Tuesday of your Discontent

One movie in the past two weeks...

REVANCHE

Another deceptively conventional film, because its style is so full of literal and metaphorical quiet and cavernous spaces that there’s a tremendous amount of room for a film-viewer to see some clear elements of other brooding neo-noir films in its tone. The immediate comparison I could make was with my experience of watching Handsome Harry, as I go through the motions of watching what I think to be a standard story of someone with a dark secret of their past, told with a familiar sequence of juxtaposed flashbacks, only to realize I was caught in a trap of expectations making the devastating ending almost completely counter-balance the flaws during the rest of the movie. Revanche (German for Revenge) was a case where I was in tune with the stark style, the director’s patience with character actions, and the expectation that the ending was going to be inconclusive in a typical modern indie foreign film way. I felt I had drank from this cinematic well before, even if this film was being executed near-perfectly. Then that ‘conclusion’, or lack of one, that I knew was coming became a haunting and unique way to tie up the loose ends the loose ends that had been created through the plot, but without created anything resembling a happy ending. You could almost visualize the sharply cornered geometric shape of tension created by the new place these characters are at… but the film seemed to suggest that this impasse would be far better than the risks of a more explosive situation. The tragedy at the center of the story created a limited range of outcomes… none of them pleasant… and our acceptance of these extremely uncomfortable but not horrifying circumstances is one of the most exceptional things about this movie.

Tuesday Post With No Name

A FISTFUL OF DOLLARS (1964)

The free cable movie on-demand movie selection had been bad for a while, so what a nice surprise, the morning after my Saturday trip to Lollapalooza in Chicago, to the first of Clint Eastwood's Man With No Name trilogy available. Perfect timing too, as I was ready to jump into this trilogy very soon via Netflix.

This was a pretty direct remake of Akira Kurosawa's Yojimbo, which was one of the first movies I saw on my new HDTV upon purchase! And it was odd how something that has some of the exact same scenes translated into a Western setting (with guns instead of samurai swords) was still riveting due to filmmaking and acting quality.

I can tell why these films are legendary... they are confidently cool and very influential. I can't wait to see that next two. Given that On-Demand offered the three films of the Pusher trilogy in quick succession, I'm hoping I'll see A Few Dollars More, and The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly soon.

Thoughts on 2 movies

As promised...

GOODFELLAS

A sprawling, lively epic movie with plenty of nuance and misdirection. This movie has seeped into so many pop culture reference areas I know that I can’t view it objectively. In addition to the spot-the-Sopranos actor game, it was also impossible to watch without thinking about the amoralism inherent in that TV mob epic. I’m reading a writer from AV Club’s recap of the Sopranos, episode by episode, and the theme that creeps up is that while you are learning about these characters inside and out and learning to sympathize with them, there is some rotten at the center of them, something self-interested and shallow, that would still stink, even if every person in this mob organization was involved in legal modern business activities. Ray Liotta’s Goodfellas character goes through quite a bit of struggles but the selfishness of him and his collaborators ultimately backs him into a corner. While his mob buddies, when backed into a corner, have different, more bloody ways of dealing with their issues when at a dead end, the way the film wraps up through legal means is kind of off-putting but very appropriate.

That being said, I’m glad that most of the movie was new to me. The Joe Pesci character, repeated many times in future mobster charicatures, didn’t dominate the movie, but knowing that he was a bit of a hothead made the scenes with him very tense. I also didn’t know the film was so focused on the outsider perspective, and the true story of a mob witness. It works on many different levels… you can almost see anyone excited about any get rich quick scheme to take the same journey Ray Liotta does.

And, again, because of the Sopranos and the short fuses of everyone on that show, I was absolutely cringing when any character muttered or said something under his breath after a ‘boss’ gives an order in Goodfellas. You know things are not going to end well. Maybe The Godfather movies seemed so formal and calculated, that having a few of these people go crazy at the drop of a dime was a good departure from previous mob movies.

THE WHITE RIBBON

A textbook case of the types of films that would be difficult to convince most friends to watch. If I have to spend more time explaining why this movie is worth watching despite its difficulty than what the movie is actually about, then I can’t expect to win everyone over. So I went back into my thought process as to why I was in a hurry to see this. Because my Netflix queue is completely full, I like the freedom of being impulsive and moving a movie up to the top of my list due to some outside stimuli. Well, this time, it was the AV Club’s Gateway to Geekery feature covering the films of Michael Haneke. The White Ribbon was originally in my queue because it was the Palm D’or winner in 2009 at the Cannes festival, and I had a little more interest because the first (and only other) Haneke film I have seen, 2005’s Cache, was so obtuse and difficult that I wanted to see his style more, especially as it applied to a historical drama taking place in Germany in 1913, just before World War I started. Cache had some real issues if you want clarity and conclusions in movies, and at the time I saw it (just 2-3 years ago) I don’t think I had come to terms completely with the concept that a film doesn’t have to give you all the answers, even nuanced ones, to be successful. But as I’ve learned with some unique music that I seem to listen to over and over again to pick up what I was missing, there are filmmakers who demand more attention because they’re not going to present you with direct information. So, my free time limitations don’t give me much options to always be watching the same movies again, but they do make me eager to see more of a distinctive director’s work, perhaps knowing what complexities I’m in for before I begin. With a 2.5 hour movie like the White Ribbon, you definitely should not be going in with an idea that this film is going to be straightforward. In fact, the similarities I found to Cache was the intriguing twist that while you don’t know definitely who the real culprits of the main crimes in the movie are, the environment and suspicions those crimes create do more everlasting damage than the original despicable acts. Without the empty feeling I felt after Cache, The White Ribbon would be even more frustrating upon it’s conclusion.

Once thing the White Ribbon did have was extensive narration from one of the only likeable characters around. This made each scene and each missed opportunity for conclusion more powerful. I had also read before watching this that the movie was a take on the beginnings of Fascism in Germany. Now, it’s very likely that I wouldn’t have picked up on this without reading what critics said about the themes of the movie. But the narrator removes the mystery by saying, in the beginning, that his story of the activities in this small village might shed light on “what happened in this country”. But except for the incredibly haunting references to the historical events leading up to World War I at different times that seem to suck the withering vitality out of every scene, all the activities take place within this little idyllic village. Many of the violent actions, done without reason or explanation, are on a small scale and shown off-screen, while the characters are at their most despicable when acting towards eachother and not towards some larger sense of patriotism or militarism. Yet the looming idea that these young kids must be seen as the future Nazi party faithful does not go away with the initial tone. The groupthink, the discipline, the irrational hostility, and self-righteousness, on this village-level scale must be the seeds of horror to come, yet it’s never made to seem like the activities of this band of villagers ties to a greater whole.

Tuesday

Well... I'm pretty sure these are the only two new movies I've watched in the past week. Just for record-keeping sake... I'll share some thoughts later.

GOODFELLAS (1990)

and

THE WHITE RIBBON (2009)

Two ambitious lengthy movies. Satisfying... in different ways.

movie report

I'm definitely risking forgetting a movie I might have seen with these long gaps... I think I have a handle on my movie watching habits. I know that if I don't see something regularly my netflix queue fills up by the time Ain't It Cool News' weekly DVD column comes out!

CYRUS (2010)

Can I handle two doses of Jonah Hill in a row? I believe so, if you can get a performance as different as these creepy and surprisingly powerful in this movie. The critics have not said great things about it, but I enjoyed it quite a bit. My friend that I watched it with mentioned how natural the people talked... that the main protagonist was reacting the way anyone would to Cyrus' behavior. The movie starts so organically and naturally, that this live-in son situation because very tense, partly because almost anyone could imagine this happening to them. Maybe it doesn't really end in a flashy way, but it's grounded in reality and doesn't play a weird-o overgrown man-child to absurd levels, as probably makers of mainstream Hollywood comedies are tempted to do.

[Along those lines, I was able to hook up Netflix Instant on the laptop of my Chicago friend I was staying with. I fell asleep to the gentle sounds of the movie Step Brothers. Since I didn't really watch it, I can't review it, but I likely would not have said nice things.]

JERICHOW (2008)

How's this for organized movie-watching.... pick a letter of the alphabet at random and then watch the first film available on Netflix Instant beginning with that letter from your list of WIFF selections? Well that's what I did! and this movie turned me off initially with two dull elements... the unemotional silent male with a past never explained and making him so full of passion (reflected in blank unsentimental eyes) that he quickly gets into an affair with the first attractive married woman that enters his life. So given my exhausting weekend my mind drifted. But I was beginning to give it credit for not wasting my time with distracting plotlines and finally wrapping up with some strong testimonials and twists that made me hate myself for not being my usual patient self with different kinds of movies. Not that original, but not a throwaway indie film by any means.

the cinema report

I’m back on the movie saddle again! Saw three good movies this past weekend, each with some unique flaws.

THE IMAGINARIUM OF DOCTOR PARNASSUS (2009)

I had heard that this was something to see, a nearly pure surreal Terry Gilliam movie experience that the director had not made in a long while. And the Blu-rayified visuals were amazing. The thing I forgot about Gilliam films is that there’s a lot of difficult narrative directions, and a kind of sly, subversive attitude (maybe leftover from Monty Python days) that gums about both a casual understanding of the plot and the film’s movement towards a satisfying conclusion. That’s pretty clear here… I thought that perhaps the setting of a film often being inside a wild fantastical world of the mind would allow cinematic inventiveness to run rampant, while allowing something more logical to serve as an anchor for those of us wanting to see more than wild images. But no luck here… it’s not nonsensical, but it’s purposely difficult, which might just make me want to watch it again!

GET HIM TO THE GREEK (2010)

I had read good things about this Apatow-produced comedy, and of course there were plenty of laugh-out-loud and gross-out moments. After making my way through Funny People, Knocked Up, Forgetting Sarah Marshall and Superbad, however, I might be getting tired of this new comedy formula. There’s a mostly common element to these movies, which involve honestly blunt, likely improvised dialogue, at least several uncomfortably gross situations (vomit usually being featured), and a kind of redemption of characters for their debauchery earlier in the movie. I’m not lumping all of these movies into the same broad category, but this film reminded me to be wary of rushing out to see another one of these types of movies, unless they really offer something unique and unprecedented.

CLOSER (2004)

Closer was on my radar for a few reasons, but with my obsession with completion of lists, it had the honors of containing one of AV Club’s best film scenes of the decade, and moreover, viewing it would complete two sets of Oscar nominated categories for that year, as both Natalie Portman and Clive Owen were nominated for Best Supporting Actress and Best Supporting Actor.

That scene that was highly regarded by AV Club is stunning, serving as an intense full throttle version of the intricate character interplay that takes place and really brings up all sorts of questions about the meaning of playing roles in relationships. Now for simple non-fussy escapism, couple involve themselves in role-playing to spice their companionship up. But Closer perfectly demonstrates what happens if that desire to not play your honest self snowballs into a point where some kind of game is being played, even when situations call for the most intimate, honest moments. The fault of this movie, despite the great performance, is that its theatrical leanings (it was based on a play) do reveal themselves a little too plainly. I guess there is nothing wrong with filmed versions of plays, but I do not want something cinematic to remind me that I could be viewing a form of art in its true, original medium. I’m not sure if the play version, could reveal the twist so subtly at the end. I did have to pay a little extra attention, as most movies with a suprising but completely perfect turnaround usually ram the twist into your head.

But, for some fun, since I did satisfy my Oscar nomination completion fetish with this movie… why don’t I quickly summarize and choose my own favorites among the 5 performances?

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR

Until Closer, the only year in the past decade where I had seen all nominated Best Supporting Actor performances was 2000. Including Clive Owen’s supporting performance in 2004, the other nominees were.

Morgan Freeman – Million Dollar Baby – Plenty of a powerful performance, but I don’t remember it being much more that a perfect Morgan Freeman. I imagine Invictus, which I haven’t seen, required a lot more stretching for him. I think the gravitas he brings to his characters is a real gift regardless.

Alan Alda – The Aviator – We all know that the Oscars give out honorary nominations and sometimes winners for a performance that isn’t monumental in and of itself, but nonetheless deserves to be recognized to acknowledge an iconic career. The Aviator was a massive film packed full of actors, actresses, and big scenes, and I did not really see this performance stand out, especially as it was always in the shadow of DiCaprio’s tour de force performance. Still it was kind of a squirmy Alan Alda doing his thing.

Thomas Hayden Church – Sideways – I remember in the Who Will Win / Who Should Win columns that come out before Oscar time this role was the one recognized as deserving to win in a year in which Morgan Freeman wouldn’t be in the running. It was very engaging watching Church’s sleazeball antics manipulate and contrast Giamatti’s attitude towards his own life. I can’t tell whether it might be too over the top to be believable, but Sideways, despite its merits, did have adopt some hypercharacterization to move the film along.

Jamie Foxx – Collateral – Shortchanged Jamie Foxx only won one out of two Oscar nominations that year. I have not seen Ray, but since was a fine performance. I suppose it didn’t stand out as anything special, but relative to other action movies, where the hapless schmo caught up in a criminal enterprise could really be played to type, Foxx gave us something unique and honest.

I suppose I could distant myself from my most recently watched performance, since Closer was so sharp and brutal. But I probably think my favorite would go to Church in Sideways. I remember watching the movie for the first time and really not understanding where this character came from, and when you have a performance that defies expectations, you know it has that extra quality that makes it better than the other solid nominees.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS

Upon viewing The Hours from 2002 and North Country from 2005 (neither exciting prospects) I will have some more complete sets of Oscar nominations in this category from the last decade. Until now, the gorgeous Natalie Portman’s performance in Closer completes my first supporting actress set…

Cate Blanchett – The Aviator – This involves the actress pretty much being completely absorbed by a character with well known tropes. Pretty stunning.

Laura Linney – Kinsey – I do think of Linney’s turn in this film whenever I see her in something, and then start thinking about how finely constructed the film and performances in this movie were overall, which made it great because the subject was so fascinating to begin with. Her performance added calm and humanity to a movie that was overall about breaking very strict taboos.

Virginia Madsen – Sideways – A solid performance but not entirely complex given the conflicted characters in this movie.

Sophie Okenedo – Hotel Rwanda – I can’t be upset with this performance. It’s just that given that I have read a few long articles about the absolute hell of the Rwandan genocide, the movie was not as powerful, and that has to do with some of the lightness in which the main character’s struggles were treated.

So, overall, it’s close between two finalist I have to stick with the actual winner Cate Blanchett because of her complete escape into the performance. Linney’s character was essential to Kinsey but she does have some mannerisms in her movies that are consistent and prevent you from seeing entirely different characters in each of her movies.

report

IRON MAN 2 (2010)

The movie theaters are still worth something, although the sound at the local multiplex seemed to not hurt my ears as much as I thought for a big action movie, which is good... I guess. My goodness... Scarlett Johanson looked so perfect in this movie, it was almost hard to watch. I especially didn't like the effect that it had on making Gweneth Paltrow, who is just as glamorous despite her neurotic character, seem so plain and ordinary.

I also got to watch Blue Velvet for a second time in HD... the first time I saw it was one of my last painful memories of watching a legendary movie on a worn-out VHS tape. This was much better quality, but my sensitivity to just how creepy David Lynch's movies are made me see this film in an entirely new way. A candy colored clown... RIP, Dennis Hopper.