About Chocolate Parfaits

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.

Jewel Robbery

But I understand what it is for “Jewel Robbery”, which is comparable (actually inferior) to “Trouble in Paradise” on so many levels, but when it comes to the pre-Code controversy, I’d agree that it’s definitely more shocking than Lubitsch’s masterpiece. I have to say that I pretty much completely agree with Jonathan Rosenbaum’s comments on the film. I know that I might be overreacting to Roger Ebert’s almost mainstreamishly bad research these days, but I cannot say often enough how much I appreciate Jonathan Rosenbaum’s knowledge on films. I might have a hard time following his ideas because he cross-references too many films I have never seen, but he never pretends to know more than he does.

Apart from what Jonathan Rosenbaum has detailed out with many words, I personally think that no good review can possibly replace seeing. It reminds me of German novels. I noticed that in a lot of these novels, characters are described in great detail – how their eyes and ears are shaped, what kind of posture they take when they are sitting, but for some reason it’s never possible to have a clear image despite the seemingly accurate description. In the same way, JR’s article tells you many things, but there are so many more levels and aspects to a film which go beyond what you can say in a review or an essay, just like any description of a face cannot capture it in its complexity.

My favorite detail in “Jewel Robbery” was Kay Francis’s finger movement when her lover walked in and kissed her hand. She was coquetting with him (and literally everybody else there), making a “come here” move with one finger. It was quite splendid to look at, and I think I have never quite seen anything like that before. Everything else about the film was mostly raunchy fun (more than any graphic sex scene could do) and lots of marijuana. In that respect, it was quite special, but in most aspects, I’d say I totally prefer “Trouble in Paradise”, and I am fascinated by these pre-Code films. Is there any way a woman can look more sexy than this?

My desire for more jewel thief stories is now fulfilled, but I’ll gladly see another one if it falls into my hands.

Save the Green Planet

I think it’s been almost a year since I started seeing this film, but I just couldn’t get through it. There are some films I have blogged about but have not seen in total, like “Salò”, but I still feel like I have seen enough to say something about it. It’s not like I am being Roger Ebert saying something like “I don’t think you need to see Tropa de Elite, I assume it’s the same thing as Tropa de Elite 2” – oh gosh.

However, I have a certain inexplicable fascination with “Salò”, like everybody does I suppose, but much less so with “Save the Green Planet”. Let me mention its good points first: I thought it was incredibly well-done, well-crafted, well-acted – everything about the film screams high quality to you, even though it was apparently also done on the cheap. I thought this is quite impressive considering the high amount of decent-looking CG and post-processing. I thought all the actors in the film were splendid, especially Shin Ha-kyun who is one of the reasons why I watched the film in the first place.

Sadly, that is it. The film was a recommendation from quite a bunch of people from the Korean Blogathon back then, and now I have to question these people’s tastes quite seriously. Or rather, I don’t know who they are and now I am even less inclined to find out. “Save the Green Planet” is advertised as a black comedy, or must at least have some comical elements in it. I thought “The Host” was funny, even though it wasn’t quite advertised as a comedy, but this film is practically the opposite. It’s downright painful. Everything about the film is excruciatingly sad, I thought it was so unbearable I stopped watching. Later on, I wanted to know what it was all about, skimmed through the middle part and watched the end… The film brought out literally every single cliché about evil humans, from starving African kids to concentration camps. It’s even claiming that only humans are cruel animals out there, in how they kill each other and oppress others for their own benefit. I am pretty sure that quite a lot of animals do exactly the same thing, if not even “worse”. Bottom line: The plot of the film is rather stupid, amazingly sad and seems to have no value whatsoever.

Next time, please somebody recommend a good Korean movie to me. Thanks.

Spellbound

Today, Loris has complained a little bit about how I have not updated my blog in awhile. I have been busy. Now, truth to be told, I wasn’t technically busy (though I am indeed behind with some of my work), it’s rather that I have not been in the mood of writing blog postings. At the same time, of course, the clock is ticking, and I feel like I have already forgotten half of “Spellbound” already, so I should better say what I remember about it.

Writing a blog post late has the benefit that by this time, I have typically figured out what I truly found memorable about a film. It’s just like listening to an album a second time – most often the experience is entirely different. I rarely re-watch a film, but I do think about films differently when it’s been a week or so. For example, I almost fell asleep back when I saw “Menschen am Sonntag”, but somehow elements of the film still remain fresh in my memory, and I have a tender fascination for it. “Spellbound” is also perhaps one of Hitchcock’s more memorable films, especially for the dream sequence.

In fact, I saw the dream sequences several times in museums, whenever there was some Dalí exhibition around, and now I finally got around to see it in the context of the original movie. Considering that everything in the dreams are ultimately explained by the story, I have to admit that the mystery and ambiguity that comes with most of Dalí’s work has gotten destroyed a little. Being able to understand our dreams fully is mere wishful thinking, and only a Hitchcock movie allows you to do that without being completely ridiculous. As a storytelling device, I thought the dreams were quite lovely and almost felt a little short. I totally wanted to see more of it.

Apart from the dream sequence, the film was typical Hitchcock – a suspenseful thriller and a nice revelation at the end. The other truly enticing element about “Spellbound” was actually the combination of Gregory Peck and Ingrid Bergman. I am a fan of both actors, albeit without a good reason – the former for “Roman Holiday” and the latter for literally everything else she has done except “Casablanca”. I think they look lovely together, and “Spellbound” is perhaps the most romantic Hitchcock I have seen so far. A lot of attention has been given to the blossoming love between these characters, which goes beyond your usual Hitchcock which is pretty much just “man with shallow blonde”. (“Vertigo” is the big exception in this case, it still qualifies as “man with blonde”, but it’s a complicated obsession.)

I will definitely see “Notorious” and “Psycho” some day, but wow I am running out of Hitchcocks to see, aren’t I?