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

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

10
Edwards (1979)
“The sonofabitch across the way has a bigger telescope than I have.”

George is rich and famous. He’s a multiple Oscar winning composer. Nice house. Lovely partner who looks and sounds a lot like Julie Andrews. But at his 42nd birthday (ONLY 42?), he feels amiss. He’s mopey and disconnected. He obsessively peeps on his libidinous neighbors. A beautiful young woman on her way to a wedding catches his eye one day. He’s so distracted he wrecks his car … the first of many comedic mishaps and pratfalls due to horniness. He becomes obsessed with this youthful beauty, essentially stalking and spying on her. Going as far as following her and her husband to Mexico on their honeymoon. When he finally gets her, it’s not quite as he imagined as it turns out he’s a little more old fashioned than he even realized.

Dudley Moore’s George is yet another in cinema’s rich history of mopey man children. All the anxieties of a Woody Allen or Albert Brooks, but not quite the wit or intelligence. A proto Judd Apatow character with less weed. I thought of some of Brooks’ characters a lot in this case because like some of those, Moore is awful tough to root for. Who wants to be in a relationship with this man? That makes 10 tough sledding at points.

Now I don’t need to ROOT FOR a protagonist necessarily. George’s struggle is relatable even if he isn’t necessarily. It’s very human for one to allow their low self esteem to cloud their judgement and/or block the acknowledgement of the things that are good or right in their life. His “male menopause.”

There’s definitely a modern watching of this where the gut reaction is that Moore is gross and bad. He is. I’m not so sensitive that I can’t do a little suspension of disbelief and work with the movie on its terms. “It was the style at the time” and whatnot. But the ending is hard to buy. Andrews, a clearly intelligent and thoughtful woman, deserves better.

Blake Edwards is one of movie’s great directors of slightly more sophisticated and erudite comedies and this is commonly cited among his best, though the scene of a young and cornrowed Bo Derek running on a beach certainly has helped buoy its memorability across time. The physical comedy didn’t do much for me (though I do appreciate a good prolonged comedic tumble down a hill as much as the next viewer). There is an escalating series of embarrassments. The Book of Job as a sex comedy. But I do think some of the verbal jousting was quite sharp, particularly the early movie argument between Moore and Andrews about his attitude toward women. Similarly when Moore and Derek discuss her feelings about sex. The women are unambiguously the most aware and most intelligent ones. They’re the ones who know themselves. George is not. He gets some comeuppance, but not enough. Perhaps that was the style at the time as well.

Did I laugh? Yeah I laughed. But I can’t help but feel whatever once was revelatory about this movie lost its potency.

 

[kihei]

10 (1979) Directed by Blake Edwards

George (Dudley Moore), a very well off Hollywood composer with seemingly a great life, turns 42-years-old and falls into a mid-life crisis in no uncertain terms. Stopped in traffic he notices a bride-to-be in the car beside him. Jenny (Bo Derek) is stunningly beautiful, and he immediately is infatuated with her. He and his long-term partner Sam (Julie Andrews) argue about his attitude to women. His crisis only deepens. Though she is a newly wed, George begins to stalk Jenny all the way to Mexico. Eventually he meets his perfect 10, and, well, she’s not quite what he expected..

So, Blake Edwards and Julie Andrews have been married for ten years at this point. Andrews is a still lovely 44-year-old; Edwards is 57. And he comes home with this script and says, “Here, hon, I have a great role for you.” What did she think? Why would she do it? Why wouldn’t this role send all the wrong signals to her? Well, she took the part. She got to play against type anyway, something that she had been trying to do to overcome her English churchmouse image. She’s quite good actually, has some good lines, but what a thankless role.

This movie is a confusing mix of attitudes that seem to be clashing with one another. Let’s start with the Dudley Moore character. He is an asshole of the first order—treats his partner badly, is a voyeur, covets a new bride a couple of decades younger than himself, and is willing to stalk her and destroy her honeymoon if possible. That’s about as reprehensible as one can get, but yet Edwards seems to want us to be on George's side. Moore plays George as a bumbler, a distant cousin perhaps to Blake’s even more famous creation, Inspector Clousot. Moore with his gift for mugging and pratfalls and physical humour makes Peter Sellers look absolutely restrained in comparison. But all the slapstick is supposed to be rather endearing, not damning. Middle aged boys will be middle aged boys, no?

So, Edwards seems to be talking out of both sides of his mouth. Yes, this is a critique of how stupid men can get in middle-age, but, jeez, let’s not be too hard on the guy, especially when he is as cuddly and funny as Dudley—I mean, Jenny is a “10” after all. That excuses his behaviour, right? Sure seems to. Maybe it’s a case of Edwards’ brain telling him one thing while his remaining hormones tell him something else.

But even if we give the movie the benefit of a doubt as a satire of male mid-life crises, the world George returns to in the film turns out to be a very patriarchal one. No open relationships for this guy The standard marriage model of the time--where the male partner can chase after a cutie while wifey, even a smart wifey, stays home and waits, willing to take him back--is the model that is promoted here as the norm. Switch the genders around—Sam goes off chasing a young Robert Redford-type while George keeps the home fires burning—and people would have been incredulous.

And then there is the inherent Playboy/Penthouse imbecility of the scorecard title. You can’t get more objectified than to have your personal desirability defined by how you look on a “1 to10” scale. In the end, perhaps 10 is kind of a message movie. However, for every potentially positive message headed in one direction, there seems to be two or three going the other way.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

My next pick is The English Patient. (Minghella, 1996)

 

[Pink Mist]

10 (Blake Edwards, 1979)

George (Dudley Moore) is a successful songwriter who has it all: a beautiful house, a gorgeous and age-appropriate long-term partner, Sam (Julie Andrews), numerous Oscars, and so on. However, upon his 42nd birthday he has a midlife crisis and wants to get out of his stale life and chase a newly wed – a perfect 10 - who is 20 years his junior. He stalks her all the way to Mexico where he finds out that the picture-perfect woman is not all that she seems.

10 was a box office the year it was released but it has completely faded from pop culture. I’m under 30 but have a reasonable knowledge of films but I had never even heard of this one, despite its box office success. The film made the equivalent in todays dollars of over $200m from the box office, yet I haven’t heard a peep about this film (though to be fair, in 40 years I’m sure we won’t hear a peep about most of the trash that tops the box offices today, but that’s a different story). Part of this is due to the dated attitudes that permeate the film. The film has a deeply conservative (and at times incoherent) bent to it about the sanctity of monogamy (for women) and the importance of settling, with a huge dash of sexism. But aside from its backwards attitudes, the film is more likely forgotten because its just not very good.

Dudley Moore is supposed to play an everyday man, but I don’t think I’ve encountered many everyday men more unlikable than him. The comedy, which is primarily slapstick, never really lands outside of a few gags or when they do land they go on for too long (for example the missed connections with the phone). The only bit that I think really worked well and was clever was the bickering between George and Sam over George’s definition of the word “broad”. Just not a good film. The only explanation I can see for why it did so well is that you get to see a lot of naked playboy models in this film, which probably is an antithesis to the film’s confused message.

 

[Pink Mist]

My next pick is The English Patient. (Minghella, 1996)

Looking forward to this one. I saw it a couple of years ago for the first time and I am a staunch defender of it today being a criminally underrated film

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

10 (Blake Edwards, 1979)

George (Dudley Moore) is a successful songwriter who has it all: a beautiful house, a gorgeous and age-appropriate long-term partner, Sam (Julie Andrews), numerous Oscars, and so on. However, upon his 42nd birthday he has a midlife crisis and wants to get out of his stale life and chase a newly wed – a perfect 10 - who is 20 years his junior. He stalks her all the way to Mexico where he finds out that the picture-perfect woman is not all that she seems.

10 was a box office the year it was released but it has completely faded from pop culture. I’m under 30 but have a reasonable knowledge of films but I had never even heard of this one, despite its box office success. The film made the equivalent in todays dollars of over $200m from the box office, yet I haven’t heard a peep about this film (though to be fair, in 40 years I’m sure we won’t hear a peep about most of the trash that tops the box offices today, but that’s a different story). Part of this is due to the dated attitudes that permeate the film. The film has a deeply conservative (and at times incoherent) bent to it about the sanctity of monogamy (for women) and the importance of settling, with a huge dash of sexism. But aside from its backwards attitudes, the film is more likely forgotten because its just not very good.

Dudley Moore is supposed to play an everyday man, but I don’t think I’ve encountered many everyday men more unlikable than him. The comedy, which is primarily slapstick, never really lands outside of a few gags or when they do land they go on for too long (for example the missed connections with the phone). The only bit that I think really worked well and was clever was the bickering between George and Sam over George’s definition of the word “broad”. Just not a good film. The only explanation I can see for why it did so well is that you get to see a lot of naked playboy models in this film, which probably is an antithesis to the film’s confused message.

As a little background for the pick, I got the idea from Karina Longworth's consistently excellent podcast You Must Remember This. Her most recent season is called Erotic 80s and covers the portrayal of sex in movies through that decade. (A 90s series is coming soon)

I think episode 2 covered 10 and that bridge from the pornography curious 70s to a more conservative 1980s.

Her discussion of 10 piqued my interest. She has plenty of reservations about it as well.

Great series. Highly recommend if you like film history.

 

[Pink Mist]

As a little background for the pick, I got the idea from Karina Longworth's consistently excellent podcast You Must Remember This. Her most recent season is called Erotic 80s and covers the portrayal of sex in movies through that decade. (A 90s series is coming soon)

I think episode 2 covered 10 and that bridge from the pornography curious 70s to a more conservative 1980s.

Her discussion of 10 piqued my interest. She has plenty of reservations about it as well.

Great series. Highly recommend if you like film history.

Ah I see yeah that makes sense for its confusing sexual politics. I'll check out that podcast. I'm also really interested in forgetbusters (blockbuster films that have just completely disappeared from pop culture) so this definitely fit the bill for that

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

The only explanation I can see for why it did so well is that you get to see a lot of naked playboy models in this film

Well, now I'm curious.

 

[kihei]

Antichrist (2009) Directed by Lars von Trier

Given even a cursory glance at his extensive filmography, one can conclude that Lars von Trier is the most dedicated, consistent and extreme misanthrope in movie history. It is hard to think of his equal in any of the arts, really…maybe Celine? By this dubious measure, Antichrist is likely his masterpiece.

Von Trier begins his movie with a premise that could not be more disturbing. While a couple, He (Willem Dafoe) and She (Charlotte Gainsbourg), are making love, their toddler escapes his crib and falls to his death from an open window. The rest of the movie is devoted to the aftermath of that tragedy. She is devastated emotionally to the point of mental incapacity while He, a therapist, copes by trying to help her reason things through as though she is a client, not his desperately grieving partner.

The film is divided into chapters with a beautiful but deeply distressing prologue, followed by sections on “grief,” “pain,” “despair,” and “the three beggars,” after which there is a brief epilogue. The first two thirds of the movie is a study of emotional annihilation exacerbated by gender-distinct ways of coping with the unbearable. This section of the film consists of ultra-intense psychological confrontations between the only two adult actors in the entire movie. Not since maybe Last Tango in Paris has a director demanded so much of a pair of actors. Ingmar Bergman’s emotionally charged Persona, a distant cousin, seems like a walk in the park in comparison (actually walking in the park would be dangerous in Antichrist).

This section of the movie is masterful in its presentation of the near impossibility of emotionally surviving the death of a child, a death for which the parents share direct responsibility because of a moment of carelessness. Von Trier sets up a contest of wills between She and her raw emotionalism and He and his dogged rationalism, both inadequate responses to the grief that each feels. Although He is ostensibly trying to help by assuming the role of therapist, He fails to see that his approach is also delusional, and, though seemingly the less wounded of the two, He never understands that he is as far adrift as She is. Eventually the couple venture to a cabin in the woods where they in turn must confront nature in many different ways, a nature that is not neutral and far more malevolent than benign.

At this point late in the film, He has done what He can to treat his partner’s despair and, unconvincingly, she declares herself cured. What follows is a terrifying walk in the woods in which appears the infamous talking fox who darkly mutters “Chaos…reigns.” The fox has a gift for understatement. Antichrist goes from a searing examination of a grievous loss to a chaotic trip into the extremes of madness and human disintegration

What follows is a series of events including sexual frenzy (not in the fun way), imaginative approaches to torture, and ultra-realistic gender mutilation; in short, a descent into madness fuelled by some of von Trier’s peculiar notions of the differences between men and women. To von Trier, women seem to function as kindred spirits of evil through their supposedly closer approximation to nature (they give birth). Men can never fully understand or cope with their inner fury.

The first time I saw Antichrist, I left the theatre feeling like I had been run over by not just a truck, more like an ocean-going supertanker. The movie is a tremendously immersive and disorienting experience. If I am giving von Trier the benefit of a doubt, the work in its entirety can be seen as a testimony to the circle of Hell that any parent enters who loses a child through a moment’s inattention. On that score, I think it is a great movie.

But the third act of Antichrist is somehow even more disturbing than it need be to make the point, a massive example of artistic overkill. From the prologue on, the relationship between sex and death in this movie is alarming. The eventual suggestion that women and (mother) nature are essentially evil and randomly malignant is straight von Trier demented psychology. The idea of a false Eden, a place that lurks in wait of the vulnerable and the broken, provides another horrific dimension. The physical isolation of being alone in the woods adds unfathomable dread to the movie’s psychotically dark vision. Plus, the brilliant ambient score, more a collection of tension-inducing electronic noises than anything remotely musical, fits the visuals like a glove. In fact, it is fair to say that everything that is not dialogue between the two central characters is designed to promote and enhance the chaos which the movie eventually embraces in no uncertain terms.

Certainly, in terms of the relationship between words and images, Antichrist is a master work. Whether or not von Trier is justified in the extremes that he goes to in order to create this bedlam, I have no doubt that only a uniquely gifted director could create such a canvas. Extreme and id-driven, Antichrist remains a profound challenge for any viewer who ventures into its tortured, nihilistic world.

 

[kihei]

My next pick will be One-Eyed Jacks, the only movie that Marlon Brando ever directed.

 

[Jevo]

10 (1979) dir. Blake Edwards

George Webber is a succesful Hollywood composer, but he's hit a midlife crisis. He has a girlfriend who loves him in Samantha. But now George is worried that he has wasted his life and not had enough sex with young women while he had the chance. One day he sees a beautiful woman in a car, and follows her. Turns out she's getting married, but it doesn't stop George. He becomes obsessed about having sex with this woman, and he starts an elaborate stalking campaign to achieve his goal.

10 was a commercial and critical hit when it came out. Now it's hard to see why it was such a succes. Personally I found most of jokes more numbing than funny. But then again, I'm not one for slapstick, but this was pretty bad even for slapstick. Most of the jokes felt obvious and you could see them coming from far away. George is not really a particularly sympathetic main character, so you'd think you'd at least get some fun out of seeing him get beat on repeatedly, but I didn't really feel strongly enough about to really care. At the end of the day I feel like the movie about the middleaged smuck in midlife crisis has been done cleverer, funnier and just generally better many other times. So for me 10 doesn't bring much to the table. Apart from a lot of naked women, it does bring that. But in 2022 it's not hard to find pictures and video of naked women. So that's not a big deal anymore.

A lot could be said about how the way we depict women and sex have changed dramatically since the 70s. No doubt mainstream cinema has become a lot more polish and "safe" in terms of both sex and bodies since the 70s, and many of the most popular films from Hollywood right now seems to entirely lack any sort of sexuality. But in 10 you can also see how times are changing. The sort of free sexual livestyles of George's neighbour is not something new or exciting in this film. Instead it more like a parody, like a 14 year olds vision of what peeking into Playboy Mansion must be like. Quite unlike a similar situation in The Long Goodbye, where the group of naked women on psychedelics living next to Philip Marlowe are also a sort of joke, they are also something that just naturally exists in Marlowe's world, which I don't think can be said here.

I'll be travelling for the next couple of weeks, so I'll be playing a bit of catch up when I get back. My pick is next after Antichrist, so feel free to get started on Bamako without me if you feel like it.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Antichrist
Von Trier (2009)
[acorns continue hitting roof]

A couple experience an unspeakable tragedy when their son dies due in part to their negligence. The man, a therapist, takes the woman to a cabin where they hope to resolve her lingering issues with panic and grief. Things … devolve.

Ever the provocateur, Lars Von Trier is up to all his tricks here. Striking, even poetic, visuals mashed with a troll’s commitment to poking and prodding and courting discomfort. To his credit, the questions and sentiments feel genuine. To his detriment, we get 90 minutes of wrestling with the classic hysterical woman trope, a favored topic of Von Trier. Just because his issues are honest does not mean they’re not still issues.

Why is she the one to carry the full weight of the loss? If one is assigning fault for such a random, awful occurrence, then the man surely bares an equal share? The woman is emotion. The man is logic (I guess?). It’s not that it isn’t implausible, it’s just that it’s kinda rote.

It’s a committed performance from Gainsbourg, but once again we have a male creator making his actress moan and writhe in service of his peccadilloes. She’s simply too damaged and horny to function. Even her panic attacks are sexual in execution. Dafoe is her equal as a performer, a man whose hubris leads to his own destruction. This may be a mea culpa on Von Trier’s part, but it’s a pretty masturbatory and masochistic one. To each their own! We don’t kink shame.

The Puritans may have liked this destructive view of desire — if they could endure it.

The atmosphere is heavy with dread. It’s intense and oppressive. This is Bergman territory. Horny, pervy Bergman. I do appreciate how much of a horror film Antichrist is, right down to the remote cabin the woods. Von Trier’s undeniably skilled but I don’t have a long leash for his brand of button pushing, even when it looks so very polished.

 

[Pink Mist]

Antichrist (Lars von Trier, 2009)

This film has been on my radar for a long time and I have been putting off watching it for over a decade. Primarily for two reasons. One, I am squeamish with blood and gore, and self-mutilation is something that I am particularly sensitive to, so just a cursory glance of the plot and what I had heard about the final act was enough to put me off watching. Secondly, while I was not very familiar with von Trier when I had first heard of the film, I am now well acquainted with his misanthropic worldview which has been amplified my dread of watching this film.

That said, once I finally settled into watching this I was surprised that it was a fairly standard relationship drama. Okay maybe not standard, as it starts off with a gut-wrenching death of a child and a depiction of severe depression resulting from loss, but it was closer to a lot of the Bergman I have been watching lately (Scenes of a Marriage, Autumn Sonata) than the gore and torture I had been expecting (hold that thought). I actually felt this was at times a very powerful examination of how couples process trauma and mental illness, something that I could relate to both as someone who has had depressive periods and who has cared for someone with severe and debilitating depression. A lot of the notes hit and it was hard to watch their relationship and their roles in the relationship at times due to how close some of the subject matter was.

But then that final act I was dreading came in with a wave of self-indulgent overkill. Totally unnecessary and while I watched through my fingers at times it was not as graphic as I had expected it would be (still graphic and maybe this was also because I had an idea of what was coming). I also think this third act undermined a lot of his point. But primarily just unnecessary. Though I reckon that’s the reaction von Trier would want, so I guess kudos to him. Anyway, good to get this one out of the way so I can never think about it again or the idea of watching.

 

[Jevo]

Antichrist (2009) dir. Lars Von Trier

A man and a woman have sex while their toddler climbs up onto a table and out a window, he falls to his death. The woman is griefstricken and blames herself, she gets admitted to psychiatric ward. The man is a therapist, and believes he can treat her more effectively than the hospital. He wants her to face her fears, and one of her biggest fears is nature, so they venture to their cabin in the woods called Eden. On the way the man see's strange things, like a doe with a stillborn fawn hanging halfway out of it. During therapy sessions in the cabin, the woman often becomes increasingly manic, and opens up about how she has developed the belief that women are inherintly evil, herself included.

Antichrist is a hard movie to watch, and even harder to describe. It's probably Von Trier's most inaccessible film I think, both because of how hard to watch it is, and because of how much depth there is to it. The woman often doesn't seem like a real person, like someone who acts like a person normally would, but that's just my perspective. But I'm sure to Von Trier, her actions and thoughts are quite real. It's no secret that Von Trier has had his own troubles with mental illness, and Antichrist was partially an exploration of his own depression. So someone who has experienced mental illness in the way that Von Trier has, probably sees the woman's actions in a different light than me, and can perhaps even relate to them to some extent. And in many ways it seems that the woman is an embodiment of depression and anxiety, more so than is to represent someone suffering from said illnesses. And the movie really shows the destructive power that they can have. However it would be a shame to say that Antichrist is just a film about depression. The film is very multilayered, that it's hard to see them all in one viewing, or get to them all in one review. Most obvious are also the themes regarding man's relationship with nature, and the Abrahamic religions, with many references hereto like the cabin being called Eden.

I'm not sure I like Antichrist. After watching it the first time, I didn't feel like watching it again. Now I feel quite similar. But it's not because I think it's bad, that I don't want to watch it again. I don't want to again because it's an overwhelming film in many ways, and not all of them are ways I enjoy. It is however an interesting film that leaves me with a lot to think about. I'm left often like this by Von Trier films, and that's a big reason I have an very ambivalent relationship with his films.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

As a programing note, not sure how many of you have the Criterion Channel but The Servant is being added next month. I was going to rent it tonight and just happened to glance at the channel's September listings. Funny enough they're also adding a movie that I've been considering suggesting for a little while now though I'm not sure I'm going to pull the trigger ...

 

[Jevo]

Bamako (2006) dir. Abderahmane Sissako

In a courtyard in Mali's capital Bamako a trial has been set up. African society against the IMF and the World Bank. Both organisations have given many loans to African nations, which are now riddled with debt and little to show for it. Is it because the loans have been particularly predatory, and haven't been given to allow African nations to thrive, but to help developed nations exploit Africa. Or is it because of rampant corruption in Africa, and because the funds have largely been embezzled before they have been able to help African society improve. While this trial goes on, life continues largely as normal in the courtyard.

Bamako is a quite unusual film. Rarely do we see a hypothetical court case play out, least of all one concerning the state of African society. You'd easily assume that such a film would be heavily and somewhat of a slog with lengthy arguments mostly interesting for those deep into international law. But that's not the case. Of course it's a heavy subject matter, but it's been made very engaging, and isn't heavy in citing paragraphs of the law. Instead it mainly relies on some engaging witness testimonies from regular Africans who cite the problems caused by the enourmous debts that African nations suffer from, and how they are suffering from it every day in their lives, and how this further causes things like many able young people choose the route being refugees/illegal immigrants in Europe, instead of staying in Africa. Again causing further problems in Africa. There's little doubt where the films allegiance lies in this court case, but it's not arguing against a strawman. The arguments used by the defence in the case are arguments that have often been put forward when the development of Africa has been discussed in the western world. Further more we also have people living around the courtyard who can't see how the case could possible have any kind of impact on their lives, and thus doesn't care.

Bamako is a very thought provoking film about a subject that doesn't often get much coverage of any kind in the western world. Sissako is an extremely good filmmaker capable of undertaking a film like this. It's extremely bold to make a film like this, with it's unusual structure, but Sissako makes it work. Sissako doesn't make many films, but everyone that he makes is extremely good. For me he's one of the most interesting filmmakers of the last 20 years.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Bamako
Sissako (2006)
“Are you a witness?”

A trial is taking place in a courtyard — witness testify about the damage the World Bank has inflicted upon both the country of Mali and Africa broadly from crushing financial debt to the oppression of needed social programs and aid. Life continues around the edges of the event, illustrating the realities of these policies.

This one is a tough one for me to evaluate. I hate to once again fall back upon the ol’ “respect it more than like it” type of reaction, but this may be the epitome of that sorta struggle for me. It is an interesting film with an important message, but it’s also largely made up of prolonged testimony and some of that is not exactly dramatically depicted testimony. Save a compelling segment that is sung, it’s a lot of straightforward delivery. Good political theater, but perhaps not the most gripping theater theater.

There are moments though. That sung portion is a nifty bit of filmmaking. With no subtitles in that stretch the impact needs to be conveyed on the faces of others, not the words sung. The death that ends the film dramatically underlines the point of the whole exercise.

It is engaging. I was drawn in. But it wasn’t really the filmmaking that was doing that. Part of it is due to my own mysteries about the movie itself. I went in to this fairly blind so I had that driving sense of “Where is this going and what is this about?” But part of that also was because I felt like I had to be a responsible listener. So it was kinda homework. I’m glad to have seen it and to have learned something, but it did often feel like school to me, not drama. Then again that approach in and of itself is bold.

 

[kihei]

Bamako (2006) Directed by Abderrahmane Sissako

Bamako is an ambitious and inventive use of film with a whiff of Godard about it that starts like it is going to be about the plight of a cabaret singer down on her luck. However, the film, though it doesn'e exactly abandon the cabaret singer, quickly becomes an unconventional courtroom drama (that takes place in a courtyard, natch) which puts world monetary institutions like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund and their policies on trial.. The most telling witnesses are not African elites but poor people who often eloquently detail how these decisions made half a world away have made more difficult not just their own lives but have crippled African economic growth and independence in the process. Director Abderrahmane Sissako gives individuals directly compromised by these policies a voice in this “trial,” and that adds immensely to the film’s power and uniqueness. Bamako is both a civics lesson and a work of didacticism that makes comprehensible in a direct and easily understandable way how Africa’s future has been callously compromised by rich and exceedingly powerful Western financial institutions. Sissako also lets Danny Glover in a fairly gratuitous flashback play a cowboy for a couple of minutes seemingly just because he can.

There is a lot I like about this film, though, as I feel I was provided with a different perspective of why Africa seems to suffer the hardships that it does. The West has certainly played a major role, but Sissako doesn’t let homegrown corruption and opportunism off the hook either. Sissako is obviously a director of immense talent and vision who is interested in making movies that are more than simple narratives.

 

[Pink Mist]

Bamako (Abderrahmane Sissako, 2006)

In the dusty capital of Mali, a trial is taking place in the courtyard of a neighbourhood. On trial: the IMF, the World Bank, and western capitalism accused of keeping the Malian nation impoverished through unfair structural adjustment programs that impedes the state’s ability to care for its people.

Shot through a series of monologues and debates in this courtyard court, interspliced with the neighbours mostly disinterested in the ongoings and a brief interlude involving Danny Glover and Palestinian director Elia Suleiman, the film rides or dies based on how engaged you are in its philosophic debate on international development theory and (neo)colonialism since it is mostly two hours of debates on those subjects. Personally, as someone who has a graduate degree in international relations, I was hooked but I can see how it would be less than thrilling for others. As an aside, I’m surprised this was never shown in my studies, if you want an easy and accessible lesson on core and periphery relations, ongoing western imperialism in Africa, and international financial institutions this is your film. Doesn’t lend itself that well to cinematic excitement but it certainly gives a lot to chew on.

 

[Pink Mist]

The Servant (Joseph Losey, 1963)

Hugo Barrett (Dirk Bogarde) is an affable man hired to be the servant of a rich young playboy, Tony (James Fox). Catering to his every want and need, Hugo is exudes professionalism, however when Hugo requests to have his “sister” join the home to be a maid, Hugo’s scheming ways are slowly revealed as he begins to corrupt Tony and take over the house.

The Servant, a key film in the British New Wave, is like a Hitchcock psychosexual thriller, but with an even greater emphasis on the psychosexual. The atmosphere and every relationship between each of the characters oozes in dark undertones of sexual tension with a queer analysis of the film easy to make. But at the same time, the film is a great takedown of the toxicity of the British class system with an upper class totally dependent on the labour of others while they participate in leisure and vanity projects and who crumble once that power dynamic is taken away. I haven’t looked into it, but I wouldn’t be shocked if Parasite was influenced by this film given the great deal of overlap in their story.

Central to the film is an amazing lead performance by Bogarde, an actor I have criminally underwatched, who easily slips into a role of cunning Machiavellian conniving. Fox also does well as the all too trusting playboy who crumbles into an alcoholic mess by the time Hugo is through with him. I also love the ambiguity of the film, as we never know what Hugo’s motives are – was it for money, status, revenge, power over someone, jealousy, lust? – all could be appropriate answers. A deeply subtle work and really daring in its transgressively sexual and queer plot for the time.

 

[Pink Mist]

I recently saw Spartacus, so I'm in the mood for another sword and sandal film. My next pick is Ridley Scott's Gladiator

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

The Servant
Losey (1963)
“I think the master’s sastisfied.”

Uppercrust gadabout Tony brings in a new manservant to help keep his home in order. Barrett, however, is up to something else as he gradually manipulates his boss in and out of relationships. But that dynamic begins to shift when the ruse is broken and the two men find themselves tangled in something much more complex. Motivations reveal and change.

A tense and twisty psycho drama. There’s three strong acts here — the set-up, Barrett’s betrayal, and then the shut-in descent. It feels like any one of those could’ve been the story in and of itself, but what’s here works. This is domestic drama, but it’s draped with an almost horror movie sense of ominousness.

This is a movie where no one really sees each other. Few conversations occur face to face. They’re often right up in the camera, staring off into the distance with the other participant behind them. Lots of talking to walls and backs. Talking and looking into mirrors or reflective surfaces. Shadows on walls as well. Loaded visuals and dialogue abound. Dripping faucets play an aural driver of tension on multiple occasions.

I think modern audiences would probably be onto the subtext pretty quickly. I wonder how much of a surprise Tony’s secret attic hideaway was for viewers at that time. (Not sure if Power of the Dog’s hideaway is a direct reference or just coincidental in the use of male fitness photos. It tracks that having a private space would be common for folks trying to hide who they really are.).

I’m always a little uncomfortable about the sinister element in stories about closeted gay men like this. I know the history and even getting some of this to screen is important, but often these tales have a nefarious element. It fits the societal attitude at the time so it isn’t exactly inaccurate, but I do wonder how much it helped or hurt to portray gay men in a dark and debauched light …. It isn’t exactly the “kill your gays” trope but Tony and Barrett aren’t exactly left in great shape by the end of this.

Bogarde is an enigmatic, at times malevolent presence. It’s a rare treat to see him be an aggressor for once. He’s often more a victim (such as in Victim) or passive player being whipped about by others if not himself.

 

[kihei]

Messed up my knee in rather spectacular fashion. So am out of it for six weeks or more. I will catch up eventually, but will take a bit of a sabbatical for now while maybe throwing in the odd sporadic comment here and there.

 

[member 51464]

Messed up my knee in rather spectacular fashion. So am out of it for six weeks or more. I will catch up eventually, but will take a bit of a sabbatical for now while maybe throwing in the odd sporadic comment here and there.

Get well soon, kihei.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Messed up my knee in rather spectacular fashion. So am out of it for six weeks or more. I will catch up eventually, but will take a bit of a sabbatical for now while maybe throwing in the odd sporadic comment here and there.

Oh that's crap - and weird that sabbatical means watching less movies (!). Take care, man, time to take on knitting.