Tag: USA

It feels to me like my last few days were crazy and things are finally calming down. If all goes well, I am looking at a fairly relaxed month of March, and it is quite wonderful to think back at the Berlinale fondly, when everything was really stressful yet exciting at the same time.

The screening of “gog” was one of the most special events I have ever experienced at the Berlinale (perhaps not as special as “Calvary” or “Ai no Mukidashi” though), because I had never seen a 3D film at the Berlinale before. Most interestingly, the Berlinale introductory video is in 3D! I had hoped for this, since silent films also come with a silent intro (and the best aspect about that is the joyful anticipation of how Stephen Horne will accompany it this time), and it was just as glorious as I expected. That alone almost made “gog” worthwhile, though of course we need to keep in mind that every screening is 11 euros now. (EDIT: Loris also pointed out that “gog” in particular was 13 euros because of the extra fee for 3D. So that would indeed be a lot of money for 30 seconds of the Berlinale intro in 3D.)

gog
USA 1954, Herbert L. Strock, 85′

In an elaborate underground research station in New Mexico, two scientists mysteriously die in a cold chamber. Our hero David Sheppard arrives at the research station with the task to find out what happened. While Sheppard and the audience learn more about the research station (including the powerful nuclear control computer NOVAC and two cute robots Gog and Magog), more and more such accidents crop up.

To be honest I was very unsure about this film at first. I was into the looks of the robots, which remind me a lot of the Daleks but look much cuter, but I wasn’t so sure if I wanted to see a low budget American film from the 50s. In the end, “gog” was as B-movie-ish as I expected, but very satisfying at the same time.

My favorite part about the film was definitely the technobabble. Usually I find them exhausting, but in “gog” I enjoyed them because they come with such enthusiasm. The film oozes love for technology and is not afraid to have its characters go in depth when talking about their research. Sometimes we spend minutes hearing about how a certain machinery works, what kind of research they do, what it is all for and the likes.
I have never seen anything like this before, and I am so used to a certain fear of science in art and media that it was very refreshing for me to see a film that spends time just marveling at the possibilities of technology. To go even further, even the resolution of the story is very kind towards artificial intelligence. Instead of having a robot going rogue or malfunctioning, like in “Test Pilota Pirxa”, the threat comes from external human manipulation, so the robots and machines are not only cool, but utterly innocent. (So are all the characters we meet – everybody is in the same boat and a good person.) Wow. Because of its blatant optimism, I think it was the most feel good film I had seen for awhile.

Other than that, I concede the story is absolutely nothing worth writing home about. There is nothing particularly clever or well-made about the film, and its female characters (especially the female lead) are either stock characters or, even worse, damsels in distresses. This is the 50s after all, and for all its love for science, the film doesn’t even try to portray something like an actually smart and competent woman. Of course the film also contains hilarious scene where some woman shrieks in fear and a guy goes up to her, slaps her and says: “Get your act together!” Some people in the audience literally laughed at how bad it was.

So yeah, the film is pretty dumb (so dumb in fact that some guy behind me exclaimed “Was für’n Quatsch!” as the end title got shown) and no love for technology could change that it’s not particularly knowledgeable about it, but I don’t care – for me it was a great experience, both because of the 3D gimmick and because the film itself was so strangely enjoyable despite (or maybe because of) its badness.

I am going to finish blogging the Berlinale 5 days before last year, but last year I saw 27 films while this year it was “only” 20. At the same time, I think my postings became longer, so it’s all relative I suppose. (I am not even sure if greater length is a good thing – am I rambling more too?) At least this posting will be short, because.

Usually I try to see bigger pictures on the last Sunday, because I expect there to be less people trying to see them on this last day. But this year, there simply were no “big” movies of interest to me, but instead I was only interested in less popular titles. In this screening of “Gentlemen Prefer Blondes” was packed though, just like “Paris, Texas” afterwards. I really enjoyed spending my last two films at the Berlinale staying seated in CinemaxX 8. It’s lovely to end the Berlinale with this, and the chance to do so is one of the reasons why I chose to see these films in the first place.

Gentlemen Prefer Blondes
USA 1953, Howard Hawks, 91’

Marilyn Monroe plays Lorelei, a pretty blonde stupid money-grabbing showgirl who goes on an overseas trip with her down-to-earth muscle-loving deadpan-humoured friend Dorothy, played by dark-haired Jane Russell. On the trip, the family of Lorelei’s husband-to-be hires a private detective to find proof of her assumed infidelity, but throughout the process, Dorothy falls in love with him.

Just like everyone else, I know the film for the “Diamonds are a girl’s best friend” song, and Pixelmatsch rightfully concluded that the film is an operetta. Sure it’s actually a musical, but it’s closer to “Eine Frau, die weiß, was sie will” than to “Grease” or “West Side Story” if you ask me. As a result, we loved it! It looks awesome, it has a few great musical numbers, it has a very bold philosophy on love and relationships and most of all, it was actually funny. Who cares about whether the story fully makes sense or not. I think my favorite was actually Dorothy’s number with those ridiculously handsome swimmers, I understand why it’s less famous than “Diamonds are a girl’s best friend”, but it was so much more fun and it’s refreshing and only fair to sing about male beauty when the rest of the film showcases female eyecandy, right?

As I already said before for “Yolanda and the Thief”, I love musical films nowadays. Perhaps not all and perhaps only those of the screwball comedy or the step dancing variety, but it’s interesting how my slowly growing love for operettas has also changed my view on musical films. Life is better with musicals than without, that is for sure.

O is back to being energetic and healthy, but most recently the Berlinale blogging got a little hiccup mostly because I am in a writer’s slump. On the one hand, I feel my energy draining out of me now that it’s almost done (not entirely, but close), on the other hand, I had trouble with “Leave her to heaven” specifically because my thoughts kept wandering to “Ode to my father”. In good news, Pixelmatsch has been filling in the films he has seen – yay yay! Thinking about it makes me look forward to my meta postings at the end: Films we have missed, afterthoughts and statistics and rankings.

Just like last year, my Saturday was pretty short. We got a bunch of tickets (4 films) for Sunday, and by this time, both O and I were sick and after 3 days of getting at home after midnight, I really didn’t want to watch any late night screenings anymore. As a result, my choices fell on an afternoon film and one evening film so I could spend most of the day with O but without passing out by the end of the day. It was my most balanced day of the Berlinale, with two very nice, solid films but which did not blow my mind.

Leave her to Heaven
USA 1945, John M. Stahl, 110′

Successful writer falls in love with a beautiful, strong-willed but slightly strange girl who turns out to be maniacally possessive to the point of murdering people just to have her beloved to herself. Starting out as a love story, it then turns into a murder story and then a courthouse drama.

I had no idea what I was getting into with this film (who is John M. Stahl anyways?), instead I was just taking my chances since I wanted to see a Gene Tierney movie. I was intrigued by her even before I ever saw “Laura” (becauseI thought she looked strange in a good way and because she dated Kennedy hahaha). Strangely enough, I didn’t think she was that great as “Laura”, a beautiful lady who is ultimately just innocent nice damsel in distress. But oh, she is absolutely gorgeous as Ellen who is just as evil as her bitchface suggests. The beautiful, charming, headstrong, but also crazy woman is simply perfect for Gene Tierney, and I absolutely adore her in this role. I have to admit that I am a big fan of these kinds of characters, and Tierney plays her in a shockingly convincing manner. I was also impressed by the styling of this film: When Ellen’s craziness gets overboard, her hair is done up in an utterly frumpy manner to indicate how out of control she has gotten. But when commits one of her worst crimes, she opens up her hair and is styled beautifully to give her the appearance of the victim. This subtly shows how purposefully she acts, and makes her so much more interesting than someone who is just mentally ill and not herself.

By the way, I was also quite smitten with the actress of Ruth, who is styled so cutely ever since the beginning that I had a hunch her and the protagonist must get together. Nevertheless, she never goes beyond ‘cute’ of course, and I suspect Gene Tierney would not have allowed her to steal her spotlight (she doesn’t).

Even though this is a Technicolor film, They shoot pictures don’t they lists the film as one of the 100 quintessential noir films (which are the most referenced and cited for the genre), indicated by that 100-icon. I am not surprised, Ellen Berent is perhaps my favorite femme fatale of all, and she is perhaps one of the most radical too, much like the protagonist of “Angel Face”. There are no gangsters in this film, it’s ultimately a family drama, but the characterization of its protagonist and its immensely beautiful style are very noir-like, so you can probably tell that I enjoyed the film very much.

It’s only been 4 days since the Berlinale is over, but it feels like the world has changed a whole lot. O being sick, Chinese New Year, losing my phone (and retrieving it) and the sudden realization that I have put my life on hold for 2 weeks and now have to recover and return to normal. It’s strangely difficult to me to put myself into the mindset of myself of just 9 days ago, when 6451 was still there and most of my worries revolved around the Berlinale. It’s like that was a completely different life, and now I find it quite joyful to relive it through these blog posts.

In fact, my biggest worry of the day was that we might not get into “Yolanda and the Thief” and then we would have to find something to do during that time slot. It all worked out well and we got our tickets, but in retrospect the alternative (a nice dinner) wouldn’t have been so bad. In the end, it was one of the best days of the Berlinale because the three of us were able to watch films together (by that definition, day 3 and 4 were the only actual mini-PIFF portion of the Berlinale!) and I was not yet sick that day. In case you are wondering, of course I am still sick but thankfully less so than O.

Yolanda and the Thief
USA 1945, Vincente Minnelli, 108′

Fred Astaire is a crook and runs from the police to a country with no extradition treaty with the US. There, he tries to scam Yolanda, the richest heiress of the country, by pretending to her guardian angel and by the way also over her heart. A bunch of silly situations and some great dance scenes ensue.

To be honest, I have never actually seen a Vincente Minnelli movie but have wanted to do so ever since last year’s Berlinale when John Michael McDonagh commented that the Zoo Palast has lavish “Vincente Minnelli curtains”. Now that I have seen “Yolanda and the Thief”, I totally agree with that assessment. The film had a somewhat strange look due to the fake exoticism of the decor but oh everything is wonderfully lavish and so suited for a musical. Even the dream sequences were imaginative and awesome.

Before almost every film, there is some idiot introducing it and this time, we had some guy who kept harping over and over on how “Yolanda and the Thief” is a bad but good-looking film, how Lucille Bremer lacks Judy Garland’s warmth (whatever that is) and the charisma to become a star, and how we should not have high expectations for the film. Nonsense. OK, the movie doesn’t really make sense at times and the story may not be the most, but that is just how musicals are. Also, Lucille Bremer is an absolute beauty in my book, and she did a reall good job in her role except for the fact that, well, Fred Astaire outdances her any second. It’s a little tough when the guy dances so much better than the girl (and it makes me wonder how Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers look together), but that is OK – their dance scenes were still awesome and the very last one was the highlight of the film and singlehandedly made it worthwhile our time. I overheard a conversation by the staff, where one woman said how she didn’t see the film but was able to catch that dance scene and she loved it. So yeah, Gorp, I am officially cured of my dislike against musical films; I now totally love the genre, especially when Fred Astaire and dance scenes are involved.

So O got sick and this ends my crazy blogging spree. I also deliberately postponed all those backlogged films because I had this incredible urge to write about the Berlinale – and I am genuinely hoping that I will finish blogging for this year before March starts, which is another month bringing much excitement and stress, with O’s birthday and a trip to S’pore coming up. But there is much to do: More trips to plan, many many e-mails to write and a mess of a room to clean up.

This is day 3 of the Berlinale already, because on day 2 I lost my student ID which also had my ticket for public transportation. I called 6451 and was unable to make it to Ototo. Afterwards we spent 4 hours at the opera seeing “Tannhäuser” so technically there also was no day 2 of the Berlinale. Instead, day 3 was relatively busy. It is interesting to note that, while 6451 managed to see 5 films per day twice, I never watched more than 3 films on one day except for the last day when I re-watched “Paris, Texas”. Since I do not plan to reblog “Paris, Texas” (my old review was actually not so bad), I technically also will never blog about more than 3 films per day, but this is where Pixelmatsch will come in with his films, hoho.
Speaking of Pixelmatsch, he actually did see a film on day 2. I was “Koza” which he recommended so I ended up seeing it by myself later on.

The Diary of a Teenage Girl
USA 2014, Marielle Heller, 102′

Living in 1970s San Francisco, Minnie’s mother is Kristen Wiig with an alternative, laissez-faire, drug- and smoke-filled life who is divorced from some stuck-up lawyer (I think?) and dates a younger (30ish?) dude, Monroe, played by Alexander Skarsgard. Minnie hits it off with Monroe at age 15 and gradually falls in love with him, so melodrama and a lot of sex scenes ensue. At the same time, she struggles with discovering her sexuality, her general boredom with life and the world and her aspirations to become a comic artist.

Who would not have a crush on Alexander Skarsgard? He is styled to look like a wimp in this film, but boy how good-looking is he? Nevertheless, I applaud him for his willingness to play such an asshole. “The Diary of a Teenage Girl” is one of the few films I am expecting to come out in theaters later, but I still wanted to see it. I was strangely intrigued by the story, and the Generation films only cost 4 euros so that is another reason for me to see it. I am glad I did because 6451 also liked the film.

To be honest, I actually really liked the sex scenes, especially the one with Minnie’s younger boyfriend, just to how much of a failure he is. I could relate to his statement that she is a very passionate person to the point of being creepy, and Minnie is generally very relatable to me. I complained to 6451 that her character is ultimately an asshole too, especially when she decides to dump Monroe the very moment he shows her his vulnerability and confesses his love, but he rightfully commented that it may be morally wrong but ultimately it’s very human and realistic. In that regard, the whole movie is amazingly done for its realism.
Needless to say, I really like the graphic novel inserts and Minnie’s art which I thought looked absolutely awesome and not all that disturbing at all.

Nevertheless, you won’t find “Diary” very high up in my rankings. The characters were far from being likable, the plot was strangely generic even though it tries to show the complicatedness of feelings, there just was something juvenile about the whole film and not necessarily in a good way. (Did the mom really have to find her diary? That part was just so so cheap.) I can’t even really explain it, but to me the film lacked depth, both in its story and its execution.

By the way, I really liked Minnie’s actress. She is exactly the right kind of ugly for the role, her huge, cow-like eyes and the pursed lips are just awesome. I loved watching her and I wonder if she will become more popular as an actress from here on.

Work and university meant that the Queen and I watched sometimes different movies, sometimes the same ones on different dates (Koza!). This movie was me and our lovely 6451 who made good use of my couch and appreciated it beautifully! <3

The River
USA 1951, Jean Renoir, 99′

Insecure, poetic teenage Harriet lives with her parents, too many sisters and a little brother in a comfortable estate near the Ganges, somewhere in Bengal. Her neighbour invites his cousin Captain John, an American war veteran, to live with him on his plantation. Soon she, her slightly older best friend and the neighbour’s half-Indian daughter compete fo the handsome young man’s attention.

This movie is a thing of beauty! India itself is ridiculously colourful and Renoir really wanted to show this, what better use could there be for Technicolor? While there are no special, dramatic filming techniques, all shots are professionally crafted and the colour palette while not exaggerated like in some other Technicolor movies of the time, is rich and vivid and really helps convey the exotic beauty of India. The Indian Tourism Board must have been proud! The colourful saris and temples draw you in, together with the lush nature, but the sensible grading never makes the colours overbearing or pop too much.

The English families in this movies are an interesting bunch. Usually you would dismiss the story as colonialist fantasy and certainly there are elements like that in the movie. However they seem more like modern day expats: The children mingle with the local kids, the house celebrates a weird mix of Christianity and Hinduism, the indian nanny is basically family and of course the neighbour is a proper indophile with his half-Indian daughter. In those respects they are even better integrated than current-day expats. The story itself is a little dated with the main motive stressing how a handsome, charismatic man like Captain John is every woman’s secret goal in life. All in all however you can ignore this weird philosophy and just appreciate the movie as a beautiful, colourful ode to affluent life in rural India.

Actually, “The Cheat” and “The Typhoon” were a double package, both featuring Sessue Hayakawa as main character. I thought it was remarkable that a sizable amount of people left after “The Cheat”, and after shortly speaking to some people passing us by, I realized that they did so completely on purpose. Those people probably have more important films to see at this important 7pm time slot, and perhaps they are right. As for me, Stephen Horne’s accompaniment was even more fun in “The Typhoon”.

The Typhoon
USA 1914, Reginald Barker, 63’

The Japanese spy Tokorama lives in Paris and uses his function as a diplomat to gather secret data on France. At the same time, he is dating a French actress who is a little too interested in his private life. When things go awry with her ex-boyfriend, she is being killed in Tokorama’s house. The Japanese delegation chooses a young student to confess to the murder so Tokorama can continue his work. But Tokorama cannot get over the deed he’s done.
Death count: 2.

There is a reason why so many left before “The Typhoon”. Ultimately the film is just as racist as “The Cheat”, and it’s hard to tell what is worse – are the Japanese a group of idiots with an overly heightened sense of sacrifice and patriotism, or are they dangerous psychopaths and rapists? There is one thing they both agree on: Japanese men are clearly into white women. Griffith-like racism aside, the more important reason not to watch the film is probably its terrible quality. Since Cecil B. DeMille absolutely deserves his spot in the list of great directors, it’s absolutely painful to see Reginald Barker’s work in direct comparison. The use of light and shadows is clumsy, the composition of shots is absolutely horrendous (I remember several examples of the main character being almost out of the frame for no good reason) and the storytelling is amateurish. There is nothing redeeming about this film really, absolutely nothing.

I was looking forward to the convenience of this day. After seeing one film starting 2pm, we would spend a whopping three more movies in the same movie theater. Yay! A nice person even went through the ranks to see our tickets so that we didn’t even have to get off our seats while we waited about half an hour for “Jujiro” to start, the last film of the day. (Much unlike the Friedrichstadtpalast who throws everybody out despite having a huge staff. Next to the Haus der Berliner Festspiele, I vow to avoid the Friedrichstadtpalast in the future as much as I can.) Finally, we’d be done for the day at around 9pm. It was the perfect schedule, but sadly not the perfect day.

The Cheat
USA 1915, Cecil B. DeMille, 59’

Edith Hardy, a bored, socialite housewife spends too much time with Tori, a rich Japanese dude with nothing to do, while spending all of her husband’s hard-earned money. At some point, she speculates with 10,000 dollars she collected from her group of friends for charity and loses the money. Tori offers to give the money to her, but only if she gives herself to him. Mrs. Hardy is horrified.
Death count: 1.

I knew about Cecil B. DeMille Award at the Golden Globes. It’s a fun thing, especially this year where it stirred a new controversy about Woody Allen’s family troubles. Apart from that, I have never felt very compelled to watch one of his films, fully knowing that he’s one of the major players who pioneered film-making. After seeing “The Cheat”, it is not only fascinating that he was one of the first, but that – just like George Méliès – he was so incredibly good at it. From the standpoint of an artist, “The Cheat” is absolutely beautiful. The scenes at Tori’s house are wonderfully moody and creepy, the film’s story is suspenseful and every single shot in the film seems to have the perfect length and looks perfectly right. It’s a very classic film, but it seems like for these beginnings, DeMille has figured it all out, effectively setting a standard of how films are shot for the time. Yes, there is a “good” way and a “bad” way to make films in the classical sense, and you can make errors in film-making just like you can in music composition (Mozart famously loved to point out his father’s mistakes at early age). Of course you can throw away all these rules at some point, but to do that the rules must exist. As for DeMille, I’d say his work is setting the rules and he’s a master at it.

Other than that, the storyline doesn’t really make sense. At first, Edith and Tori are shown as having this very friendly relationship where he is this extremely trusted family friend who essentially acts like a gay man around all these women. Then all of a sudden he requests sex for money and threatens her even though theoretically all he needed to do at that point was to give her the money and then charm her into sleeping with him. She would have done that in a heartbeat, no doubt about that. But no, they had to portray him as this brutal rapist who uses violence when he could have gotten what he wanted by asking nicely. Well, that’s the Western world in the 1910’s for you. I won’t really complain but to today’s eyes, it’s really disturbing to see. In the end I was torn between “Wow, this film is really well-made” and “The racism in this story is creeps me out”.

Pixelmatsch usually blogs the Berlinale by days, putting all the films of one day into one posting. But now that we are blogging them separately, and considering the fact that my blog posts are so much longer, I will stick to my old one-post-one-film habit. I think this is a little easier to read but of course there will be no funny movie-mixing posting titles.

Love is Strange
USA 2014, Ira Sachs, 98’

Alfred Molina and John Lithgow play an old gay couple (George and Ben) living in New York City, where one is retired and the other one lost his job after the catholic school he was working out found out that they married. Now they have to move out of their apartment, Ben moves in with his nephew and George moves in with a younger gay couple. Unfortunately Ben and his nephew’s family have a hard time adjusting to each other and George’s friends have loud parties every day.
Death count: 1.

This movie is essentially “Make way for tomorrow” in a modern, intellectual, gay setting. I was immediately reminded of the film in the way Ben and George suffer under their separation, and how they have trouble adjusting to living with other people. It was very moving to see how Ben was being a nuisance to his nephew’s family, but without really doing anything wrong at all. If anything, his nephew’s son is immensely immature in his latent homophobia and irrational emoness. Besides the obvious tear-jerkers and the beautifully crafted characters (to be honest, Marisa Tomei’s character was my favorite), another thing I really liked about the film was its blatant intellectualism. The film itself wasn’t all that intellectual, it was straight-forward and told in an unpretentious, simple way. It was fighting homophobia without the annoying activist touch. But the characters were living in a little dream world in which everybody goes to concerts and art galleries, the characters teach music or write novels and kids steal old French books from school. To be honest I loved that little dream world.
The film’s only weakness was that it was a little bit too much at times. Was it really necessary for someone to die in this movie to put its point across?