Criterion Channel currently streams several Seijun Suzuki films, but about six of them will be leaving at the end of January, so I wanted to see those before that. Here are a few I recently watched:
8 Hours of Terror (1957)
35/100
The premise is really good–one that would be a good remake candidate. Roughly it’s like Spike Lee’s Get on the Bus, plus Wages of Fear/Sorcerer. A train breaks down, but the train company offers a bus for those eager to make it to their destination. The passengers are diverse group, representing different socio-economic backgrounds and occupations, including a police officer taking in a man guilty of killing his wife. Most of the route hugs a mountain, making the trip not without some risk. Making matters worse is that there are two bank robbers on the loose.
Ultimately, I think the film isn’t very good, because of poor or dated acting, preventing me from really getting into the movie. The thrills suspense are pretty dull as well, and I would guess most modern moviegoers would agree.
Man With a Shotgun (1961)
Clearly influenced by Spaghetti Westerns, especially by the Man With No Name films, although here Suzuki’s sets the film in a lush mountain setting, with the protagonist being a hunter-hiker.
The film involves a corrupt man in a small mountain town. The Man With a Shotgun comes to the town, proving his mettle, but leaving his purpose a mystery.
A B-movie that pales in comparison to the original.
Detective Bureau 2-3: Go to Hell Bastards (1963)
46/100
I’m not sure if this is the actual Japanese title, but this may be the best thing about the movie. A private detective goes undercover attempting to infiltrate a yakuza group, All the other details are not that interesting to me. Like the other films, the action is pretty dull. Jo Shishido is a somewhat appealing leading man, in spite of his chipmunk cheeks.
Zigeunerweisen (1980)
75/100
Like David Lynch’s Mulholland Drive or Inland Empire this film is impossible to grasp on one viewing. But like those two films I found this strangely compelling, although a little less so at times. I think the reason for the latter is Japanese-ness of the film, especially the way it seems tied to Japanese folktales and traditional Japanese theater. The latter is especially foreign to me, so I suspect this made the film not only harder to grasp, but harder to not get bored at times.
The film, the first in the Suzuk’s Taisho trilogy, follows two academic colleagues–both very different in dress and temperament. One is the stereotypical, straitlaced professor, while the other is a wild vagabond type, looking and acting like Toshiro Mifune character in Seven Samurai. We follow their relationship with a geisha and then their respective wives, as well as the dying sister of one of wives. But the plot is minimal and the narrative is very loose. Still, there is something hypnotic and compelling about the movie.
I saw the second and third films of the Suzuki’s Taisho trilogy–Kagero-za and Yumeji, respectively.
Kagero-za (1981)
90/100 (maybe higher)
After watching this, I felt this was a candidate for an all-time great film–and I say this without fully understanding the movie. (However, with more analysis and understanding my estimation could decline.)
Let me explain why I feel that way. Many artists who adopt a more post-modern approach–I’m thinking specifically of artists who draw from and attempt to synthesize many different material, including from different cultures or styles–often produce clunky art. The different influences seem slapped together and inorganic. The concept behind the art may be exciting, but the actual results lack refinement.
There are some exceptions–for example, Bill Frisell, who may be the most successful post-modern artists (although I wonder if others would put him under that label)–and that’s because his music distills the various influences into a seamless and organic whole.
Kagero-za may not be have fully distilled all of its influences, but I found the results exciting and satisfying, not to mention ambitious. Here, I want to mention some of the components Suzuki seems to be trying to amalgamate: Japanese folk tales, traditional Japanese theater, French New Wave cinema and European art filmmakers like Antonioni, and perhaps more that I’m unaware of.
The results are dream-like, reminding me of some of David Lynch’s films. (Yumeji, which didn’t affect me as much, made me think of Peter Greenaway.)
All these three films in the trilogy demand repeat viewings.
I’ve been enjoying Dustin Guy Defa’s films (including shorts), currently streaming on the Criterion Channel. I’m not exactly sure the reason for this. The films either lack a narrative or lack a really strong one. Instead, the films present interesting situations with good acting…although “interesting” may be too strong. The situations, themselves, are not always appealing, but the characters and the acting make these moments humorous, compelling, or even poignant.
It seems obvious that acting and characters (maybe in that order) is Defa’s wheelhouse–similar to Mike Leigh or John Cassavetes.
Person to Person (2017)
75/100
Person to Person (2014) (short film)
77/100
(Bene Coopersmith won me over for some reason.)
I mentioned I had difficulty explaining the reason I enjoyed these films. However, there was a reason I recently started watching some of his films, starting with the feature length film, Person to Person. “A record store owner tracks down a prized album”–that description got me hooked instantly. I think I’ll watch any film featuring a book or record store owner or a film set in a book store or record store, especially independently owned ones.
But this lead me to watch the short film Person to Person (starring Bene Coppersmith, Deragh Campbell), which inspired the feature-length film. In the short, Benny is the local record store owner (who later appears in the 2017 film). He has a party and the next day he finds an attractive woman sleeping on the floor of his apartment. Right off the bat I liked Benny. He’s really nice to her, bringing her coffee and breakfast. But he soon discovers that she refuses to leave his apartment. In a way, it’s a variation of Melville’s short story, Bartleby the Scrivener. (I liked that story, and I know Mitchell hated it, but I think he has a chance of liking this.)
In the feature length film, Benny appears again, only this time he’s goes to meet a guy selling a rare jazz album. He also has a good friend who is in trouble for posting nude pictures of his girlfriend. The film is essentially a collection of three or four short stories, with the film flip-flopping between them. In addition to Benny’s episode, there’s a story with about a reporter’s first day on the job, working for a smaller publication, being accompanied by one of the editors (Michael Sera). This story ties in with a guy (Phillip Baker Hall) who repairs watches. Finally, there’s a story about two high school girls cutting out from school and hanging out. (I don’t think these two characters have any connection to the other characters in the film.)
Flowers of Shanghai (1998)
Dir. Hou Hsiao-hsien
Starring: Tony Leung, Michiko Hada, etc.
90/100
Barry Lyndon and The Leopard are two films are noteworthy for their cinematography (mostly BL), costumes, and sets, at least for me. Indeed, I would say I appreciate those films primarily for those elements. Now, Flowers of Shanghai joins the list. Indeed, at some point I wondered if wanting to outdo Kubrick and Visconti was the impetus behind this film. Having said that, I found the film satisfying and successful beyond those elements. That is, the film satisfied me overall, more than the other two films.
In Barry Lyndon, Kubrick seems to want to recreate the look of European painters like Rembrandt, Vermeer, or other in that ballpark. Flowers also feels the feel of “moving” paintings, but it’s use of a slice-of-life, character portraits, versus a more traditional narrative in Barry and The Leopard (at least from what I recall), works better, and it’s one of the main reasons this worked worked better for me than the others. (The film also didn’t have actors like Ryan O’Neal to weaken the film; and Tony Leung had the opposite effect.)
One comment about the lighting. The look of the film reminded me of a Tamara de Lempica painting–the bright metallic colors with dark edges. In the film’s lighting makes the silk costumes and colors glimmer and glow like metal, and the restored version brings out the sumptuous details of all of this. It’s just gorgeous. (The filmmakers made silk costumes and actually built houses where the action took place. Interestingly, I can’t remember an exterior shot, and almost every shot take place in either a drawing room/dining space that look very similar.)
I can’t remember if this is my second or third time, but here are some quick thoughts:
We all know about anti-war films. This, to me, is an anti-macho film. Anti-war films are effective because they give more realistic portrayals of war, which entails lots of disturbing, graphic violence. I think the same is true for this film, although modern viewers may not find the violence so graphic. However, I would be surprised if they don’t find the violence disturbing. Certain aspect of the film may not have the same impact–e.g., the snazzy editing–but De Niro’s menacing presence, often stemming from his paranoia and jealousy, still had a lot of umph.
Like Taxi Driver, I thought the film ended–or should have ended–earlier, specifically when La Motta is in solitary confinement pounding the wall. On the other hand, that may not have been fair to La Motta. What we perhaps humanizes La Motta more and portrays him as someone making the best of his life, given whatever limitations he may have.
The film sequences seem more fake this time around, and that hurt the film a little. I did like the use of music in this, however.
I like Joe Pesci in this, as I did the first time I saw this. The performance should have landed him more roles a lot sooner in my opinion.
Xanadu (1980)
Dir. Robert Greenwald
Starring: Olivia Newton-John, Michael Beck, Gene Kelly, etc.
16/100
This camera angles, production values, and acting reminded of a TV show from the late 70s (e.g., Buck Rodgers in the 21st Century), or a live action Saturday morning kids show (e.g. Sid and Marty Krofft shows).
Overall, I would say it’s a bad film, but I enjoyed hearing songs like “Xanadu,” “Suddenly,” and “Magic.” These songs, and experiencing the late 70’s TV look, prevented me from giving the film a lower score.
One other thing: The film tried to merge a older Hollywood musical style with more contemporary rock and pop music of the late 70s and roller skating(!). But overall it was disappointing, particularly the rather dull choreography.
Ishtar (1987)
Dir. Elaine May
Starring: Dustin Hoffman, Warren Beatty, Isabella Adjani, etc.
45/100
The opening scene excited me, and I thought I might really liked the film. Alas, while the film had some nice moments, it did not live up to my initial hopes. Still, it wasn’t bad. I liked what Hoffman and Beatty tried to do in this (even though Beatty was miscast…or it was a challenge that maybe Beatty wanted to take on). Indeed, I think their performances are part of the reason I could see this being a cult film.
Why watching this film, I wondered: Did critics hate and audiences hate Spies Like Us as well? Because this is not worse than that film, and I’d say it’s the better of the two.
Altered States (1980)
Dir. Ken Russell
Starring: William Hurt, Blair Brown, Charles Haid, etc.
72/100
If the first two acts of a film are bad or even mediocre, it’s rare that the last act can turn the film around. And Justice for All is best example of that for me. The turnaround was dramatic, but this film comes close. I’ll describe the reason I didn’t like the film and the way the film redeemed itself, at least somewhat, for me.
Eddie Jessup (Hurt) is a scientist who attempts to use psychedelic drugs to tap into memories and consciousness of our early ancestors and maybe even the earliest life forms. (That’s essentially the gist of the movie and if you don’t want to know anything else, don’t read on.)
**
The idea humans have memories or a consciousness of different evolutionary ancestors contained in us seems far-fetched, but not something I would entirely dismiss, although the notion is odd on several levels. Memories are exclusive to an individual–or at least that’s my assumption. Does each individual have a kind of collective memory–i.e., memories that stem from the collective experience of humanity? (If so, the word “memory” seems inappropriate. Memories are something that can enter our conscious minds, but if we have a collective memory that seems to exist only on a subconscious level.) Then maybe an individual could tap into the collective memory of an evolutionary ancestor?
But even if these ideas make sense on some level, the film actually goes further. Eventually tapping into these mental states can also lead to physical, “de-evolutionary” transformations. For me, this was too far-fetched, broke my suspension of disbelief
***
What saved the film for me was a more philosophical framing of Eddie’s quest–namely, that Eddie’s efforts stemmed from his desire for Truth, specifically getting back to the origins of life. That is, if Eddie could somehow gain awareness of what happened at the origin of life, he’d tap into the ultimate truth. (I don’t think this is an entirely sound idea, but there is some sense to it.)
What he learns is that there is no real Truth, no higher Truth. What people see and experience is all we have. Once Eddie realize this, he is drawn back to the people he loves. This doesn’t turn the movie around completely perhaps, but it makes it far more palatable to me.
Key dialogue:
Emily: “No Mason! I was never really real to him. Nothing in the human condition was ever really real to him. He’s a truth lover.
Reality to Eddie is only that which is changeless, immutably constant. What happened to Eddie tonight. That was Eddie’s idea of love. That’s cosummation. He finally got it off with God.He finally embraced the absolute, was finally ravished by truth and it goddammed near destroyed him.
He never loved me. You knew him as well as I did. We were all bits of transitory matter to him.
Later:
Eddie: I can’t tell you have how much you mean to me…how much I need you and the kids. I just wanted to tell you that.
You saved me. You redeemed me from the pit. I was in it, Emily. I was in the ultimate moment of terror that is the beginning of life. It is nothing. Simple, hideous nothing. The final truth of all things is that there is no final truth. Truth is what’s transitory. It is human life that is real.
I don’t want to frighten you Emily but what I’m trying to tell you is that moment of a terror is a real and living horror that is living and growing in me now and the only thing that keeps it from devouring me is you.
Emily: Why don’t you come back to us now?
Eddie: It’s too late. I don’t think I can get out of it anymore. I can’t live with it. The pain is too great.
Emily: Defy it, Eddie! You made it real. You can make it unreal. If you love me Eddie…if you love me. Defy it Eddie!
The Devils (1971)
Dir. Ken Russell
Starring: Oliver Reed, Vanessa Redgrave, etc.
67/100
I was very wary of watching this, given the religious controversy over this film. But Russell strikes me as director with a strong individual voice, with ecstatic images and content, so I was very interested in seeing this.
The film claims that major acts in the film are historically accurate. It involves a small, fortified town in France during the 17th century. The governor has died and a priest, Grandier (Reed), has taken over temporarily. Cardinal Richelieu wants power, and to do so he must destroy the fortifications of all smaller towns. Grandier (and the King at the time) resists this.
There is also a subplot with involving a hunchbacked, head abbess, Sister Jeanne (Redgrave), and her nunnery. Jeanne and several of the other nuns are infatuated with Grandier–so much so that Sister Jeanne has vivid romantic/religious dreams involving him.
***
Maybe I’m misreading the film, but it seems essentially political–like a political version of Dreyer’s The Passion of Joan D’Arc. It also made me think of Braveheart, in terms of its theme.
As for the controversial scenes, I saw these primarily as manipulation of the nuns by the Grandier’s political enemies. The nuns, including Sister Jeanne, were victims; some of them may have been mentally ill or unstable as well.
Sleepwalkers (1992)
Dir. Mick Garris
Starring: Madchen Amick, etc.
20/100
The Criterion Channel streams B-movies, and even when I don’t like them a lot, I don’t question the decision to offer these films–until now. There can be value in watching B-movies or movies that aren’t very good, but I have a hard time making a case for this film (except for Madchen Amick’s beauty, which isn’t a good enough reason).
(Madchen Amick is beautiful, but her beauty couldn’t save this film.)
The film is based on a Stephen King story (and I believe King wrote the screenplay for this), involving a mother and son who are ancient shape shifting humanoids that survive by sucking the souls of female virgins. Besides this vulnerability, they are also vulnerable to cats.
***
I thought the film had potential to do something interesting and maybe even novel. In the movie, one of the sleepwalkers, who attends high school, writes a short story about a mother and son who constantly move from town to town–they’re lonely and misunderstood. The target of the sleepwalkers, his beautiful classmates, likes the story, tells the boy that he can relate to the characters. This opens an opportunity to make the sleepwalkers more sympathetic and interesting and it creates conflict between the boy and the girl.
But the film dismisses all of this in a rather clumsy way, reverting to a standard b-movie horror film.
Infernal Affairs (2002)
70/100 Infernal Affairs 2 (2003)
74/100 Infernal Affairs 3 (2003)
49/100
Dir. Andrew Lau Wai Keung and Alan Mak
Starring: Andy Lau, (Lau Kin-Ming) Tony Leung Chiu-wai (Chang Wing-lan), Anthong Wong (Superintendent Wong Ching-shi), Eric Tseng (Hon Sam, triad boss), etc. (Note: Tony Leung isn’t in the second film, and Andy Lau appears only briefly.)
I’ve had this trilogy on my list for a while now. I was interested in this because I thought that the second and third films were basically the same story with different endings or other changes. But I was mistaken.
I’ll briefly sum up the films:
The first film involves the police and triad taking young members of their group and cultivating them to become moles. I thought it was entertaining, but not exceptional.
The second film is a prequel of sorts. I liked this better–mainly because they fleshed out the relationship and developed the two characters I liked best–Wong and Sam.
The third film mostly proceeds after the first film, while adding two new major characters–an officer from the intelligence sector (national?) and a mysterious, ex-military figure from mainland China.
A few general comments:
Eric Tseng’s triad boss was interesting in that he’s more like avuncular and affable–someone you expect as sad sack and/or bungling character in a comedy. He never really conveyed a lot of menace, but he was still pretty effective in spite of this.
(According to some of the comments I heard from the filmmakers, they also wanted Tony Leung to be more happy, as opposed to constantly stressed out–thereby avoiding well-worn approach. This didn’t hurt the performance, but I didn’t think it added a lot either–and I say this as someone who really like Tony Leung Chiu-wai.)
One problem I had: The film has different actors play the younger versions of the two main characters. The younger versions about about 10 years younger or less, and they look really different from Lau and Leung. This wasn’t a major problem, but I would haven’t liked a better solution to this.
Irish Wish (2024)
Lindsay Lohan, Ed Speleers, Ayesha Curry, Elizabeth Tan, Alexander Vlahos. Written by Kirsten Hansen. Directed by Janeen Damian. Streaming on Netflix.
Paul Kennedy is an Irish writer of romantic novels. Maddie Kelly is his editor, and she is in love with him, but Paul is marrying Maddie’s best friend Emma. Days before the wedding, a fairy grants Maddie her wish, and now she is about to marry Paul instead. However, she has now (in two separate meet-cutes) met someone a lot more interesting.
Irish Wish is silly, predictable and mildly entertaining. If you don’t care much for romantic comedies, you’ll probably hate it. If you love romantic comedies, you’ll think it’s not a total waste of 90 minutes.
Lindsay Lohan is a talented actor still finding her space as a middle-aged leading lady. She channels Drew Barrymore in this role, and although it works, kind of, I’d much rather have seen a grown-up interpretation of Lohan’s Freaky Friday and The Parent Trap characters, with that sensible, down-to-earth likeability, rather than Barrymore’s starry-eyed head in the clouds.
The movie scores a few points with me for making the Asian Best Friend and Black Best Friend tropes sliiiiiightly less problematic, and for a few small literary references. I don’t have many dealbreakers (at my age, one cannot afford many dealbreakers), but I am a writer, and if I discover my fiancé does not know who my favorite writer is just a few days before our wedding, I am going to have a very serious talk – with myself. Irish Wish respects the importance of such things.
None of the characters is very well defined, which can make chemistry in a romantic comedy a tough sell. There is only enough convincing chemistry here where it matters most, so when we finally get the kiss, it’s at least believable. This is a rom-com’s minimum qualification, earning the film a 5 out of 10 (51/100) from me – just about average.
Thief (1981)
Dir. Michael Mann
Starring: James Caan, Tuesday Weld, James Belushi, Robert Prosky, etc.
75/100
Macho soap opera is the descriptor I used the first time I saw this. That is, if a male made a soap opera for men Thief would be the type of film one could expect, not just in terms of the depiction of males, but the way they interact with females in a romantic context. Specifically, the film is more of a macho fantasy that a realistic drama.
I think that description is still fairly apt, except the filmmaking is stylish and not cheap, particularly the filming of vehicles moving through the urban landscape and the Tangerine Dream score. (The latter was one of the more interesting aspects of the film.)
Those expecting a great action or heist film may be disappointed. I don’t think the film is exceptional in either sense. What I liked was one of the main themes/ideas behind the main character–namely, the way he had to not care about anything to survive. That is, he has to empty himself of any attachment or desire in order to survive in prison and overcome a threat from the mob. The idea echoes a philosophy I’ve encountered with Miyamoto Musashi or books on Bushido.
Here’s an example of the filmmaking I liked. (This scene and others also reminded me of shots from Blade Runner.)
For my film review column in the staff newsletter (now entering its eighth year) four months ago, I ranked films in the Alexander Payne filmography. Probably my favorite working director. Then today, Paste ranked the same films. Here’s my ranking.
1. Sideways (2004), with Paul Giamatti, Thomas Haden Church, Virginia Madsen, and Sandra Oh. One of my 10 favorite films of all time, it’s just a wonderful character study with terrific dialogue and gorgeous cinematography. Payne won an Oscar for its screenplay; Haden Church and Madsen got supporting actor and actress nominations; Giamatti was feloniously snubbed for his acting.
2. Nebraska (2013), with Will Forte, Bruce Dern, and June Squibb. A heartbreaker of a film and the second-funniest on this list at the same time. Dern thinks he has won a sweepstakes, so his son Forte drives him to Nebraska to claim a prize everyone knows isn’t real. It’s tender and sweet and maddening because I wish I wrote this. Nominated for six Oscars.
3. The Descendants (2011), with George Clooney, Shailene Woodley, Beau Bridges, and Judy Greer, based on a novel by Kaui Hart Hemmings. We’ve all seen a lot of movies set in Hawai‘i. The Descendants is the one that most looks like the actual Hawai‘i you and I live in. This is some of Clooney’s best comedic and dramatic acting. Nominated for five Oscars.
4. The Holdovers (2023), with Paul Giamatti, Da’Vine Joy Randolph, and Dominic Sessa. Giamatti is a grouchy teacher at a New England boarding school in the 70s forced to spend winter break watching the students who have nowhere to go for the holidays. It’s a film about unlikely connections and the heartbreaks we each carry with us. Nominated for five Oscars.
5. Election (1999), with Matthew Broderick and Reese Witherspoon. A hilariously dark film about high-school politics. As a former high-school teacher, I am appalled by everyone’s behavior and don’t think anyone would actually behave this way, but a tiny part of me is also titillated and thrilled because it wouldn’t take much to set this stuff in motion. It’s a reminder that very often there is just the tiniest balance keeping our better selves from becoming our worst selves. Eek! Nominated for one Oscar, but Broderick and Witherspoon both offer fantastic performances.
6. Citizen Ruth (1996) with Laura Dern, Swoosie Kurtz, Kelly Preston, and Burt Reynolds. A very funny, very sharp stab at both sides of a certain polarizing social issue. It’s not about the issue itself, but about the fanaticism the issue inspires. It’s Payne’s first major film and I’m amazed and impressed by how audacious it is. Creative, thoughtful, surprising.
7. Downsizing (2017), with Matt Damon, Christoph Waltz, Hong Chau, and Kristen Wiig. Critics and audiences gave this box-office bomb mixed reviews, but I genuinely like it for its ambition and sensitivity. Science can now shrink people to about five inches in height, and Damon’s $100,000 savings is now worth $3 million if he downsizes and lives in a tiny city under a dome, where money goes a lot further. It doesn’t quite succeed, but I admire the creative ambition. Nominated for one Oscar.
8. About Schmidt (2002), with Jack Nicholson and Kathy Bates. Nominated for two Oscars it didn’t deserve, this is the only film on the list I don’t care for. It has its charms but feels aimless, although it’s still well-directed, and I might be missing something because people seem to love it.
PASTE:
1. Election
2. About Schmidt
3. Nebraska
4. Sideways
5. Citizen Ruth
6. Downsizing
7. The Holdovers
8. The Descendants
The Holdovers sounds like a film you would like, and so your moderate rating cools my interest in it (not that my interest was all that hot).
In addition to that film, I haven’t seen Downsizing, and Citizen Ruth. I like the premise of the former, so I’ve been mildly interested in that. But the lukewarm reaction to the film suggests that it wasn’t that good. (The again, I was recently re-watching Devil in a Blue Dress which also got a lukewarm reaction when it first screened, and I think that was a terrific film, although I haven’t finished watching it.)
As for Citizen Ruth, I like Laura Dern, so that’s still on my list.
The only film on the list I don’t care for is About Schmidt. I’m very fond of the rest, including The Holdovers, which I bought on Blu-Ray the day it was released. 🙂
For me the films range from OK to a little more than that–at least in terms of my enthusiasm for them. The one possible exception is Election–which I may not have loved, but stood out as something more interesting, original, and spicy; the other films seem bland in comparison.
The Baker’s Wife (1938)
Dir. Marcel Pagnol
Starring: Raimu, Ginette Leclerc, Fernand Charpin, Robert Vattier, Robert Bassac (schoolteacher), etc.
87/100
Before watching this film, I read an astonishing claim about one of the actors. According to Orson Welles, either Raimu was the greatest actor of all time or this was one of the greatest performances. Raimu? I never heard of him, nor do I recall seeing him in any films. Of all the discussions and comments about great actors, including French ones, I can’t recall ever hearing his name. Could Welles be right? I was skeptical, and this moderated my expectations, although I was curious to see him perform.
When Raimu first appears on screen, and for what felt like a considerable amount of time, his performance never challenged my moderate expectations. It was fine, either exceptional or poor–solidly establishing that his character matched his name (Aimable).
I’ll say more about his performance, but let me say a bit about the movie. A New baker, Aimable (Raimu), arrrives in small French town, replacing a poor one. His beautiful, young wife, Aurelie (LeClerc) accompanies him, and eventually their marriage is tested in some way.
**
It’s rare that film from this time period can really resonate or entertain me the way this one did. No doubt my enjoyment of the film stems a little from low expectations, but I don’t think that explains everything. The acting, not just by Raimu, but several of the other actors, and the dialogue were really good. (The film makes me more interested in Marcel Pagnol, whole is a playwright.) My guess is that the film would entertain modern audiences, at least those who could overcome any prejudices against older, black-and-white films with subtitles.
***
So what about the verdict on Raimu? My response: Orson Welles’s claim is not outlandish. Again not having high expectations probably helped. Additionally, Raimu, early on establishes his character’s good-natured, and mild mannered personality, while also not giving into suspicions or jealousy. Later when we see an eruption of anger and pathos, it not only surprised me, but it was also natural and believable–all of which gave greater impact to those moments.
In the past week or so, I saw several Asian-American documentaries playing on the Criterion Collection, and one on PBS. Here are some quick comments of each:
My America…or Honk if You Love Buddha (1997)
Dir. Renee Tajima-Pena
A film that finds Asian Americans in different parts of the country and tells their stories, while also interweaving Tajima-Pena’s personal history. The film does focus quite a bit on one Asian American, the actor Victor Wong. The sense I get is that Tajima-Pena started out with the basic framework I describe above, but Wong’s life and story seemed really interesting–and perhaps he gave a lot more of his time than she expected–that half the film feels like a biography of Wong. The film was interesting, but it’s a bit uneven and not really unified.
I Was Born But… (2004)
Dir. Roddy Bogawa
Part performance film–of Bogawa as a vocalist in an L.A. punk rock band–and part documentary on 80’s L.A. and NYC. There are some nice visuals at times, and the one thing I liked about Bogawa’s vocals is that it sounds like a California Asian, with a quite, breathy style that is completely unlike any other punk vocals I’ve heard.
Ultimately, I didn’t really care for it, but that’s partly due to being so unfamiliar with the punk groups that Bogawa discusses.
95 and 6 to Go (2016)
Dir. Kimi Takesue
Takaeue hangs out and films her 95 year old grandfather who lives in Hawai’i. Takesue is working on a feature-length film, and she has her grandfather read the script and give her suggestions. It’s a charming idea, and while there are a few interesting moments, for the most part, I would say the idea is better than the actual results. The film’s pacing is a big slow as well. In spite of these deficiencies, by the end, I found the grandpa really likable and charming. I also liked that the film captures a local Japanese old man (in a way that’s different from Mr. Miyagi).
Twinsters (2015)
Dir. Samantha Futerman and Ryan Miyamoto
I don’t think I can describe this without giving away details that I think would be better left unknown to viewers, but I’ll just say that it starts with Samantha Futerman, an ethnically Korean adoptee, who is also an aspiring actor. The first third or half of the film kept me really engaged, but the film lost a little steam after that. But it was still mildly entertaining and interesting.
Halving the Bones (1995)
Dir. Ruth Ozeki
Ozeki attends her grandmother’s funeral in Japan and brings back a few bones of her grandmother for her mother, who could not (or would not) attend. But Ozeki doesn’t give the bones to her mother for a while, partly or mainly because she’s a bit estranged from her. The film follows Ozeki as she finally makes the journey to see her mom.
However, much of the film focuses on her grandmother and grandfather (the parents of Ozeki’s mom). Ozeki shoots a lot of this in old black and white prints, slightly reminiscent of Guy Maddin, while also using old photographs. I really liked these visual elements. To me they were the best part of the film.
Asian Americans (2017)
Produced by Renee Tajima-Pena
A comprehensive series about Asian-Americans is a massive and challenging project. Finding focus and coherence seem like impossible tasks. Tajima-Pena doesn’t really succeed, but the series was satisfying overall.
The Marseille Trilogy Marius (1931)
Dir. Alexander Korda Fanny (1932)
Dir. Marc Allegret Cesar (1936
Starring: Raimu (Cesar Olivier), Pierre Fresnay (Marius), Orane Demazis (Fanny), Fernand Charpin (Honore Panisse), Alida Rouf (Honorine Cabinis), Paul Dellac/Auguste Mourriès (Escartefigue), Alexandre Mihalesco (Piquoiseau), Robert Vattier (Brun), Édouard Delmont (Dr Félicien Venelleet), etc.
The Marcel Pagnol films, streaming on the Criterion Channel, have been one of most pleasant surprises this year. For one thing, I don’t expect films from the 30s (or earlier) to entertain me to the same degree as Hollywood movies from subsequent decades. It’s kind of shocking when it happens. The Baker’s Wife and The Marseille Trilogy, which I recently watched shocked me. (I actually almost gave up on the series, primarily because I mistakenly watched the second film first.)
What I find interesting about these films is the way they made me think of TV shows–specifically family dramas and to a lesser degree family-based sitcoms. The trilogy feels like a precursor to these TV shows, and I wouldn’t be surprised if they served as an inspiration to some people like Norman Lear. (Speaking of inspiration, Raimu’s Cesar seems like the model for Jackie Gleeson’s Ralph Cramden.) The films have a similar sensibility, in terms of drama and comedy and would appeal to a similar audience. The recurring support cast also makes this films feel many TV shows that would follow. Finally, visually, particularly the sets, also feels like early TV shows, where the sets and look and feel like a play.
One last thing. I enjoyed the acting–particularly of Raimu and the larger-than-life character he creates, a character n the vein of Ralph Cramden, but maybe even someone like Archie Bunker (although the characters are very different). Orane Demazis also stood out for me, particularly her crying.
Space is the Place (1972)
Dir. John Coney
Starring: Sun Ra, etc.
67/100
I don’t know if this is a good movie or not, but I did interest me, although until recently I would have thought this movie was awful. This is a 70’s B-movie, arguably a blaxploitation film, although a very different (read: thoughtful) one. In some ways the film reminds me of Melvin van Peebles’s Sweet Sweetback’s Baadasssss Song. Both films are interesting because they’re so different from most other Hollywood films, and while the craftsmanship, from the acting, writing, cinematography, set pieces, is B-movie quality, both films have a coherent vision and original voice.
For whatever reason, I passed over Sun Ra and his music, when investigating free jazz. Maybe his odd character (e.g., he claimed he was born on another planet) and the EWF, sci-fi costumes he and his Arkestra donned killed my interest. Whatever the reason, I’ve now discovered that he actually has some interesting ideas behind these odd elements surrounding him. For example, in a discussion with some black youth, Ra explains that black people are myths, they’re not real. If they were real they would be treated with more dignity; they wouldn’t be struggling for basic rights. In ways that I don’t fully understand, Ra seems to link this to myths of the past (e.g., Egyptian), with him serving as a connection to these myths. Ultimately, the goal is to find some liberation for black people–a spiritual “place”–i.e., state of mind/being–where blacks can find dignity and respect that whites experience. Music is one, or the, primary vehicle to achieving this. Hokey? Maybe–but the idea that music, or art, can transport people to a different state or different perspective isn’t so far-fetched to me. (I’m skeptical that the effect could be long-lasting and deep for large numbers of people.)
Oh one other thing. Ra speaks of another planet where black people can go to, without whites, and find dignity and respect, and this is the link with (outer) space. My guess is that Ra means this in a metaphorical way, and that music is again the best vehicle for arriving at this place.
I don’t think the film expresses these ideas in an aesthetically successful way, but I think Ra’s ideas are interesting, and the desire for respect and dignity for black people are totally worthy.
Oddly, I recently re-watched Smokey and the Bandit. I say odd because while I enjoyed the movie when it first came out, soon afterward I lost completely interest in it, and remained indifferent. I guess because it appeared on Netflix I was mildy curious if it would appeal to me on any level.
Here are some general thoughts:
The movie is not great, but it has Reynolds’s charisma, and the good chemistry with Fields and with Jerry Reed. (Based on Reed’s performance in this film and Survivors, where he surprisingly plays a menacing villain, I thought Reed should’ve been in more movies.)
On Jackie Gleason is meh in this. I don’t recall thinking much of his performance–specifically, I don’t recall finding him funny. The humor fails, and his rants leave me cold. It’s like his an Archie Bunker that evokes zero laughs and zero sympathy.
Some explicitly sexist and gauche sexual remarks stood out–specifically, when Bandit explains why he gave Fields’s character the handle, Frog, he mentions something about want to jump her. There’s another time when Reed’s character says, “She’s got a nice ass,” (referring to Fields), clearly loud enough for her to hear.
The firebird no longer appeals to me in the same way when I first saw this, but it’s still kinda cool. Or maybe I liked the nostalgia it evoked?
Andrew McCarthy interviews some of his fellow brat-packers in this documentary. A film for Gen Xers who liked and/or were strongly affected by the John Hughes-type of films in the 80s.
I wouldn’t say it’s a great film, but there is a nostalgia factor that made it appealing. McCarthy meeting these actors reminded me of my meeting with some of my former high school classmates. Even if I haven’t them in a long time, there is a good feeling and significant connection that I feel.
Two documentaries I recently watched, randomly–Searching for Mr. Rugoff and Z Channel: a Story of Obsession ended up having an interesting connection. Both were about passionate but difficult-to-work-with individuals who promoted independent and foreign movies–the former owned a few movie theaters in New York and the latter ran an early cable TV company (Z Channel) in California.
Unfortunately, their businesses eventually ended, which is sad, but the fact that they lasted as long as they did is special in some ways. (It reminds me of the arthouse theaters at Restaurant Row or even Border’s bookstore. When both existed, they seemed to good to be true–something couldn’t really last for long.)
Both of these films reminded me of the Criterion Channel, which seems like the contemporary version of Rugoff’s theaters and the Z Channel. I’m definitely going to enjoy it while it lasts.
Fury (2014)
Dir. David Ayer
Starring: Brad Pitt (Don “Wardaddy”), Logan Lerman (Norman/Machine), Shia LeBeouf (Boyd/Bible), Jon Bernthal (Grady/Coon Ass), Michael Pena (Trini/Gordo), etc.
55/100
I have very little interest in a contemporary WWII action film–this one involving a tank unit venturing into Germany–but I recall this a good buzz about this film, so it was on my radar. Still, I had little desire to see it, but for some reason I watched it yesterday.
The verdict? To me, the film kept my attention, but, overall, I don’t think it’s a very good movie, not something I’d really recommend–although I suspects fans of action would find this somewhat satisfying, if not more than that.
***
Some things I didn’t like: well-worn trope of young soldier losing his innocence, while really adding nothing; implausible situations at the end, which took me out of the film; two scenes that should have been edited.
One Upon a Time in America (1984)
Dir. Sergio Leone
Starring: Robert De Niro (David “Noodle” Aaronson), James Woods (Max Bercovicz) James Hayden (Patrick “Patsy” Goldberg), William Forsythe (Phillip “Cockeye” Stein), Elizabeth McGovern (Deborah Gelly), Larry Rapp (Fat Moe Kelly) , etc.
29/100
229 minutes
Because I don’t have the energy to write a proper review, I want to dive into the problems I had with the film. Before that, here’s a brief description: a Jewish-American version of The Godfather I and II, utilizing an even more complex flashback structure. However, unlike those Godfather movies, this movie revolves around a group of friends rather than a family. By the way, even though I didn’t like the film, it’s worth watching just to for the comparisons and contrast with Coppola’s films.
***
One caveat before listing my problems. Like Erich von Stroheim’s Greed and Welles’s Magnificent Ambersons, the studios really butchered the film–not only reducing the run time, but completing changing the structure, putting it in chronological order. One some level, I don’t feel I can really judge theses films–or at least not hold the directors responsible for any deficiencies. This is especially true for Greed and Magnificent Ambersons. On the other hand, I feel this is less true for Leone’s film. I saw a version that was much closer to what Leone had in mind, with some missing footage. The thing is, I strongly suspect adding the footage would not make a significant difference.
Why is that? This brings me to one of the biggest problems I had with the film–namely, Robert De Niro’s performance. To me, his performance was largely flat and inert, and left me cold to his character, but left me cold to his relationships with Max and Deborah, which were critical to the film.
I’m not exactly sure of the reasons De Niro’s performance didn’t work for me, but here are some possibilities:
I was stuck seeing De Niro as an Italian-American, and I didn’t buy him as a Jewish-American character
Whether the filmmakers’ intended this or not, De Niro seemed to be in the position of playing the straight man to James Woods’s more unstable character (which the film didn’t really develop well, in spite of the crazed energy Woods brings to the screen). De Niro didn’t seem well-suited for this, and I feel like he even seems lost, not knowing how his character should behave. In a way, I think he was miscast.
A disconnect between De Niro and Scott Tiler, the actor who plays the younger version of his character also existed for me. The latter seems like a likable, boy-next-door type growing up in bad environment. De Niro really doesn’t have the same boy-next-door vibe. I should also say that all the young actors didn’t really convincingly play serious criminals; they were closer to Tom Sawyer-type delinquents than real street hardened youths.
Some other problems I had with the film:
I don’t know how much they shot on location, but the film often had the feel to a movie set, one that reminded something you’d see on a TV show.
I know people love Morricone’s score. The main theme is nice, captures the right feelings, but maybe because the acting didn’t work for me the music seemed too melodramatic. What made matters worse for me is that the film plays these themes over and over again. (The Godfather films did this, too, but it didn’t bother me.) There’s also a theme played with a flute, and it kept reminded me of the flute-based theme in The Karate Kid. The theme is supposed to be Eastern-European/Jewish, I believe, but, to me, it also conjured up more Far East Asian vibes. That was really distracting for me.
Some quick comments about films I’ve seen in the last month or two:
The Last Show (1978)
Dir. Robert Benton
Starring: Art Carney, Lily Tomlin, etc.
78/100
One of the odder couples in film that surprisingly worked for me. Margo (Tomlin), a kooky character who embodies the the spirit of the 60s (at least echoes of it) hires Ira Wells (Carney), an aging detective right out of Philip Marlowe vein, to find her cat. Carney, overweight and balding, seems miscast, but he’s not in my view.
I loved this movie when I first saw it many years ago, and looked forward to watching it again. Perhaps, I was a little less enthusiastic, but not by much. In my view, I think it’s a good film that will completely satisfy viewers with little or no expectations, but could slightly disappoint viewers with high expectations. In any event, I think it deserves the criterion treatment.
One final comment. I would lump this film with other 70’s movies that almost wave goodbye the genres–specifically, westerns and detective/noirs–e.g., The Wild Bunch, The Shootist, Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid. It’s as if the filmmakers feel like they’ve exhausted the genres, and make these films as a sendoff, rather than just dump them to the curb. I kinda wish filmmakers would do something similar to other genres. (I guess The Expendables are sort of like this, but it’s more of a revival via nostalgia more than a sendoff.)
Joaquin Phoenix, Lady Gaga. Written by Scott Silver and Todd Phillips. Directed by Todd Phillips.
The reviews for Joker: Folie à Deux are all over the place, with roughly a third saying it’s good, a third saying it’s terrible, and a third saying it’s a mixed bag. When opening weekend numbers indicated this sequel to 2019’s Joker would likely be the year’s biggest flop, I knew I had to see it.
It’s very well-made, with all the grays and blacks you expect in a Gotham City movie, plus spots of bright yellows and pinks to remind you this is a comic book movie. The score is dark and foreboding, although I wish there were slightly less of it in the film’s more thoughtful moments. The musical numbers are mostly fun to watch, even if they are more like repeats of characters’ thoughts we just heard than they are elaborations or revelations.
Joaquin Phoenix returns as Arthur Fleck, the Joker. Lady Gaga plays Lee, a version of Harley Quinn we haven’t yet seen in the movies. She is in love with Joker, the clown-faced murderer, not with Arthur, the lonely survivor of childhood abuse. She brings to Arthur, who is behind bars and about to stand trial for his crimes, a sense of hope and belonging.
This is the film’s tension. His future depends on convincing a jury that Joker is the murderer, a second personality Arthur created as protection from his terrible childhood, and that Arthur is the insane victim of an unspeakable past. Yet Lee, the single light in his darkness, loves Joker. We are led to wonder throughout the film whether Joker is the bad guy and Arthur the unwitting accomplice, or if there is no separation between them.
Phoenix and Gaga are fantastic in their roles, just riveting and heartbreaking and impossible to look away from. If the film had spent more time developing their relationship somehow, cutting a couple of musical numbers to make room, it could have been outstanding. Instead it’s just quite good and totally worth a look – as long as you don’t mind a dark, dismal nihilistic two and a half hours.
Definitely watch this before you let your kids see it. I’m giving it 75 out of 100. I love parts of it, but it’s got a few flaws and it’s too long!
The Dark Knight films are dark in terms of mood and lighting, and also in terms of the hero, but I would say that is relative to a superhero like Superman.
I want to avoid something darker–e.g., Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer.
Some quick comments on several movies I’ve seen recently.
The Linguine Incident (1991)
Dir. Richard Shepard
Starring: Rosanna Arquette, David Bowie. Ezsther Balint, Buck Henry, Andre Gregory, etc.
45/100
Lucy (Arquette), an aspiring escape artist, Monte (Bowie), a bartender needing to get married for a green card, decide to rob the restaurant they work at, pulling in Vivian, a Lucy’s friend and an aspiring women’s underwear designer.
This looked like a overlooked, quirky gem, especially since the Criterion Channel streamed. After seeing the film, the lack of notoriety seems deserved. The script and the acting were flat and lifeless for me.
The Lovers (2017)
Dir. Azazel Jacobs
Starring: Debra Winger, Tracey Letts, etc.
72/100
Very rarely does a film recover after I’ve disliked over half the movie. This was one of those rare exceptions. The film is an acting vehicle for Winger and Letts. Often the performances and/or characters created give these films merit, while the story maybe weak and the overall film may not be successful. Interestingly, one could argue the film turns this on its head. The acting and characters are solid, but the film–or the relationship of the two characters–made this film interesting for me. The character do have an odd relationship that I don’t see often in films.
Midnight Mary (1933)
Dir. William Wellman
Starring: Loretta Young, Franchot Tone, Richard Cortez, etc.
73/100
Mary comes from a poor background, losing her mother at a young age. She tries to work legitimately but is forced to associate with criminals. The film begins with her waiting for verdict of her trial, and goes through a series of flashbacks.
I was taken by Young, both in terms of her looks and her acting. (She has one or two really nice scenes.) I also enjoyed the chemistry between Tone, who was effective a charming and decent guy, and Young.
One interesting tidbit: The film was 70 minutes long. The ending is a little too compressed.
Rockabye (1932)
Dir. George Cukor
Starring: Constance Bennett, Joel McCrea, etc.
53/100
According to Criterion Channel, Bennett was a big star in the 30s. I don’t think I had ever heard of her. I actually didn’t like her performance, which was over-the-top theatrical, kind of reminding me of Bette Davis.
On Dangerous Ground (1938)
Dir. Nicolas Ray
Starring: Robert Ryan, Ida Lupino, etc.
77/100
I really liked this movie. Ryan plays a cop who is stewing with anger–anger that stems from dealing with criminals and riff-raff. Then the film takes an interesting left turn. I liked Luoino in this as well.
Inherit the Wind (1960)
Dir. Stanley Kramer
Starring: Spencer Tracy, Fredric March, Gene Kelly, etc.
43/100
Recently, I asked an acquaintance for courtroom drama recommendations, and he mentioned this. The film has been on my to see list for a while, partly because I like courtroom dramas. This one is based on the Scopes Monkey trial, involving a science teacher tried for teaching Evolution. Unfortunately, the film disappointed me. The arguments were sometimes hard to follow, and the ones I could follow didn’t seem all the compelling. Apparently, the playwright (the film is based on a play) claimed the film was not about religion vs. Evolution, but an attack on McCarthyism and promotion of free-thought. (That might explain my dissatisfaction with the arguments.)
Make Way for Tomorrow (1937)
Dir. Leo McCarey
Starring: Beulah Bondi, Victor Moore, etc.
59/100
Aging parents lose their homes and their adult children take them in, although the parents have to split it. The film functions like a heavy-handed admonishment of the way adult children (and society overall) deal with the dependent elderly individuals. Having said that, there were some moving moments. However, for a better, more subtle version, I would recommend Yasujiro Ozu’s Tokyo Story.
Human Desire (1954)
Dir. Fritz Lang
Starring: Glenn Ford, Gloria Grahame, Broderick Crawford, etc.
72/100
Jeff Warren (Ford) returns from the war (Korean?), going back to his job as a railroad engineer. He gets tangled in the problems Vicki (Grahame) and her railroad executive husband, Carl–in the process falling for Vicki,
Growing up, I knew of Marilyn Monroe, Grace Kelly, Lauren Bacall, but I was unfamiliar with Grahame. As an actor and a sex symbol, I feel like she should be better known. Solid film for me. As interesting shots of the train and maybe the way it served as a metaphor for desire.
You and Me (1933)
Dir. Friz Lang
Starring: Sylvia Sidney (Helen), George Raft (Joe Dennis), etc.
76/100
Helen and Joe, an ex-convict, work in a department store owned by a man who believes ex-convicts deserve a second chance. Helen and Jo begin to fall for each other, but Jo’s criminal pals want him to return to a life of crime.
Sidney was a revelation for me. (I’ve only seen her in one other film before this.) I found her to be luminous and compelling, particularly in more dramatic moments. Also, seeing Raft in as a more sympathetic lead, rather than a villain, was interesting.
Criterion Channel currently streams several Seijun Suzuki films, but about six of them will be leaving at the end of January, so I wanted to see those before that. Here are a few I recently watched:
8 Hours of Terror (1957)
35/100
The premise is really good–one that would be a good remake candidate. Roughly it’s like Spike Lee’s Get on the Bus, plus Wages of Fear/Sorcerer. A train breaks down, but the train company offers a bus for those eager to make it to their destination. The passengers are diverse group, representing different socio-economic backgrounds and occupations, including a police officer taking in a man guilty of killing his wife. Most of the route hugs a mountain, making the trip not without some risk. Making matters worse is that there are two bank robbers on the loose.
Ultimately, I think the film isn’t very good, because of poor or dated acting, preventing me from really getting into the movie. The thrills suspense are pretty dull as well, and I would guess most modern moviegoers would agree.
Man With a Shotgun (1961)
Clearly influenced by Spaghetti Westerns, especially by the Man With No Name films, although here Suzuki’s sets the film in a lush mountain setting, with the protagonist being a hunter-hiker.
The film involves a corrupt man in a small mountain town. The Man With a Shotgun comes to the town, proving his mettle, but leaving his purpose a mystery.
A B-movie that pales in comparison to the original.
Detective Bureau 2-3: Go to Hell Bastards (1963)
46/100
I’m not sure if this is the actual Japanese title, but this may be the best thing about the movie. A private detective goes undercover attempting to infiltrate a yakuza group, All the other details are not that interesting to me. Like the other films, the action is pretty dull. Jo Shishido is a somewhat appealing leading man, in spite of his chipmunk cheeks.
Zigeunerweisen (1980)
75/100
Like David Lynch’s Mulholland Drive or Inland Empire this film is impossible to grasp on one viewing. But like those two films I found this strangely compelling, although a little less so at times. I think the reason for the latter is Japanese-ness of the film, especially the way it seems tied to Japanese folktales and traditional Japanese theater. The latter is especially foreign to me, so I suspect this made the film not only harder to grasp, but harder to not get bored at times.
The film, the first in the Suzuk’s Taisho trilogy, follows two academic colleagues–both very different in dress and temperament. One is the stereotypical, straitlaced professor, while the other is a wild vagabond type, looking and acting like Toshiro Mifune character in Seven Samurai. We follow their relationship with a geisha and then their respective wives, as well as the dying sister of one of wives. But the plot is minimal and the narrative is very loose. Still, there is something hypnotic and compelling about the movie.
I saw the second and third films of the Suzuki’s Taisho trilogy–Kagero-za and Yumeji, respectively.
Kagero-za (1981)
90/100 (maybe higher)
After watching this, I felt this was a candidate for an all-time great film–and I say this without fully understanding the movie. (However, with more analysis and understanding my estimation could decline.)
Let me explain why I feel that way. Many artists who adopt a more post-modern approach–I’m thinking specifically of artists who draw from and attempt to synthesize many different material, including from different cultures or styles–often produce clunky art. The different influences seem slapped together and inorganic. The concept behind the art may be exciting, but the actual results lack refinement.
There are some exceptions–for example, Bill Frisell, who may be the most successful post-modern artists (although I wonder if others would put him under that label)–and that’s because his music distills the various influences into a seamless and organic whole.
Kagero-za may not be have fully distilled all of its influences, but I found the results exciting and satisfying, not to mention ambitious. Here, I want to mention some of the components Suzuki seems to be trying to amalgamate: Japanese folk tales, traditional Japanese theater, French New Wave cinema and European art filmmakers like Antonioni, and perhaps more that I’m unaware of.
The results are dream-like, reminding me of some of David Lynch’s films. (Yumeji, which didn’t affect me as much, made me think of Peter Greenaway.)
All these three films in the trilogy demand repeat viewings.
I’ve been enjoying Dustin Guy Defa’s films (including shorts), currently streaming on the Criterion Channel. I’m not exactly sure the reason for this. The films either lack a narrative or lack a really strong one. Instead, the films present interesting situations with good acting…although “interesting” may be too strong. The situations, themselves, are not always appealing, but the characters and the acting make these moments humorous, compelling, or even poignant.
It seems obvious that acting and characters (maybe in that order) is Defa’s wheelhouse–similar to Mike Leigh or John Cassavetes.
Person to Person (2017)
75/100
Person to Person (2014) (short film)
77/100
(Bene Coopersmith won me over for some reason.)
I mentioned I had difficulty explaining the reason I enjoyed these films. However, there was a reason I recently started watching some of his films, starting with the feature length film, Person to Person. “A record store owner tracks down a prized album”–that description got me hooked instantly. I think I’ll watch any film featuring a book or record store owner or a film set in a book store or record store, especially independently owned ones.
But this lead me to watch the short film Person to Person (starring Bene Coppersmith, Deragh Campbell), which inspired the feature-length film. In the short, Benny is the local record store owner (who later appears in the 2017 film). He has a party and the next day he finds an attractive woman sleeping on the floor of his apartment. Right off the bat I liked Benny. He’s really nice to her, bringing her coffee and breakfast. But he soon discovers that she refuses to leave his apartment. In a way, it’s a variation of Melville’s short story, Bartleby the Scrivener. (I liked that story, and I know Mitchell hated it, but I think he has a chance of liking this.)
In the feature length film, Benny appears again, only this time he’s goes to meet a guy selling a rare jazz album. He also has a good friend who is in trouble for posting nude pictures of his girlfriend. The film is essentially a collection of three or four short stories, with the film flip-flopping between them. In addition to Benny’s episode, there’s a story with about a reporter’s first day on the job, working for a smaller publication, being accompanied by one of the editors (Michael Sera). This story ties in with a guy (Phillip Baker Hall) who repairs watches. Finally, there’s a story about two high school girls cutting out from school and hanging out. (I don’t think these two characters have any connection to the other characters in the film.)
Flowers of Shanghai (1998)
Dir. Hou Hsiao-hsien
Starring: Tony Leung, Michiko Hada, etc.
90/100
Barry Lyndon and The Leopard are two films are noteworthy for their cinematography (mostly BL), costumes, and sets, at least for me. Indeed, I would say I appreciate those films primarily for those elements. Now, Flowers of Shanghai joins the list. Indeed, at some point I wondered if wanting to outdo Kubrick and Visconti was the impetus behind this film. Having said that, I found the film satisfying and successful beyond those elements. That is, the film satisfied me overall, more than the other two films.
In Barry Lyndon, Kubrick seems to want to recreate the look of European painters like Rembrandt, Vermeer, or other in that ballpark. Flowers also feels the feel of “moving” paintings, but it’s use of a slice-of-life, character portraits, versus a more traditional narrative in Barry and The Leopard (at least from what I recall), works better, and it’s one of the main reasons this worked worked better for me than the others. (The film also didn’t have actors like Ryan O’Neal to weaken the film; and Tony Leung had the opposite effect.)
One comment about the lighting. The look of the film reminded me of a Tamara de Lempica painting–the bright metallic colors with dark edges. In the film’s lighting makes the silk costumes and colors glimmer and glow like metal, and the restored version brings out the sumptuous details of all of this. It’s just gorgeous. (The filmmakers made silk costumes and actually built houses where the action took place. Interestingly, I can’t remember an exterior shot, and almost every shot take place in either a drawing room/dining space that look very similar.)
Raging Bull (1980)
Dir. Martin Scorsese
78/100
I can’t remember if this is my second or third time, but here are some quick thoughts:
Xanadu (1980)
Dir. Robert Greenwald
Starring: Olivia Newton-John, Michael Beck, Gene Kelly, etc.
16/100
This camera angles, production values, and acting reminded of a TV show from the late 70s (e.g., Buck Rodgers in the 21st Century), or a live action Saturday morning kids show (e.g. Sid and Marty Krofft shows).
Overall, I would say it’s a bad film, but I enjoyed hearing songs like “Xanadu,” “Suddenly,” and “Magic.” These songs, and experiencing the late 70’s TV look, prevented me from giving the film a lower score.
One other thing: The film tried to merge a older Hollywood musical style with more contemporary rock and pop music of the late 70s and roller skating(!). But overall it was disappointing, particularly the rather dull choreography.
Ishtar (1987)
Dir. Elaine May
Starring: Dustin Hoffman, Warren Beatty, Isabella Adjani, etc.
45/100
The opening scene excited me, and I thought I might really liked the film. Alas, while the film had some nice moments, it did not live up to my initial hopes. Still, it wasn’t bad. I liked what Hoffman and Beatty tried to do in this (even though Beatty was miscast…or it was a challenge that maybe Beatty wanted to take on). Indeed, I think their performances are part of the reason I could see this being a cult film.
Why watching this film, I wondered: Did critics hate and audiences hate Spies Like Us as well? Because this is not worse than that film, and I’d say it’s the better of the two.
Altered States (1980)
Dir. Ken Russell
Starring: William Hurt, Blair Brown, Charles Haid, etc.
72/100
If the first two acts of a film are bad or even mediocre, it’s rare that the last act can turn the film around. And Justice for All is best example of that for me. The turnaround was dramatic, but this film comes close. I’ll describe the reason I didn’t like the film and the way the film redeemed itself, at least somewhat, for me.
Eddie Jessup (Hurt) is a scientist who attempts to use psychedelic drugs to tap into memories and consciousness of our early ancestors and maybe even the earliest life forms. (That’s essentially the gist of the movie and if you don’t want to know anything else, don’t read on.)
**
The idea humans have memories or a consciousness of different evolutionary ancestors contained in us seems far-fetched, but not something I would entirely dismiss, although the notion is odd on several levels. Memories are exclusive to an individual–or at least that’s my assumption. Does each individual have a kind of collective memory–i.e., memories that stem from the collective experience of humanity? (If so, the word “memory” seems inappropriate. Memories are something that can enter our conscious minds, but if we have a collective memory that seems to exist only on a subconscious level.) Then maybe an individual could tap into the collective memory of an evolutionary ancestor?
But even if these ideas make sense on some level, the film actually goes further. Eventually tapping into these mental states can also lead to physical, “de-evolutionary” transformations. For me, this was too far-fetched, broke my suspension of disbelief
***
What saved the film for me was a more philosophical framing of Eddie’s quest–namely, that Eddie’s efforts stemmed from his desire for Truth, specifically getting back to the origins of life. That is, if Eddie could somehow gain awareness of what happened at the origin of life, he’d tap into the ultimate truth. (I don’t think this is an entirely sound idea, but there is some sense to it.)
What he learns is that there is no real Truth, no higher Truth. What people see and experience is all we have. Once Eddie realize this, he is drawn back to the people he loves. This doesn’t turn the movie around completely perhaps, but it makes it far more palatable to me.
Key dialogue:
Later:
The Devils (1971)
Dir. Ken Russell
Starring: Oliver Reed, Vanessa Redgrave, etc.
67/100
I was very wary of watching this, given the religious controversy over this film. But Russell strikes me as director with a strong individual voice, with ecstatic images and content, so I was very interested in seeing this.
The film claims that major acts in the film are historically accurate. It involves a small, fortified town in France during the 17th century. The governor has died and a priest, Grandier (Reed), has taken over temporarily. Cardinal Richelieu wants power, and to do so he must destroy the fortifications of all smaller towns. Grandier (and the King at the time) resists this.
There is also a subplot with involving a hunchbacked, head abbess, Sister Jeanne (Redgrave), and her nunnery. Jeanne and several of the other nuns are infatuated with Grandier–so much so that Sister Jeanne has vivid romantic/religious dreams involving him.
***
Maybe I’m misreading the film, but it seems essentially political–like a political version of Dreyer’s The Passion of Joan D’Arc. It also made me think of Braveheart, in terms of its theme.
As for the controversial scenes, I saw these primarily as manipulation of the nuns by the Grandier’s political enemies. The nuns, including Sister Jeanne, were victims; some of them may have been mentally ill or unstable as well.
Sleepwalkers (1992)
Dir. Mick Garris
Starring: Madchen Amick, etc.
20/100
The Criterion Channel streams B-movies, and even when I don’t like them a lot, I don’t question the decision to offer these films–until now. There can be value in watching B-movies or movies that aren’t very good, but I have a hard time making a case for this film (except for Madchen Amick’s beauty, which isn’t a good enough reason).
(Madchen Amick is beautiful, but her beauty couldn’t save this film.)
The film is based on a Stephen King story (and I believe King wrote the screenplay for this), involving a mother and son who are ancient shape shifting humanoids that survive by sucking the souls of female virgins. Besides this vulnerability, they are also vulnerable to cats.
***
I thought the film had potential to do something interesting and maybe even novel. In the movie, one of the sleepwalkers, who attends high school, writes a short story about a mother and son who constantly move from town to town–they’re lonely and misunderstood. The target of the sleepwalkers, his beautiful classmates, likes the story, tells the boy that he can relate to the characters. This opens an opportunity to make the sleepwalkers more sympathetic and interesting and it creates conflict between the boy and the girl.
But the film dismisses all of this in a rather clumsy way, reverting to a standard b-movie horror film.
Infernal Affairs (2002)
70/100
Infernal Affairs 2 (2003)
74/100
Infernal Affairs 3 (2003)
49/100
Dir. Andrew Lau Wai Keung and Alan Mak
Starring: Andy Lau, (Lau Kin-Ming) Tony Leung Chiu-wai (Chang Wing-lan), Anthong Wong (Superintendent Wong Ching-shi), Eric Tseng (Hon Sam, triad boss), etc. (Note: Tony Leung isn’t in the second film, and Andy Lau appears only briefly.)
I’ve had this trilogy on my list for a while now. I was interested in this because I thought that the second and third films were basically the same story with different endings or other changes. But I was mistaken.
I’ll briefly sum up the films:
The first film involves the police and triad taking young members of their group and cultivating them to become moles. I thought it was entertaining, but not exceptional.
The second film is a prequel of sorts. I liked this better–mainly because they fleshed out the relationship and developed the two characters I liked best–Wong and Sam.
The third film mostly proceeds after the first film, while adding two new major characters–an officer from the intelligence sector (national?) and a mysterious, ex-military figure from mainland China.
A few general comments:
Eric Tseng’s triad boss was interesting in that he’s more like avuncular and affable–someone you expect as sad sack and/or bungling character in a comedy. He never really conveyed a lot of menace, but he was still pretty effective in spite of this.
(According to some of the comments I heard from the filmmakers, they also wanted Tony Leung to be more happy, as opposed to constantly stressed out–thereby avoiding well-worn approach. This didn’t hurt the performance, but I didn’t think it added a lot either–and I say this as someone who really like Tony Leung Chiu-wai.)
One problem I had: The film has different actors play the younger versions of the two main characters. The younger versions about about 10 years younger or less, and they look really different from Lau and Leung. This wasn’t a major problem, but I would haven’t liked a better solution to this.
Irish Wish (2024)
Lindsay Lohan, Ed Speleers, Ayesha Curry, Elizabeth Tan, Alexander Vlahos. Written by Kirsten Hansen. Directed by Janeen Damian. Streaming on Netflix.
Paul Kennedy is an Irish writer of romantic novels. Maddie Kelly is his editor, and she is in love with him, but Paul is marrying Maddie’s best friend Emma. Days before the wedding, a fairy grants Maddie her wish, and now she is about to marry Paul instead. However, she has now (in two separate meet-cutes) met someone a lot more interesting.
Irish Wish is silly, predictable and mildly entertaining. If you don’t care much for romantic comedies, you’ll probably hate it. If you love romantic comedies, you’ll think it’s not a total waste of 90 minutes.
Lindsay Lohan is a talented actor still finding her space as a middle-aged leading lady. She channels Drew Barrymore in this role, and although it works, kind of, I’d much rather have seen a grown-up interpretation of Lohan’s Freaky Friday and The Parent Trap characters, with that sensible, down-to-earth likeability, rather than Barrymore’s starry-eyed head in the clouds.
The movie scores a few points with me for making the Asian Best Friend and Black Best Friend tropes sliiiiiightly less problematic, and for a few small literary references. I don’t have many dealbreakers (at my age, one cannot afford many dealbreakers), but I am a writer, and if I discover my fiancé does not know who my favorite writer is just a few days before our wedding, I am going to have a very serious talk – with myself. Irish Wish respects the importance of such things.
None of the characters is very well defined, which can make chemistry in a romantic comedy a tough sell. There is only enough convincing chemistry here where it matters most, so when we finally get the kiss, it’s at least believable. This is a rom-com’s minimum qualification, earning the film a 5 out of 10 (51/100) from me – just about average.
Thief (1981)
Dir. Michael Mann
Starring: James Caan, Tuesday Weld, James Belushi, Robert Prosky, etc.
75/100
Macho soap opera is the descriptor I used the first time I saw this. That is, if a male made a soap opera for men Thief would be the type of film one could expect, not just in terms of the depiction of males, but the way they interact with females in a romantic context. Specifically, the film is more of a macho fantasy that a realistic drama.
I think that description is still fairly apt, except the filmmaking is stylish and not cheap, particularly the filming of vehicles moving through the urban landscape and the Tangerine Dream score. (The latter was one of the more interesting aspects of the film.)
Those expecting a great action or heist film may be disappointed. I don’t think the film is exceptional in either sense. What I liked was one of the main themes/ideas behind the main character–namely, the way he had to not care about anything to survive. That is, he has to empty himself of any attachment or desire in order to survive in prison and overcome a threat from the mob. The idea echoes a philosophy I’ve encountered with Miyamoto Musashi or books on Bushido.
Here’s an example of the filmmaking I liked. (This scene and others also reminded me of shots from Blade Runner.)
For my film review column in the staff newsletter (now entering its eighth year) four months ago, I ranked films in the Alexander Payne filmography. Probably my favorite working director. Then today, Paste ranked the same films. Here’s my ranking.
1.
Sideways (2004), with Paul Giamatti, Thomas Haden Church, Virginia Madsen, and Sandra Oh. One of my 10 favorite films of all time, it’s just a wonderful character study with terrific dialogue and gorgeous cinematography. Payne won an Oscar for its screenplay; Haden Church and Madsen got supporting actor and actress nominations; Giamatti was feloniously snubbed for his acting.
2.
Nebraska (2013), with Will Forte, Bruce Dern, and June Squibb. A heartbreaker of a film and the second-funniest on this list at the same time. Dern thinks he has won a sweepstakes, so his son Forte drives him to Nebraska to claim a prize everyone knows isn’t real. It’s tender and sweet and maddening because I wish I wrote this. Nominated for six Oscars.
3.
The Descendants (2011), with George Clooney, Shailene Woodley, Beau Bridges, and Judy Greer, based on a novel by Kaui Hart Hemmings. We’ve all seen a lot of movies set in Hawai‘i. The Descendants is the one that most looks like the actual Hawai‘i you and I live in. This is some of Clooney’s best comedic and dramatic acting. Nominated for five Oscars.
4.
The Holdovers (2023), with Paul Giamatti, Da’Vine Joy Randolph, and Dominic Sessa. Giamatti is a grouchy teacher at a New England boarding school in the 70s forced to spend winter break watching the students who have nowhere to go for the holidays. It’s a film about unlikely connections and the heartbreaks we each carry with us. Nominated for five Oscars.
5.
Election (1999), with Matthew Broderick and Reese Witherspoon. A hilariously dark film about high-school politics. As a former high-school teacher, I am appalled by everyone’s behavior and don’t think anyone would actually behave this way, but a tiny part of me is also titillated and thrilled because it wouldn’t take much to set this stuff in motion. It’s a reminder that very often there is just the tiniest balance keeping our better selves from becoming our worst selves. Eek! Nominated for one Oscar, but Broderick and Witherspoon both offer fantastic performances.
6.
Citizen Ruth (1996) with Laura Dern, Swoosie Kurtz, Kelly Preston, and Burt Reynolds. A very funny, very sharp stab at both sides of a certain polarizing social issue. It’s not about the issue itself, but about the fanaticism the issue inspires. It’s Payne’s first major film and I’m amazed and impressed by how audacious it is. Creative, thoughtful, surprising.
7.
Downsizing (2017), with Matt Damon, Christoph Waltz, Hong Chau, and Kristen Wiig. Critics and audiences gave this box-office bomb mixed reviews, but I genuinely like it for its ambition and sensitivity. Science can now shrink people to about five inches in height, and Damon’s $100,000 savings is now worth $3 million if he downsizes and lives in a tiny city under a dome, where money goes a lot further. It doesn’t quite succeed, but I admire the creative ambition. Nominated for one Oscar.
8.
About Schmidt (2002), with Jack Nicholson and Kathy Bates. Nominated for two Oscars it didn’t deserve, this is the only film on the list I don’t care for. It has its charms but feels aimless, although it’s still well-directed, and I might be missing something because people seem to love it.
PASTE:
1. Election
2. About Schmidt
3. Nebraska
4. Sideways
5. Citizen Ruth
6. Downsizing
7. The Holdovers
8. The Descendants
https://www.pastemagazine.com/movies/alexander-payne/every-alexander-payne-movie-ranked
The Holdovers sounds like a film you would like, and so your moderate rating cools my interest in it (not that my interest was all that hot).
In addition to that film, I haven’t seen Downsizing, and Citizen Ruth. I like the premise of the former, so I’ve been mildly interested in that. But the lukewarm reaction to the film suggests that it wasn’t that good. (The again, I was recently re-watching Devil in a Blue Dress which also got a lukewarm reaction when it first screened, and I think that was a terrific film, although I haven’t finished watching it.)
As for Citizen Ruth, I like Laura Dern, so that’s still on my list.
The only film on the list I don’t care for is About Schmidt. I’m very fond of the rest, including The Holdovers, which I bought on Blu-Ray the day it was released. 🙂
For me the films range from OK to a little more than that–at least in terms of my enthusiasm for them. The one possible exception is Election–which I may not have loved, but stood out as something more interesting, original, and spicy; the other films seem bland in comparison.
The Baker’s Wife (1938)
Dir. Marcel Pagnol
Starring: Raimu, Ginette Leclerc, Fernand Charpin, Robert Vattier, Robert Bassac (schoolteacher), etc.
87/100
Before watching this film, I read an astonishing claim about one of the actors. According to Orson Welles, either Raimu was the greatest actor of all time or this was one of the greatest performances. Raimu? I never heard of him, nor do I recall seeing him in any films. Of all the discussions and comments about great actors, including French ones, I can’t recall ever hearing his name. Could Welles be right? I was skeptical, and this moderated my expectations, although I was curious to see him perform.
When Raimu first appears on screen, and for what felt like a considerable amount of time, his performance never challenged my moderate expectations. It was fine, either exceptional or poor–solidly establishing that his character matched his name (Aimable).
I’ll say more about his performance, but let me say a bit about the movie. A New baker, Aimable (Raimu), arrrives in small French town, replacing a poor one. His beautiful, young wife, Aurelie (LeClerc) accompanies him, and eventually their marriage is tested in some way.
**
It’s rare that film from this time period can really resonate or entertain me the way this one did. No doubt my enjoyment of the film stems a little from low expectations, but I don’t think that explains everything. The acting, not just by Raimu, but several of the other actors, and the dialogue were really good. (The film makes me more interested in Marcel Pagnol, whole is a playwright.) My guess is that the film would entertain modern audiences, at least those who could overcome any prejudices against older, black-and-white films with subtitles.
***
So what about the verdict on Raimu? My response: Orson Welles’s claim is not outlandish. Again not having high expectations probably helped. Additionally, Raimu, early on establishes his character’s good-natured, and mild mannered personality, while also not giving into suspicions or jealousy. Later when we see an eruption of anger and pathos, it not only surprised me, but it was also natural and believable–all of which gave greater impact to those moments.
In the past week or so, I saw several Asian-American documentaries playing on the Criterion Collection, and one on PBS. Here are some quick comments of each:
My America…or Honk if You Love Buddha (1997)
Dir. Renee Tajima-Pena
A film that finds Asian Americans in different parts of the country and tells their stories, while also interweaving Tajima-Pena’s personal history. The film does focus quite a bit on one Asian American, the actor Victor Wong. The sense I get is that Tajima-Pena started out with the basic framework I describe above, but Wong’s life and story seemed really interesting–and perhaps he gave a lot more of his time than she expected–that half the film feels like a biography of Wong. The film was interesting, but it’s a bit uneven and not really unified.
I Was Born But… (2004)
Dir. Roddy Bogawa
Part performance film–of Bogawa as a vocalist in an L.A. punk rock band–and part documentary on 80’s L.A. and NYC. There are some nice visuals at times, and the one thing I liked about Bogawa’s vocals is that it sounds like a California Asian, with a quite, breathy style that is completely unlike any other punk vocals I’ve heard.
Ultimately, I didn’t really care for it, but that’s partly due to being so unfamiliar with the punk groups that Bogawa discusses.
95 and 6 to Go (2016)
Dir. Kimi Takesue
Takaeue hangs out and films her 95 year old grandfather who lives in Hawai’i. Takesue is working on a feature-length film, and she has her grandfather read the script and give her suggestions. It’s a charming idea, and while there are a few interesting moments, for the most part, I would say the idea is better than the actual results. The film’s pacing is a big slow as well. In spite of these deficiencies, by the end, I found the grandpa really likable and charming. I also liked that the film captures a local Japanese old man (in a way that’s different from Mr. Miyagi).
Twinsters (2015)
Dir. Samantha Futerman and Ryan Miyamoto
I don’t think I can describe this without giving away details that I think would be better left unknown to viewers, but I’ll just say that it starts with Samantha Futerman, an ethnically Korean adoptee, who is also an aspiring actor. The first third or half of the film kept me really engaged, but the film lost a little steam after that. But it was still mildly entertaining and interesting.
Halving the Bones (1995)
Dir. Ruth Ozeki
Ozeki attends her grandmother’s funeral in Japan and brings back a few bones of her grandmother for her mother, who could not (or would not) attend. But Ozeki doesn’t give the bones to her mother for a while, partly or mainly because she’s a bit estranged from her. The film follows Ozeki as she finally makes the journey to see her mom.
However, much of the film focuses on her grandmother and grandfather (the parents of Ozeki’s mom). Ozeki shoots a lot of this in old black and white prints, slightly reminiscent of Guy Maddin, while also using old photographs. I really liked these visual elements. To me they were the best part of the film.
Asian Americans (2017)
Produced by Renee Tajima-Pena
A comprehensive series about Asian-Americans is a massive and challenging project. Finding focus and coherence seem like impossible tasks. Tajima-Pena doesn’t really succeed, but the series was satisfying overall.
The Marseille Trilogy
Marius (1931)
Dir. Alexander Korda
Fanny (1932)
Dir. Marc Allegret
Cesar (1936
Starring: Raimu (Cesar Olivier), Pierre Fresnay (Marius), Orane Demazis (Fanny), Fernand Charpin (Honore Panisse), Alida Rouf (Honorine Cabinis), Paul Dellac/Auguste Mourriès (Escartefigue), Alexandre Mihalesco (Piquoiseau), Robert Vattier (Brun), Édouard Delmont (Dr Félicien Venelleet), etc.
The Marcel Pagnol films, streaming on the Criterion Channel, have been one of most pleasant surprises this year. For one thing, I don’t expect films from the 30s (or earlier) to entertain me to the same degree as Hollywood movies from subsequent decades. It’s kind of shocking when it happens. The Baker’s Wife and The Marseille Trilogy, which I recently watched shocked me. (I actually almost gave up on the series, primarily because I mistakenly watched the second film first.)
What I find interesting about these films is the way they made me think of TV shows–specifically family dramas and to a lesser degree family-based sitcoms. The trilogy feels like a precursor to these TV shows, and I wouldn’t be surprised if they served as an inspiration to some people like Norman Lear. (Speaking of inspiration, Raimu’s Cesar seems like the model for Jackie Gleeson’s Ralph Cramden.) The films have a similar sensibility, in terms of drama and comedy and would appeal to a similar audience. The recurring support cast also makes this films feel many TV shows that would follow. Finally, visually, particularly the sets, also feels like early TV shows, where the sets and look and feel like a play.
One last thing. I enjoyed the acting–particularly of Raimu and the larger-than-life character he creates, a character n the vein of Ralph Cramden, but maybe even someone like Archie Bunker (although the characters are very different). Orane Demazis also stood out for me, particularly her crying.
Space is the Place (1972)
Dir. John Coney
Starring: Sun Ra, etc.
67/100
I don’t know if this is a good movie or not, but I did interest me, although until recently I would have thought this movie was awful. This is a 70’s B-movie, arguably a blaxploitation film, although a very different (read: thoughtful) one. In some ways the film reminds me of Melvin van Peebles’s Sweet Sweetback’s Baadasssss Song. Both films are interesting because they’re so different from most other Hollywood films, and while the craftsmanship, from the acting, writing, cinematography, set pieces, is B-movie quality, both films have a coherent vision and original voice.
For whatever reason, I passed over Sun Ra and his music, when investigating free jazz. Maybe his odd character (e.g., he claimed he was born on another planet) and the EWF, sci-fi costumes he and his Arkestra donned killed my interest. Whatever the reason, I’ve now discovered that he actually has some interesting ideas behind these odd elements surrounding him. For example, in a discussion with some black youth, Ra explains that black people are myths, they’re not real. If they were real they would be treated with more dignity; they wouldn’t be struggling for basic rights. In ways that I don’t fully understand, Ra seems to link this to myths of the past (e.g., Egyptian), with him serving as a connection to these myths. Ultimately, the goal is to find some liberation for black people–a spiritual “place”–i.e., state of mind/being–where blacks can find dignity and respect that whites experience. Music is one, or the, primary vehicle to achieving this. Hokey? Maybe–but the idea that music, or art, can transport people to a different state or different perspective isn’t so far-fetched to me. (I’m skeptical that the effect could be long-lasting and deep for large numbers of people.)
Oh one other thing. Ra speaks of another planet where black people can go to, without whites, and find dignity and respect, and this is the link with (outer) space. My guess is that Ra means this in a metaphorical way, and that music is again the best vehicle for arriving at this place.
I don’t think the film expresses these ideas in an aesthetically successful way, but I think Ra’s ideas are interesting, and the desire for respect and dignity for black people are totally worthy.
Oddly, I recently re-watched Smokey and the Bandit. I say odd because while I enjoyed the movie when it first came out, soon afterward I lost completely interest in it, and remained indifferent. I guess because it appeared on Netflix I was mildy curious if it would appeal to me on any level.
Here are some general thoughts:
Brats (2024)
Dir. Andrew McCarthy
66/100
Andrew McCarthy interviews some of his fellow brat-packers in this documentary. A film for Gen Xers who liked and/or were strongly affected by the John Hughes-type of films in the 80s.
I wouldn’t say it’s a great film, but there is a nostalgia factor that made it appealing. McCarthy meeting these actors reminded me of my meeting with some of my former high school classmates. Even if I haven’t them in a long time, there is a good feeling and significant connection that I feel.
Two documentaries I recently watched, randomly–Searching for Mr. Rugoff and Z Channel: a Story of Obsession ended up having an interesting connection. Both were about passionate but difficult-to-work-with individuals who promoted independent and foreign movies–the former owned a few movie theaters in New York and the latter ran an early cable TV company (Z Channel) in California.
Unfortunately, their businesses eventually ended, which is sad, but the fact that they lasted as long as they did is special in some ways. (It reminds me of the arthouse theaters at Restaurant Row or even Border’s bookstore. When both existed, they seemed to good to be true–something couldn’t really last for long.)
Both of these films reminded me of the Criterion Channel, which seems like the contemporary version of Rugoff’s theaters and the Z Channel. I’m definitely going to enjoy it while it lasts.
Fury (2014)
Dir. David Ayer
Starring: Brad Pitt (Don “Wardaddy”), Logan Lerman (Norman/Machine), Shia LeBeouf (Boyd/Bible), Jon Bernthal (Grady/Coon Ass), Michael Pena (Trini/Gordo), etc.
55/100
I have very little interest in a contemporary WWII action film–this one involving a tank unit venturing into Germany–but I recall this a good buzz about this film, so it was on my radar. Still, I had little desire to see it, but for some reason I watched it yesterday.
The verdict? To me, the film kept my attention, but, overall, I don’t think it’s a very good movie, not something I’d really recommend–although I suspects fans of action would find this somewhat satisfying, if not more than that.
***
Some things I didn’t like: well-worn trope of young soldier losing his innocence, while really adding nothing; implausible situations at the end, which took me out of the film; two scenes that should have been edited.
One Upon a Time in America (1984)
Dir. Sergio Leone
Starring: Robert De Niro (David “Noodle” Aaronson), James Woods (Max Bercovicz) James Hayden (Patrick “Patsy” Goldberg), William Forsythe (Phillip “Cockeye” Stein), Elizabeth McGovern (Deborah Gelly), Larry Rapp (Fat Moe Kelly) , etc.
29/100
229 minutes
Because I don’t have the energy to write a proper review, I want to dive into the problems I had with the film. Before that, here’s a brief description: a Jewish-American version of The Godfather I and II, utilizing an even more complex flashback structure. However, unlike those Godfather movies, this movie revolves around a group of friends rather than a family. By the way, even though I didn’t like the film, it’s worth watching just to for the comparisons and contrast with Coppola’s films.
***
One caveat before listing my problems. Like Erich von Stroheim’s Greed and Welles’s Magnificent Ambersons, the studios really butchered the film–not only reducing the run time, but completing changing the structure, putting it in chronological order. One some level, I don’t feel I can really judge theses films–or at least not hold the directors responsible for any deficiencies. This is especially true for Greed and Magnificent Ambersons. On the other hand, I feel this is less true for Leone’s film. I saw a version that was much closer to what Leone had in mind, with some missing footage. The thing is, I strongly suspect adding the footage would not make a significant difference.
Why is that? This brings me to one of the biggest problems I had with the film–namely, Robert De Niro’s performance. To me, his performance was largely flat and inert, and left me cold to his character, but left me cold to his relationships with Max and Deborah, which were critical to the film.
I’m not exactly sure of the reasons De Niro’s performance didn’t work for me, but here are some possibilities:
Some other problems I had with the film:
Some quick comments about films I’ve seen in the last month or two:
The Last Show (1978)
Dir. Robert Benton
Starring: Art Carney, Lily Tomlin, etc.
78/100
One of the odder couples in film that surprisingly worked for me. Margo (Tomlin), a kooky character who embodies the the spirit of the 60s (at least echoes of it) hires Ira Wells (Carney), an aging detective right out of Philip Marlowe vein, to find her cat. Carney, overweight and balding, seems miscast, but he’s not in my view.
I loved this movie when I first saw it many years ago, and looked forward to watching it again. Perhaps, I was a little less enthusiastic, but not by much. In my view, I think it’s a good film that will completely satisfy viewers with little or no expectations, but could slightly disappoint viewers with high expectations. In any event, I think it deserves the criterion treatment.
One final comment. I would lump this film with other 70’s movies that almost wave goodbye the genres–specifically, westerns and detective/noirs–e.g., The Wild Bunch, The Shootist, Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid. It’s as if the filmmakers feel like they’ve exhausted the genres, and make these films as a sendoff, rather than just dump them to the curb. I kinda wish filmmakers would do something similar to other genres. (I guess The Expendables are sort of like this, but it’s more of a revival via nostalgia more than a sendoff.)
More later
Joker: Folie à Deux (2024)
Joaquin Phoenix, Lady Gaga. Written by Scott Silver and Todd Phillips. Directed by Todd Phillips.
The reviews for Joker: Folie à Deux are all over the place, with roughly a third saying it’s good, a third saying it’s terrible, and a third saying it’s a mixed bag. When opening weekend numbers indicated this sequel to 2019’s Joker would likely be the year’s biggest flop, I knew I had to see it.
It’s very well-made, with all the grays and blacks you expect in a Gotham City movie, plus spots of bright yellows and pinks to remind you this is a comic book movie. The score is dark and foreboding, although I wish there were slightly less of it in the film’s more thoughtful moments. The musical numbers are mostly fun to watch, even if they are more like repeats of characters’ thoughts we just heard than they are elaborations or revelations.
Joaquin Phoenix returns as Arthur Fleck, the Joker. Lady Gaga plays Lee, a version of Harley Quinn we haven’t yet seen in the movies. She is in love with Joker, the clown-faced murderer, not with Arthur, the lonely survivor of childhood abuse. She brings to Arthur, who is behind bars and about to stand trial for his crimes, a sense of hope and belonging.
This is the film’s tension. His future depends on convincing a jury that Joker is the murderer, a second personality Arthur created as protection from his terrible childhood, and that Arthur is the insane victim of an unspeakable past. Yet Lee, the single light in his darkness, loves Joker. We are led to wonder throughout the film whether Joker is the bad guy and Arthur the unwitting accomplice, or if there is no separation between them.
Phoenix and Gaga are fantastic in their roles, just riveting and heartbreaking and impossible to look away from. If the film had spent more time developing their relationship somehow, cutting a couple of musical numbers to make room, it could have been outstanding. Instead it’s just quite good and totally worth a look – as long as you don’t mind a dark, dismal nihilistic two and a half hours.
Definitely watch this before you let your kids see it. I’m giving it 75 out of 100. I love parts of it, but it’s got a few flaws and it’s too long!
This pretty much kills whatever interest I had, which wasn’t all that much to begin with.
Isn’t pretty much all the Dark Knight stuff dark, dismal, and nihilistic? Maybe not so nihilistic.
The Dark Knight films are dark in terms of mood and lighting, and also in terms of the hero, but I would say that is relative to a superhero like Superman.
I want to avoid something darker–e.g., Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer.
Some quick comments on several movies I’ve seen recently.
The Linguine Incident (1991)
Dir. Richard Shepard
Starring: Rosanna Arquette, David Bowie. Ezsther Balint, Buck Henry, Andre Gregory, etc.
45/100
Lucy (Arquette), an aspiring escape artist, Monte (Bowie), a bartender needing to get married for a green card, decide to rob the restaurant they work at, pulling in Vivian, a Lucy’s friend and an aspiring women’s underwear designer.
This looked like a overlooked, quirky gem, especially since the Criterion Channel streamed. After seeing the film, the lack of notoriety seems deserved. The script and the acting were flat and lifeless for me.
The Lovers (2017)
Dir. Azazel Jacobs
Starring: Debra Winger, Tracey Letts, etc.
72/100
Very rarely does a film recover after I’ve disliked over half the movie. This was one of those rare exceptions. The film is an acting vehicle for Winger and Letts. Often the performances and/or characters created give these films merit, while the story maybe weak and the overall film may not be successful. Interestingly, one could argue the film turns this on its head. The acting and characters are solid, but the film–or the relationship of the two characters–made this film interesting for me. The character do have an odd relationship that I don’t see often in films.
Midnight Mary (1933)
Dir. William Wellman
Starring: Loretta Young, Franchot Tone, Richard Cortez, etc.
73/100
Mary comes from a poor background, losing her mother at a young age. She tries to work legitimately but is forced to associate with criminals. The film begins with her waiting for verdict of her trial, and goes through a series of flashbacks.
I was taken by Young, both in terms of her looks and her acting. (She has one or two really nice scenes.) I also enjoyed the chemistry between Tone, who was effective a charming and decent guy, and Young.
One interesting tidbit: The film was 70 minutes long. The ending is a little too compressed.
Rockabye (1932)
Dir. George Cukor
Starring: Constance Bennett, Joel McCrea, etc.
53/100
According to Criterion Channel, Bennett was a big star in the 30s. I don’t think I had ever heard of her. I actually didn’t like her performance, which was over-the-top theatrical, kind of reminding me of Bette Davis.
On Dangerous Ground (1938)
Dir. Nicolas Ray
Starring: Robert Ryan, Ida Lupino, etc.
77/100
I really liked this movie. Ryan plays a cop who is stewing with anger–anger that stems from dealing with criminals and riff-raff. Then the film takes an interesting left turn. I liked Luoino in this as well.
More short “reviews”
Inherit the Wind (1960)
Dir. Stanley Kramer
Starring: Spencer Tracy, Fredric March, Gene Kelly, etc.
43/100
Recently, I asked an acquaintance for courtroom drama recommendations, and he mentioned this. The film has been on my to see list for a while, partly because I like courtroom dramas. This one is based on the Scopes Monkey trial, involving a science teacher tried for teaching Evolution. Unfortunately, the film disappointed me. The arguments were sometimes hard to follow, and the ones I could follow didn’t seem all the compelling. Apparently, the playwright (the film is based on a play) claimed the film was not about religion vs. Evolution, but an attack on McCarthyism and promotion of free-thought. (That might explain my dissatisfaction with the arguments.)
Make Way for Tomorrow (1937)
Dir. Leo McCarey
Starring: Beulah Bondi, Victor Moore, etc.
59/100
Aging parents lose their homes and their adult children take them in, although the parents have to split it. The film functions like a heavy-handed admonishment of the way adult children (and society overall) deal with the dependent elderly individuals. Having said that, there were some moving moments. However, for a better, more subtle version, I would recommend Yasujiro Ozu’s Tokyo Story.
Human Desire (1954)
Dir. Fritz Lang
Starring: Glenn Ford, Gloria Grahame, Broderick Crawford, etc.
72/100
Jeff Warren (Ford) returns from the war (Korean?), going back to his job as a railroad engineer. He gets tangled in the problems Vicki (Grahame) and her railroad executive husband, Carl–in the process falling for Vicki,
Growing up, I knew of Marilyn Monroe, Grace Kelly, Lauren Bacall, but I was unfamiliar with Grahame. As an actor and a sex symbol, I feel like she should be better known. Solid film for me. As interesting shots of the train and maybe the way it served as a metaphor for desire.
You and Me (1933)
Dir. Friz Lang
Starring: Sylvia Sidney (Helen), George Raft (Joe Dennis), etc.
76/100
Helen and Joe, an ex-convict, work in a department store owned by a man who believes ex-convicts deserve a second chance. Helen and Jo begin to fall for each other, but Jo’s criminal pals want him to return to a life of crime.
Sidney was a revelation for me. (I’ve only seen her in one other film before this.) I found her to be luminous and compelling, particularly in more dramatic moments. Also, seeing Raft in as a more sympathetic lead, rather than a villain, was interesting.