About Chocolate Parfaits

Heaven

I still doubt that I will put Tom Tykwer onto my directors list, even though by now I have seen 5 of his films. I wonder if there is any other filmmaker for which this applies, someone who made a lot of stuff I watched but some reason has never actually been that interesting to me.

The strange thing about “Heaven” is that it really is some sort of allegory. Perhaps this is true for almost all Kieslowski films (except for “Amator” which I love), but the people in his stories are never a specific person, they are almost creepy that way. Each one of these people always stand for something greater and bigger, rendering them practically faceless. Every Kieslowski film asks a question or portrays a certain deeper existential dilemma such that the players in such stories always appear a little bland in order to represent that kind of universal humanity. Strangely enough, as much as I love characters, I also have a big love for allegories and parables. “Huozhe” should be viewed as a parable and while the main character does have a few character traits, it’s not the focus of the film. He’s totally an everyman, but the film is not about who or what he is, but what is happening to him. Similarly, the characters in “Heaven” make their own decisions, but it’s always in the bigger scheme of things.

The slightly more confusing thing about “Heaven” is that its purpose is a little harder to grasp this time. Sure, we have all those Kieslowski elements with love and morals and sins, but while each of the Kieslowski films I have seen so far has been representing something rather clear – grief, emotional detachment, jealousy etc. etc. – “Heaven” is a big question mark which looks and feels like a Kieslowski film. From a purely logical standpoint, the film doesn’t really make sense. So she is horrified about what she did, yet she runs away until the very end of the film, dragging a young, innocent boy with her? How is that love? Or redemption? All of that is easily forgotten with the calm music, the beautiful shots of Italian architecture and countryside and finally Cate Blanchett and Giovanni Ribisi’s stunning portrayal of a troubled couple that simply loves each other. With each minute, the film looks and feels more like a paradise detached from the world, and the characters literally ascend to heaven at the end. When thinking about that in retrospect, it seems strange, but while I was watching it, I was smitten with its poetic atmosphere.

Oh yeah, I am also strangely into Ribisi’s innocent looks. The role fits him so perfectly? It’s just like how Julie Delpy’s looks are perfect in “Three Colors White” yet that role is probably a big exception in her filmography. “Heaven” only works because Filippo’s love for Philippa is believable and acted out in such a pure, almost otherworldly way.

I wish Kieslowski had been alive to make the trilogy himself, but Tom Tykwer actually did quite a good job replacing him. Ahh I want to see the other two parts of the trilogy as well!

Ran

For some reason I am always exactly 2 movies behind in my blogging backlog. Well, “Ran” is not exactly easy to write about, even though the story itself is rather straightforward.

There is something fascinating about Shakespearean stories, namely the fact that I almost never get bored of them. Even though I practically know “Midsummer night’s dream” and “Romeo and Juliet” by heart, I could watch them over and over again and be entertained yet again every single time. In fact, I feel like I discover something new every time I see them, just like my impression of “The Dreamers” changes with every next viewing. Different adaptations and media formats spice the whole thing up even further, making me completely forget that I am dealing with a story I know fairly well. Almost any story becomes more interesting with Shakespearean elements (think “House of Cards”).

Similarly, there were no big surprises in “Ran”. Everybody has to die (more or less, I suppose) but it is the process of getting there which gets the viewer interested. Similar to “Seven Samurai”, “Ran” is a study in humanity, showing off some of the ugliest and deepest sides humans have to offer. That was what made the first 45 minutes of the film so powerful – the strong characterization of all the players involved, culminating in a dramatic battle scene which, incidentally, looked almost poetic in the way it showed more dying or dead people than actual fighting. It’s a tragic massacre and looked very powerful as such.

It is only afterwards that the film started to drag a little bit. Without a doubt, “Ran” is a long film, but after having gone through all the characters’ exposition and seeing the dramatic centerpiece of the film, I expected more to happen. Since the beginning of the film was structured almost like a play, I thought “Ran” had a few pacing issues towards the middle, and it was only when the last battle in the film came up that I felt fully involved in the film again. The last battle was intense and finally made all the characters confront each other.

When faced with an almost 3 hour film, I typically expect myself to watch parts of it, and then resume the rest on some later day. “Ran” was suspenseful and gripping enough to make me want to watch everything, despite having been tired even before starting the film. The film is more interesting than most Kurosawa films, and its cinematography is probably the best amongst his films I have seen yet. While Kurosawa never reaches the visual beauty of Teshigahara or even Ozu, I thought than “Ran” was beautifully crafted.

2 Days in New York

Back in the day, whenever I watched a film with Pip I ended up. It was the case with “Juno”, but I am surprised to see that it is apparently also the case with “2 Days in Paris”. I remember the film vividly and I could have sworn that I wrote at least a few lines or so about the meaningfulness of its last lines.

“2 Days in New York” is not just one of those cases where the sequel is worse. It’s way more than that – it’s a case where the sequel is practically destroying everything that was good in the first film. Just take aforementioned deeper meaning of the last lines. She basically makes a (seemingly wise) laudatio to relationships, and how in the end she realized that she truly wanted the relationship she had. Incidentally, “2 Days in New York” starts off with her impressively lame break-up from this carefully built up relationship, voiding everything she said in the previous film.

In the New York film, we get another one of these meaningful quotes, except now it’s all about sticking to your family. But there are some differences. While “Paris” showed that their relationship was somehow worth having, “New York” was all about how worthless her family is. So we get a 2 minute long dramatic scene in which her family tries to save her life – and that suddenly gets rid of all their problems? That was almost as bad as in the couple’s reconciliation in “Viaggio in Italia”. A simple emotional moment may make you forget about your deeper problems for a minute, but that doesn’t change them fundamentally.

The entire depiction of Marion’s family is so unfortunate because Chris Rock is playing a perfectly cool guy who has amusing imaginary conversations with Obama when he’s frustrated. His comparable levelheadedness provides much of the lightheartedness the film needs. Unlike Adam Goldberg’s cynical, negative character, Chris Rock’s character is a keeper and would have permitted a relationship based on true understanding – not just some spur of the moment get-together. Julie Delpy’s character never actually learns anything, and the film practically resolves in some emotional deus ex machine, very much unlike “Paris” where the conclusion of the film made sense.

At this point, it is probably needless to say that I didn’t think the film was funny. “Paris” was mostly based on misunderstandings and actual cultural differences, “New York” suddenly turned French people into irresponsible, childish jerks which, honestly, I don’t think has anything to do with culture. Perhaps French people do enjoy vulgar sex jokes more (I can actually get behind that cliché, although back in the day I thought Parisian college kids were simply more immature than us), but is smoking pot in the elevator, using other people’s toothbrushes without asking and fighting over breakfast croissants a cultural thing? I have never seen actual French people do any of that. Unfortunately, none of that is funny.

On a much more amusing side note, Daniel Brühl was in the film for like… 15 seconds? He didn’t even communicate with the characters or anything, he was just some random guy on TV (and happens to be the same guy who was in “2 Days in Paris” as well).

Sometimes I like to watch sequels just because I really liked the original film. In those situations my expectations are typically rather low and my verdict ends up being “ah, well of course I preferred the first one, but this one’s fine”. In this case, “2 Days in New York” is way below any low expectations I could have had. Please forget this film has ever happened. I pray that Ethan Hawke and Richard Linklater had enough positive influence on Julie Delpy to turn “Before Midnight” into a success.

Young Adult

I feel reminded of “Elizabethtown” at times. In the Hollywood world, the “person goes back to hometown” premise somehow always involves a serious backstory and some almost tear-jerking drama, at least there will be tears for the main character in question. (Does this mean “Sweet Home Alabama” is serious too? Hmmm, probably not.) I expected a fluffy, cute rom-com with “Elizabethtown” but instead got Susan Sarandon tap-dancing in the honor of her dead husband. That was quite a surprise! With “Young Adult”, I was significantly less surprised even though I decided to watch the film after seeing the trailer, which totally suggests otherwise. Somehow my gut feeling told me that Charlize Theron’s main character is in for a lot of misery, and that this will not always be funny.

More precisely, the film is never really funny at all. If there is any black humor in this film, I don’t quite see it. There is no English word for “Fremdschämen” (to be embarrassed for what somebody else does) nor the word “Schadenfreude” (well the English word for that is schadenfreude). I am surprised that fremdschämen never got picked up as a term, as its context very well exists in the Anglosaxan culture (think “Curb your enthusiasm”). Mavis is a perfect example of that. I think the film got its message just right – we feel terrible for what she does and feel the aforementioned schadenfreude when things don’t go the way her selfish mind wants. I never thought the film was depressing – maybe the main character was depressed, but for us as the audience, there is this constant feeling that the bitch deserves it. At the same time we care about her, we are intrigued by her deep characterization, we want to know why she became that way (well, the miscarriage explains a few things later on, but never why she was a terrible, whoring high school bitch in the first place) and we are anxious whether she ever is able to get out of her life pattern. If anything, “Young Adult” is a wonderful character study, with Mavis being one of the most interesting protagonists I have seen in awhile. Ever since “Monster”, I have loved Charlize Theron’s acting and she does it again in this film.

Nevertheless, there is a bitter aftertaste left in my mouth when I see the film as a whole. As much as I think that the portrayal of Mavis is marvelous, I am doubtful of the portrayal of the city people itself. First of all, everybody besides Patton Oswalt’s character is awfully boring and stereotypical. As such a stereotype, the film gives you the impression that everybody is an idiot in high school and needs to grow up into something like the Buddy-Beth couple, with their baby and their small town happiness. Sure, you have no business barging into another happy couple’s relationship, especially with a new baby. But does it make that happy couple any better? The film shows us many aspects of why a small town like that is rather despicable (Mavis’ parents are absolutely unsupportive, the town is gossiping about Mavis, Beth shows pity towards Mavis but not much consideration), yet it makes sure that everyone in the small town, including Mavis’ own parents, can continue living on happily ever after. Normally I say “live and let live”, but in this case I am not sure. Sure, looking at Mavis with pity and disdain is probably well-deserved, but simply taking into account Matt’s perspective shows how shallow these small town people are after all. They are not a bunch of innocent lovelies whose paradise need to be protected, yet the film is doing precisely that. This odd ambiguity about the townspeople make me wonder about the film, and thus like it much less than “Juno” where pretty much everybody evolved into something better.

As always, the star of this film is the little dog. Actually I thought it died of negligeance for a second, but boy am I glad he didn’t. Overall, I am not surprised that “Young Adult” is Jason Reitman’s least successful film so far. It has a wonderful main character and its story is well-written, but some things just don’t really add up. This may be personal, but I can never fully endorse nor like a film which celebrates small town mentality. (Fine, “Groundhog Day” may be an exception but that film is just too delightful and cute.)

PS. Sigh, I wish I could write like James Poniewozik. I also would like to watch movies on the job.

Gigante

Netflix lists the film as “Latin American Film” and does not provide any more information whatsoever. They are so shameless! Normally you’d think someone would watch it or at least read the summary in order to add at least the most basic tags to the film, such as “romantic” or “funny” or “independent”. That should be fairly easy to find out?

In fact, “Gigante” is not much more than that. It’s a film shot on the cheap but with oh so much love. I feel that the director used what little he had to make the best out of it, using creativity and an artistic eye to offset the low budget he had to work with. Don’t get me wrong, the film is far from looking artsy or avant-garde in any sense, perhaps apart from the fact that the storyline progresses slowly. It’s a perfectly unpretentious little film, about a stalker who, instead of appearing as creepy, is just a nice but extremely shy guy. He’s not the kind who is bitter about being in the friends zone, or complaining about not having a girlfriend, or thinking of women as lesser beings who need to be pampered and protected. All he does is to come to like a woman and spends most of the 90 minutes in the film mustering up the courage to talk to her. The slow progression of the film allows us to see his everyday life pattern and how he truly is a simple and kind-hearted guy. It is perhaps the purity of this one-sided love that makes the film so pleasant and I cannot help but root for its main character.

The director also has a nice eye for composition. He especially seems to like symmetry, which gives the film a calm and clean feeling and almost makes you forget that you are dealing with a low budget film. If anything, I am sure the director spent a lot of time devising and filming “Gigante”.

Just from its description, I would not have picked the movie. The reason I have even considered watching this film is that it ran as a competition entry at the Berlinale and was an audience favorite. I figured there must be something great about the film, and I am glad that I finally saw it. “Gigante” is the kind of obscure film that has a hard time getting more known but oh it would deserve it so much. At least it got a few awards. Unfortunately awards won’t tell you what a sweet, funny movie this is. It’s perfect for enjoying a relaxed evening with friends.

Drei

I have no intention to add him to my directors page though. I think that “Lola rennt” is great and I thought “Drei” was interesting, but that is not enough. The directors page lists I am keeping an eye out for, where at least one work makes me want to see more of what he or she has done, and to list works I want to see next. Of course I also love to rank films (though in the case of Tom Tykwer it’s fairly easy: Lola rennt, the Faubourg St-Denis segment in Paris je t’aime, Cloud Atlas, Drei, The International), but that is not the main purpose of the list.

Amongst everything I have seen by Tom Tykwer so far, “Drei” is the most artsy one. It’s clearly meant for a small audience and while the direction and storytelling are interesting, it was not made to be expensive or reach a big audience. That gives Tom Tykwer a bit of the artistic freedom he direly needs, but unfortunately also makes him a little indulgent in the intellectualism. I have previously mentioned how I dislike it when French films are overly intellectual, with all the dreaded name-dropping of great thinkers and artists. It is painful to listen to the pseudo-philosophical nonsense the female main character has to spout in her job, and I am sure the film could easily have done without that.

However, that “Drei” suffers from this intellectualism is the main reason I am not able to fall in love with this film completely. Perhaps there is one more reason, namely the female character. Sophie Rois has an absolutely annoying voice, and while her face has a certain charm to it, as soon as she distorts her face it makes you wonder what any of those men see in her. The men are the exact opposites – they may not be Brad Pitt, but when they smile at each other you can see where the chemistry is coming from.
With that said, I am glad that the film is not only about relationships, or even the amusing triangle they got themselves into. The crucial scene in which the triangle is revealed happens only at the very end, and it is pleasant to see that the film does not decide to condemn such a triangle to self-destruction. (Perhaps this is the only film besides “Design for Living” that gives a positive outlook for these films without being completely vapid.) Most of the movie itself is not about a love triangle. There is none of your typical jealousy and hysteria, heck they don’t even know they are in a love triangle in the first place. Instead the movie focuses on the very basic issues in life – giving birth, dying of cancer, patchwork families, growing older… it’s quite an ambitious piece, and I think it addresses them fairly well. I also like how the characters are not being judged and live a surprisingly ‘normal’ life. It is pleasant to see a man who is separated but good friends with the mother of his teenage child, and the film offers a thoughtful exposition into the characters’ lives to make it sound plausible how and why they would choose to enter love affairs. The film never seems to judge over the characters, and makes it so you never feel tempted to do so either. Surprisingly enough the characters are actually likable.

Also, the movie features an incredible amount of Berlin porn. Maybe one reason to like Tom Tykwer is the way he portrays the city – in comparison to that even Woody Allen is totally lame. Tom Tykwer’s Berlin is much more diverse than Woody Allen’s New York City, and much more personal than any of the other European cities Woody Allen has tried to portray when he was traveling around. Overall it’s a lovely film – even if you couldn’t get behind the story and its mildly black humor, it would still be worth it for the portrayal of Berlin.

The Woman in the Window

Recently it seems like my blog postings have become longer. When I compare that with some of my older postings, which I revisit when the occasion presents itself, I always feel like I used to have nothing about films. Now, even when I know that I don’t actually have much to say, I still end up writing lots. That is a bad sign.

“The Woman in the Window” is another film which you shouldn’t say too much about. The film itself is interesting, suspenseful and led by a great actor to incorporate the main character. Oh, and the woman is absolutely stunning – I don’t understand why Joan Bennett is not a major star. But I suppose most actresses in film noirs aren’t. All in all, that is all you need to know about the film. If you like film noirs, this is a quintessential one. I read somewhere that this is the movie which basically coined the term film noir, I am actually not surprised. There are some elements ‘lacking’ in this film to be a stereotypical film noir (namely the conniving evil intent of the femme fatale character), but overall this film seems to be for film noir what “It happened one night” was for screwball comedies. It’s where the genre is still trying to define itself.

Much more importantly, this film marks the first time in years I have seen a Fritz Lang movie. That is even more shocking since “M” is amongst my favorite films, yet the slight disappointment of “Metropolis” and my general aversion against films I consider old-fashioned kept me up from watching anything else he did. Against my better knowledge, I also always associate Lang with the 20s and early 30s, completely forgetting that his film noirs are famous too. It may even be possible that “Le Mépris” contributed to my impression that Fritz Lang makes ‘out-dated’ movies. “The Woman in the Window” shows that this is the case only on a superficial level. Maybe the storytelling in the film is very classic, but it is the one that others have imitated after all.

Concerning the title of this review, the ending was so dumb it’s almost hilarious, not even the little twist with the club employees can possibly change that. Without a doubt it would have been better if they had kept the tragic ending, but I don’t blame them for trying to escape censorship, even though the attempt is a rather silly one.

I definitely want to see “Scarlet Street” now. Lang’s films are never the personal type which touches me on some emotional level (like “Drugstore Cowboy” did), but it is certainly an example of fine storytelling and intense suspense.

Drugstore Cowboy

First of all, did you know that they have a dog award at the Cannes Festival? I learned about it when I was researching “Le Havre”. In the worst pun in the world, they call it the “Palm Dog”. (The Berlinale should come up with a feline performance award, that’s right. And call it the “Bearcat Award”.) Anyways, Panda is about the greatest detail in the world, and so amazingly cute. I want a dog like that! In that single scene with Panda, the tone of sadness in the film reaches its climax. It is also beautiful that the following scene is so humorously absurd, juxtaposing the two main elements of the film – whimsical humor and buried despair. I guess you should call that gallows humor, but that’s not really it. It’s not like the one comes out of the other, they exist simultaneously next to each other in this film.

In many ways, I suppose you can perceive “Drugstore Cowboy” as the preparation for “My Private Idaho”; both films feature young gang members or drifters who are somewhere on the lower end of the social classes, not knowing what to do with themselves. Mood and style are similar, and in both cases the melancholy in the film foreshadows a sad ending.

“My Private Idaho” was not the only comparison which came to mind. Some guy on Imdb drew some parallels between “Drugstore Cowboy” and “Twin Peaks”. The guy is mostly bringing up details, although Heather Graham and Grace Zabriskie are certainly pretty good reminders. What I thought was most striking is the superstition of the main character, their intense belief that something supernatural is somehow governing our world and that the circle of life will be closed (in some sense).

Oh by the way, I actually really liked those little Alphaville-style inserts – a flying hat or some flying guns as “intermission pictures” are not exactly what I am expecting from Gus van Sant. That is not the only thing slightly different from the other Gus van Sant stuff I have seen – this is definitely the only one without any gayness. Even “Elephant” had some elements in it, but “Drugstore Cowboy” comes completely without.

Besides the fact that I was confronted with a 20 years younger Harry Morgan (as suspicious but then caring policeman), “Drugstore Cowboy” was quite a pleasant surprise. I liked it much more than any other early Gus van Sant film I have seen, mostly because it’s a lot like “My Private Idaho” just without the Shakespearean talking and a more blues-y soundtrack.

Planet of the Apes

My personal history with the franchise of the “Planet of the Apes” is strictly tied to Tim Burton and Mark Wahlberg’s three nipples. More precisely, I last encountered the franchise when I was at the Tim Burton exhibition of the MoMA, where I was baffled at how the style of the film fits into the Tim Burton universe at all. Certainly “Planet of the Apes” looks like lame Hollywood fare. Despite being widely popular, normally Tim Burton retains a certain artsy strangeness which I thought was totally lacking in “Planet of the Apes”. The first time I learned about the film was when it came out, during a time I was regularly reading girl’s magazines, one of which claimed that Mark Wahlberg had three nipples. In retrospect, I feel extremely silly for remembering that. (I still love magazines though, except that I have shifted to things geared towards my age group and more focused on special interests I have. I certainly am not reading Cosmopolitan.)

So my expectations were very low. In comes Netflix which is taking down things again and the fact that my last venture into classic science fiction I have never seen was extremely successful. (Remember RoboCop?) I may have wanted to experience something like that again, even though I didn’t actually believe in it. When I think of old science fiction films, I expect something as stupid and vapid as “The day the earth stood still”. I want to forgive the film for being old, but the truth is that there were plenty of smart, complex films made before 1951, so there is no excuse. “RoboCop” and “Planet of the Apes” are probably forever changing it. As long as you don’t expect the intellectual heights of “1984” and are aware that you are dealing with Hollywood and not Tarkovsky, these films are surprisingly thoughtful. “Planet of the Apes” started off rather slow, but by the time they actually met the apes, I thought the story was extremely suspenseful and interesting. The entire concept of apes trying to avoid their demise by containing and dumbing down humans is so lovely, and also allows for a reasonable, complex villain.

With that said, the beginning may be slow, but it was also very beautifully shot. I was a little put off by the silly music they were playing, but I concede that it actually contributed to the atmosphere of the film and showcases the splendid landscape shots rather nicely. If I hadn’t felt so impatient for some action, I probably would have enjoyed the beauty of the first 15 minutes very much.

The only downside of the film is the girl really, she had nothing to do there whatsoever. Perhaps she is just a reminder that we are dealing with a Hollywood film here, and rule no.1 of any Hollywood film is a pretty girl.

The only dangerous thing about watching a film in a franchise is that in case you liked it, you always want to watch more. It’s like that for “Alien” (I still haven’t seen any of the other films though) and now I am feeling that for “Planet of the Apes”. Oh no.