Another Monday Movie Review folks. Man, am I crazy about movies. Like you didn’t already know. It’s become a passion for me. I live, breathe, sleep it. Of course you know about the watching and the writing about movies from this column. That’s not the end of it. When I’m not watching or writing I’m reading. In magazines like Entertainment Weekly and Rolling Stone. On websites, like Entertainment Weekly’s site, Ain’t It Cool News, DVD blogs, and of course Amazon. In books, like Roger Ebert’s Great Movies, Peter Traver’s 1,000 Best Movies on DVD and 1,001 Movies You Must See Before You Die. When I’m not doing any of these things you’ll probably find me…talking about movies.
You all know by now that I keep statistics on my habits. Instead of leveling out or calming down like I keep expecting, my behavior just gets more intense year after year. Let’s look at the first month of the new year, why don’t we? In January I bought 53 DVDs. That’s not a typo. I saw 47 movies. 7 at the movie theater. I saw 40 movies for the very first time. I also wrote a movie review for every movie I saw in January. That’s a lot of reviews! And that’s damn time consuming. I don’t know if you’ve ever tried writing that much on a regular basis. It ain’t easy. Especially since when I do have the free time to write, I generally want to instead watch another movie, thus making my workload greater. Right now I could be writing reviews. I’m not. I’m stupid. I’m obsessed. I know. Enjoy the reviews!
(January 30)
——Fat Girl (2001)——
This is a rather startling depiction of female sexuality that is never boring, about fat 12-year-old Anais and her older beautiful sister, Elena. Anais witnesses her sister fall in love with (and then be taken advantage of) a college student while on vacation in a dreary seaside town. Anais says it is better to lose one’s virginity to someone you don’t love because then it will make things easier when you do meet the person you are meant to love. Elena believes the opposite, but should have listened to her sister, since the manipulative older man uses her love to violate her voluntarily.
This depiction of sexuality is shocking and quite graphic, but realistic in tone and mood. The story is as much about sex as it is about sisters, as Anais witnesses her sister’s corruption the two of them are equally as much best friends as they are enemies, just like real sisters.
The ending is something else entirely. You are either going to go with it or hate it. Either way it’s a shocking and unexpected way to end the movie. I think it works though. I won’t give you a hint as to what happens though. That’s up to you to see.
(SEE)
——Ikiru (1952)——
I would describe this to other people simply as Akira Kurosawa’s It’s a Wonderful Life (1946). The basic ideas of the two stories of very similar, only the themes and tone of the films are different. Ikiru in Japanese means “to live” and that’s just what the main character has to learn to do. An aging bureaucrat learns that he has stomach cancer and has but a few months left to live. He is horrified at first to learn this because on reflection back on his life he realizes that he never has really lived. He’s lead a rather empty and meaningless existence, shuffling papers back and forth, putting his stamp on each one just to say that he has read it. He’s never missed a day in 30 years and never really lived a day in that same time. He’s convinced himself that he has done it all for his son, who doesn’t even know or respect him.
He stops going to work to figure out how to live. First he goes around with a writer to bars, dance halls, brothels, living the young life. It’s all rather meaningless though and doesn’t make him feel any better. He then dotes on a vibrant girl who has also quit the office, hoping to figure out what makes her seem so alive. Finally he figures out that it is because she feels she has some purpose in life. That’s what living is, having a purpose, something he never could have understood simply stamping papers all day long. But what is his purpose?
Watanabe remembers a group of women who want a cesspool cleaned up and a park put up in its place for their children. His quest and purpose becomes to cut through all of the red tape and overcome the bureaucratic selfishness to make that park become a reality. What’s really interesting about this film is that the second half of it takes place after Watanabe has died at his wake. All of his fellow bureaucrats are there, convincing themselves that Watanabe should not get credit for construction of the park, that much more powerful and important men are responsible for its creation. Only one man sticks up for Watanabe and only after much reflection on what Watanabe did before his death does anyone realize that Watanabe might actually have been the only one responsible for the project ever becoming a reality. At the end of the wake all their swear that they will be more like Watanabe, but come work the next day only the man that originally stuck up for Watanabe remembers their promise.
From the outside this film can appear quite depressing (in fact that was exactly what my mom thought coming in late and only watching the final half-hour or so). But it’s not. Like It’s a Wonderful Life it takes all of those depressing feelings to really bring out how life affirming the whole thing is (come to think of it, my mom also finds It’s a Wonderful Life depressing). It doesn’t matter that the other men see what Watanabe has accomplished. What Kurosawa is telling us is that “to live” should only matter to ourselves. Living is not about other people’s perception of us but in how we perceive ourselves. The final image of Watanabe alive, swinging in the park he has helped create singing joyfully a song about the impermanence of life that earlier he had sung so depressingly, shows us our first real glimpse of a man truly happy. He’s accomplished something important, he’s given himself a purpose, and with that thought in his head he can die happy. Kurosawa has created a parable for living that can melt even the coldest of hearts.
(MUST SEE)
——Caged Heat (1974)——
You know, I wasn’t as impressed with this as I had hoped to be. I had heard things about it like that it was “the mother of all women-in-prison movies” and I was intrigued by the fact that it was the first film directed by Jonathan Demme (Silence of the Lambs (1990)). While Demme does do some very interesting an exciting things in the movie, the parts didn’t really add up to the whole for me, unfortunately.
The basic plot is familiar to anyone who has ever seen a women-in-prison flick: a crazy warden, rivals in cat fights, nude group showers. Where this film is kind of unique is where two rivals manage to escape together only to then actually break back IN to prison to break their friends out and save them from the sadistic warden and the crazy doctor. They do so with a girl named Crazy who actually is crazy. The whole thing is rather fun and entertaining. And there are a lot of good parts to the movie. Fans of the genre should check this out, but to everyone else this isn’t essential.
(MISS)
(January 31)
——Do the Right Thing (1989)——
I’m kind of surprised that after watching this film anyone would think that Spike Lee was advocating mob violence to black violence, and I doubt that today many people probably would think that, but I guess back when it came out things were different. Do the Right Thing is such a beautiful film about black culture and race relations on one particular street in Brooklyn in the summer of 1989. Every character, no matter how minor, seems to get his own time in the sun, so to speak. There are no heroes or villains. Everyone has their good characteristics and their bad, just like in real life, which is what makes the ending so tragic and heartfelt.
Sal, a white Italian-American, has run a pizza joint in this black neighborhood for years with his two sons. Everyone loves Sal and everyone has grown up eating Sal’s pizza. He takes pride in that. His two sons are polarized on the race issue. One has no ill feelings towards the neighborhood and is best friends with the pizzaboy, our main character, Mookie. The other hates the neighborhood and the blacks, even though his favorite musician, athlete and actor are all black. Everything seems to be going fine as usual in the neighborhood until Buggin Out, a regular, berates Sal for only having pictures of famous Italian-Americans on his wall. Since all of his customers are black, where are the pictures of famous African-Americans? He stages a boycott that at first falls on the deaf ears of the community who has no interest in giving up Sal’s pizza. It’s only when Sal yells at Radio Raheem to turn down his boombox (constantly playing Public Enemy’s Fight the Power) that Buggin gains another supporter.
It’s really only at the end of the film that everything turns tragic though, as for the majority of the picture we are just getting to know the rich and colorful inhabitants of the block. We like everyone, no matter how crazy or ill-advised they may seem. But when unnecessary police brutality invades the street all hell breaks loose. What I found extremely interesting was that the catalyst to all of the destruction was Mookie, Sal’s friend, also played by the director, Spike Lee. What Lee was trying to say in the film I think can be debated by you all after seeing this amazing film.
(MUST SEE)
——Zatoichi the Outlaw (1967)——
Zatoichi, for those who don’t know, was a popular character in Japan who has been played by Katsu Shintaro in countless films (at least 20, by my count). Zatoichi is a blind wandering masseur, who just also happens to be an amazing swordsman with his cane-sword. Zatoichi the Outlaw is a pretty standard samurai tale about a village Zatoichi wanders into that is under the control of two rival gambling houses. One of the leaders of these houses shows unusual kindness to the villagers under his protection, an action that Zatoichi greatly admires. Another disturbance happens and Zatoichi takes care of the men of the rival house, only to go off on his way hero to the people.
Later, however, he finds out that the good gang boss was just using him to take out the competition and now is even worse to the villagers than the first boss. On top of that he has taken prisoner a ronin who has given up his sword to teach the farmers how to better cultivate the rice crop and has preached to them an end to gambling. Zatoichi, realizing what he has done comes back to the village to set things right.
This is a pretty standard samurai movie, nothing really standing out other than Katsu’s always strong performance as Zatoichi. Fans of the genre will want to see this, but everyone else will probably want to
(MISS)
——Knife in the Water (1962)——
Roman Polanski’s first feature in Poland is a knock-it-out-of-the-park beautiful psychological thriller. The premise is simple: A couple meets a hitchhiking student on their way to sailing for the day and they invite him to come along with them. There are no other characters. The only setting is the lake, the only set the very small sailboat they take off in. What follows is a very tight plot of female sexuality and male competition. The two men compete for the woman’s attention, the older one using his worldly experience and knowledge of sailing to humiliate the fish-out-of-water student, while the younger student uses his physical presence and virility to impress the woman. At the same time she is undergoing a transformation herself. Starting out very plain looking at the start of the film, she loses the glasses and the stiff clothing to become more seductive and wanton in appearance.
What’s truly amazing about the film is its photography. Since the boat is so small the camera in most shots is literally inches away from one character’s face while the other two move about in the background, creating an uneasy feeling of claustrophobia and a loss of personal space. You’re right there to see all of the submerged emotions boil up to the surface. And the screenplay is surprisingly tight, leaving nothing on the fringes or unnecessary. Sometimes it is the simplest stories with the simplest setups that make the biggest impressions.
(MUST SEE)
——The Last House of the Left (1972)——
To my knowledge this is probably the only horror film based on a film of Ingmar Bergman (see my review of The Virgin Spring, below). That fact alone would probably warrant the movie a place in the history books, but this first film of Wes Craven goes much further than that. While some of the more comedic scenes in the film fall flat, the tension and horror of the film are built up quite well in a film that despite its origins is startlingly original.
Mari, on 17th birthday, goes out to see a concert with a more experienced friend in a bad neighborhood where they happen to run into a gang of escaped murders and rapists. They stow the two girls in the trunk of their car and take off out of town, only for their car to break down in the woods right outside of Mari’s house. The two girls are taken into the woods, humiliated, tortured, raped and then ultimately killed. This section of the film is probably the best done. After going back to their car and finding it unable to be fixed, they stay the night in the house the broke down in front of, that of unknowing Mari’s parents. Mari’s mother finally figures it all out and the two parents take their revenge.
While the film has its low points (most notably with the unneeded sequences of the bumbling cops unable to get to Mari’s house in time) the scenes of terror still work quite well. The rape and revenge genre created greater films later on (I’m thinking of I Spit on Your Grave (1978) and Thriller: They Call Her One Eye (1974)) this film that started the horror golden age of the 70’s still holds up well.
(SEE)
(February 1)
——The Red Shoes (1948)——
This is a beautifully directed film by Michael Powell about the ballet industry and the tragedy that can befall it. A ballet impresario hand-picks two fresh genius talents to join his company–one, a student composer eager to make his mark in the world and the other a young ballerina primed to become the next best thing. He sees that flame of greatness in them that no one else sees. After the two spend a little time learning their trade the impresario commissions the composer to rewrite the crap music to a Hans Christian Anderson ballet he owns: The Red Shoes. The young ballerina is tapped to star. While they have little time to prepare for the show and butt heads creatively, the two ingénues pull everything off at the last second and create a magnificent performance that catapults them both to stardom. At the same time they have also fallen in love, which the impresario feels with taint their art. Through his stubbornness he loses them both to marriage. Tragedy, ultimately, results.
The key focus and centerpiece of the film is the Red Shoes ballet, which is reproduced in its entirety at about the midpoint of the film. Powell takes cinematic liberties to show us how amazing the ballet really is by taking us momentarily out of reality and placing us entirely in the art. Sets suddenly become much too large and elaborate for the stage. Then camera tricks are used to create a seamless flow of story. Places change rapidly. Elements not reproducible on stage are incorporated into the action. What follows is amazing cinema at its greatest ability to wow and transport you into another time and place. You not only see a great ballet, but see visually and operatically what makes it so great to everyone involved in the story. It literally transports you to another place. Lovers of the cinema will love this film.
(MUST SEE)
——…And God Created Woman (1956)——
Brigitte Bardot gained international stardom after her starring turn in this film as the wild-child 18-year-old orphan who drives all the men of a coastal town crazy with lust. Her vast appetite for the pleasures of life both make her irresistible and unwanted at the same time, as everyone wants to be with her but all are warned not to marry her. When threatened that she will be sent back to the orphanage a naïve Michel decides against everyone’s wishes to marry her. She behaves for him for a while, but when his brother comes back to town her inner desires can no longer be kept in check, leading to the final crazed mambo scene where she dances like an animal possessed.
While Bardot does shine as the biblical Eve of this film (she first appears in the film naked in a garden) the plot kind of fizzles. The revolutionary sexuality of the time seems very tame by today’s post-sexual revolution societal standards, leaving you with a plot that may be still be interesting to some, but I found yawn inducing by the lack of a character to identify with.
(MISS)
(February 3)
——My Darling Clementine (1946)——
While the title may mislead and scare off some people unfamiliar with this film, don’t let it, because this is one of the best Westerns out there. John Ford gives us a surprisingly touching and poignant version of the events leading up to the gunfight at the O.K. Corral. Which isn’t to say that this film doesn’t also have its grit and violence either. It is just that unlike other depictions of this story the gunfight at the end of the film acts more as a resolution of plot than as the main driving force of the picture.
Henry Fonda is fantastic as Wyatt Earp, whose brother is murdered by Old Man Clanton and his boys, given life wonderfully by Walter Brennan (playing against type). Even though Earp turned down the job of Marshall in Tombstone initially he now takes it to avenge his brother…legally, with the help of his other two brothers. In town he meets the dying Doc Holliday, who doesn’t take to Earp at first but slowly warms up to him.
It is interesting and telling that the film is called My Darling Clementine, though. Clementine, an old friend (and lover?) of Holliday’s doesn’t show up until about halfway through the film, but she definitely turns the whole course of the story. While the dying Holliday tries to push her away, an immediately infatuated Earp tries to keep her around. As a nurse and a school teacher she represents the forces of civilization making their way into the lawless Tombstone (largest cemetery west of the Rockies). It’s after she arrives that we see the more law abiding citizens of Tombstone going to the dedication of the new church that is being built, and in a wonderful scene Earp asks Clementine to dance in front of the whole town.
It’s the quieter moments like those that highly resonate in this film. Another notable sequence is when Doc and Wyatt go to get a Shakespearean actor who has been kept against his will from the theater by the Clanton boys. Before they push by everyone to save him, Doc wants to hear him recite Hamlet’s soliloquy. The two watch with warm hearts, and when the actor is too drunk to remember the rest of it Doc finishes the speech almost as if he were speaking about himself. The scene ends with a minor gunfight, but it’s the moment before that they you really remember.
(MUST SEE)
——The Ox-Bow Incident (1942)——
Another great Henry Fonda Western, all in the same night! This is a decidedly different story from My Darling Clementine, though. Henry Fonda and his friend ride into his old town one day just as word gets out that a popular rancher has been murdered by cattle rustlers. The enraged town decides to form up a posse, even though the sheriff isn’t there to actually deputize them all. This glorified mob then goes out searching for the murderers and find some suspicious looking ranchers moving their cattle up the mountain. Instead of bringing them back for trial, though, they judge and hang the men right there on the spot. I don’t think I’m really giving anything away by telling you that the men weren’t guilty.
Dana Andrews is fantastic as the eloquent rancher helpless to save himself from the mob. Fonda also makes a nice journey from rambunctious youth to moral voice of reason. The fact that it was shot low budget almost entirely on sets helps create an atmosphere of intimacy and claustrophobia. This film where blood lust wins out over rationality has an added potency when you think that it was created right at the height of World War II.
(MUST SEE)
——Bad Lieutenant (1992)——
Harvey Keitel is one BAD Lieutenant. This film by Abel Ferrara (King of New York (1990)) is an unflinching take on one New York City cop who does just about everything he should, and his quest for redemption that comes a little too late. The film is framed by the Met’s come from behind playoff victory over the Dodgers, where they won the last four games after losing the first three (for the first time in baseball history). Keitel’s character keeps betting on Darryl Strawberry and the Dodgers while at the same time convincing his friends to bet on the Met’s. He’s sure that the Met’s aren’t going to be able to pull off a victory. Every time that the Met’s win he doubles his bet to try and make up for the last one, digging himself into a dangerous hole.
Gambling and lying aren’t his only vices, however. He sells the drugs he gets off of busted perps and more and more frequently is sampling his own wares. At a convenience store robbery he scares the caught thieves into handing over to him the money they stole–which he keeps–and then lets them go. In one very disturbing sequence he pulls over two underage girls driving without a license and gets himself off watching them humiliate themselves sexually. This guy is one BAD lieutenant.
That is until one case finally gets to him. Two young thugs rape a nun. Keitel is at first more interested in the $50,000 reward the church is offering up to whomever catches them. But then his own self-destructive behavior and Catholic guilt begin to catch up with him. The film resolves itself in a completely and totally unexpected way. Just about everything is unexpected about this film. Ferrara, like in King of New York, takes a fairly familiar and cliché crime genre and turns it on its head. This isn’t a pleasant movie to watch, but still, it is
(MUST SEE)
(February 4)
——The Virgin Spring (1960)——
Ingmar Bergman is probably the one and only director that constantly surprises me by how much I love his work. If someone were to describe his work to me before I saw any of his films (the first being Persona (1966) in a freshman year film class) I probably would have steered clear of his work, which would be a major crime. They are usually slow-moving, depressing dramas concerned more with inner turmoil and psychological issues than with any sort of action. You know, the kind of stuff I usually stay away from. Bergman is so much more than that description though. He always works with the most fantastic cinematographers (I swear he has the market cornered on the most beautiful films in the world) and his films are more intimate and haunting than anything else I can think of at the moment. Bergman tears down all walls between you and the film and asks you to participate in the central theme of his films, and they stick with you long after you are through watching them.
The Virgin Spring is his latest edition to the Criterion library and it was in many ways a much different film than what I have previously seen of his. For one, the violence manifests itself both psychologically AND physically in this one. Also, the film takes place in medieval Scandinavia, unlike his later contemporary work (it may surprise some that with all of the Bergman I have seen, I still haven’t seen The Seventh Seal (1957)). The story concerns the virginal daughter of a feudal lord who naively and vainly makes her way through the forest to deliver candles to the far off church. Along the way she meets three goatherd brothers who rape her and ultimately beat her to death after what they have done. They later make their way unknowingly to the lord’s home to seek shelter and while they are there offer the daughter’s clothing to her mother, saying that it was their dead sister’s. The mother takes this back to the father who takes his vengeance out on the three brothers by murdering them all.
Both the rape scene and the killing of the brothers, despite not being particularly graphic by today’s standards, are still incredibly disturbing and hard to watch. Part of the reason for this is Bergman’s slow and quiet build up of tension before the inevitable happens. There is much foreshadowing of the virginal daughter’s demise starting from the very beginning of the film, but the actual rape and murder doesn’t occur until after the halfway point. Even after she meets the three goatherds we have to watch as she talks to them and then has a picnic with them, sharing her food. Only too late does she see in their faces their ulterior motives.
Even more interesting is when Max von Sydow discovers from his wife what happened to their daughter. He immediately dresses and pulls out the sword. But then he doesn’t go to them immediately. First he boards them in while they sleep. Then, in one of the most beautiful and poignant shots of the film, he finds a sole willow tree on a hill and pushes it back and forth until he uproots it so that he can hack off its branches with his sword. He takes the branches back to his home where he then ritualistically bathes himself and whips himself with the willow branches, cleansing himself. After dressing himself in more pagan clothing than what he has been wearing he goes to meet his daughter’s killers, only now with a butcher’s knife instead of his sword. He enters the room and proceeds to mercilessly do just that–butcher them. It’s an extremely effective sequence that will sear itself into your brain.
The film ends with a characteristic Bergmanesque questioning of God, but uncharacteristically it ends on a slightly more upbeat note, with Sydow’s character deciding to erect a church upon the spot where his daughter was murdered, and then when they lift up her head a spring ushers forth. Optimism like this would be mostly missing from Bergman’s later work.
(MUST SEE)
——Munich (2005)——
I originally saw this film on January 10th, as most of you probably remember, and you can go back then to see my original review. I had the weekend off though, and my dad really wanted to see it, so off to Images we went. My impressions of the film haven’t changed much. If anything I like the movie more. It is really one of Spielberg’s best films in years. What amazes me is how much it gives you to think about. If you haven’t seen this one yet, make sure you get to it before soon before the Oscars start.
(MUST SEE)
(February 5)
——Beauty and the Beast (1946)——
No, this isn’t Disney’s cartoon version of the film, but Jean Cocteau’s much more original, interesting and adult version of the tale. Cocteau was an artist and poet who just also happened to make films, and despite the great limitations he found himself with directly after the war ended he managed to use what little he did have to create a rich and detailed magical world. For instance, if you look closely at the walls of Beast’s castle you’ll notice that they aren’t much more than crudely painted high school theater backdrops. You don’t look closely at the walls though, because with Cocteau’s vision you are more interested in the arms sticking out of the walls holding candlesticks or the marble statues whose gaze follows yours around the room. Cocteau uses every trick at his disposal to make you believe in this magical world, and you willingly and excitedly participate.
The highlight of the film has to be the Beast though. Jean Marais does an amazing job bringing Beast’s emotions to life while limited by the makeup and extensive prosthetics on his face. Just like Belle, you fall in love with him. While frightening at first he becomes your favorite character, and one of Cocteau’s greatest tricks is to make both the audience and Belle immediately miss Beast when he finally transforms into Prince Ardent. The Prince seems nothing like the Beast, entirely vain and self-centered. While the film ultimately ends with that fairy tale ending, that one little move will make you question the whole idea of a fairy tale ending long after the film has finished. Everyone and anyone will like this movie though, so if you haven’t already had the pleasure, go out and rent it today.
(MUST SEE)
C'est Non Un Blog 