Category: Movies

The Pianist

The year is almost over and I have no idea what you guys watched these days (except for Shii who kindly told me what he is seeing at this year’s Viennale). Other than that, my recommendations list from you guys is shrinking and nothing much is being added to it. OK, I admit it’s shrinking very, very slowly but some progress actually happens!

“The Pianist” is one of these films which I planned to see when it came out (oh God that was 2002) and now, 12 years later, I finally came around to do so, but only because the movie was conveniently on Netflix. Unlike most other films I see (hello “10 things I hate about you”), I think that my enjoyment of “The Pianist” is pretty independent of my current life situation. It’s one of those utterly universal films, a glimpse in history which deals with nothing else but the most general human condition. I probably would have liked the movie just as much at age 18 or at age 38.

With that said, the first part of the film was absolutely unbearable. While the family was still alive, everything was just so damn tragic. Ironically, it was only after Szpilman lost almost everything that his suffering seemed easier to bear for me as a viewer. I knew that he was a real person who was survived the holocaust, so the movie became a little less scary after he actually had nothing to lose anymore. We also saw significantly less human interaction with the Germans later in the film, while the first part showed a lot of suffering people. (That woman who killed her crying baby so it won’t give away her position, that one is haunting me more than it would have at age 18, I admit that.)

The only thing that struck me as slightly odd in the film was how every woman apart from Szpilman’s family was blonde and stylish – heck I thought Dorota and Regina were the same person, that’s how similar they looked to me. In general, I was a little taken aback by how overstyled the movie was, but at the same time it actually made the movie look great.

Polanski is kind of like Gus van Sant – he can do blockbuster and he can do small indie-ish films. For Polanski I think I prefer his early and late work over his famous Hollywood films, and for Gus van Sant I prefer his big name films like “Good Will Hunting”. Overall, “The Pianist” is pretty much just as awesome as I expected.

10 things I hate about you

If there is something I love in life, it’s a film that blows my mind. I saw a lot of very nice films recently and in fact, I think it’s been quite awhile since I encountered a real dud – life is just too short for real duds. “10 things I hate about you”, however, is one of those rare cases where I expected a nice evening and then ended up with tears of laughter or nostalgy, I couldn’t even distinguish between those anymore.

My excitement for the film was so strong that Pixelmatsch ended up watching the film on the same day, and it was fun to hear his comments on some of the jokes just two hours or so after I saw them. Who would have thought that teenage comedies can be so witty and so much fun. Nowadays they don’t make these comedies as much anymore, and they also don’t look the same. There is something refreshingly outdated in the 2000’s style these kids were dressed in, and the tummy-showing shirts fondly remind me of my own youth. (I recently threw away a few shirts that show your navel when you put up your arms, and realized that I don’t fit into any of my miniskirts from the time anymore. Now my style is distinctly mid-2010s mid-20s and much more cutesy.) Just like those people who revel in their 80s youth, I secretly laugh at everything that screams 2000s yet I would defend it against any of those other generations. “10 things I hate about you” is an example of that time which I somehow saw 15 years too late, but I am so glad I saw it now that much time has passed since my own teenage years.

Even if you hate teenage comedies and find the 2000s style ridiculous, the film still stands on its own. It features an absolutely lovely Heath Ledger and an awesome Julia Stiles, along with many genuinely witty lines and a fun story. OK maybe “wit” is subjective and it just so happens that I found the film very funny. Nevertheless, I love this movie to pieces and I would want to watch it again and again.

Secretary

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

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

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

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

Mine Vaganti

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

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

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

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

Jack goes boating

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maleficent

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

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

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

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

The Prince

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

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

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

Damsels in Distress

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

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

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

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

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