Jevo
Registered User
- Oct 3, 2010
- 3,487
- 368
Movies: The Official "Movie of the Week" Club Thread II
- Thread starter kihei
- Start date
- Status
The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920) Directed by Robert Wiene
The star of the film is, of course, the set design. I wish somehow the whole set had been saved as a permanent installation somewhere (Berlin?) as conceptual art. It would be great fun to walk around it and to just see it. As disturbing as it is as a setting, it is a delight to the eye and it is beautifully constructed to maximize disquiet. So very many nice touches, like the angled, twirling umbrellas early on in the film that seem somehow deeply lunatic.
I've never seen another Robert Wiene movie, but I noticed how well he used the set, including the floor, as a framing device throughout much of the movie. I've always thought that really great directors don't just direct the movie, they direct the audience's gaze during the movie (Ozu represents the absolute gold standard in this regard for me), and Wiene is very good at using jagged bits of the design or patterns on the floor to zero in on his actors. He cuts down the frame to exactly where he wants you to look, which I thought became especially noticeable later in the film. But in each new scene, he always establishes the set first with either a longish or medium range shot that shows us where we are. Then, when he moves in for close ups, we are still aware of the setting around the close up, the context in which the scene is taking place. I think that really helps the movie to be such an unsettling experience, such a fine visual correlative for not just madness, but evil.
Wiene is also good at using other actors to frame the actor who he wants you to look at. Several times the central actor is framed by a pair of actors standing sideways on either side of him, forcing one's gaze to a particular spot. Sometimes actors wearing white frame an actor wearing black; only rarely does that happen the other way around. It is as though I feel compelled to look where Wiene wants me to look, which somehow is perfectly in keeping with the spirit of the movie: my will is not my own. The set is marvelous but Wiene put in an awful lot of thought into how to best use it cinematically to manipulate his audience in service of his story.
Some movies really are ageless, and I would include The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari in this category. It is probably the first horror movie, but categorizing it that way does it a real disservice. One of its genuine achievements is to show the power of film to be deeply disturbing, to create psychological realities with the force of nightmares. It is one of those rare films that actually expands the potential of the medium.
Last edited:
Tie Me Up! Tie Me Down! (1989) Directed by Pedro Almodovar
Fresh out of a mental institution, Ricky, a common thief and a very loose cannon, is hopelessly enamored by Marina, an actress whom he thinks is the love of his life. When, of course, she resists his advances, he kidnaps her, punching and head butting her in the process. He tells her that he will be a good husband to her and a good father to their children. She’s bound and gagged when he makes this declaration, but Ricky believes his persistence will pay off because his love is so genuine. He plans to just keep her forcibly confined until she changes her mind. And surprisingly she eventually does. There’s even a happy ending as Ricky is welcomed into Marina’s family.
Further from politically correct, it is impossible to get. Even most sexist men would have to admit that Ricky's behavior is inexcusable in this circumstance. The movie’s light and airy tone only enhances the potential offensiveness. What can possibly be said in director Pedro Almodovar’s defense?
First, part of art’s perogative is to challenge and confront an audience, even to make that audience feel deliberately uncomfortable if it serves a useful end. Is this one of those movies that asks me to reflect on my own beliefs and assumptions, forcing me to question why I think the way that I do? Not really. I can reflect all I want, but I am not going to ever justify Ricky’s behavior. The question then remains what in the world is Almodovar trying to say here? And why does he construct a relatively good-natured comedy with an ostensible villain, Antonio Banderas no less, who exudes charm and sweetness when he isn’t being brutal and threatening?
I have two theories, a sort of dark Almodvar theory and a light Almodovar theory. First, the darker theory. Almodovar’s movies consistently possess similar elements: humour (sometimes bordering on farce), outrageousness, romance and suspense. Almost invariably he focuses on women or on men who wish they were women. He obviously loves, respects and identifies with women, and as a gay man he examines them and their relationships with men from a strikingly different perspective. I think if Almodovar were confronted with a charge of sexism or insensitivity concerning the subject matter of Tie Me Up! Tie Me Down!, his response just might be “’So what?’ So, she falls for her brutal kidnapper: why does this upsets you? Most heterosexual relationships are about power, about force of one kind or another, about unreasonable demands, about manipulation and self-interest, and it is almost always the men who make the demands and the women who must accept them. I’m just using Ricky's behaviour and attitude to make a general point, the better to draw people’s attention to what is really going on anyway.” Thus, the question becomes how far is Ricky really removed from the standard heterosexual norm? Maybe not as far as we would like to think.
Now the lighter theory. Let's start by taking into account Almodovar’s career as a director, and his guiding ethos as communicated through his movies. To me his greatest defining characteristic as a director is not his technical mastery and pizzazz, but his tolerance. He shies away from no act of love, however extreme, and his movies focus on some doozies (how about having sex with a comatose patient as in Talk to Her, to use just one of many examples). Collectively I think his movies have a consistent message: don’t be too judgmental about how and where others find love because in the end it is only love that really matters; even when it is misguided, it is the capacity to love that ultimately nourishes us and defines us.
In the end, I side with the lighter theory, though I think the darker perspective is sometimes in evidence, too.
subtitles
Last edited:
The first time I saw The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, it really reminded me of The Usual Suspect, mainly because of the narrative.
I am not entirely sure, but this is probably one of the first examples of twist endings captured on film. Even if it is not, it just shows how advanced the Germans were in filmmaking. It is not a surprise that Hollywood made huge advancements, when the large exodus of German filmmakers made their way to America, in the years around World War II.
I am not entirely sure, but this is probably one of the first examples of twist endings captured on film. Even if it is not, it just shows how advanced the Germans were in filmmaking. It is not a surprise that Hollywood made huge advancements, when the large exodus of German filmmakers made their way to America, in the years around World War II.
I'm going to assume you are roughly 45 years younger than me (god forbid it should be more
). How the hell have you seen so many movies? Just curious.
Jevo
Registered User
- Oct 3, 2010
- 3,487
- 368
I'm going to assume you are roughly 45 years younger than me (god forbid it should be more
Without knowing the age of either of you, I can say that it is a lot easier to watch a lot of movies for young people than ever before. TV, home video, and most of all the internet, means that you quite literally have the world at your fingertips. While years ago you'd have to live in a big city with a big art-house scene to see the more obscure movies, or be at an international film festival, and even then you were subjected to the theatres selection. With the internet it is eventually possible to access more or less every movie made. Even if you are an honorable person who doesn't pirate movies, you don't even have to hope it gets released in your own country, you can buy the DVD from abroad if need be.
Jevo
Registered User
- Oct 3, 2010
- 3,487
- 368
Tie me up! Tie me down! (1989) dir. Pedro Almodovar
Ricky (Antonio Banderas), a young mental patient, gets released from the asylum and immediately starts to look for Marina Osorio (Victoria Abril), a former porn actress, who is now the lead actress in a new film by an old director, who appears to have cast Marina primarily for her looks and past employment history. Ricky met Marina during one of his numerous escapes a year earlier, where they shared a night together in Marinas bed, Ricky fell in love and swore to get released, so he started acting 'right'. On his first night out, and the final day of the film shoot, Ricky kidnaps Marina is her own apartment. He ties her up in her bed, and wants to keep her there until she falls in love with him.
Antonion Banderas performance as Ricky is great. One minute he's charming, the next minute he's menacing. You never know which Ricky will show up in the next scene, or what he'll change into midway through a scene. Banderas portrays all these different parts of Ricky very well. He makes Ricky seem like a charming, young, naive boy who is in love for the first time, and can't figure out the appropriate way to show his feelings. But he's also menacing, and appears very aware about the psychological torture he's putting Marina through, at times he even appears to enjoy it a little bit on some level. Victoria Abril is also very good. She compliments Banderas performance very well, and the two mesh together quite nicely. At first Marina just wants to leave, but at some point she starts playing along with Rickys plan, to make him treat her better, and hopefully give her a chance to escape. But as she starts to play along, she gets sympathy for him, a sympathy that appears to slowly turn into love. When Marina is playing along with Ricky, and when she is acting out of love is never really clear, and I don't think Marina knows either, Abril shows this perfectly.
I have thought a lot about the ending, and what I think of it since I watched the movie. I want it to be ambiguous whether Marina is tricking Ricky to follow them to a police station, or if she really loves him. I want it to be the first, but I can't see anything but the latter. I don't like thinking of the ending like that, because I can't figure if Almodovar thinks this is a happy ending, a romantic ending, like I think it is portrayed. Maybe there is some parody here that I am not seeing, I wouldn't be surprised if that is the case coming from Almodovar. But the ending still doesn't sit right with me. It is not a happy ending, and a very unromantic ending in my opinion, so there is a mismatch between the way it is presented on screen, and how I feel about it. In Talk To Her, Almodovar also focuses on a young man with mental problems, who is in love. In that movie the young man isn't 'rewarded' with love at the end. Almodovar still respects his character, and doesn't shun him, which I think is great. It is not that I believe that the ending has to adhere to my own moral standards, but in Talk To Her, I feel the ending happened very naturally based on the rest of the movie, and to me the ending in Tie me up! Tie me down! seemed more forced. Not to say I didn't like Tie me up! Tie me down!, the characters and acting performances are very fun and interesting, just like Almodovars direction always is. Talk To Her is arguably to Almodovars best, so it will always be a bit unfair to compare other movies to it.
Ricky (Antonio Banderas), a young mental patient, gets released from the asylum and immediately starts to look for Marina Osorio (Victoria Abril), a former porn actress, who is now the lead actress in a new film by an old director, who appears to have cast Marina primarily for her looks and past employment history. Ricky met Marina during one of his numerous escapes a year earlier, where they shared a night together in Marinas bed, Ricky fell in love and swore to get released, so he started acting 'right'. On his first night out, and the final day of the film shoot, Ricky kidnaps Marina is her own apartment. He ties her up in her bed, and wants to keep her there until she falls in love with him.
Antonion Banderas performance as Ricky is great. One minute he's charming, the next minute he's menacing. You never know which Ricky will show up in the next scene, or what he'll change into midway through a scene. Banderas portrays all these different parts of Ricky very well. He makes Ricky seem like a charming, young, naive boy who is in love for the first time, and can't figure out the appropriate way to show his feelings. But he's also menacing, and appears very aware about the psychological torture he's putting Marina through, at times he even appears to enjoy it a little bit on some level. Victoria Abril is also very good. She compliments Banderas performance very well, and the two mesh together quite nicely. At first Marina just wants to leave, but at some point she starts playing along with Rickys plan, to make him treat her better, and hopefully give her a chance to escape. But as she starts to play along, she gets sympathy for him, a sympathy that appears to slowly turn into love. When Marina is playing along with Ricky, and when she is acting out of love is never really clear, and I don't think Marina knows either, Abril shows this perfectly.
I have thought a lot about the ending, and what I think of it since I watched the movie. I want it to be ambiguous whether Marina is tricking Ricky to follow them to a police station, or if she really loves him. I want it to be the first, but I can't see anything but the latter. I don't like thinking of the ending like that, because I can't figure if Almodovar thinks this is a happy ending, a romantic ending, like I think it is portrayed. Maybe there is some parody here that I am not seeing, I wouldn't be surprised if that is the case coming from Almodovar. But the ending still doesn't sit right with me. It is not a happy ending, and a very unromantic ending in my opinion, so there is a mismatch between the way it is presented on screen, and how I feel about it. In Talk To Her, Almodovar also focuses on a young man with mental problems, who is in love. In that movie the young man isn't 'rewarded' with love at the end. Almodovar still respects his character, and doesn't shun him, which I think is great. It is not that I believe that the ending has to adhere to my own moral standards, but in Talk To Her, I feel the ending happened very naturally based on the rest of the movie, and to me the ending in Tie me up! Tie me down! seemed more forced. Not to say I didn't like Tie me up! Tie me down!, the characters and acting performances are very fun and interesting, just like Almodovars direction always is. Talk To Her is arguably to Almodovars best, so it will always be a bit unfair to compare other movies to it.
I'm going to assume you are roughly 45 years younger than me (god forbid it should be more
One summer off from school about 5 years ago, I discovered that the Vancouver Public Library has a huge Criterion Collection, so I just decided to binge watch movies. In four months, I watched over 200 films, from home, and in theatres. I usually average 3 films a day, but there were a couple of days when I watched 5 movies. That year, I think I watched over 300 to 400 films that year. While I never did it again, I still average about 100 to 200 films per year for the rest of my college years. Suffice to say, that was the time when most of my lifetime viewership total of 2000 to 3000 films came from.
That said, there are still a ton of films I have missed. To this day, even though I have the Godfather series in my DVD collection, I have not been able to pop it in yet. I have also not seen Citizen Kane, or any Tarkovsky films, other than Solaris. Honestly, I still have a long ways to go.
I agree with Jevo. People today have easy access to a treasure trove of films. Even before the Internet, I still watched over 300 moves before I was 15, since a lot of television station show late-night movies as a part of their programs. Now, with the widespread use of the Internet, and especially with the explosion of streaming services, accessibility to films is no longer an issue. That is really how I am able to watch so many movies, since a lot of times, I can just do it from the comfort of my own home. That saves a lot of travel time, which I can use to just watch another film.
Last edited:
Jevo
Registered User
- Oct 3, 2010
- 3,487
- 368
Caché (2005) dir. Michael Haneke
Georges (Daniel Auteuil) and Anne (Juliette Binoche) are an upper-class french couple, who suddenly start to receive packages with tapes, showing their house filmed from the outside. At first the tapes are very anonymous, but they quickly start to hint at Georges childhood, but he is keen to let Anne know this, and feigns bewilderment similar to hers. The police are not interested in helping, as long as it is only tapes. Eventually the tapes leads Georges and Anne to an apartment in a social housing complex. Georges goes to the apartment, and finds Majid, an Algerian man of similar age, who is the former adoptive brother of Georges, who Georges mistreated as a child.
Georges is not very charming, doesn't appear to be very likeable, nor does he seem particularly caring. Despite this, I find myself being sympathetic with his situation, and his reaction to it early in the film. As time passes, and more of Georges personality is revealed, it slowly becomes clear that my sympathies are misplaced. If they are better placed with Anne, Majid or Majids son, or even anywhere at all is not really clear to me. Maybe the best place to put my sympathies are with Pierrot. He seems to be an afterthought to his parents, in an out of sight, out of mind kind of way, and the arrival of the tapes doesn't help in this regard. Daniel Auteuil is good as Georges, and is ambiguous enough in his performance, that you are never really sure what kind of person Georges really is. But to me, the real star of the movie is Juliette Binoche, as she often is. Anne as a character works as a sort of counterweight to Georges, and Binoche plays the role very well, the scenes she are in seem to be more intense, because she is in them. It would have been nice to see more of Anne, instead of Georges driving the plot for most of the movie.
The movie starts very conventionally as a thriller until Georges meets Madji for the first time. Then the movie starts to break the genre conventions, and becomes its own thing. As a thriller, the start works well, Haneke builds a lot of tension. Even though this is the 3rd or 4th time I watch this movie, I still feel the tension, I still feel my heartbeat rising slightly. Haneke reveals just enough to the audience about the story and the characters at a given moment, which means I find I have to re-evaluate what I thought I knew about the characters throughout the movie. Even as the credits roll, I sit with a feeling that I don't know them as well as I think I do. And in the case of this movie, I think that is a good thing. At the end, the movie as a whole also feels a bit unresolved. We know where the tapes came from, we know why they were made. Georges seems to pretend it has all been resolved, and tries to go on with his life, but none of the characters appears to have allowed the whole thing to be resolved emotionally, and that is why I think the movie also feels a bit unresolved at the end. It isn't helped by the fact that Haneke shows Majids son talking inaudibly with Pierrot outside his school during the credits, signalling that this story really isn't over yet. I was annoyed by this ending the first time I watched the movie, I thought someone had forgotten the last 10 minutes of the movie or something. But with subsequent viewings, and musings about the movie, I have started to appreciate the ending. Just because the movie has ended, doesn't mean the story has, or that characters will ever forget it, or be the same as they were before.
If I can allow myself to put Caché in the thriller/suspense movie 'box', it will rank as one of my favourite movies of this type, if not my favourite, and it will also rank very high among my favourite movies in general. I can feel now, that I am already looking forward to watching it again, some years down the road.
Georges (Daniel Auteuil) and Anne (Juliette Binoche) are an upper-class french couple, who suddenly start to receive packages with tapes, showing their house filmed from the outside. At first the tapes are very anonymous, but they quickly start to hint at Georges childhood, but he is keen to let Anne know this, and feigns bewilderment similar to hers. The police are not interested in helping, as long as it is only tapes. Eventually the tapes leads Georges and Anne to an apartment in a social housing complex. Georges goes to the apartment, and finds Majid, an Algerian man of similar age, who is the former adoptive brother of Georges, who Georges mistreated as a child.
Georges is not very charming, doesn't appear to be very likeable, nor does he seem particularly caring. Despite this, I find myself being sympathetic with his situation, and his reaction to it early in the film. As time passes, and more of Georges personality is revealed, it slowly becomes clear that my sympathies are misplaced. If they are better placed with Anne, Majid or Majids son, or even anywhere at all is not really clear to me. Maybe the best place to put my sympathies are with Pierrot. He seems to be an afterthought to his parents, in an out of sight, out of mind kind of way, and the arrival of the tapes doesn't help in this regard. Daniel Auteuil is good as Georges, and is ambiguous enough in his performance, that you are never really sure what kind of person Georges really is. But to me, the real star of the movie is Juliette Binoche, as she often is. Anne as a character works as a sort of counterweight to Georges, and Binoche plays the role very well, the scenes she are in seem to be more intense, because she is in them. It would have been nice to see more of Anne, instead of Georges driving the plot for most of the movie.
The movie starts very conventionally as a thriller until Georges meets Madji for the first time. Then the movie starts to break the genre conventions, and becomes its own thing. As a thriller, the start works well, Haneke builds a lot of tension. Even though this is the 3rd or 4th time I watch this movie, I still feel the tension, I still feel my heartbeat rising slightly. Haneke reveals just enough to the audience about the story and the characters at a given moment, which means I find I have to re-evaluate what I thought I knew about the characters throughout the movie. Even as the credits roll, I sit with a feeling that I don't know them as well as I think I do. And in the case of this movie, I think that is a good thing. At the end, the movie as a whole also feels a bit unresolved. We know where the tapes came from, we know why they were made. Georges seems to pretend it has all been resolved, and tries to go on with his life, but none of the characters appears to have allowed the whole thing to be resolved emotionally, and that is why I think the movie also feels a bit unresolved at the end. It isn't helped by the fact that Haneke shows Majids son talking inaudibly with Pierrot outside his school during the credits, signalling that this story really isn't over yet. I was annoyed by this ending the first time I watched the movie, I thought someone had forgotten the last 10 minutes of the movie or something. But with subsequent viewings, and musings about the movie, I have started to appreciate the ending. Just because the movie has ended, doesn't mean the story has, or that characters will ever forget it, or be the same as they were before.
If I can allow myself to put Caché in the thriller/suspense movie 'box', it will rank as one of my favourite movies of this type, if not my favourite, and it will also rank very high among my favourite movies in general. I can feel now, that I am already looking forward to watching it again, some years down the road.
Cache (2005) Directed by Michael Haneke
It’s taken me now three screenings to figure out Cache. While the movie is exceptionally well directed, I don’t think that the story necessarily demanded such an intricate approach to something so seemingly straightforward as what we eventually get. But Haneke is certainly the sort of director who appears quite content to make things a bit of a challenge for his audience. He has the skill to play the audience like a fiddle, and, seemingly, the temperament to go along with that skill. There is nothing very playful in his approach either. He seems to have a bit of a love/hate relationship with the audience who he probably sees as a collection of bourgeoisie in need of some hectoring. (I find it hard to determine sometimes whether Haneke or Von Trier is the greater misanthrope. Perhaps, Von Trier is just more impish about it—after all in Melancholia he destroys the entire world. Kind of witty, that. I don’t think anyone has ever referred to Haneke as “impish,” though.)
I have seen seven of Haneke's movies, and he does something to make it hard on viewers in all of them. Some examples….The Piano Teacher is a trying experience because of the extreme perversity of the main character; psychopaths don’t play fair in either of the Funny Games movies, with the audience clearly intended to identify with the family under attack in each version; you can’t trust children or what they become in The White Ribbon; in a dull post-Apocalypse world, people behave really badly in Time of the Wolf; even in his best, most seemingly humane movie, Amour, the hidden message seems to be “live long enough and this fate awaits all of you.” Yet, like satisfied masochists, we keep coming back for more.
In some ways, Cache is the director's most elegant demonstration of his willingness to pull the rug out from under our collective feet. The movie starts with the use of video tape footage, which is itself deceptive as it takes a couple of minutes for us to realize what we are watching. The way the film begins is a brilliant move on Haneke’s part and leads to a central premise that has been compared favorably to Hitchcock. But, really, it’s better than Hitchcock. Then the twist slowly, almost imperceptibly begins: Georges, our potential rooting interest, is bit by bit transformed into a likely bad guy. This will sound weird but it took me three screenings to realize how fast this actually occurs in the movie as I kept rooting for the wrong guy longer than I should have (again, kudos to the director). In turning the tables on Georges (and us), Haneke also isolates Georges from Anne. They are no longer in it together as Anne becomes increasingly frustrated by her partner’s lack of candor. Her suspicion becomes our suspicion. No surprise in a Haneke movie, things are not at all what they seem. Further frustration awaits as Haneke never allows Georges to feel guilt nor be able to express guilt to others. That the consequences of his present behavior are horrendous doesn’t faze Georges in the least--he’s not confessing to anything to anyone. Until the end, he perceives himself as the victim. Eventually the mystery initially introduced by the video tapes is solved though, typically, in a manner that causes a bit of disquiet for the audience. Haneke provides a solution to the puzzle, just not quite the neat and tidy bundle that we might have hoped for. Georges never really gets the comeuppance that he deserves. Maybe just not yet. Or maybe never.
The final shot of Walid and Pierrot talking about something on the school steps just before the credits roll at the end of the movie? Don’t even bother to speculate. Haneke is just messing with your head. Why? Because he can.
subtitles
Last edited:
The Official Story (1985) Directed by Luis Puenzo
As a result of a long, late night conversation with her best friend, who has just returned home to Argentina from political exile, Alicia (Norma Aleandro) begins to wonder just where her adopted 5-year-old daughter Gaby came from. She isn’t certain but she begins to suspect that Gaby is one of the children of the “disappeared,” a group of approximately thirty thousand people who, virtually at the whim of the ruling military junta between 1976 and 1983, were taken from their homes, tortured and killed, never to be seen nor heard from again. Alicia’s husband Roberto (Hector Alterio), a successful businessman with ties to the regime, knows what really happened. Though reluctant to go into detail, he tries to reassure her. However, questions remain and Alicia decides that she must find out for herself. Her journey of discovery is one of the most powerful and wrenching in the history of cinema.
It saddens me a little to admit that time has not been especially kind to this film. The Official Story looks dated, and there are about a half dozen scenes, all of them brief, that I would happily edit significantly or partially rewrite or just eliminate completely. There is a little too much playing to the emotions, a little too much overt manipulation going on in these scenes. But I have to keep in mind that the film was not intended for me; it was intended for a domestic audience who for the most part had either ignored the military dictatorship as best as they could or, worse, supported it as perhaps most did at one time or another. Released a mere two year after the fall of the military government, wounds would have been still raw and open. So this movie was very clearly meant to bear witness to horrible events and to be an eye-opener for thousands of Argentinians. Given the importance of its purpose, I do not find it difficult to cut the film a little slack.
The Official Story still plays very well, though. The film is still heart-wrenching and intense, and the arc of the story, despite my caveats above, is still gripping. The film owes a great debt to Norma Aleandro, the actress who plays Alicia. Hers is certainly among the very best performances by an actress that I have ever witnessed. Alicia goes from willful ignorance to denial to depression to, finally, acceptance and action. What considerable power that the movie has comes from watching Alicia's painful evolution take place before our eyes. Her emotions are not communicated through words so much as through facial expressions that reveal the turmoil and, eventually, the great sadness within her. Time may have not been kind to some aspects of The Official Story, but Aleandro’s performance remains among the most memorable in the history of cinema.
subtitles
Jevo
Registered User
- Oct 3, 2010
- 3,487
- 368
The Official Story (1985) dir. Luis Penzo
It's during the final years of Argentinas latest military dictatorship. Alicia is a high school history teacher, and she is married to Roberto, a government official of some sort. They have a daughter Gaby, who is adopted. Gabys adoption is a secret, since its an illegal adoption, that didn't happen through the proper channels, and Alicia and Roberto are listed as her birth parents officially. Roberto arranged it through a connection in his office. Alicia is seemingly quite naive about what is happening around her, but starts to get an interest into how they got Gaby, but Roberto brushes her aside. With her students and a progressive literary teacher as her catalysts, Alicia starts to look into the forced disappearances in Argentina at the time, and how they might be connected to Gaby.
I'll confess and say I don't know a lot about Argentinian history at all, and while I think an understanding of the time in which this film was made, and the events that it references will enhance enjoyment of the movie, or at least allow a deeper understanding of it. I did a short google search before watching the movie, to acquaint myself with the time period, and I think it was enough for me to have a good enough grasp to understand what was going on. While these events might have been some sort of general knowledge in the mid 80s, and such most of the audience were already acquianted. But I think it is a praise to the movie that is able to tell a story about quite complex events, that is readily understood decades later, without much prior knowledge of the events. There are some references made to events in earlier Argentinian history, but these serve mostly as allegory to the present dictatorship, and as such direct knowledge of the references isn't a requirement to understand the meaning of them.
While he base of the story is an important and tragic piece of history, that deserve the attention that movies like this gives it. I feel that the story that the movie is telling us about this, is somewhat contrived. The scenario is portrays is very real, but to me the way it plays out doesn't feel very natural. It is as if writer/director Puenzo has too many axes to grind, with the dictatorship, the upper classes, government employees, foreign investors. There are so many things he wants to touch upon, that few of them are allowed to be developed properly, and most have to be forced into the movie in some way. Which is what makes the movie feel somewhat contrived to me. I am sympathetic to Puenzo in many of his views presented in this movie, but perhaps some of them would have been better served to have been examined over a series of movies, rather than all in a single one.
This doesn't mean that I disliked the movie, I think it is a good one, but not more than that. There are too many places where it could have been done better. There are things to like about the movie. Most of all the performance of Norma Aleandro as Alicia. She gives a very forceful portrayal of Alicia, and while the events happening around feel contrived at times, Alicia always seem real and natural. After watching the movie I found out that this was Puenzos first movie, and I have to say I think he did quite a good job at it. He gets good performances out of his actors, I also like what Hector Alterio did as Roberto, even if his character seems like a bit of caricature in some scenes. I really liked the way Puenzo did the ending. He got two very strong performances from his leads, and the whole scene is very tense and exciting. I think it showed his talent as a director very well. Considering that, and the film as whole, I think it is strange that Puenzo never seem to have made anything of note since then. There seems to be some definite talent here, maybe he just needs a brutal dictatorship for inspiration?
It's during the final years of Argentinas latest military dictatorship. Alicia is a high school history teacher, and she is married to Roberto, a government official of some sort. They have a daughter Gaby, who is adopted. Gabys adoption is a secret, since its an illegal adoption, that didn't happen through the proper channels, and Alicia and Roberto are listed as her birth parents officially. Roberto arranged it through a connection in his office. Alicia is seemingly quite naive about what is happening around her, but starts to get an interest into how they got Gaby, but Roberto brushes her aside. With her students and a progressive literary teacher as her catalysts, Alicia starts to look into the forced disappearances in Argentina at the time, and how they might be connected to Gaby.
I'll confess and say I don't know a lot about Argentinian history at all, and while I think an understanding of the time in which this film was made, and the events that it references will enhance enjoyment of the movie, or at least allow a deeper understanding of it. I did a short google search before watching the movie, to acquaint myself with the time period, and I think it was enough for me to have a good enough grasp to understand what was going on. While these events might have been some sort of general knowledge in the mid 80s, and such most of the audience were already acquianted. But I think it is a praise to the movie that is able to tell a story about quite complex events, that is readily understood decades later, without much prior knowledge of the events. There are some references made to events in earlier Argentinian history, but these serve mostly as allegory to the present dictatorship, and as such direct knowledge of the references isn't a requirement to understand the meaning of them.
While he base of the story is an important and tragic piece of history, that deserve the attention that movies like this gives it. I feel that the story that the movie is telling us about this, is somewhat contrived. The scenario is portrays is very real, but to me the way it plays out doesn't feel very natural. It is as if writer/director Puenzo has too many axes to grind, with the dictatorship, the upper classes, government employees, foreign investors. There are so many things he wants to touch upon, that few of them are allowed to be developed properly, and most have to be forced into the movie in some way. Which is what makes the movie feel somewhat contrived to me. I am sympathetic to Puenzo in many of his views presented in this movie, but perhaps some of them would have been better served to have been examined over a series of movies, rather than all in a single one.
This doesn't mean that I disliked the movie, I think it is a good one, but not more than that. There are too many places where it could have been done better. There are things to like about the movie. Most of all the performance of Norma Aleandro as Alicia. She gives a very forceful portrayal of Alicia, and while the events happening around feel contrived at times, Alicia always seem real and natural. After watching the movie I found out that this was Puenzos first movie, and I have to say I think he did quite a good job at it. He gets good performances out of his actors, I also like what Hector Alterio did as Roberto, even if his character seems like a bit of caricature in some scenes. I really liked the way Puenzo did the ending. He got two very strong performances from his leads, and the whole scene is very tense and exciting. I think it showed his talent as a director very well. Considering that, and the film as whole, I think it is strange that Puenzo never seem to have made anything of note since then. There seems to be some definite talent here, maybe he just needs a brutal dictatorship for inspiration?
Jevo
Registered User
- Oct 3, 2010
- 3,487
- 368
My next pick with be Ozu's Tokyo Story. (And, Jevo, I'm guessing you are going, "Of course."
I don't think I get what you are referring to here? But I am looking forward to the movie. I tried to watch it once back in high school, made it about halfway through before I got tired and went to bed, but I never picked it up again. I have been thinking about giving it another go lately, hopefully I'll make it further this time, maybe even a whole hour and a half.
I actually think this is the first Ozu in the clubs history. Quite amazing that it took this long for him to be featured.
That was opaque on my part for sure. Actually I was imprecisely referring to what you mention in your final paragraph. It surprised me when I realized how long it took us to get to him.I don't think I get what you are referring to here? But I am looking forward to the movie. I tried to watch it once back in high school, made it about halfway through before I got tired and went to bed, but I never picked it up again. I have been thinking about giving it another go lately, hopefully I'll make it further this time, maybe even a whole hour and a half.
I actually think this is the first Ozu in the clubs history. Quite amazing that it took this long for him to be featured.
Jevo
Registered User
- Oct 3, 2010
- 3,487
- 368
Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid(1969) dir. George Roy Hill
The two infamous outlaws Butch Cassidy (Paul Newman) and The Sundance Kid (Robert Redford) rob the trains of Union Pacific one time too many. So the owner of Union Pacific creates a band of the best bounty hunters in the country to track down and kill them. The two barely escape their pursuers for now, but realise they'll always be hunted while they are in the US, so they leave for Bolivia together with Sundances girlfriend Etta (Katherine Ross), in search of relative freedom and a gold rush.
The American Western had been on life support for years in 1969, when it made a few last desperate convulsions. After that it would only surface sporadically in mainstream Hollywood. But what convulsions they were. Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid takes the style of American movies of the late 60s and 70s, one of the best periods in American film in my opinion, and combines it with the traditional western setting. Which makes for a very untraditional western, apart from a few things like train robbing, Sundance drawing fast. The movie takes place around the year 1900, in a time where civilization is moving west fast, and characters of the classic American west, such as the title characters, are finding that there is less and less room for people like them, and in this case there isn't room for them at all.
This movies big stroke of genius is putting Paul Newman and Robert Redford together on screen. Great actors in their own right, but together they are special. As an on screen couple they are so iconic you'd think they'd dozen of movies together, when in fact it is just two. They are helped by the fact they get two great characters to play, who are well developed, three dimensional, and most of all compliment each other greatly. But the chemistry that Newman and Redford has, is what makes the twos relationship seem genuine. Even with a great script and great pair in the leading roles, it still takes a competent director to put it all together nicely, and George Roy Hill does just that here. The lengthy chase sequence where Butch and Sundance run from their pursuers is very well directed and edited in my opinion. It is not an adrenaline filled chase with the pedal to the metal like in Bullitt. It's like watching a marathon instead of a 100 meter sprint. It takes a while, but with some patience the tension and entertainment can get just as high. The frustration that Butch and Sundance experience as these guys just won't give up, just won't lose their trail, is transferred across the screen. Overall that sequence is just a great piece of filmmaking, one of the best chase sequences in my opinion, I could watch it over and over again.
The two infamous outlaws Butch Cassidy (Paul Newman) and The Sundance Kid (Robert Redford) rob the trains of Union Pacific one time too many. So the owner of Union Pacific creates a band of the best bounty hunters in the country to track down and kill them. The two barely escape their pursuers for now, but realise they'll always be hunted while they are in the US, so they leave for Bolivia together with Sundances girlfriend Etta (Katherine Ross), in search of relative freedom and a gold rush.
The American Western had been on life support for years in 1969, when it made a few last desperate convulsions. After that it would only surface sporadically in mainstream Hollywood. But what convulsions they were. Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid takes the style of American movies of the late 60s and 70s, one of the best periods in American film in my opinion, and combines it with the traditional western setting. Which makes for a very untraditional western, apart from a few things like train robbing, Sundance drawing fast. The movie takes place around the year 1900, in a time where civilization is moving west fast, and characters of the classic American west, such as the title characters, are finding that there is less and less room for people like them, and in this case there isn't room for them at all.
This movies big stroke of genius is putting Paul Newman and Robert Redford together on screen. Great actors in their own right, but together they are special. As an on screen couple they are so iconic you'd think they'd dozen of movies together, when in fact it is just two. They are helped by the fact they get two great characters to play, who are well developed, three dimensional, and most of all compliment each other greatly. But the chemistry that Newman and Redford has, is what makes the twos relationship seem genuine. Even with a great script and great pair in the leading roles, it still takes a competent director to put it all together nicely, and George Roy Hill does just that here. The lengthy chase sequence where Butch and Sundance run from their pursuers is very well directed and edited in my opinion. It is not an adrenaline filled chase with the pedal to the metal like in Bullitt. It's like watching a marathon instead of a 100 meter sprint. It takes a while, but with some patience the tension and entertainment can get just as high. The frustration that Butch and Sundance experience as these guys just won't give up, just won't lose their trail, is transferred across the screen. Overall that sequence is just a great piece of filmmaking, one of the best chase sequences in my opinion, I could watch it over and over again.
Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969) Directed by George Roy Hill
I know how subjective responses to movies can be, but I would really have to question the sanity of someone who said that they did not enjoy Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. Yet the film was almost universally panned by critics when it was initially released. Many reviewers thought the humour was excessive and not in keeping with the genre; the movie's giddy disregard for anachronisms was also seriously frowned upon. Others found various problems with the film's organisation and development: the Raindrops Keep Falling on My Head musical interlude was deemed eccentric; the long, almost leisurely chase scene was considered too lacking in tension; the still-photograph montage back East was perceived as a major error in judgement (that one bothered me, too; still does). All in all, there was no shortage of perceived flaws for critics to sink their teeth into. In the end, critical response to the film meant absolutely nothing. Word of mouth was pure gold; people loved the film.
Newman and Redford had the kind of chemistry that creates legends. Both those guys just seemed born to play their respective roles. Previously, Newman never had any kind of touch for comedy, and Redford was still the new kid on the block, known principally for his comic work in Barefoot in the Park which he had also starred in on Broadway. According to the "making of" video that accompanied the DVD (which, for a change, was really interesting), the production only turned to him when Steve McQueen, Warren Beatty and, surprisingly, Jack Lemmon, turned down offers or were unavailable. Joanne Woodward, Newman's wife and a stunningly talented actress in her own right, recommended Redford, and Newman, director George Roy Hill and author William Goldman all immediately hopped on his bandwagon, ganging up on the studio on Redford's behalf. Hard to believe, but it was a risky move at the time. In the end, they couldn't have made a better choice.
Another interesting tidbit from the video, after their next very successful collaboration, The Sting, both Newman and Redford were eager to work together again. They thought surely some studio would commission a script on their behalf, but none ever did, and they were never able to find one on their own. Today, of course, no director/producer/studio in the world would allow them to be killed off at the end of the movie. After Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid became the eighth biggest money maker at that time in box office history, there must have been major regrets about the impossibility of a sequel (I remember a desperate attempt at a "prequel" with lesser actors, but it died a quick death upon initial release--never saw it myself). However, I don't think that the ending could be improved upon; it still seems the perfect way to close out their story.
Last edited:
Tokyo Story (2015) Directed by Yasujiro Ozu
An elderly couple visit their children in far off Tokyo where two of their five children live, an adult son and an adult daughter, as well as their daughter-in-law who is a war widow. Neither of their children, a busy physician and a self-centred, sharp-tongued owner of a hairdressing salon, has much time for their parents whose visit is perceived more as an inconvenience than anything else. It is left to Noriko, the daughter-in-law, to provide the old couple with the kindness, respect and love that they deserve. The movie is about how parents can come to be perceived as a burden and how children grow apart from them in ways that can be disappointing and hurtful, but inevitable, too. While these concerns constitute the primary focus of the movie, a lot of other important themes get addressed: the certainty of change; the importance of decency; the value of restraint; the deep currents of feeling that lie within; and, perhaps most importantly, the need to learn when to let go. Along with Pather Panchali, Tokyo Story was among the first works that I came across that really demonstrated to me that the common experience of everyday people could be transformed into art if an artist was skilled enough to do so and that people from anywhere share a lot more in common with one another than our differences might at first suggest. It took a while for that last one to sink in, though.
In terms of film, one might think that exposure to Italian neo-realism might have accomplished at least some of the above , but it didn't. Upon my first exposure to it, neo-realism seemed hopelessly dated to me (I was madly in love with French New Wave which was still going strong). But I think I had a legitimate gripe, too. The trappings of neo-realism impressed me--the amateur actors, the cheap, mobile cameras, the use of available lighting, and so forth--but with the exception of The Bicycle Thief and some of Visconti's earliest works, the stories these movies told seemed as melodramatic and artificial as many of the conventional Italian films that had come before them. The new style was definitely on the right track, but, in too many instances, content hadn't yet caught up to those stylistic breakthroughs.
Ozu had the right realistic content--all his films, including the silent ones that I have seen, focus believably on middle class life in Japan in a very convincing way--but his style wasn't "basic" by any means. In fact, his style could hardly be more contrived. But it worked perfectly. Most obviously, he never (or virtually never--maybe once every two movies) moves his camera which is always stationary, virtually nailed to whatever surface it is resting upon. Movement may occur in the frame as when we watch the streets of Tokyo pass by from the vantage point of a bus. But in that bus, the camera is placed in a static position just looking out a window. Yet by shifting angles and by careful sequential placement of his stationary camera, Ozu is able to create a marvelous sense of movement when called upon to do so.
He is also a master of controlling what is within the frame of his shot. I mentioned in a previous review how artfully he uses the frame (in this instance, the interiors of Japanese homes) to direct his audience's eye to exactly where he wants us to look. Of course, I noticed this again when I re-watched Tokyo Story. But this time around, my mind was full of rectangles. In my childhood, kid's magazines sometimes had pages with drawings on them and the child was supposed to count, say, the number of triangles that they could find on that page. I always missed at least a couple of them. Watching Ozu's interiors this time, I marvelled at all the rectangles--there are so many rectangles in some of those shots that it would be impossible to count them, the number would be astronomical. But Ozu knows how to use them to direct our eyes to where he wants them to go. The content may be mundane, but Ozu contrasts it by always giving us something that both serves a useful purpose cinematically and delights the eye simultaneously. In a way, that's a very smart move.
Such simple stories, such contrived style--and, yet, it works. Ozu speaks to universal concerns more directly and more persuasively than just about any other artist from anywhere with similar intent.
subtitles
- Status
