Filed under: Film, Film Review, Video | Tags: Antonioni, Direction, Film, Italy, Jack Nicholson, Long Shots, Michelangelo Antonioni, The Passenger, Tracking Shot
Michelangelo Antonioni is one of the best directors of the 20th Century, and arguably Italy’s finest of all time. In 1975, he made his third English language film called, The Passenger. It starred Jack Nicholson who played a traveling journalist sent to cover a war in the Sahara Desert. Lonely and depressed, one afternoon he finds the body of an arms dealer who bears a striking resemblance. Nicholson then takes the man’s ID and papers, and assumes his identity (and the consequences of that identity) hoping to break the malaise of his own life. He then sets out on the road.
Nicholson gives a strong, and subtle performance. He restrains himself and it is always a pleasure to see Jack act with his ‘less is more’ approach. There is no scenery chewing in this film or ham-fisted exaggeration. Antonioni was sure to make Nicholson keep his tone down and this is consistent throughout the film.
The film is typical of Antonioni’s style: slow, meditative, but deeply connected to the human condition. It is arguably his finest film, or at least one of them. It’s yet one more film of his that explores alienation and detachment. What this film is most famous for is that it contains one of Antonioni’s most famous shots, and one of the great singles shots in the history of cinema. The shot lasts around 6 minutes and includes a remarkably difficult movement of traveling through the bars of a window. It’s near flawless. I have included the famous shot below. Everyone should see this film, but if one never does and is interested in film, this shot is essential. Enjoy.
Antonioni and Nicholson (below):
Filed under: Film, Film Review | Tags: Apartheid, District 9, Film, Neill Blomkamp, Peter Jackson, Sci-Fi, Science Fiction, South Africa
((((This review will contain SPOILERS))))
Last night, some friends and I went downtown to see the new science fiction film that is getting stellar reviews called District 9. This has been an exciting year for the almost dead genre of Science Fiction, so any entry is welcome. I am pretty split on this film. There are a lot of things to admire about it, but it is weighed down by such a nonsensical containing numerous holes. The most insulting revelation is that a few of the flaws in the narrative (or lack of) didn’t even need to exist in the first place.
First, the good news: The film is gorgeous! The CGI finally looks real. I have never seen a film that utilizes this much CGI and pulls it off. There were many times when one of the aliens would be on screen and I would question whether it was a computer creation digitally inserted, or a puppet like those used 30 years ago in George Lucas’ Star Wars series.
The acting was competent enough, and it was refreshing that our human protagonist was not a walking cliche of masculinity. The style of the film is also to its credit. Fresh and original, the film uses mockumentary clips to further the narrative and these are executed marvelously.
The problem is that the film makes almost no sense and requires the viewer to not only suspend disbelief (this is an alien film), but to shut off one’s cerebral cortex. There are some films that flourish when they remain ambiguous. The prime example being Alfonso Cuarón’s brilliant 2006 film “Children of Men“. District 9 lacks that same kind of gambler’s intuition to know when to hold or play a card. Even worse, the film overplays its hand several times creating simple narrative distractions that negate any possible interpretation the viewer might assume to fill in the gaps. The most striking offender is the presence of alien weaponry (I will come back to this).
Questions that are never answered arise immediately: Why is this ship hovering over Johannesburg, South Africa? Is this alien craft here for First Contact or because it is out of fuel? If it is the former, then why do the aliens stay in the ship with no attempts at communication for 3 months? If it is the latter (and it turns out that it is), why again no contact with Earth, why does it randomly hover over the city, and how does it have the power to hover? How did they run out of fuel in the first place? How is starving on this ship going to help save them? Some of these are obviously forgivable; however, it was the first red flag that this would be the first example of an emerging pattern within the shaky narrative.
At this point, the film delivers convenient exposition (in documentary form) that the aliens dropped a pod from the mother ship and that it couldn’t be found, despite the pod being the size of four city buses. Moreover, human beings had to force their way into the ship after 3 months and found almost a million aliens (pejoratively called ‘prawns’) rolling around in their own filth and starving near the precipice of death. OK, so it is obvious they aren’t here to make contact, but how can these troglodyte creatures have developed this technology and gotten here in the first place? The film continues that the prawns were rounded up and put into a camp to be cared for by the generous altruism of the human race; though, this quickly dissipates into hatred and brutality against the prawns within their assigned ghetto. The ghetto, District 9, is humorous as well in terms of the pod. The alien ship is the size of an entire metropolis and is centered over the city. The people in the documentary explain that the pod was never found (really?). Disregarding that for a second, the City randomly establishes District 9 coincidentally in the same field that the pod turns up buried in later in the film. The aliens now have their new home on Earth with the humans not knowing the prawns have been placed with their only escape back to the mother ship.
This is where the problems with the weapons come in. The film explains that the weapons the aliens bring with them can only be used by them since the weapon’s operation is dependent on the presence of their bodies containing their DNA. OK, this completely eliminates a satisfactory interpretation one can make of the inconsistencies so far: that the aliens are undesirables on a prison ship (much like the Space Seed episode of Star Trek), which is why they aren’t in control of their ship and are dying in their own filth aboard. Moving forward, it is inconceivable that human weaponry would be any match against this alien weaponry. The aliens even have a suit that essentially renders the user invincible. There is absolutely no way the aliens wouldn’t have fought back. Maybe not to conquer the planet, but certainly not to be encased in a concentration camp.
But they are.
For 20 years.
Flashforward, and our human protagonist emerges as a guy sent into the camp (owned and operated by a security corporation) to dispense eviction notices. The plan is to move the aliens to a new camp farther away from the city. We then meet the alien protagonist, Christopher Johnson (not making that up), who has after 20 years, and coincidentally at the very same moment he is to be evicted, finally acquired enough ‘fuel’ to repower the pod. There is also enough to get back to the mother ship, and return to his home planet (it amounts to a few onces). That’s one hell of a coincidence and of course it is confiscated by the authorities. It is never explained what this fuel is or what can be found on the Earth to produce it. Now, this wouldn’t be a problem. Ambiguity is a strength when used effectively. However, the fact that it is something so scarce that it took 20 years to locate, procure or produce, greatly limits the options of the imagination to fill in the blanks.
The film from this point has numerous more inconsistencies and frustrating contradictions contained within its own narrative and the universe/time-line it seeks to create. Despite the aliens having technology above and beyond the grasp of humanity, they are complete imbeciles, except of course, Christopher Johnson and his young son. Somehow, this is the only prawn given human characteristics that is self-motivated. The director claims that the aliens operate similarly to a hive and that their behavior can be explained by the fact that their leader (the head of their collective body) has somehow died. Of course, this is contradicted by the presence of Christopher Johnson. Even though his explanation is never truly implied, I will give the director the benefit of the doubt.
With this in mind, we now come to the politics of this film with its ‘frying pan over the head’ allegory. The film, which as stated takes place in South Africa, is an obvious allegory to the Apartheid. A terrible chapter in human history. Everything from the language of the aliens incorporating ‘clicks’, to the name of the camp (the real camp of the Apartheid was named District 6) is symbolic of the Apartheid. I have absolutely no problem with this. Awful events like this should always be reminded so that they are dare not repeated. But the director undermines his own position of speaking out about the cruelties of the Apartheid by offering his ‘hive’ explanation of why the aliens are disorganized and outright stupid. If we take his analogy, he is saying that the people who suffered under the brutal South African rule were mindless drones no more intelligent than cattle; thus, validating their treatment. I don’t think that is the message he wants to convey. Regardless, even taking the film at face value, it still is disheartening that he chose to portray 99% of the aliens as unintelligent scavengers completely detached from their superior technology sitting above them in the sky eating cat food. I think Christopher Johnson’s character is supposed to ameliorate this, but it isn’t enough. Christopher Johnson doesn’t come off as representative, but as an exception. By chasing such a large and obvious allegory, this film has only created a reductionist picture of the horror itself. Blomkamp speaks out of both sides of his mouth with this film without seemingly realizing it.
I still found the film entertaining at times, but the problems in the narrative and the politics of the film are hard to ignore. The one last thing that is very impressive about it is the whole thing was made on a paltry $30,000,000 budget.
2.5/5
Filed under: Film, Film Review, Philosophy, Random Thoughts | Tags: British Comedy, British Film, Bruce Robinson, Comedy, Cult, Cult Classic, George Harrison, Paul McGann, Richard E. Grant, Richard Griffiths, Withnail and I
A very great friend of mine today was talking about sequels and mentioned Wayne’s World 2. Realizing that this would be yet again another opportunity to recommend one of my favorite comedies to him (which I know he hasn’t seen), I mentioned that Wayne’s World 2 contains many references to the wonderful British comedy, Withnail and I. I must say that this is not a ‘hilarious’ film from top to bottom and laugh-out-loud moments come gradually, but it is very subtle and dry, which I prefer. There are many great scenes: meeting Uncle Monty, the bar, Hamlet, going into Town and into the Tea Room, the scene with the Bull, asking the farmer for food, “I MUST HAVE SOME BOOZE”, etc… Every line is delivered impeccably and the dialogue is tremendously intelligent. Some will inevitably find it pejoratively slow, but that is because there is no place for it to get to. It is about two broke drunken failed actors in their mid-twenties in 1969 escaping London for the weekend to a wealthy relative’s country home. They interact with neighbors, farmers, and eventually the wealthy homosexual uncle himself when he makes a surprise visit and develops a crush on “I” (“I” is unnamed in the film) at the encouragement of Withnail.
I could have picked a dozen scenes to post, but I thought I’d post this one which shows their first night in the country trying to cook their first meal. Again, keep note of the subtleties of the dialogue:
George Harrison actually is a co-producer on this film.
While not everyone will love this film, everyone should attempt it. It grows funnier and funnier with each viewing, as I catch more and more of the dialogue.
Here is the original trailer:
Filed under: Film, Film Review | Tags: Cult, Duncan Jones, Film, Film Review, Kevin Spacey, Moon, Sam Rockwell, Sci-Fi, Science Fiction
There is a lot of buzz on the internet about Duncan Jones’ debut science fiction film Moon starring Sam Rockwell and Kevin Spacey. Some of it is justified, some of it is not. Science Fiction might be the one genre in more trouble than horror. There are even less decent sci-fi films being made and the genre has been put into the bargain bin of ideas saturating second rate cable stations. Even the Sci-Fi channel is moving away from science fiction purity. It isn’t surprising then, when a decent science fiction film comes around, people flock to it and easily overlook its flaws.
Jones isn’t afraid to show is influences here. The first hour is playfully littered with references to Tarkovsky’s “Solaris” and Kubrick’s “2001: A Space Odyssey”. Even the plots are similar. The comparisons are inescapable. However, Jones masterfully embraces these similarities to build tension, and in the end when one realizes that he isn’t going in those directions, the tension is nicely deflated and reveals a somewhat original conclusion. The problem I had was that the conclusion was simply predictable. I felt the middle 40 minutes dragged and I found that I didn’t really care by the end when it picked up again. The film at times felt like a 30 minute pilot episode for a new series stretched out laboriously for 90 minutes.
To its credit, Kevin Spacey and Sam Rockwell give wonderful performances, and regardless of the critics, I think the “smiley face’ emoticon on GERTY is a unique and wonderful touch considering the internet age we live in. Additionally, Moon also rejects CGI. Seeing actual models again after a decade of CGI wankfests (See: George Lucas) is enough to champion this film alone. It’s worth seeing. But I don’t think this is signaling a second coming in science fiction. Still, it is enough to make me follow what Duncan Jones does next and I think this film will reach cult status.
Filed under: Film, Film News, Film Review | Tags: Blu-Ray, Death, The Criterion Collection, Ingmar Bergman, The Seventh Seal, Bergman, Sweden, Swedish Cinema, Middle Ages, Plague, Life, Max von Sydow
Criterion released this week Ingmar Bergman’s landmark “The Seventh Seal” on Blu Ray. As all of the Criterion blu’s so far, it looks marvelous and might be the best looking black and white film over 50 years old I have seen in the format (Yes, that includes Casablanca’s release from last year). Criterion has gone to great lengths to provide a perfect balance of grain and detail.
One of the most iconic films in the history of cinema, it traces the story of a knight (Max von Sydow) traveling through Sweden in the 14th century during the plague. Death summons the Knight who challenges Death to a game of Chess. They ponder the meaning of life, and death throughout the film.
While “The Seventh Seal” may be Bergman’s most recognizable and famous film, it isn’t my favorite of his. I much prefer “The Virgin Spring”, “Wild Strawberries”, “Through the Glass Darkly”, “Persona”, and “Fanny & Alexander”. Still, this film is incredibly impressive and required viewing and it does contain one of my favorite lines in all of cinema: “Have we made an idol out of fear, and called it ‘God’?”. Criterion as usual presents the film as it has not been seen since the fresh negatives rolled in movie houses in 1958.
Filed under: Film, Film Review | Tags: Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms, Heather Graham, The Dan Band, The Hangover, Todd Phillips, Zach Galifianakis
Last night, I caught Todd Phillips’ The Hangover. After all of the praise it has received, I felt it was underwhelming. My main problem with the film was its dynamic in the storytelling, but I blame myself. Let me explain, the movie is aptly titled, “The Hangover”, not “The Bachelor Party”. It delivered: it focused on the most boring part of the weekend. The part where the fun was over. It focused on the uninteresting after effects. I should have realized and accepted this beforehand. The narrative follows very similarly to “Dude, Where’s My Car?” with our protagonists trying to piece together the night before while recovering from a hangover. In my own personal life, I have always found the hangover to be much less memorable than the events preceding it. I am afraid I found that to be the case here as well. The events in question here seemed so wonderful, I wanted to see them play out naturally.
This wasn’t a terrible film and it did everything right; I was entertained. It had every cliche that a party film is supposed to have (even had a tiger and a chicken in the film!). But, I found it predictable most of the time. The only parts that I found to be truly funny were scenes that showed footage from the night before, and the pictures contained on the digital camera that roll during the ending credits. In short, I wanted to see the night and not the next day. It was fun for a little while playing detective, but in the end, the goods were only delivered when we got to see the events from the night before.
(NO SPOILERS)
This weekend, I went to see UP.
The IMDB synopsis: “By tying thousands of balloon to his home, 78-year-old Carl Fredricksen sets out to fulfill his lifelong dream to see the wilds of South America.”
It was one of the most touching films I have seen in a long time. Before last week, I had never seen a Pixar film. For some reason, they have never interested me. I realize these films are not solely for children. Many of my peers, with opinions I respect, raved about Wall-E last year. My problem is that there is generally so much that I want to see, these films just don’t get priority for me. Additionally, I have often jokingly claimed that I have no need to see them because someday I plan on having children. If my kids are anything like I was when I was age 3-12, they will rewatch any film three times a day; hence, my avoidance for such films until those wondrous years of parenthood where I will be subjected to them daily for years.
I can’t explain why this film was enticing to me to begin with. The poster above piqued my interest, and the prospect of the lead protagonists being human also helped. Somehow, the creators at Pixar were somehow able to pull in my demographic. The film was fantastic. The first fifteen minutes is so terribly effective and is able to manipulate the audience into reaction so easily. I have never seen a film able to do this that quickly.
As the film played out, I was surprised by how subtle it chose to be at just the right times. Disney is known for milking any emotional moment to the bone, but I did not see that here. It was just right. They let poignant moments play out naturally, when historically in a Disney film, the lead protagonist would usually launch into an extended soliloquy of exposition or instruction on reaction.
Despite being incredibly sad at times, the movie was also very uplifting. The comic relief of the film was perfect and luckily didn’t require any more suspension of disbelief that wasn’t needed for the film as a whole.
I implore all people to go see this. It isn’t a film that I would normally be attracted to, but it’s marvelous. Even if you hate life, and your addiction to some seemingly meangful sense of depression fills your days with purpose, you should still be able to get something out of this film even if you choose to miss the point.
I might have to see Wall-E now.
Filed under: Film, Film Review, Philosophy | Tags: 6 Moral Tales, Eric Rohmer, French Cinema, French Film, Mathematics, My Night at Maud's, Pascal, Philosophy, Religion
Last night, I had the absolute privilege to screen Eric Rohmer’s “My Night at Maud’s“. This film is a part of the 6 Film Saga known as “6 Moral Tales” that Rohmer made in the 60s and 70s. It is perhaps the most famous of the series. I have a penchant for films that are only conversations or take place in a room (e.g. My Dinner with Andre, Secret Honor, 12 Angry Men, etc…), and I happily add this film to such an exclusive list.
This film follows a conversation between a Marxist and a Catholic discussing mathematics, philosohpy and Pascal. Some will find this film talky and boring; others, riveting. The suspense is built on ideas supported by words and not action. It is no wonder to me that this was nominated for several Academy Awards because it is so well written. I can’t recommend this film enough and I look forward to viewing the other five films.
Filed under: Comedy, Film, Film News, Film Review, Internet, Politics, Random Thoughts | Tags: Box Office, Democrat, Dystopian, Obama, Politics, Republican, Terminator, Terminator 4, Terminator: Salvation, Trends, Utopian
Graeme McMillan is theorizing today that the reason the newest Terminator film flopped is because of President Obama. Apparently, Americans don’t go for dystopian visions of the future if their President offers hope and a positive vision for the future.
Plus, I suppose it doesn’t help that the general feeling is it sucked.
Filed under: Film Review, Internet, Random Thoughts | Tags: criticism, critics, Dualism, Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull, Internet Criticism, reviews, rottentomatoes
versus 
There are many places on the internet to get professional and amateur reviews of various films. One site, Rottentomatoes, is helpful because it gathers all professional reviews of a film and averages them resulting in a percentage. If the reviews of a film average over 60%, the film is considered “Fresh”; under 60% means the film is “Rotten”. In setting up such a simplistic dichotomy, there is an obvious problem: how does one determine whether a review is positive or negative and what about the grayish middle?
In the FAQ, the administrators of the site address the problem unapologetically:
“Why don’t you guys have a mixed rating?
Why doesn’t Ebert & Roeper have a rating with the thumb pointing sideways? For us, it’s simplicity mainly. We do keep the original ratings (star, letter grade, numeric) for each review in our database, so maybe sometime in the future we’ll have a feature that lets users convert the ratings to any rating system they prefer.”
In this case, simplicity wins the day.
Many reviews do not embrace the simplistic western notion of dualism though. In more cases than not, many terrible films have wonderful aspects to them and certainly the converse is true. I don’t want to devolve into the tired unsolvable problems of the critic industry. But I look at a disastrous movie like Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull which still enjoys a 76% rating and wonder how accurate that could truly be; not in terms of the quality of the actual film, but the impressions of the actual reviews of the film interpreted by the RT staff.
This rating of the 4th Indiana Jones film won’t ever change despite any reevaluation. Those reviews from 2008 are on record and set in stone. 186 independent reviews according to RT gave that film a ‘positive’ rating while 58 gave it a ‘negative’ rating. While many reviewers have now adopted a subjective rating system that RT claims to take into account, I wonder how many reviews on both sides (especially the positive side ::cough::) really thought this film was great. Some of those reviews start off with some scathing points with the conclusion being that the film is ‘mindless fun’. This might be the most useless praise in the industry of professional critics. I am not so sure this should count as ‘positive’. For example, this is a ‘positive review‘ of the film that is not ‘positive’.
On top of the obvious problems of professional critics, RT now adds to the problem. No system is perfect and I often use RT to gauge a film I am looking to see, but their rating collectivization should be taken with a truckload of salt in terms of how they interpret the general impression of the reviewer reviewing a film.
Filed under: Film, Film Review | Tags: Brad Pitt, Criterion, David Fincher, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Film Review, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, The Twilight Zone
DH Lawrence once said, “One must learn to love, and go through a good deal of suffering to get to it… and the journey is always towards the other soul.” Fincher’s “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” embodies this idea and attempts to visually articulate it in a feat rarely seen on the screen. The problem is that it doesn’t completely work. We’ve seen this story before about two people in love. However, the new spin imagining a man aging backwards cannot illicit the pathos it demands, because it is completely unrelatable and incomprehensible; but worst of all in the context of this film, unnecessary. This is hardly due to a lack of imagination, but to the absurdness of the postulate. The aging paradigm isn’t much of a game changer to any life lived and isn’t presented in a new way since living backwards in Button’s world isn’t all that different from living forwards. Either way, we all die wearing a diaper. The suffering that Button goes through is realized scantily on the screen by Pitt’s flat performance, and the story of these two lovers when stripped to the core, isn’t all that different from our own stories.
Fincher does the best anyone can do with this script based on F. Scott Fitzgerald’s short story; save for maybe 1980s Spielberg (I kept thinking of “Kick the Can”). But knowing Fincher’s marvelous work, I still don’t see what attracted him to the project or why he bound himself to this script. Supported by the marvelous cinematography of Claudio Miranda and the makeup/special effects team he employed, Fincher’s film is wonderful visually, but the one gimmick it employs is not explored in any depth. While the first sections of the film adequately show a young child in an elder body, this doesn’t come with the payoff of truly exploring a young child with the wisdom of an old man. His twilight years are wasted focusing on the love story we have seen a million times. The final major plot choice made by Button seems selfish and cruel by any calculation because, we the viewers, are deprived seeing the wisdom he has accumulated throughout his life. Ironically, his final choice in regards to his daughter seems more likely from a 16 year old and not a 70 year old.
The love story is not awful, but it is not enthralling either. No dramatic tension is really added by Pitt aging backwards that wouldn’t be there if he were aging normally. In fact, Pitt aging backwards is almost insultingly unnecessary. It cannot even manipulate the viewer (I was looking for anything at this point). She doesn’t fall in love with Button until they are the same age (physically), and the love they share from that point is no different than any other love shared between two people. As a result, the first two hours of the film that built Button’s plight to the relationship was unneeded since the film chose to take this direction and not focus on Button’s experiences as an old man in a child’s body. The script abandons the payoff built by the first half by diverting to a love story. When considering that the two protagonists were raised together and she always liked him, the hurdle of overcoming any adversity is absent and their story is simply reduced to being patient. This is unfortunate for the audience. There is no conflict or tension. She just had to live her life, and eventually Button would be available. Lucky for her, he even travels for a decade (Yes, the tired ‘post card’ plot device is exploited here) allowing her to eventually have her cake and eat it too. The film is not dissimilar from “Forrest Gump” in structure (they share the same screenwriter), but in Gump, there was a clear obstacle to overcome; his mental capability. The tension here isn’t based on any decisions the protagonists can make. They merely have to let time play out.
Once they are the same age, the film proceeds like any other love story. Which is not to say that it is completely uninteresting, but even the obvious end of him descending to an infant isn’t any more compelling than a man growing old. Finally, the pay off that the film has been building towards is rushed at the end with very little scenes of tenderness between the two and his loss of mental faculty. Moreover, there is very little frustration shown on her part. What could have been the more interesting part of the film, showing Button’s death as he is reduced to physical infancy, is reduced to 2 minutes of a 3 hour film. There are no scenes of her crying with despair as she changes his diapers or resentment as she bottle feeds him or looks of regret as he learns to crawl. These last years are essentially reduced to frivolous montages.
There were numerous routes that Fincher could have presented the story and it is puzzling to me that he took the most obvious path without exploring some of the more beneficial results. If it put the love story on the side, I would have liked to of seen a young Pitt traveling the world and experiencing his adventures with the wisdom that comes from the accumulated experiences of being mentally old. His elder reflections as a seemingly young man would have been far more interesting juxtaposed against those of other twenty-somethings/teens as he interacted with them. If the film had to devolve into a love story as it did, I think it would have been much more effective had it began with their relationship and showed their time together. Maybe after a decade of life shared and her appearance giving way to age, the viewer notices that he isn’t getting any older, and even getting younger. This film unfortunately lays out all of its cards before the story begins. It shots itself in the foot from the very beginning. The viewer too is not challenged and is reduced to only having the patience of watching it all play out. I personally found The Twilight Zone episode, “A Short Drink from a Certain Fountain” ultimately more fulfilling because it presented tension and conflict where the aging backwards device was a factor, not the platform of the story.
There are little attempts to explain why Button is aging backwards. This is probably a good thing, but Fincher cannot resist clinging to the sentimentality of a blind clockmaker making a clock that turns backwards. This seems simply tagged on for emotional value.
“The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” isn’t without its moments, but the viewer is forced to sit through a tedious hour or more to get to them. There are some touching scenes well executed. This isn’t a story about overcoming anything and there is little tension. Their relationship doesn’t hinge on anything other than patience and the eventual end isn’t any different than…death. Something we all have to face. The conflict is artificial in the sense that it isn’t any different than our own.
2.5/5
Filed under: Film, Film Review | Tags: French Cinema, French Film, Malle, Miles Davis, Noir
I happened to catch Malle’s first film, “Elevator to the Gallows” last night. It was a fantastic French 50s noir in disguise. I only make that comment because Jeanne Moreau’s performance gives such depth to her character and adds a layer of emotion so rare in noir, that you hardly realize she is a femme fatale with all of the traditional motives attributed to standard noir. What also made this film interesting is that Miles Davis did the improvisational score (recorded one night over the course of 5 hours). He recorded it right before he worked on his next album, “Milestones“.
Despite being satisfyingly compelling, the movie has its problems of course. I felt the tension at times was relieved too easily. Specifically, the item he goes back for at the murder scene (which will implicate him) before he is trapped overnight in the elevator exits far too soon from the narrative. The tension derived from watching him squirm in the elevator now rests solely on the shoulders of dramatic irony. I also felt that the young couple’s scenes with the German tourists dragged on a little long. Nonetheless, these are completely minor complaints when taken within the context of the film.
I still recommend it highly. It is well put together and the Davis score is impeccable.
4/5
Coppola at Cannes today presenting his new film “Tetro”. I am very excited for this film. It is his first film since 1974’s “The Conversation” (A masterpiece) that he also composed the screenplay in addition to directing. Despite it being a gorgeous film to look at, I wasn’t the biggest fan of his last film “Youth without Youth”, which was his first work in over a decade. Still, this might be his most personal work since “The Godfather” according to many sources, so that alone is great news.
Filed under: Film, Film News, Film Review | Tags: Blu-Ray, Clouzot, Criterion, Film Review, French Cinema, The Wages of Fear
Criterion this past month released one of my favorite films on the hi-def format Blu-Ray, Henri-Georges Clouzot’s “The Wages of Fear”. While not an obscure film, it seems an odd choice to select out of their vast collection considering how many more popular films could have been released pragmatically from a revenue perspective.
Arguably Clouzot’s masterpiece, along with “Les Diaboliques” and “Le Corbeau”, this 1953 French film chronicles four men hired by American contractors in South America to drive two trucks filled with Nitroglycerine to an uncontained fire at an oil derelict almost 300 miles away. Nitroglycerine is highly unstable and can explode from a simple shake. A drop will blow your arm off and they have several tons. The film is the definition of tension as they ascend up bumpy one-lane dirt roads driving 5-10mph. Clozout is masterful in his direction as the audience feels every jolt along the way; relief comes only briefly. Most every other minute is spent sweating as our protagonists barely survive each curve, pothole, rock and shaky hand (and this is not to mention that actual obsticals they encounter). I promise that this film is not an exercise in tedium once it gets started (they don’t get on the road until 40 minutes into the film). One is too busy being worried about their well being to think about being bored.
This film presents an underlying commentary on the US oil industry and the exploitation of South America (or really anywhere in the world that has oil). American censors were not kind to this film upon its arrival and butchered it. Criterion has an interesting documentary on the censorship process.
I won’t give away the end, but many are unsatisfied with the last 30 seconds. The film was made towards the end of the neo-realist Italian movement (DeSica, Rossellini, etc.) and the French New Wave movement that would revolutionize filmmaking forever. The Wages of Fear belongs to neither. It is merely a suspense film and commentary on geo-politics. The ending is one last sucker punch to the audience after being on a tense ride for two hours (two days for our protagonists) up the mountain.
The Blu-Ray transfer was derived from a negative that was remastered in 2005 (I don’t know if the negative was the original). It looks gorgeous. The level of grain apparent is perfect (as is Criterion’s presentation of Reed’s “The Third Man”). Keep in mind, film grain is natural and is not the same as rips in the negative, apparent dust, or loose hair visible on the print. Not all film is supposed to look like the Star Wars prequels: glossy and animated. I applaud Criterion for respecting the integrity of these older films. Cleaning them up and making them sharp is one thing but only part of the process. The blacks look deeper, there is little digital distortion, and no edge enhancement apparent, but they are not supposed to be clean (See the latest controversial Blu remastering of Ford’s “The Searchers” from the original Technicolor). Perhaps the best example of an old black and white film being cleaned up is the recent Blu presentation of “Casablanca” which I suggest everyone check out. My only complaint about this disc is the lack of a scholarly commentary track.
I have not seen the American remake “Sorcerer” from 1977 by William Friedkin, or the rumored Iranian remake from the previous year “Atash-e Jonoob”, but this is worth seeing by all.
I also have a sneaking suspicion that this represents where creator Shigeru Miyamoto got the names “Mario and Luigi” for his video game series.
“The Wages of Fear” is stunning on Blu-Ray and a welcome surprise.
