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

[Jevo]

Yup, I can see that interpretation as a reasonable one. But it still seems a very human error, not so much deliberately concealing things from her as not wanting to complicate a situation that was over and done with. I thought Kate already had insecurities about the relationship and this new information just ultimately reinforced all her doubts. That seems very human, too. I certainly don't see her as the fall guy or anything. I don't think there is one. And I don't see their time together as a lie by any means. The past only has the power that we give it. Character depth in this movie is as deep as an ocean.

I think the movie is very deliberate about not having a "bad" and a "good" person in the relationship. Both have made mistakes in the past, both are making mistakes now. If you want you can see either as the "bad one" if you want to, but personally I don't think it makes much sense to play sides here. Relationships are not about who is "right" anyway, not if you want them to last 50 years. I love that the characters are so human, with all the flaws that it brings with it. With experience we learn more about our own emotions, how we respond to them, and we even start to get some control over them. But as this movie shows, no matter how old we get and how much experience we get, when our emotions get strong enough we are left with little control over them.

 

[nameless1]

Great reviews. When I first saw it at a film fest, people I talked to cannot help but rave about it. I talked to an elderly couple, and they talked about the realism of the sex scene. After that, my mind just went blank, and I do not recollect any more of that conversation.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

45 Years
Haigh (2015)
“I can hardly be cross with anything that happened before we even existed.”

Kate and Geoff Mercer are days away from their 45th anniversary party. A letter arrives. Fifty years earlier Geoff’s previous girlfriend died while on a hiking trip. Her body’s been found. Geoff clearly entertains going to see the body and his mind is drifting back to those memories. As he tries to conceal this from Kate, she does more digging and realizes the long-deceased Katya has had more of an influence on her husband and their marrigage than she ever could have realized.

This is a painfully patient film from Andrew Haigh. The dilemma is presented in the first five minutes. It’s not a bomb. It’s a slow release of poison. Geoff is deceptive not of malicious lying but by confused half truths. Despite decades, Kate has only had half a picture. The rest forms over the course of days and the revelations seem small but are devastating. They’re childless. Katya was pregnant. Aspects of their marriage she believed were their’s really are remnants of her predecessor. It’s a mostly quiet deterioration. The drama isn’t in explosions of emotion and words and tears. It’s more adult than that, more subtle. It’s Charlotte Rampling’s face lit intermittently by a slideshow projector, each flash illuminating the slightest deterioration in her demeanor. She’s dissolving in front of our eyes. It’s the climactic dance at the party and the way she tosses Geoff’s hand aside at the end of a showy flourish by him. It says more than any tearful speech could. Tom Courtenay is her equal. He’s more of a mystery. His mental state might be deteriorating and might be a contributing factor to his decisions. Or it might not.

It’s masterful, humane work by Haigh. Routines are established and then broken as the relationship strains. Music is repeated. By humming. By turning on a radio. Classics take on a new, more foreboding meaning. There’s a sex scene that is so intimate and affecting, I felt like I was intruding and I should turn my head. Even in the pain and awkwardness, there’s a gentleness. His characters may lack some understanding, but he does not. This is a pointed, human story.

 

[Jevo]

A Short Film About Love (1988) dir. Krzysztof Kieslowski

Tomek is a shy 19 year old boy who lives with his godmother in a small apartment. He's shy and doesn't really have friends. He spends his nights spying on a beautiful woman in the adjacent apartment building. He's in love with her for a lack of a better term. He doesn't know how to approach her. So does things such as ringing her up without speaking until she hangs up. Tomek works as a postal clerk, so he drops fake notices in her mail box that she has a money order waiting for her at the post office, so that he'll have a chance to interact with her. He also acquires a job as a milk man on the estate, so that he has another chance to interact with her. After embarassing her at the post office when she comes to collect the fake money order, Tomek runs after her and confesses his actions and his feelings. Instead of being repulsed and angry, Magda as she's called, is mostly confused. She gets interested in who this strange young man is, who seems quite different from the line of men who she usually dates and who all end up breaking her heart. One night in her apartment Magda seduces Tomek who orgasms when she puts his hand on her thigh. Embarrassed he runs home and attemps suicide.

A Short Film About Love, like it's companion piece A Short Film About Killing, is an extended, and slightly altered, version of an episode Kieslowski's Dekalog TV series. Because the production company figured it would be easier to export a couple of films than a TV series. The Dekalog contains 10 episodes, each being build thematically on one of the ten commandments. A Short Film About Love is based on the 6th commandment, do not commit adultery. Which Kieslowski uses to explore love and passion in general. Magda and Tomek are two very different places in their life and two very different people. Magda is mid-thirties and goes from short relationship to short relationship, never able to hang onto to one for long, and seems to have lost all hope about love. Tomek is young and inexperienced, and doesn't even really know what love is. The difference between them is perfectly exemplified when Tomek orgasms fully dressed when moving his hand up Magda's thigh, and she coldly responds that he just experienced all there is to love. A statement that on top of Tomek's otherwise very embarassing experience, mortifies him. That statement goes completely against his very idealistic view of love. This experience together witk Tomek's attempted suicide however awakens something in Magda that she thought had long since disappeared from her life, a feeling of real love and caring for another person. 2000 years ago it was an important virtue to show fidelity to your wife or husband. Not to say it isn't also today. But in the modern world, now just as well as in 1988, many people are struggling to find a person to show this fidelity towards. Some are struggling to find their first romantic experience, while others have lost the will to dream about a romantic partner for life.

With 45 Years I think we all praised it for being down to earth, relateable and realistic. Not words I'd use to describe most of Kieslowski's work. His stories often seem somewhat contrived, but that's not a bad thing in this case. Because Kieslowski uses these stories to quickly get to a place of very real emotions. The Dekalog is a lot more grounded than his later work, which gets more metaphysical and dreamlike. But even in The Dekalog I feel his stories all feel just slightly otherwordly, where these somewhat contrived stories makes sense. A Short Film About Love is not Kieslowski's best work. But The Dekalog as a whole is still perhaps the best work of dramatic television ever produced. A very interesting thematic reinterpreation of the ten commandments. Which despite being made in the religiously conservative Poland, is in no way regressive. But rather an interesting comment on modern life, which is still relevant 30 years later.

NB. The worst thing about Kieslowski is trying to remember how to spell his first name.

 

[Jevo]

My next pick is Sion Sono's Tokyo Tribe.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

A Short Film About Love
Kieslowski (1988)
“That’s all there is to love.”

Tomek is a young man. He’s living with his friend’s mother in a nondisricpt apartment. He has a job at the local post office. He spends his night spying on and obsessing with a woman in a building across the way. He calls her anonymously to interrupt her time with gentleman friends. He drops fake money orders in her mailbox to get her to come to the post office. He becomes the milk delivery boy. Tomek eventually confesses all of this to Magda. He’s been stealing her mail as well. She’s rightfully mad. Or is she? Yep, she is. She enacts a revenge that drives the poor, confused Tomek to attempt suicide. It create an unexpected sympathy within her.

Another in a long line of compelling films about watching. That history of Hitchcock and DePalma, among others brings an air of thrill or mystery to this. There is perversion, but also an evolving tenderness that isn’t there is the perhaps more tawdry work of others. Maybe the most amazing feat of the film is that the relationships and power shift and twist naturally, almost effortlessly and yet unexpectedly. Tomek’s admission surprised me as did the evolving reaction to it. Both main characters are at some point sorta struck haplessly.

Kieslowski’s attention to details sticks with me. We open on the wounded, bandaged wrists. Colors, like the red of Magda’s apartment are striking. (Hmmm I wonder if he ever did any more color-specific work ... there’s an idea!). There’s a lot in small movements and gestures, especially as Tomek watches from afar. The placement of Magda’s hands or leg. I’m most taken with how fungible the whole thing is. Is what’s depicted love? Sure. Maybe. But also not. How much is lust? How much is empathy? What exactly is the formula?

One of the all time masters of human behavior and interaction. It’s not exactly realism — his plots are machines — but it produces fascinating tests of character.

I’ve had the Dekalog on my to do list for a while. I should probably get working on it.

 

[kihei]

A Short Film about Love (1988) Directed by Krzysztof Kieslowski

Basically Rear Window for teenage perverts.

I'd love to screen this movie in two rooms simultaneously. One room would contain men exclusively; the other room women. Then after the screening, we'd have a group discussion. I think women would see this movie as a total male fantasy and not a harmless one. A possible reading might be: "So there is this 19-year-old kid who uses a telescope to spy on this beautiful woman across the way, including when she has having sex. He calls her anonymously without speaking; his issues false postal notices so that he can have a little contact with her at his work in the postal office; he takes a part-time job delivering milk to spy on her further; and he steals letters intended for her that may have interfered with an important potential relationship. Eventually he confesses all this to her in a rush, and the beautiful woman's response is first to be mildly aghast and then to find this kid...intriguing???? Then when she turns the tables on him and he get his feelings hurt, what does the little twerp do? He slashes his wrists. And suddenly he becomes the victim and she is the one who feels guilty. And this is Kieslowski's idea of love? Gimme a break." Any intelligent woman would rip this movie to shreds and rightly so.

So what would a man say to a woman in the film's defense? Perhaps something like "No, of course, I would never spy on a woman like that, not even one that beautiful. Would I fantasize about it? Of course not....wait, define "fantasy." But it's only a movie. You got to admit parts were pretty sexy. To a man maybe, you say? What do you mean by that? Why are you getting so upset? Yeah, well, he is only a kid. You gotta admit she's kind of responsible because he is so innocent and all? No, I don't think it's innocent to be a voyeur and a stalker whatever the age. I wouldn't say he is sick exactly, a little messed up and confused by her. Jeez...he's just helplessly in love with her...Hey...now put that vase down. You always get so emotional..."

I would like to think that Kieslowski is aware of the different ways his movie can be perceived and is messing with out heads a little, inviting discussion. But I don't see any evidence of that kind of self awareness in the movie. Unless he means his title more ironically than I expect he does, Kieslowski seems to possess some mighty peculiar ideas about love.

subtitles

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

A Short Film about Love (1988) Directed by Krzysztof Kieslowski

Basically Rear Window for teenage perverts.

I'd love to screen this movie in two rooms simultaneously. One room would contain men exclusively; the other room women. Then after the screening, we'd have a group discussion. I think women would see this movie as a total male fantasy and not a harmless one. A possible reading might be: "So there is this 19-year-old kid who uses a telescope to spy on this beautiful woman across the way, including when she has having sex. He calls her anonymously without speaking; his issues false postal notices so that he can have a little contact with her at his work in the postal office; he takes a part-time job delivering milk to spy on her further; and he steals letters intended for her that may have interfered with an important potential relationship. Eventually he confesses all this to her in a rush, and the beautiful woman's response is first to be mildly aghast and then to find this kid...intriguing???? Then when she turns the tables on him and he get his feelings hurt, what does the little twerp do? He slashes his wrists. And suddenly he becomes the victim and she is the one who feels guilty. And this is Kieslowski's idea of love? Gimme a break." Any intelligent woman would rip this movie to shreds and rightly so.

So what would a man say to a woman in the film's defense? Perhaps something like "No, of course, I would never spy on a woman like that, not even one that beautiful. Would I fantasize about it? Of course not....wait, define "fantasy." But it's only a movie. You got to admit parts were pretty sexy. To a man maybe, you say? What do you mean by that? Why are you getting so upset? Yeah, well, he is only a kid. You gotta admit she's kind of responsible because he is so innocent and all? No, I don't think it's innocent to be a voyeur and a stalker whatever the age. I wouldn't say he is sick exactly, a little messed up and confused by her. Jeez...he's just helplessly in love with her...Hey...now put that vase down. You always get so emotional..."

I would like to think that Kieslowski is aware of the different ways his movie can be perceived and is messing with out heads a little, inviting discussion. But I don't see any evidence of that kind of self awareness in the movie. Unless he means his title more ironically than I expect he does, Kieslowski seems to possess some mighty peculiar ideas about love.

subtitles

Excellent assessment (as usual).

 

[Spring in Fialta]

A Short Film about Love (1988) Directed by Krzysztof Kieslowski

Basically Rear Window for teenage perverts.

I'd love to screen this movie in two rooms simultaneously. One room would contain men exclusively; the other room women. Then after the screening, we'd have a group discussion. I think women would see this movie as a total male fantasy and not a harmless one. A possible reading might be: "So there is this 19-year-old kid who uses a telescope to spy on this beautiful woman across the way, including when she has having sex. He calls her anonymously without speaking; his issues false postal notices so that he can have a little contact with her at his work in the postal office; he takes a part-time job delivering milk to spy on her further; and he steals letters intended for her that may have interfered with an important potential relationship. Eventually he confesses all this to her in a rush, and the beautiful woman's response is first to be mildly aghast and then to find this kid...intriguing???? Then when she turns the tables on him and he get his feelings hurt, what does the little twerp do? He slashes his wrists. And suddenly he becomes the victim and she is the one who feels guilty. And this is Kieslowski's idea of love? Gimme a break." Any intelligent woman would rip this movie to shreds and rightly so.

So what would a man say to a woman in the film's defense? Perhaps something like "No, of course, I would never spy on a woman like that, not even one that beautiful. Would I fantasize about it? Of course not....wait, define "fantasy." But it's only a movie. You got to admit parts were pretty sexy. To a man maybe, you say? What do you mean by that? Why are you getting so upset? Yeah, well, he is only a kid. You gotta admit she's kind of responsible because he is so innocent and all? No, I don't think it's innocent to be a voyeur and a stalker whatever the age. I wouldn't say he is sick exactly, a little messed up and confused by her. Jeez...he's just helplessly in love with her...Hey...now put that vase down. You always get so emotional..."

I would like to think that Kieslowski is aware of the different ways his movie can be perceived and is messing with out heads a little, inviting discussion. But I don't see any evidence of that kind of self awareness in the movie. Unless he means his title more ironically than I expect he does, Kieslowski seems to possess some mighty peculiar ideas about love.

subtitles

With these kind of stories (especially in relation to sex/love) I try to kind of allow the exception that defines the rule. I.E., if it's even mildly conceivable, I'm not going to criticize a filmmaker or an author for making a story of it, however odd the behavior may come across to an otherwise intelligent person.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

With these kind of stories (especially in relation to sex/love) I try to kind of allow the exception that defines the rule. I.E., if it's even mildly conceivable, I'm not going to criticize a filmmaker or an author for making a story of it, however odd the behavior may come across to an otherwise intelligent person.

Thank you. "Any intelligent woman would rip this movie to shreds and rightly so", not the kind of intelligent women I tend to appreciate.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

The Searchers
Ford (1956)
“That’s the worry — him finding her.”

Ethan Edwards, a grizzled Civil War veteran, returns to see family. The jovial visit is interrupted with news of Comanche activity. Edwards, Martin and a few others are pulled away to investigate. But it’s a trap, a “murder raid” and Ethan’s family and another are both decimated. Young Lucy and Debbie are kidnapped. Edwards and a crew of others set out to find them. The group diminishes over time as the task becomes prolonged and daunting. After five years and assorted incidents, the duo of Edwards and Martin find Debbie assimilated among the tribe. This reality is worse than death for the hateful Edwards who’d rather put Debbie out of her perceived misery than save her. But when the moment comes ... he can’t do it. He saves her and returns her home.

This is one of THE classics of American cinema. Revered by the film brats (Scorsese and Spielberg in particular). This is my third time watching it in my life and for the third time I’m left disappointed. For every clear positive, the movie has a clear, countering negative. The vistas are indeed big and beautiful and grand. But then that’s interspersed with clear scenes on sound stages standing in for the outside. John Wayne is an actor I’ve always been lukewarm on, but I think he’s undeniably good here as the hard-edged and unforgiving Edwards. But then you pair him with Jeffrey Hunter who gosh derns and aww shucks and dramatically over emotes. The core story of the search is good. But the asides about the Jorgensens are dull. The humor, dear good the “humor.” I think Mose is one of my most hated movie characters ever. His schtick undermines every scene he’s in. The biggest offense however is that right after the legit affecting climax where Wayne chases down Natalie Wood and rather than killing her, he lifts her and embraces here ... cut to a character comedically howling as an arrow is extracted from his ass. This is within seconds! (Side note, is that climax even earned? I’m torn. It certainly doesn’t feel established, I mean he did try to kill her just a few scenes before, but the suddenness does have an impact).

Edwards is a bit uncharacteristic for Wayne who normally plays much more clear cut heroes. I think the movie gets credit for dirtying him up a bit, but if you know anything of the real man, this cantankerous bigot may be the closest he ever came to playing himself. Interesting sure, but I’m not willing to give him too much credit though. Again good performance (or “performance?”) but I’m less in awe than the historical record.

But yeah, sure the mirrored beginning and ending in the doorway. Though even as I think about it that feels kinda obvious. It works for sure, but it strikes me as odd that it’s regarded as being as important and revolutionary as it is.

I fully concede a lot of my issues can be boiled down to issues of “it was the style at the time,” but then they’re so overwhelming to me it prevents me from embracing the film.

Still, there’s better Ford. There’s better Wayne. But this is the beloved one.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

We're overdue for some laughs (I think). Next pick is Albert Brooks' Lost in America.

 

[Jevo]

The Searchers (1956) dir. John Ford

Ethan and his adopted nephew Martin go on a year search for Ethan's nieces and Martin's stepsisters who were taken capture by indians. Ethan had just returned to the home of his brother in Texas, after being away for 8 years. First as a member of the Confederate army, later roaming around the west doing god knows what. Shortly after his return a big group of cattle were stolen from the neighbour farm. Ethan and Martin join a party going after the cattle, but it turns out to have been a decoy to lure the men away. Instead the indians attack Ethan's brother's farm and kill all but Ethan's nieces. Ethan quickly finds the oldest murdered and presumably raped in a canyon. This leaves just the youngest, Debbie, for Ethan and Martin to search for.

Ethan Edwards is one of John Wayne's best performances ever, and probably his best character. Ethan is as much anti-hero as he is hero. He's an adament racist against indians. He doesn't just dislike them because of whatever interactions he's had with them in the past. He basically wishes them gone from the face of the earth. Even just learning that Martin is 1/8th cherokee is enough to make him instantly dislike him. Often Ethan's quest seems to be as much about finding and killing the indian war party, as it is about freeing Debbie. But despite this, Wayne makes Ethan into a compelling character who is interesting and someone you don't really dislike, despite his bad sides. Despite having a main character who is racist against indians, The Searchers is not a film that is racist against indians. While many other westerns of that era don't exactly have much care for indians and their portrayal, except for the fact that they make good villains. The Commanche's are not exactly presented in a great light in The Searchers, however they are given a culture and character, they are not just a boogeyman. But we also mainly see them through the lens of Ethan. And raids like the one on the Edwards farm is something that happened historically in that era. It was a war, and both sides committed attrocities, and the ones committed by the white people in this film are arguably worse than the ones committed by the indians. I think Ford is trying to shows the racism in people like Ethan, which fueled the various genocides against native tribes in America. He's not trying to justify it, rather trying to find out why. It can be argued that he doesn't really succeed in this entirely. Probably because he's too tentative in his approach. But for a western in the 50's, this seems progressive compared to many of its contemporary films.

The Searchers is not the first nor the last western to be shot in Monument Valley, but it sure does make great use of the location. Every outdoor location shot is like taken out of an album of iconic western shots. There's a lot of eye candy to be had in this film. Which just makes the use of studios to film certain outdoor scenes the more jarring, because they look horribly artificial and takes you out of the film every time. It's a shame, because outside of those scenes The Seachers is a magnificent looking film.

The Searchers is perhaps the best American Western, but it's not entirely without faults. I also think the Martin and Laurie subplot is too melodramatic for my taste, and seems to be too different tonally to much of the rest of the film. For the same reason the section with Look, albeit short, has never sat quite right with me, and I think it's because it's so tonally different from the rest of Ethan and Martin's search.

 

[kihei]

The Searchers (1956) Directed by John Ford

There are a lot of people who love the Western genre who claim that The Searchers is the best Western ever made, a choice I can respect, it is a formidable film, but I always seem to respond to the movie as an object of study rather than something that I can actually care about. There is a lot to like, for sure--a powerful story, one of John Wayne's best performance, superb direction, iconic settings, a sense that everything in the movie has been pared down to an absolute minimum of essentials. For some reason, I always remember the movie as being in black and white; there is just something elemental about it. Yet there is no joy in watching the movie unfold. The Searchers seems cold, almost repellent, as though the bitterness of Wayne's character has infected the entire film. Wayne was a limited actor but he was the perfect Western hero--he didn't ever have to do more than that, just Westerns and war movies. Anytime he tried stepping beyond those two genres, he looked out of place and awkward. But in most Wayne westerns, there is a bit of tongue-in-cheek, a little wink that this is all for fun. Crusty as he could be, he's not above taking the piss out of his own image sometimes. None of that is going on in The Searchers, Wayne's performance is an icy knot in the pit of your stomach compared to most of his work. Maybe he has never been this convincing; maybe I just wasn't prepared to acknowledge that he had this kind of performance in him to give. Though it is a remarkable piece of acting, it sucks the pleasure from the movie. So for me, The Searchers remains The Citizen Kane of Westerns, brilliantly done, structurally perfect, but to watch it is more like eating spinach than lobster tail.

John Ford really is a great director. I don't know if even Hitchcock perfected a genre as well as Ford mastered the Western. His movies have timeless themes and visually stunning settings--they seem quintessentially American, as American as Mount Rushmore and as solid. His camera work can be so subtle. The first few Ford Westerns that I saw I thought he seldom moved his camera, but actually he does--the adjustments are often tiny, though, a couple of inches at most or a very slight shift of focus, almost imperceptible. The images are always very important in Ford movies and he takes a lot of care to get them just right. But most of the time I never notice. Liszt once claimed he didn't play Gabriel Faure's piano pieces in concert because they required "unrequited virtuosity" ---meaning the audience would never realize how hard the music was to play even for someone of Liszt's talent. With Ford, I think that is the way he wanted it, for his virtuosity to remain invisible.

 

[kihei]

The Passenger (1975) Directed by Michelangelo Antonioni

The Passenger is Italian director Michelangelo Antonioni's last great film, and it serves as a handy compendium of all the great director's principal themes: psychological and social alienation; fluidity of identity; dilemmas of authenticity; displacement of self; and the difficulty in believing in anything that is genuinely worth the effort. Elements of search, a preoccupation with architecture, and the solution of an existential mystery are also frequent refrains of his work. They are all present in The Passenger. David Locke (Jack Nicholson) is a BBC reporter in North Africa trying to get material about a rebellion taking place in the desert. He is frustrated in his efforts, and pretty clearly frustrated with his life in general. When Robertson, the only other English-speaking visitor in his way-off-the-beaten-path hotel, dies of a heart attack, David decides to trade identities. Unhappy with his life, he will move on to another life like a hermit crab changing shells. He has no idea who Robertson is, but his demise represents an opportunity too tempting to ignore. Robertson left a schedule calendar behind, and David follows it to the letter, curious about where it may lead. Reports of his death bring about a search by his wife for more information--she acknowledges that she cares more about him now that he is dead than she did when he was alive. David picks up a free spirit (Maria Schneider) along the way, and she goes along for the ride more out of a spirit of adventure than anything else. She is curious about who he thinks he is now. David replies he thinks he just might be a gun-runner. Turns out the revolutionaries are after him, too.

This sounds on paper like a potentially fast-paced plot. It isn't. David doesn't seem to care enough about his own life to feel any urgency, and the pace of the film, rightly, reflects his ennui. Though Antonioni famously hated actors, he gets a fine, scaled-down performance by Nicholson, a performance more about body language and vocal inflection than about the actual words that he is saying. A man discovering that his new life is not any more satisfying than his old life, David ends up feeling just as aimless as before. He literally can't escape his past as his wife is doggedly on his trail (her search for him clue by clue echoes in much less brilliant fashion David Hemmings' search for certainty in the still photos of Blow Up). In the end, believing in anything is beyond David and he suffers an ironically similar fate to Robertson.

At the time of the making of The Passenger, Jack Nicholson was probably the biggest Hollywood star around and one of the US' best actors. Nicholson was great at throwing fits in movies to the point that the audience came to expect them to occur at some point in a Nicholson film. I thought it was incredibly clever that Antonioni followed this popular tradition, but gave Nicholson the fit about ten minutes into the movie. Sort of like saying, "Now we have that out of the way, the rest of the movie is mine." Antonioni was fascinated by architecture in some of his films, La Notte being a prime example. We get a fair amount of Gaudi's wonderful architecture in The Passenger. Usually Antonioni seems to see architecture as a symbol of our society's coldly efficient, dispassionate nature. However, Gaudi is the polar opposite of the no-frills Bauhaus approach. Gaudi's dwellings suggest liveliness, delight and imagination. Gaudi's buildings and parks help to define Barcelona, where a good chunk of the movie is shot, but its inclusion in the movie seems like the wrong kind of counterpoint. Gaudi's works is one of the things that make life worth living, so it doesn't seem to really belong in this movie.

It almost goes without mentioning that Antonioni is arguably the master of the cinematic image, none better in my opinion. His colour films especially are stunningly beautiful, but his technique on all scores is impeccable. There is a tracking shot at the end of this movie that runs for about six minutes without a cut. The shot starts in David's hotel room with him resting on a bed and then very slowly closes in upon the bars on his bedroom window as we watch what is taking place outside. Then, as if by magic, with no cut, the camera goes through the bedroom window as if the bars evaporate, slowly circles the courtyard in front of the hotel and swings back around 360 degrees so that we end up looking back at David's room but from outside the window now. The composition within the frame while all this is going on is of great importance and exquisitely staged. To me this is one of the most dazzling sequences in cinema. I never get tired of watching it. Indeed, I never get tired of any of Antonioni's movies.

subtitles

 

[kihei]

My next pick will be The Hidden Fortress (Kurosawa)

 

[ItsFineImFine]

I don't quite see the parrallels with that one and Star Wars which others draw all that well and the princess character is annoying as they tend to be in classic Japanese films. Great sword-fight and camera work though. It all just felt a bit rough and refined, Kurosawa definitely improved after it.

 

[Jevo]

The Passenger (1975) dir. Michelangelo Antonioni

Locke is somewhat of a star reporter, and now he's in a war torn African country making a documentary film about the civil war. However Locke's homelife is strained, and he's having trouble finding the war he's supposed to cover. One day Locke notices that Robertson, an Englishman who was staying at the same hotel as Locke, and with whom he had gotten friendly, has died of a heart attack in his room. Robertson and Locke look somewhat alike, so Locke takes the opportunity to start a new life. So he moves Robertson's body to his room, and switches the pictures in their passports. Locke then starts trying to live Robertson's life. However Robertson is actually a gunrunner, who was in the country to work on an arms deal with rebels. So now Locke is on the hook for an arms deal, which he has no idea how to deliver. He however still goes to the next meeting point in Barcelona. At the same time Locke's old friend and editor Martin is also in Barcelona looking for Robertson on behalf of himself and Locke's 'widow', trying to learn more about how Locke died. Hiding from Martin, Locke meets a young student, and together the two of them go on the run across Spain, with Martin and the rebels on their heels.

It's hard not to make a plot summary of The Passenger sound a lot more action packed than it really is, but if you knew anything about Antonioni you probably knew what to expect. Even Locke's eventual and obvious demise is shown in about as low-key as possible. Shot through the open window of his hotel room, a car arrives with the rebel representatives he met in Vienna. The sound of a door opening. A faint gun shot. The men going into the car and driving away again. The assassination of a man lying quietly in his bed is probably not super action packed, but Antonioni takes it all the way down. It is however a beautifully shot sequence in a single take, with the camera going through the window and swirling around in the plaza in front of the hotel. In general the whole movie is beautifully shot, and the final shot is not the only impressive one-take sequence in the film.

Antonioni makes the whole embody depression and ennui that Locke feels, and which causes him to try a new life. Even in generally tense scenes, the tension only gets so high. The most tense moments in the film is probably Locke trying to escape Martin in Barcelona. Returning to his old life is more scary for Locke than the early death pretending to be Robertson will lead him to sooner rather than later. If you want to make lazy jokes about middle aged men on motorcycles, then you'll call it a mid-life crisis. But many people at some point in their life seeks to reinvent themselves, be something new, maybe even dream of starting all over in a new life. Locke takes that desire to the highest level and lunges at the opportunity for a completely new life with a new indetity. The Girl in Barcelona sees a similar opportunity for a way out of a boring and monotonous life, at least for a little while. Her decision is hardly as final as Locke's, but comes from the same place.

Jack Nicholson, particularly later in his career, has had trouble reeling it in in front of the camera, and many directors seems to have problems saying no to him. Which is a shame, because Nicholson is in my opinion best when he's subtle. He had a lot of really good performances back in the 70s before his fame started to get to his head, and this is one of them. Antonioni really manages to reel him in and keep him grounded. Maria Schneider for a lot of movie manages to keep up with Nicholson just fine as well.

 

[NyQuil]

Wayne's performance is an icy knot in the pit of your stomach compared to most of his work. Maybe he has never been this convincing; maybe I just wasn't prepared to acknowledge that he had this kind of performance in him to give. Though it is a remarkable piece of acting, it sucks the pleasure from the movie. So for me, The Searchers remains The Citizen Kane of Westerns, brilliantly done, structurally perfect, but to watch it is more like eating spinach than lobster tail.

I get the same vibe from Clint Eastwood and the film Unforgiven.

 

[NyQuil]

Jack Nicholson, particularly later in his career, has had trouble reeling it in in front of the camera, and many directors seems to have problems saying no to him. Which is a shame, because Nicholson is in my opinion best when he's subtle. He had a lot of really good performances back in the 70s before his fame started to get to his head, and this is one of them. Antonioni really manages to reel him in and keep him grounded. Maria Schneider for a lot of movie manages to keep up with Nicholson just fine as well.

It really is remarkable to go back and see Easy Rider or Chinatown and reflect on all the subtleties. It applies to Al Pacino as well.

Now Jack can go out and participate in a star-studded vehicle like the Departed but he seems like a caricature despite all of the good performances around him.

 

[kihei]

I was in a bar with five other guys way back when and Nicholson came up. Each of the six of us had a different favourite Jack Nicholson performance.

 

[NyQuil]

I was in a bar with five other guys way back win and Nicholson came up. Each of the six of us had a different favourite Jack Nicholson movie.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

The Passenger
Antonioni (1975)
“I used to be someone else, but I trade him in.”

David Locke is a war correspondent looking to make a documentary in Africa. He’s a bit disenchanted with life, his job, his relationships. He meets an English businessman at a hotel. When that man dies in the night, Locke sees an opportunity for a fresh start. Locke is “dead” while this new man lives on. Turns out the man he’s replacing is a gun runner. Meanwhile Locke’s wife and his friend set out for answers. The adventuring Locke picks up a girlfriend and money from the deal (that he knows he cannot fulfill). He continues to go through the motions of his new life, a path that leads to his lonely death in a hotel at the hand of rebels.

This is a bit of a skewed low-tempo John LeCarre or Graham Greene story between the ennui-saddled protagonist in the midst of international intrigue. NIcholson is a great vessel. Let me be third here to also note this — he’s become such a charicature over the years for his excessiveness so it’s easy to forget how subdued he could be at times. (I’m a big fan of The King of Marvin Gardens as well as another quiet Nicholson performance). He’s a nice mix of Nicholson’s signature confidence and arrogance, but with this unexpected glaze of aimless loss. Not typical of his resume.

It’s almost comical how Antonioni this Antonioni movie is. Nothing wrong with playing the hits and trawling the same waters when you’re good at it. I can’t decide if this or Blow-Up would be the better suggested entry point for a curious viewer. Challenging and intriguing, but just enough familiarity of genre in both to be a good introductory course to his themes and style.

Always a wonderful eye and a sense for movement. The final scene is a thing of beauty, an exhausted Nicholson crashed out on a bed. The camera moves away to the action on the square. People arrive. The camera continues to meander. There’s the sound of a shot eventually, off screen.

I’m now thinking about Orson Welles and his The Other Side of the Wind which is clearly taking a piss out of Antonioni and Zabriskie Point specifically (and other Euro art house types in general). Had it come out when it was intended it would have been contemporary to The Passenger. Welles was mocking a fellow director who clearly still had his wits about him and then some, while I’m not sure the same could quite be said of Welles. (Though in fairness there is certainly an element of Welles taking the piss out of Welles in that movie as well). Still one of these movies is a jumbled mess. The other is a steady-handed work of personal, internal intrigue and struggle. It ain’t the Welles film that holds up.

 

[Jevo]

Tokyo Tribe (2014) dir. Sion Sono

A rap musical from before Hamilton made them cool, Tokyo Tribe takes place in Tokyo in an alternate reality, law and order has been usurped, and Tokyo is ruled various gangs, each controlling their part of Tokyo. After a period of relative peace, where the various tribes have kept to their own quarters war looms. As Mera, the leader of Wu-Ronz tribe joins forces with crime lord Buppa in an attempt to gain supreme control over Tokyo.

I'm not going to say that Tokyo Tribes is a great film. A lot of the basic craft is not done particularly well. Many acting performances leave something to be desired, and the rapping isn't always great either. The CGI is often laughably bad, although sometimes that's probably on purpose. But it has one great thing going for it. It's one of the most out there crazy experiences you can get watching a film. Even by Sion Sono standards Tokyo Tribe is wild, and that's saying something. And Sion Sono knows he's not making Citizen Kane here. He knows that the story is stupid, and some of the characters even more so. You can feel he had so much fun making this film, and just taking the piss of it. Some times I dream of seeing the world through Sion Sono's eyes, because it must be wild experience, but I would also be a bit afraid of what I might see. One thing you can't deny about Sion Sono, is that his movies always have a lot of style, and when he picks a style for a film, he always goes all the way, and I really dig what he comes up with here. The movie has a really cool look to it.

When Tokyo Tribe came out I thought it was the most fun I'd had watching a film in a long time. I didn't have quite as much fun this time around as I recall having the first time. Much of the movie straddles the line between terribly funny and terribly bad, and if you aren't with the movie, some things fall very flat. But maybe I'm just remembering the good bits and have forgotten the things that didn't work for me back then.

There's a lot of things you could criticize Tokyo Tribe for if you wanted to. But I think it's just a lot more fun to embrace the crazy and the terrible jokes. It's not great art, but sometimes just having some stupid fun is just what you need.

 

[Jevo]

My next pick is Cria Cuervos.