Category: Movies

Observations on film art is normally too sophisticated for me, for the same reason as Jonathan Rosenbaum’s is, because I have barely seen any of those films they are looking at. And for those that I have seen, I never got the impression they were that interesting (“Shutter Island” is a prime example). But they released these incredibly nice looking 10 best movies of past years, all of it being from the silent era.

I dug them up here, followed by the films mentioned in the posts I have actually seen (films in parenthesis are those which are not actually in the top 10s):
1917 – Straight Shooting
1918 – (Die Bergkatze)
1919 – Blind Husbands, (J’accuse – yup DB dislikes it like I do, albeit for somewhat different reasons than me)
1920 – Das Cabinet des Dr. Caligari
1921

I totally think that they are partial to certain filmmakers (DeMille, Lubitsch, Dreyer) but I suppose there is a good reason for that. Anyways, I want to see much much more.

Ace in the Hole

These days I actually have to write a lot, and when I am not in a writing mood I run havoc. I fear that it shows in the e-mails I wrote in the recent past, but oh well, such is life. Watching movies is different from writing about them though, so the Hanukkah candles are still in full progression.

All in all, I have mixed feelings about “Ace in the Hole”. On the one hand, this is totally not your typical Wilder movie. It is not as funny but at the same time also less dramatic than “Double Indemnity” or “Sunset Boulevard”. I wouldn’t even say the story is bad, but the whole film just feels less rounded than his others. Obviously every character in the film is questionable, and ultimately the film leaves you with a rather depressed feeling, which is totally not Wilder’s forte. I have to admit I didn’t quite enjoy seeing the film.

At the same time, “Ace in the Hole” also has no reason to hide. Some of the criticism against the film makes me rage and heightens my desire to defend the movie. I have to quote this one: “nothing more than a brazen, uncalled-for slap in the face of two respected and frequently effective American institutions – democratic government and the free press”. HAHAHA. I don’t know what I have more disdain for – the “democratic” American government or the “free” press. “Ace in the Hole” is depicting both in a quite a witty manner. I can’t believe somebody has ever gotten the Pulitzer prize for covering the event of some dude being trapped in a cave – how worthless are journalism prizes really? (This might apply to almost everything else, but I feel like in the case of literature/journalism it’s extremely bad.) “Ace in the Hole” mirrors certain rotten aspects of society in a way films rarely do, and I have to give it that.

Normally I’d say this is a film to see if you are a Wilder fan. In this case I don’t think that necessarily applies – this is nothing like “Some like it hot”. But it’s a solid film which turns an acceptable plot into something that is almost educational than just a story.

Trading Places

I consider the possibility that some John Landis movies could potentially be bad (though the premise to “Coming to America” sounds pretty awesome), considering how incredibly pointless his movies are. Some of those films are probably stupid and badly written, and consequently no fun at all. But right now, I have no idea whether this is the case because both “Blues Brothers” and “Trading Places” were awesome.

As far as I remember, my comment on “Blues Brothers” was pretty short, and so will be the posting on “Trading Places”. While a short blog posting is typically an indication for a bad movie, in this case it just means that “Trading Places” is a film you have to see, not really write about. The film is fast and funny, and had an amazing cast. But where is the point in detailing out how Aykroyd works perfectly as likable elitist schmuck and Eddie Murphy as random dude turned likable elitist schmuck? The film shows you everything you could want to see about the film. Everything else (like the comparison to Figaro using Mozart’s overture) can be found on Wikipedia. “Trading Places” scratches some socio-economical themes, but I wouldn’t take them too seriously – most of all, this is a light-hearted comedy. All I could add is that this is probably one of Jamie Lee Curtis’ most likable roles, and I was incredibly happy to see Ralph Bellamy (an old favorite) and Don Ameche paired together as evil amusing brothers. Just like “Blues Brothers”, this is an impressive feel good movie, the kind of thing I would suggest to be watched at the PIFF.

It is not too surprising that the Hanukkah movies this year have all been comedies so far, and they are all the laughing out loud types too. I won’t be able to keep that up, but so far it has been a great ride. I have seen quite a few great movies lately, but “Trading Places” is probably something like a personal favorite.

Raising Arizona

I think I am going to get into trouble with Loris for this. I just added “Raising Arizona” to be my third favorite Coen after “The Big Lebowski” (which will probably never be thrown over) and “True Grit” (a film which I loved for practically no good reason apart from the fact that I found it incredibly lovely), which places it before “No Country for Old Men”, their Oscar film, and other gems such as “Blood Simple” and “Barton Fink”. However, I have absolutely no idea how to logically justify that. I just think there is something special about “Raising Arizona” – it’s really, really funny, and more than any other Coen film, it had a positive, uplifting message. Every character is likable and unlike what a lot of critics wrote, I didn’t think the film was all that nonsensical and style-over-substance. Perhaps the characters weren’t the brightest in the world, but hey, which Coen brothers characters are?

I did think that the film had some pacing issues – some scenes were dragged out longer than necessary, other events happened way too fast. (Also, Frances McDormand’s role was way too small, ha ha ha.) As a piece of handiwork, I think that their first film, “Blood Simple”, is a much more accomplished piece of filmmaking in terms of storytelling and style. But “Raising Arizona” has its own merits, mostly of the kind that I cannot quite explain. The storyline is a little bit campy, but the lovely eccentric characters make up for it. I thought this was the film closest to “The Big Lebowski” in how it asks some grand question in quite a simple way and is similarly filled with quirky characters doing funny things.

Unlike most Coen films, “Barton Fink” being the best example, “Raising Arizona” is not the kind of film you can discuss at length. It’s largely an action movie and deals with comparably more simple truths than, say, “A Serious Man”. But personally, I was glued to the screen and thought such simplicity doesn’t make its story any less interesting. If I had to recommend one Coen film to other people, it would probably be this one.

Bridesmaids

As you can see, I changed my mind. As much as I am interested in all those lovely films which came out this year, Hanukkah starts exactly at December 20th and ends 8 days later. I thought that is the perfect time frame to be doing my “daily movie game” according to the Hanukkah days this year. In other words, this means films involving a Jewish producer and/or director. There is nothing as easy as finding 8 such movies, the list of Jewish directors reads like a who-is-who in the film industry.

“Bridesmaids” is the youngest film amongst the ones I chose, and as far as I can see, it is quite reflective upon our times. “The Notebook” aside (which really is a product of nostalgy for times which are now over), “Bridesmaids” shows modern women who struggle with fairly contemporary problems and whose friendships can’t just be taken for granted. Mostly, the film is great: The movie has some likable character such as the cute boy™, it looks absolutely splendid and it had so, so many funny scenes. I enjoyed this version of a girl movie which is not afraid of boldly talking about strange sexual practices (no woman in this world likes to have a penis stare at her, there is some universal truth revealed there) and showing women puking and crapping into luxury sinks. The film made me laugh out loud several times, and I thought its humor was likable and refreshing. This is definitely not a film just for girls, despite its title, and I have to give them that.

Of course “Bridesmaids” also had a few weaknesses: I thought the main character was rather annoying, and like every other chick flick in the world, this one just had to have a silly, stupid “let’s all love each other again” ending – topped with a shitty 80s song. And finally, I wished they had given some of the characters more screentime. Ultimately it was all about Annie and her fight with Helen, and while that drives the plot in an interesting way, I thought it was unfortunate how Annie almost did not communicate with the other bridesmaids at all; they were just comical relief really.

Perhaps this is not “Superbad” and perhaps I am nothing like the characters in the film, but the film was absolutely great. I wholeheartedly recommend it, and if it’s only because of its fresh perspective on the old marriage topic which has never been treated this way before.

El crimen del padre Amaro

A long time ago, when I was planning to watch all movies with my favorite actors in them, I have had “El crimen del padre Amaro” on my plans. Back in the day, I would probably have hated the movie for its formulaic character. Now, I think I have actually become less pressured to turn every single movie I watch into a mind-blowing experience, and sometimes it’s alright to see a film just to stare at Gael’s beautiful face.

As much as I thought “Amores perros” was a great movie, I never got behind the idea as to why GGB’s character was so incredibly in love with that girl who was boring, plain and even more lame than a typical damsel in distress. The girl in this film has much more character. Despite her piousness, she practically declared her love to a priest during confession. On top of that, I found the actress to be really pretty; that helped a lot I am sure. All in all, I thought that the two had great chemistry together, and that was perhaps one of the biggest benefits of the film.

Apart from that, “El crimen del padre Amaro” is a rather cheap melodrama – priest falls in love with girl, impregnates her and she dies at the attempt of aborting the child. Perhaps the original novel (which was actually portuguese) was better written and had richer side character contributing to the depiction of 19th century Portugal as a rotten society in which the church regularly abuses its power. But the film itself is not so worth it, apart from its pretty looks.

Copie Conforme

If there was a movie that I’d call “meta”, it’d be this one. The concepts of the film go beyond the borders, like a picture which is drawn out of its frame. (I want such a painting on my wall one day.) The film is just so much at the same time, similarly to “Close-Up” – the film talks about original art and its copy, about authenticity in a relationship and the question about which one is the copy, and finally the film is largely a “copy” of love films like “Before Sunrise”, or any of the other talkative French relationship dramas. On top of all of that, I recommended the film to the guy who comes closest to my experience with something like “Before Sunrise” and a crucial element of the discussion between the couple has practically happened to me when talking about the film. If this isn’t meta, what is?

Speaking of “Before Sunrise”, Gorp said the film was a mix of “Before Sunrise” and “Inception”, probably because it is a dialogue-heavy film focused on two characters talking to each other and at the same time, you never quite know what is real and what is not. But when I saw the film, “Mulholland Drive” came to mind because the two realities clash exactly in the middle of the film. There is a clear cut between the first part in which they appear to be strangers and the second part in which they appear to be a married couple. They almost do not transition from one extreme to the other at all, in fact the conversation with the waitress almost parallels the blue cube. The other one, “In the Mood for Love” feels almost obvious to me. Both “In the Mood for Love” and “Copie conforme” are about a love which, in some sense, cannot be achieved, in both cases couples role-play make-believe dialogue, and both films are heavily focused both on dialogue as well as on the facial expressions of the protagonists. This role-playing was precisely what fascinated me about “In the Mood for Love” and made it so special, and then here comes a movie which is entirely about make-believe dialogue. You can imagine how much I reveled in the film.

The internet is obviously full of people who didn’t get the film. Some say they are obviously strangers pretending to be a married couple, and some say the exact opposite. Somebody even brought up the idea that this stranger is a copy of the woman’s ex-husband (why would that be the case huh?) For me, the imagination that they could be something like both or, much more interestingly, neither, is much more interesting. Some Imdb person interpreted their relationship as the one of a married man and his mistress, and with that in mind, the film becomes even more painful. Although, a mistress has no right to complain about her man never being present, but even that could be explained. You could say that their role-playing allows them to say things which they cannot in the situation they are. As strangers, he can converse on a different level of politeness and perhaps even seduce her in a different way; and as a married couple, she can make all these complaints which you cannot as a mistress, and more importantly, she can treat the topic of her son in a way that puts her on equal level with the man.

It also doesn’t happen very often that a film is so casually and pleasantly trilingual. I love how the film starts with the two of them speaking English and throughout the film it is revealed that he also speaks both French and Italian. This is especially beautiful in the context of such (rather vapid) relationship talks, because it reminds me of how Loris and I switched to French when we were frustrated about the ongoing, never-ending conversation we had.
Gosh I *want* trilingual conversations now, ha ha ha. Loris should brush up his English.

Last time I heard of the film, Gorp said he wanted to re-watch it. Indeed, “Copie conform” has an incredible rewatching potential, and I too am seriously considering it. For me, even though I was so pleasantly surprised by “Close-up”, this is Kiarostami’s masterpiece.

Hugo

Unlike what the trailers suggest, I think “Hugo” is definitely not a kid’s movie. If I were, say, 7 or 8 years old, I probably would have been bored to death by it. The message of the film – nostalgy and a certain sadness about being somebody who is now “useless” – is something that I would totally not have been able to relate to as a child. When I was a child, I was convinced that everybody is worth something and nobody could possibly be useless, the simple notion of a “human without purpose” is incomprehensible to me. When I was small I also didn’t understand what “Jews” or “homosexuals” were, or why they were in any way different than “us”. Considering how large parts of “Hugo” were rather slow and sentimental, and were heavily focused on George Méliès, I think this film reeks of the handwriting of an old man who nostalgically pays tribute to the beginning of film.

To make the tribute perfect, it is no surprise that Scorsese leaves a lot of aspects in the film lacking substance. First of all, the biggest adventure the kids ever have in the film is how they sneak into a movie theatre. The film looks like there is some big mystery out there (they heart-shaped key, the automaton, who George Méliès is etc. etc.), perhaps even something supernatural happening, but at the end of the day, the outcomes are rather disappointing. The film also has exactly one character of note, Ben Kingley’s lovely George Méliès. Hugo doesn’t have any specific character traits and – worse of all – does not get any character development whatsoever, Isabelle is mostly just decoration and does nothing but support Hugo, so does Méliès’s wife with her broken husband. Everybody else – the inspector, the flower girl, other people, even professor Tabard – are just there somehow, these characters are just there to drive the plot or provide comical relief, without really saying or doing anything of note. I am also quite convinced that I do not like this “everybody has a purpose!” kind of philosophy. Both Hugo and Isabelle ask themselves this rather important question, but they never come to a conclusion. It seems almost like these two children were only there to selflessly serve Méliès to find back to his films. (Incidentally, they have to overcome Méliès’s unfriendliness too, like children often have to in movies like this.)

But then again, as a tribute to early films, I think that the film was absolutely wonderful. I don’t think I have seen a film this beautiful in a long, long time. There are many ways a film can be beautiful, and perhaps I am comparing apples with oranges, but optically I’d say “Hugo”, with its 1930’s Paris, lush colors and clichéd Frenchness, is exactly what I am into. I want to dress like the characters in the film and live in a world where clocks must be winded, where train stations are housing toy shops, and where romantic cafés are frequented by regulars. I actually have to admit that I might like berets partially because of the cultural cliché, because it is reminiscent of Paris (where I actually never wore a beret).

As much as I have hated the one-dimensionality of most characters, I find the portrait George Méliès gripping and full of emotions. The realism with which he is described is quite wonderful, and I like how Scorsese researched his life properly, without altering much. It was lovely to see Méliès’s story come to life, and I strongly sympathized with him and his immense creativity, which I too want to see appreciated.

If you want to see a single 3D movie, then “Hugo” might be a good one to go with. It’s a love story to old movies in 3D – how awesome is that?

Como agua para chocolate

Recently, I read an article on how the problem with mistresses is that there are no greeting cards for them. Indeed, society makes a point about shunning them, no matter what reason there may be for you to be one. Considering that mistresses are typically given the harshest punishment possible – a child who is acknowledged as such, and raised in a “normal” family – it is a shame that they do not get more recognition, and therefore it is no surprise that a mistress is considered a dangerous rival to the throne of marriage, because attempting to lure the guy away from his wife and into a new marriage with her is apparently what such a mistress has to do if she wants her greeting card. Perhaps relationships would indeed be a little easier if there was some sort of acceptance for these people in ethically questionable relationships, but of course that is not the source of the problem. (And no, misogyny is also not the source of the problem – that can easily solved by coining a term for “mistress male version” and treating them exactly the same way as their female counterparts.)

The entire conflict in “Como agua para chocolate” is based on the silly family tradition that the youngest daughter is not allowed to marry, in a very similar fashion to the “Makioka Sisters”, where the silly family tradition consists of the fact that a younger sister cannot be married unless her older sister is married. While the “Makioka Sisters” emphasizes on the relationship between the sisters, “Como ague para chocolate” is mostly a love story and even has one absolutely evil character, the mother. We don’t see Pedro that much, but nevertheless he is what Tita’s world is revolving around, so in some sense he is always there. So far, so simple.

What makes the film special is everything around it – the splendor of the food presented, the supernatural occurrences in the form of the mother and the nanny, and – uh – the sex scenes. The film is strangely sensual, which is beautiful and a little disturbing at the same time. I liked the natural way the film was showing human bodies (how Spanish/Latin American that is!) but at the same time I thought the scene in which her naked silhouette was walking towards his was… odd.
The most stunning part of the film were the soft visuals and the depiction of food. Oh wow it would have made me incredibly hungry if I hadn’t watched the film while eating. At the same time, I have not seen a single tortilla in the entire film which makes me wonder what kind of Mexican food they are preparing there.

Being a woman, I found it very easy to relate to the film yet its supernatural and downright strange plot mostly made me go “huh?” I heard of the film from two people, one of which recommended it to me. In retrospect, that was actually quite surprising because the only other films I remember he liked were musicals, “Jarhead” and “Letters from Iwo Jima”. It was as if Loris told me about a chick flick he liked (not gonna happen). In essence, if you want to see a really, really strange chick flick, this film is the way to go.