KallioWeHardlyKnewYe
Hey! We won!
- May 30, 2003
- 15,540
- 3,393
My next pick -- Josef von Sternberg and Marlene Dietrich's go at Russian history, The Scarlet Empress.
Movies: The Official "Movie of the Week" Club Thread III
- Thread starter TP
- Start date
- Status
Spring in Fialta
A malign star kept him
Currently watching the film. Will have my review up by tuesday. Sorry for the slight tardiness.
KallioWeHardlyKnewYe
Hey! We won!
- May 30, 2003
- 15,540
- 3,393
Jevo
Registered User
- Oct 3, 2010
- 3,489
- 369
Malcolm X (1992) dir. Spike Lee
The life of Malcolm X (Denzel Washington) from his birth into a family being hunted by the KKK. When he was young, Malcolm's father was killed by white supremacists, and Malcolm ends up in a foster home on east coast. As a youth he engages in various crimes in Harlem until he's sent to prison. Here he meets a member of the Nation of Islam, who sets Malcolm in contact with their leader. Malcolm converts to islam, and when he leaves prison he becomes one of the leading figures in the church, as well as one of the leading figures in the civil rights movement, until his assassination by the Nation of Islam after he left the church.
I don't know enough about Malcolm X to know if this movie was true to his life or not. Sometimes that's quite a good thing because I'm not preoccupied with thinking about if the movie portrayed something wrong, instead I'm busy watching the movie. I don't feel I've come away from this movie knowing more about Malcolm X's views on the civil rights issue than I did before the movie. My knowledge still only consists of the headlines, and that's probably a good thing. A drama film is not the best tool for an academic venture into Malcolm X's beliefs. Instead I have learned a lot about how Malcolm X became who he was. The question many white people asked themselves back then was, "why is this man so angry?" And I think this movie does a very good job of showing why Malcolm X became an angry man, and why he developed quite radical views on the civil rights issue. The movie doesn't gloss over the uglier parts of Malcolm's life before he joined the Nation of Islam, nor does it put too much emphasis on that part of his life. For someone who doesn't know a lot about his life, the movie seems like a genuine and balanced account of his life, and the events that formed him into the person that became known world wide.
Funnily enough this is probably the Spike Lee film I've seen, where Spike Lee the director is most invisible. He does a very good job as a director. But I find that often in his movies, he tends to put a lot of himself as a director into the movie. That doesn't really happen here. I feel he's very much behind the camera. Perhaps because it's a biographical film, and he doesn't want to overpower the subject. Stylistically it's still very much a Spike Lee film, and he's often been good at mixing light hearted and heavier scenes together, and he does that here as well. That really helps in a movie spanning more than three hours, where a few breathers can be necessary to keep the audience engaged, and it worked. I didn't feel the length at all.
Denzel Washington also deserves a mention. Without a doubt one of his best roles. He's equally at home as the thuggish young Malcolm as is as the matured civil rights leader. I can't see anyone else playing Malcolm X but Denzel.
Malcolm X is a very good biographical film, that although it takes a familiar path for a biographical film by starting at the beginning and ending at the end, it doesn't have the same stale feeling to it that many biographical films have. Perhaps because the movie doesn't spend a whole lot of time telling us who Malcolm X is, but instead spends most of it's time showing how Malcolm X came to be.
The life of Malcolm X (Denzel Washington) from his birth into a family being hunted by the KKK. When he was young, Malcolm's father was killed by white supremacists, and Malcolm ends up in a foster home on east coast. As a youth he engages in various crimes in Harlem until he's sent to prison. Here he meets a member of the Nation of Islam, who sets Malcolm in contact with their leader. Malcolm converts to islam, and when he leaves prison he becomes one of the leading figures in the church, as well as one of the leading figures in the civil rights movement, until his assassination by the Nation of Islam after he left the church.
I don't know enough about Malcolm X to know if this movie was true to his life or not. Sometimes that's quite a good thing because I'm not preoccupied with thinking about if the movie portrayed something wrong, instead I'm busy watching the movie. I don't feel I've come away from this movie knowing more about Malcolm X's views on the civil rights issue than I did before the movie. My knowledge still only consists of the headlines, and that's probably a good thing. A drama film is not the best tool for an academic venture into Malcolm X's beliefs. Instead I have learned a lot about how Malcolm X became who he was. The question many white people asked themselves back then was, "why is this man so angry?" And I think this movie does a very good job of showing why Malcolm X became an angry man, and why he developed quite radical views on the civil rights issue. The movie doesn't gloss over the uglier parts of Malcolm's life before he joined the Nation of Islam, nor does it put too much emphasis on that part of his life. For someone who doesn't know a lot about his life, the movie seems like a genuine and balanced account of his life, and the events that formed him into the person that became known world wide.
Funnily enough this is probably the Spike Lee film I've seen, where Spike Lee the director is most invisible. He does a very good job as a director. But I find that often in his movies, he tends to put a lot of himself as a director into the movie. That doesn't really happen here. I feel he's very much behind the camera. Perhaps because it's a biographical film, and he doesn't want to overpower the subject. Stylistically it's still very much a Spike Lee film, and he's often been good at mixing light hearted and heavier scenes together, and he does that here as well. That really helps in a movie spanning more than three hours, where a few breathers can be necessary to keep the audience engaged, and it worked. I didn't feel the length at all.
Denzel Washington also deserves a mention. Without a doubt one of his best roles. He's equally at home as the thuggish young Malcolm as is as the matured civil rights leader. I can't see anyone else playing Malcolm X but Denzel.
Malcolm X is a very good biographical film, that although it takes a familiar path for a biographical film by starting at the beginning and ending at the end, it doesn't have the same stale feeling to it that many biographical films have. Perhaps because the movie doesn't spend a whole lot of time telling us who Malcolm X is, but instead spends most of it's time showing how Malcolm X came to be.
Spring in Fialta
A malign star kept him
Malcolm X (1992) - Where to start, where to start. It was a good, yet deeply flawed (from an artistic POV) film. I think it takes major balls to tackle such a touchy and controversial subject, but one also gets the sense, while watching the film, that Spike Lee would be the first one to believe that he should be the one to direct it. But for a director who has a terrible tendency of making his movies about himself (without the writing chops to always pull off the heavy sentiments he's going for), I'm not sure this is the case. I mean, Spike Lee starts off the film by portraying a criminal Malcolm X as a swaggering pulp hero, walloping marks with bottles of vodka before smoothly talking his way into becoming the right-hand man of a crime boss without showing an ounce of adrenaline (I mean, I'm one of this guy's trusted underlings and I'm wondering how the hell did I get passed over in the pecking order before finishing my drink). I felt this made the movie come across as a little campy (without mentoning the musical number, which of course ends with a beaming Spike Lee between a woman's legs) and kind of undermines its subject matter.
Fortunately for Lee, he gets a magnetic performance from Denzel Washington which is of great help to carry the movie along, and have it transition smoothly between eras, and I credit Spike Lee's technical prowess for the movie certainly doesn't feel like a 3h30 movie (still, Love Exposure is king at making an exceptionally long film feel as if it happened in the space of a pop song) and the editing of the film, which is flawless, is to be commended. While Spike Lee's writing isn't the greatest, he picks his spots perfectly to condense an eventful life for the sake of his biopic. Also, despite a fairly bad start, the movie takes off superbly following Malcolm X's break from the Nation of Islam, with some gorgeous images of the Middle East and its mosques. The peak of this era is Malcolm X's death scene, executed to perfection, particularly the subsequent beating of one of the shooters, which is wrenching, thrilling and horrifying. Unfortunately though, the movie craters its impact by closing with an overwrought speech challenging the viewer - by this point, likely enamored with its subject - in regards to Malcolm X while simultaneously placing him on the level of a semi-God (although I can understand the sentiment, but it is a detriment to artistic instincts) and having Nelson Mandela speaking with children rising into a, I'm sorry to say, corny " I am Malcolm X ". On another forum I frequent (well, the political offshoot of this board) I once claimed that Spike Lee would make an exceptionally poor novelist. This is part of the reason why. He allows his desire to make an easy point, or his admiration of an idea, take precedence over craft and story-telling. This causes the film to be rather uneven, but still, it's a highly worthwhile watch.
Edit: While we're still in the sphere of Civil Rights, this movie reminds me of a great Boondocks episode called Return of the King (Martin Luther King comes out of a coma and observes the current state of race relations) of how a good artist and storyteller can make profound statements while never diverging away from its most important task, artistic craft. It's a great little piece of art. It also takes a little dig at Spike Lee, mentioning his anger when Oliver Stone is attached to direct a biopic of King's life (Which I just realized ties in perfectly with the sentiment I expressed early in the review
)
Fortunately for Lee, he gets a magnetic performance from Denzel Washington which is of great help to carry the movie along, and have it transition smoothly between eras, and I credit Spike Lee's technical prowess for the movie certainly doesn't feel like a 3h30 movie (still, Love Exposure is king at making an exceptionally long film feel as if it happened in the space of a pop song) and the editing of the film, which is flawless, is to be commended. While Spike Lee's writing isn't the greatest, he picks his spots perfectly to condense an eventful life for the sake of his biopic. Also, despite a fairly bad start, the movie takes off superbly following Malcolm X's break from the Nation of Islam, with some gorgeous images of the Middle East and its mosques. The peak of this era is Malcolm X's death scene, executed to perfection, particularly the subsequent beating of one of the shooters, which is wrenching, thrilling and horrifying. Unfortunately though, the movie craters its impact by closing with an overwrought speech challenging the viewer - by this point, likely enamored with its subject - in regards to Malcolm X while simultaneously placing him on the level of a semi-God (although I can understand the sentiment, but it is a detriment to artistic instincts) and having Nelson Mandela speaking with children rising into a, I'm sorry to say, corny " I am Malcolm X ". On another forum I frequent (well, the political offshoot of this board) I once claimed that Spike Lee would make an exceptionally poor novelist. This is part of the reason why. He allows his desire to make an easy point, or his admiration of an idea, take precedence over craft and story-telling. This causes the film to be rather uneven, but still, it's a highly worthwhile watch.
Edit: While we're still in the sphere of Civil Rights, this movie reminds me of a great Boondocks episode called Return of the King (Martin Luther King comes out of a coma and observes the current state of race relations) of how a good artist and storyteller can make profound statements while never diverging away from its most important task, artistic craft. It's a great little piece of art. It also takes a little dig at Spike Lee, mentioning his anger when Oliver Stone is attached to direct a biopic of King's life (Which I just realized ties in perfectly with the sentiment I expressed early in the review
)
Last edited:
One of the most erotic movies I have ever seen. Can't wait to watch it again.
Great set of Malcolm X reviews, guys.
What's Up, Tiger Lily? (1966) Directed by Woody Allen
What’s Up, Tiger Lily? is Woody Allen’s first film as a director, but it should have an asterisk placed next to it. Allen (presumably) purchased the rights to an actual Japanese film, a good-natured spoof of yakuza and James Bond-type flicks, re-edited it dramatically, moving scenes around and deleting what he didn’t like, while providing his own very silly dialogue in place of what the actors were really saying. The result is a one-of-a-kind comedy, the likes of which will never be repeated.
The movie actually works as a comedy much better than it has any right to—though it helps if you have an absurdist sense of humour that runs to the sophomoric. The plot centres on a chicken-salad recipe that is much in demand and attracts a host of lightweight bad guys and beautiful women who want to be the first to find it and profit from it. The fun here is the dialogue that Allen makes up, dubbed in by actor friends of Allen. When a cobra, recently married to a chicken, is electrocuted before it can do any damage, its owner states, “Where am I going to find a long, thin casket?”—if you find that funny (I did), you will quite likely enjoy this indulgent little movie.
I was a first-year college student when this movie came out, and I was disappointed—it seemed little more than a throwaway sketch at the time, an overlong one at that. In short, the film seemed a poor effort by a comedian who had the promise to deliver more than this sort of thing. Youth can be unforgiving. I actually enjoyed it more this time around where I knew what I was getting. That being said, works don’t get much more minor than this one. Clearly the movie made its producers nervous—they re-cut part of the film and added a couple of numbers by the annoyingly twee Lovin’ Spoonful. They should have taken the “in for a penny, in for a pound” approach and kept their mitts off it—though this is a hard movie to do much damage to anyway.
In terms of attitudes toward race and gender, things have certainly changed since 1966. Women are exclusively presented as sex objects—early Bond mixed with middle-period Hugh Hefner in this instance. Some bits are kind of sexy—but you didn’t hear it from me. Allen's dialogue which leans too often toward racial stereotyping is even harder to ignore—from one perspective the whole project is borderline offensive. But that was something the Swinging Sixties didn’t have much of a feel for when it came to depictions of Asian characters anyway. If ever the phrase "it is what it is" applies to a movie, it applies to What's Up, Tiger Lily?.
Last edited:
Ralph Spoilsport
Registered User
- Jun 4, 2011
- 1,234
- 426
After La Cienaga I promised something more lighthearted and upbeat, and narrowed it down to Woody Allen's What's Up Tiger Lily or Carl Reiner's Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid, two movies that have fun at the expense of other people's movies. Went with Woody mainly because I'd seen Tiger Lily only once, a long long time ago.
Call it a gimmick or call it (to quote one RT critic) "an exercise in disjunctive radicalism" (if I were a film prof I'd give that review an "A" for chutzpah alone), the premise was probably so obvious at the time that somebody had to do it sooner or later: in the sixties, long before there was any such thing as a Criterion Collection and art house cinemas were for intellectual cults, lovers of foreign movies had to endure dubbing--second-rate actors providing English-language voiceovers while trying not to ruin some acclaimed auteur's latest masterpiece. The results were often unintentionally comical, so why not take the next step and make an intentionally comical dubbed movie? The idea may never have occurred to, say, Jerry Lewis or Abbot & Costello...but Woody Allen is exactly the type of intellectual art-house film cultist who would see the potential. And so we have What's Up Tiger Lily?, in which Allen murders a perfectly bad Japanese spy thriller B-movie. It's one of the earliest and funniest of his early, funny ones.
It doesn't always work, but when it does it's mostly down to how well the fake dialogue, funny in itself, integrates with the onscreen action. A villain tells a rival gang that their picture has been taken by a camera with special film which, when developed, removes their clothes. "So don't mess with me, unless you're completely unashamed of your bodies!" Funny, but what really sells it is the response, the way the gang of thugs recoil in fear.
If any guy benefitted from the sexual revolution of the sixties--besides Hugh Hefner--it might have been Woody, who was free to unashamedly let loose the lecherous schoolboy inside the nerdy persona. It was liberation for dorks. But Woody's mind isn't always in the gutter. I may have outgrown the heavy breathing juvenile humour (well, mostly), but there's still plenty of one-liners that are absurdly goofy ("Do you have any idea who planned your escape?" "I had an idea it was the Mormon Tabernacle Choir...but what's their motive?") or self-referential ("Oh no! It's the obligatory scene where the director and his wife walk into the shot...egomaniac!"). This would become Allen's real bread and butter, to be bawdy and brainy at the same time. The hero gets the girl, but first he has to name three Presidents.
Call it a gimmick or call it (to quote one RT critic) "an exercise in disjunctive radicalism" (if I were a film prof I'd give that review an "A" for chutzpah alone), the premise was probably so obvious at the time that somebody had to do it sooner or later: in the sixties, long before there was any such thing as a Criterion Collection and art house cinemas were for intellectual cults, lovers of foreign movies had to endure dubbing--second-rate actors providing English-language voiceovers while trying not to ruin some acclaimed auteur's latest masterpiece. The results were often unintentionally comical, so why not take the next step and make an intentionally comical dubbed movie? The idea may never have occurred to, say, Jerry Lewis or Abbot & Costello...but Woody Allen is exactly the type of intellectual art-house film cultist who would see the potential. And so we have What's Up Tiger Lily?, in which Allen murders a perfectly bad Japanese spy thriller B-movie. It's one of the earliest and funniest of his early, funny ones.
It doesn't always work, but when it does it's mostly down to how well the fake dialogue, funny in itself, integrates with the onscreen action. A villain tells a rival gang that their picture has been taken by a camera with special film which, when developed, removes their clothes. "So don't mess with me, unless you're completely unashamed of your bodies!" Funny, but what really sells it is the response, the way the gang of thugs recoil in fear.
If any guy benefitted from the sexual revolution of the sixties--besides Hugh Hefner--it might have been Woody, who was free to unashamedly let loose the lecherous schoolboy inside the nerdy persona. It was liberation for dorks. But Woody's mind isn't always in the gutter. I may have outgrown the heavy breathing juvenile humour (well, mostly), but there's still plenty of one-liners that are absurdly goofy ("Do you have any idea who planned your escape?" "I had an idea it was the Mormon Tabernacle Choir...but what's their motive?") or self-referential ("Oh no! It's the obligatory scene where the director and his wife walk into the shot...egomaniac!"). This would become Allen's real bread and butter, to be bawdy and brainy at the same time. The hero gets the girl, but first he has to name three Presidents.
Spring in Fialta
A malign star kept him
I shall be gone to the beach for a week. I will do both reviews when I come back (Allen's film and the following one).
I'm off to Paris and Berlin for a couple of weeks next weekend, so I will miss a couple of reviews, too. But will get caught up. Will post my The Assassin review before I go.
Spring in Fialta
A malign star kept him
Ralph Spoilsport
Registered User
- Jun 4, 2011
- 1,234
- 426
Bon voyages everyone.
Next pick...hmmm, something classy this time...how about Orson Welles' The Magnificent Ambersons.
Next pick...hmmm, something classy this time...how about Orson Welles' The Magnificent Ambersons.
KallioWeHardlyKnewYe
Hey! We won!
- May 30, 2003
- 15,540
- 3,393
What’s Up Tiger Lily?
Allen (1966)
“What exactly did you do to that film?”
Woody Allen recuts and dubs voices onto Key of Keys, a swinging 60s, James Bond-riffing Japanese spy romp. He who gets the recipe to the egg salad rules the world. Har har har.
I’m neither a Woody die-hard nor a Woody hater. He’s made a few movies I admire greatly (Annie Hall, Midnight in Paris, Crimes & Misdemeanors, Match Point) and a lot that I’m just generally indifferent to. I don’t know that I’ve seen anything from him I’d classify as bad, but I’m a fairweather enough fan that I’ve self selectively avoided anything with a reputation for true putridity. What’s so striking about Tiger Lilly to to me though is that for a man who is regarded as a wit, as a more intellectual, articulate comedian, this movie was so basely, basically dumb. I am not opposed to dumb! I just gave a rave to Black Dynamite! I could probably recite Airplane! from heart. And the Zucker’s work seems like a straight line descendant from this.
But wooooooooo boy, I hated this movie. The left side of my mouth curled slightly upwards at “Bill Moskowitz, loveable rogue.” And the right side of my mouth did the same about “a non-existant but real sounding country.” That’s about it. Never a full smile or laugh. The fourth-wall breaks seemed clever and were innovative at the time I’m sure. Feels like there was humor left on the table simply from Allen’s expressions. Alas, there wasn’t much that was actually mined here either. Oh, the scene where the one character does a few old Hollywood impersonations. I mostly almost laughed at that.
I’m not opposed to this concept at all. This is a clear forerunner to Mystery Science Theather 3000, for example, and I tend to find that hiiiii-larious. Dubbing can be funny! I used to love Lancelot Link too. But he was a monkey. Maybe this needed more monkeys?
I just wanted more wit. More word play. (At least beyond a real groaner of a “two Wongs” joke that a character in the movie actually groans at -- not sure if Woody should get credit for that or not). I’m still a little stunned at how dreadfully unfunny I found this movie to be.
And the Lovin’ Spoonful can burn in hell. I never need to hear them again.
Oddly, I was actually more intrigued with the real movie than the humor being injected into it. I’m always down for some mindless imported Z-grade James Bond-riffing fun. I feel like the real underlying movie here was more entertaining and the forced “wit” was detracting from whatever natural zaniness already existed.
Allen (1966)
“What exactly did you do to that film?”
Woody Allen recuts and dubs voices onto Key of Keys, a swinging 60s, James Bond-riffing Japanese spy romp. He who gets the recipe to the egg salad rules the world. Har har har.
I’m neither a Woody die-hard nor a Woody hater. He’s made a few movies I admire greatly (Annie Hall, Midnight in Paris, Crimes & Misdemeanors, Match Point) and a lot that I’m just generally indifferent to. I don’t know that I’ve seen anything from him I’d classify as bad, but I’m a fairweather enough fan that I’ve self selectively avoided anything with a reputation for true putridity. What’s so striking about Tiger Lilly to to me though is that for a man who is regarded as a wit, as a more intellectual, articulate comedian, this movie was so basely, basically dumb. I am not opposed to dumb! I just gave a rave to Black Dynamite! I could probably recite Airplane! from heart. And the Zucker’s work seems like a straight line descendant from this.
But wooooooooo boy, I hated this movie. The left side of my mouth curled slightly upwards at “Bill Moskowitz, loveable rogue.” And the right side of my mouth did the same about “a non-existant but real sounding country.” That’s about it. Never a full smile or laugh. The fourth-wall breaks seemed clever and were innovative at the time I’m sure. Feels like there was humor left on the table simply from Allen’s expressions. Alas, there wasn’t much that was actually mined here either. Oh, the scene where the one character does a few old Hollywood impersonations. I mostly almost laughed at that.
I’m not opposed to this concept at all. This is a clear forerunner to Mystery Science Theather 3000, for example, and I tend to find that hiiiii-larious. Dubbing can be funny! I used to love Lancelot Link too. But he was a monkey. Maybe this needed more monkeys?
I just wanted more wit. More word play. (At least beyond a real groaner of a “two Wongs” joke that a character in the movie actually groans at -- not sure if Woody should get credit for that or not). I’m still a little stunned at how dreadfully unfunny I found this movie to be.
And the Lovin’ Spoonful can burn in hell. I never need to hear them again.
Oddly, I was actually more intrigued with the real movie than the humor being injected into it. I’m always down for some mindless imported Z-grade James Bond-riffing fun. I feel like the real underlying movie here was more entertaining and the forced “wit” was detracting from whatever natural zaniness already existed.
Jevo
Registered User
- Oct 3, 2010
- 3,489
- 369
What's Up, Tiger Lily (1966) dir. Woody Allen
With Dr. No and subsequent movies James Bond set the tone for spy movies in the 60s, and spawned many pretenders and just as many parodies. One of these parodies was the Japanese Kokusai himitsu keisatsu series of spy movies. A young American named Woody Allen got the idea to make a parody of a parody, by taking a movie from said Japanese series, re-editing it and re-dubbing it in English, and making it into a story about a battle for the worlds best egg salad recipe.
Woody Allen has always been quite fond of himself, and even here in his first feature film, he can't refrain from putting himself into the film to explain what the viewers are watching. He also puts himself into the opening credits as a Clouseau style character. I'm not really sure what purpose the explanation serves, except letting Allen hear himself talk. I think the movie could stand on its own just fine.
Speaking of purpose. I'm not really sure what Allen is trying to do with this movie. It's a parody of a parody. But I'm not really sure what we gain here. Maybe the comedy here just isn't for me, but I wasn't really laughing while watching this movie. Allen takes a parody and just makes it even more ridiculous. The movie already consists of ridiculous scenes, and Allen just pops some weird dialogue on top with a vague story tying things some together. Most of all the movie seemed like a bad attempt at a Pink Panther movie, which are already hit and miss. The best explanation for this movie is that it's a hobby project for Allen to laugh at while watching with his friends, which he somehow convinced someone to pay him for.
With Dr. No and subsequent movies James Bond set the tone for spy movies in the 60s, and spawned many pretenders and just as many parodies. One of these parodies was the Japanese Kokusai himitsu keisatsu series of spy movies. A young American named Woody Allen got the idea to make a parody of a parody, by taking a movie from said Japanese series, re-editing it and re-dubbing it in English, and making it into a story about a battle for the worlds best egg salad recipe.
Woody Allen has always been quite fond of himself, and even here in his first feature film, he can't refrain from putting himself into the film to explain what the viewers are watching. He also puts himself into the opening credits as a Clouseau style character. I'm not really sure what purpose the explanation serves, except letting Allen hear himself talk. I think the movie could stand on its own just fine.
Speaking of purpose. I'm not really sure what Allen is trying to do with this movie. It's a parody of a parody. But I'm not really sure what we gain here. Maybe the comedy here just isn't for me, but I wasn't really laughing while watching this movie. Allen takes a parody and just makes it even more ridiculous. The movie already consists of ridiculous scenes, and Allen just pops some weird dialogue on top with a vague story tying things some together. Most of all the movie seemed like a bad attempt at a Pink Panther movie, which are already hit and miss. The best explanation for this movie is that it's a hobby project for Allen to laugh at while watching with his friends, which he somehow convinced someone to pay him for.
Ralph Spoilsport
Registered User
- Jun 4, 2011
- 1,234
- 426
Seeing The Assassin a few years back was like having a date with the most beautiful girl in the world. One of the most drop-dead gorgeous films I've ever seen. Some found the storyline a little hard to follow. No kidding. It's a little hard to concentrate when overwhelmed by such exquisitely stunning beauty in every inch of the screen, from the cinematography to sets and costume design...everything everywhere delights the eye. It's a little intimidating. Impressive? Oh, yeah. Engaging? Not so much. So thanks to the MOTW club for bringing me back to The Assassin; the second date was way better. It was still hard not to stare, but at least my jaw wasn't on the floor this time, and I could pay a little more attention to what my date had to say.
What The Assassin has to say seems pretty simple: another observation of the tragic irony of power's capacity to corrupt. A dynasty can build a magnificent empire then turn against one another like dogs fighting over a piece of meat. Power can drive social progress; a power struggle degenerates into barbarism. The Assassin is like a folk tale which illuminates this point, not so much a history lesson but a poem which reveals a truth deep within human nature. It is set in 9th century China, mainly in the court of a powerful provincial governor and potential rival to the throne, at a time when human civilization appears to be at its apex. The court is almost Eden-like. Everything is perfect and in harmony with nature: the architecture blends with the landscape, songbirds sing, crickets chirp melodiously, gentle breezes blow. The governor is as captivated by the grace of a butterfly as his four year old son. There are virtually no hardships here. Oh, right...except for assassins. The law of the jungle still hovers over this paradise. Hence the handful of martial arts combat scenes...The Assassin is generally classified as an example of the wuxia genre, but makes a case for feng shui to be a genre too.
What The Assassin has to say seems pretty simple: another observation of the tragic irony of power's capacity to corrupt. A dynasty can build a magnificent empire then turn against one another like dogs fighting over a piece of meat. Power can drive social progress; a power struggle degenerates into barbarism. The Assassin is like a folk tale which illuminates this point, not so much a history lesson but a poem which reveals a truth deep within human nature. It is set in 9th century China, mainly in the court of a powerful provincial governor and potential rival to the throne, at a time when human civilization appears to be at its apex. The court is almost Eden-like. Everything is perfect and in harmony with nature: the architecture blends with the landscape, songbirds sing, crickets chirp melodiously, gentle breezes blow. The governor is as captivated by the grace of a butterfly as his four year old son. There are virtually no hardships here. Oh, right...except for assassins. The law of the jungle still hovers over this paradise. Hence the handful of martial arts combat scenes...The Assassin is generally classified as an example of the wuxia genre, but makes a case for feng shui to be a genre too.
Pranzo Oltranzista
Registered User
- Oct 18, 2017
- 3,844
- 2,704
What's Up Tiger Lily? (Allen, 1966)
The final product feels amateurish and (apart from a few hilarious one-liners) its humor, which aims at being subversive, is mostly juvenile at best. Still, this is a very important work in Allen's filmography and the foundation of the most significant elements of his signature, not as an author, but as a film-maker.
A few incomplete thoughts, with no real guideline (kind of like the movie).
First, the film itself. Despite feeling a little botched or incomplete, the film imposes an interesting questionning about the author and genre notions. There is 4 films in here: a japanese spoof of spy movies, written by Hideo Ando and directed by Senikichi Taniguchi ; a rewrite of this film, re-edited and dubbed with silly dialogue presented as a grand work of Woody Allen (this film only exists within the film - the film that Woody Allen is asked to comment) ; the actual work of Woody Allen and friends (which doesn't exist anywhere, or only as parts of What's Up Tiger Lily?) ; and the final cut, with extra dialogues with, among other things, a fake Allen voice, and music interludes added by "the studio". The credits of this final film would deserve an essay on itself: the only directing credits are Taniguchi's, while Allen gets credits for "special material" and "aiding and abetting" the cast. Six others are credited for assisting with writing and voices, and Ben Shapiro, who - as far as I know - had the rights to the film, came up with the original idea, and proposed it to Allen (might also be the one responsible for the additionnal voices and for the Spoonful appearances), is only credited for "production conception". Identifying the author(s) here is a challenge, but isn't what seems important to me, I'm rather interested in the interrogation underneath: what film are we - the actual spectators - looking at? Obviously, what's in our hand is the final cut, the work of a pretty important bunch of people, but what I am reviewing (as did all previous reviews above) is a Woody Allen film (but doesn't that film only exists as a fictional work within the collective work?). The film remains as it is fantasized within itself: the grand work of an author (and it situates the spectator as part of its fiction, something that would also deserve an essay on itself, but I'll probably get back to it a little). What's Up Tiger Lily?'s production adventure is a great examplification of cinema's cannibalistic authorship where no matter how many people actually contributed to the final construction of a work, it remains presented as an author's œuvre, just like a novel or a painting. The film has theoretical importance on two other questions (that I won't address here): it asks the question, and has been used as a fundamental example, of the authorial contribution of the translator and it is also a challenge to the notion of genre.
Second, the film as a foundation to Allen's signature. The original idea of dubbing disruptive dialogue onto an existing film isn't Woody Allen's - it was proposed to him. So for his first film project, the "young" comedian is placed in a unique position: not writing and filming a funny story like he'll have to do later, but tinkering jokes with existing material. The process works through détournement (can't find an appropriate English equivalent) and distanciation, stuff his better works will use abundantly, but most of all, it implies using the film's own materiality as elements for building jokes (for example, in Deconstructing Harry, Allen's character finds himself out of focus (1), in Annie Hall, Allen uses subtitles to betray the thoughts of the characters (2)). This is not to imply that Woody Allen's humor and understanding of the cinematographic medium wouldn't have gone that way without What's Up Tiger Lily? but that first film, based on ideas that weren't his, is clearly the source, or the building block of some important elements of his approach. The director is famous for "breaking the fourth wall", and again this propensity, from the after-life addresses to the spectator in Love & Death (3) to the appearance of Marshall McLuhan in Annie Hall (4) (one of the most satisfactory movie scenes to any cinema goers) finds its point of origin in Tiger Lily. The film is also Allen's first of many exercice de style and experimentation with genre restrictive forms, which will pave ways to my two favorite films of his (Zelig and Stardust Memories).
Lastly, the spectator's position / the "male" gaze. As said earlier, the spectator is here part of the fiction - not only through the existence in the film of the filmic object that is presented to us (that mythic Woody Allen creation), but twice by being addressed directly by the interviewer, once by Allen, and in text through the end credits. The spectator finds himself as part of the opening credits too, personified by the illustrated Woody "watching" bawdy/racy credits with unclothed women when he has his glasses on (and normal white on black credits when he takes them off), as well as in the original japanese film's images - one of the actresses reacts by closing the drapes when "watched" by the camera outside, and as an eye peeping through a keyhole (couldn't ask for a better cliché). It's not an exhaustive exercise - it would have been an impossible task with images that he didn't film himself (even though the japanese film has material for it, including a few scenes where the males are presented with a selection of women) - but occularization is an important part of the film, which ends on an eye test (included for failing spectators who read the credits instead of watching the striptease). I'm not entirely sure what to make out of it in here, but in a filmography where "men look at women / women watch themselves being looked at" (that's from John Berger, not me), it certainly shines light on many other great Woody Allen moments (Michael Caine in Hannah and Her Sisters being of the less creepy ones (5)).
1)
2)
3)
4) Woody Allen meets Marshall McLuhan
5) Hannah and Her Sisters (1/11) Movie CLIP - God, She's Beautiful (1986) HD
In addition to being fundamental to Woody Allen's signature, there's a lot of material to feed the mind in different directions in Tiger Lily. What we have here is a lot more than the z-grade amateurish raunchy little film it appears to be. Its deconstruction of film medium is clumsy and Allen doesn't have the abilities (yet) to go real far in the paths he opens, but there is enough in here for the film to be considered an interesting and valid first work.
The final product feels amateurish and (apart from a few hilarious one-liners) its humor, which aims at being subversive, is mostly juvenile at best. Still, this is a very important work in Allen's filmography and the foundation of the most significant elements of his signature, not as an author, but as a film-maker.
A few incomplete thoughts, with no real guideline (kind of like the movie).
First, the film itself. Despite feeling a little botched or incomplete, the film imposes an interesting questionning about the author and genre notions. There is 4 films in here: a japanese spoof of spy movies, written by Hideo Ando and directed by Senikichi Taniguchi ; a rewrite of this film, re-edited and dubbed with silly dialogue presented as a grand work of Woody Allen (this film only exists within the film - the film that Woody Allen is asked to comment) ; the actual work of Woody Allen and friends (which doesn't exist anywhere, or only as parts of What's Up Tiger Lily?) ; and the final cut, with extra dialogues with, among other things, a fake Allen voice, and music interludes added by "the studio". The credits of this final film would deserve an essay on itself: the only directing credits are Taniguchi's, while Allen gets credits for "special material" and "aiding and abetting" the cast. Six others are credited for assisting with writing and voices, and Ben Shapiro, who - as far as I know - had the rights to the film, came up with the original idea, and proposed it to Allen (might also be the one responsible for the additionnal voices and for the Spoonful appearances), is only credited for "production conception". Identifying the author(s) here is a challenge, but isn't what seems important to me, I'm rather interested in the interrogation underneath: what film are we - the actual spectators - looking at? Obviously, what's in our hand is the final cut, the work of a pretty important bunch of people, but what I am reviewing (as did all previous reviews above) is a Woody Allen film (but doesn't that film only exists as a fictional work within the collective work?). The film remains as it is fantasized within itself: the grand work of an author (and it situates the spectator as part of its fiction, something that would also deserve an essay on itself, but I'll probably get back to it a little). What's Up Tiger Lily?'s production adventure is a great examplification of cinema's cannibalistic authorship where no matter how many people actually contributed to the final construction of a work, it remains presented as an author's œuvre, just like a novel or a painting. The film has theoretical importance on two other questions (that I won't address here): it asks the question, and has been used as a fundamental example, of the authorial contribution of the translator and it is also a challenge to the notion of genre.
Second, the film as a foundation to Allen's signature. The original idea of dubbing disruptive dialogue onto an existing film isn't Woody Allen's - it was proposed to him. So for his first film project, the "young" comedian is placed in a unique position: not writing and filming a funny story like he'll have to do later, but tinkering jokes with existing material. The process works through détournement (can't find an appropriate English equivalent) and distanciation, stuff his better works will use abundantly, but most of all, it implies using the film's own materiality as elements for building jokes (for example, in Deconstructing Harry, Allen's character finds himself out of focus (1), in Annie Hall, Allen uses subtitles to betray the thoughts of the characters (2)). This is not to imply that Woody Allen's humor and understanding of the cinematographic medium wouldn't have gone that way without What's Up Tiger Lily? but that first film, based on ideas that weren't his, is clearly the source, or the building block of some important elements of his approach. The director is famous for "breaking the fourth wall", and again this propensity, from the after-life addresses to the spectator in Love & Death (3) to the appearance of Marshall McLuhan in Annie Hall (4) (one of the most satisfactory movie scenes to any cinema goers) finds its point of origin in Tiger Lily. The film is also Allen's first of many exercice de style and experimentation with genre restrictive forms, which will pave ways to my two favorite films of his (Zelig and Stardust Memories).
Lastly, the spectator's position / the "male" gaze. As said earlier, the spectator is here part of the fiction - not only through the existence in the film of the filmic object that is presented to us (that mythic Woody Allen creation), but twice by being addressed directly by the interviewer, once by Allen, and in text through the end credits. The spectator finds himself as part of the opening credits too, personified by the illustrated Woody "watching" bawdy/racy credits with unclothed women when he has his glasses on (and normal white on black credits when he takes them off), as well as in the original japanese film's images - one of the actresses reacts by closing the drapes when "watched" by the camera outside, and as an eye peeping through a keyhole (couldn't ask for a better cliché). It's not an exhaustive exercise - it would have been an impossible task with images that he didn't film himself (even though the japanese film has material for it, including a few scenes where the males are presented with a selection of women) - but occularization is an important part of the film, which ends on an eye test (included for failing spectators who read the credits instead of watching the striptease). I'm not entirely sure what to make out of it in here, but in a filmography where "men look at women / women watch themselves being looked at" (that's from John Berger, not me), it certainly shines light on many other great Woody Allen moments (Michael Caine in Hannah and Her Sisters being of the less creepy ones (5)).
1)
2)
3)
4) Woody Allen meets Marshall McLuhan
5) Hannah and Her Sisters (1/11) Movie CLIP - God, She's Beautiful (1986) HD
In addition to being fundamental to Woody Allen's signature, there's a lot of material to feed the mind in different directions in Tiger Lily. What we have here is a lot more than the z-grade amateurish raunchy little film it appears to be. Its deconstruction of film medium is clumsy and Allen doesn't have the abilities (yet) to go real far in the paths he opens, but there is enough in here for the film to be considered an interesting and valid first work.
Last edited:
Pranzo Oltranzista
Registered User
- Oct 18, 2017
- 3,844
- 2,704
Sure, propose a new film. Comment on movies of the week when you are interested and/or have time.I will certainly NOT do this every week, and I'm sorry if there's no direction wrapping up these few ideas, but I certaintly had fun going back to writing a little about film. I don't know if this is enough for me to propose a future film.
Spring in Fialta
A malign star kept him
Pranzo Oltranzista
Registered User
- Oct 18, 2017
- 3,844
- 2,704
There's a lot of films I'd like to have general feedback on, my first choice would be L'invenzione di Morel (1974). I hope you guys can find it, I am limited myself to movies I already have (I do have a shitload). I used to download lots of rare stuff, but I'm not a member of any community right now.
Pranzo Oltranzista
Registered User
- Oct 18, 2017
- 3,844
- 2,704
Even though time is surely a rarity most of the time, it's not the reason I won't be a faithful contributor (interest even less, I'd love to watch everything you guys see and take part). It's mainly because the brain juices are running dry, and this kind of exercise is demanding. I have a lot of respect for the regulars in this thread! I threw together sparse ideas without wrapping them up properly and it still was quite an effort (as I told my gf, it's not like bicycle, you do get out of touch). Another reason is the movies availability. I know I don't have The Assassin.
KallioWeHardlyKnewYe
Hey! We won!
- May 30, 2003
- 15,540
- 3,393
The Assassin
Hou (2015)
“Cut him down for me, expertly ...”
A crackling story of royal intrigue and assassination in ancient China told in a manner that crackles, in a sense, albeit more in a striking visual sense than a propulsive string of action ...
For something called The Assassin this is an awfully languid-paced affair. It’s an unexpected approach to me for such wuxia shenanigans, but I don’t mean any of this as a criticism. It would be easy to mistake my words as ones of bored viewer. Far from it. Once I settled into its vibe I was quite taken with it. It is classical in many ways, but a tad askew and as my eyes feasted on the sumptuous visuals, my mind kept playing around with all the odd little touches Hou Hsiao-Hsien brings to this productions.
Some confrontations occur at a distance. Others mid-ground. The action often isn’t long and balletic as I expect from wuxia, but rather short and sudden, some even starting mid fight. It’s enjoyable, but almost feels like an afterthought. Again, not a criticism in this context. I like how it works. A lot of the film takes place in the mid-ground with trees or (more than once) gauzy curtains fluttering in the foreground. Then there’s the aspect ratio that practically begs the viewer to make a parallel to painting. Backed with a steady near constant beat of drums, blowing of wind, clanking of swords, The Assassin is a picturesque and patient film. Quite rewarding, though it might not be what the viewer expects based on title and poster alone.
The match of director and material is an interesting one. I’m trying to think of a more western comparison. Maybe like if an artier Mike Leigh tried his hand at King Arthur?
Hou (2015)
“Cut him down for me, expertly ...”
A crackling story of royal intrigue and assassination in ancient China told in a manner that crackles, in a sense, albeit more in a striking visual sense than a propulsive string of action ...
For something called The Assassin this is an awfully languid-paced affair. It’s an unexpected approach to me for such wuxia shenanigans, but I don’t mean any of this as a criticism. It would be easy to mistake my words as ones of bored viewer. Far from it. Once I settled into its vibe I was quite taken with it. It is classical in many ways, but a tad askew and as my eyes feasted on the sumptuous visuals, my mind kept playing around with all the odd little touches Hou Hsiao-Hsien brings to this productions.
Some confrontations occur at a distance. Others mid-ground. The action often isn’t long and balletic as I expect from wuxia, but rather short and sudden, some even starting mid fight. It’s enjoyable, but almost feels like an afterthought. Again, not a criticism in this context. I like how it works. A lot of the film takes place in the mid-ground with trees or (more than once) gauzy curtains fluttering in the foreground. Then there’s the aspect ratio that practically begs the viewer to make a parallel to painting. Backed with a steady near constant beat of drums, blowing of wind, clanking of swords, The Assassin is a picturesque and patient film. Quite rewarding, though it might not be what the viewer expects based on title and poster alone.
The match of director and material is an interesting one. I’m trying to think of a more western comparison. Maybe like if an artier Mike Leigh tried his hand at King Arthur?
Jevo
Registered User
- Oct 3, 2010
- 3,489
- 369
The Assassin (2015) dir. Hou Hsiao-Hsien
Yinniang is an expert assassin, having been trained since she was a child by her master. When she refuses to kill a target, after she see's him with his small child, she gets reprimanded by her master. As a punishment, Yinniang is sent to the rebellious province to assassinate it's leader Tian Ji'an, who is also her cousin. While she is there, she realises that Tian Ji'an's kids are still very young, and him dying would throw away the stability the region current sees. So she decides to protect him instead of killing him.
The Assassin is a sensory experience like few others. Shu Qi as Yinniang is as elegant and beautiful as she is deadly. Yinniang is almost other-wordly in her abilities as an assassin and martial artist, she moves practically without sound, the loudest thing about her being the sound of her knife slicing through the air. Like the best ballet dancers, Shu Qi looks to be lighter than air at all times. Not just in leaps aided by strings, but also in her fights, even when walking regularly she seems to be treading lighter and easier than everyone else. The role of Yinniang is not an easy one, not just because of the physical challenges in the role. Her dialogue is limited and she is silent for big parts of the movie, only letting her body speak for her. Shu Qi does a very good job being Yinniang.
The most immediately striking thing about The Assassin is the visuals. It's perhaps the most beautiful movie ever made. The colours are striking, in every situation, day or night, in or out. The whole movie is meticulously framed. Every frame is very layered visually, with several distinct levels, which gives a very rich look to the film, without the frame's ever feeling crowded. Just watching the movie is a treat. But while watching it this time, I really noticed how great the sound is in this movie. In particular the sounds of nature. They are present in almost every scene, even in doors we often hear birds chirping or the sounds of crickets at night. Outside the sounds of wind and water are omnipresent. It's amazing how this canvas of sounds makes the movie come alive in whole different way than it would have otherwise. There is also a score, which is quite good as well. But the choice to let nature play such a big role in the soundscape of the film is a master stroke in my opinion. There is no piece of music which would have been a better fit for the majority of these scenes. The Assassin is a feast for the eyes and the ears.
The story in The Assassin is comparatively shallow compared to the visuals and audio. Perhaps it's for the best. A more intricate story requiring more attention would probably just have drawn attention away from the visuals and the audio. I even caught myself forgetting to pay attention to the story a couple of times because I was engrossed elsewhere in the film. But it didn't matter too much if I missed some details here and there, it's still a fantastic movie.
Yinniang is an expert assassin, having been trained since she was a child by her master. When she refuses to kill a target, after she see's him with his small child, she gets reprimanded by her master. As a punishment, Yinniang is sent to the rebellious province to assassinate it's leader Tian Ji'an, who is also her cousin. While she is there, she realises that Tian Ji'an's kids are still very young, and him dying would throw away the stability the region current sees. So she decides to protect him instead of killing him.
The Assassin is a sensory experience like few others. Shu Qi as Yinniang is as elegant and beautiful as she is deadly. Yinniang is almost other-wordly in her abilities as an assassin and martial artist, she moves practically without sound, the loudest thing about her being the sound of her knife slicing through the air. Like the best ballet dancers, Shu Qi looks to be lighter than air at all times. Not just in leaps aided by strings, but also in her fights, even when walking regularly she seems to be treading lighter and easier than everyone else. The role of Yinniang is not an easy one, not just because of the physical challenges in the role. Her dialogue is limited and she is silent for big parts of the movie, only letting her body speak for her. Shu Qi does a very good job being Yinniang.
The most immediately striking thing about The Assassin is the visuals. It's perhaps the most beautiful movie ever made. The colours are striking, in every situation, day or night, in or out. The whole movie is meticulously framed. Every frame is very layered visually, with several distinct levels, which gives a very rich look to the film, without the frame's ever feeling crowded. Just watching the movie is a treat. But while watching it this time, I really noticed how great the sound is in this movie. In particular the sounds of nature. They are present in almost every scene, even in doors we often hear birds chirping or the sounds of crickets at night. Outside the sounds of wind and water are omnipresent. It's amazing how this canvas of sounds makes the movie come alive in whole different way than it would have otherwise. There is also a score, which is quite good as well. But the choice to let nature play such a big role in the soundscape of the film is a master stroke in my opinion. There is no piece of music which would have been a better fit for the majority of these scenes. The Assassin is a feast for the eyes and the ears.
The story in The Assassin is comparatively shallow compared to the visuals and audio. Perhaps it's for the best. A more intricate story requiring more attention would probably just have drawn attention away from the visuals and the audio. I even caught myself forgetting to pay attention to the story a couple of times because I was engrossed elsewhere in the film. But it didn't matter too much if I missed some details here and there, it's still a fantastic movie.
Spring in Fialta
A malign star kept him
What's up, Tiger Lily (1966) - I'm a big fan of early Woody Allen. Not this one. I didn't get the appeal of dubbing a film that already looks pretty bad outside of its sets, and the concept sounds like something Seth Rogen would have come up with stoned in his office, then hired Woody Allen to write. I smiled once or twice (You can't quit now! You're too far ahead!) but found the pacing and dubbing garish, the jokes bad and often in poor taste. I don't think this is remotely remembered if it wasn't Allen's first. Oh, I forget: the opening credits are great. Very amusing and cheeky.
I'm a fan of this thread, the writing in it, and Woody Allen. I had a college roommate who couldn't understand why Annie Hall won Best Picture over Star Wars.
I'm disturbed by the small number and variety of films shown at multi-plexes. I'm excited by Amazon's new $3 rentals and the $7 Disney streaming service starting in November. I watch at least one movie every single day.
I'm disturbed by the small number and variety of films shown at multi-plexes. I'm excited by Amazon's new $3 rentals and the $7 Disney streaming service starting in November. I watch at least one movie every single day.
- Status
Ad
Upcoming events
-
Gold Medal 2024 IIHF WORLD CHAMPION - PICK ONLY ONE TEAMWagers: 7Staked: $36,600.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-
-
-