LA VIE EN ROSE (2007)
So I provided the only follower of this blog with a list of 5 movies, selected randomly from my 266+ films available from Netflix Instant, and asked him to choose one for me to watch, but he must have thought that was stupid. No bother, I decided to go for the Oscar-winning performance of Marion Cotilard, even though bio-pics make me weary, especially with the running time of over 2 hours. Biopics, understandably, are focused on the life of a single person, and if you're not completely interested in that person (Frank Zappa biopic NOW please) it can be disengaging. From a single Youtube someone through on a blog somewhere of Edith Pfiaf performing, I was intrigued by finding out more to this person. Reviewing a wikipedia bio, it seems like her life was indeed so complex and fascinating that it couldn't all be filmed. Nonetheless, the story is non-linear and there's some very creative direction to represent fuzzy memories and fantasy and grief. Couldn't say those elements held my attention alone, but the performance was indeed incredible.
With spooky season coming up, I might dial up some horror movies.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Weekly Update (Tuesday/Wednesday) whatever
JAWS (1975)
The legendary film which I never saw all the way through, and for free (ignoring cable fees) on HD On Demand!
As good as I expected. If every blockbuster was like this I wouldn't be a film snob. Some refreshing surprises... the naturalistic dialogue more appropriate for a Robert Altman film... the fleshed out characters that you want to spend time with and make up for the very rare appearances of the actual shark... and the drawn out final act with a monologue from Quint that puts all monster movies that go for cheap thrills into perspective.
Thinking about what this movie would be like with CGI sickens me.
Steve Speilberg... I should check this director out (sorry).
THE WIND THAT SHAKES THE BARLEY (2006)
This was not on any special must-see list of mine... it only has sat on my Netflix Instant list for a long time (#30 out of #245 or so). It did win the Cannes Palme d'Or and covered an interesting subject area...
Very realistic depiction of a brutality I wasn't that familiar with, as far as the way British soldiers treated the Irish post World War I. What was devastating about this particular movie was how it matter-of-factly presents the differences and debate that led to the bloody religious political divisions that plagued Ireland for the next 60+ years. It reminded me of a less artsy expression of the seeds of conflict than The White Ribbon cryptically presented upon my viewing of it a few months ago. Very good, very sad, but very real.
Let's see what other Palme d'Or (the top award at Cannes) have I seen...
The White Ribbon (2009)
Farenheit 9-11 (2004)
The Pianist (2002)
Dancer in the Dark (2000)
Secrets & Lies (1996)
Pulp Fiction (1994)
The Mission (1986)
Taxi Driver (1976)
The legendary film which I never saw all the way through, and for free (ignoring cable fees) on HD On Demand!
As good as I expected. If every blockbuster was like this I wouldn't be a film snob. Some refreshing surprises... the naturalistic dialogue more appropriate for a Robert Altman film... the fleshed out characters that you want to spend time with and make up for the very rare appearances of the actual shark... and the drawn out final act with a monologue from Quint that puts all monster movies that go for cheap thrills into perspective.
Thinking about what this movie would be like with CGI sickens me.
Steve Speilberg... I should check this director out (sorry).
THE WIND THAT SHAKES THE BARLEY (2006)
This was not on any special must-see list of mine... it only has sat on my Netflix Instant list for a long time (#30 out of #245 or so). It did win the Cannes Palme d'Or and covered an interesting subject area...
Very realistic depiction of a brutality I wasn't that familiar with, as far as the way British soldiers treated the Irish post World War I. What was devastating about this particular movie was how it matter-of-factly presents the differences and debate that led to the bloody religious political divisions that plagued Ireland for the next 60+ years. It reminded me of a less artsy expression of the seeds of conflict than The White Ribbon cryptically presented upon my viewing of it a few months ago. Very good, very sad, but very real.
Let's see what other Palme d'Or (the top award at Cannes) have I seen...
The White Ribbon (2009)
Farenheit 9-11 (2004)
The Pianist (2002)
Dancer in the Dark (2000)
Secrets & Lies (1996)
Pulp Fiction (1994)
The Mission (1986)
Taxi Driver (1976)
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Movie report
THE SOCIAL NETWORK (2010)
Yeah, this was a good one. The performances, the pace, and the music (co-composed by Trent Reznor) all came together perfectly, and the direction by David Fincher made a legal deliberation across a conference table seem as the most riveting thing possible to watch.
What makes this movie ALMOST legendary is that I was surprised about how little the movie focused on the impact on implications Facebook has for how we socialize. There were some very good and powerful references to this impact, included the chilling ending that is one of the most perfect thematic conclusions to a film I’ve seen in a long while. Nonetheless, the film basically examines the characters that helped create this ubiquitous application and the protracted legal battles over revenues as facebook exploded, where amounts of 50 million dollars or more are tossed around back and forth casually as if they didn’t matter. Add in a few more subtle references to how difficult it was for this main character to traditionally socialize, and how facebook became a type of solution to his issues, and subsequently all people’s modern social hangups, and this film would have struck a perfect harmony between a straightforward drama and an incisive social commentary. But what was delivered was far from a disappointment, and perhaps I’ve got my own issues with online communication that I was hoping to see addressed by this movie.
See, I try to think I’m above a marketing campaign but I was a sucker for the acclaimed trailer and the collaboration between atmospheric director David Fincher and nine inch nails guy Trent Reznor. What it implied to me was that this movie would going to hit the alienation of the online age head-on. I’ve had trouble dealing with my predilection for interacting with people online ever since I discovered AOL chat rooms circa 1995-1996. And everytime I think I’ve beaten the temptation to deal with shyness and insecurity by leaning towards my typing keys as my social instrument, a new feature comes along that tweaks the model a little bit. Unlike younger people I actually know of a world where you couldn’t communicate in YouTube clips and if you wanted to tell someone what you were reading, listening, or watching, you had to go through a few basic social interactions before you could share that knowledge. So perhaps knowing the music of Reznor and the films of Fincher from their work in the 1990s, the same time I was going through adolescence and social maturity, that their styles would be particular modern and in tune with some of the larger themes inherent in the expansion of facebook and new forms of online connectivity.
I graduated from college in the summer of 2003 and Facebook first spread through campuses that following fall. My online vices were mostly AIM and relying too much on e-mail to communicate with people I was shy around, yet fortunately the small college campus environment kept you social away from your computer. So perhaps I had a unique perspective and expectations for The Social Network. Overall it’s a story about a cutthroat business battle among kids my age, and it was very entertaining.
Facebook this, Twitter this, and link to this. Become one of my blog followers, add it to your blog roll, and leave comments.
Also
IN THE LOOP (2009)
Yeah, this was a good one. The performances, the pace, and the music (co-composed by Trent Reznor) all came together perfectly, and the direction by David Fincher made a legal deliberation across a conference table seem as the most riveting thing possible to watch.
What makes this movie ALMOST legendary is that I was surprised about how little the movie focused on the impact on implications Facebook has for how we socialize. There were some very good and powerful references to this impact, included the chilling ending that is one of the most perfect thematic conclusions to a film I’ve seen in a long while. Nonetheless, the film basically examines the characters that helped create this ubiquitous application and the protracted legal battles over revenues as facebook exploded, where amounts of 50 million dollars or more are tossed around back and forth casually as if they didn’t matter. Add in a few more subtle references to how difficult it was for this main character to traditionally socialize, and how facebook became a type of solution to his issues, and subsequently all people’s modern social hangups, and this film would have struck a perfect harmony between a straightforward drama and an incisive social commentary. But what was delivered was far from a disappointment, and perhaps I’ve got my own issues with online communication that I was hoping to see addressed by this movie.
See, I try to think I’m above a marketing campaign but I was a sucker for the acclaimed trailer and the collaboration between atmospheric director David Fincher and nine inch nails guy Trent Reznor. What it implied to me was that this movie would going to hit the alienation of the online age head-on. I’ve had trouble dealing with my predilection for interacting with people online ever since I discovered AOL chat rooms circa 1995-1996. And everytime I think I’ve beaten the temptation to deal with shyness and insecurity by leaning towards my typing keys as my social instrument, a new feature comes along that tweaks the model a little bit. Unlike younger people I actually know of a world where you couldn’t communicate in YouTube clips and if you wanted to tell someone what you were reading, listening, or watching, you had to go through a few basic social interactions before you could share that knowledge. So perhaps knowing the music of Reznor and the films of Fincher from their work in the 1990s, the same time I was going through adolescence and social maturity, that their styles would be particular modern and in tune with some of the larger themes inherent in the expansion of facebook and new forms of online connectivity.
I graduated from college in the summer of 2003 and Facebook first spread through campuses that following fall. My online vices were mostly AIM and relying too much on e-mail to communicate with people I was shy around, yet fortunately the small college campus environment kept you social away from your computer. So perhaps I had a unique perspective and expectations for The Social Network. Overall it’s a story about a cutthroat business battle among kids my age, and it was very entertaining.
Facebook this, Twitter this, and link to this. Become one of my blog followers, add it to your blog roll, and leave comments.
Also
IN THE LOOP (2009)
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Tuesday
A bonus movie update in the next day or two, since this was a longish summary.
THIS FILM IS NOT YET RATED (2006)
I had heard about this documentary for a while and despite it being ancient history for a documentary (four years ago) it was available on Netflix Instant. It was rather disturbing. I remember not having a TV available to me for the first time in my life as I was subletting an apartment in Washington D.C. for a summer internship in 2002. It was also my first urban living experience, and my first experience having access to several movie theaters showcasing only independent films that, if you were lucky, might screen at a single theater in Des Moines or Oklahoma City and that’s only if a film with more mainstream buzz or a less regarded blockbuster filled up that theater slot. At that time, being in that City was the only way for me to see the rare art films that cover a realm of creative expression that has been proven over subsequent years to be SO beyond what even the most critically regarded mainstream movies can do for me. Living in Chicago began the phase II of complete immersion in cool substantial creative culture, with the added bonus of theater and oh so many indie rock shows at your doorstep. Now I’m in a continuous Phase III, as I have the resources and technology (via Netflix, Rhapsody, YouTube, and proximity to Madison, Chicago, AND Milwaukee) to see and hear so many things. Despite the efforts of the awesome video/DVD rental place that opened near the Drake campus when I was wrapping up my time there, I simply did not have access to everything I could possibly want to view. In short, I can never watch in a lifetime what is available to me now, but I can access it. That access is what really bothered me about this movie’s subject, but also gave me a more enhanced appreciation of what new forms of access mean for the future of films. This documentary covers the operations of a secretive ratings boards that, in private arbitration, determines the ratings for all motion pictures distributed in commercial theaters in the United States. The filmmaker goes about to explain why this board is so frustrating for filmmakers, because their standards for what determines PG-13, R, or NC-17 have no rhyme or reason for the most part. The few insights into their deliberations do reveal a more lenient attitude towards violence compared to depictions of sex, a higher tolerance for heterosexual behavior than homosexual activities, and a very conciliatory attitude towards larger studio films then independent films. Then to remove the veil of secrecy over this board, the director hires a private investigator to try and put some names on these faces, and also reveal the identities of the appeals board, an ever more secretive body that hears appeals from the ratings board decisions.
An NC-17 rating passed down by this board is pretty much a commercial death sentence, as many theater chains have a policy of not screening these movies whatsoever. With such high stakes on this mysterious board’s determination, you think there would be some form of accountability, some type of process or handbook where filmmakers can at least be aware of the risks of putting their complete vision on screen, regardless of vulgarity. But there isn’t and these people just do what they want and get a full-time job watching movies all day to boot.
If your passion about films, this is extremely upsetting, but if you follow politics more broadly, there is also that nagging feeling from viewing firsthand that a small group of people, unaccountable to the public, voters, elected officials, are decided what’s appropriate for you. It almost makes you completely unsympathetic to criticisms of video piracy. Of course, 99% of people sharing videos of new movies online just don’t feel like paying for a ticket to watch a movie in a theater. But if the complete body of cinematic work released in American has to be funneled through this board that has substantial indirect powers of how this movie would be distributed, then I would champion any way that imposing force can be taken out of the equation. Fortunately, I have my own patterns of film intake and access channels to the point where this ratings board can really only keep me waiting a few months before I can watch what I’m interested in. But if it’s still operating the same way as it did 5 years ago, then the new revolution of online filmmaking and non-traditional distribution of new movies can’t come sooner.
THIS FILM IS NOT YET RATED (2006)
I had heard about this documentary for a while and despite it being ancient history for a documentary (four years ago) it was available on Netflix Instant. It was rather disturbing. I remember not having a TV available to me for the first time in my life as I was subletting an apartment in Washington D.C. for a summer internship in 2002. It was also my first urban living experience, and my first experience having access to several movie theaters showcasing only independent films that, if you were lucky, might screen at a single theater in Des Moines or Oklahoma City and that’s only if a film with more mainstream buzz or a less regarded blockbuster filled up that theater slot. At that time, being in that City was the only way for me to see the rare art films that cover a realm of creative expression that has been proven over subsequent years to be SO beyond what even the most critically regarded mainstream movies can do for me. Living in Chicago began the phase II of complete immersion in cool substantial creative culture, with the added bonus of theater and oh so many indie rock shows at your doorstep. Now I’m in a continuous Phase III, as I have the resources and technology (via Netflix, Rhapsody, YouTube, and proximity to Madison, Chicago, AND Milwaukee) to see and hear so many things. Despite the efforts of the awesome video/DVD rental place that opened near the Drake campus when I was wrapping up my time there, I simply did not have access to everything I could possibly want to view. In short, I can never watch in a lifetime what is available to me now, but I can access it. That access is what really bothered me about this movie’s subject, but also gave me a more enhanced appreciation of what new forms of access mean for the future of films. This documentary covers the operations of a secretive ratings boards that, in private arbitration, determines the ratings for all motion pictures distributed in commercial theaters in the United States. The filmmaker goes about to explain why this board is so frustrating for filmmakers, because their standards for what determines PG-13, R, or NC-17 have no rhyme or reason for the most part. The few insights into their deliberations do reveal a more lenient attitude towards violence compared to depictions of sex, a higher tolerance for heterosexual behavior than homosexual activities, and a very conciliatory attitude towards larger studio films then independent films. Then to remove the veil of secrecy over this board, the director hires a private investigator to try and put some names on these faces, and also reveal the identities of the appeals board, an ever more secretive body that hears appeals from the ratings board decisions.
An NC-17 rating passed down by this board is pretty much a commercial death sentence, as many theater chains have a policy of not screening these movies whatsoever. With such high stakes on this mysterious board’s determination, you think there would be some form of accountability, some type of process or handbook where filmmakers can at least be aware of the risks of putting their complete vision on screen, regardless of vulgarity. But there isn’t and these people just do what they want and get a full-time job watching movies all day to boot.
If your passion about films, this is extremely upsetting, but if you follow politics more broadly, there is also that nagging feeling from viewing firsthand that a small group of people, unaccountable to the public, voters, elected officials, are decided what’s appropriate for you. It almost makes you completely unsympathetic to criticisms of video piracy. Of course, 99% of people sharing videos of new movies online just don’t feel like paying for a ticket to watch a movie in a theater. But if the complete body of cinematic work released in American has to be funneled through this board that has substantial indirect powers of how this movie would be distributed, then I would champion any way that imposing force can be taken out of the equation. Fortunately, I have my own patterns of film intake and access channels to the point where this ratings board can really only keep me waiting a few months before I can watch what I’m interested in. But if it’s still operating the same way as it did 5 years ago, then the new revolution of online filmmaking and non-traditional distribution of new movies can’t come sooner.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Tuesday Movie Cure
So what is the minimal silver lining when you have one of your longest lasting cold/flu/infections? Weird, unexpected times for movie-watching, of course!
THE INVASION OF THE BEE GIRLS (1973)
So, Comcast On Demand has a lot of free movies... many of which are a little... well... cheaply made. But say you can't sleep because of this hideous cough keeping you up at night, but you're really too tired to focus on anything except something formulaic you don't have to remember except for a few attractive details? Well, a little harmless cult movie fun doesn't hurt anybody. I've already admitted watching The Human Centipede [shudder] so cut me some slack! Now let's never speak of this movie again.
UP (2009)
Well what good wholesome fun this is, as are all the movies I watch at any given time! Mesmerizing, beautiful, and packing a touching emotional resonance in many scenes... relative to other Pixar films, however, they took a few too many logical leaps to move the narrative along. But only set up in the universe of other Pixar films is this film even remotely faulty. Preferring Wall-E, Finding Nemo, and The Incredibles to this by no means demeans it any way.
MOTHER (2009)
I may not love all Korean films, but every one I've seen has contained so many unique twists and just completely new emotional situations that I couldn't imagine existing before these Korean directors put them front and center in honestly brutal ways. This is the third film I've seen by Joon-ho Bong, who also made Memories of Murder and The Host, and it's great.
THE INVASION OF THE BEE GIRLS (1973)
So, Comcast On Demand has a lot of free movies... many of which are a little... well... cheaply made. But say you can't sleep because of this hideous cough keeping you up at night, but you're really too tired to focus on anything except something formulaic you don't have to remember except for a few attractive details? Well, a little harmless cult movie fun doesn't hurt anybody. I've already admitted watching The Human Centipede [shudder] so cut me some slack! Now let's never speak of this movie again.
UP (2009)
Well what good wholesome fun this is, as are all the movies I watch at any given time! Mesmerizing, beautiful, and packing a touching emotional resonance in many scenes... relative to other Pixar films, however, they took a few too many logical leaps to move the narrative along. But only set up in the universe of other Pixar films is this film even remotely faulty. Preferring Wall-E, Finding Nemo, and The Incredibles to this by no means demeans it any way.
MOTHER (2009)
I may not love all Korean films, but every one I've seen has contained so many unique twists and just completely new emotional situations that I couldn't imagine existing before these Korean directors put them front and center in honestly brutal ways. This is the third film I've seen by Joon-ho Bong, who also made Memories of Murder and The Host, and it's great.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
More thoughts
THE HANGOVER
If I can be pretentious about movies once again, I thought this movie was a blast, but even moreso because of its bold move 1) to not have any big name stars and 2) use an artsy movie device by revealing only minimal parts of the shenanigans that led to the titular event. Thank goodness the movie’s title and poster explain all of what a casual film-goer needs, because if I were to push this same film, I would think it would be a perfectly reasonable pitch to say that it has this weird indie comedian who plays the piano, the Daily Show’s Ed Helms, and a cameo from this Asian doctor turned hilarious off-the-wall performer, who has appeared in a few movies but is REALLY good in the new NBC show Community. What? Nothing? And it's about a HANGOVER! OK, I'm glad you're now on board.
Fortunately, the Hangover has a poster with a missing tooth and a creepy bearded due with a baby harness, so there’s no question it’s appealing and approachable. Even better, the movie, while excelling in madcap freeflow hijinks in the same spirit as a Superbad or Harold and Kumar, is entertaining and different. My comments about Get Him to the Greek come into play, in the battle between whether in-your-face vulgarity or implied debauchery are better ways to get deeper humor. After watching this, I’d much rather attempt to IMAGINE why the heck a tiger and a chicken are in a hotel room then to have the preceding events shown to me. What happens is revealed in pieces later on, but that guessing element is what drives the movie, and perhaps implies that, like the hungover gang of drugged-up bachelors, we don’t have to know every detail of what happened to consider it something memorable.
SCOTT PILGRIM VS. THE WORLD
I’m a little less trusting of the AV Club film reviewers, now that they gave this a so-so rating (and loved Adventurland, yawn). This was an amazing movie, making up for whatever lack of depth characters had with kinetic energy and complete unpredictability as to what images are going to come up next. In fact, what the AV Club reviewer might think of hollowness of character I believe might be an encapsulation of how 20-somethings might act as a reaction to sensory overload. Besides, it’s a comic book story, and I was kind of convinced that perhaps I shouldn’t read too many reviews before I see a film, because I think the most giddy element of this flick that turned up the excitement was how it shifted from a quirky little young relationship comedy to a who-knows-what kind of movie with the entrance of that first “evil-ex”. After that, everything was bright and exciting, and I had that invigorating anticipation of “the duel” that I hadn’t felt to such a great degree since watching Kill Bill Vol. 2, waiting for the Bride to finish the 3 left on her list.
I snuck out on Monday night after a stressful day of work to watch this at a theater, and then on Tuesday I took a peek at the Graphic Novel bookshelves, where I had seen Scott Pilgrim’s books many times. At first glance it seems like they were incredibly faithful to the comic panels. I kind of regret not reading the books beforehand, but maybe from the movie-first perspective I can appreciate how human they made the story.
GRAND ILLUSION
I know a question will come up sooner or later about my tastes (I can’t keep all these refined sensibilities to myself) and someone will ask me what kind of movies I like. Something similar has come up when I’m asked about my music tastes, and my lame attempt at a short answer is “indie rock”, which to some of my friends is still not an understood category. I can say I like interesting, unique things that sort of redefine my idea of an art form, but how does that nail down what type of stuff I like?
Well, I came up with another type of approach when it comes to movies, music, books, etc. I seek an experience that we help expose me to the breadth of creative expression, but in the context of a systematic ‘list’ approach that represents a futile attempt to corral all works out there into a manageable form, but nonetheless provides me a framework to tackle such tremendously numerous works in a sense where I can have a grand accomplishment, even just in theory, of completing a given 'list'.
What a mouthful! What I’m trying to say is that I use lists by cultural critics that I respect to often decide what to watch. And the more sweeping a list the better… if there’s some movie in the top 10 of an entire DECADE that I haven’t seen, then it’s a real shame if I haven’t seen it yet.
Some lists that are shaping my movie-watching habits…
Ain’t it Cool News best films of the decade list (the 2000s)
The same for AV Club (which also has a best TV series and best miniseries of the decade list)
Complete lists of all films shown at the Wisconsin Film Festival for the years 2008, 2009, and 2010
AND a new one
The films selected for release by the Criterion distribution company… conveniently organized here.
Now the reasons for all these lists reflect a respect I have for the particular motivations these cultural organizers have for watching movies. In the case of Criterion, I have been admired the way they present films as artistic works, with designer packaging (admired at the stores since they are very expensive to purchase), lots of unique bonus features, and a breadth of respect for works new and old. Ain’t It Cool News, for example, focused their attention recently on a movie called Revanche (also a selection for WIFF 2009) because Criterion selected it for special release, highlighting it among the variety of artsy foreign films put out normally during any given year. The fact that you can have a distribution company release Revanche, and then subsequently under the same Criterion brand, release something odd from 30 years earlier that was previously unavailable to home DVD, and then release the latest Wed Anderson movie because that director’s particular aesthetic taps into their mood, is the type of sophisticated yet playful approach that make Criterion another pleasing context in which to approach a life-long goal of watching every good movie ever made.
THE GRAND ILLUSION was “spine” number 1 and available on Netflix Instant, along with quite a few other earlier Criterion releases which I might as well watch soon. The downside to Netflix Instant is that you might not get a premium widescreen issue treatment that a Criterion DVD or Blu-Ray reissue might have. Plus side was that in the case of Grand Illusion, you have a film that deals with intimate spaces and the vital humanity of characters in a tragic situation. I had a little time to look this up on Wikipedia after watching this, and it looks like Hitler’s Germany banned this movie, lest the public might be convinced to identify with a faceless menacing foreigner that needed to be considered an enemy. Fascinating that this film was made in 1938, and that there was a sensibility towards this kind of view of war that made its way into a major film. But I couldn’t help but think how I got tired of liberal filmmakers putting out another depressing yet real depiction of current wars we have to live with. These films do a great job in preaching to the choir, but did they change the minds of the people that really are in charge? The Grand Illusion obviously didn’t, but it’s a minuscule consolation that there were people sensitive enough to make this movie back then.
If I can be pretentious about movies once again, I thought this movie was a blast, but even moreso because of its bold move 1) to not have any big name stars and 2) use an artsy movie device by revealing only minimal parts of the shenanigans that led to the titular event. Thank goodness the movie’s title and poster explain all of what a casual film-goer needs, because if I were to push this same film, I would think it would be a perfectly reasonable pitch to say that it has this weird indie comedian who plays the piano, the Daily Show’s Ed Helms, and a cameo from this Asian doctor turned hilarious off-the-wall performer, who has appeared in a few movies but is REALLY good in the new NBC show Community. What? Nothing? And it's about a HANGOVER! OK, I'm glad you're now on board.
Fortunately, the Hangover has a poster with a missing tooth and a creepy bearded due with a baby harness, so there’s no question it’s appealing and approachable. Even better, the movie, while excelling in madcap freeflow hijinks in the same spirit as a Superbad or Harold and Kumar, is entertaining and different. My comments about Get Him to the Greek come into play, in the battle between whether in-your-face vulgarity or implied debauchery are better ways to get deeper humor. After watching this, I’d much rather attempt to IMAGINE why the heck a tiger and a chicken are in a hotel room then to have the preceding events shown to me. What happens is revealed in pieces later on, but that guessing element is what drives the movie, and perhaps implies that, like the hungover gang of drugged-up bachelors, we don’t have to know every detail of what happened to consider it something memorable.
SCOTT PILGRIM VS. THE WORLD
I’m a little less trusting of the AV Club film reviewers, now that they gave this a so-so rating (and loved Adventurland, yawn). This was an amazing movie, making up for whatever lack of depth characters had with kinetic energy and complete unpredictability as to what images are going to come up next. In fact, what the AV Club reviewer might think of hollowness of character I believe might be an encapsulation of how 20-somethings might act as a reaction to sensory overload. Besides, it’s a comic book story, and I was kind of convinced that perhaps I shouldn’t read too many reviews before I see a film, because I think the most giddy element of this flick that turned up the excitement was how it shifted from a quirky little young relationship comedy to a who-knows-what kind of movie with the entrance of that first “evil-ex”. After that, everything was bright and exciting, and I had that invigorating anticipation of “the duel” that I hadn’t felt to such a great degree since watching Kill Bill Vol. 2, waiting for the Bride to finish the 3 left on her list.
I snuck out on Monday night after a stressful day of work to watch this at a theater, and then on Tuesday I took a peek at the Graphic Novel bookshelves, where I had seen Scott Pilgrim’s books many times. At first glance it seems like they were incredibly faithful to the comic panels. I kind of regret not reading the books beforehand, but maybe from the movie-first perspective I can appreciate how human they made the story.
GRAND ILLUSION
I know a question will come up sooner or later about my tastes (I can’t keep all these refined sensibilities to myself) and someone will ask me what kind of movies I like. Something similar has come up when I’m asked about my music tastes, and my lame attempt at a short answer is “indie rock”, which to some of my friends is still not an understood category. I can say I like interesting, unique things that sort of redefine my idea of an art form, but how does that nail down what type of stuff I like?
Well, I came up with another type of approach when it comes to movies, music, books, etc. I seek an experience that we help expose me to the breadth of creative expression, but in the context of a systematic ‘list’ approach that represents a futile attempt to corral all works out there into a manageable form, but nonetheless provides me a framework to tackle such tremendously numerous works in a sense where I can have a grand accomplishment, even just in theory, of completing a given 'list'.
What a mouthful! What I’m trying to say is that I use lists by cultural critics that I respect to often decide what to watch. And the more sweeping a list the better… if there’s some movie in the top 10 of an entire DECADE that I haven’t seen, then it’s a real shame if I haven’t seen it yet.
Some lists that are shaping my movie-watching habits…
Ain’t it Cool News best films of the decade list (the 2000s)
The same for AV Club (which also has a best TV series and best miniseries of the decade list)
Complete lists of all films shown at the Wisconsin Film Festival for the years 2008, 2009, and 2010
AND a new one
The films selected for release by the Criterion distribution company… conveniently organized here.
Now the reasons for all these lists reflect a respect I have for the particular motivations these cultural organizers have for watching movies. In the case of Criterion, I have been admired the way they present films as artistic works, with designer packaging (admired at the stores since they are very expensive to purchase), lots of unique bonus features, and a breadth of respect for works new and old. Ain’t It Cool News, for example, focused their attention recently on a movie called Revanche (also a selection for WIFF 2009) because Criterion selected it for special release, highlighting it among the variety of artsy foreign films put out normally during any given year. The fact that you can have a distribution company release Revanche, and then subsequently under the same Criterion brand, release something odd from 30 years earlier that was previously unavailable to home DVD, and then release the latest Wed Anderson movie because that director’s particular aesthetic taps into their mood, is the type of sophisticated yet playful approach that make Criterion another pleasing context in which to approach a life-long goal of watching every good movie ever made.
THE GRAND ILLUSION was “spine” number 1 and available on Netflix Instant, along with quite a few other earlier Criterion releases which I might as well watch soon. The downside to Netflix Instant is that you might not get a premium widescreen issue treatment that a Criterion DVD or Blu-Ray reissue might have. Plus side was that in the case of Grand Illusion, you have a film that deals with intimate spaces and the vital humanity of characters in a tragic situation. I had a little time to look this up on Wikipedia after watching this, and it looks like Hitler’s Germany banned this movie, lest the public might be convinced to identify with a faceless menacing foreigner that needed to be considered an enemy. Fascinating that this film was made in 1938, and that there was a sensibility towards this kind of view of war that made its way into a major film. But I couldn’t help but think how I got tired of liberal filmmakers putting out another depressing yet real depiction of current wars we have to live with. These films do a great job in preaching to the choir, but did they change the minds of the people that really are in charge? The Grand Illusion obviously didn’t, but it’s a minuscule consolation that there were people sensitive enough to make this movie back then.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)