Author: Sasa

Secretary

Uh, this is a tough one. I was feeling emotionally confused and decided to watch “Secretary”, the only somewhat serious romance in my Netflix queue at the time. I heard quite a bit about the film and it appeared a lot in reactions to “La Vénus à la fourrure” where people complain about how S&M relationships are nothing like in that film, citing “Secretary” as a realistic and good example. I think this is comparing apples with oranges. In one case we have a dude who is kind of delusional in his masochistic fantasies and who is being told off by a woman who exposes his misogyny, in the other case we have a traditional love story based on mutual attraction and a common ground in terms of sexuality and, most of all, despite the dom-sub thing going on, these two characters are absolute equals in their relationship.

Nevertheless, I personally had trouble getting behind the dynamics in “Secretary”. I can kind of understand the sexual aspect but not so much the psychology behind these characters’ relationship. As a result, I thought that the characters were likable and a good match, in fact they have a lot of chemistry together, but I don’t really see how that works. I get a sense as to why Maggie Gyllenhaal’s character gained confidence, because she found someone who accepts her masochistic tendencies and desires her for it, but how do you exactly gain confidence when you want to be beaten up? Maybe I am just too “normal” when it comes to relationships that I don’t really relate to these atypical relationships, heck none of my friends are like that either besides a little bondage in bed maybe. For us it’s all play but in the film it’s actually serious. My lack of understanding for the film is mostly present when I got confused by its last scene. I thought it was a somewhat awkward scene. Her face at the end looked puzzling to me and I was like: “So is she happy or not?” It was the internet that explained her face to me (it was supposed to look defiant), cementing the message that their relationship was indeed blossoming.

Another slightly off-putting aspect is the weird style of the film. Maggie Gyllenhaal’s style starts out being really horrible and the interior design of that lawyer’s office creeps the heck out of me. Throughout the film, she becomes more and more beautiful (of course), but even then she wears one of these oversexed secretary outfits that are somewhat unrealistic.

All in all, though, “Secretary” is a cute relationship story about two unusual people who somehow found each other. It’s probably the most optimistic relationship film I have seen in awhile, and I am impressed that Hollywood pulled that off.

Mine Vaganti

What is worse, “Männer al dente” for “Mine Vaganti” or “Am Sonntag bist du tot” for “Calvary”? It’s a tough competition. However, I have to admit that this title at least made me remember the film. Both Shii and Pixelmatsch have seen it and they were both amused by it. So I totally expected a silly Italian comedy. I never expected Riccardo Scamarcio, who I am still kind of fascinated by, to be a decent actor and appear in a non-comical film. Well, “Mine Vaganti” surely was funny, but more than that it was a kind of serious funny and I would even say that the serious undertones were much more important than the funny ones. It is not without reason that the title refers to the grandmother and not to the sons or the quasi-girlfriend who take up the majority of the screentime. All of these kids are somehow a reflection of her and what she was not able to do – while they were somehow able to overcome the difficulties society (and their own family) put on them, she was stuck with an unhappy fate. It is never really explained what happened to her nor what she really thinks, but through the children we end up empathize with her after all.

I am not saying the film is not funny, but for me its story was extremely heavy. The way it portrayed the lack of tolerance within the family made my stomach churn, ultimately it was a film about the main characters suffering and just generally being quite screwed up but not by their own fault. It’s essentially a “poor rich kids” story, but since it’s so introspective I didn’t think that was a big deal. Lack of money doesn’t have to make you unhappy, so conversely a rich lifestyle doesn’t necessarily make you happy either. Oh and the movie is gay in an absolutely lovable way. I really liked the scene in which Tommaso and Marco make up, it was a sweet moment that these actors pulled off really well.

Direction-wise, I absolutely hated the film. The music was way too overloaded (OK fine it’s an Italian movie, but still! Visconti’s light comedies are not this bad when it comes to that!) and the camera kept moving way too much. Maybe it was supposed to signify something (like distress) but it sure annoyed me. I strongly believe that less or at least calm camera movement tends to make better films. (Nowadays, I even love Ozu after all.) At the same time, I didn’t really expect great direction from this film, I am really glad that it has a good story and that makes me content. It’s just unusual that I find the direction of a film so remarkably bad.

My sympathies for Spain, Italy and Portugal have been evolving. I had a Spanish phase ever since 10th grade till I lost interest in seeing the newer Almodovar films, then I got into opera and all things Italian, and then just this year I went to visit Lisbon which sparked a big love for Portugal. But Italy is not yet fading for me, I definitely still have a thing for it, and “Mine Vaganti” is a fantastic example of how likeable Italian movies can be.

Jack goes boating

Recently, I have been watching a lot of relationship films and romantic comedies, I have to admit that I just love them. The toughest aspect about them is that my opinion on them depends heavily on the content and much less so on how the film was made. As a result, I remember absolutely nothing about how Hoffman shot the film (except for that hookah scene maybe) but it was just about the story for me.

Speaking of hookahs, I so hate them by association. I never tried them before but the worst guy who ever played a role in my life had roommates who owned one and it was a thing they did together sometimes.

But I digress. I do remember how the film unfolded slowly and there is something so very sweet about the slowness in which this relationship progresses. I was also absolutely in love with the character of Jack. His meek but persevering attempts at wooing a woman are plain lovable, and it was nice to see how he explodes into anger when something went really, really wrong. It was so realistic and human and I just liked that. Aside from that, the story just puzzles me. So the perfectly selfless neighbors are having their relationship broken up because they can’t get over their cheating, and the main character somehow fall in love but you never really understand why. What the heck do they see in the other except for the fact that the other one is trying? If love was that simple (you just have to try), I would lose all faith in the world. The film reeks too much of “oh they just happen to be available for each other and they don’t expect any more”. But if that doesn’t bother you, then the “please rape me” scene. Essentially she is too shy for sex, or rather she is afraid of being touched. So what does she say? She stutters: “So… what if you… overcome me?” Then he grabs her and she is overcome and they have sex. Absurd and kind of infuriating. Please, girl, just admit that you are a sexual being and if you absolutely have to be embarrassed and disgusted at that idea, at least don’t push the responsibility to the guy who “overcame” you. You wanted it, and – big news – it’s perfectly fine.

I suppose I vented a little bit too much on a film that is supposed to be sweet, and it really is. I enjoyed watching it, I just don’t buy its story. I think that the side couple is being treated too one-dimensionally and I am a little sad that this film’s writing is screwing with a perfectly nice premise. I know nothing about the play it’s based upon, and I wish it has a little more depth.

The 100-Year-Old Man Who Climbed Out the Window and Disappeared

So far, every Scandinavian comedy I have seen was great (“Adam’s Apples”, “Kraftidioten” and oh I loved “The Boss of it all”) yet at the same time I never seem to research them further. Amongst all of these, ironically, “The 100-Year-Old Man” was the weakest. I am not surprised that it’s based on a really popular book because it contains all the ingredients for a great comedy, but something was not convincing me and I am just not sure why. Perhaps it’s the fact that I rarely actually laughed or even thought “Oh boy that is so funny”. To me the film is just absurd, but not absurd with the extra little something that makes me think back at it and laugh. Sure, the film was extremely upbeat and it started off very strong. Pip and I watched the first 20 minutes of it or so, and we really wanted to continue. The premise was awesome, the main character likeable and we were amused by the explosions. After that, only the flashbacks were absurd in a funny way, the main story just made me go “Oh really?” Somehow the characters involved became less likeable (quibbling about money and generally being somewhat ignorant) and I am not even sure who or what I was rooting for anymore. I didn’t even care for that lukewarm love story thrown into it.

It was strange: Before I saw the film I had extremely high expectations, then I read that it got bad reviews and lowered them, then I saw the first part of the film and was ecstatic, and later I saw the rest and now I feel kind of meh about it. I can’t even explain why (nor do I really desire to), either the humor hits me or it doesn’t and sadly it just didn’t work for me with this one.

Maleficent

I didn’t want “The Prince” to be for longer than necessary, so here is another posting. Even though I am too tired to read more political analysis articles on the results for the Congress vote yesterday, I decided that I will write “Maleficent” after all, especially since I feel like I have something to say about the film. So, spoilers ahead!

It all started with an e-mail I got today. I mentioned the film to this friend who is one of those cases where I don’t actually talk to him a lot but conversations tend to be rather personal, because I thought “Maleficent” was a stand-out film that fit all the criteria for polite conversation: A well-known Hollywood film which I like and thus were able to say something positive about, inviting the other person to say something about it too. (Nothing is as impolite as negativity, seriously.) Yes, I like small talk (to some degree at least) and honestly, I am not interested in more than small talk with most people. I like conversations to be fun and pleasant and I will only allow anyone to deviate from that if 1) this person means something to me and 2) I feel like deeper conversations right now.
But I digress. In aforementioned e-mail, the friend replied that he thought “Maleficent” was a terrible movie because it “villifies men and glorifies women” and he called it sexist. To be honest, that comment sent me into inexplicable anger. After thinking about it, I think I understand what bothered me about it so much (aside from the fact that the rest of the e-mail was decidedly not nice): It’s simply not true. “Maleficent” is not some modern-day feminist “Birth of the Nation” in which men are portrayed as evil and females as good. In fact, only one male character is portrayed as evil and two female characters are portrayed as good, they just happen to be the main character. All other male characters (Maleficent’s servant, the prince who falls in love with Aurora) are quite nice people whereas the females (the fairies) are idiot aunties who are literally incapable of raising a child. I don’t think there is any generalization on men or women here, it’s just a story about one man capable of betraying a woman’s love. If “Maleficent” generalizes men and women, then “Romeo and Juliet” generalizes relationships and all lovers actually want to kill themselves if the other one is dead. In reality, some do, most don’t. Similarly, some men rape women, most don’t. To be honest, saying or showing that men can rape, abuse and betray women within a relationship is a sad fact. I think making a movie revolve around the consequences of such betrayal is grand, not sexist.

I am done ranting now. When I read the Wikipedia article afterwards, I was surprised to see that the betrayal was supposed to symbolize rape. I think that went a little bit too far, but I can see how it was intended that way. Angelina Jolie certainly did a good job showing Maleficent’s change towards an evil self, and her screams after realizing that betrayal were quite memorable. However, what happened afterwards was what made this film precious to me. To me, “Maleficent” is an ode to a mother’s love, even if she is not even her real mother (who conveniently abandoned her with those dumb fairies). In fact, the film shows how motherly feelings are unrelated to blood, which I thought was awesome. My favorite scenes in the film were how she watched over Aurora from the distance and was not able to hide her feelings for her. I didn’t know how the story would unfold beforehand, so I was surprised that such love grew, and it did so in a believable way. Personally, I like the message that a parent’s love is true love whereas love between men and women is just love, but not as true. When I look at other parents and other couples, I find that concept quite realistic, whatever the definition of “true” may be.

Instead of a rape or a feminist or whatever story, I found “Maleficent” to be a better “Brave” which also surprised me with its treatment of the mother-daughter relationship. Disney really seems to like its mother and daughter stories these days, and if they are all like “Maleficent”, I’d be happy.

The Prince

The year is not entirely over yet, but I am absolutely convinced this is the worst thing I have seen this year. Nevertheless, I enjoyed it. We tried out the theater at AMK (our kiez so to say) and judging by how few people were there (compared to “Guardians of the Galaxy” especially), people in Singapore are very aware of which films are hot and which aren’t. We had very sweet seats in a lovely theater which is just perfect for a relaxed weekend with mindless Hollywood action. In that respect, “The Prince” delivered reasonably well.

Unfortunately, everything else sucked. I hated the main actor, I hated that female character (why does she appear so vulgar and low-class again?) and I was really disappointed that neither Bruce Willis nor John Cusack got anything good to do. Actually Bruce Willis’s character got it the worst, he really did absolutely nothing but brood and then finally die. Ironically, Rain was the big stand-out in that whole ordeal. They gave him a fun-looking fighting style and a somewhat badass persona, and the single best scene in the entire film was his fight scene.

Well, nothing could have saved the film which sadly is wasting a really lovely premise. I liked the idea that the good guy of the story got his daughter kidnapped because he killed the daughter of the bad guy, and essentially was the reason that turned him into a bad guy in the first place. It could have made for some great character dynamics, but the movie failed on every account. That’s OK, I still have fond feelings of the whole experience simply because it’s awesome to spend a leisurely afternoon strolling (!) through a shopping mall with integrated movie theater just 5 minutes walk away from our apartment.

Damsels in Distress

Amongst all the films Pip and I watched together recently, I got the impression that “Damsels in Distress” was his favorite. Considering my incredibly high expectations for it (I mean, it’s a recent Stillman film!) I suppose I was less in awe of the result. Of course this does not mean I was disappoined in the film, it’s a Stillman after all so I absolutely loved it.

Surprisingly, I think the reason why I disliked the film was precisely because it was so contemporary. It’s like an uncanny valley. I have spent enough time at actual Ivy League schools (though as a graduate student, so basically by the sidelines) to know that this Stillman’s caricatured world of ivory tower students kind of exists, but they don’t really. There is a twist to that too: The school looks and feels like an Ivy League, but it’s populated by dumb, pretentious people who are not really rich either. In real life, it’s a tiny, tiny world of people who, thankfully, don’t even really dress like that anymore (though I certainly like the style). Violet, Greta Gerwig’s character is probably most indicative of all. Even within her school, she lives in that little world of hers, surrounded by almost equally delusional people, yet it’s a fun delusion. It’s a more intelletual, better chick flick, or rather it’s making fun of it. It’s something like a satirical combination of chick flick, college movie and Stillman’s beloved musicals, while at the same time generating a lot of love for its characters, even more so than for Stillman’s previous films.

Unlike the main character of “The Last Days of Disco”, Violet is not just your average girl you are supposed to identify with, she is absolutely weird in a lovable way, which makes her a much more interesting character than both Alice and Charlotte together. In this film, Lily is the ‘generic character’ for identification purposes, but even she gets a little spin when she turns out to be a scheming bitch in order to get her guy. Thankfully she fails, which leaves Violet as the main focus of the story (and part of the final main couple of the film) and rightfully so.
The only character I have kind of missed out on are the other two, Rose and Heather, who were ultimately rather one-dimensional. It’s a shame because Stillman is so great at providing an ensemble of interesting characters, but in this case he is forgiven due to Violet’s outstanding character development.

Roger Ebert wrote about Stillman “spoke like someone who had learned the language through sophisticated comic novels”. It’s so true. Maybe this is why I like his movies so much, because I am a huge fan of that kind of humor and language. For me, Stillman is a one of a kind, a filmmaker and storyteller of the type I have never seen before, and I am convinced I will never see again.

PS. I know that I am just like Violet: I have a strong opinion about everything but I don’t think I’m stuck up. Maybe that is why I am such a huge fan of her character.

La Notte

As much as I love to watch movies and blog about them, I also really hate a huge backlog. It’s even worse when people encourage me to blog more (though I appreciate it!) As a result, sometimes my blogging frequency looks more like a Poisson distribution when in reality there is no randomness but the clusters of many blog posts are due to the simple fact that I finally kicked my own butt and got myself to writing. There is also another counter force: The movie that is Difficult To Blog(TM). Heck sometimes I even write an entire blog post and then it gets stalled as a draft for days because I cannot come up with a witty title. Not like the titles are that witty anyways.

“La Notte” is really, really difficult to blog and it has all the characteristics of such a film: A director I admire, a somewhat complicated, subtly passive-aggressive relationship, a topic I feel somewhat uneasy about and the recommendation of several people whom I don’t want to disappoint. Oh well, there is no way around it. (La fatalité!)

The topic I feel somewhat uneasy about is that last scene, which – perhaps inappropriately – is the one that stayed in my mind the most. Antonioni is a master of last scenes, the one from “L’Eclisse” being quite famous. I can’t forget how she laid there repeating “Je ne t’aime pas” (or “plus”?) over and over again while he essentially forces himself on her. To me, it was a very memorable rape scene because it is one within a marriage and somewhat ambiguous. My interpretation from her behavior throughout the entire film is that she does indeed love him, and that these feelings are quite obvious. The couple is separated by his infidelity and Antonioni’s trademark alienation between man and woman. Considering that “Je ne t’aime pas” is ultimately a lie (more to herself than to him really), it seems questionable whether she actually refuses to sleep with him. It may be one of these cases where “she actually wanted it”, especially considering how she is not really putting up a fight against it. Nevertheless, the opposite of that is also not really present, i.e. unabashed passion for this man who is trying to sleep with her. She is trying to end their relationship for real, and from the bitterness in the conversation with Valentina, it is more likely that she really does not feel like sleeping with him whatsoever. So it’s rape after all, it just so happens that she loves her rapist. Ironically, it is him who is incapable of loving her, and is delusional about it, thus wanting to make physical love to hide the lack of emotional love.

The aforementioned alienation between man and woman is probably the deepest in “La Notte”, where a strained marriage with an implied troubled past is being shown, while “L’Avventura” and “L’Eclisse” are both about more fleeting affairs (though of course “L’Eclisse” also has a great break-up scene from a more serious seeming relationship). Especially from her side, it’s a futile attempt at saving a relationship and towards the end, she looks like she’s pretty much given up. Nevertheless, she maintains her polite smile towards everybody – and oh wow, what a smile. When I saw “Jules et Jim” for the first time, I absolutely did not understand why they picked Jeanne Moreau for the smiling woman. She is the only actress I can think of whose edges of her mouth tend to go down, giving her a resting bitch face. Sure, she does smile in “Jules et Jim” but it never struck me as exceedingly beautiful. I have seen her a few more times and liked her more and more, but I never got that smile. In “La Notte”, however, she flashes it all the time. Even though it’s supposed to be a fake smile, somehow I am absolutely mesmerized by it. She looks unhappy throughout the entire film, but when she talks to someone, she puts on that radiant society smile. Amazing.

I am not trying to say that Jeanne Moreau is outshining Marcello Mastroianni. The latter is always radiant himself – I am not really into his face, but somehow these roles he plays make him more attractive than he would look like at first glance. I am not surprised Don Draper likes the movie – heck, Mad Men is “La Notte” as a series and Mastroianni could have played Draper easily.

One should devise a party around Antonioni’s “Love Trilogy”. Breakfast, then “L’Avventura”, lunch, then “La Notte”, dinner, then “L’Eclisse”, finally a few drinks while watching “Le Amiche”. Everybody has to arrive styled like the film characters for which you can easily recycle any outfit from a “Mad Men” party as long as it can pass as Italian, and the food will consist of a Mediterranean breakfast, pasta for lunch and pizza for dinner. OK, I admit this party idea is not super creative, but I would love to do that!

The Master

Chronologically, I actually watched “La Notte” one day before “The Master” and I should have blogged it first, but after coming out of a little blogging slump, I figured it makes sense to start with the easier film to write about, which is definitely “The Master”. On many levels it’s actually a fairly complex film, but ultimately I did not feel very emotionally involved. It was a suspenseful, wonderfully filmed and cleverly acted, but it didn’t have an impact on me personally like literally every good relationship movie does.

“The Master” actually reminded me a lot of “There will be blood”. Both are somewhat Hemingway-like about the existential struggle of working-class men without the proper support of women. Amy Adams may have a prominent role in this story, but her chemistry with Philip Seymour Hoffman is non-existent (I don’t think I have ever seen such a mismatched couple) and her character manages to stay a completely bland, subserviant woman even though she voices her opinions strongly. Of course Dodd chose a woman like that, just like he chooses his followers (and unsurprisingly, a lot of them are women), but he uses them all and to some degree, he is also using Freddie. Interestingly, I find it hard to describe Freddie’s connection to the cult. He’s different from other followers and most importantly, he is somehow in Dodd’s closer circle without really doing anything to be in it, yet at the same time he is kind of an outcast who is close to nobody but Dodd himself. While he is making trouble for the cult, it doesn’t seem like the cult is doing anything for him or helping him with his past demons. Dodd is somehow his master, yet he doesn’t exactly listen to him as a disciple would. In fact, the relationship between Freddie and Dodd is what makes the film really shine. It’s not clear to me why Dodd picked Freddie to become his disciple, heck I’d even say he created his own monster. Their relationship is as antagonistic as a dysfunctional father-son-relationship can be, and I could have spent the entire film watching Philip Seymour Hoffman and Joaquin Phoenix fight. Those two are the best thing that happened to the film.
It’s probably safe to say that the darkness and the working of the cults in “The Master” remain difficult to understand. Is this actually a good depiction of Scientology?

A part of me thinks that “The Master” is a really weird biography-like movie, the type that Hollywood makes sometimes that I just somehow don’t get on an emotional level, like “The Aviator” or “The Wolf of Wall Street”. At the same time, it surely is a very good film and I would totally recommend it if you like this style of film.