So, I didn't really expect to like this a lot, from what I had read about it- up to this one I liked all of his movies that I've seen, some (Panic Room) in opposition to whatever critical consensus I'd found, but the descriptions and reviews all sounded pretty bad. The most damning one compared it to Forrest Gump, and in watching it that was pretty much all I could think of.
It's relentlessly picturesque, it's slathered with voiceover, the main character has an ineffable wisdom that expresses itself as naivete, there's a central romance that ends tragically and defines the arc of the plot, and it goes through all sorts of historical moments en route. It doesn't have the underlying 'unthinking is better' motive of Gump, it doesn't have the cute little meetings with historical figures, but it does feature fate in a prominent role and it is altogther boring.
There are some moments, some bits of humor and pretty shots and cynicism slipping in, but it's just not a good movie. I don't really see anything in it of what I like about Fincher, just a central conceit that doesn't really matter- nearly everything about the story could be equally easily told with a character who ages normally. I don't hate it, but I don't think I'll keep it, either.
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Friday, December 11, 2009
A Day at the Races
I like Marx Brothers movies, but for nearly all of them I feel like I'm asked to sit through a lot of fairly dull things for the fun parts. Aside from Animal Crackers and Duck Soup, they've all got these giant musical numbers and a pair of leads who aren't the Marxes- they vary in quality, and in a Night at the Opera, they're fairly well integrated, but overall I'd far rather do without them.
In a Day at the Races, one of the musical numbers is nearly all black people, it makes me feel kind of conflicted- on the one hand, there's some uncomfortable stereotyping, with all of them living in what look like slave quarters and dropping 'who dat' and 'chillun' left and right. Worse, they'res some blackfacing at the end of the scene, and that's always embarrassing, no matter what.
On the other hand, it's awesome. For the first and only time in a Marx movie, there's a musical number where the parts that don't have the brothers featured are exciting and fun as hell, all kinda swing dancing awesome moves and exciting performances and everything. The brothers love it, too, and the implication is that they fit in fairly well with the group. So- is it ok to enjoy it? Can something exploitative, with racist elements, be redeemed by just being fun? I never know how to answer that kind of thing.
In a Day at the Races, one of the musical numbers is nearly all black people, it makes me feel kind of conflicted- on the one hand, there's some uncomfortable stereotyping, with all of them living in what look like slave quarters and dropping 'who dat' and 'chillun' left and right. Worse, they'res some blackfacing at the end of the scene, and that's always embarrassing, no matter what.
On the other hand, it's awesome. For the first and only time in a Marx movie, there's a musical number where the parts that don't have the brothers featured are exciting and fun as hell, all kinda swing dancing awesome moves and exciting performances and everything. The brothers love it, too, and the implication is that they fit in fairly well with the group. So- is it ok to enjoy it? Can something exploitative, with racist elements, be redeemed by just being fun? I never know how to answer that kind of thing.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Army of Shadows
I really want to like Jean-Pierre Melville, and I admire his movies, but of the three I've seen- Le Samourai, Le Cercle Rouge, and Army of Shadows, I can't really say I enjoyed them.
It's a complicated issue, 'admire' vs. 'enjoy'; the latter implies that a movie has to be fun, or exciting, or populist, which I hope isn't really right. I enjoyed, for instance, Solaris (the original) which is slow and methodical, but which hits certain notes that really moved me. In Army of Shadows, I can see the notes being hit- the moral dilemmas posed are ones absolutely worth posing, and of literary weight- but somehow they don't strike me. It may be Melville's subdued palette, which is somehow greyer than noir ever managed to be, or it maybe his characters' minimalist acting, which reminds me a lot of Bresson, another French director whose movies I am always glad to have seen but rarely excited to be watching. It's maddening, though, to try to push yourself to like something and fail, like your mind will not listen to itself.
It's worth noting that Army of Shadows is one of those movies that very clearly got mixed into the blend for some of the strongest parts of Inglourious Basterds, and I think that's something that happens a lot with movies like these- bits of Bresson movies get turned into Schrader scripts, Kurosawa gets turned into Leone, etc. etc. This feels like it should resolve the issue, but it just makes it worse- if people I enjoy can enjoy this, why can't I?
It's a complicated issue, 'admire' vs. 'enjoy'; the latter implies that a movie has to be fun, or exciting, or populist, which I hope isn't really right. I enjoyed, for instance, Solaris (the original) which is slow and methodical, but which hits certain notes that really moved me. In Army of Shadows, I can see the notes being hit- the moral dilemmas posed are ones absolutely worth posing, and of literary weight- but somehow they don't strike me. It may be Melville's subdued palette, which is somehow greyer than noir ever managed to be, or it maybe his characters' minimalist acting, which reminds me a lot of Bresson, another French director whose movies I am always glad to have seen but rarely excited to be watching. It's maddening, though, to try to push yourself to like something and fail, like your mind will not listen to itself.
It's worth noting that Army of Shadows is one of those movies that very clearly got mixed into the blend for some of the strongest parts of Inglourious Basterds, and I think that's something that happens a lot with movies like these- bits of Bresson movies get turned into Schrader scripts, Kurosawa gets turned into Leone, etc. etc. This feels like it should resolve the issue, but it just makes it worse- if people I enjoy can enjoy this, why can't I?
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Touch of Evil
Someone I was talking to about this movie said they couldn't enjoy it that much because it was super racist- I didn't think so then, and watching it again, I still don't. It's certainly odd to cast Charlton Heston as a Mexican, and the actual Mexicans portrayed aren't portrayed particularly positively, but they're mostly just types. A lot of them are caricatures, and somewhat embarrassing ones, admittedly, but it's more lazy than racist.
What stands out beyond that, however, is that the really horrid person in the movie is Welles' character, an enormous, repulsive, and incredibly bigoted good old boy. He's clever, charming in a boozy way, and comes off like a funhouse mirror image of a noir hero, and he's corrupt as all hell. The dynamic of the movie makes Heston's Vargas the straight arrow pitted against Welles' Quinlan, who knows better than to bother with rules and regulations. As Welles' character is the villain, all of his characteristics- and his casual racism, which leads him contemptuously to dismiss Heston and railroad innocent Mexicans in for crimes he doesn't particularly care if they committed is one of the most notable of these.
It's also got an interesting and relatively refreshing take on sexism. Janet Leigh is the put upon wife, who is exhausted of waiting around for her husband to get back from work- a detective fiction trope, and generally a misogynist one. She's endangered, too, and in the construction of the plot she's as helpless as any woman written purely as a pawn. On the other hand, she's rude, eloquent, and brooks little bullshit- she may be in an unfeminist position, but she reacts like a real person, not like a distressed damsel. Furthermore, one of the other noteworthy things about Quinlan is his habit of making cruel judgments about other people's sex lives, and invading their privacy; again, since Quinlan is evil, one can assume that his characteristics are evil, and the movie is therefore arguing for tolerance.
It has its flaws- if nothing else, a lot of it is basically b movie material- but where it can't get away from them, it undermines them. So basically, Touch of Evil: a good movie.
What stands out beyond that, however, is that the really horrid person in the movie is Welles' character, an enormous, repulsive, and incredibly bigoted good old boy. He's clever, charming in a boozy way, and comes off like a funhouse mirror image of a noir hero, and he's corrupt as all hell. The dynamic of the movie makes Heston's Vargas the straight arrow pitted against Welles' Quinlan, who knows better than to bother with rules and regulations. As Welles' character is the villain, all of his characteristics- and his casual racism, which leads him contemptuously to dismiss Heston and railroad innocent Mexicans in for crimes he doesn't particularly care if they committed is one of the most notable of these.
It's also got an interesting and relatively refreshing take on sexism. Janet Leigh is the put upon wife, who is exhausted of waiting around for her husband to get back from work- a detective fiction trope, and generally a misogynist one. She's endangered, too, and in the construction of the plot she's as helpless as any woman written purely as a pawn. On the other hand, she's rude, eloquent, and brooks little bullshit- she may be in an unfeminist position, but she reacts like a real person, not like a distressed damsel. Furthermore, one of the other noteworthy things about Quinlan is his habit of making cruel judgments about other people's sex lives, and invading their privacy; again, since Quinlan is evil, one can assume that his characteristics are evil, and the movie is therefore arguing for tolerance.
It has its flaws- if nothing else, a lot of it is basically b movie material- but where it can't get away from them, it undermines them. So basically, Touch of Evil: a good movie.
Z
I wasn't too impressed with this at first- I was expecting something tense and involved, and it never really becomes that. Violence doesn't happen professionally, as I would expect from a modern political thriller, but thuggishly, and in spurts. The central assassination isn't a sniper with a clever scheme, it's a couple of drunk jackasses in a three wheeled cart they can't even afford.
That's where it gets interesting- it goes from a sort of document of indignation, an illustration of fascists attacking protesters as the police do nothing, to a procedural, as the assassination is investigated. In the course of the investigation, the fascists who'd been attacking at the rally are examined in depth, and they're the very people that socialists are always trying to help: the downtrodden peasantry who can't afford the basic needs of life. The right wing bribes them, and they attack the leftists. It's not surprising, but it's very well done, and a good document of how one gets widespread populist parties founded solely on false consciousness.
Of course, as it develops, the really evil characters are high level political figures. The heroes are mostly apolitical- the prosecutor who does his job studiously and efficiently, the slightly dickish reporter who nonetheless uncovers vital facts, the key witness who is acting largely out of spite etc. The movie doesn't pull a Southparkian false equivalancy by making the leftists as horrid as the right wingers, but it also doesn't really focus on them; as it unrolls, it's a battle of wills between the honest officials who do their job well, and the bastard conspirators who created the situation. As such, it's not a call to revolution, but a call to honesty and goodwill- but one that doesn't excuse the corruption inherent to the system.
That's where it gets interesting- it goes from a sort of document of indignation, an illustration of fascists attacking protesters as the police do nothing, to a procedural, as the assassination is investigated. In the course of the investigation, the fascists who'd been attacking at the rally are examined in depth, and they're the very people that socialists are always trying to help: the downtrodden peasantry who can't afford the basic needs of life. The right wing bribes them, and they attack the leftists. It's not surprising, but it's very well done, and a good document of how one gets widespread populist parties founded solely on false consciousness.
Of course, as it develops, the really evil characters are high level political figures. The heroes are mostly apolitical- the prosecutor who does his job studiously and efficiently, the slightly dickish reporter who nonetheless uncovers vital facts, the key witness who is acting largely out of spite etc. The movie doesn't pull a Southparkian false equivalancy by making the leftists as horrid as the right wingers, but it also doesn't really focus on them; as it unrolls, it's a battle of wills between the honest officials who do their job well, and the bastard conspirators who created the situation. As such, it's not a call to revolution, but a call to honesty and goodwill- but one that doesn't excuse the corruption inherent to the system.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)