapped and helpless. Once the queen of her domain, now the prisoner of Johnny. And why is he doing this to her in the end? Because "if she wasn't faithful to him in life (oh yeah, Ballin faked his death, spoilers again), she'll be faithful to him in death". It's insane the loyalty to this man Johnny has.

       It's a film about power. Throughout, the hands are constantly switching, the odds always in another's corner, much like gambling itself. The power fluctuates from one possessor to the other, always in the hands of those who abuse it in the end. It's pretty cynical, despite the happy ending, which really doesn't seem that happy when you think about it. I often have problems with the endings to movies like this, where it's obvious the couple walking off into the sunset are bound to destroy each other. It's pretty damn clear that Gilda and (especially) Johnny's borderline psychotic behavior can only end in misery, but it ends how it ends anyway. Blame Hollywood and their perpetual "happy endings".