Author: Sasa

Chroniken der Anna Magdalena Bach

Instead of looking for movies to see, all I can do is look for which talks I want to go to at my next conference – how sad. As much as I love movie theater experiences, I do not mind seeing films at home. There are a bunch of movies in my life which have managed to touch me despite having seen them on TV or just on a small monitor.

“Chroniken der Anna Magdalena Bach” is definitely a small monitor movie, although a good sound system definitely helps. It’s a lot like watching a symphony performance on a screen. I was quite amazed. It might look like a dry and “boring” movie, but compared with a symphony orchestra performance, it’s as exciting as “The Dark Knight”. I might be the only person in this world who likes this movie, but I certainly did. It made me get extremely interested in Bach again! I read up on his sons, who – unsurprisingly – also played a fairly important role in the Bach couple’s life.

Let this be a warning. The film is nothing like an actual biopic, and quite different from most movies. It looks very austere, stern and clean, and the voice-over in which Anna Magdalena Bach narrates her life sounds odd, because the language used is old, and the voice is impressively monotone. What keeps me up from falling asleep indeed was the music. I know almost nothing about Bach’s life and never really liked to play him. Bach’s pieces look easy and boring, yet they were awfully hard to play precisely because of that. It is not emotions in the romantic style which could tell you how to play something, and I thought it was hard to get into the “mood” to play Bach. Why does everybody I know like Bach so much? This film gives me some sort of an answer – after listening to Bach’s music for roughly 1 1/2 hours, I come to the conclusion that there is something strangely beautiful about it. It makes me happy and a little solemn to listen to it, and I think this little film is a great tribute to Bach.

I remember that Gorp, who loves Straub-Huillet, did not recommend this film to me. But it’s on Netflix and I was extremely curious, so I couldn’t resist. And now I am surprised at how much I liked it! (You probably won’t, but that’s fine.) I must go and do research on Bach now.

If you are the one 2

I was positively impressed by the first film, even though I don’t even remember why that is. Researching the films a little bit, it turns out that the movies made it into theaters outside of China. Nevertheless, I believe that the (limited) US release was probably exclusively watched by Chinese people – who else would watch this crap? Chinese product placement, Chinese humor and especially the dreadful Chinese focus on money and utterly tasteless display of luxury, I have no reason why anybody else would want to bear with this.

Personally I watched the film because I love Ge You and Shu Qi, and even think that they make up an amusing couple. Even in this film, I thought that their relationship is pleasantly comical and just looking at them together made the worthwhile for me. Of course that also meant that I literally skipped over the subplot with the friend which was utterly pointless. Even the moment of realization in “Viaggio in Italia” made more sense to me than this movie. Why must people in movies always come to ultimately love each other for no apparent reason? In “Viaggio in Italia” it’s because they got lost, in “Walk the Line” it’s because they are standing on stage, in this film it’s because somebody else dies. After all, people die every day?

Another appeal of the film was the fact that this is ultimately a slightly sarcastic comedy on love. For a rom-com, people actually talk a lot about what they think love is or should be, and to some degree, that was interesting. It is probably hard to find love these days, or at least Chinese society perceives it so, and taking it with a grain of salt is probably the best thing they can do.

The subtitles to the film are pretty horrible, by the way. Another reason why you shouldn’t watch it unless you speak the language, apart from the fact that this sequel is much, much worse than the original.

Metropolitan

Sometimes I feel like watching random films I know nothing about, and more often than not, I am in for a pleasant surprise. All I know about “Metropolitan” is that it has a nice-looking Criterion cover, which turns out to have nothing to do with the style of the film itself. In fact, even though cover and storyline suggest some upper-class milieu, the film itself is made on the cheap. Add in some Hana-yori-dango-like 80’s fashion and you have your perfect strangely cheap and dated looking rich people movie. Luckily, “Metropolitan” is more than a showcase of costumes, which is perhaps the only reason why I watched the film in its entirety.

First of all – Oh gosh, I loved Nick. While the film itself doesn’t leave that much space for actual comedy, some of the things Nick says are pure comedic gold. This film absolutely needed a cynical character, and Nick delivers perfectly. I love how he ended up getting himself punched in the face, and I was sad that he left the show. Sure, Tom is supposed to be the main character, but the film almost lost its appeal after they sent Nick to the train station.

I can’t quite make up my mind about whether I think the actors were good or not. Sometimes I felt like their way of talking was strange, but then I realized… oh my God, they talk like Woody Allen! It’s a New York movie, so it almost makes sense. They go on and on about themselves and odd topics nobody really wants to hear nor would understand, yet at the same time, it is amusing to listen to. Critics mention how the dialogue is written in a way that people do not really speak, citing that they use “nevertheless” or “however”. I was like… really? I use “nevertheless” in my speech, or rather at least in German I do. How else do you want to have a discussion if you don’t connect your thoughts? Personally I liked their silly discussions so much, for all I care the film could just as well have been an episode of these kids hanging around and talk.

But of course the film has to evolve into some love quadrangle, actually it has more than that – Charlie likes Audrey who likes Tom who likes Serena who broke up with Rick who sleeps Cynthia who slept with Nick who probably offended Jane with that. The last part is speculation, so if Jane had a crush on Nick, then Fred and Sally are the only characters not involved in this whole love ordeal. I thought the film was worth to see, and I am now curious about “The last days of disco”, another one of these ironic commentary films. I have a thing for the “doomed bourgeois in love” theme – it’s a guilty pleasure if you want – and I think that Whit Stillmann managed to adapt it well from 19th century European novels into 80-90s movies. Definitely a nice, multidimensional film.

The Young Victoria

I had this strange desire to watch “Jane Eyre”, but then I ended up with “The Young Victoria” instead, figuring that they’d be somewhat similar. Historic costumes, a fairly Biedermeier-like atmosphere of love – that was what I was looking for. My parents saw this film and really liked it, so I had to give it a try too.

From what I see, the screenshots of “Jane Eyre” are actually prettier. In Victoria’s younger days, clothes were more… frilly, I suppose? Some of Victoria’s costumes make me wonder if it was one of my roommates from my first semester at Tech who color-coordinated them – sooo bad, really. In comparison to that, I prefer the fleeting simplicity of “Jane Eyre”. But sadly I really dislike Mia Wasikowska (at least in “Alice in Wonderland” I did), whereas I think Emily Blunt is rather pleasant, and very suitable for the Victoria role.

This is one of those films which makes you want to find out all about its history – in fact, it is much more about politics rather than the love story, where nothing really happens. There is not even a love rival! I am not quite sure how I feel about Victoria myself. I admire her for having been able to stay queen for 64 years, and for fostering reforms beneficial to her country. But on the other hand, I wonder how much she actually contributed to it herself, having spent a good part of her life mourning the death of her husband, precisely when the Industrial Revolution was at its peak. (Also, in just 4 years, Elizabeth II will actually overtake her in length of, ahem. She will have to survive to the age of 89, and it sounds feasible.) But I digress. I have a certain admiration for England at her time, perhaps the only time when England was truly shining, and while bourgeoisie is so criticized in Germany, it feels much more positive there. Oddly enough, bourgeois morals should have been even more restricting in the UK but garnered in Victorian dresses and bonnets, you get this superficial impression that society seemed very happy at the time.

All in all, “The Young Victoria” is not a particularly relevant film. It is slow-paced, rather interesting and romantic in its strangely british cold kind of way, fulfilling its cliché. I liked it, but I don’t think anybody else would.

The Last King of Scotland

The new year begun and They shoot pictures, don’t they? have finally released their new versions of the best 1000 films of all times and the best 250 films of the 21st century. As every year, I would look at these lists, marking off the number I have seen, slowly seeing it grow. It is in these kinds of moments that I stumble upon so many films I have loved in the past, even if they might not be in my top 30. Truth to be told, I am not even sure if I want to see all those movies figuring in these lists, but along with Criterion’s releases, every year’s Academy Award candidates and Roger Ebert’s greatest films (I often do not agree with his contemporary movie tastes, but his look-back at film history is pretty awesome, with “Woman in the Dunes” and “Make way for tomorrow” and such), these lists play quite an important role in my film consumption. I love seeing these highly acclaimed films, while trying to keep an open mind about other films.

“The last king of Scotland” definitely is amongst these ‘other films’. When I think of films like “Avatar” or “The Hurt Locker” (representatives of a mediocre Oscar year except for the animated nominees, if you ask me), I am wondering why this film has not garnered any more acclaim. It might be a relatively typical “white man in Africa” kind of story, but what kind of Africa! The film is rather accurate with history, and Forest Whitaker is breathtaking. I don’t think I have seen him ever since “Ghost Dog”, but I knew he was awesome. His portrait as creepy dictator is absolutely haunting, and it is largely thanks to him that the movie attains its immense creepiness. I don’t think I have been scared watching a film like this for a long time. It’s just that the atmosphere of danger is literally everywhere.

Certainly the film had its gory parts, but even though they had their effect, I think the film also did a good job at portraying the militarism of the country, and its crazy “king”. The movie was suspenseful throughout its entire story, and I have finally satisfied my desire to see it ever since I saw the trailer many, many years ago in a theater. I’m pretty sure I was watching a rom-com back then. Though it might also have been “Star Wars: Attack of the Clones”.

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

There is a possibility that Fincher will continue directing the movies for book 2 and 3 for Stieg Larsson’s trilogy. If that happens, I will cry. It’s not that I think Fincher is a bad choice for them, a certain continuity in style would actually be very good for those movies. I’d rather say that Fincher is too good for that. He has always been very good at doing something different every time, and it would be a shame if he spent over 3 years on practically the same thing. I am just that curious about something new, even if it is something lukewarm as “Benjamin Button”.

Maybe Fincher is not a “good director”. But there is no doubt for me that he is the trendiest one of all of them. He took my heart by a storm with “Fight Club”, and with “The Social Network”, he practically made the film of the year, if not of the decade. (If you consider 2005 to 2015 as a decade, then “The Social Network” is arguably the film of the decade.) There is a very good reason why I have practically every one of his films (except for “Alien 3”), and that is the incredible impact he makes on me – perhaps the strongest amongst all modern Hollywood filmmakers.

“The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” has a lovely story and a somewhat sad, yet pleasant ending. I think it is not that much more than an enjoyable story, and certainly less meaningful than “The Social Network”, but it was extraordinarily enjoyable. Even the silly motorcycle chasing scenes were fun to see, and the film kept me straight in my seat throughout its entire running time.

Considering that the film is merely a good-looking, well-written crime story, I wouldn’t normally rave about it as much. What makes the film stand out and become to a serious contender to my beloved Social Network was – of course – its main character. Lisbeth is such a great character, words cannot describe her. Ironically enough, she fueled some odd fashion trend (I heard H&M’s dragon tattoo collection sold out immediately), but apart from that, she is pretty much what a modern woman would look up to these days. Deeply hurt, yet warm-hearted and immensely strong, she takes her problems into her own hands and, by the way, saves other people’s lives on the way. She chooses who she sleeps with, and does so without playing games. When she tattooed “I am a rapist pig” onto that guy’s body, I went all “Oh yeah!” I wish I could be like that. Roony ‘the Girlfriend’ Mara is doing an awesome job at it too, as the entire world of critics would probably agree with.

This film is probably is probably no “Social Network”, but I think it’s a must-watch, and if it’s just for its great main character.

Pi

For “Requiem for a Dream”, I have looked at Aronofsky’s films with a certain amount of suspicion. Ever since “The Wrestler”, I am convinced that he can make some great movies which are more than style over substance. “Pi” is somewhere in between, and more than anything else, it’s a first movie – simple concept, very good cinematography, low number of characters. Parts of it feel like a film student’s diploma movie, where you show off what you can do with a small budget. For such a film, I thought “Pi” was great and clearly shows the potential which now led to “The Wrestler” and “Black Swan”.

The only thing that seriously annoyed me in the film was the math talk. It’s just downright… bullshit, and I found it painful and almost infuriating to watch. For most people who do this math stuff, there is no deeper meaning to it – it’s just fun, or it’s just a job, okay? The hacker or the mathematician who turned crazy and schizophrenic, that is so last century and so outdated now.

The film has a quite straightforward story, and mostly focuses on its main character and how he slowly descends into craziness. It’s interesting both in terms of the depiction of craziness, amusing to see the outdated hacker romanticism, and finally it’s worth it for Aronofsky’s poignant style. Apart from that, it’s a largely a film for film buffs, not that this is a bad thing.

Night on the Galactic Railroad

I am still 7 films short of Shii’s all-time favorite list, though I managed to get this down from 14 during last year. (You are probably doing worse on my list, aren’t you, Shii? :D) “Night on the Galactic Railroad” mostly is here because of that. I have the film lying around for ever and ever, but since anthropomorphic cats always scare me a little bit (especially when they walk on two legs), I have never quite wanted to see the film.

All in all, the movie is completely different from what I have expected. The end is so sad! Oh my God, it’s perhaps the saddest ending ever? (Apart from “Make way for tomorrow”) It did not make me cry, but that doesn’t mean very much. I think the film is sad because whenever I think back of the film, I think of its ending and how Campanella is perhaps the most lovely character of all times – it’s almost cathartic.

I am not sure if I see the point of the rest of the film though. It certainly is a lovely story, but so immensely slow-paced it is almost painful. I think that the film has a lot of creative and beautiful fantastic elements in it, especially the characters they meet on the road. Most of all, I liked how these encounters are brief yet meaningful in some sense, almost like “Le Petit Prince” (which I hated as a child for its immense sadness).

Just like “Le Petit Prince”, I think that “Night on the Galactic Railroad” is not a children’s movie, nor do I find the book suitable for children. I mean, there is a character who let two children die so that they can meet God? Come on! If I had read this story as a little child, my heart would have broken, no joke. Before learning what irony is, I don’t think children are very good at dealing with sadness – even if it’s fiction. Maybe it’s even worse in fiction, because real life ultimately isn’t all that sad for a little child.

Anyways, I love that the film is practically about the meaning of death, but I also thought that it failed at delivering any deeper meaning. At the same time, it’s a wonderfully creative adaptation of a most likely well-written story, which touched me and made me wish that I could board on such a train when the time comes.

My Own Private Idaho

I have seen quite a few Gus van Sant’s films, exactly 7 out of 14 of the feature films he has made until today. Starting from “Mala Noche”, his first, all the way up to “Milk”, one of his most recent endeavors, I’d say I have a good picture of his career, starting with the very rough simple gay stories to more subtly gay mainstream films to biopics about a gay politician. His insertion of a scene of “Tosca” will probably his most memorable contribution to my film enjoyment, yet at the same time, I have pretty much liked all his films despite or maybe rather because of the gayness. But from all I have seen, “My Own Private Idaho” stands out.

First of all, I have never seen anything with River Phoenix before. Of course he is infamous for dying a young death and that probably made him immortal – one of the biggest ironies of being famous, I suppose. But apart from that I had absolutely no idea he was just that good. How can a young kid who probably has seen nothing in life be such a good actor? Maybe the drugs did it; they created the misery that brought out this incredible character in him. Thinking about it, I wonder if Rooney Mara is also going to turn crazy.

The other pleasant aspect is to see Keanu Reeves actually being a great actor. He might have been heavily overshadowed by Mr. Phoenix there, just like Brad Pitt is practically overshadowed by his co-stars in any given film he has ever acted in (unlike Leo <3 who stands for himself), but this film proves that Keanu is more than a pretty face. And what a pretty face! Back in the day when everybody saw “The Matrix” he has never striked me as so attractive.

It’s not that the rest of the film is bad – it is very far from that. It’s just that if I had the film before I told other people to watch it, I would have been much more careful about it. I mean, hey… the film is a mix out of an unrequited gay love story which doesn’t really make much sense, another story that doesn’t exactly come to a conclusion (we haven’t actually learned anything about Mike’s mother nor much about Scott’s family), a street hustler who randomly falls asleep and finally, Shakespeare?

Note: Another bonus, yay Grace Zabriskie! I never imagined to see her in a movie again, she is just such a strange character?

I know that this is one of Shii’s favorite films and 6451 explicitly said that he liked it (he made me feel so guilty for giving him that movie without watching it! like catholically guilty you know). In consequence, my expectations for this film were extraordinarily high. In some sense it was fulfilled, because this film might just as well be Gus van Sant’s masterpiece in terms of storytelling and directing, but on the other hand, it also left me trailing in metaphorical ether… as if I was figuratively floating in an empty universe of thoughts and ideas. Perhaps he could have taken these three ideas – a street hustler who randomly falls asleep, a rich Shakespearean boy who decides to go back to the “good ways” and a lost boy looking for his mother – in order to fleshed them out and made three movies out of it. But the way it is right now, I thought the film was really strange and I probably failed to see its point.

Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil

Oh wow. It took me years to finish watching this movie (although this is nothing compared to the Decalogue which I have partially rewatched and am still thinking of very often, or Inland Empire which is another film I cannot get myself to see in its entirety), but “Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil” is just particularly painful. For the first hour or so, probably the most boring movie I have ever seen in my life, except for Kevin Spacey’s lovely display of arrogance and John Cusack’s oblivious character. If this is the movie about Savannah, or even the South, then it tells you a novel about how soporific it must be.

Okay, maybe the South is not exciting, and maybe it is funny to make in-breed jokes about them (just thinking about it makes me want to laugh, though I have personal reasons for that), but there is a charm to this place which I have visited several times, and it’s not that people are eccentric and strange, but that they are – most of all – very welcoming.

Amazingly enough, the second half of this way too dragged out film was surprisingly better. I wouldn’t necessarily say that I care for what happened, or what the truth really was – because whatever turned out at the end did not warrant a 2+ hour film nor somebody spending their whole life following them and writing a bestseller out of it. What made the second part bearable was the simple fact that the happenings at least pointed towards something – the resolution to the film, that is. I thought it gave the film a rather interesting end and a twist that has been there all the time. I also like how that twist ended up being indeed on the verge between good and evil. But that highly praised first part of the film, especially its strange characters and whatnot, is probably much better in the forms of a book, where such things can be detailed out and actually feel alive. Instead we are served a lukewarm, pointless not-really-love story and encounter a bunch of characters who, except for Lady Chablis, do absolutely nothing in the film.

I wish Savannah – or any other city in the world – had a better film to represent them, and I am glad to get it over with. This film is largely a waste of time, unless you have some explicable reason to watch it. (A strange fascination for Kevin Spacey perhaps? I couldn’t fault you on that.)