Author: Sasa

The Phantom Carriage

I am currently watching “Le genou de Claire”, and its immediate juxtaposition to “The Phantom Carriage” is striking. “The Phantom Carriage” is Sjöström’s most famous film, and all those artsy people absolutely love it. As an example, my well-loved list on Observations on film art calls the film “the easiest” to include onto their ten best films of 1921 list. Isn’t that enough reason for me to watch the film?

As a matter of fact, though, I was horribly bored by the movie. Maybe it’s a film you have to see on the big screen to be able to fully appreciate its visuals. Nosferatu and The Cabinet of Caligari are similarly supernatural movies (albeit with a completely different philosophy and style) which work best on a big screen with live music. I still remember vividly how I bought a DVD of “The General” and was mostly bored by the film. Later on, I saw the film on the big screen with a huge audience, and we all roared with laughter. I am therefore trying to be careful when passing a judgement on silent films, which are so immensely different depending on when and how you watch them.

But in the case of “The Phantom Carriage” I have a feeling that my opinion is pretty much set in stone. Of course the film is beautiful, and I absolutely loved its visual style and effects – the ghosts look truly ghostly, and everybody in the film is a brilliant actor of the realistic type (very modern and very different both from stage actors and from the flashy Hollywood type acting). But that is all the praise I can bring for the film. The story is based on a beloved book, but unlike many other films from the silent film era with social commentary “The Crowd”, “The Last Laugh” and even “The Box of Pandora”, “The Phantom Carriage” is utterly outdated to the point that it makes almost no sense at all. What makes most stories good is some sort of universal humanity in them, which is why people nowadays are still fascinated with Faust (of which my favorite version is actually Berlioz’s “Damnation of Faust”) or any Shakespeare title. “The Phantom Carriage” has nothing of the sort – we are dealing with some man who redeems himself for almost no reason. Why would his wife ever want to go back to him when there is still a risk that he could infect his children with tuberculosis? Why is that nurse Edit in love with him, and why in the world would it be her fault that he didn’t get better? Even if I accept a world in which a meeting with death does not mean that you must necessarily die, the motivation of any of the characters there absolutely puzzle me.

Sure, it’s a film you should see as a movie fan, but when I think about how much fun I have while watching Rohmer’s masterpieces, I suggest we all leave an exercise in film history as “The Phantom Carriage” to people who have a more academic interest in it.

Welt am Draht

It seems that people in Germany, or at least the intelligentsia in Germany, is very smitten with Fassbinder. SpiegelOnline had a lengthy article about it, including an extensive photo gallery, and the forum comments go up to page 11. Furthermore, Loris’s father knew him personally and probably dislikes him. To me, these are all enough indications of Fassbinder’s high popularity in Germany. Even though I loved “Die Ehe der Maria Braun” to pieces, I am not sure as to where this popularity is coming from.

I mean, his movies are horribly artsy. The storyline progresses very slowly, the camera work looks a little strange and while I see some nice creative glimpses (the mirrors, the cabaret scenes), most of the direction and scriptwriting actually feel sloppy. I really enjoyed the 70’s look of the film, but looks alone do not make a film fun to watch.

One other thing which dampened my enjoyment throughout the film was the way people speak. Hulu viewers probably have no idea about this since they can read the subtitles, but for me, the way of speaking creates a strange, cold distance between the film’s characters and myself. I noticed it in other German films of the time as well, but never as strongly as it was here. Certainly it was on purpose, because I do not doubt that these actors must be talented. In scenes like the one where Eva Vollmer declares “I love you” to Stiller and he’s just like “Yeah yeah, fine” I see a certain comedic element in that. Yet at the same time the language feels painful. Why is it that we watch painful movies again? Oh yeah, to learn something.
By the way, French movies have a similar effect. Godard’s or Truffaut’s characters never talk like real people do. I am strongly aware of this difference because the strange tone actually makes it very easy for me to understand them, so I am thankful. In comparison it is much harder to understand ‘real’ French, hahahaha.

But I am digressing. Despite my nitpicking, I think the film is perhaps one of the most interesting ones I have seen in awhile. Its premise is quite fascinating, and even though not much is happening, the movie actually manages to touch a few interesting questions. With “Matrix” and the like, we are now quite used to the idea of an unreal or simulated world, but seeing a historic treatment of the topic is always interesting. It appears naive, but the youth of science fiction as a genre makes the products of people’s minds so full of imagination.

Despite 12 years age difference, the movie most reminiscent of “World on a Wire” is not actually “Matrix” but “Alphaville”. I doubt that there is any kind of connection between Godard and Fassbinder, but the similarities are too close. A very artificial feeling world, a struggling main character, and mostly the incapability of men to love women. In both films, women are being treated like crap, even more so in Fassbinder’s film which lacks an Anna Karina who happens to be loved by the director. Certainly that is a product of its name, but I think science-fiction can never be taken seriously if it keeps incorporating such narrow-minded male fantasies.

4 hours… that was almost as long as “La Belle Noiseuse”. Luckily watching parts 1 and 2 on different days helped a lot, and absolutely makes sense for the film. I think this is a must-see for anyone who likes the genre, and I advise everybody else to stay away from it.

I Vitelloni

The film had been on Netflix forever and forever, I just never came around to watch it. I had no idea what the film was about, and I never really perceived myself as a Fellini fan. I know for sure that I prefer Antonioni over Fellini after all, and therefore have this tendency to assume that I’d dislike a Fellini film. But out of the 4 films I have seen by him so far, I really only disliked Roma (which I thought was a borefest, but then again I saw it many years ago). I loved “La Strada”, I loved “Amarcord” and I think “8 1/2” is a good movie. If anyone had told me that “I Vitelloni” is a film with a similar topic as “Amarcord” (small-town bourgeoisie) and in a similar style as “La Strada” (still pretty realistic!) I probably would not have hesitated to see the film right away.

Now “I Vitelloni” is one of Fellini’s minor films. Less famous, and in many ways less accomplished, the film does not shine as much as his other movies. It does not yet have Fellini’s surrealism which turns any mundane topic into something quite fascinating, but as a character study, “La Strada” is more and had much more to say. The boys in Vitelloni are rather vapid, and even though that is precisely the point, it is not exactly pleasant to see how they are walking clichés (especially Fausto and his wife and family!)

One of the main reasons why I liked “I Vitelloni” is the premise of “idle gang boys which are way too old”. They remind me a little bit of hikkikomori except that their friendships are much more similar than the one of a mafia or motorcycle gang. More interestingly, they don’t even want to defy the system – they are literally completely worthless, desiring to live a decadent, bourgeois life without working for it at all. The only guy who has a way out, Fausto, is also the one who wants it the least.

All in all, though, this is a comedy. Most of the story is pretty light, and the film has so many character-driven slice-of-life elements that it sometimes seems like it’s just an amalgam of randomness. This explains my slightly dampened enthusiasm for the film: At first, I was delighted and extremely amused, but later on there were a few scenes which downright bored me.

Personally I think “Amarcord” was better. Funnier and more creative, it is something like a better “I Vitelloni”. But that would be underrating this film, which is already unfairly neglected. I actually had lots of fun watching this little autobiographical sketch on the lifestyle of idle wannabe-boys in Rimini.

The Makioka Sisters

I have recently been forced to revamp my website and write a research statement for it. Woe is me. It was so incredibly hard, oh my goodness. Having some serious experience on technical writing now, I think that have also changed my opinion on it. I now think that sentences should be short, every sentence should only convey one idea and finally, all sentences should be connected somehow. This is practically impossible to do, and even if one succeeds it still wouldn’t make good writing necessarily. What I truly need is something like talent.

“The Makioka Sisters” is an incredible dramafest. While the book describes things very, very subtly, the film practically changes everything. Teinosuke is in love with Yukiko (oh. my. God.), Tsuruko and Tatsuo appear on screen a lot and are given not just a cute relationship but even character development, and finally Taeko is an incredible bitch, perhaps even more so than Tsuruko appears to be. Oh yeah, I forgot Sachiko – well, she appears much less beautiful than the book leads you to believe, and much less kind and cheerful as well. Except for Yukiko, every female characters burst into laughter or crying at some point in the film, and they do so very dramatically.

From today’s perspective, it is also a little odd to see how incredibly 80’s the film looks like, a problem with almost every period film. A 2000’s film set in France in the Ancien Régime will always also have a 2000’s look, and similarly the color choices and especially the moustache of Yukiko’s last suitor look amazingly 80’s. Style-wise the film is acceptable and rather beautiful in its own way but for the most part I thought the directing was rather average. This is not a movie you watch because of its looks, sadly.

As a result, it is important to distance yourself from the book if you read it before, and only then it is really possible to enjoy the film. Nevertheless, my love for the book is the only reason why I saw the film in the first place, and I am not convinced that the film can stand on its own, despite the enjoyment I personally got from it.

The Big Year

Whenever I am on a 9+ hours Delta flight where you can choose the movies to watch, I get absolutely overjoyed, only to realize that the audio quality is absolutely horrible. On my flight to Japan I only watched “The Artist” for that reason (it’s a silent film after all!) but on my flight back I didn’t have the choice. The poor choices airlines make have always annoyed me a little, yet at the same time, I must admit that I have come to encounter some of my favorite movies this way. (“Yesterday once more”! Oh how much I love it!)

“The Big Year” is easily another example. As much as I love Owen Wilson, he is not exactly an actor I actively follow, so I don’t think I would ever have stumbled this film if they hadn’t showed it on the plane. But boy, it was love at first sight, and I was flabbergasted upon seeing that the film did not do well at box office nor in reviews. Sure, the film is not exactly artsy nor does it have great direction. The characters are not necessarily very unique or new, and the storyline is relatively simplistic. But none of these things have ever kept a film from being successful. I still can’t believe it – how can a film be so funny, have a great suspenseful plot, lovable characters be doing so badly? It’s a movie about birding nerdism, how is that not great?
It was interesting to see that actual birders seem to really like the film so that should speak for its quality too.

As for myself, I couldn’t care less about birding, and the film certainly did not make me desire to do any birding – but if the film had been about something more fascinating, it totally could have sparked with me. But since I have no interest in birding, for me the movie was mostly about how it is to have this huge hobby in your life, which is capable of influencing other aspects. Take out the birding and replace the film with any other nerdism I am indulging in – and the film could have been about me! My little nerd heart has been battling for their struggles in life and the friendships they form. Needless to say that I found the film to be extremely funny too. (When Preissler’s subordinate managers came to chase him and he said “Look, vultures!”, he absolutely cracked me up.)

I should also mention that I was quite surprised to see Jim Parsons in the film. He had a tiny, tiny role but he was amusing nevertheless. The way one could easily overlook him in the film is an allegory for the film itself – totally underrated.

My Week with Marilyn

I thought Eddie Redmayne wasn’t so bad. I thought Michelle Williams’ Marilyn Monroe was absolutely stunning. And finally, I thought that the film is giving Marilyn Monroe more depth than she probably deserved. You read so many things about Marilyn Monroe that I fear it destroys the film because everybody and their mother seems to have strong opinions on her. Truth to be told, it is not really that interesting as to who she really was. Just because somebody is a big star doesn’t necessarily make them all that much more interesting than, say, the cashier at your supermarket next door.

To me, Marilyn Monroe has never been a legend. Come on she’s just an actress! I really liked her in “Some like it hot” and I find her looks quite fascinating. After all, she was the first actress I have ever known by name, just like Hitchcock was the first director I have ever known. Yet Marilyn Monroe is a product of her time – in today’s ultraskinny world, her strangely shaped eyes and huge bottom would never have been that successful. I was disturbed to see people in the telling her that she is “the greatest actress in the world” because she isn’t and even more so when I read reviews in which some New York Times person complains that Michelle Williams’s breasts are not rocket-like enough. There is a reason why the AFI ranked her behind Katharine Hepburn, Bette Davis, Audrey Hepburn, Ingrid Bergman and Greta Garbo – every single one of which is a better actress than her. She eclipses them with her fame, but that’s it.

Having Marilyn Monroe’s strangely enlarged reputation in mind, it is impossible to see the film as just a romance story between a whimsical actress and some young boy. It is and must be a film about Marilyn Monroe because of said reputation. Nevertheless, I had some inherent interest in the film. First of all, Michelle Williams’ portrayal of the Monroe look and talk and walk is absolutely gorgeous. It makes the Marilyn Monroe look so distinguishable because she is exactly what Michelle Williams normally is not. Second, and most importantly, Marilyn Monroe is not the only person in the world who perceives herself to be in the center of the world. Her low self-esteem coupled with the fear of failing makes her strangely likable and every one of her nervous attacks understandable. She longs to be loved even though she is uncapable of loving neither herself nor anyone else, and fears to be left alone even though so many people are surrounding her at all times. There is even a little bit more to that – I read awhile ago that Marilyn Monroe liked to read, and probably also liked to learn. Her capability may be limited, but she probably tried her hardest to make a mark as a person, not just as a sex object. This is nicely reflected in the biggest confrontation Marilyn Monroe has with Laurence Olivier in the film, in which he says something along the lines of “All you do is looking sexy.” I’d be appalled too. I don’t think the film portrayed her as a one-sided character (nor does it do so for anybody else except the young boy) and I was able to identify with all of them. Quite a feat considering how not a single character is really likable.

I don’t think I would place this film onto any favorite film list but it actually deeply impressed me. I’m not sure if “The Prince and the Showgirl” is worth a look, but I am quite curious about it now.

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows

I started into this film a few minutes too late, maybe 1-2 and it began with Rachel McAdams’s death. So shocking! I was excited to see a film with her for a second and then she died without myself ever finding out why. I also didn’t realize throughout the entire film that this was a sequel – I just thought it was some mindless action movie and that’s it.

My favorite aspect about watching movies in a public space is the experience of hearing other people laugh. When Holmes and Watson started to dance, there was this lady who was squeaking with laughter behind me. I loved it. Apart from that, the film didn’t actually provide that much comedic relief. It was indeed mostly a story with silly action scenes, a mystery to solve and many crazy scenes. I am surprised I didn’t find a plot hole in the huge mess of Sherlock Holmes’s scheme in which even the wife had a role at the end.

Perhaps the film could have been better if it had a stronger female lead, which Rachel McAdams could potentially have provided. There is a part of me who really wants to see the first film now.

The Artist

It is hard to approach the film as it is. When I saw that it was running at the Philadelphia Film Festival last year, I really wanted to see it and thought it was one of those curious underdog films, a piece of nostalgic candy I can indulge in. Sadly I was too busy to go to any of the films then. Now it’s still a piece of candy, but all of a sudden, everybody and their mother, including Mr. von Bothmer, has to say something about it. Most people probably haven’t even seen any silent films besides, say, Charlie Chaplin sketches. It’s so damn hard to escape these voices. In a year in which the Oscar people considered “War Horse” for a best picture Oscar, I am even more doubtful whether this Oscar business is a good thing for any film.

As a film, “The Artist” is quite great. The story is a little thin, just like “Hugo” was a little thin, but its execution and the likable plot make up for it. Concerning the content, everything in the film has been done (the theme of artist who is too old and/or unable to get into the new way of movies is as old as Hollywood itself and spruced some masterpieces like “Singin’ in the Rain” and “All about Eve”), instead it is rather the production details and the way it is shot that makes it special. I think it would have been amusing if they made this movie 20 years later, when the time they want to imitate is exactly 100 years ago, but it doesn’t make much of a difference. Silent movies were old 20 years ago too.

Don’t get me wrong, “The Artist” was immensely enjoyable and strangely enough, it’s a feel-good movie. It’s also interesting to see how silent films are viewed with the eyes of today. Unlike “Larry Crowne”, “The Artist” is a good film in every aspect, but the film is a little bit overrated and I would only see it again if I hang out with somebody really wishes to watch it. Instead, I’d rather watch another actual silent movie.

Larry Crowne

Let’s get this over with quickly. This movie is a contender for worst Hollywood movie ever, next to “Ramen Girl”. It’s not even in the category of the Chinese “What Women Wants” which is somewhat hollow and stupid, but so endearingly enjoyable that I could almost recommend it. In comparison to that, this film is pure idiocy.

I don’t care if the film is merely supposed to be a vehicle for Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts to have yet another major role, after all “What Women Wants” does exactly the same thing with Andy Lau and Gong Li. But at least they could have made a nice story out of it. Instead, we have a Julia Roberts whose major conflict with her husband is the fact that he likes porn (hello how many men do not?) Now that husband is being an idiot about it, but it feels so constructed that one could feel almost brainwashed into thinking that porn viewer = asshole. Then, Julia Roberts’s character teaches this amazingly stupid class in which she begins by demeaning her students. When they are clearly doing their best at giving speeches, she interrupts them mid-sentence rolling her eyes. What teacher does that? The film clearly shows how by the end of the course, everybody is giving good speeches (totally unrealistic but oh well), yet they all get B’s and C’s in the class which in the real world is obviously all A’s. Tom Hanks’s character makes a little bit more sense, but he is so oblivious about love you’d wonder how he ever got a woman. The biggest problem about his character is actually that girl Talia. Her character is so random and pointless, and her interactions with Tom Hanks’s character is so unrealistic that it makes me wonder if anybody on the cast has ever been a college student.

I don’t have any qualms about the film being bland, being typical Tom Hanks fare à la “nice guy in nice story”. The film just annoys me as a story in a similar way as Hanasaku Iroha’s work ethics did. I hope Tom Hanks will make better movies again.