Movies: The Official "Movie of the Week" Club Thread IV

[kihei]

I was able to access pages 1 to 5 and page 7. Don't know if there are any others (checked 1 to 10). I hope there are others, there are a number of web captures of the site url from 2012 to 2018 but sadly that could be it. Which would be a shame because you folks reviewed a lot of great films in that first thread.

Edit: Found two more partial pages: 39 (only the first two posts) and page 40 (some good posts there)

Movies: The Official "Movie of the Week" Club Thread - Page 40 - HFBoards

. Page 40-The Official "Movie of the Week" Club Thread Entertainment

web.archive.org

I didn't check all pages, if anyone wants to see if there others available, there is a Wayback Machine box at the top of the page with the url hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1110923&page=40, just need to change the page number from 40.

Thank you so much for your efforts, Chili. Very much appreciated.

 

[Pink Mist]

Who Framed Roger Rabbit (Robert Zemeckis, 1988)

As a general rule (in my opinion), when Hollywood tries to meld live action and animation together in comes off as sloppy and hacky (see Space Jam). A notable exception though seems to be Who Framed Roger Rabbit. Melding noir and Looney Toons cartoons to tell the story of a Toon who has been put up for a murder he didn't do, requiring the help of an alcoholic and cynical private detective who hates Toons to solve the crime, works exceptionally well. I think the reason it works so well and doesn't fall too hard into the side of gimmick (to be clear: it still is a bit gimmicky) is that the film has a deep respect for both noir films and cartoons allowing it to playfully engage with the tropes of noir films. Looney Toons cartoons also have a long history of parodying noir so it makes for a perfect fit. Bob Hoskins is great as the straight man here, playing the hard boiled detective right out of a 1940s noir film. Perfect casting all around.

I did not watch this film as a child, I only watched it now as an adult, so it amazes me that this is a film watched by children in the 80s and early 90s. This is undoubtedly one of the horniest children's movies I have seen. Not even really subtle - see anything involving Jessica Rabbit - and I don't think I would have a problem showing it to a child, it's just wild to me watching three decades later. I think this unabashed horniness in a Hollywood film is great, especially as most blockbuster films these days are totally sexless (eg. outside of a couple of references in the early Marvel films, sex might as well not exist as something humans do).

As I said, I didn't watch this growing up so I don't have the same nostalgia as others to the film - although I certainly have nostalgia for Looney Toons and noir films, so it certainly plays into that - but I had a ton of fun watching it and it is one of those childrens films that both kids and adults can enjoy (probably for different reasons).

 

[kihei]

Who Framed Roger Rabbit? (1988) Directed by Robert Zemeckis

A comic film noir that mixes Disney and Warner Brothers most cherished animated characters with live action was an inspired premise. The cartoon that begins the movie gets the audience off on the right foot (its better than anything else in the movie), and if the plot that follows seems a tad undernourished, there are still some funny cartoon humour and general good spirits to be had. Who Framed Roger Rabbit? has a 97% score on Rotten Tomatoes, and that surprised me a little as I remember the movie recieving way more than two pans. That kind of revisionism is nothing new to RT, but the movie did make $152 million domestically, so it certainly was a big hit for 1988.

I enjoyed watching it again, but I have the same bones to pick with it that I did in '88. My major pet peeve is the casting of Bob Hoskins as the detective. Though he is game and a good sport, he just seemed horribly miscast. I could envision a lot of people in that role who would have been better choices. Obviously you are not going to get Jack Nicholson or Warren Beatty, but any of Steve Martin, Bill Murray, Charlie Sheen, or Kurt Russell would have been a big improvement. Any of those guys would have been more convincing in a role that requires at least more leading man charm and swagger than Hoskins can muster, and, well, they'd be taller, too. I have a Charles Lloyd problem of long standing, as well,, as I find him a very limited actor. But admittedly he is well cast as a one-dimensional villain in this instance. In addition to his own shortcomings, he always reminds me of how much I dislike the Back to the Future trilogy. Way too California for my taste.

While I am ranting on, let me also throw the direction at least partly under the bus, too. Veteran director Robert Zemeckis doesn't really give the movie room to breathe. The presentation seems almost claustrophobic as if all the money went to the animated bits and there wasn't enough left for a more elaborate production. Who Framed Roger Rabbit? looks sometimes like it was made on the cheap, which is one reason why I think it hasn't become a classic as much as a dated curiosity.

All this sounds like a lot of whinging about a movie I enjoyed. The script isn't exactly a classic but it does have some good one-liners. Jessica Rabbit (voiced by Kathleen Turner, the perfect choice in this case) deliivers my favourite line: "I'm not bad, I'm just drawn that way." That;s my second favourite Kathleen Turner line delivery, My favourite is from Body Heat: "You aren't too smart, are you? I like that in a man."

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Who Framed Roger Rabbit?
Zemeckis (1988)
“Is he always this funny or only on days when he’s wanted for murder?”

There was a discussion prompt a few weeks back on Twitter and I’m not remembering the exact wording (so I might not fully land the point I’m trying to make) but the gist of the question was “What movie/TV/piece of art is openly commenting on a style/genre while also being a great example of that style/genre?” Their question was much more elegantly stated. But Who Framed Roger Rabbit? was my answer — it’s a very knowing riff on classic noir while also itself being a pretty good noir on its own (in spite of the sunshine, jokes and animated looniness).

I couldn’t possibly have been more of the target audience for this when it came out and I know nostalgia can be a deceptive thing but every time I revisit this it’s every bit as great as I remember. Hell, better even. I definitely hadn’t seen a key references Chinatown or Bob Hoskins’ gangster work in films like The Long Good Friday and Mona Lisa when I first saw Roger Rabbit, but I certainly have (a few times) in the decades since and each enriches this one more.

It will come as no surprise that child me loved Roger’s antics (and the piggish, cigar chomping Baby Herman) and while there’s still laughs-a-plenty, I truly grew to appreciate Hoskins here putting in not just a tone-perfect busted P.I. bit, but one of the best acting-against-animation performances ever committed to film.

Visually and verbally witty. Jokes flying faster than can be clocked. (And many more adult than I picked up on as a kid.) It is a manic movie, but I think that's a feature, not a bug. Live action Looney Tunes at times. It’s among the most well executed, satisfying pieces of Hollywood entertainment ever cranked out of that machine.

There’s also the moment-in-time business aspect to consider as the various rights holders all managed to set aside differences to allow all this cartoon cross-pollination to occur. Sure, sure everyone was handsomely compensated for their sacrifice no doubt. But such child-like letting all your toys play together is a rare thing in movies. And it’s done exceptionally well here. Not exactly the same, but more contemporary efforts to bring outside (and possibly rival) properties into the same film as in Spider-Man: No Way Home and Ready Player One just have an icky corporate board sheen that’s off putting to me. I retain no such cynicism about Roger Rabbit, though perhaps that’s just the nostalgia getting to me.

 

[Pink Mist]

Loves of a Blonde / Lásky jedné plavovlásky (Miloš Forman, 1965)

Andula (Hana Brejchová), a young woman who lives in a small factory town that has few men (female to male ratio in the town is 16 to 1), meets and hooks up one night with a musician from Prague. When she doesn't hear from him the next week she decides to travel to the big city to pop in for a visit with him - or rather his parents at their house.

Loves of a Blonde was one of Miloš Forman's early films before he left for America and is considered classic in the Czech New Wave. Like most New Waves of the 1960s, Loves of a Blonde uses a lot of non-professional actors, is shot on location, and is heavily influenced by neorealism. There is a naturalistic dialogue in most of the scenes as Forman lets the scenes play out almost like a documentary where the camera is a fly on the wall that a times feels like a precursor or influence to 2000s mumblecore films.

The film is also very funny. The 1st act follows a group of reservists who are shipped to the town (in part due to the female to male ratio) and who try to pick up some of the local women. Except they are so out of practice at talking to girls that they fumble hard throughout the night. The third act though is particularly funny as it is when Andula ends up at the home of the musician's parents. Maybe because I've been rewatching a lot of Seinfeld and the parents remind me of Frank and Estelle Constanza, but it plays out a bit like an imagined Seinfeld scenario where a girl George is dating ends up at his parents place without him. The parents spend the night arguing with each other in front of her about what to do with this girl who showed up at their door, suggesting they can't throw her out because she has nowhere to stay and they can't let her stay because what would the neighbours think. Meanwhile, when the musician comes home, and he gets over his shock at seeing her, he tries to hook up with her again with the parents in the next room before the parents kibosh it. Ultimately ending up with the parents and the son having to share a small bed to sleep. A really sharp sense of humour and I'm sure to more in the know that there's a satire of Czechoslovakian society in there.

While very funny, the film is equally bittersweet as it explores the loneliness of this young woman just trying to find love. Hana Brejchová is excellent in the lead role as her expressiveness brings a sadness and vulnerability to her character. Dating sucks and often times feels like futile quest to degrade yourself.

Also in funny and cruel twist of fate that after I picked this film like a month ago - without really knowing the plot - I had a very similar scenario as Andula a couple of weeks ago. Went on a very very good first date with someone, only for her to ghost me and then have me awkwardly encounter her in public about a week after they had ghosted me. Don't know if I brought that onto myself in the universe by picking the film for the club, but I'm at least glad my date wasn't with her parents.

 

[Pink Mist]

My next pick that I had on my list, coincidently lines up with the passing of the one of the lead actresses a few days ago, Margit Carstensen. The Bitter Tears of Petra von Kant by Rainer Werner Fassbinder

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Loves of a Blonde
Forman (1965)
“Come in. I’ll show you my scars.”

A funny, farcical set-up — a Czechoslovakian town has a population where women outnumber men 16-1. To boost morale, a military leader proposes bringing troops to town where they might meet some ladies who’ll presumably help lift their spirits. The prospect thrills the women of this town too, even young Andula who is already engaged, but intrigued by the visitors. Little did they realize these aren’t strapping young soldiers, but rather paunchy, older reservists. Comedic misunderstandings and miscommunication ensues over the course of a dance/mixer. Andula isn’t much interested in these men, but the young piano player catches her eye. It’s they who do as the event intended. Andula is smitten. When the piano player leaves town she follows unbeknownst to him — because he’s already out at another date. More comedic misunderstandings occur and Andula realizes she isn’t wanted. Internally heartbroken, she returns home and tells her friends how much the family loved her. Life resumes.

Loves of a Blonde is a funny movie. But it’s also a “funny” movie. There’s the universal comedy of misunderstanding like when the soldiers send a bottle to table of women but it goes to the wrong table and the fallout that ensues. That’s a sitcom bit. And there’s the physical struggle of Milda forced to share a bed with is parents and the literal push-pull in that tiny space. But there’s also the awkward humor of Milda’s parents fighting about their son and quizzing Milda. Their bickering is very sitcom as well. The universality of the overprotective mother. It’s funny in those sly, sideways ways.

The reality is drama and the laughs come in part because you don’t want to cry. Sadness is there if only rarely expressed. It’s only a few turns of the dial away on the ol’ tone meter. This falls somwhere between Aki Kaurismaki and British Kitchen Sink films on the spectrum.

Poor Andula. And I thought dating in modern times was tough. This closes on a dignified, but definitely sad note. I hope she got the change she sought somewhere in an unwritten sequel. She’s not a particularly deep character — in fact I could see the argument that she’s perhaps flighty and superficial — but I am sympathetic to her. There’s a grounded humanity here. Just makin’ her way in the world each day.

I’m overusing “universal” but that’s one of the things that really resonated for me. Andula has limited and flawed choices in men before her. And they’re basically the same types of men common today be they a little piggish and domineering or suave and unreliable. (Not that being a poor date or partner is gendered, but I’m just using the example here). These people aren’t inherently bad, but no one offers real promise of better days. Maybe that’s the of-the-time Communist country of it all?

At least she’s blonde. She’s got that going for her.

 

[kihei]

Loves of a Blonde (1965) Directed by Milos Forman

There was a brief period in the '60s when Czechoslovakia attempted to become more independent from the Soviet Union, but the hopeful promise of such a move was soon squashed by the Soviet power structure and with harsh consequences. One of the Czech's leading directors at the time, Milos Forman got to make a few films in this brief period, two of which, Loves of a Blonde and The Firemen's Ball, attracted international attention during the short-lived Czech New Wave. These two films were enough to establish his reputation for combining humour and insightful social commentary with a distinctive visual style. Given that suck a skill set quickly became dangerous to possess at home, he wisely decided to leave eastern Europe for Hollywood, where he eventually won an Academy Award for Amadeus, a brilliant movie but as about as far removed from anything he did in Czechoslovakia as is humanly possible to imagine.

Loves of a Blonde focuses on Andula, a semi-pretty but not especially bright girl who seeks love but in all the wrong places. Andula is not some sophisticated temptress but a small town girl with very little experience of the world. And her various ill-chosen beaus are not seasoned Lotharios picking on low-hanging fruit, but a bunch of clueless low voltage schmucks that seem to be the best that their society has to offer. The movie is both hilariously funny and brutally honest, an honesty that includes an acidic critique of the kind of society and the people in it that get created in a totalitarian regime. The funniest scene comes early on at a dance set up by state officials to give the region's girls, who outnumber boys in the area by a wide margin, a chance to meet a huge influx of army reservists who are older and way less appealing than the young recruits that the girls had been hoping for.

What makes this scene work is Forman's grasp of how awkward and downright embarrassing courting with strangers can be. He is very good at drawing out both groups' vulnerabilities. At this dance Andula meets Milda, the imported piano player for the evening, who is younger and marginally more attractive than the soldiers. He tries to seduce her in an amateurish way and it works. They spend what seems a pleasant night together. Somewhat later she follows him to his hometown and pops in unexpectedly at his parent's apartment, suitcase in hand. What follows is the second hilarious set piece as both mother and father speculate on just what there son is doing. However, the humour gradually recedes as this scene continues on with the mother's criticism of Andula getting harsher and harsher. It is in these moments that we get a glimpse of the paltry kind of life available to the people in the film as the social commentary begins to gain equal footing with Forman's good-natured perception of the romantic shortcomings of his characters.

The movie is book-ended with scenes of Andula talking to a curious girlfriend late at night about her so-called love life which she embellishes to make it appear far more romantic and satisfying than is actually the case. The device provides a surprisingly nice structure that allows the story to bounce around a little before gaining central focus. It is a polished job of cinematic organisation and though I wouldn't have been able to predict Forman's future on the basis of this film, Loves of a Blonde provides a glimpse of an extremely talented director with a very personal and appealing approach to making movies.

One further note: Loves of a Blonde is a perhaps deliberately misleading and ironic title, more suitable for some sophisticated sex romp between beautiful people. But, no. This movie is down-to-earth and awkwardly human, slice of life stuff with an edge.

subtitles

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Fearless
Weir (1993)
“Everything’s ok.”

A man survives a devastating plane crash which frees him from past anxieties and gives him the sense that he may be invincible. His work to help other survivors flee the crash earns him media attention. But while this change is freeing for him, it’s alienating to all the people around him, except a fellow survivor he befriends. Together they save each other from their respective tailspins.

I love Peter Weir. Have written it many times on this site. Will write it again. I think Fearless is actually middle of the pack in terms of his filmography, but it’s a shining example of what he really excels at — a quick, efficient, understandable premise populated with characters who may veer a little toward the fantastic (as Bridges does here), but never become untethered from their humanity. Just a stellar director of actors and understander of people.

Bridges is almost an alien here. He has a knowledge and understanding that’s beyond everyone in the world around him. It’s a duality that can make him either a savior or a bit of a stubborn asshole at any given moment. (And an interesting inverse from Truman in Weir’s next movie who is a man completely unaware of the reality around him). Another in a long line of driven, haunted protagonists in Weir movies.

Though the setup is fantastical, the relationships — particularly Bridges with his wife and son and Rosie Perez with her husband — feel painfully real. The truths, the missteps, the misunderstandings. I’ve never been through a trauma of this scale (and hope to never) but the various disconnects all felt very real. Is emotional logical at thing? That's how I'd describe it — emotional logic.

The plane crash is one of the most upsetting and effective I’ve seen committed to film. And how it’s doled out across the length of the movie is an unexpected move that both creates tension and simultaneously gives you release. It’s an interesting structural decision. I wonder if it was always there in the script or if it was decided in the making or editing.

Despite an absurdly fertile career. Despite an Oscar win (and a sneaky, you-may-be-surprised seven nominations). Despite a truly iconic performance. I always feel Jeff Bridges is a bit underrated. Maybe underappreciated is the better word? I’m guilty of it too. I think there’s an effortlessness about him (not to mention his very real life “hey man” chillness) that makes him just slide by in a lot of great actor discussions. Now Fearless is a big, actorly performance, but he never loses that level of serenity his characters often carry either by his personality or script design (or both). It’s easy to imagine other actors giving a twitchier, sweatier performance here. Just rewatched Iron Man (of all things) and one of my takeaways was, “man, Jeff Bridges is great” even in a bit of a rote villain role.

It almost goes without saying that this is Perez’s best work. The story gives her the freedom and ability to do something that wasn’t a sexpot girlfriend or brassy woman role. She’s heartbreaking as a woman carrying an almost inconceivable amount a grief.

 

[NyQuil]

What I found interesting about Who Framed Roger Rabbit? is that it was both a children's film and a film directed at adults.

It's a formula that some films have managed to succeed at (e.g. Aladdin) with plenty of references that only adults would get.

There was a California noir plot along the lines of Chinatown or LA Confidential involving real estate, there were photographs of the femme fatale with the wrong man, there was a backstory involving the detective's brother's murder.

Of course, instead of sex, Jessica is caught playing pattycake, but the implication is obvious for anyone over 13 years old.

At the same time, there's some terrific animated slapstick including the aforementioned introduction, and the cigar-chomping Baby Herman with the deep voice was a treat. Roger Rabbit himself managed to just barely avoid crossing the line of being too annoying. As a kid, cameos of well-known characters like the Donald vs. Daffy piano rivalry sequence were highlights.

I saw it in the theater and then caught it again as an adult, and I thought it held up fairly well. The Judge was genuinely creepy and scary, and the idea of "dip" and the poor little animated shoe melting away is something you probably wouldn't see in a children's movie today.

I do agree that it can be manic at times, with so much happening on the screen at once that you can barely register it.

Four years later, the film Cool World appeared to attempt to capitalize on a more mature take on the mixed animated-live action noir concept but didn't quite manage to pull it off IMO.

 

[kihei]

Fearless (1983) Directed by Peter Weir

Fearless is "Exhibit A" in how far the movie-going experience has fallen. Max (Jeff Bridges, bringing his "A" game) survives a plane crash that kills over 200 passengers including his best friend. Strangely, he is virtually unfazed by it. Even before the plane crashed, he entered a zone of tranquility that allowed him to accept what was coming so calmly that he could even help save a few passengers who otherwise would have died if not for his assistance. He believes he is indestructible. When he helps Carla (Rosie Perez), another victim of the crash who suffers suicidal guilt about not saving her child, one of the first things he tells her is "You are safe with me." His weirdly Zen-like state has put great pressure on his marriage to Laura (a luminous Isabella Rossellini in a role that would have suited her mother Ingrid Bergman). He is suffering from post traumatic stress disorder and doesn't even realize he has a problem. Max looks calm, but he is a man in a potentially terminal crisis.

In 1983, watching this film in a big movie theatre, Fearless started out with an interesting premise--PTS was seldom heard of in 1983 and little understood as a disorder--and then got better and better by the minute as the movie ratchets up into the stratosphere a combination of suspense, tension, fear, terror. and emotional vulnerability. When I first saw this movie with a crowd of fellow movie goers, the intensity was almost unbearable, made more acute by Bridges sensitive performance, Perez's best-of-a-lifetime performance, convincing technical realism (that's some plane crash and its slow denouement is spread throughout the entire movie), and a sense of empathy that I felt for the likeable characters. Watching Fearless last night on my computer screen, the world itself suddenly felt like a smaller, lesser space. My cranky sense that everything is going in the wrong direction and being diluted in the process was reinforced greatly. Fearless is still a very good film, but the experience of watching it is diminished drastically.

 

[Jevo]

A Blonde in Love (1965) dir. Milos Forman

In the small industrial town of Zruc most of the local young men have been conscripted into the army, and have thus left the town. The local shoe factory is staffed by unmarried women, and the factory owner is worried about low morale among his workforce, most of which live in dorms at the factory. So he asks the military for help and wants them to station some soldiers in the town. The military agrees, but doesn't specify which soldiers. So instead of young recruits it's a group of middle aged married reservists who come to town. A dance is held with attendance from the soldiers and the women from the factory. Much awkwardness is had, especially as a group of middle aged soldiers sets their eyes on a table with three teenage girls. The girls don't really know how to reject the men, so end up spending the whole evening with them, before they flee in the end. One of the girls, Andula, has her eyes on the young piano player instead, and ends up slipping away with him to his room above the ballroom. The two spend the night, and Andula falls for him. Although Andula doesn't hear from him again, she believes he's the man for her. So she packs a suitcase and sets off for Prague to find. She arrives at this his parents apartment only to learn he's out playing that evening and will be home late. Reluctantly she gets dragged into the apartment by the mother, and is forced to wait there while she gets both interogated and scolded by the mother.

A Blonde In Love has a somewhat unconventional story structure. It seems more based on Forman having some ideas for funny scenes, and then he built a story around that, instead of starting with a story. I think the movies also works best when you are just present in the individual scenes, instead of being too focused on the overall story. Because Andula's story isn't that interesting. But it's very fun to watch the middle aged guys trying to score with a bunch of teenage girls, and being totally oblivious to their disgust with them, or deliberately ignoring that in the hopes that the girls will cave in the end. Which take you prefer might depend on your mood, or just which of the three guys you are thinking of. I particularly love the ending with the parents bickering, or mostly just the mother actually, the father seems quite nice and probably just wants to sleep actually. The dialogue is great, and the mother seems oblivious to the fact that she only seems to get herself riled up more and more, the more she talks, and that she herself has caused most of the things that she complains about with her own actions. The movie is a great mix of commentary of human relationships and politics and beaucracy in Czechoslovakia at the time. Forman had a knack like few others for getting this stuff across in a way where you are not really thinking about it while watching the movie. But afterwards it stands crystal clear.

A Blonde in Love is not as good as Forman's The Firemen's Ball, but it's a very fun movie that is well worth the time if you've already seen The Firemen's Ball.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

I'm going to try to make you guys laugh if it's the last thing I do. But at least this time I'm not going to take too much of your time if you don't like it. Picking Buster Keaton's short One Week.

 

[Pink Mist]

Fearless (Peter Weir, 1993)

Very happy I watched this film immediately AFTER I took 5 flights over the past two weeks during vacation and not before the vacation. Not sure this film would make great in flight entertainment.

Fearless is a curious film for me as I'm struggling to get a read on my feelings for it. While watching I found many moments of the film to be quite profound, and then the next found the film cheesy and soap opera-ish. The film has a lot to say about trauma and loss, particularly how trauma impacts those close to you, and for the most part I think it tackles those subjects extremely well and with good depth. But I found the direction a little too plain and boring and "Hollywood" for my taste. I've only watched three films by Weir, The Truman Show (found okay), Dead Poets Society (hated), and now Fearless, and I don't think I like his style that much. I can't really place why but I find it a little generic and uninteresting. That said, the two scenes that bookend Fearless with the plane crash display exceptional direction.

What I really liked in Fearless are the performances. All the stars here bring their A game. With another actor Jeff Bridge's role could come off as over the top and goofy, but Bridge's plays that dude like zen in his role that seems effortless, natural and appropriate to the role. Likewise, Rosie Perez puts in a career defining performance, and Isabella Rossellini is equally stellar as the wife struggling to be married to someone unable to process PTSD.

As I said, a bit conflicted on how I feel on this film. For now I'm rating it as "good" but I can easily see myself changing it positively or negatively as I let it percolate a bit more in my head.

 

[Jevo]

Fearless (1993) dir. Peter Weir

A disaterous plan crash leaves Max Klein without a scratch, and he even helps a young kid and other passengers out of the burning wreckage, before he leaves the scene without saying a word. The experience completely changes him. He now considers himself invulnerable, because he has already died, so he can't die again. Instead of going straight home, he insteads seeks out his old high school girlfriend, just because. When he finally goes home, the airline sits him next to a psychiatrist Dr. Perlman, but Max doesn't want to talk him. Another survivor Carla lost her baby in the crash because she couldn't hold on to him when the plane hit the ground. She is grief stricken and doesn't leave her bedroom. So Dr. Perlman has the idea to put Max and Carla together, to see if they can pull each other out of their separate states.

Fearless is an interesting look at grief. Max response to the plane crash is unusual, but perhaps not really that bizarre. He has an big fear of flying, so the moment something appears to be going wrong, he already resigns himself to death, which somewhat ironically makes him fearless for the rest of the descent. What is there to fear when you have already accepted your own death? When he unexpectedly survives, he can't seem to accept that fact. In his mind he's still dead, so everything that happens now is 'free' time on earth, and when you are already dead, you seemingly can't die again, so nothing will kill him now. His reaction is juxtaposed with Carla, who has a more usual reaction to the loss of her son. For an outsider both are equally impenetrable, although Max is perhaps harder on his wife, because he seems okay. But as we see over the course of the film, both Max and Carla are equally troubled by the experience.

Perhaps the best thing about Fearless is the acting. Everyone gives great performances. Tom Hulce is great as the lawyer who is only focused on how much money he can extract from the airline, no matter how much lying it will take. John Turturro is great in as the psychiatrist who has reached the end of his tool box, and plays it with his usual comedic undertone. Isabella Rosselini has one of the hardest roles as Max' wife Laura. Laura over the course of the film feels more and more like she has lost her husband forever. But Rosselini never over acts it, or makes Laura shrill. She keeps it very much internal, and it's very powerful. Rosie Perez as Carla is does a very good job at keeping Carla grounded, and again not over acting her serious grief. The best of all though is Jeff Bridges, and he has the hardest job of all. Making Max seem like a real person, and someone you are interested in. I don't think Max is someone you can really care for, because he is so far removed from typical human behaviour. But he is interesting.

Fearless is not an all time great for me. But I haven't seen another movie who tackles grief and guilt like Fearless does, and it's a very interesting watch.

 

[kihei]

I'm probably not going to post until after Wimbledon is over, so if anyone wants to go first on Triumph of the Will it's okay with me.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Triumph of Will
Riefenstahl (1935)
“Germany is Hitler.”

An almost day-in-the-life, fly-on-the-wall look at Germany and the 1934 Nazi Party Congress in Nuremberg.

No. Strike that. Fly-on-the-wall is a bit too passive of a phrase. There is an observational element here but form follows function. And the form of this is largely mythmaking. It’s a show of power. A show of ideals. A show of strength. And as technically impressive and maybe even influential as Riefenstahl’s actual work is, it’s in the direct service of something awful and something we’re still dealing with the fallout from today.

What came to pass likely would have without propaganda such as this, but I gotta throw this baby out with its horrible bathwater. It happened therefore it is.

I’m glad @kihei picked this. It’s been something I’ve wanted to watch for a while. I’ve long had it on my list as a possible pick here as well. Never pulled the trigger on the decision though. I went in with a general understanding that it is “great” in that technical and documentary sense — camera angles and editing and the capturing of an important moment in time and whatnot. That is there at times for those who choose to single that out.

While it has visual moments, there are stretches of this that I found to be strikingly … dull. Long car rides, long speeches. I don’t want to be flippant and I don’t want to disregard the significance of some of the awfulness that would grow from this but this is such a famous piece of propaganda I expected it to feel a little more firey and less of a lecture? I also don’t think I heard any direct speaking against Jews among the many speeches. Feels like a telling tactical omission on Riefenstahl’s part.

And again this risks being viewed as being flip, but there’s a bit of corniness here with all the pomp and circumstance and music and boys-being-boys soldier wrestling is just …. I hate to say silly, but it kinda is.

In the end it left me with a feeling of emptiness though. The hollow, trite bloviating. And then there’s the emptiness of realizing some of this shit is still working on people.

Perhaps I remain a fool.

Programming note on my end: I will be walkabouting the Earth July 15-31 and though I may dip my head in here during that time I probably won't be posting any reviews until I return so don't hold up anything on my account. I'll catch up when I'm back.

Be well. Happy watching.

 

[Pink Mist]

Triumph of the Will / Triumph des Willens (Leni Riefenstahl, 1935)

Leni Riefenstahl's Triumph of the Will is a documentary/propaganda that documents/showcases Hitler's visit to Nuremberg at the 1934 Nazi Party Congress. Large rallies with speeches and parades from notable Nazi leaders, swastikas, displays of power follow.

Triumph of the Will is primarily regarded for two things. The first is the technical excellence in the film. I hesitate to call the film "a good film" because its a work of fascist propaganda, but the technical mastery on display by Riefenstahl is remarkable. The cinematography and editing in particular feel modern and not dated at all like many 1930s films, perhaps alluding to the film's technical influence felt today. It's a shame Riefenstahl was a Nazi through and through didn't pull a Fritz Lang and emigrate out of Nazi Germany because she probably had some great films in her due to her ability (she allegedly had offers to go to Hollywood in the early 1930s) - but there's coming back from being the director of the most notable piece of Nazi propaganda, and its not surprise she didn't direct anything after WWII (aside from documentary about oceans she filmed when she was 98 years old, called Impressions Under Water). In some respects, she feels like a bit of a wasted talent (to be clear, not arguing to rehabilitate her image).

The other notable thing with this film is that it is a great document of life in Nazi Germany - or rather the "idealized life" that the party wanted to display in order to recruit. There's something surreal to watch these extended speeches from these leaders (and by extended, I mean extended, they go on and on). Definitely not a film of mere observation, there is a propagandizing power to the film, but an intriguing observation of one of the most evil powers in world history nonetheless.

 

[kihei]

Triumph of the Will Directed by Leni Riefenstahl

Can great art ever be in service of great evil? Director Leni Riefenstahl's Triumph of the Will is her documentation of the massive Nuremberg Rally in 1934, a masterpiece of propaganda that depicts the power and the supposed never ending dominance of the so-called thousand year Third Reich and, especially, of its leader Adolph Hitler. I don't see why art is forbidden to be in service to great evil by definition, but it is damn hard to think of an example. Believe me, I've tried and I can't come up with one. While I don't think Triumph of the Will qualifies as great art, though, it certainly qualifies as superior propaganda. For all of Riefenstahl's stunning images--images that communicate a relentless hymn in praise to Nazi power that is in effect mythological in nature--the movie could be argued to satisfy some major criteria of a work of art, though certainly not others. The documentary has a kind of formal beauty and there is great skill in how the images are shot and edited in subtle ways to enhance the message that is being presented. This is at the very least artful.

When it comes to timelessness, the film is on much shakier ground--or at least it is timeless in a way that the artist almost certainly didn't intend. It is timeless in that it shows the threat of a strong, unscrupulous, unhinged leader who can bend a people to his will, largely because they already want to believe what he is selling in the first place. I suppose it fails the universality test, too, or, again, reinforces the notion in a way not-intended. This kind of evil can take root anywhere if the circumstances are right. No country is immune from it. In that sense, for most of us, Triumph of the Will is not a credible endorsement of evil but it is a cautionary tale of much weight on the seductiveness of evil.

Of course, the documentary fails miserably when it comes to the fourth pillar of classical aesthetics--truth. A movie whose purpose is to make inevitable that which any reasonable human being should find repulsive and evil, fails by any humanist standard--in fact its an abomination of what art strives to be. This movie is selling a lie. Plus, there is another problem. Great works of art do not preach to the already converted--they excite thought and debate, not acquiescence. In effect, Riefenstahl is engaging in fan service here, one of the darkest things about the film. For all these reasons, I do not believe Triumph of the Will is a work of art, let alone a great one.

Hell of a propaganda piece, though. Those scenes of Hitler's airplane flying through the clouds as though it is descending into Nuremberg from Valhalla are amazing. The shots of the rally at night seem almost sulphuric and the careful orchestration of marching boots and thousands of troops on the parade grounds are all stunning to behold. Riefenstahl has a fine art photographer's eye and many of the images are almost mesmerizing. She does everything she can to frame Hitler so that he looks powerful and convincing, the star of the show, a heroic, deified leader channeling the will of his people. Gotta say, he is scarily convincing. Apologies to Bruno Ganz, Anthony Hopkins, Ian McKellen and others, but nobody but nobody does Hitler better than Hitler. I'm sure German teenagers watching this movie would have found it near impossible to resist the cause--in that sense it is a very successful propaganda film. It is easy to see through the movie and its intent now--but it's not something to feel smug about. Living within that culture in 1934 would have been a very different proposition. The motherf***ers had the best uniforms, though--gotta concede that one.

subtitles

 

[kihei]

My next pick will be Michael Cimino's Heaven's Gate.

 

[Jevo]

Triumph of the Will (1935) dir. Leni Riefenstahl

A documentary commissioned by Adolf Hitler showing the 1934 Nuremburg Rally, the yearly Nazi Party congress. A mix of innovative filmmaking and Nazi party propaganda.

Triumph of the Will is probably one of the most boring movies I have watched. The speeches are quite dull, and I'm not really a big fan of the speakers, so they don't really rile me up. Although they are filmed well in an attempt to make the speakers appear big and powerful. Watching Hitler ride through Nuremburg through big crowds, or Hitler Jugend running around topless performing various physical feats, are not really my idea of fun either. But the movie isn't really made to entertain me. It's made to rile up the party supporters and those on the fence about the party. It's more akin to a historical relic than it is to a normal film.

The reason Triumph of the Will is still talked about is its camera work. It was innovative for the time, with stuff like the aerial footage of Nuremberg and the usage of a moving camera. There's many gorgeous shots in the film, and it is really well filmed. The editing is also really good. Every shot, every scene is careful chosen to highlight and strenght of the Nazi party and the German people. I can appreciate the skill that went into that, eventhough it's by no means subtle, but I'm not exactly expecting subtle either. But if I'm watching and old technically innovative documentary, I'm opting for Man With A Movie Camera every time over this one. That one is at least so playful in it's use of various techniques that it is fun to watch, and not just something where you can appreciate the craftmanship.

 

[Jevo]

Rashomon (1950) dir. Akira Kurosawa

Three men, a priest, a woodcutter and a commoner seek refuge during a down pour. To pass the time, the woodcutter tells of how he found a murdered samurai in the forest. The priest saw the same samurai the day he was murdered, and was summoned to the trial. At the trial a local bandit, Tajomaru, had been caught and accused of the murder and the rape of the samurai's wife. Tajomaru admits he killed the samurai, but denies having raped the wife, he instead claims she had sex with him willingly. In her testimony the wife claims that she was raped by Tajomaru, and when she freed her husband, he didn't want anything to do with her anymore, because she had been dishonoured. In distress she claims that she accidentally stabed the samurai to death. Lastly the samurai gives his testimony through a medium. In his story Tajomaru asked the wife to marry him after the assault, and she agreed. But she asked Tajomaru to kill her husband first. Tajomaru didn't like this, and gave the samurai the choice between letting her go or having her killed. Before a choice was made she broke free and escaped. In humiliation the samurai claims to have killed himself. The woodcutter claims this is all wrong. He actually witnessed the whole thing from a hiding place, and then tell his account of what happened.

Rashomon in no way invented the unreliable narrator. But it's probably the best use of them in cinema, and there's even four of them. Every retelling of the events are wildly different, and mutually contradictory. Each version of the story doesn't just serve to remove blame from the narrator, but more so it serves to reinforce their own image and their adherence to societal norms.

Tajomaru has no problem being seen as murderer. It's perhaps even to his advantage as it reinforces his reputation as a ruthless bandit. But he's no rapist. He's also a skilled and ruthless swordsman. However the woodcutter's version doesn't show him as the skilled fighter he wants to present himself as. Rather he's scared to death and lucky to be alive. A sign his work to build up his own image has been working, since he's quite feared.

Due to societal norms, the wife see's her life as ruined, now that she's been the victim of rape. So she'd rather be convicted of killing her husband than go free. A very strong statement of the effect that negative views of rape victims can have on the victim, for something that is no fault of their own.

Even in death the samurai seeks to uphold his honor, rather than seek justice for his killing. Embarassed by not being able to protect his wife, and dying scared in a tumultus fight, he'd rather tell the story of how he died in an honorable way.

The woodcutters story seems at a glance more objective. But it cannot be ruled as the truth, since he is also motivated by self-interest, even though his motivations and biases are not as readily apparent as they are for the other three.

You'd think it was boring to see the same story told in four slightly different ways, but it's not at all. Kurosawa keeps the intensity high and makes the film flow extremely well. The three actors in the story are also all three really good, which makes how the play each version slightly different that much more interesting to watch.

Rashomon is probably one of Kurosawa's most simple films in terms of sets and actors, while he's known for big films with big casts and sets. But I don't think he has another film where every moment is as well utilised as it is in Rashomon. There's no wasted second, and he packs as much, if not more, into this short 1½ hours as he does in his 3 hour epics.

 

[Pink Mist]

Rashomon / 羅生門 (Akira Kurosawa, 1950)

Rashomon, a Film 101 classic and one of the first foreign films I believe I watched - catching snippets of it in a high school law class examining the concept of truth. The classic tale of course, follows a trial in Japan in which a man is murdered and his wife is allegedly raped by notorious bandit in the woods - however each witness gives a differing account of what happened after the woman is raped. This approach to the unreliability of the narrator - told through four different accounts of the events with flashbacks portraying the events despite the perhaps erroneous nature of their retelling - has been used in countless films since, as well as parodied, obscuring the novelty of Kurosawa's approach and influence that this film had on approaches to stories in film. Particularly how Kurosawa uses movement in his camera and subtleties in the characters performances in each retelling. I think it holds up pretty well, but I can see why some may not "get" why the film is held in such high regard since unreliable narrators are common place today.

What I appreciated more this time is just how bleak this film is. Obviously there is an optimistic ending, but throughout the film is a deep pessimism on the goodness of humans. Everyone in the story is out to shame each other in the worst possible light in their accounts while bettering their own standing. As the peasant asks, "Is there anyone who is good? Maybe goodness is make believe." It certainly seems here that at its most basic level that human nature is nasty. Can our human nature be trusted for truthfulness and justice? Of course Kurosawa pulls back at the ending as the clouds break and the sun shines through - but it seems like a temporary reprieve.

 

[kihei]

Rashomon (1950) Directed by Akira Kurosawa

I saw Rashomon in my first film class back in 1964. I thought it was a terrific movie. Never saw it again which is a rarity for me in terms of classic international films from that period. The ones that I have liked, and there are dozens, I've seen multiple times, including half a dozen Kurosawa films. Never had any interest in seeing Rashomon again, though. I fact, when it was picked as a "movie of the week", I initially felt a bit of a letdown. So why did I not want to see a vividly photographed and edited, very clever, all-around terrific movie at least once again in fifty years? That question did puzzle me but not enough to excite interest in a second viewing.

My initial reasoning was thus: I didn't want to see the movie again because there really wasn't much insight to be gained by seeing it twice--or so I thought. Rare for a great movie, all the meat on the bone is there to be devoured in an initial screening. I did feel pleasure in watching Kurosawa's beautiful display of technique. That was certainly enjoyable. But the themes--vanity, mean-spiritedness, self-regard, self-delusion, unreliable narrators (which was something relatively new at the time), subjective reality--were all there and just as delightfully obvious as they were the first time I saw the film all those years ago. So I felt pretty much the way I expected to feel upon watching Rashomon again.

But then it slowly dawned on me that there was something about the film that I hadn't really appreciated before. The one major change in my perception was that this time around I could see how one could bill Rashomon as a comedy and get away with it. While it doesn't become abundantly clear that the movie is a comedy until the final act, nonetheless, there are giveaways all through the movie, thanks primarily to Toshiro Mifune's deliberately over-the-top performance. When I first saw the movie, his performance bothered me--too broad too often, too hammy. But if he is the tease that paves the way for the comic twist in the last stages of the film than it all makes perfectly good sense. The various perspectives of the characters take on a different or additional dimension as well--as, in part, long build-ups to the eventual punch line of a very good joke. The rather oddly optimistic ending with the infant appearing out of the blue, is perhaps another giveaway that Kurosawa is making fun of the human comedy that is life rather than wringing his hands in despair about it. So, I'm glad that I did see Rashomon a second time--because of all the perspectives I examined the first time I saw the film, this one had somehow escaped me. Or, maybe, it just took me half a century to get the joke.

subtitles

 

[Jevo]

My next pick is Strangers on A Train.