About Chocolate Parfaits

Scenes from the suburbs

What a pretentious little film. The direction was good and surprisingly enough, Arcade Fire’s music was absolutely brilliant for the film. Perhaps the best aspect of the film altogether. For me, it probably would have made more sense to make a film about little kids listening to Linkin Park though, or at least with some nu-metal/pop/whatever music. How many people under 20 really listen to indie nowadays? Or am I just missing out on the times? Which brings me to the problems of the film: Too much bullshit talking. I was never like that when I was a teen, and seeing “A brighter summer day” (just the most recent example) proves that it is possible to make a good film about kids growing up, using young actors who are not professionals. The ones in this film were atrocious, especially the girl, but also the protagonist – very unfortunate. At the end of the day, I found the film quite pointless because it never actually said anything, and completely failed at making me feel emotional.

Also, Austin seems to be really ugly. I don’t really know if I ever want to see another Spike Jonze film anymore, no matter how much I liked “Being John Malkovich”.

The Borrower Arrietty

…though I am still looking forward to Porco Rosso 2. I know that it’s ‘just’ going to be a sequel and that it also might mean that Porco has indeed not turn back into a human, but then again it means that I might see Fio again, possibly my favorite animated character of all times.

Arrietty is nothing like Fio, although she, Nausicaä, San, Chihiro and all those other heroines of Ghibli films share similar traits; they are all somewhat male in their behaviour, and the only reason they are girls might be to attract male viewers. What do I know. Unfortunately Arrietty’s general cuteness does not help when parts of the plot are just so pointless, almost infuriating. I don’t even want to delve into that, but it’s highly annoying. For the first part of the film, I was trapped in the nostalgy thing but didn’t mind it. This film is so similar to Totoro that you feel let down and wonder where Ghibli’s creativity went to: a slice of life for the first part, mostly set in one old house in the middle of nowhere, main character discovers little mysterious beings, second part of the film deals with some almost irrelevant problem bringing in some drama into the story) etc. etc. Bored.

The world of the Borrowers is pretty ugly and as a slice of life, I think the film could have worked wonderfully. I don’t even mind that the relatively cheap looking production relies so heavily on our nostalgy – that is also okay. I just wished the story wasn’t so stupid, but then again, after seeing Ponyo I wasn’t so surprised about this anymore. With Chihiro, Ghibli’s best days are over, but that is also okay. There are enough animated films out there to be discovered.

Baisers volés

Just like in “Les 400 Coups”, Truffauts begins this film with a shot of the Eiffel Tower before turning towards his protagonist. There also is the Cinemathèque Francaise issue, which I won’t delve on, even though I’d like to. But really, even though Baisers voles is clearly a Nouvelle vague, there are almost no politics in the film except for the explicit dedication to Henri Langlois and a shot of the closed Cinemathèque.

I remember that I have hated “La peau douce” back then when I saw it. I thought it was shallow, the female character stupid and the obsession of the male rather boring. In a similar way, the story of “Le mépris” is somewhat plain but it’s in the execution of the film that its fascination lies. For me, the Doinel series is a little bit like that too. It’s centered around Antoine Doinel who is practically a useless person. He’s egoistic, vain and lazy; there is absolutely nothing likable about him. The fact that I am hopelessly attracted to the actor also does not help. But there is something else in Doinel that makes me strangely forgiving: He keeps failing. There also are some misunderstandings and other minor misfortunes which make his life harder, and it’s hard to figure out why. Most of all, he’s clumsy and doesn’t quite understand his surrounding – that makes him lovely. More than a love story, “Baisers voles” depicts Doinel’s struggle in society, exemplified by the 3 jobs he loses over the course of the story.

Another thing that makes me overlook the seeming shallowness of Nouvelle vague films are their incredible style. Even prostitutes look amazingly stylish and beautiful, how the heck do they do that? (Just like Godard, Truffaut portrays these prostitutes as worthless women though; this is quite comical and enjoyable to watch but also tickles my feminist subconscious a bit.) Every single shot in the film feels like Truffaut spent years composing it, I especially liked the one in which the camera goes up the stairs until it finally lies its eyes upon the sleeping couple.

I also love love love how Doinel, despite his deliquent character, is a romanticist and an avid reader. It fits his image of lovable failure. Ever since I saw it, I knew that “Le lys de la vallée” had to play a role in the film. It’s a story about a writer who falls in love with a married woman, and no I have not read the book. I just happen to be very addicted to Gunslinger Girl. Books seem to be another thing Truffaut and Godard had in common. If you let your protagonists read books, they have to at least seem better than your average Hollywood hero, even if they are not.

Finally, I am a huge fan of the song at the beginning of the film. It totally set me into the mood for it – a lovely, superficial sounding chanson, just like the film itself. After not having seen a Nouvelle Vague for such a long time, I just reminded myself of why I like them so much. Since I have seen “Domicile conjugal”, now it’s time for “L’amour en fuite”.

Double Indemnity

The hairstyle of the main character makes me go @.@ But, unlike “The Big Sleep”, that is the only thing that could possibly confuse me. “Double Indemnity” is impressively clear. As expected of Billy Wilder, his characterization of characters is precise, clear and strangely understandable. He doesn’t follow clichés, he sets them.

In many ways, the film was indeed full of clichés. We have the incredibly evil female, the gullible male who falls in love with her (even though he might not be completely stupid) and the alternative girl who is sweet and loving and worried. The aforementioned disturbing hairstyle is perhaps the only thing that makes you wonder about the film – how can you truly feel attracted to a woman like that? Nevertheless, though, Barbara Stanwyck is a top actress. The beauty of her face helps, but I’d say she is no worse than Jean Simmons when it comes to playing the role of the dangerous femme fatale. I also really liked Fred MacMurray as the poor, gullible dude and the wonderful triangle Neff-Mrs. Dietrichson-Keyes is probably the reason why the film worked so well for me. The superb acting really brings out all those characters.

There is one slightly strange, very Hollywood-ish thing with femme fatales. Men are smitten by them and commit the strangest crimes for them, yet they never actually love the woman. It’s like a occupational disease typical for femme fatales that they never feel loved, at least not by the person who loves them.

I have actually not seen so many film noirs, but the ones I have seen were brilliant. I’d say “Double Indemnity” is at least equal to the likes of “Out of the Past” or “Laura”, and yet again establishes Billy Wilder as an impressive multi-talented director. No wonder he is the source of the subtitle to this blog.

North by Northwest

Certainly not. But it’s pretty close I’d say. Nothing is comparable to “Rear Window” in my book, especially since I was only mildly impressed by “Vertigo” whose main character was… too crazy for my taste I guess?

“North by Northwest” is nothing like the other more recent Hitchcocks. It’s not a thriller or a horror story, just a plain good old man-runs-away-from-everyone not-really-crime plot. It’s very reminiscent of “The 39 Steps”, but it does everything better. First of all, it has the magnificent Cary Grant who is possibly my favorite actor of all times. He is the one who makes “His Girl Friday” work, or “Bringing Up Baby”, or “The Awful Truth”. This is another one of those films where Cary Grant’s antics and shocked face make the film a million times better than it would have been with anybody else. I absolutely love the humor he brings into the story.

Second, the female character is not as annoying as the one in “39 Steps”. When she flirts with Cary Grant’s character, she does so directly and knowing perfectly what she wants. It’s refreshing to encounter a woman like that, even among femme fatales. There’s an immediate chemistry between them, and they tease instead of fighting. It makes the progression of their relationship sweet and believable.

And finally, I suppose I just liked the story. Throughout the main character’s adventure, Hitchcock was wise to choose some very great backdrops (hahaha Mount Rushmore!) for his film, with the Frank Lloyd Wright style house being my favorite. I think a lot of the greatness of the film comes from the smoothness it moves from one scene to another, and that it does not feel like a film running 130 minutes. The film is speedy and time passes very fast.

More than “The Birds”, which in my book is an exercise in style, this is definitely a must-see Hitchcock. I cannot believe it took me so long to finally do so. (Okay, actually I know – I had the film un-subtitled before and Cary Grant’s fast talking is incomprehensible.)

Heaven can wait

He did it again. He makes me laugh and cry, with a fairytale with generic characters, so unbelievable but so likable and funny that you cannot help but feel touched. His protagonists talk like Thomas Mann’s Felix Krull and act like Wilder’s screwball comedies. This is the humor of Jewish-German farces and it is absolutely incomparable. I feel like I grew up with it, even though I saw the first one when I was perhaps 18, and I cannot help but feel drawn to it.

You might or might not have noticed that I changed the subtitle to this blog to “How would Wilder do it?” While I was contemplating about watching “Heaven can wait”, in the process of Wikipedia-esque random browsing, I saw an article on “Menschen am Sonntag” and then I stumbled upon Wilder’s “How would Lubitsch do it?” Hence the subtitle. Lubitsch is the kind of guy who likes to tell funny stories, Wilder is the kind of guy who likes to tell us that the world should be taken with a grain of salt. In that respect, I’d like to be someone who finds the salt at all times.

I have seen Gene Tierney in “Laura” before, but while she was an awesome actress in that movie, she feels kind of bland here. I blame the character.
It’s Henry van Cleve who is the really interesting character. Lately, I have been complaining about what the French call a “bon vivant”. Eating a lot means you are a gourmand, drinking to the point of alcoholism means that you can enjoy a good wine and cheating on your wife means that you appreciate beautiful women. They are so amazing at turning everything bad into a seeming virtue, and call all those vices “enjoying life”. I never gave it many thoughts besides finding it a little bit amusing. But now I am not sure anymore. I really don’t think gluttony, alcoholism or playing around with women is a good thing; but I understand what is likable about such people. If, despite all egoism, you can make somebody else happy, how bad can you really be?

“Heaven can wait” is mundane, almost pointless story about a character who ultimately doesn’t matter. The decor feels outdated, cinematography or direction don’t seem like anything special and the costumes are a parody in themselves, hence utterly ridiculous looking. The protagonist and his environment are human to such an exaggerated point that they feel stereotypical. All of them practically do nothing but provide comical relief. The whole film would be fairly stupid and almost forgettable if it weren’t a Lubitsch.

But this is Lubitsch, the only director who has 2 movies in my favorites list. You have to be into his persiflage of humanity, but if you are like me, he is the incomparable master. “To be and not to be” and “Ninotchka” are still his most important masterpieces, but “Heaven can wait” is not bad either. Sadly, I doubt he would have liked the commercial for the war bonds.

Yojimbo

People tend to use Kurosawa’s films as sign of Eastern influence upon American filmmaking. But really, Kurosawa isn’t that much of a Japanese filmmaker. “Rashomon” definitely had many aspects of Japanese culture and traditions, but “Yojimbo” is practically a Western. There is only one samurai in the story, who is more like an American anti-hero, and almost everybody else is just scum. It is no surprise that the film can be practically remade into a Western.

Personally, I see that as a positive thing. Kurosawa’s films have great shots, are very suspenseful and I feel like there is a strong energy throughout his films, the exact opposite of, say, Ozu. By not considering Kurosawa a Japanese filmmaker, it’s easier to take him for what he mostly does: tell a good story and shoot good films.

“Yojimbo” is probably my least favorite Kurosawa so far, I have to agree with the critics on that. Whereas “Seven Samurai” is an epic masterpiece and “Rashomon” had an unusual premise coupled with intriguing nonlinear storytelling, I think that “Yojimbo” was mostly pretty generic. Of course Mifune is awesome as always and the story was nice and engaging, but if that is all, it was 2 hours well spent but not overly not too memorable.

Apocalypse Now Redux

After feeling so sad for not having been able to see the longer version of “Scenes from a Marriage”, I was pretty sure that I would be preferring the longer version of “Apocalypse Now”. So it was. Coppola (or, like I prefer to say, FFC) is absolutely brilliant when it comes to directing a 3+ hour long epos. I don’t know why some people felt this longer version was dragged out, because I certainly didn’t. Except for the part about the French, the film is so well contained that I would definitely say that every scene had its purpose in the overall plot. Even the political discussions with the French were very interesting to listen to, at least for me.

If anything, it was the lack of passion of the French lady that seemed strange to me; why would she practically turn herself into a comfort woman is completely beyond me. Nobody in the film ever seems to have any genuine feeling; it seems that everybody has gotten crazy to the point that they spend their entire energy on being alive. Survival is all this film is about, and it is mostly about survival of the mind.

Because we are in a completely different time, struggling with different problems and are, ultimately, completely detached from the craziness of war, it is hard to emphasize with anybody in the film. At least for me, the film was not particularly powerful on an emotional level. It is not about the gory horrors of war, but about psychology which is so much harder to relate to. Without a doubt, the film was immensely suspenseful, but I have a hard time to say anything noteworthy about it. The film goes into the darkness of the soul which I am trying to understand with my eyes and hopelessly failing.

“Apocalypse Now” is probably the most thoughtful and cerebral (oh God this word) war movie I have ever seen in my life. It is then no big surprise that it made such an impact on filmmaking and society as a whole. In comparison to what else FFC has done, I would say it’s better than Godfather II, although it does not reach the fascination I have had with Godfather I. But oh wow, this is definitely a must-see. It makes me wonder why our history teacher in high school wanted us to watch “Platoon” and “Good Morning Vietnam” but not this film. I also think that, instead of reading stupid books about Americans dealing with their losses from from Vietnam War, they should show more movies in English class. “Apocalypse Now” would be the perfect film for that; analysis-wise it’s also almost as hard to deal with as “Hedda Gabler”. Haha.

Pickpocket

There is a part of Bresson which really bores me. Just listening to the tone of how people talk in the film makes me bored; there is some strange monotonicity in the French they are speaking here. Bresson’s films feel strangely cold to me, as if they are all exercises in style (with the exception of “Au hazard Balthasar” where the only one inducing human feelings happens to be Balthasar, a donkey); they are like very well-written études for virtuoso pianists.

Some of the elements of the film are great, especially the theme reminiscent of “Crime and Punishment” is presented in quite a lovely way. I like how Bresson claims his protagonist’s ideas as “not new”, because this is precisely what they are – the conflict between individual morals and collective morals is old as humanity, and Michel is too much like Raskolnikov to be original – he’s just less crazy. Even Jeanne fills the role of Sonya almost perfectly. But lack of originality is not a problem here, for the theme has lots to offer to the filmmaker, and Michel’s views and actions are different from Raskolnikov’s. I do enjoy the cinematography, especially those montage scenes in which the main character steals with the help of his friends. Here’s where Bresson shows some visual beauty.

One intriguing aspect about both this film and “Au hasard Balthasar” is that the female character (completely missing in “Un condemné à mort”) chooses to not marry a man she feels like she does not love enough. That is so strange for a French filmmaker; even though Bresson portrays these seemingly weak, good-natured women, they are strong when it comes to major decisions. Isn’t that the strangest thing?

I know that I definitely will want to watch “Diary of a Country Priest” and “Mouchette”, but there is almost no director who I feel so torn about as Bresson. Are his movies just pretentious and boring? Or are they spiritual, beautiful and interesting? “Un condemné à mort” was suspenseful, “Pickpocket” has a great premise and “Balthasar” the most awesome film character of all times, Balthasar. Maybe a rewatch will tell, someday.