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

[kihei]

I couldn't locate Gomorrah on line, so I am including my review of the film that I used in my book after which I will make a couple of random comments:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gomorrah (2008) Directed by Matteo Garrone 7B

Gomorra is the name of the largest crime syndicate in Europe, bigger than the mafia, which is principally located in the Campagna region of Italy. Set in the midst of large, interlinked housing projects outside of Naples, the movie shows the all-pervasive nature of crime and violence that infests every level of Neapolitan culture. Because Gomorra is such a massive criminal undertaking, it has many different clans which often compete brutally with one another for supremacy or, in some instances, for mere survival. The fates of many characters—a money carrier; two toxic waste managers; a pair of mindless punks; a tailor; and a delivery boy—are depicted as they go about their business contributing, in big ways or small, to the crime and violence of their community. This diverse collection of characters shares only one thing in common: each individual is trapped in a culture of corruption that is beyond their power to even think of resisting, much less escaping. There is a lot of story going on here, and the movie can sometimes be a little confusing. But despite shortcomings, persuasively realistic Gomorra packs a dramatic wallop.

subtitles

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have often had a problem with the way that movies, especially Hollywood movies, portray organized crime. For one example, I was one of the very few to turn thumb's down on The Godfather movies, all of them. My critique had not so much to do with the subject matter itself as the way the subject matter was presented by Coppola. I found the style of the films wretchedly romanticized, glamourized and falsified to the point that the movies became operatic rather than realistic in nature. Mafioso types are not worthy of such stylized high tragedy. To me the antidote to the flaws presented in the Godfather Trilogy is evident in the approach Matteo Garrone takes in Gomorrah. He presents organized crime as a scuzzy world that diminishes all who have to deal with it in one way or the other, be they bosses, henchmen or just average citizens caught in its tentacles whose lives have become corrupted by the blight that such organized criminal activity invariably spreads in its wake. To me, Gomorrah is much more artful than Coppola's movies because it gives a much more convincing portrayal of the rot such crime creates in any society beholden to it. I remember Gomorrah as a very powerful film, all the more effective because it does not candy-coat its subject in any way.

 

[Jevo]

Gomorrah (2008) dir. Matteo Garrone

The film opens with the assassination of three gangsters in a tanning salon, which sparks a civil war in the Camora in Naples. We then follow five stories about people who are involved in the Camora. Don Ciro is a timid older man, who isn't very interested in being a part of the criminal world, but probably ended up there due to lack of other things to do. He is tasked with delivering money to the families of jailed members of the gang. Toto is a 13 year old kid who wishes to join the Camora. One day he notices some gangsters drop a bag of drugs and a gun while running from the police. He picks them up and returns them to the gang, and asks to join. He is allowed to get in, and starts with simple delivery and messenger jobs, but slowly gets more and more involved. Roberto is young university educated man, who works for Franco, a man who offers waste disposal services of toxic waste to industrialists from the north. He uses abandonned quaries, and whatever other more or less suitable land he can find, with little to no regard to the environment, nor the saftety of his workers. Pasquale is a tailor in haute couture, who works from a mafia man, and he's over worked and underpaid. So when a chinese "business" man approaches him about some well paid night work teaching the seamstresses at his factory, Pasquale obliges. Marco and Sweet Pea are two young wannabe gangsters who's been watching too much Scarface, and fancy themselves the next Tony Montana's. They see no reason to join the established gangs, rather they are just a small obstacle to overcome on their way. Before the film is over, all of them will have experienced the dark sides of the Camora.

Having Marco and Sweet Pea play Tony Montana is far from accidental, or a funny reference. Many Gangster films, perhaps in particular American ones, and especially Scarface glorify gangster life, presents it as cool and desirable. The main character often ends up getting their comeupance in the end, but not before most of the film have made their lifestyle seem cool, and you almost forget that things ended badly for them. Gomorrah is not like that. It's in fact the complete opposite. Gangster life has rarely seemed less cool than it is here. It is boring, gritty and dangerous. Marco and Sweet Pea aren't smart enough to realise the reality of the situation before their life comes to an end. Toto is smart enough to realise what he's gotten himself into, but the tragic part is that he might already be in too deep to have an easy way out. In the poor Scampia neighbourhood, everything is rotten to the core with Camora influence. Even seemingly legitimate businesses are under the influence. Like Pasquale, a tailor. But his boss is a mafia Don, and as such Pasquale is also indirectly involved in that world, and has to navigate it. Roberto is university educated, you'd think he would be able to escape it. But no, his boss is also a mafia Don, and the scary combination of smarts and a complete regard for human existence. You'd be hardpressed to find a bigger indictment of Gangster culture in the world of narrative film than Gomorrah.

Films covering several different stories at once, often run into the problem that some stories are more interesting than others, and the less interesting stories are spent waiting for the return of the more interesting ones. Here I didn't feel that was a problem. I felt all five stories were balanced well between each other, and that none of them felt boring or drawn out. The editing of the film is really good, and I feel helped make the jumps between each story feel natural, and as if they were all happening concurrently, and as if they were all part of a bigger story. Even though most of them had very little to do with each other. Many of the actors were local amateurs from Scampia who had been cast, but many of the principal roles were performed by professionals. One performance I really enjoyed was Toni Servillo as Franco. I've rarely been disappointed by Servillo. He has so much screen presence he just steals every scene he's in, and he makes it look like he's hardly even trying.

Gomorrah has some rough edges here and there, but it's message as an anti-gangster, anti-mafia film is crystal clear and not particularly subtle. But this is probably an instance where subtlety isn't warranted. The mafia gangs destroys families, lifes of millions, and the environment without any remorse. In that light there's no time for cool shoot outs and one-liners.

 

[kihei]

The Lunchbox (2013) Directed by Ritesh Batra

The Lunchbox gets underway by making use of a marvelous premise. A wife in Mumbai prepares her husbands lunch, which then, along with thousands upon thousands of other prepared lunches, is picked up by legions of couriers and safely delivered to the offices and factories in Mumbai for the workers to eat. The lunch couriers admit to an infinitesimally low error rate in transporting these lunches to the right desks and work stations, something on a scale of one error per 8 million lunches distributed. The Lunchbox is a movie about one of those exceedingly rare errors. Ila (Nimrat Kaur) makes delicious food, but she is virtually ignored by her less exciting than a sea-slug husband who we later learn is having an affair. However, she begins to think the unthinkable--her lunches aren't going to the right guy. Unlike her husband, whoever is receiving her lunches is obviously very appreciative of her cuisine as he cleans his plate each time. Ila eventually drops her mysterious gourmand a letter in one of his lunchboxes and thus begins a relationship between two lonely people. Her new acquaintance Saajam (Irrfan Khan) works in a crowed office and is set to retire soon. As his wife has recently died, he is mostly inactive and standoffish, a man just going through the motions. But their relationship brings both Ila and Saarjan back to life, and the only question is how far will it go, how far can it go?

Irrfan Khan and Nimrat Kaur give lovely performances as ordinary, vulnerable people trapped in similar hamster wheels The Lunchbox is a movie that observes the little things and allows for images rather than words to communicate a lot of both character’s feeling. Both actors are marvelously expressive without overdoing it. However, The Lunchbox is more that an offbeat romance. It looks at loneliness and isolation among those leading mundane, quiet existences, the kind of people that go unnoticed by most of us. Never straying into the melodramatic, The Lunchbox does a fine job of keeping the movie on scale with the ordinary lives of its likeable character. Both Khan and Kaur can do more with a brief glance than some actors can do with ten lines of dialogue. While the movie is not ambitious, it is perfectly gauged for the size of the story it is telling. In The Lunchbox, we learn to sympathize with two good people and hope that life will treat them well the rest of the way.I think this is the kind of movie that my favourite director Satyajit Ray would have very much approved of as it is more than a little reminiscent of his finest works.

subtitles

 

[kihei]

My next pick will be Ang Lee's The Life of Pi (2012)

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

The Lunchbox
Batra (2013)
“Anyone can make food, but you need magic.”

Fernandes is a widower. A dour worker-bee type. He’s focused at his job and closed off to the rest of the world. Ila is a wife and mother. She makes a lunch daily as part of India’s outsourced lunchbox system. She believes it is going to her husband and with the help of her unseen “aunt” upstairs, will repair what’s quickly becoming a damaged relationship. But it isn’t going to him, it’s going to Fernandes. Turns out he loved it. Scarfed it down. She learns of the mistake and begins trading notes with the stranger who was so taken with her food. The two form a bond. Fernandes’ icy demeanor melts. He gradually begins to help a kind and eager understudy, meanwhile Ila navigates an increasingly tough home life with a cheating husband and ill father. The strangers both want a new future. Together? That’s up to you.

As far a classic meet-cutes go, this meet is pretty cute. All the ingredients here for a rom-com in any language. But this one’s more adult. A little more somber. Both the laughs and the love are gentle, humane. There’s a real sweetness in the gradually increasing communications, the reveals to each other (and the viewer) more and more about their pasts and presents. When the inevitable missed connection/missed communication comes, it’s a blow. You like these people and want for their happiness. Even if part of you sides with Fernandes in the belief that it might not work ...

I liked the open ending. A clear answer as to their fates would not have worked. An affirmative one might have rang false while a negative one, frankly, would have broke my heart. I embrace the ambiguity.

This movie gets a TON out of its two leads. Irrfan Kahn and Nimrat Kaur both have wonderful faces that they use expertly. Eyebrows and slight smiles/frowns. They do a lot with looks. But it’s subtle face acting. We’re not talking some Jim Carrey big screen mugging here. They’re sad and lonely, but never maudlin, never exaggerated. Always grounded.

I’ve been consuming a lot of either heavy stuff or dumb stuff of late. And Grand Prix. This was a welcome respite from my recent diet. I had no idea I needed or wanted it. Plus, my wife liked it and she’s an unbelievably tough critic.

Oh and the food? I think I could smell it.

 

[Jevo]

The Lunchbox (2013) dir. Ritesh Batra

Ila is an unhappy housewife in Mumbai. To spark some life into her marriage again, she decides to start upping her game when she's cooking lunch of husband. She uses Mumbai's famous Dabbawala system, famed for it's efficiency and for hardly ever making mistakes, to send the lunch to her husband. For some reason the lunch gets routed to Saajan, a widower and accountant nearing retirement. Saajan realises something is wrong when the food is much better than usual. Ila notices something is wrong when the lunchbox is returned licked clean, but her husband has no comments on the food. Ila's lunch continues to be sent to Saajan, and the two lonely souls start sending small notes to each other with the lunch. Slowly they open up to each other and becomes each others confidants. Their growing feelings for each other are never fully addressed by either, but the affection is obvious.

The Lunchbox has an interesting gimmick, but apart from that there's not much to differentiate it from many other romance films. It has a good script, the direction is okay, nothing about it is badly done. But one thing stands out, and makes the movie stand out. And that's Irrfan Khan, sadly he had leave us much too soon, but he was one of the premier actors on the planet while he was still alive, and this movie is a great showcase for why. There's nothing flashy for him to do at all in this film, and he never tries to make anything flashy. Most of his work consists of looking mildly annoyed when Shaikh comes to bother him, opening lunch boxes, and looking at letters. But he creates so much meaning and emotion in all those small things that he does. At no point does he ever open the lunch box in the same way, never does he open and look at the letter in the same way. There are subtle differences between each scene. You really get to follow the emotional journey of the film with Khan as a guide. Saajan doesn't have any outwardly outlets for his emotions, so Khan has to telegraph Saajan's emotional development using only his face and body language. And he does it incredibly well, there's not one scene where Saajan's emotions and mood isn't painfully clear, but it is done with such simple and subtle measures. Without Khan The Lunchbox would probably be a very middle of the road film. Again, I don't think there's anything done badly in it, but there's nothing that really stands out either apart from Khan's performance. It's such a joy to watch him here, and you only become more sad about his untimely passing because of it.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

I was STUNNED at how young Khan actually was when he passed away earlier this year. Walking that back a few years to when this was made, dude was only in his mid-40s! Another testament to his acting that I never once realized that. He gave every bit of the impression of a man a full decade or two older.

 

[Jevo]

The Exorcist (1973) dir. William Friedkin

Actress Chris MacNeil is in Washington DC filming a movie, she lives there together her daughter Regan and a few servants. Regan starts telling about strange experiences she has in the house, and starts acting generally strange. Chris has her seen to by several doctors, but all medical examinations rule out anything physical being wrong with her, suggesting Regan is suffering from delusions. When Regan starts saying she's possesed by a demon, the doctors suggest an exorcism, not because they believe she's possesed, but because being exorcised might break her delusion. Chris enlists the help of Father Karras, who after seeing Regans becomes convinced she really is possesed, he calls for experienced exorciser Father Merrin to help deal with the demon.

I'm not sure exactly how I feel about The Exorcist. It does a lot of things really well. But I can't help but feel the whole possesion thing a little silly, and it's not really a good thing in a horror when the central premise starts seeming a bit silly. I'm just not sure how that demon really works, and what it's trying to do. It has extraordinary powers, and could easily kill anyone that tries to cross it. It throws a grown man out of window while Regan is tied to her bed. It can lift the bed, and make Regan levitate. Why possess a random 12 year old girl, and why entertain those that try to get rid of it, rather than just offing them? Is it just doing it for shits and giggles? And can you kill a demon, by killing yourself while your possesed, when the demon can seemingly leave the body at will? These sorta logical inconsistencies with the demon, makes it hard for me to take seriously, and thus it becomes a bit silly. Which is a big shame, because I think the movie is extremely well directed. Friedkin builds up the movie extremely well. The story is in no hurry to reveal itself, and many strands won't be connected until much later in the film. But Friedkin develops this steadily rising sense of unease and weariness, only slowly adding supernatural elements to it, like the ouija board with the marker suddenly jumping to a place on the board on its own. A blink and you'll miss it moment. He also uses the cinematography to do this. There's a scene early in the film that caught my eye, where Regan is running around in the house, and Chris runs after her. Regan runs in to the next room and Chris catches her here, in the room the light is turned off, so the only light source is the light coming from the adjacent room, casting long shadows. There's nothing really ominous on it's own about a room where the light is turned off. But it's rarely something you'll see in a movie, and the lights are probably placed even lower than a light fixture in a real house is, making the shadows in the room even longer. And in the general context of the movie, that is a very ominous scene, and there are several others like it. The special effects also look really good, which is not something I expected. There are some scenes where Regan does some creepy stuff while possesed, like running up and down the stairs on all fours upside down. I'm not sure exactly how it was done, probably some form of puppetry, which if played a normal speed probably didn't look very good. But it's sped up a lot, and it is creepy as hell to look at. I think that's a genius solution to this problem of making it look believable. The movie is also very well acted, especially Burstyn is impressive.

I think The Exorcist might be one of the best directed horror films I can remember. I just wish I could continue to go along with it once we start to get to the demon and exocicsm stuff, because up until that point I was really uneasy and creeped out.

 

[Jevo]

My next pick is Jean-Pierre Melville's Le Cercle Rouge.

 

[kihei]

The Exorcist (1973) Directed by William Friedkin

I was looking forward to seeing The Exorcist again because I saw it when it was first released, opening weekend, in fact, and it didn't go well. Couple of reasons why: A week or two earlier I had seen Nicholas Roeg's Don't Look Now, walked in cold, and it blew me the f*** away. Nothing was going to top that for a while. Second reason: I had actually read the novel of The Exorcist by William Blatty and I had found it properly scary, trash but well-constructed trash. So when I went into the movie theatre, I wasn't exactly ideally primed as I had just seen a soul destroying movie that was infinitely superior and far more frightening than the The Exorcist, and I had my own ideas about what the adaptation of The Exorcist should look like. Still I wasn’t prepared for what I got which included a 13-year-old Linda Blair, bad make-up and all, and gallons of pea soup substituting for devil barf.

Watching it again, I confess that I had similar problems…but I was better able to isolate my displeasure this time around. I still didn't like anything in the movie that included Linda Blair in any way, shape or form, not even the smarmy cute bits at the beginning of the movie when she is little Miss Cuddles. Eliminating entirely Blair's scenes, I was able to get a better take on the rest of the movie. The abysmal acting of playwright turned actor Jason Miller stood out like a sore thespian. Why Friedkin went out of his way to choose this guy to be in his movie in a starring role is beyond me. Miller displays a kind of constipated intensity but nothing else. A good way to describe him is that he is similar to George Lazenby minus the charisma. Blair isn't so much bad as done a disservice by the script, the make-up crew and her director. However, Miller and Blair's faults make the performance by Ellen Burstyn as the beleaguered mother all that more remarkable. If only Friedkin could have found a script and a supporting cast worthy of her. Such a fine performance more or less wassted in such a mixed bag of a movie. How this movie could be considered frightening is beyond me. The first time I saw the movie, when the demon in the kid tells the priest "Your mother sucks cocks in hell," I laughed out loud, and I laughed again last night at the same spot. At least this time there wasn’t anyone around to annoy, though I wasn’t trying to be a dick way back when, I really wasn't. To this day, as delivered, that is one of the flat out funniest lines I have ever heard in a movie theatre.

Probably s subtler approach to possession in The Exorcist would have worked wonders for me, but no doubt I would still have had a devil of a time liking this movie.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

The Exorcist
Friedkin (1973)
“The power of Christ compels you.”

The Exorcist still scares me. Terrified me as a kid and hasn’t lost any bit of its power in the decades since. The exact nature of my response to it has evolved in time. I don’t peek in my closet or under my bed after watching it now like a young me did. It’s more of an uneasy, unsettling feelings I’m left with now. But the reactions — true guttural reactions — remain.

The slow-burn is still deeply effective. Though we’re well aware what’s happening to poor Regan, her mother’s belabored quest to figure it out is tense and upsetting. I’m certainly not the first (nor will be the last) to note that the scenes of medical testing are just as queasy and upsetting as the dramatic possession sequences. A lot of this is what really lingers with me. You remember the over-the-top possession sequences, but its the first hour or so that honestly sits with me.

The demon? I know it has a tendency to make some laugh. I tend to find it more puzzling the more times I watch it. Jevo covers the ample questions its presence raises the more you pause to ponder. I agree. But it isn’t a distraction.

It’s funny, a few weeks back I watched Under the Sun of Satan and while elements of it were effective, the Catholic self-doubt and questioning didn’t really hit for me. It rarely does in movies that cover that terrain. But it actually does here. I think a lot of that is Jason Miller’s sunken, shriveled performance. I wouldn’t call it great, but it works on me. Burstyn is really stellar at the at-ends mom and the always sturdy Max Von Sydow (playing way older than he actually was here) could hardly disappoint.

Also recently realized that this is not on the most recent (or any) AFI Top 100 list, which is kinda wild to me given what a confluence of critical and financial success it is and was. It’s a sturdy and enduring work too. It feels like this checks every possible box a movie can check to be considered successful. Friedkin’s The French Connection is on there, but I think this is easily his best.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Body and Soul
Micheaux (1925)
“A stranger reaches Tatesville.”

A news clipping alerts us to an escaped prisoner traveling under the guise of Re. Isaiah T. Jenkins. He arrives in the small town of Tatesville and begins wreaking havoc with his smooth appeal. Only young Isabelle seems to see through his act. She’s in love with Sylvester who happens to be the Rev.’s brother. Jenkins steals money from Isabelle, puts the blame on her and (we learn later) rapes her. She runs to Atlanta where she dies, but not before sharing all this with her mom who’s arrived at the last minute. The mom returns to Tatesville to confront Jenkins. He’s run out of town where he then beats a young man to death .... SUDDENLY, the mom wakes up. It was all a dream Isabelle is alive and well. She gives her money to her daughter so she can marry Sylvester.

So the story’s frankly, a little silly. Big and broad and melodramatic. But that was the style at the time so I don’t hold it too much against it. Good and evil are pretty plain here. Not much gray. Didn’t bother me, but isn’t going to be for everyone. One of the striking elements of the film are the intertitles. The characters all have a distinct patrois that comes through despite the dialog being written, not spoken. The roughness of the language (again a product of the time) might be a shock to modern watchers as well. It felt like you could hear it, particularly Paul Robson as Jenkins.

Robeson’s the reason to watch. He’s striking as the duplicitous Jenkins. Again, you can practically hear his voice oozing assurance. There’s a pretty compelling church sequence toward the end as well where he shines. He’s got a dual role here and there’s a clear difference between the cool Jenkins and the scrambling Sylvester. It’s a memorable performance in a movie that’s probably a little more interesting than it actually is good. This doesn’t have some of the innovation of other silent films I (and we) have watched of late but it’s a well-enough told story.

Even if there isn’t much formal innovation, it’s certainly of interest from a historic perspective. Micheaux was a Black, independent working director — not exactly commonplace today let alone in the 1920s.

I don’t know if this is different for everyone but the version I saw had a modern soundtrack by DJ Spooky that I actually really enjoyed. Moments of it verge into a hip hop sound but generally it was the more plaintive, calmer beat. Some jazz. Overall not as intrusive as a typical silent film score in my opinion. But again, I’d understand if it wasn’t for everyone.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

I feel a little bad returning to a crime movie again so quickly, but let's do John Boorman's Point Blank next.
(I swear I have some non-crime movies in mind but I have a few technical restrictions in the next couple weeks that have slimmed down my options).

 

[kihei]

Body and Soul (1925) Directed by Oscar Micheaux

Jenkins (Paul Robeson), an escaped convict, dupes a black community in Georgia into thinking he is a Reverend, but really he is something close to evil incarnate. He is not above theft, rape and murder, and it seems he will bring at least one family to a very bad end. And, snap, it's all a dream, and we never do find out what happened to him. What a sordid tale...and then, presto, one's emotions are turned on their ear in a most unsatisfactory way. That was one of the stranger twists that I have seen in movies, and I must say that it left me a bit perplexed. I had all these feelings built up about the central characters and, then, I just had to abandon them. Talk about a joke that falls flat. But really my reaction to the movie is less important than realizing that this movie actually exists and there was such a thing as black cinema in the silent era, which I didn't know. Despite Paul Robeson's considerable fame as a singer, actor and political activist, I only remember seeing him in a few clips, never a full movie. What a formidable physical presence he is. Even given the overwrought acting of the era, he effortlessly commands attention. When a man of such power goes bad, he leaves an impression that no trick ending can diminish. Robeson' preacher is the very model for Robert Mitchcum's evil man of God in The Night of the Hunter. I'd bet money Mitchum saw this movie and used it to help shape his interpretation of the character. Robeson's performance is one big reason why the twist doesn't really work. He is too believable in the rest of the film to take the ending seriously. Mamie and her daughter hold attention, too, as they must because this contrast between good and evil can't be a one-sided bargain. But Body and Soul would be a mere historical curiosity without Robeson.

The intertitles do much to mimic a particular kind of poor black Southern dialect. It took me a while to get used to it. There are a couple of times in the film where I wondered whether what I was watching was racist, or, if not racist, dangerously stereotypical. Some of the scenes of the preaching in church to the parishioners seemed more than a little iffy to me. But I know so little about black life in the '20s, I have not a clue what was and was not acceptable to a black audience of this time period. Or did that audience internalize the racism that was all around them? It's another way in which the film is more than a little disturbing.

I wonder if the jazz score on the version I saw was the one used when the movie was first shown to the public because it is very good and adds a note of authenticity to the time and place. Body and Soul isn't a hidden gem exactly but it deserves to be seen and discussed. My reservations about the movie are nothing compared to my uneasiness about how difficult it must have been for these folks to just get through the day in the white society in which they were trapped. There was no waking up from that nightmare. For many reasons, Body and Soul will not be an easy film to forget.

intertitles

 

[Jevo]

Body and Soul (1925) dir. Oscar Micheaux

An escaped convict seeks shelter in a small southern town, where he passes himself of as reverend Isaiah Jenkins (Paul Robeson). He is joined by a friend and former criminal, and the two plan to scam the local congregation. Things are complicated though, when Jenkins becomes attracted to beautiful young member of his congregation, who herself happens to be in love with a poor man named Sylvester, who happens to be Jenkins long lost identical twin.

The story in Body and Soul is no masterpiece, but the movie is an interesting piece of history. Oscar Micheaux was the first major black filmmaker in America. Over the course of his career he directed and produced 40-some films independently of the major Hollywood studios, who weren't very interested in films about black people. Body and Soul was one of his most significant films, having been selected for preservation in the National Film Registry. The funny thing is, that at the time the film was a significant piece of black culture. But when you watch it today, you can't help but wonder if it's some sort of racist charicature. The intertitles does not use standard English spelling, but rather spelling meant to show the dialect of the characters in the film. For the time probably a great way to showcase the culture of the characters in the films in a way where the primary audience, black americans, can recognise themselves in it. But this manner of phonetical writing, seems to me, to have been co-opted by racists as a way to diminsh black culture as less educated. This makes it a strange experience watching the film at times when you watch it through a 2020 lens.

Body and Soul has more than just historic value. Paul Robeson is a treat to watch. In his first film performance, he's surprisingly naturalistic in his acting, and seems very modern for his time. I'm probably not going to watch Body and Soul again, because it's not that great. But it's always interesting to see movies from cultures I'm not very exposed to. And while black american culture might still not be exactly mainstream, it's just on the outskirts of mainstream. But such an early example of black american culture is not something I have been very exposed to.

 

[kihei]

Life of Pi (2012) Directed by Ang Lee

With a few exceptions, at some point in the latter part of the 20th century serious literature abandoned good stories. Blame it on post-modernism or post-structuralism or whatever you will, but some similar realignment went on in all the arts--anything too representational, too direct became pretty much seen as heavy-handed and unsophisticated. Some great art took its place, in music, painting and literature, but story telling became almost old-fashioned, at least in the sense that I usually associate with the work of Dickens, Austen, Doestoevsky, Hemingway, Fitzgerald, and Faulkner, to name a few. Life of Pi by Yann Martel is in the tradition of great storytelling. It's a yarn, one with two possible endings, but as Martel writes it , the story is an engrossing, highly accessible page turner. The trick that Martel pulls off in Life of Pi reminds me of the Mark Twain line about religion: "Religion is believing in what you know ain't true." Martel gets his readers to invest deeply in a story that at some level we know ain't true. How does he accomplish this? He creates a story so wonderful that we choose to believe it over what is likely the much more tragic reality. A boy loses his entire family, everything he cherishes in the world except for the girl friend he left behind and will never see again, and yet he survives in a life raft in the middle of the ocean even though he must share that life raft with an adult Bengal tiger. What a work of imagination. The question, of course, is how do you transfer this story to another medium. The story is perfect as literature because Martel expertly nurtures our imagination by giving us details and scenes that are emotionally involving and that we can observe vividly in our mind's eye. How does a movie director come close to bettering our own imagination?

Director Ang Lee is only partially successful in doing so, which is all he can be. No great novel, and I think Life of Pi is a great novel, can better our imagination when it is guided by the hands of a skilled writer. But visually Lee does more than I could possibly have hoped for in creating a gorgeous canvas on which the events take place. Scene after scene is breathtaking as Lee finds ways to capture the events in the book by creating something more visually intoxicating than what strict reality might have provided. Sadly, what is finest about Lee's work and that of his cinematographer Claudio Miranda, however, doesn't really come across that well on DVD. I saw the film on a big screen when it first came out in 3D and it was almost otherworldly to watch, among the most visually beautiful movies that I have ever seen, top five actually. Watching this as a 2D copy transferred to DVD was a disappointment. It reminded me of the first time that I saw Blow Up, another stunner of a visual movie, on DVD. Where did those greenest of green parks go? How did they become so faded? In both cases, it was like watching a different movie, a pale, unworthy imitation of something that was sublime in its original form. As a result, the real movie rests in my memory, the certified copy only a pale reminder of my original experience. In a way, it causes something of a conundrum. I watch a film on DVD having to remember how it actually was in a movie theatre and I watch a movie in a movie theatre having to remember how it actually was in the book. But none of this is to fault Ang Lee or Claudio Miranda in any way. Lee did an excellent job of bringing to the screen a book that I thought almost utterly impossible to adapt. I don't think one could ask any more from him than what he created. Technology sometimes lets you down, which is maybe why the printed page is still the most reliable way to reawaken our imaginations.

 

[kihei]

My next pick will be Paan Singh Tomar, available on Netflix.

 

[Jevo]

Life of Pi (2012) dir. Ang Lee

Pi Patel is a man with a fantastic story. A writer suffering a writers block seeks out Pi in Montreal, after he met Pi's uncle in India, who adviced him to locate Pi, because Pi had a story that would make the writer believe in God. Pi starts telling his life story, about how he grew up in a zoo in Pondicherry, how he practised hinduism, christianity and islam at the same time, and much more. As a young adult, Pi's mother and father decides to sell the animals in North America, and travel with them to start a new life in Canada with better prospects for them than in India. As the Japanese cargoship they are travelling with leaves the Philippines they end up in a bad storm, and the ship sinks. Pi manages to get himself onto a lifeboat, but finds himself in the middle of the Pacific ocean together with a zebra with a broken leg, an orangutang, and a hyena. The hyena eventually kills both the orangutang and the zebra, but is himself killed by the tiger Richard Parker, which had been hiding under the lifeboat's tarp. From bad to worse, Pi now has to share a small lifeboat with a tiger as they drift across the pacific ocean.

It's always bold to promise a story that will make you believe in God, because you are really promising story of the century, and I'm not sure I think Life of Pi is that good. But that's not really the point of the movie. But I can still remember that that phrase featured quite heavily in the marketing of the movie back in the day. The point of the phrase is rather that some experiences can be so traumatic, that the only way to continue living, is to believe some fantastical story about what happened, rather than the truth. There's probably some truth to that. Pi experienced some things, and did some things, that we are not supposed to see or do in our lives. Reliving the truth again and again, would probably only cause him to fall into a deep dark hole mentally. So far I'm with the movie. But I'm not sure that I agree with the film that humans in general would rather believe fantastical stories rather than the truth, because it makes them feel better when they can pretend bad things don't happen. And I especially don't agree, that because of this, it only makes sense to be religious. In general I don't think the ending serves the movie well. There's no room left for ambiguity and independent thought. The writer is converted, the two japanese insurance agents are converted. It's like the movie is telling me how to feel and how to interpret the movie. It's very heavey handed. I think my eyes nearly rolled out of their socket when the writer basically tells us how the two stories Pi tells are connected. Give me some credit please, it wasn't very hard to make the connection.

I wish the ending hadn't been so heavy handed, because then I wouldn't have left the movie feeling a bit annoyed, but rather with a good memory of the movie. Because I think the rest of it is very good. The story is more than good enough to keep you engaged for two hours. Irrfan Khan is as always a complete professional, and brings a lot to his role that isn't in the script. Suraj Sharma does a good job, in what can't have been an easy role, where he spends most of his time in a lifeboat, with no other actors to interact with. Even when he's interacting the animals, they are CGI. The biggest quality of the movie however is by far how it looks. A fantastic amount of the movie is CGI, which just looks flawless, it blends seamlessly with real sets and locations used, and even shots which are fully CGI, doesn't stand out in any way. Even 8 years after release, the CGI still holds up really well, unless you are looking for it, you hardly ever notice, and your brain certainly doesn't care, it blends that well with the real world. The colors in the movie are very saturated, which makes the whole movie look a bit fantastical, like some sort of wonderland. Which fits the story really well, but probably also makes the CGI look more real, since it's probably easier to make the CGI look good with very saturated colours, rather than something more life like. And when the real shots already look a bit not-real, the CGI doesn't stand out as much in terms of not looking real. In my opinion Life of Pi is one of the best looking movies of the last decade, and probably even longer. You can say a lot about Ang Lee as a director, but I don't think ever seen a movie of his that didn't lookg good.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Life of Pi
Lee (2012)
“I can only tell you my story. You will decide for yourself what you believe.”

A man tells another man a story. Pi is the son of a zookeeper in Pondicherry, India. He’s living one of those quirky, charming lives that are the stuff of books. Funny name with a backstory. Wacky attraction to all religions. Charming kid. One day his family has to pack up their life, animals included, and head to Canada. But tragedy strikes. The freighter sinks in a storm, tossing Pi and small menagerie of animals, including the Bengal tiger Richard Parker (who has his own quirky name backstory) on a lifeboat. Pi struggles not only to survive but to coexist with the killer animal. They gradually come to an understanding. Adventure ensues. Eventually Pi and the tiger wash up on the shore of Mexico. The tiger disappears into the jungle never to be seen again. Pi’s life goes on. But was his extaordinary story true?

I’m going to work backwards on this one. I think the end and the big reveal is affecting, which is probably going to make what I say next a little ridiculous, but I’m not sure the destination was worth the journey. I understand the payoff doesn’t work without the buildup so I’m being stupid here. Oh well. The opening half hour or so was just too precious for my cold cold heart, apparently. The wreck is harrowing but I struggled with the prolonged stretch at sea. Part of this is a general lack of intrest in survival stories like this. Tedious. Another factor is I’m super sensitive to animals in peril. Though I was actively questioning the reality that I was seeing, I was still in a constant state of discomfort in my worry for Richard Parker. (Hey cut me some slack I KNOW Pi survives). But the closing 20 minutes or so is something. That’s a testament to both Surat Sharma and Irrfan Khan as the young and old versions of Pi. Both get big speeches and both nail the hell out of them.

Ang Lee’s direction is laudable (he won an Oscar) but I wasn’t blown away by it. CGI heavy and the seams showed at times. It is certainly the right stylistic choice but I wasn’t won over by it. There are certainly a few striking visuals though. The mirror-like calm sea scene in particular.

Great metaphor. Ok movie.

 

[Jevo]

Le Cercle Rouge (1970) dir. Jean-Pierre Melville

Master thief Corey (Alain Delon) is let out of prison early for good behaviour. His 'good behaviour' probably stems from the prison warden wanting to hire him for a big score in jewelry store in Paris. Out of prison Corey goes to vist his old associate Rico early in the morning, he intimidates Rico and steals a gun and some cash from him. Rico cut off all contact with Corey when Corey was arrested, because he didn't want to direct attention to himself. Corey gets his revenge on Rico, but Rico isn't happy and starts sending goons after Corey, but Corey dispatches them easily. He then buys a new car and starts driving towards Paris. At the same time a dangerous criminal, Vogel (Gian Maria Volonte) is being transported from Marseille to Paris aboard a train with commissaire Mattei (Bourvil). Early in the morning Vogel slips out of his handcuffs, and jumps out of the window. Bourvil chases and gets a man hunt going, but loses the trail of Vogel. Corey drives through the road blocks, and while stopped at a gas station, notices Vogel sneaking into the boot of his car. Corey decides to help Vogel escape, and earns his trust that way. In Paris Corey convinces Vogel to assist him in the heist. They need a marksman, and hires retired policeman, and now full time drunkard, Jansen (Yves Montand). As the three prepare for the heist, Mattei is still looking for Vogel, using his contacts in the criminal underworld of Paris.

Melville is no stranger to the silent anti-hero as a main character. In his previous film Le Samouraï, Alain Delon played this role perfectly. But in this film the whole film seems to be this silent anti-hero. I'm not sure minimalist is the right word to describe this film, because I think it has far too much style to be minimalist. But everything is understated and there's no excess. The three heistmen are ardent professionals. They don't have time for funny quips, when they talk they do it short and straight to the point. But more often than not they don't speak at all. Mattei their adversary is more flamboyant, he talks more, and might even throw in a joke once in a blue moon. When reviewing surveillance footage of the heist, he notes that they aren't much for talking these three. A comment that stands out in this film for being strangely selfreflective and funny. The cinematography is similarly bare bones, with the colours being muted, and the camera rarely, if ever, moving during a scene. The movie is in many ways like the heist it portrays, slow and delibrate, made by professionals with focus on every detail, nothing left to chance.

There's very little dialogue for the characters to express themselves with, and when they do speak, it's rarely something character building. And while the characters are not super complex, the four principal characters are all distinct and with their own personalities. Which is shown more through action than words. We don't get to know more than necesarry about the characters, but I don't feel any information is lacking either. The main cast is star-studded, and Melville makes good use of them. Alain Delon is like made for this sort of role and he delivers. He's so cool it's not even fair. Gian Maria Volonte is more brutish in comparison, but not anymore brutish than a film like this needs, and he's good opposite the more cool Delon. Yves Montand is no stranger this sort of role, and probably has the character with the most character development throughout the film, most of which he has to communicate through his face, and he does that really well. If there's any melodrama in his character, and there is, it comes from the editing, not him. I'm not really familiar with Bourvil outside of this film, but he delivers a great performance. The opening scene with him and Gian Maria Volonte in the train compartment is an amazing scene. Almost like a low key boxing match between the two, with each trying to act like they aren't noticing the other noticing their moves. Great acting and great direction and editing. Sets the tone perfectly for the rest of the film.

Crime films are Melville's bread and butter, and Le Cercle Rouge might be his most well directed work. It's not a short movie at 2 hours and 20 minutes, and you could argue that not a lot actually happens in that time. But I don't feel there's a wasted second in the film. The pacing is extremely consistent throughout, mirroring the characters, who are not adrenaline junkies, so the film shouldn't be either during their heist. The film is always either moving the story, or establishing character. I'm not sure how the north american distributor managed to cut 40 minutes from the film without making it noticeably worse. Maybe I'll revert to calling Le Samouraï Melville's best once I get some distance on this again. But I feel like Le Cercle Rouge is a great accomplishment in direction and editing from Melville. To me there's no doubt he achieved exactly what he tried to do in this film, and I'm not sure he did that to the same degree in his other films.

 

[Jevo]

My next pick is Kaneto Shindo's Onibaba.

 

[kihei]

Le Circle Rouge (1970) directed by Jean-Pierre Melville:

Though Corey who has just been released from prison, Vogel who has just escaped custody, and, eventually, Jansen, an alcoholic ex-cop, seem like they have been brought together by fate, they think they have a plan to pull off the perfect heist. But, as things tend to go in these stories, fate has some more tricks up its sleeve including a tough police detective who is anything but overmatched. The story is almost intended to be a familiar one, with the point being how well does Melville execute this genre piece. Pretty damn well, it turns out. A bit more complicated than Melville’s earlier masterpiece Le Samourai and a bit less pared down to essentials, too, Le Cercle Rouge still remains a gritty thriller cum character study made special by Melville’s crisp direction and the participation of three great actors, all of whom can play believable tough guys, Alain Delon, Gian Maria Volante and Yves Montand. Melville must have spent his entire adolescence immersed in Hollywood film noir, and here, with a big assist from his cast, he creates another gem of the genre.

I love watching Delon in these things. I think next to Bogart, he is my favourite noir actor. He accomplishes so much with so few gestures. It is almost a minimalist approach to acting in these genre pieces, but it is very effective. Volante brings a certain animal cunning to his roles, a nice combination of intelligence and potential violence. And Montand is among the greatest actors in French history, playing everything from light comedy to hang-dog world weariness with equal facility. It's just a treat to watch these guys flesh out their characters in believable ways. Good as the movie is, these three actors are worth the price of admission alone.

subtitles

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Le Cercle Rouge
Melville (1970)
“All men are guilty.”

Of all the trunks in all the world, you had to crawl into this one ... Cory is a master thief. Vogel is an escaped con. Jansen is a disgraced drunkard cop. The trio will come together across the course of 60-90 minutes to pull off an elaborate robbery. Meanwhile a dogged cop is on their trail, gradually closing in. Crime, once again, does not pay.

We did Heat a few months back, which I dig very much though I know it wasn’t quite as well received by the group ... but Michael Mann assuredly is a Jean-Pierre Melville fan. Melville didn’t invent the crime pic, but I think he deserves a lot of credit for perfecting a specific brand of taciturn cops, crooks and informers. The only thing cooler than their temperaments is their clothes. (Or maybe vice versa). This doesn’t have the excess or fireworks that Heat has, but it’s hard not to see Cory, Vogel and Jansen as spiritual and stylistic ancestors to DeNiro and his crew in Heat.

Working backwards from Le Cercle Rouge, there’s more than a little debt owed to Rififi as well given the prolonged, mostly silent centerpiece heist. Vogel’s escape in the film’s opening moments is another well-crafted, mostly silent sequence. The emphasis on both is process and procedure more than character. The characters are more attributes than people, but I like it. The movie’s as much about the job and the craft as anything. Yves Montand is no stranger to cool, but he’s decidedly uncool here. He’s the only one who gets much of a backstory. He’s a sweaty drunk wracked with DTs. Can he still shoot straight? You bet he can. (That actually might be my favorite moment of the movie).

I can just bask in a movie like this. Melville is one of my all-time favorites. This isn’t his best — I’d still vote Le Samourai — but it’s among them. It’s a few masterful sequences mixed in with some small touches. I like the odd nightclub numbers. I love the smudges of mud of the nice, crisp white cuffs of Alain Delon’s shirt in the closing moment when he’s lying dead in the mud.
One oddity for me: There’s several driving scenes where rear projection is used and sometimes it’s intercut with the characters actually driving. Maybe it’s an issue of camera placement? Maybe it was reshoots? Jumped out to me though.

And a side note: Melville has this weird preference for American names that feel almost comical and incongruous to his cool criminals. Cory? Jef (in Le Samourai)? They sound like boy band members more than master criminals.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Point Blank
Boorman (1967)
“$92,000?
93.”

A ruthlessly simple and straightforward premise: Walker is back stabbed by his criminal business partner who steals his wife, steals his share of the job, shoots him and leaves him for dead. About a year later Walker resurfaces. He doesn’t seem mad about the wife that much or, for that matter, the shooting. But he wants his money. Down to the last penny. And he’ll punch, shoot and stomp on every last L.A. criminal he has to get it back.

First and foremost, Lee Marvin is a Hall of Fame hard ass. Maybe never more so than here. His single-minded commitment to the premise here is borderline comedic. I’ve seen this described as extistential, but I don’t fully buy that. There are moments of visual listlessness (particularly in the wake of Walker’s wife’s suicide) but Walker never lacks for purpose and he makes that abundantly clear to every person he meets. He gets emotional about the money, but not much else. Even sex with Angie Dickinson’s Chris seems perfunctory.

The film ladders up as Walker climbs the criminal organization — wife Lynne, sister Chris, Stegeman, Mal, Carter, Brewster, Fairfax. Everyone only has one name, first or last. Except Mal for some reason. Angie Dickinson’s Chris even challenges Walker at some point: “What’s my last name?” “What’s my first,” he replies. (Side note: seems odd that neither would have this info given Walker was married to Chris’ sister but whatever ...). There is a little more to the plot. A climactic twist reaveals the mystery man helping Walker in his quest is actually Fairfax who used Walker to combat an attempted coup. The money is there for Walker to take, but he remains in the shadows, staring. If his role gives him any pause, Marvin’s visage isn’t showing it. Or anything.

Great Marvin performance here. Simple, but kinda deceptively so. He may be single-minded but he’s human. This isn’t a robotic terminator. He sweats and scrambles and adapts and, on occasion, boils over.

John Boorman is yet another in that class of director’s who isn’t considered great, but has had a varied, interesting and, at times, very successful career. This early entry is one of his best. But Deliverance and The Tailor of Panama are other high marks decades apart ... I’ll go to bat for the the entertainment value of Zardoz and Excalibur as well though I’d stop short of calling either of those good. But here in Point Blank he proved early he’s more than a hired gun type. There’s a panache here that likely wouldn’t have been present in the hands of many other workman-like directors.

There’s some flashy flourishes — I very much dig the arriving in L.A. sequence set to the echoing footfalls of Marvin stomping down a long brightly lit hallway. The nightclub fight is nightmare-like, bathed in color and projected images. But there’s a lot of smaller touches as well. There’s several framings of Marvin in the foreground and the landscape in the distance. Borderline western in style, but instead of mountains it is a cityscape. It’s a sturdy tale, one that could be transposed in all manner of settings i suppose. Perhaps that’s part of its enduring appeal to me.

That and Lee Marvin.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Next pick: Lucien Castaing-Taylor and Verena Paravel’s Leviathan (2012).

That’s the doc about a deep sea fishing trawler. NOT the 80s sci-fi movie. NOT the Hellraiser documentary. NOT the award winning 2014 Russian film. (There’s a lot of Leviathans out there)