About Chocolate Parfaits

12 Monkeys

There is something unforgettable about “La Jetée” and now I know what it is. Basically “12 Monkeys” is everything that “La Jetée” is not and vice versa. “12 Monkeys” is suspenseful, Hollywood-ish, full of hot actors sexily beaten up, yet I kept missing what I saw in “La Jetée”: Atmosphere, romance and a beautiful, simple love story with a woman from the past. Somehow I prefer somebody who clings onto the past for something as romantic as the obsession for a woman, instead of just liking the old world. I loved the idea of this woman to be the key of the whole story; compared to her, the female protagonist in this film is utterly boring and colorless.

“12 Monkeys” on the other hand is a science-fiction thriller and needs to be understood as such. Its main protagonists played by Bruce Willis and Brad Pitt are absolutely brilliant, especially the latter. I also agree with Ebert that this movie is much more a film for the mind rather the eye (which is more the specialty of “La Jetée”). “12 Monkeys” has a rather complicated story and is so immensely full of references to movies, especially the Hitchcocks. It’s the 90’s “Inglorious Basterds”!

Finally, I enjoyed “12 Monkeys” very much even though it (yet again) didn’t really meet my expectations. It’s a wonderful film for being a Hollywood action flick and I wholeheartedly recommend it.

Swimming Pool

…is clearly the biggest gem of this film. Surprisingly, I found myself liking her character very much, whereas I was thoroughly annoyed by Charlotte Rampling’s. They had quite a good chemistry together, and perhaps that was what actually made the film work for me.

Apart from that, I think there are at least 4 people I know who have seen the film… and for everybody, I think sex was the only thing the film seemed to be about. This proved to be fairly true except the bold characterization of Julie didn’t actually shock me. Considering that this is a “normal movie” after all, it didn’t show anything explicit. In comparison to that, I was much more shocked by “In All Innocence” back then when I saw it on French TV. Perhaps this is because Sagnier’s character isn’t evil nor dangerous, she plays around without doing much (except for the dead guy, harr harr). In fact she’s too good for any of them, including the guy who ended up dying. I love how this weird friendship blossomed between the characters, with Julie saying “I think I killed him. For you, for the book.”

So what can I say, in the end this was an enjoyable, simple movie featuring quite a lot of scenes with romantic, rural France and Ludivine Sagnier’s naked body – and that’s it. I probably would not have seen the film if I hadn’t gotten it from a friend and if it hadn’t appeared in conversations so surprisingly often. I definitely would say that I liked the film except for the lousily directed ending, and I admit that it’s more a film of guilty pleasure than anything else.

Crimes and Misdemeanors

I think I should never expect something from a film. How should I put it, I feel like lately there really is no film that has blown me away. (Note how this is utterly wrong! It’s only a feeling, and at least “Dr. Strangelove” did blow me away.) They are objectively great, but ultimately a disappointment due to my expectations.

“Crimes and Misdemeanors” is perfect, it has Woody Allen, film references, an engaging storyline that has every element of interest for me – twisted love stories, a murder and people talking about everything that is happening to them. But perhaps it’s because I knew how much I am going to like “Crimes and Misdemeanors” that I ended up not really liking it, as much as I would hate it.

In the end, the part about the film I loved the most was when Woody Allen was going out with his niece. They had better chemistry than literally every single other couple in the film, ha ha ha. How like Woody Allen, really. Everything else, I don’t really know what to say about it. It’s well done and meaningful and all, but perhaps what I was missing out was… the humor? Truth to be told, what I enjoy about Woody Allen the most is the gravity of his stories, just like how Judah’s story with his mistress indeed made me think. But these serious relationship stories are so valuable precisely because they are being uplifted by the humour without which you can neither survive Woody Allen’s films nor life itself. Yet in this film, Woody Allen with Mia Farrow however do nothing but complain and complain and complain about everything, and perhaps no single funny line has been passed between them. It’s too bad Woody Allen’s characters never kill people but just looks sad when he’s being told “I hope we can be friends”.

In the end, I feel like Dostoevsky is funnier than this film. But apart from failing my expectations on humor, I think that the humanity for the film largely makes up for it, and I totally agree that this is one of Woody Allen’s best movies, perhaps tying with “Vicky Cristina Barcelona”. I definitely liked it much more than “Husbands and Wives”, but ultimately I had less fun than with “Whatever Works”.

Lola Montez

If there is anything that I have found unpleasant about “Lola Montès”, I would say it’s the fact that I had to think about the film while desperately trying to sleep. There is an incredible tragedy about the story and as bitchy as the character of Lola Montez might be, she is portrayed as very fascinating and in some ways idealistic and romantic as well. These femme fatales are exemplary for woman who have actively become slaves of men. I think there is nothing as tragic as that, and the type of woman is probably dead by now because our society has progressed from this stage where a woman can be successful to a point like this by selling her body, her relationships and her reputation. Nowadays, there are many other possibilities for a woman to become rich and famous, where at the same time, some dances and good looks are not enough anymore to make you so notoriously successful.

Of course Lola Montez’ life is romanticized, and in reality there probably is none of this love between her and Ludwig. (Does that surprise anyone at all?) But, this is not quite what the movie is about: I am rather bored of the story itself, even though I find its content fascinating, just like it was the case with “Capote”. I also don’t quite like the actors or any of the characters except for my deep love for Oskar Werner. What makes the film great probably entirely lies in Ophüls’ directing: I love the way the story is told and especially like how the circus scenes create a beautifully symbolic entourage to Lola’s life. Two scenes at the end, when she admits she does not have hope anymore, and when you saw her behind bars letting men kiss her hand, came off extremely powerful because of how they were directed. It is there that the whole tragedy of the story was imminent to me. I wouldn’t say this film is style over substance, because I found the story-telling to be pretty smart, but boy does it look good!

In the end I decided to be an Ophüls fan (or more like, a fan of his films) and I am looking forward to the Ophüls retrospective the Zeughaus is showing. As an old Schnitzler fan, I am mostly looking forward to “Liebelei” and “Reigen”, but I also want to see the rest.

Amator (Camera Buff)

For some reason, I have always had a certain fascination for Kieslowski’s less famous films, such as “Blind Chance” or “Big Animal“. Sadly, though, “Blind Chance” turned out to be extremely dreadful and difficult to watch. The weird cuts and immense subtlety of the plot forces you to put all the concentration you could potentially muster onto understanding the storyline – if you can do it. Despite the great premise “Blind Chance” had, I couldn’t watch more than an hour of it.

“Camera Buff” is completely different. The storyline is very simple and straightforward. It’s a film more about film-making rather than films itself, although a few tidbits of talking about what a film should do or how it achieves these goals definitely adds an deeper layer to the simple portrait of a man who finds passion in film-making. Since it’s Kieslowski, the film would never delve into long conversations where people would throw pretentious words at each other.

I liked the film for its premise and how the storyline unfolds. I was even deeply touched by certain scenes (none of which involve his annoying wife), evoking the end of Kiarostami’s “Close-up”. (Of course “Close-up” came much later and perhaps the film rather refers to Italian or British realism.)

The only thing I am wondering now is whether his wife actually returned. First of all, I am not sure if he really has realized what he has lost by letting her go. It is very likely that the birth of his child does indeed mean a lot to him – but it also could just as well be that he is using his own life for the sake of film making (a scary thought actually!) If, however, he realized how he wronged his family, my bet would rather be that he will get his wife back. Whoever she is with, it’s not going to be some guy who is better than the protagonist was, and she clearly loved him when she left him. (She didn’t take the TV set after all!)

“Camera Buff” is very very lovely, and a surprisingly good one. However, I say that as a Kieslowski fan who truly enjoys his weird way of making films. Apart from that – I guess it’s time for me to give “Blind Chance” another chance.

Domicile conjugal

Having Netflix makes me lazy to the point that I tend to watch films even though I haven’t planned it. In this case, I wanted to watch the Antoine Doinel series in their chronological order, especially the last three films, in which Doinel’s relationship with his wife is depicted, should be watched in that order. However, “Domicile conjugal” draws a special attention on me. While “Baisers voles” is about getting a wife and “L’amour en fuite” about divorcing, “Domicile conjugal” is the story that shows their everyday married life. It sounds like the least interesting of all of them, but in this case, we are dealing with Truffaut, someone who knows how to make a film about ‘everyday life’. On top of that, I am secretly in love with the poster of the film, which reminds me very much of “Scenes from a Marriage” (another series I have yet to see).

How should I put it, the film was great, but perhaps I am biased as an old Antoine Doinel fan. I loved “Les 400 Coups” and liked the style of “Antoine et Colette”. In many ways, this film is a continuation of them, except Antoine’s assholeishness towards women (as one sees so often in Nouvelle Vague’s) becomes even more apparent. Antoine cannot truly love women, more like he only loves himself and the image he has of certain women. Nevertheless, it is that character that leads to all those amusing scenes in the film and the marvelous ending when the neighbor says “Maintenant ils s’aiment vraiment!” Like in Woody Allen’s “Husbands and Wives” or “Annie Hall”, movies about long-term relationships only seem to work when the characters are incapable of having a relationship. Everybody else is too boring, heh.

I think that “Domicile conjugal” lacks a little bit of depth for the topic, but provides so many great details showing me yet again why I like Nouvelle Vagues so much.

Letters from Iwo Jima

A new entry about the Second World War has come out on USA Erklärt which explicitly mentions this film. In fact, it says that among “Letters from Iwo Jima” and “Flags of our Fathers” only the former is recommendable. From what I read about “Flags of our Fathers”, I too agree that the storyline sounds too awful for its own good.

“Letters from Iwo Jima” however is quite a masterpiece. I wonder how Prog feels about it, as I remember that the film was among one of his favorites of 2007, but my own feelings towards the film are very conflicting. It all starts with myself being a horrible pussy who cringes every single time I see somebody dying; or more like, I knew from the beginning of the film that all of these people are going to die and just thinking that makes me want to cry. I am very familiar with the Japanese mentality and find it depicted wonderfully in this film, with all its criticism at the same time. Much more than your average war movie (LOL Black Hawk Down is a joke compared to “Letters from Iwo Jima”), this film is going to haunt me with the portrayal of characters and the tragedy of their deaths.

Unlike a typical war movie, I think it’s rather unusual that we know from the beginning that practically all these soldiers are going to die by the end of the attack. All of them. This is pointed out ever since the beginning of the film and we just waiting for everyone of them to die. I didn’t want to like the characters, but ultimately I had to. While Saigo is mostly a human being (and very likable in that way), Kuribayashi is my favorite. This is mostly because he is the only capable strategist in the whole story, and his movie character seems to be close to the historical figure.

I find war movies to be the most straining of all, and I am not sure when I will be able to watch a film like this again. I am glad we will not be having wars like these anymore, and I am afraid humanity will probably never learn. I don’t believe in history repeating itself, I rather believe that we will face different problems and issues with every new generation. That makes it even more difficult for a film like this one to be properly understood. Humans will never make “the same mistakes” again, they will make different, probably even worse ones.

From what I can see, “Letters from Iwo Jima” is clearly the best film of the year 2007. The only reason for not seeing this film would probably be a general disliking for war movies.

The Secret in Their Eyes

Traditionally, whenever I happen to watch a film that wins the foreign Oscar (as I call it), I tend to like the film. Back then, when “Amélie” lost to “No Man’s Land” I had to realize that the latter really was an amazing movie and totally deserved the award. This time, I had hoped for “The White Ribbon” to get the Oscar and after “The secret in their eyes” was explicitly recommended to me, I had extremely high expectations for the film. (It rarely happens that I dislike a recommendation, really.)

How should I put it? “The White Ribbon” definitely is the deeper film, it has some sort of message that is not entirely clear and that goes beyond the nazi stuff. At the same time, I have found both films to be very engaging and dripping with suspense – just in completely different ways. You can barely compare these films at all, just like “No Man’s Land” is entirely different from “Amélie”. While “The White Ribbon” is a society picture, “The secret in their eyes” is the story of a few individuals which don’t have many more specific characteristics besides being beautiful or being funny or having a male genital. The same story could just as well play in Spain, Germany, the US, Japan… literally anywhere. While “Rudo y Cursi” feels extremely Mexican to me, “The secret in their eyes” doesn’t really have much that makes you think it’s all that Argentinian, except for the stylish and rather slow camera movements maybe.

All this is made up by its great story. “The secret in their eyes” is probably the easiest film to recommend that I have seen in the last few months: It’s personal, emotional, partially funny and contains an engaging crime story with many shocking and enjoyable plot twists. The only thing that bothered me a little bit were the photos. As if anybody in this world really shows their true emotions on when pictures are taken of them. Ughh. Apart from that, it’s one of those great films suitable for anyone, just don’t let yourself get spoilered by the end!

Capote

Unfortunately the story is what is going to determine my impression on the film the most. On the one hand, I enjoyed it and there is something so very fascinating about the story, coupled with the character of Truman Capote. I have read all about it on Wikipedia I could find, and could spend an eternity reading upon his life story. (As a matter of fact, I probably did.) Weirdly enough, however, I ended up finding the background story coupled with the high acclaim of the much more gripping than the film itself.

In the end, while I have always felt an immense interest for what is happening in the film, just like for “Zodiac” I must admit that I have expected more. Maybe this is the typicaly problem for stories that are based on real people. Why “In Cold Blood” is supposedly such a is absolutely beyond my imagination. Two very simple, random people commit a very petty crime (which unfortunately ends up being murder, so it’s just enough for sensationalist media) and I just have no idea how it is even remotely possible to make something interesting out of this. For me, at least.

What made the film shine really was Truman Capote in interaction with other people. His portrayal by Philip Seymour Hoffmann, especially with this surpring high-pitched voice, is just as great as I have expected it. It seems like a character, likable and thoroughly dislikable, suddenly came through life in this film. Sadly, Maxine Harper Lee had such few lines, but I was glad to see that she delivered the most important line in the film. Even though it’s fairly obvious, she directed pointed out that Truman didn’t want to help Smith and Hickock – essentially making Capote himself the responsible for their death. I really loved the contrast from when he started working on the topic – acting almightly and becoming friends with everybody, and subsequently neglecting all those friendships afterwards when he didn’t need them anymore. Yet at the same time he’s not just some cold-blooded (bad pun intended) workaholic, he actually sort of cared for all those people. The complexity of the character Capote was wonderfully depicted in my opinion, and perhaps ultimately the reason why I ended up liking the film.

But the story left me with a feeling of emptiness. Did I miss out something? If not, I am most definitely not going to see this movie again.

Dr. Strangelove

…but some movies are just too good! Actually I have a huge backlog of amazing films that I feel incapable of blogging about. Some films just leave you breathless, and “Dr. Strangelove” definitely is one of them.

Ever since I watched “The Shining”, I have been looking forward to this film that I have nicknamed “my last Kubrick” – among all the major, later Kubrick films this one was the only one I have not seen. In between, I randomly decided to watch “Paths of Glory”, and now, after another four months, I finally managed to see the title I have always been looking forward to. During this time, I announced this intention to several friends, all of whom praised the film and strongly recommended it to me. My expectations for the film, especially considering how much I love some of his other works, grew larger and larger.

Amazingly enough, they were completely fulfilled! The film was 2 hours long and about 15 minutes before the end I thought we weren’t even 1 hour into the film. It’s been awhile since I found a film to be this suspenseful, and that definitely was not because I was recently lacking suspenseful films. I also knew nothing about the story of “Dr. Strangelove” except that it was somehow about fascism. It was more a war parody than seriously about fascism, a mix of “Full Metal Jacket” and “Paths of Glory”, except much more stylish, funnier and even better executed. While none of Kubrick’s other films have been overtly funny, this one proves how incredibly well he is able to handle the genre of satirical comedy. I laughed out loud so many times! The Texan pilot! Bodily fluids! The lovely president! Merkwürdigliebe!

After reading Wikipedia articles and other secondary “literature” on the film, I think that I am very glad I didn’t know anything about the film beforehand. Besides some hilarious word plays, there doesn’t seem to be all that many hidden, subtle meanings in the film. Very much like “Rear Window” it shows very clearly what it wants to say without being blatant and vulgar, exactly the way I like it.

Ultimately I already have a feeling that “Dr. Strangelove” will hold a special place in my all time favorite list. Despite being a big fan of Kubrick’s other films, especially “Full Metal Jacket” and “A Clockwork Orange”, I am pretty sure that “Dr. Strangelove” has deserved the number one in my Kubrick ranking. It’s just that great.