Week in Film #15: 4/4/16-4/10/16

Week in Film #15: 4/4/16-4/10/16

Film of the Week: Hiroshima, Mon Amour
   Year: 1959
   Director: Alain Resnais

       The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is often an overlooked subject matter in film, and this is really the first time I've seen this topic tackled head one. Which is surprising that I say that given that the film is at the same time obscure in its relation to that topic. That is how the film functions: close and distant, hot and cold. It is a film that brings you in to the heart of its leading lady, right up close enough to feel the tears and the tremors of pain and rage, and then just as easily pushes you far away from her in a cold point of nulled feeling and distance from the hot emotion we were moments ago so close we could feel its aching pulse. That is much how we interpret great tragedies. At first with a visceral empathy, and later with a faded remembrance, eventually forgotten.

   Rating: B+

The Rest:

Youth of the Beast
   Year: 1963

   Director: Seijun Suzuki

       Seijun Suzuki is a stylist above all else, and not the kind that seems to have any concern with the likes of plot, character, or making his films in any realm of logic or sense. If you take it at that level, this is a lot of violent, cool fun. If you look for any shred or semblance of story or reason, you will have a considerably less enjoyable time with his films. Luckily, I learned this with his other well known effort, Tokyo Drifter, and therefore knew what I was getting into with this adventure. That being said, I was still surprised by the ridiculousness of it all, and the essentially incomprehensible storyline.

   Rating: C

Drunken Angel
   Year: 1948
   Director: Akira Kurosawa

       A doctor tries to cleanse his countries landscape, especially the rundown part he resides in, but while he preaches of cleaning up the scum, he doesn't seem to realize he's part of it. Kurosawa has the self awareness and complexity to make this decision, showing the savior of society ultimately being another product of it, even if he is the one who is able to call out the problems. The doctor at one point chastises some gangsters about their feudalistic attitudes towards women, only in the next seen to yell at the a woman for making a decision he perceives to be wrong, and forcing her into a choice she herself is not choosing. The doctor is probably right in the end over the decision in question, but it is not his place to decide for her. And theres the rub: how do you force a broken person/society to make a decision that would benefit them without taking away their freedom to choose? And does that professional with the foresight to see a downfall matter when he is a drunk himself? He may be the angel that is sent to save humanity from itself, but he's not the one that humanity needs, nor the one that can save it.

   Rating: B-

Miracle Mile
   Year: 1988
   Director: Steve De Jarnatt

       The logic is that of a nightmare, the feel of a Lynchian one, only more action packed. The nightmare is that scenario where you are running from something you can't escape from. The something in this case is atomic decimation. Unfortunately, the nightmare is also combined with the more daily life horror of being stuck with people so incredibly incompetent and lacking in any sense of urgency to the point that, spoiler alert, they all die based on their complete disregard of the threat at hand coupled with an apparent inability to comprehend the meaning of "nuclear annihilation" or the concept of time. The tragic ending is brave for a movie like this, pushing away from the Hollywood demanding criteria of a happy ending. In fact, the entire movie could be seen as a dismissal and critique of the typical Hollywood movie. Notice how, like I mentioned before, the characters don't seem to have a sense of immediacy when it comes to their situation. This is because they are too busy engaging in long kisses in soft light and making heartfelt speeches and declarations of sentiment to worry about the world crumbling around them. It is initially set up as a sort of romance and seemingly standard boy meets girl story, but in the end becomes the destruction of that boy and that girl based on the very romance that the film began as. You don't need a more telling symbol than the destruction of Hollywood itself.

   Rating: B-

3:10 to Yuma
   Year: 1957
   Director: Delmer Daves

       A psychologically rich western on a small, tense scale. The story is a tale about doing the right thing, even in the face of great adversary, and almost to the point of foolishness based upon a sense of duty. That sense of duty derives not just from a moral standpoint, and a wanting to band together with the community, but also insecurities about masculinity. This especially shows in the contrast between the outlaw and man who is determined to guard him. He, the man on guard, sees the outlaw who attributes the assertiveness, and boldness, and the masculinity he so wishes he could obtain. In an earlier scene, we see as the man has to stand by helpless, humiliated in front of his young boys as he is held up at gunpoint and has release his two horses. The boys ask the father why he didn't do anything, and the father answers them with logic, explaining that there was nothing he could have done. But emotions and the defined roles of men in this time in place don't play by the rules of logic, and his feelings of insecurity and impotence as a man haunt him and account for his need to try and make up for his lost sense of manhood, compensating. In the end, this saves the day, and perpetuates the myth of the old west and of the masculine figures and legends of that setting. This vision of the west survives on overblown macho mentalities, and is a way of surviving such a harsh landscape. But the decision early in the film to do the smart thing over "what a man should do" saves his life, and the lives of his two young children.

   Rating: B+

Laura
   Year: 1944
   Director: Otto Preminger

       A solid noir, but not quite up their with the best of them. The central conceit of a man falling in love with a portrait is interesting, but not explored much after the dead woman turns up not dead after all, and the rest of the picture plays out in a different direction than potentially more interesting ones it could have gone in.

   Rating: B

Rio Bravo
   Year: 1959
   Director: Howard Hawks

       Good, but overrated in my opinion. There is a warmth here that I admire, and the relationships between the men are handled with in such a way that it manages to straddle the line between touching and cheesy, almost falling over onto the latter's side but never quite doing it. To be honest I'm not really sure why this is considered one of the greatest westerns ever made. It is good, but not a masterpiece.

   Rating: B

Waking Life
   Year: 2001
   Director: Richard Linklater

       I've seen many films employ dream logic in their structures and narratives, but I've rarely found a film to nail the feeling of a dream as well as this one does. The conversations can be hard to follow but overall the messages get across I think. It is always nice to see a movie dive headlong into ideas the way this one does, and the animation helps to keep it all interesting.

   Rating: B+

Week in Film #14: 3/28/16-4/3/16

Week in Film #14: 3/28/16-4/3/16

Film of the Week: Wild Strawberries
   Year: 1957
   Director: Ingmar Bergman

       One of Ingmar Bergman's many, many masterpieces, and possibly his most touching and heartfelt picture. It's the story of an old man traveling to accept an award for his doctoring. During this time he is visited by visitations of his former life, meeting people and going to places from his past in a series of dreams. It is about life and death, and looking about in regret and satisfaction at moments. It takes a special kind of foresight to make a film about reassessing ones entire life at the end of it when the director himself is only in his late 30s. The relatability and humanism of the picture is what makes it so engrossing and has helped it stand the test of time. 

   Rating: A-

The Rest: 

Finding Vivian Maier

   Year: 2013

   Director: John Maloof and Charlie Siskel

       There are some surprising moral questions asked by this one. Questions regarding the appropriation of an artists work after they are deceased, the matter of a persons genius versus their actual personality, especially if that personality ended up damaging others. Vivian Maier was a great photographer and a fascinating person, but she could also be accused to child abuse in sometimes horrific measures. Should things like that damage the reputation of an artists work? Are those actions somehow forgiven because of the genius of that artist?

   Rating: B

El Sur
   Year: 1983
   Director: Victor Erice

       In this I was hoping to find that mystery and magic that was in the other Erice film I've seen, The Spirit of the Beehive, but was mostly disappointed, as there was merely a trace of what that much better film had in spades. It still uses that perspective of childhood, but to a much less enthralling effect.

   Rating: C

Safety Last!
   Year: 1923
   Director: Sam Taylor and Fred C. Newmeyer

       A big improvement over the last Lloyd film I saw, and one where he (eventually) comes into his great comedic masterstroke. This is the daring and often terrifying climb up a building using his bare hands. This sequence is so well crafted that you forget that a lot of what's being done is using movie magic, and are wholly wrapped up in the moment. It works almost as well as a thriller as it does a comedy, and there are quite a few times I literally gasped watching Lloyd nearly plummet to his death.

   Rating: B

In the Mood for Love
   Year: 2000
   Director: Wong Kar-wai

       Delicate and oozing with passion, even if that passion is held aback throughout the films runtime. It doesn't need to be expressed in tender kisses or the like, the air is practically perspiring that passion and lust, without ever letting it explode. In isn't an air of tension really either, but one of suave sentiments and moments and unrequited love. 

   Rating: A-

Our Hospitality
   Year: 1923
   Director: Buster Keaton and John G. Blystone

       The lesser Keaton picture that I can remember seeing (this being Steamboat Bill, Jr. and The General). There are less gags that work as well as in those two features, and overall it is less astonishing in it's filmmaking, save for an excellent waterfall rescue that it one of the most impressive stunts Buster ever pulled off.

   Rating: C+

The Gold Rush
   Year: 1925
   Director: Charlie Chaplin

       The endearing little tramp gets wrapped up in the gold rush, as the title implies, and engages in the usual sorts of shenanigans he is bound to find himself wound up in. As thoroughly enjoyable and iconic as City Lights, but not quite reaching that films sentimental heights. Regardless, it is as funny and warm as that picture was, and possibly just as good in its own right.

   Rating: B+

The Uninvited
   Year: 1944
   Director: Lewis Allen

       This really isn't a horror film, that would be misrepresenting it. It is more a comedy with ghosts. The odd thing is that the ghosts aren't treated comically at all, its just they happen to be residing in a very upbeat, humorous environment. This atmosphere that pervades the film happens to be in spite of people trying to throw themselves off cliffs. A strange movie, and not a very remarkable or rewarding one.

   Rating: C-

Shock Corridor
   Year: 1963
   Director: Samuel Fuller

       The title is apt, as the experience is akin to being electrocuted. The themes and meanings of this film are interesting: the corruption and manipulation of the media into a tool for glory, the destructive madness of the overly strong work ethic, the morality of journalism. What is most striking to me however is how the screenwriters portray the fame seeking journalist as totally oblivious to the real issues going on in the American landscape. He is trying to solve a murder, but is missing the murders of millions by the H-Bomb in Japan, the brutality of segregation in America, and the brainwashing nature of that segregation, and the way it warps minds. This is a film that exposes the "us and them" mentalities in the US. Apart from that, it is just vital and electric filmmaking that certainly leaves bolts of shock throughout its runtime.

   Rating: B+

Amarcord
   Year: 1973
   Director: Federico Fellini

       Amarcord, or I Remember, is a film about nostalgia, coming of age, and as the title implies, memories. It is a series of just that more than it is any sort of story. More an arrangement of the collective daily life experiences of one town in Italy, just coming under fascist rule. Beautifully shot and well directed.

   Rating: B

The American Friend
   Year: 1977
   Director: Wim Wenders

       A solid thriller that in parts I believe Hitchcock would be proud of. Especially in the moments on the train, which seems to be directly pulled from the likes of The Lady Vanishes, and Shadow of a Doubt. Beautiful cinematography, subtle but bold at the same time. Dennis Hopper and Bruno Ganz give especially good performances.

   Rating: C+

The Big Sleep
   Year: 1946
   Director: Howard Hawks

       Does it make a lot of sense? No. Is it entertaining? Yes. And that really is whats important in the end, at least in this genre. Its not worried about trivial matters like story or plot, but more in the characters and the tone and mood of the piece. Bogart is phenomenal as Marlow, creating one of the definitive film noir anti-heroes.

   Rating: A-

Paths of Glory
   Year: 1957
   Director: Stanley Kubrick

       One of the best anti-war films. I remember the first time I saw this, when I was probably fourteen, and being blown away on a technical level. On this viewing I was more impressed on an emotional one. The final moments of the three men condemned to death are riveting and raw, leaving quite an impact. Kirk Douglas is awesome, as he usually seems to be.

   Rating: A-

Winter Light
   Year: 1963
   Director: Ingmar Bergman

       The priests face is finally fully illuminated in the cold winter light. This is a moment of revelation for him. There is no god. And it is utterly despairing. This is after he gives a speech to a suicidal man about his fears at this revelation, which he realizes moments after he has articulated it. It took the intense fear of another mans suspicions of higher powers at play to make him finally release all feelings on his own conclusion that indeed, there is not. This movie is not a struggle with faith, it is a resignation of it, and that makes for a much more hopeless and bleak atmosphere.

   Rating: B+

City of God
   Year: 2002
   Director: Fernando Meirelles and Katia Lund

       Extremely energetic and emotionally affecting work set in the slums of Rio de Janeiro. It brings to life the struggles of a rough life with moments of coolness, fun, and shocking trauma. You could almost accuse it of glorifying gang life in its more action packed stylized scenes, but it flips that notion on its head in its brutal and decimating depiction of violence, often unspeakably tragic and painful to watch.

   Rating: A-

Week in Film #13: 3/21/16-3/27/16

Week in Film #13: 3/21/16-3/27/16

Film of the Week: My Darling Clementine

   Year: 1946

   Director: John Ford

       Civilization in the desert. Shakespeare in the wild west. John Ford brings the western into focus with perfected technique and simple but powerful filmmaking. There is no flashiness here. Ford isn't going to show off, his mission is to make a damn fine motion picture and nothing else. And he achieves that goal on all accounts. Every scene is composed impeccably, making even conversation between characters staged so perfectly it transcends the moment and becomes high art. A scene centering between a recital of the famous "to be or not to be" speech from Hamlet is shot so goddamn well that it leaves the viewer almost dumbfounded at the beauty of it, and it is all done without any kind of whiz or bang, just simple, tight, and effective shooting.

       But scratch off the surface of the camera and things are being done underneath that are for more complex than the directorial style. What is discovered is the harsh realities of this world and it's people, but also the little glimmers of civility like diamonds in the rough. This idea is represented in Clementine Carter, who is shown as the idealized sacred idol to be protected and cherished in the land of outlaws. This is something Wyatt Earp admires, and Doc Holiday is trying to distance himself from. In the unfortunate yet unavoidable trend of reducing women to symbols, Chihuahua represents the west as it is, and what Doc believes he deserves in life, in contrast to Clementines purity. It really does become pure versus tainted and dirty, and the latter pays a heavy price for the formers privilege.

       Ford's camera is always in suggestion of something better. There is a frontier freedom and beauty in his direction. Vast open skies and expansive desert canvases. It never tries to be anything it isn't, and uses simplicity and technique to grand effect. Ford is an old master for a reason, and it shows his ability to capture perfectly his subject without showiness or anything of the like. He once said that directing is not a mystery and not an art. Clearly it didn't appear so it him, because he makes it look like it is so easy. Crisp and clear and effective.

   Rating: A-

The Rest: 

Night On Earth

   Year: 1991

   Director: Jim Jarmusch

       Five vignettes told over the course of one night, all from the perspective of cabbies, and all across different American and European cities. It's a mixed bag, albeit a nicely packaged one. Jarmusch's style is there, except not as pure and obvious as it is in much better films, such as Mystery Train or Down By Law. The five stories vary in quality, consistency, and even necessity (looking at you, Paris). They all seem to be pulling in different directions, trying to say different things, or just not really saying much at all. Maybe something about the misunderstandings of daily life and the clashes between perspectives and world views, but is all seems a little too disparate and unfocused to get that across very well. Some of it works, some of it doesn't. There just isn't enough of a link to justify all of it.

       The best of these is easily New York, and it's also the one that most resembles what I assume the directors message, or purpose in making the film is (by the way, not that there has to be a message in a film, art isn't always didactic, but to me it's obvious that he's trying to implement one). This short mixes some culture clash humor with displays of humanity and kindness that stands out as warm, especially against the colder attitudes displayed later in the film. The worst of these is Paris, which is simply just too slight and unnecessary for it to take up the time it does. Let it be said that Roberto Benigni is perfect in Rome, but again, aside from some black comedy it feels sort of pointless. Which is also the problem shared with L.A in that it is underwhelming and ineffectual to the point that it is slightly annoying. Helsinki is a nice ending though, leaving us on the darker side of human nature, and in a darker mood in general (although, being Jarmusch, not devoid of humor). 

   Rating: C-

Blow Out
   Year: 1981
   Director: Brian De Palma

       Of De Palmas work that I've seen, this is definitely the best. In fact, there are inarguably moments of genius, such as the scene by the lake where we first see the main protagonist recording sounds. But my problem overall with him is that everything he seems to do is borrowing from other sources, specifically Hitchcock and the exploitation horror genre films of the 70s and 80s. The thing is, it doesn't work the way that it does with someone like Quentin Tarantino, where you see influences, but he is still able to make it his own. It seems like a ripoff of something that is much better.

   Rating: C

City Lights
   Year: 1931
   Director: Charlie Chaplin

       As an introduction to Chaplin's feature length work as the little tramp, I really couldn't ask for much more. I'm not sure I can think of another filmmaker who can, for me, get away with the absolutely and obvious manipulation of the audiences emotions. Somehow, it works for him, and it works very, very well. Maybe the single sweetest movie I've ever seen, with an ending so heart warming it had me smiling.

   Rating: A-

The Kid
   Year: 1921
   Director: Charlie Chaplin

       This film reminds me of my childhood in ways. Not because of all the poverty and debatable child abuse, but because of the imagery and feel of the piece. Chaplin may have the warmest sensibility in cinema. His features are sentimental and sappy in the rare touching way, instead of too schmaltzy to be affecting. However overwrought it may be to todays standards it is still wonderfully powerful emotion that shines through, and you never get the sense that the little tramp is faking any of it.

       The film is well done visually as well, particularly the tramps dream sequence towards the end of the film. This involves him seemingly appearing in heaven, and having to confront sin. This is the movies heaviest use of symbolism to achieve it's message. Devils seduce women and turn men against each other, culminating in a flying Chaplin being shot out of the air by the police, a fallen angel. This must be his nightmare, because when he awakens he realizes that he is in fact not the fallen angel, but still a man of purity at heart, and quite a heart it is too.

   Rating: B

Ivan's Childhood
   Year: 1962
   Director: Andrei Tarkovsky

       Coming of age in a time where you gotta do it fast or not at all. A world war rages on as young Ivan grieves his mother and tries his best to be a man. This is a great example of Tarkovsky as a brilliant craftsman and provocative storyteller, using excellent and haunting imagery to detail the horrors of both war and youth. A bit in contrast with much of the slower paced and more pondering epics he will become famous for (the only universally regarded "great" work I've seen of this class is Solaris, but also Nostalgia and The Sacrifice, later career works I liked).

   Rating: B+

Through A Glass Darkly
   Year: 1961
   Director: Ingmar Bergman

       Ingmar Bergman is kind of like the Beatles in a way (a comparison that may seem like a stretch, but just let me explain). Both are sources that you look at, and wonder at how could one creative entity possibly produce, not one or two or even five, but upwards of ten consistent masterpieces in their respective medium. How can one artistic source be so consistently outstanding, influential, and individual and recognizable to the point that they not only changed their specific plain of art forever, but continue to mystify and inspire to this very day. It isn't just a flash of genius, or a stretch of it, but an entire career with nothing but masterworks.

       This film is no exception to that defining strain. The connecting tissue of all his films seems to be the desire and ambition to contemplate life's essential questions, and more importantly, do it on a painfully human level. This, the first in his "silence of god" trilogy, begins to ponder the issue that resides in the title of said trilogy: the silence of god. In this take, he zeroes in on one who hears god for herself, and the people around her who try and deal with her perceived knowledge of a creator. It turns out that god is not what it is believed to be, but more of a monster, stemming from the twisted schizophrenia of the human race. Beautiful and wrenching, as all his works are.

   Rating: B+

Barry Lyndon

   Year: 1975

   Director: Stanley Kubrick

       What can you make of a three plus hour runtime that moves at a crawling pace, a lead actor nearly devoid of any charisma, and lots of very slow and deliberate walking? Apparently some kind of a masterpiece is what. This is achieved by, in place of entertainment, crafting likely one of the most beautiful movies to be put on film. Every shot is like a canvas, looking like it was painted by Kubrick himself. And this is no hyperbole, it is amazing sometimes what is captured, often looking like a piece of art from the era in which it is set. If it's anything it is a testament, or rather of proof, of films ability to overcome an incredibly bland main character and an incredibly slow plot with sheer artistry.

       And all of this magnificent craft is used to play out the ultimately inconsequential life's story of one Edmund Barry, later entitled the titular Barry Lyndon. Barry's story has the potential for surprise and intrigue, but it is told in such a deliberate, uneventful way as to make everything that happens, while beautiful in it's imagery, completely dulled and reserved in its presentation. It's amazing how one mans tale, however unimportant, can be told with such luscious and obvious beauty, not to mention detail and determination. It's this banality that makes the beauty of the movie so impressive in a way. Things move slow, but there is more time to take it in. It is almost like looking at a painting, there is certainly enough time to admire it as such.

   Rating: B

M

   Year: 1931

   Director: Fritz Lang

       The story of a community banding together to nearly do the wrong thing. That's the theme throughout the film: crowd mentality versus the law. The average persons moral compass versus the rule book. It's telling that the court scene in the abandoned factory is conducted by crooks and criminals. A movie like this exposes the hypocrisy of society and provides interesting scenarios to ask difficult questions. Unfortunately, the thematic revelation of the finale can't quite justify the long build up where things are moving a little too uncoordinated and slowly for it to bare the weight of the rest of the picture.

       That being said, the ending is certainly a good payoff for the rest of the film. Having the child murderer be judged by the rest of societies undesirables, being murderers, thieves, and other felons, is a stroke of genius on the part of the screenwriter. Condemned from the outset, the man on trial pleads insanity, to the detest of the mad crowd of criminals, determined to rip him to shreds. And they nearly do, before they are stopped short by the police. It shows how society is ready to prosecute anyone, like in the film people constantly blaming each other, accusing each other, when no one is truly innocent to begin with. Yeah, they aren't all child murderers, but everyone commits there own small evils. The judge in the make shift court room is a three time murderer himself. 

   Rating: B

Steamboat Bill, Jr.

   Year: 1928

   Director: Buster Keaton

       Chaplin is often cited as the king of silent era comedy, but I do not find that to be fair. It may be true, but it is a title he shares with his slapstick counterpart: Buster Keaton. What is so amazing about Keaton is his impeccable skill as an acrobatic stuntman. The things he does physically in this film are often jaw dropping, and certainly not the kind of thing you would see today (mostly because it is insanely dangerous). He is also great at creating hilarious scenarios, which got much more laughter out of me than I expected it would.

   Rating: B

Shadow of a Doubt

   Year: 1943

   Director: Alfred Hitchcock

       As was suspected, Hitchcock shows himself here as much as ever to be a subversive provocateur, unveiling the darker side of American suburbia. Much like David Lynch does in another movie in this ten film festival, Blue Velvet, the master of suspense here enjoys indulging in the unseemly underbelly of a culture designed to look spotless and tidy. Hitchcock dismantles the picket fence world of the town the story is set in, both metaphorically and literally. By turning everyday things into death traps, like the broken stair, the director manipulates the surroundings into more sinister shapes. Suddenly its all a little less innocent.

       Which is what this movie also is, a loss of innocence. Not just for, however briefly, the audience at the time, but also the leading lady. It's about coming to a realization about the world and its less delightful corners. The young Charlie begins to learn about the meanings of loyalty and morality when faced with the discovery that her uncle is a (likely) fetishistic (definitely) murderer. The fact that the killings could be interpreted as sexual in part, makes the air of unease that much more clear in the relationship between the two Charlies. Young Charlie is made aware of the world in a way she wasn't before, and grows up in a more drastic way than most of us acquire and experience over time.

   Rating: C+

Rashomon

   Year: 1951

   Director: Akira Kurosawa

       Rashomon is a picture of many faces, many forms, and many perspectives. It can be interpreted many ways. In fact, that is the central theme of the picture: interpretation. One event takes place, and it is seen by many observers and participants, all of them telling the story in radically different ways. The one connection between all of the stories, however, is that the person telling it comes out the most righteous or honorable. A film so influential that it not only inspired many movies that came after, but also its own psychological phenomenon, the Rashomon effect. I'm sure you can guess what that entails. 

   Rating: B+

The Rules of the Game

   Year: 1939

   Director: Jean Renoir

       A farce about the entitled upper class. Renoir is a director who doesn't seem to necessarily hate this social level, but also takes pleasure in setting it on its head. Like he did with Boudu Saved from Drowning, he mixes the well mannered shelves of society with the much more rambunctious and ill mannered sorts of the lower classes. This results in hilarity, but also insight into human relationships, both on class and personal levels.

   Rating: B

Blue Velvet

   Year: 1986

   Director: David Lynch

       What Hitchcock did to the American suburban illusion in Shadow of a Doubt with an ease and tip toe, peaking just beyond the veil, Lynch here rips down the curtains in a full throttle, sledgehammer to the white picket fence approach. Much unlike Hitchcock's work, this goes all the way in it's visceral, depraved corridors of the darkness of the human soul. It begins with a walk in a field and a discovery of an ear, and then divulges into dark and brutal territory Hitchcock could never have dreamed of putting on the screen.

       What Lynch explores by exploiting this certain rotting in society, is the hypocrisy that makes up so much of it. Also, he exposes the innocence of the surface to the diseased core underneath. There is a sharp contrast between the world of Jeffery Beaumont and Frank Booth, even though they are existing in the same one. It's Jeffreys voyeuristic experience watching the rape of a woman by Booth that first penetrates jeffery's idealistic, happy worldview with something darker. And while the light does suppress the darkness in the end, there is a feeling that it will continue to linger on, despite the pretty flowers and the waving fireman.  

   Rating: B+

Day for Night

   Year: 1973

   Director: Francois Truffaut

       Francois Truffaut once said that he was only interested in a film that displays either the joys of making cinema or the agonies of it, and nothing in between. Here, he makes a film about both. I thought it was awesome how he showed some of the work that actually goes into making a movie, and all the complications that can arise. Those complications are clearly also a good back drop for a farce, one that utilizes uncooperative actors to its advantage in achieving laughs and drama. Well crafted and insightful look into the world of one of cinemas most renowned filmmakers.

   Rating: B+

Solaris

   Year: 1972

   Director: Andrei Tarkovsky

       I feel like I need to see it again. Do I want to see it again? Not for quite a while, probably many, many years. This is certainly a dense film, full of long, long stretches where ideas are explored in the most brutally slow and painful ways. I don't want to understate the films value. It is likely as great as everyone seems to say it is. I just wasn't ready I think for such a philosophically and mentally exhausting and endurance requiring experience. I've known Tarkovsky to be a director that you need some patience to appreciate, and that has been no problem for me with my previous encounters with his work, but this seems like a new extreme.

       The reasons that make me believe it is worth a revisit somewhere down the line is its philosophical constructs that support the weight of its runtime. Big, important questions are explored, such as the meaning and extents of love, the difference between original and replication, the nature of identity, the constitutes and confines of reality, and the past as seen through the lens of the present, to name of few. It is an exploration of memory as much as it is of space, and like all great sci-fi it wrestles with things bigger than its own conventions of genre, using the technology available in said genre to delve into the depths of the human psyche. Putting Solaris at the end of a long film festival was a bad move, because I think there is so much here to appreciate that simply can't be on your tenth movie in a row, especially one as complex and patience testing as this one. 

   Rating: C

The Freshman
   Year: 1925
   Director: Sam Taylor and Fred C. Newmeyer

       Harold Lloyd is often considered the third genius of the silent era in terms of comedy. This may be true, but he certainly isn't anywhere near on the heels of Chaplin and Keaton if this film is anything to go by. He's at least a couple of miles behind them in his comic ingenuity, command of filmmaking, and general like-ability. When I watch Chaplin or Keaton fall down or grab the wrong hat or something, I tend to laugh and think what a funny little guy. What Lloyd does it I tend to think what an annoying idiot. Maybe it's just personal preference, but Lloyd just doesn't do it for me in the immediate and obvious ways the other two do.

       But you can't blame Lloyd as a performer for the mostly failure of the movie, much of it has to do with just how unfunny most of it is. And it's not like I just don't like slapstick or comedy from that era of Hollywood, because I thoroughly enjoyed the little Keaton and Chaplin that I have seen. The jokes just mostly fall flat, and are simply dwarfed in comparison to the other two comedians efforts. Part of that may be on their physicality being more impressive than Lloyds, but also their gags are just better set up and more inventive. There are a few things that work, like Speedy's clothing constantly becoming undone during the dance, but most of it is weak material performed by a lesser showman.

   Rating: C-

Dead Man
   Year: 1995
   Director: Jim Jarmusch

       Jim Jarmusch's Wild West is the land of the dead, sharply in contrast with John Ford's land of grandeur and opportunity. For him it was a place of great expanse. Here it's almost claustrophobic. A land of sharp black and white, like nature and the machinations of mankind clashing against each other. It has the rhythm and feel of poetry, and uses its storyline as less of an account and more of a journey, not just for Johnny Depp's William Blake, but for the audience as well. It is, no doubt, a film rich in style, and it has an admittedly striking aesthetic that is enough to carry it on its feet despite its problems. And the problems I have with it are more to do with its meaning than its presentation.

       My issues with the film I have are the over reliance on that style that is so expressive and affective, and the use of symbolism that often doesn't seem to know what it wants to symbolize. It seems to be grasping in the dark for meaning I'm not sure it ever really gets a hold on, and in the end comes off as a little shallow in its attempt to not appear to be just that. For instance, take the three bounty hunters. Their dispatch of each other could possibly be interpreted as the dangerous back stabbing nature of the wild west, or simply of mans self destructive nature, but it honestly appears as though Jarmusch didn't really know where he wanted to go with that side story and ended up building it into an anticlimactic and lazy ending that makes everything that came before involving the cannibalistic death figure seem pointless. There is a lot of surface meaning in this film, but overall it comes across as trying a little too hard, and faking it a little too much. That being said, there are certainly moments of pure poetry and beauty within, but overall its a case of style over substance. Quite an amazing sense of style though.

   Rating: B-