Author: Sasa

Un conte de Noël

It’s been a few years since I have felt this physical pain in my chest while I watch movies. I think such a pain happened when I saw “Citizen Kane”, and the last time was probably when I saw “101 Reykjavík”. Apart from that I could never be bothered by seeing a film that I wholeheartedly disliked.

Now, this one is probably not all that wholehearted, and there was one single scene that I found impressive, namely the one when Sylvia confronts Simon with his love for her. “Let me choose my lover!” I like that. However, the power of that confrontation just completely crumbled when she decided to cheat on her husband. Where was the point of Simon suffering through all those years if they end up getting together anyways? Ugh. It’s about the first time in my life that I was annoyed with a film character who plays with two men.

But holy crap, this is the kind of pretentious movie that shows exactly the type of artist I dislike: Overuses of oh-so-artsy cinematographic effects, bad hip hop and electronic music coupled with oh-so-sophisticated classical music, and then the whole story is about family issues over and over and over. As if these people have nothing besides their family. How disgustingly un-french. If we look at the Nouvelle Vague characters only few of them even have families, and except for the case where Anna Karina talks about her mother in “Pierrot le Fou” I can’t even remember them mentioning their families. And where is the comedy? This humour isn’t even black, and I always I know enough about French humour to get it if it were there. And why do we have to confront ourselves with so much oh-so-obscure cultural references? The whole movie just feels so dead that it made me wanted to die.

Today, I had a discussion with 6451 where we remarked that no matter how much knowledge, culture and education we would amass, we would never want to become part of the stiff bourgeoisie with their prescribed canon of ‘elite’. Desplechin just oozes of it by mistakening complexity with a confusing storyline, and as much as it tries to be ‘everything’, there is one thing that is entirely missing (and that you can find in literally every other French movie). That is love for life and everything in the world. Even criticism of the world can be interpreted as a subtle homage to it by depicting the world or even showing what could be different, but film just feels like it’s annoyed by itself. As much as this love might look like hate sometimes, about every single movie I like is an ode to life; and ode to what is possible with a little wit, creativity and a good degree of observation. Just like about every Japanese over age 25, the family in this film is just so dead in their mix of bourgeoisie and neurotism that it serves as a beautiful counter example of how life should not be.

And oh God, I should never go with whatever critics like, it just doesn’t work well for me it seems.

A Midsummer Night’s Dream (1999)

At the first glance, 6.3 or whatever it is on Imdb seems quite right. This movie is weirder than I could imagine… What the heck is wrong with those bicycles? Furthermore, I am never going to get into the Shakespearean speak; when it’s on a stage, I don’t even realize it could possibly be awkward, but when it’s obviously some Hollywood actors, then it really has to be somebody as brilliant as Kevin Kline to make the dialogue feel ‘right’. (Okay, admittedly most of the actors are pretty bad… Both the boys, Lysander and Demetrius are utterly forgettable and Hermia is so incredibly boring that I keep mistakening her with Hippolyta. And no, I’m not a fan of Sophie Marceau.)

However, considering the incredible awkwardness brought by the setting (19th century Italy! These flowers everywhere! The utterly weird looking faires! And ahhh, the bicycles!), the ingenuity of some of the other actors in the ensemble makes this film a surprising and unique pleasure. Kevin Kline needs no mention since his great performance is barely a surprise, but I never expected Michelle Pfeiffer to be so good! She is a beautifully enamored queen and the way she depicted the dignified and proud queen was glorious. Oberon was good. Also, Stanley Tucci’s Puck was great and it’s unfortunately that we couldn’t see him walk and dance more often. By far, he’s my favorite character of the play and if he had been given some more screentime, I am sure this Puck’s hilarity would have been able to live up to his potential.

The absolute best was Calista Flockhart’s character and performance. I was absolutely stunned, especially because I really only have seen her in Ally McBeal before – a role I have never taken for serious. Helena is probably one of the saddest characters in the whole story and one of the seldom fully developed characters who “only” have a one-sided love. This character would either be full of ridicule or sadness, but Calista Flockhart manages to make the best possible out of it – she’s so likeable and cute? I have always found her to be extremely beautiful, but her face always looked a little bit ‘dumb’ to me I guess? In the role of Helena, she’s absolutely perfect. She gets mad and angry all the time, but her wonderful trademark :[ face make her so surprisingly moe. I can’t think of another film character like hers, and that definitely contributed greatly to my enjoyment of the film. I wish they would write a movie solely for Calista Flockhart where she can unveil her potential as an actress.

Imdb lists quite a few operas that appear in the movie. Of course I recognized “La Traviata” (somehow not fitting at all), but I have no idea where “Una furtiva lagrima” appears! Also, “Casta diva” sounds great! I immediately fell in love with that aria, and it seems to be a Tosca-like role – every opera star and their daughter seems to have sung it. Melikes.

The amazing thing of the story is not only that it’s Shakespeare funniest play (in my opinion), it is being dissected by literature people like crazy. While Hamlet is actually very serious and deep, “A Midsummer Night’s Dream” has been made deep – Why is it that people have to choose a play like this to analyze love when there so many more great love stories out there that present its complexity with at least just as well. This story is a perverted play, and it’s good that way.

Maybe the best part of the whole movie is actually the Pyramus and Thisby play in the play. It made me laugh out loud at least two times… How often do we see a play that is so bad that it makes you want to laugh constantly?

In the end, I am not sure what to think about this adaptation. It’s somewhere between extremely ridiculous, yet unique and fun. Oh and it makes me want to see the play! I remember that I loved “As you like it” on the stage, and I dream of seeing a good mise en scène of “A Midsummer Night’s Dream” one time in my life.

The Big Lebowski

I have recently heard that a film should teach you something about life by telling a story. Now, a story can be absolutely brilliant but the mise en scène can be absolutely horrible and unwatchable. Now, “The Big Lebowski” surely is greatly directed, there is no doubt about that. And the storyline itself is absolutely wonderful and full of funny references, which definitely has contributed to its cult status.

The film makes me want to drink a White Russian. It reminds me that I need a signature drink – I’m considering making it a martini as pre-dinner cocktail and a white grasshopper.

Now, at least 3 people told me that I should watch the film, and perhaps right now was the perfect time for me to do so. It’s as if seeing “The Big Lebowski” made me realize what I like about a movie: When it attempts to solve the mystery of life by telling a story and incorporating a million details of humanity. To me, posing questions by showing is so much nicer than any psychological analysis in a scientific context. In fact, I have read an absolutely horrible ‘scientifical’ article today, which reminds me yet again that I am most definitely never in my life going to study film. I would like to study something (like a mix of theology, political philosophy, history, photography and directing) that is not explicitly film – with the intent to actually study film. At least to me that sounds like something more reasonable.

I’m sorry for digressing. So what made “The Big Lebowski” enjoyable on so many levels? First of all, it was quite funny and entertaining. The whole story is like a roller coaster in a floppy way like “Some Like it Hot” was and it’s full of quotable scenes making it funny for seemingly any type of humor. But there’s more to that, and the fact that the Coen brothers do the Jarmusch thing definitely helped; they write up characters to match the acting of their friends like the roles of John Goodman and Steve Buscemi (who I love btw!), making those characters so much more “alive” even when they don’t have so much acting time. John Goodman’s character is an amazing asshole, but he drives the story further, provides some good laughs and is an amazingly non-stereotypical way to depict a character who could just as well stand for a whole generation of middle-aged men. The same applies to the Dude, the likeable loser: He fails at life, but at the same time it feels he has his heart at the right place and he was smart enough to look through the other Lebowski’s plan. The combination of hilarity, identification potential with the characters and an intriguing story where the characters are confronted both with each other and unusual situations make “The Big Lebowski” into a treasure box of truths about what life is. The best example is Donny’s death – we see how non-chalantly the other two deal with it and yet there is some mix of emotions and irony in the scene where Donny’s ashes are shattered. It’s like “Fight Club” without the fights.

I also love how there is no actual conclusion to the story, no big picture, just a good storyline. There is no climax or some dramatic end that the story has built up to (think fight against the big boss), there is no mastermind behind or it a big plot revealed – there isn’t even a million dollars to begin with. In the end, it’s more like an adventurous slice of life, the ultimate paradox.

If you have read this far: Yes, I find the way I am ranting about “The Big Lebowski” weird too, and it is utterly different from how I used to speak about “Fargo” which I would consider a very similar type of Coen movie. Maybe at that time I just wasn’t as susceptible for films like that, or I just didn’t get the story. Who knows. At any rate, I am aware that the thoughtful layer of “The Big Lebowski” is a very subtle one and therefore seems quite difficult to pinpoint to me. But it’s the main thing I got out of watching the film (oddly enough), so I apologize.

So don’t watch “The Big Lebowski” for the stuff I have ranted about, but do watch it if you are into black comedies.

Husbands and Wives

She’s a great actress, but her voice just makes her into the exact opposite of Diane Keaton, whose “La-dee-dah” is the most important detail of her character.

I think it’s impressive that Woody Allen tends to use young girls as the most refined, interesting and mature characters. This was even more the case for Muriel Hemingway’s character in “Manhattan”, but in this movie we are also dealing with a very positive picture of a young woman. I’m impressed. Personally I actually preferred the “cocktail waitress” Sam who never did anyone harm in the whole story but just didn’t fit into the whole intelligentsia picture at all. To some degree, I understand how a certain degree of sophisticatedness is necessary in a relationship, but it just means that he shouldn’t take her to dinner parties that’s all.

All in all, this movie seems to suffer from the comparison with Woody Allen’s most brilliant love comedies which are “Annie Hall” and “Manhattan”. But then again, even “Deconstructing Harry” was much funnier than this movie is, because it showed a much more desperate Woody Allen who was even more of an asshole than he is in this movie. Here, he is of course attracted to that young girl but he’s not his usual Don Juan, and especially not as black as he usually is. Even more so, he criticizes himself more harshly than he even does in “Manhattan”.

While every single other relationship comedy by Woody Allen, I end up crushed and question my own relationships every single time. It is very noteable how my views on “Annie Hall” vs. “Manhattan” changed – while I used to like “Manhattan” much more when I saw it the first time, I have to admit that “Annie Hall” is even more sophisticated, funny and well acted. Today, I wouldn’t doubt that “Annie Hall” is Woody Allen’s all time masterpiece. The fact that my own relationship life has changed might play a role, but when I read “The Unbearable Lightness of Being”, I feel exactly the same as 5 years ago, except that I don’t see myself nor any of my ‘lovers’ as remotely similar to the characters in the book anymore.

“Husbands and Wives” feels simplistic compared to Woody Allen’s other works, which is perhaps also because you don’t see the characters interact as much or not as deeply. Their dialogues feels less funny but also less meaningful to me, and I keep feeling like I have seen through Woody Allen. Now I am glad that Woody Allen has grown out of the stage where he makes talkative love comedies that aren’t actually all that funny. I think that his new style of handling love comedies is extremely well done with “Vicky Cristina Barcelona”. He needs more scene of men walking up to two women saying “I would like to make love with the two of you”. By the way, I can’t wait to see “Whatever Works”.

Alice in Wonderland (2010)

I hope Lewis Carroll turns around in his grave when he watches this version of his “Alice in Wonderland”. That was about the most idiotic story I have seen for quite awhile and its level of smartness would lie somewhere between Kanokon and Arina Tanemura manga if it were not for the absolutely brilliant Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter.

So let’s see, what did I like about the movie: The 3D effects which were fun to watch (although it was difficult to keep those glasses on my nose); some of the characters (namely the red queen, the white queen and the mad hatter) were quite original and amusing; the stylishness that comes with all Tim Burton films. I guess that’s it. Everything else was an immensely horrible downfall, let’s rank them from less bad to the worst:
– Alice is a freakin’ adult who behaves like a 10 year old
– The story was amazingly straightforward and ended with some fight with a monster (LOL)
– Alice is being helped by a bunch of animals (can it get even more clichéd than that?)
– Alice’s face was shown all the time and unfortunately the girl just cannot act
– Alice’s character is a wannabe modern girl
– After coming back to the real world, Alice ends up “believing in the impossible” and sailing out to do trading with China; I can’t think of any possible ending that is even worse than that; this movie fails both at politics and at picturing society. But then again, after watching this movie I’m supposed to believe the impossible after all. Maybe I should have gone for the Nobel Prize.
– There is no genuine feeling between the characters, and if you ask me, there was not remotely anything genuine about the film at all. It exuberated at stylishness, but there was no connection or any warmth in the film at all (think Korean animated movies). Every single smile in that movie was fake. On top of that, every scene was unfortunately accompanied by dramatic and overly emotional (not to say kitsch) music.

In the end, I hated this movie a little bit less than “Big Fish” because I am a horrible sucker for the “Alice in Wonderland” motif and because I admit I have loved Alice’s dresses, but can I please get my money back?

PS. I need to watch a smart movie… like right now.
PPS. After watching this movie, I feel like I have already forgotten how many wonderfully subtly intelligent movies Tim Burton has made – Ed Wood, Edward Scissorhands, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory… it’s really sad. But then again, I cringe when I think of Big Fish and I feel the same about Alice in Wonderland.

Alice in Wonderland (1903)

First of all, the newsletter said “Alice in Wonderland for FREE”, and then it turns out that the exact same version of the video is actually on Youtube. But hey, it never hurts to watch a legal version I guess.

At any rate, this movie was not as enjoyable as the first free movie I have seen on The Auteurs (namely “The Housemaid”), but it was a fun history lesson. “Alice in Wonderland” is the best book to make a movie out of after all, and this one is so cute in the way it’s old and people were so bad at film-making too. Compared to “A Trip to the Moon” just one year before, I think that the technique in Alice sucked a bit, even though they did quite an effort and obviously put a significant amount of money in this 10 minute long gem where all the Cheshire Cat was obviously the best actor of all of them, lol. (The cat is so great!)

The Shining

When I heard of Kubrick’s name for the first time during the anticipation of the release of A.I., I have already watched three of his movies: Lolita, Spartacus and Eyes Wide Shut. It took awhile to see his others, but ignoring his early obscure works, I only have Dr. Strangelove to watch. Since 6451 also recommended it to me, I can only hope that it won’t be a disappointment. (After all, I probably won’t exactly like “Lolita” if I watched it now.)
Yesterday, I had a short peek at what else he stuffed his HD with – his selection is awfully German, but there’s a lot of interesting stuff there.

“The Shining” is a masterpiece. At the same time, it’s so much of a cult movie that I was walking around telling people that I watched the film – and everyone had some comment to give to it, be it a reference to the Simpsons or an opinion on Kubrick’s films in general. I like when I can use the movies I watch as a smalltalk topic. It makes me feel more mainstream, but at the same time it makes me feel relieved that I don’t only watch obscure stuff, heh.

I’m pretty sure that I had nightmares after seeing this movie, which usually never happens to me. Maybe that is the reason why I like this movie so much: The atmosphere. After all, “The Shining” has nothing – the story is nothing special, there are barely any interesting plot twists, and that makes it really difficult to write about the film itself. But the atmosphere! I love the scenes where the loli twins appear and although I thought it looked like cranberry sauce, the blood-shedding door is just too stylish for its own good. I can see how the style of modern Asian horror movies is inspired from this film, and just show how influential Kubrick is yet again.

I’m completely addicted to “The Recluse” by Cursive now, but unfortunately it keeps me up from writing anything more on this movie. I mean, the song is about the exact opposite to the movie. There is nothing atmospherical about indie music (or most of it), but it’s addicting sometimes. “The Shining” makes me want to ignore it, but it just shows how impressive the film was.

Today, I spoke to Loris who mentioned how important the content of a film is to him. That is so weird, because I used to be like that too: The story and especially the dialogue were the most important. For him I know that it partially stems from his affiliation to the theater stage, and I understand that very well because I used to love theater plays too. But ultimately, that is not all for me now – films work differently than theater plays, and mise en scène for a film means so much more than “setting characters into place”. After seeing quite a few films now, I have become quite a visual person too now, and the reasons why I like “The Shining” or “The Limits of Control” so much mostly comes from the visuals: It’s about how the looks and the pace of the film create an intense atmosphere.

I completely failed at finding out what other films he has seen lately, but it seems at least he saw “Crimes and Misdemeanors”, “Husbands and Wives” and some Coen films like “The Big Lebowski”, their new “A Serious Man” and “Burn After Reading” (which he disliked because he found it too cynical – and oh my, that must mean it’s really cynical).

PS. Today, I also found out that there is a sex scene with Claudia Cardinale in “C’era una volta il West”. That makes me want to see the movie even more now. XD

The Limits of Control

“Two espressos in separate cups.” This is so Jarmusch, really. That line is the essence of the film. Actually his old films were not like that at all, I think that “Night on Earth” was the first episodic super-stylish Jarmusch, and the newer his films are, the more stylish and luxurious his films look like. I wonder if I mind that we have lost the raw, gritty Jarmusch of Permanent Vacation and Mystery Train, but I find myself loving his table shots (whether it’s coffee, fruits or a gun) and the fact that his characters are now walking through Hollywood-ish romantic places instead of poor American cities. He has kept his use of unusual, indie music and the panning shots through the city though, thank God.

Isaach de Bankolé has only one single facial expression in the movie. The dialogue is completely pointless and somewhat elitist and pretentious. Nothing really happens at all, and yet I find myself watching this movie instead of taking a nap. Just recently, I was saying that I found “Platform” to be too slow, but actually “The Limits of Control” is much, much slower. I can’t help but be fascinated by the film, even though theoretically it’s the exact opposite of films I like: I prefer films with some sort of meaning, a suspenseful story, lots of action, dialogues and fleshed out characters. None of these apply to “The Limits of Control”, and yet I am explicably drawn to the film.

More than anything else, I am in love with the details: The two espressos, the plastic raincoat, the matchboxes, Madrid, the recurring guitars, the carefully chosen interior architecture. (Even the train is stylish!) I am wondering how I would feel about seeing “Broken Flowers” again. I felt that “Broken Flowers” seemed weary and not very interesting, I even thought it was because Jarmusch got old. Perhaps he did with “The Limits of Control” even more, but at the same time, it feels so… contemporary? Incredibly beautiful? Unreal?

Coming back to the pretentiousness of the film: If it really were elitist and pretentious as a lot of critics seem to think, I would probably hate the movie. I have never seen Jarmusch as an elitist though, in fact I think he is much more real and down to earth than most others. His movies don’t, they just show details. People speak about ‘pretentious’ topics such as the universe, life and art in quite a confusing way, but all of them speak about themselves and their own impressions. It’s more about liking or not liking rather than what is good or real. Or the characters express a belief that doesn’t feel imposing but makes you think “Oh that’s an interesting way too see it, but I don’t see it that way”.
I have no idea whether it is the case or not, but I feel like Jarmusch’s films are so much more honest to himself than an elitist director could possibly be.

I thought that the name of the cinematographer sounded familiar, and oh my God, how familiar! Christopher Doyle made the most horrible Paris je t’aime part (Porte de Choisy), but also Three, Hero, Infernal Affairs, Chungking Express… I am amazed.

I love the scene where he goes into that underground bar-type thing. It’s a special scene, and somewhat cliché: The scene is in the middle of the movie, and it’s the only time when he actually does seem to show any feelings at all. He actually smiles!

Oh my God, why did I never go to the Reina Sofía? It has so many nice pieces.

I love the scene where he sits down in front of that completely pointless white piece of… art?, stands up and leaves. I liked how he opens his jacket to sit down, and it makes a lot of sense that he then changes back into his ‘normal self’ (or so I assume). Nevertheless, the whole part with Bill Murray was kind of boring though – that is the one part where the atmosphere of the movie didn’t do so much for me.

At the end of the day, I feel (or I fear!) that I like this movie because it’s a Jarmusch. Because I know what to expect in his movies and what not to expect, and perhaps I am on the same wavelength. Jarmusch is my Kundera in movies, except that Jarmusch doesn’t talk so much.

Platform

Quite awhile ago, Gorp asked me when I am going to dislike one of the films on the Monolith (my harddrive), all of which he gave me. Well, perhaps Platform is one. Just like „Springtime in a Small Town“, I find it difficult to describe whether I liked „Platform“ or not.

Let’s start with the bad parts of it: I have found the story, especially with its ending, to be incredibly unsatisfying. While I easily accept a non-existent ending in „The White Ribbon“, I have found it difficult for to do so for this film. After all, the whole story is about how the characters are evolving and what is going to happen to them in the end, but we don’t actually get to know much about it. I actually have cared for the flamenco dancing girl, but she just randomly disappeared into nowhere.
Then, I am still not a big fan of slow films, even though I have become much more forgiving than I used to. „Platform“ however, is just way too slow for its own good, or at least its slowness did not contribute too much to its atmosphere in my opinion. I think I would have held the film in much higher esteem if the pacing were more according to my tastes. „The White Ribbon“ also had its slow moments, but they never felt slow. „Platform“ was mostly boring.

Yet, I have to stress that „Platform“ has its moments – and there are quite a few of them. I would say about 10% of the film was absolutely gorgeous and interesting. The aforementioned flamenco scene is one of them, and the scene where the other girl dances alone in her room is another one. I liked the way pop music was integrated into the film very much, and I love the portrait of a generation changing throughout the years. Whenever we got a glimpse of that, I thought „Perhaps cinematography and directing are not so bad after all“.

Finally, I thought that „Platform“ said and showed a lot – just not enough, and left me incredibly unsatisfied at the end. In general though, I think that I am still interested in Zhang Jiake’s films and with the hope that the others won’t be SO slow paced (or at least slow paced and interesting in its slow pacedness), I wonder which title I should proceed with. „The World“? „Still Life“?