Author: Sasa

Ma nuit chez Maud

Oh wow, I love love love Rohmer to pieces. I couldn’t stop watching “Ma nuit chez Maud” last night even though I told myself to go to sleep soon. It wasn’t so bad – the film was over shortly after midnight, but I don’t think I could have stopped even if it was at 2 in the morning. It was just that addicting.

Looking at essays and comments on the film, I think I tend to disagree with what others wrote about it, after all, film is vague by definition. While it certainly is a film about “the lack of action” when there is something lingering there, I do not think that what they were saying was so ‘meaningless’. They didn’t just discuss love and fidelity and religion, it was their own shameful way of flirting with each other talking about why one would choose not to do so. Even Maud’s and the narrator’s last meeting, described at places as “talking about banalities”, is extremely important. What they are actually doing is wrapping up their relationship and say conclusive words about what that night actually meant to them.

Rohmer is wonderful at creating an almost artificial distance between you and those characters (very much unlike Truffaut’s characters whom you emphasize with a lot), yet at the same time the story flows beautifully. I thought their talking was utterly enjoyable, because it is fun to figure out their double meaning. There is one aspect I absolutely did not understand, but that is relatively unrelated to Maud. I don’t quite get what the narrator means when he says at the very end of the film that “his wife has discovered something about herself”. Oh well, I will never find out but I feel like I might have missed something crucial here.

I think Maud is quite a wonderful character. She plays a game which she realizes that she is going to lose because for some reason her female intuition tells her that there is a blonde in his life. Nevertheless it does not keep her up from playing with fire and giving the narrator quite a hard time. It is almost obvious how much better chemistry she has with him than aforementioned blonde, but ultimately that is exactly what the film is about.

Also, who thought Clermont-Ferrand could be so pretty? It’s nice to see a Nouvelle Vague movie outside of Paris, but really, “la campagne” looks awfully Parisian. Some of those streets the film was shot in could just as well have been in Paris, and the immense stylishness of Maud’s apartment even more so. I was especially impressed by that fluffy blanket. So seducing!

I am far from having seen all the black and white Nouvelle Vague films whose fresh and youthful style I love so much, and “Ma nuit chez Maud” makes me want to watch another one again.

La Boulangère de Monceau

I know perfectly that I have been at the Parc Monceau and the area, but now I am not sure anymore. The description of streets in Paris typically make me feel very reminiscent, and I often even have a clear memory of how these streets look like. It’s very Cees-Nooteboom-like, whom I love dearly for these descriptive promenades throughout cities. But for the entire area of Monceau, I have to pass. I don’t remember it at all.

Overall, I think I liked this film almost just as much as I did for “Ma nuit chez Maud”. The film is much shorter and does not allow for as much character development, and not that much really happens. It is striking how the dialogue is less well thought-out as it was for “Ma nuit chez Maud”, but the style is almost superior. In terms of direction, cinematography and writing, I think I prefer Rohmer even over Godard and Truffaut. When I had an idea for a movie awhile ago, I was struggling with the implementation largely because it needed many voice-overs. “La Boulangère de Monceau” is the perfect voice-over movie – oh wow. I wish I could do that.

In terms of the characters and the story, this film reminded of the other Rohmer short story I saw a long time ago, “Tous les garçons s’appellent Patrick”. Unlike Godard and Truffaut whose quasi-non-serious, melancholic love stories regularly end in death, Rohmer’s are entirely different. First of all, his characters never declare their love. Unlike Antoine Doinel, they never say that they love but don’t. It’s much more the other way around, which makes it so much more interesting.

La Carrière de Suzanne

What makes this movie so annoying is that Guillaume is absolutely despicable. While Bertrand at least realizes his despicability, Guillaume is much worse than any Nouvelle Vague character I have ever seen. Most are fickle, they love quickly and are often drawn towards several girls, or they love somebody they shouldn’t. They hurt people because of their egocentrism, more because they are ignorant than that out of maliciousness. But Guillaume and Bertrand are downright mean, and certainly Suzanne actually knew about that. She liked those boys, but ultimately she also did not take them too seriously, but steadily approached her own happiness.

It is remarkable that Rohmer’s “beautiful girls” are most often of a very specific type, more often blonde than not, and the “less desirable girls” also have some similarities. Perhaps it is not very obvious to see the similarity between Maud, who is immensely strong and actually attractive, and the boulangère who really is fairly meek, but with Suzanne the connection can probably be made clearer. Specifically, these “less desirable girls” are not being pushed away because they don’t make great companion, it is because men are too engulfed in their own amour-propre (the French love this word, and I do too) and what they think they want to be or should be, that they are incapable to acknowledge their attraction to these women. I think this is a great premise, and I am glad that Rohmer decided to put this theme onto the screen a whole 6 times.

Nikita

“Leon” is perhaps one of my favorite films, but for some reason it has remained the only Luc Besson film besides “The Fifth Element” I have seen until today.

I don’t really get what is smart about this film. At several points, the main character just goes berserk without really doing anything. How likely is it that some killer would start crying in the middle of a mission and subsequently survives? It makes no sense.

To me it seems like the film trying to do two things at the same time. While in “Leon” it makes sense to have the little girl be the one who whines and Leon the capable killer, Nikita is neither completely whiny (but quite rebellious) yet at the same time she also never becomes a coldhearted killer. Instead she literally has a nervous break down at the most inappropriate moments. Technically she is responsible for several people’s deaths because of that, in a mission where she herself practically failed to do anything in the critical moment. Sure, she is supposed to be the frail girl and the psychology apparently should be just as important as the action – but where it works perfectly in Leon, it completely failed in this film. I am also not sure whether any of the other characters are human beings at all, in fact they are all surprisingly one-dimensional, even Jeanne Moreau’s character. I was quite surprised when she kissed her handler – when did that relationship get developed?

While Anne Parillaud is an absolutely gorgeous actress, I thought it was strange how little her femininity was exploited after Amande taught Nikita how to dress up like a woman. So she became a woman who can love and look feminine but she doesn’t seem to be using that to her advantage at all. In fact, in one instance she even has to dress up like a man. That sounds almost like a plot hole to me – why would you bother training a woman assassin if you have to disguise her as a man? Certainly this is not supposed to be a fanservicey film à la James Bond, but I expected a little more glamour or at least a few scenes more pleasing to the eye than Nikita’s eternally messy hair. In terms of suspense and pacing this is probably the worst action film of all times.

The one thing I really liked about the film was Nikita’s relationship with Marco. Its development is lovely and bittersweet, a little less dramatic than Leon’s and Mathilda’s but not less heartwarming. He is just a simple person and they just have a simple relationship. With that, the two of them provide a nice contrast of normality to Nikita’s otherwise very chaotic world.

The Odd Couple

With “Cactus Flower” being one of my favorite films and Jack Lemmon starring in so many films I like that I won’t even bother naming them, it is a surprise that I have never seen one of their many collaborations. What’s better than to start with this film, which happens to be one of the first films they did together?

This is one of those films I just had to love. The characters of Felix and Oscar feel like they were designed to be played by Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau, even though I perfectly know that this is not the case. They did wonderfully, that is for sure. I laughed several times throughout the film, especially in the scenes where their friends are also present for added hilarity. I consider the possibility that I like the film so much because their simple presence makes me want to laugh. I blame Loris for that one.

The nicest thing about this film is that, despite all the comedic scenes and the general light tone, it’s a movie about friendship. After their fall-out in which they ultimately showed each other how much they do care for each other, Felix and Oscar came out to be better people and acknowledge that, though grumpily. It’s an utterly heartwarming film.

Oh gosh I really want to see “The Front Page” now. It has been in my to-watch-list forever, but I never came around to see it because I felt like it cannot possibly compare to “His Girl Friday”. Now I have doubts about that.

Hiroshima mon amour

I think it’s been some 3-4 years since Gorp said that I should watch this film, and I always refused because I disliked the Hiroshima theme. That is still the case – I don’t think this fear of atom bombs, which has inspired a few masterpieces in art like “The Physicists”, is of interest nowadays anymore. But a love story, especially the “Before Sunrise”-style kind in which the main characters seem to just talk to each other, will never seem old.

Despite having gotten a recommendation, I actually had no idea that this film would be this kind of talking love story. Back then, I disliked those cheap, romantic “Caucasian goes to Africa or Asia and starts some love story with native” love stories and I also disliked Resnais because of “Providence”. In essence, misconceptions and prejudices kept me up from watching this film. Of course, parts of these prejudices are true. The beginning of the film gave me a “Nuit et brouillard” déjà-vu, it’s overly political and there really is nothing Japanese about the movie except for some Asian faces, some gimmicky traditional-looking dances and the constant mentioning of the name of Hiroshima.

It is the love story that makes up for all the gimmicks. These two characters work the best when they are in bed together, which is the only place where their love can truly flourish, and they have. They also port themselves with more dignity than your average Nouvelle Vague (I’m thinking Antoine Doinel here, the most Schnitzlerian character of all times), and there is a surprising equality between them. Despite the short period of time they knew each other, there is an immense trust and closeness between them, similarly to “Before Sunrise”. As characters, they are probably better than Julie Delpy and especially Ethan Hawke who is kind of unlikable by default. It is therefore not very hard for Eiji Okada to overtake him, although I thought he was much better in “Suna no Onna”.

Resnais himself changed so much over the years, oh my goodness! Starting with “Nuit et brouilliard” and “Hiroshima mon amour” he evolved to stranger films like “Marienbad” or “Providence” and ended up at more light-hearted comedies with Sabine Azéma. My favorite Resnais will probably always be the film which is a little non-Resnais-like, since “Mélo” is neither a comedy in the Azéma-Jaoui-Bacri style nor strange in any sense nor a tragedy in black and white. It’s the only one of his films which is just a love story.

Whereas “Before Sunrise” is romantic in an almost silly way, this film is much more dark and bleak. This extremely handsome couple is painfully aware that they will forget about each other, just like the whole film is about forgetting. This awareness makes this film special, even amongst similarly disillusioned Nouvelle Vague films. It’s the better and more mature “Before Sunrise”, but it did not age all too well despite its deserved status as a film classic.

Romeo and Juliet

Boy is she beautiful! I suppose I do rant about actors a lot, but this woman is an exceptional case of beauty. I still think that Ingrid Bergman is unparalleled, but Olivia Hussey is probably the closest to that amongst all actresses I have ever seen and the two of them should win the award for most beautiful couple of all times.

This film is a classic, and I have wanted to see it ever since I saw a picture of Hussey as Juliet. Everything about this film looks right – the costumes look wonderful, the characters are beautiful beyond belief and everything just fits together including overly dramatic music. On a side note, I love how Romeo died with poison and Juliet died using the infamous dagger.

Apart from that, with 2 hours and 20 minutes, the film felt way too long. This is a problem when you know the story by heart because you have seen it so many times. I saw the horrible Leonardo DiCaprio film, Prokofiev’s ballet and of course “Shakespeare in Love”. Without having read nor seen the play, I still know almost about it, and besides a feast for the eyes, this well-known story is quite a borefest.

Personally I enjoyed the film the most in the scenes where Romeo and Juliet are together. They have a surprising chemistry despite their youth and lack of experience, and I like the purity of their relationship. Otherwise this is quite a forgettable film unless you have a love for the it as strong as I have for “A Midsummer Night’s Dream”. I could see that one over and over again, but not “Romeo and Juliet”.

Blue Valentine

According to Shii, the Big Two relationship movies are “Closer” and “Scenes of a Marriage”. I agree. “Blue Valentine” is a little closer to “Scenes of a Marriage”, with both having a blonde, somewhat meek female lead and revolving around a relationship which doesn’t really have anybody else involved, whereas “Closer” breathes through its many instances of infidelity and shuffling around between the characters.

If I ever had a movie-like relationship which is comparable to the aforementioned first films and “Blue Valentine”, then it’s probably the one I had when I came of age. (I know I have no reason to be so secretive, but you guys all know what I mean.) The one before was so otherworldly that I don’t think anything like that actually was in the movies, the one after is so pleasantly normal and ubiquitous that no German novelist would touch it, thence also no Hollywood movie director. With that coming-of-age relationship in mind, the quasi-attempt at having sex in that love motel totally hit home. Let me repeat this key idea for emphasis – it hit home and I felt it throughout my body. It is that particular scene which stands for everything the film is. It has its weaknesses and the nonlinear storyline works so well and oh the doggy loser-version of Ryan Gosling is so cute and “grungy Michelle Williams” (like Shii put it) is so interesting – none of these aspects really matter to me. Bottom line is, this love story is bleaker than anything else Hollywood, Bergman or the French Nouvelle Vague has ever produced, and for me, its pinnacle was not the fight at the hospital but this failed sex scene at the creepy motel.

Nevertheless, I don’t quite get the movie. There are certain things I personally cannot get behind. I would never refuse a friendship to anyone. I would also never separate from somebody who loves me. Most importantly, I would never feel contempt towards a man who so obviously loves his wife like Dean does in “Blue Valentine”. Why does she have to behave like these women who want to be “conquered” and have a man “show the way”? So what if she is the “man in the relationship” – what’s so wrong with that?

Ironically, for me “Blue Valentine” stands in the same line as “The Notebook” (the other Ryan Gosling film where I happened to find him much less attractive, hahaha). Both movies pissed me off at times, but they had these scenes which melted my heart, each in different ways. Amongst these two, “Blue Valentine” certainly is the more interesting one.

Tangled

For all that it’s worth, “Tangled” was a lot of fun. It’s a suspenseful story with a good premise, but unlike most older Disney films, it just felt way too fabricated. So they wanted to give the guy a lot of screentime – fine, but did you have to use such a bland character? Which Disney prince has ever made “smug faces” before? If you say it’s supposed to be realistic and modern, then I must say that I doubt I have seen such a smug face in the last 10 years.

What irked me the most was probably that the songs were really bad. Maybe that was always a problem with Disney movies but I cannot remember such a thing. As far as I know, people are still listening to the Lion King soundtrack, and I still feel nostalgy in my heart when I hear songs from “The Little Mermaid”. Because the songs were bad, I was also not able to feel any chemistry between Rapunzel and Flynn. Their romantic moment was nothing compared to Aladdin and Jasmine’s despite the beauty of the CG, because the lantern tradition is just sooo idiotic and almost politically incorrect. So if the film manages to be so modern and feminist, why is it incapable of getting rid of this princess thing, where the film must mention at least twice how much the kingdom loves their monarchs and they happen to have a yearly tradition for a member of the royal family?

I can’t pinpoint anymore why that is, but the writing of the story largely felt very… stupid to me. Perhaps this is because the old wench was perhaps the least likable Disney villain of all times. Just her presence managed to annoy me – and I thought this only happens with French arthouse films.

With all that said, coming to the beginning of this review, I am not surprised that “Tangled” was a big success. It might have its problems, but disregarding all that, it’s good evening entertainment and an enjoyable 90 minutes spent.

The Return

Oh God, I wanted to cry when Ivan ran into the water crying “Papa, papa!” This movie is too beautiful for words, even though it took me ages to finally watch it. I read somewhere that the director was intensely looking for “genius actors” to play the brothers and these boys are absolutely brilliant. Vladimir Garin would probably have grown into a great actor, and Vanya Dobronravov probably is (despite his lack of large roles ever since).

This is one of those films where not so much happens, and more emphasis is put on subtleties between the character and the endless vastness of Russian landscape – Tarkovsky anyone? Luckily this film is more than just beautiful shots of Russia, although the film leaves me a bit speechless. After the most powerful moment in the film, the escalation of the conflict between father and son, Zvyagintsev brought out the most serene and beautiful shots of the sea, and the photo series at the end of the film was reminiscent of the ending of JSA.

God is dead. I agree that the film is clearly supposed to be religious in a similar way that “Au hasard Balthasar” is, except the father here is God. The brothers represent ourselves who have lost the father and are bound to lose him again. With that background, everything that happens in the film becomes acceptable – you don’t ask yourself why Andrei doesn’t reprimand Ivan for literally having killed their father, nor what is up with that box the father retrieved on the island.

I might not have loved the film as much Shii did, but I certainly loved it. It is memorable and beautifully shot (albeit maybe just a little bit less so than Tarkovsky’s Stalker) and Gorp should watch it if it has not happened yet. XD

Wristcutters: A Love Story

This movie could have been my favorite movie of all times, but it’s not. I have always had a certain fascination with suicide, and I cannot imagine a better comedy premise than suicide itself. Perhaps I have grown out of it. No matter how bad things are, suicidal thoughts do not actually come up. I suppose I have learned to suck it up now. I can’t even remember the last time I cried, and there were quite a few bad cases these days. It’s not like everything is always perfect, I just don’t express it anymore when I happen to get hurt.

Nevertheless, having grown stronger (or number? LOL) should not have kept me up from enjoying a good comedy about people who killed themselves. But perhaps my expectations were just too high, because “Wristcutters” really wasn’t all that funny. In general, it is a good movie. It has interesting characters build upon a great premise and a few amusing elements like the dark tones of the film and the black hole underneath the car, which I think is the product of a genius mind. But everything else about the film just pretty much bored me. It wasn’t bleak enough to be a black comedy (although the whole family that killed itself comes very close to it), and after the first 30 minutes – which actually had a few good jokes and lovely background music – the film mostly confused me. Even Will Arnett’s awesome appearance couldn’t beat that.

All in all, I’d say I am ambiguous about the film. In retrospect I am not surprised that the film was made on a mere 1 million dollar budget and made less than 500,000 in theaters. I might have wanted too much because I was so in love with its premise beforehand that I couldn’t really relate to the film. I am glad I finally saw it, after planning on it some 2-3 years ago, but in retrospect, even though I enjoyed the film, I feel rather nonchalant about it.

Double Take

Since Pixelmatsch is watching Berlinale films now, I figured I should finally get myself “working” and write about these old Berlinale films we never saw.

“Double Take” is the kind of film that is so experimental that it cannot be put into words. I’d say it’s a collage of film snippets and comments on the cold war, paralleling a story of Hitchcock meeting his own double from 20 years later. The whole thing is a little reminiscent of film installations but without being annoying. So random! It’s fascinating to say the least.

Apart from that, I must admit that it took me a long time to get the movie, in fact I am fairly convinced that I never got the film. It’s like a problem whose solution is not quite obvious and I consider the possibility that one must be very good at reading between the lines to see the connections between the changing scenes in the film. I am not. What I did see is a visual feast of a film and a somewhat avant-garde treatise on the doppelganger topic, so incredibly fitting for Hitchcock. I did find it a little unfortunate that the film was mostly focused on “The Birds” (and its release date), which happens to be my least favorite Hitchcock film.

Hitchcock was the first movie director I have ever known, even before David Fincher or Steven Spielberg. I have seen all types of films by him – more than one even: 2 silent films, 2 black-and-white films and the rest were color. For me, Hitchcock is the movie director to end all movie directors, and with my two favorites of his, “Rear Window” and “The Trouble with Harry”, I think Hitchcock is the kind of guy who is precisely not cerebral, but provides entertainment infused with wit (“Rear Window”), comedy (“The Trouble with Harry”) and suspense (everything else). I might not have liked every Hitchcock film I have seen, but I love the unparalleled diversity he displays. I adore him to pieces, in a similar way as I adore my advisor who I regularly disagree with. With that in mind, I think that “Double Take” is playing too much the cliché-Hitchcock card, but that is alright because the film is a good homage to the master.

Without any background, “Double Take” is probably completely unwatchable, but for me, it hit the right spot by being incomprehensibly stylish instead of pretentiously avant-garde. Just don’t ask me what I watched there. If you are interested in such films, watch it and try to see it in a theater. You’ll come out completely confused, and it’ll feel good.