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

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

I don't think I've ever watched all of Anne of Green Gables from one end to the other. But I surely have seen every part of it at some point, as my mother would religiously watch it when it was on TV when I was growing up, but as young boy who was afraid of catching cooties by spending too much time watching something with a cool girl in the lead role, I never stuck around for the whole thing. So I'm a little bit embarassed that i didn't make the connection between Anne of Green Gables and My Brilliant Career, they are even both redheads.

I too am embarassed to have not made that connection. Here's me a few years ago.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Man that picture came out large.

 

[kihei]

It's exactly the way I pictured you.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Forgot to make a pick. Actively trying to see some more films by women directors. I know this is currently streaming on Criterion... hope it is not difficult to find otherwise.

Ngozi Omwurah's Welcome II The Terrordome

 

[Jevo]

Wicked, Wicked (1973) dir. Richard Bare

Rick Stewart is a former police officer, now a hotel detective at the Grandview Hotel in California. Most of his work revolves around petty theft around the hotel, and he's often more busy bedding young co-workers than working. The hotel manager puts Rick on a case of several young women checking into the hotel, and then disappearing without checking out or paying their bill, and their rooms looks like no one has been there. The hotel manager is mostly concerned about the women not paying their bills, but Rick thinks a crime has been committed against these women, and starts investigating it as such. In fact Rick is right, the women have all been killed by a man in a bellhop uniform wearing a scary mask, who kills them as soon as they arrive in their rooms.

The special thing about Wicked, Wicked is that it is presented in the so called Duo-vision, which is two different perspectives presented on the screen at the same time. Sometimes it's the same characters in a conversation from two different angels. Other times it's showing us the main action on one screen, and someone about to enter the scene on the other, or just the other end of a phone call. The problem with this setup is that you can't have two equally interesting things happening on both sides of the screen at the samen time, because the audience wouldn't know where to look. So often one half of the screen is relegated to showing something uninteresting, which sometimes makes you doubt the purpose of it. I think it works best, when it shows a humorous take on what happens on the other end of a conversation or action, that you wouldn't see in a normal film, because it would be considered uninteresting to cut to. For example when a distressed woman wants the phone operator to call the police, but the phone operator is out getting a cup of tea, and returns to her post with no urgency, only to suddenly get in a hurry when she hears the call for police. The movie seems to me, to go back and forth between a bad B-movie that knows it's bad and has fun with it, and a bad B-movie that doesn't know it's bad. It's fun when the movie is having just as much fun as those watching it, but at times it seems to get too serious for it's own good. But it's hard to ever really call Wicked, Wicked a good movie. It's a B-movie, and not a well made one at that. The duo-vision gimmick is an attraction, and is what makes the movie worth watching, and possibly even re-watching. I sometimes damned myself for getting too focused on what was happening on the primary screen, instead of catching all the little jokes happening on the secondary screen, and I think there is a lot of fun to be had watching this movie only from the secondary screen, because that's where it stands out, and is different. If you are just watching the primary screen you are just watching a bad B-movie, and that's not really my cup of tea usually.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Wicked, Wicked (Bare, 1973) – Essential cinema? This neglected and forgotten minor film opens up so many paths to rethink film narrative that it should be mandatory viewing to any young film enthusiast. The Duo-Vision device is so unnatural and problematic that it ruins any possibility of diegetic absorption – 20 minutes of Dogville and everybody pretty much forgot that the sets had any importance to begin with, but here the spectator never forgets about the device and Wicked, Wicked's main subjects quickly become film editing and narrative construction. Distanciation begins even before the film, with that title card announcing that you are going to see a new concept, a process, that you will be witness, that this is an experience. And sure enough, the experience begins in the opening credits, with the film splitting on the Duo/Vision, and on the Wicked/Wicked title cards. And there begins the exercises in narratology. First in foreshadowing, with the film murderer finding the plush doll in the fence, but more interestingly with the overbearing music, which turns out to be diegetic (or is it?), the credits ending with the organ player turning the pages of the Phantom of the Opera score she will be playing through the film. Her status is interesting because we won't find out if she is part of the hotel settings and the diegetic world, or kind of an accompanying organist to the movie like there was for silent films. It goes on through the film, proposing flashbacks, fantasy images, allegorical images... These many narrative levels are most often deconstructed (unreliable narrators get exposed in the side-frame – for example the lady saying she used to be a dancer), or pointed at in very obvious ways (to switch to internal focalization, when our murderer mistakes the maid for his blond victim-to-be, the film has to switch to full-screen).

Of course, the device exposes editing choices like they never normally are, but the film double-downs on the process: jump cuts making characters appear, shots switching sides, superposition, freeze frame, or a frame showing three images collage. It also makes a point in exposing mise en scène choices, sometimes voluntarily, putting a wide angle aside a normal one, at other times maybe by convenience (see screenshot) with the simple dual view of the same scene. Here the shot/countershot dynamics are shown: from his side of the axis, the actor's head has to go left for us to see the actress and not only the back of his head; from her side, his head has to go right for us to see him and not only the back of her head. In a normal single-view scene, the director would have selected one or the other, here continuity has to be broken or one of these shots would have been ruined.

All in all, it is a minor film, and not a great one either, but you'd study any type of narrative construction and you'd be missing out not to examine it through the prism of Wicked, Wicked. There was supposed to be further projects using Duo-Vision, but this one missed its marks and it was put aside. I can't believe nobody went back to it with a more complex concept. Mike Figgis' Timecode was a tame attempt at a similar gimmick, but it had nothing of WW's multitude of ideas.

 

[kihei]

Wicked, Wicked (1973) Directed by Richard L. Bare

Well, that is about as bad a movie as you are going to get. 95 minutes of my life that I will never get back.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Wicked, Wicked
Bare (1973)
“All morning I’ve been trying to track down a vinegar thief.”

Another dead-eyed, innocent-faced youth murderin’ ladies because he has “issues.” This one presented to us in glorious DUO-VISION! i.e. all split screen (almost) all of the time. I can’t help but wonder would Brian DePalma love this or hate this?

Here’s a backhanded compliment: the gimmick itself kept me engaged more than the movie. It’s even well-used in a few moments. The bits of shifting action and perspective didn’t do much for me, but I’d be a liar if I said I didn’t laugh at least a little at poor Mrs. Karadyne’s life story. She tells her embellished version on the left as the truth is revealed on the right. Her “stuff in storage” means she sold it to a pawn shop. Cruel, but mildly funny. I also liked the himbo’s car crash.

Yet therin lies my sticking point. A more serious movie could play with the tool in some interesting and revealing ways. This is not that. Nor, to its credit, does it aspire to be. But it’s also not really fun enough (intentionally or unintentionally) to be a compelling watch on that front either. It’s too obviously jokey to take seriously but the bits aren’t really funny enough to take jokingly.

The acting really doesn’t help despite the presence of “Kirk Bates of the Leaves of Grass” (I still don’t know who that is, but I LOL’d at that very specific credit in the opening credits).

And what a fall for the Hotel del Coronado in San Diego, which perhaps most famously is the hotel in Some Like it Hot. Did they know they were being filmed?

 

[kihei]

Heima (2007) Directed by Dean DuBlois

What is a community? It's more than just a big group of people with a common purpose. I don't think of NFL crowds as communities, but what is or is not a community I sometimes find difficult to fathom. But saying this as a city guy through and through, people who live in small towns seem to know. At Christmas time in church basements in these places, the sense of community is as concrete and palpable as the salads and cakes and casseroles set out on long tables waiting to be shared by the celebrants. It is not the only kind of community there is, but it is a reassuring one even if I could not live for two months in its midst without wanting to be back in Toronto.

Sigur Ros had this great idea. After a far-flung world tour in 2006, the members decided to thank their fans back home in Iceland by playing a series of both set and impromptu concerts all over its tiny hamlets and seaside villages. Heima is the visual keepsake of that tour, and I find it enthralling on a bunch of levels. First, there is the music. Sigur Ros is not a typical rock band. Though they play both acoustic and electric instrument and rely especially on the latter in concert, the term "rock band" seems to fit them only in an awkward way. Their music can be muscular, but it is usually otherworldly, something that seems a mix of folk, traditional, religious (but not gospel), European avant garde jazz, orchestral music and, finally, rock. No band from any other country I know sounds like Sigur Ros, just like no other singer I know sounds like fellow countrywoman Bjork at her most experimental. So this is music that comes from somewhere particular and that particular place is Iceland.

If I thought beyond Sigur Ros' music at all before seeing Heima, it was to wonder whether Jonsi Birgisson's voice was what ancient monasteries valued as castrato--a male soprano sound that is a virtual cross blend of both male and female (let's not go into detail about how this voice was achieved--the name is sufficient giveaway). Whatever the sound he makes was, it was certainly perfect for this hypnotic, ethereal music. There was a time when I played this band a lot, but not until I came across Heima did I appreciate how connected it is to a particular place and people, to a real sense of community.

I know almost nothing about Iceland except what I have experienced in maybe a half dozen movies. Not much, but enough to form half an impression, however grossly inadequate it might be. Iceland seems like its own little kingdom, stuck out there in mid-Atlantic, part of Europe but almost as a courtesy. I'm not a Lord of the Rings fan, but I could imagine shires in Iceland, though not, of course, hobbits--though magical creatures could rule the mythology of the place for all I know. That would make sense to me. But my impression is that Iceland is remote, cold, isolated, rugged, beautiful in some places in utterly unearthly ways. It is impossible for me not to wonder what kind of people all this must produce and about how Icelandic music and art, in all its varieties, must flow from this source point.

I get a sense of such relationships in Heima. It is a combination of Sigur Ros's haunting music, the sense of comfortable solidarity and shared belonging that the band experiences with their many, varied audiences of all ages and stations, and the feeling that something essential is being shared by all the people at these gatherings. I would call this an example of community at its best, and this sense is heightened immensely by the gorgeous cinematography of this film, not just of the mysterious places of Iceland but also of its people who seem so comfortable in their own skin.

 

[kihei]

My next pick is Saturday Night and Sunday Morning, currently available on the Criterion Channel.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

My next pick is Saturday Night and Sunday Morning, currently available on the Criterion Channel.

Thank you for this. Been wanting to rewatch for a while, but either kept forgetting or just not in the mood at a given time...

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Heima
DeBlois (2007)
“Iceland is a unique place on this planet.”

Damn this made me miss live music.

Icelandic musicians Sigur Ros set out to honor and entertain their home country with a series of free concerts in venues both traditional and non-traditional.

Sigur Ros’ music is such a natural fit for movies. Their moody and ethereal sound is so inherently filmic.

What’s interesting is they use this forum not just to promote their own music, but genuinely to share their country and their affection for it. What starts as standard concert footage and enthralled fans gradually expands over the course of the movie. As Sigur Ros moves, so too does the focus. There are stunning scenes of nature, flowing water, waterfalls in reverse. There are scenes of every day life. A band walks through the streets playing, eventually emerging on stage with Sigur Ros. We get shots of food. There’s a brief interlude with a man who turns volcanic rocks into marimbas. One concert is centered around a protest against a dam. I believe one performance was shot inside an abandoned ship?

I admit a passing familiarity with the band itself. I know a handful of songs and their general vibe. I know it’s probably their best known song so this isn’t the most interesting or radical opinion but Hoppipolla gets me every time. No exception here.

The sound marries well with the pleasant persona of the brand and the happy, joyful nature of their fans. Everyone seems so damn nice.

I can’t help but wonder how I’d feel if I watched this a year or two ago, pre-pandemic. These days it’s hard not to feel an added layer of emotion given the state of the world, the state of live performance, the power of a crowd.

Again, damn I miss live music.

 

[kihei]

The first time I saw U2 was in a very small bar with about 60 other people. That memory, lovely though it is, seems like it comes from another planet now.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

The first time I saw U2 was in a very small bar with about 60 other people. That memory, lovely though it is, seems like it comes from another planet now.

That's awesome. My most memorable concert was a They Might Be Giants show. It was in a 1,500 person music hall/theater (all standing primarily, with a little bit of seating on the front of the balcony). The venue lost power during a storm right in the middle of their set. Completely dark, save a couple of backup generator lights for safety.

After a few minutes the Johns both came out with acoustic guitars. They told everyone that the show was going to be delayed by two hours — we were going to be let out then allowed back in. But before we were let out they sat down on at the edge of the stage and performed three songs. Since there was no electricity they had to tell the crowd to not to clap or sing because otherwise people wouldn't be able to hear them.

So three songs in a theater in almost near silence. Very cool.

 

[Jevo]

Heima (2007) dir. Dean DeBlois

'Home'. Sigur Ros, the popular Icelandic rock band returns home to Iceland, and does a tour of alternative concerts around the country. They are all open air concerts, most of them in small fishing villages around Iceland, where it seems the band just turns up and hooks up their equipment and give the locals a show. And because nothing much happens in a small fishing village in Iceland, most of the locals show up. They also do a fully acoustic concert next to the site where a new hydroelectric dam is being constructed as a protest against the unspoiled nature of the area being ruined. They end the Tour with a big concert in Reykjavik, the Icelandic capital. In the clips of these shows we hear from the band about their relationship with Iceland and how Iceland has shaped their music.

Heima once again reaffirmed what I already knew. Iceland is a place I need to visit some day. Iceland just looks incredibly beautiful, and this film shows that once again. The remoteness, the nature, the small communities, a lot of these things that the band also cite as a part of them and their music, is also what I find really attractive about Iceland. It just seems there's very few places in the world like Iceland. Just like there's very few bands in the world who sound like Sigur Ros. I'm not going to claim that Sigur Ros has in anyway a traditional Icelandic sound. But this documentary certainly makes the case that they sound like Iceland. I'm not even sure if such a statement can even make sense, but while you are watching Heima is certainly felt like it made sense to me. I think the main purpose of Heima was to try and show how Iceland has formed Sigur Ros and their music. And I think it succeeds at that on a visual and auditory level. The pictures of Icelandic people and Icelandic nature together with their music show how these are connected. But on an intellectual level, if you can call it that, with comments from the band etc. I don't really think it achieves it. A lot of the film is interviews with different band members, and there's some amusing anecdotes and stories in there, and there's some interesting things about how the band has dealth with sudden international fame. But I don't think this part of the film comes together very well. To me it stands as very disjointed, and the various parts doesn't seem to have an overarching connection, or at least the film doesn't edit them in a way where they do. In Danish we would say that it lacks a 'red thread' going through the whole movie that you can follow. Without you are left dissatisfied in the end. The interviews are not independent of the shots of various concerts and things happening around those concerts. But it feels strange to me how one part leaves me with a great visceral understanding of what the movie is trying to do, while the other feels unfocused and leaves me dissatisfied. And so my opinion of the movie also jumps between two extremes almost depending on what part of the movie I recall most deeply.

 

[Jevo]

Jeremiah Johnson (1972) dir. Sydney Pollack

Jeremiah Johnson is a veteran in the Mexican-American war and goes to the Rocky Mountains to take up the life of a mountain man, where he hopes to employ himself as a trapper. Winter in the mountains is tough, and Jeremiah is having a tough time finding food and inadvertently idsrupts the hunt of grizzly hunter Bear Claw Chris Lapp. Bear Claw however decides to take in Jeremiah and show him to live as a mountain man. In the spring Jeremiah once again goes off on his own and comes across a cabin with a shocked woman running around outside among the bodies of her husband and children, only the woman a small boy who doesn't speak are left alive by the raid. The woman forces Jeremiah to adopt the boy, who doesn't know how to change to her mind, so feels forced to take the boy. The two comes across another mountain man Del Gue burried in sand up to his neck after a run in with a band of Blackfoot indians. The help Del Gue track down the Blackfoots in order to steal back his horse. The nighttime raid turns violent at the hands of Del Gue, and all the Blackfoot ends up dead. Shortly after the trio gets taken in by a tribe of Flathead indians, who are rivals of the Blackfoot. In a misplaced attempt at establishing a good relationship with the Flathead, Jeremiah gives the horses they took from the Blackfoot to the Flathead chief. But to avoid losing face the chief now has to give Jeremiah an even greater gift, and ends up deciding to give Jeremiah his daughter in marriage. Now Jeremiah has a wife and a child with him in the mountains.

I'm not entirely sure how to describe Jeremiah Johnson. It's not the type of film you often see coming from a big American film studio. It's mostly somewhat slow montage of Robert Redford riding or walking across the mountains, instead of action or drama. Although there is a well defined narrative and certain action scenes, but that's not the thing that stands out after watching the film. And that's to the credit of Pollack and Redford. Apparently Warner Brothers wanted to film it all on a sound stage, but Pollack and Redford convinced them they could do it just as cheaply on location in Utah. And I can't imagine how this would have been had it been filmed all on a sound stage, but it would for sure have been worse. I love the cinematography, it's hard to mess up the mountains, but the film does a great job of making it all look great. There's a few scenes where the colours are very weird and seems to have way too high saturation, and I think it might be because they are trying to simulate night, but it just fails and looks wrong. In those scenes the cinematography fails, but other than those few scenes it's great. I also really like Robert Redfords performance, he often doesn't have to say a lot, and the scenes where he doesn't have to talk are often the best in the film. He is very great at showing Jeremiah's state of mind clearly with his body language. I particularly like the early part of the film before he meets Bear Claw. You can really feel the dread he feels about not finding enough food, whether he'll make it through the winter, and he doesn't have to say a word. A lot of this is also in the editing, which is generally really good in this film. I also really like the family montage if you can call it that after his marriage, where the family comes together as a family and learns to love each other, and it's almost entirely unspoken, but is communicated perfectly through the actors performances and the editing. And it makes the death of Caleb and Swan that much more impactful when it happens.

Jeremiah Johnson is not a perfect film. There are some weird sort of comic relief scenes which really don't fit in with the tone of the rest of the film. There's in particular a scene where Bear Clar is chased by a grizzly into his cabin, which feels like it's from an entirely different film, and I have no idea why you would even have a scene like that in this film. But I like more things about Jeremiah Johnson than I dislike, and I'm a sucker for a good Robert Redford performance and I really like what he does here. I also still find it weird how a film like this was made by a big studio, you would expect this should to be an independent film, something that should be shown at Sundance (which Redford coincidentally helped create).

 

[kihei]

Jeremiah Johnson (1972) Directed by Sydney Pollack

I'm left with the feeling that as a project Jeremiah Johnson was still coming into focus when they started filming it and nobody ever quite got it right. The movie sure wants to be an epic--it has its own overture and an awkwardly placed intermission just like other big, sweeping pictures like Lawrence of Arabia, Doctor Zhivago and Ryan's Daughter. But I find that its central character never quite jells into a whole, fully-formed character for me. One reason may be the director Sydney Pollack. This was the second of seven films that Pollack directed with Robert Redford, so obviously they got along. But the urbane, New York-raised Pollack is not the first, or thirtieth, guy I think of when it comes to directing Westerns. The first half of Jeremiah Johnson is almost bucolic as Johnson literally heads for the hills, has a few adventures and ends up with a son and a wife, both of whom come about unexpectedly for him and for us. This goes by in a manner that is downright stately. Then, almost as a penance (but the timing is off) for leading a troop of soldiers through a sacred burial ground, his son and wife are killed and Johnson becomes an avenger, at which point the movie really doesn't seem to know what to do with him. Having focused, make that over-focused, on the good part of his story, the remainer of the movie pays relatively short shrift to the unfortunate part of his life. Yes, we watch Johnson kill a few native warriors, but it is pretty perfunctory stuff. I got the sense that the character needed to be a lot darker than Pollack and Redford wanted to paint him, and this lack of depth sort of sunk the movie for me. I would have shifted the emphasis away from the back story, which takes up way too much time here, and placed the emphasis on what happens after Johnson's luck turns sour. Though, that would have brought us to problem number two.

Another weak spot for me was Redford. One of Pollack's go-to moves in this film seem to be scenery, which is stunningly beautiful, so much so that Pollack can't help but show us too much of it. It seems like every chance he gets we cut to a mountain or valley just for the sake of its beauty. His other go-to move is Redford's hair which is almost equally an eye-catching force of nature. What I don't feel like I got from Redford, though, is much of a performance. The events of Johnson's life should have overwhelmed any man, but with Redford I just got a once-over-easy sketch of the range of emotional pain that Johnson must have endured. Sure, he may have been a strong, silent type, but Redford never gets beneath his surface to any degree that I can see. As his backwoods mentor, Will Geer gives the best performance in the movie but he appears merely as book ends to the plot. Too bad, because at this point in Redford's career, Jeremiah Johnson was too much movie to for him carry himself, especially given the imbalances of the script.

I enjoyed watching the movie, even though I was disappointed in it. Though I generally far prefer cement to trees, the various outdoor settings are breathtaking. As a movie, though, Jeremiah Johnson made me appreciate The Revenant more, which I now want to see again. I sure wasn't expecting that.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Jeremiah Johnson
Pollock (1972)
“Some say he’s still up there ...”

Jeremiah Johnson is a veteran of the Mexican-American who decides he wants to live the solitary life of a mountain man. Life, however, has other ideas ... at least for a little bit. As Johnson makes his way, he meets a few characters, including a flesh-and-blood cartoon character called Bear Claw who imparts some key knowledge, a young boy cast off by his looney pants mother and an initially unwanted wife named Swan. Despite his misgivings he grows close to both the boy and Swan over time. Of course, society intervenes in the form of some wayward soldiers demanding Johnson’s help. He reluctant provides it and in doing so crosses the Crow tribe. A peace is broken and his makeshift family is killed sending him on a vengeance quest.

Here’s a western myth at higher altitudes. I’d never seen this before but I had a bit of a history with it in that I had a few childhood friends that were absolutely obsessed with this movie. There’s certainly both a rugged romance and badassery upon which to latch. It probably would have played very similar to me then had I seen it. Now, not so much. Oh god I hate that I’m about to veer in this direction. I’ll just invite the criticism head-on and yes, use the term, WOKE. It would be too strong to say I was offended by the closing 20 minutes or so, but I also just wasn’t real moved when the tale takes a typical turn toward slaughtering the savages. The fact that it comes to some macho hey you wronged us, we wronged you, but man you’re tough understanding, well eyes were rolled.

At a time when the more revisionist take on a western was en vogue, this played more like a throwback to me. It even kinda pulls its punches in the vengeance quest. I’m not demanding blood and guts, but it plays sorta tame. I’m sure the John Milius version of the script was not. It also feels like it should be EPIC (right down to the overture and intermission) but if it was it’s the leanest epic ever at less than two hours. Is there like a lost hour of this sitting around some where? Feels like there should be more time alone prior to the formation of the family and more time after their deaths.

Redford himself embodies all these conflicting things too. I guess I liked Redford for the most part though I also wonder if he was right for the role. Feels like Johnson should have a harder edge than he really does. I chalk that up to Redford being completely unable to not be charming. But did you need charm here? I think the movie is at its best when he’s reluctantly adjusting to his forced domesticity, but is that the movie any of them wanted to make? Again, is there more to this lying around somewhere? It feels like it.

Hated the songs.

 

[Jevo]

My next pick is Xavier Dolan's Mommy.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Point of order! Was just confirming that my pick is up next, but unless I am misreading it looks like the wrong movie is listed. Should be: Ngozi Omwurah's Welcome II The Terrordome. (currently says Hollywood Shuffle, which we already did a while back).

Want to be sure folks are watching the right thing.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Welcome II The Terrordome
Onwurah (1995)
“They looked at us and saw nothing.”

The Terrordome is nickname of a fenced off ghetto where Black citizens in a future England at some point have been herded and confined. It’s a generally lawless place. Gangs and crime operate out in the open. There are police, but predictably they’re almost worse than rival gangs. Ineffective at best, abusive at worst. Spike, his (white) girlfriend Jodie, his sister Anjela, her young son Hector are among the key characters. They endure a night from hell, spurred by Jodie’s ex seeing her with Spike. Violence (more than usual) crushes down on the volatile community leading to uprising, rebellion. At least attempted ... There’s no freedom here. Not on this plane.

There’s a poetic prologue set in the past with slaves arriving on the shores of a country. Each character here has a parallel to the modern story (all played by the same actors). It’s a not very subtle suggestion that the situations hasn’t changed much at all.

Welcome II The Terrordome (named for a Public Enemy song and the group also gets visually referenced with a banner) is a movie of historic significance. Ngozi Onwurah is the first Black woman to have had a theatrical release in Britain. I imagine the surface conceit is what someone saw potential commercial appeal in. Perhaps that is cynical of me. The basics of this are the same ingredients of many other 70s/80s/90s futuristic/scifi/distopia. This could be contemporary to the Los Angeles of Blade Runner or perhaps is just over the horizon in a more populated corner of some other sci-fi universe.

It even has the low-budget, cheap production values aesthetic of some lesser dystopian movies right down to some, let’s be honest, not great acting. With the sound off it could be mistaken for something far more frivolous. But the reality of the movie is deadly serious. It’s not quite a Troajan Horsing of a message into genre because there’s nothing subtle or secretive about it. The point is evident in every second of the film.

That it is impactful and shockingly still relevant is sad and says more about society than the film itself. It wasn’t predicting a future as much as it was recognizing many haven’t reconciled with the present or the past for that matter.

I’m more curious than usual about other reactions to this. It’s not genre enough to really be entertaining and it’s so relentlessly bleak in message, as truthful as it feels. Interesting that the most shocking bit of violence is inflicted upon the pregnant Jodie. Both that scene and aftershock of it won’t leave me any time soon. It’s a brutal visual blow to any attempts at unity.

There’s respite in the poetry. I suppose.

This one’s going to stick with me a while.

 

[NyQuil]

As a movie, though, Jeremiah Johnson made me appreciate The Revenant more, which I now want to see again. I sure wasn't expecting that.

It's funny, I was thinking the same thing.

They are both spectacular when it comes to portraying the sights and sounds of the harsh splendor of the wilderness, but the performances in the latter are just that much better.

 

[NyQuil]

Welcome II The Terrordome
Onwurah (1995)
“They looked at us and saw nothing.”

The Terrordome is nickname of a fenced off ghetto where Black citizens in a future England at some point have been herded and confined. It’s a generally lawless place. Gangs and crime operate out in the open. There are police, but predictably they’re almost worse than rival gangs. Ineffective at best, abusive at worst. Spike, his (white) girlfriend Jodie, his sister Anjela, her young son Hector are among the key characters. They endure a night from hell, spurred by Jodie’s ex seeing her with Spike. Violence (more than usual) crushes down on the volatile community leading to uprising, rebellion. At least attempted ... There’s no freedom here. Not on this plane.

There’s a poetic prologue set in the past with slaves arriving on the shores of a country. Each character here has a parallel to the modern story (all played by the same actors). It’s a not very subtle suggestion that the situations hasn’t changed much at all.

Welcome II The Terrordome (named for a Public Enemy song and the group also gets visually referenced with a banner) is a movie of historic significance. Ngozi Onwurah is the first Black woman to have had a theatrical release in Britain. I imagine the surface conceit is what someone saw potential commercial appeal in. Perhaps that is cynical of me. The basics of this are the same ingredients of many other 70s/80s/90s futuristic/scifi/distopia. This could be contemporary to the Los Angeles of Blade Runner or perhaps is just over the horizon in a more populated corner of some other sci-fi universe.

It even has the low-budget, cheap production values aesthetic of some lesser dystopian movies right down to some, let’s be honest, not great acting. With the sound off it could be mistaken for something far more frivolous. But the reality of the movie is deadly serious. It’s not quite a Troajan Horsing of a message into genre because there’s nothing subtle or secretive about it. The point is evident in every second of the film.

That it is impactful and shockingly still relevant is sad and says more about society than the film itself. It wasn’t predicting a future as much as it was recognizing many haven’t reconciled with the present or the past for that matter.

I’m more curious than usual about other reactions to this. It’s not genre enough to really be entertaining and it’s so relentlessly bleak in message, as truthful as it feels. Interesting that the most shocking bit of violence is inflicted upon the pregnant Jodie. Both that scene and aftershock of it won’t leave me any time soon. It’s a brutal visual blow to any attempts at unity.

There’s respite in the poetry. I suppose.

This one’s going to stick with me a while.

Have you seen Children of Men?

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Have you seen Children of Men?

I have. And am now kicking myself to have not thought of that one.

 

[NyQuil]

I have. And am now kicking myself to have not thought of that one.

It's a weird film because I try to recommend it to people given how well it was put together, but it really is desperately bleak so I feel the need to warn them, and they don't end up watching it.