My 2024 Watchlist Obsession! [Archive] - Page 2

PHOENIX74

04-13-24, 11:00 PM

https://i.postimg.cc/506fyn5s/the-butcher.jpg

THE BUTCHER (1970)
(Le boucher)

Directed by : Claude Chabrol

We've got ourselves a school teacher/principal, Hélène (Stéphane Audran), a butcher, Popaul (Jean Yanne), with a romantic interest in her, and a series of serial murders in a quaint French village and the surrounding areas in Claude Chabrol film Le boucher. The murders seem so out of place in the idyllic French countryside, and especially Le boucher's convivial atmosphere - we begin with a wedding, which is where Hélène and Popaul first get to know each other. The groom is Hélène's fellow teacher, and only good vibes are abounding - especially between our two main characters. But as the film advances we learn that Hélène once had her heart broken, something she truly struggled with, and she's not going to let anyone get too close to her. Popaul's only struggle in life is coming to terms with his wartime experiences - and given time there's a chance wedding bells might be ringing for this couple, but the spectre of death and suspicions regarding whether or not he might be the killer threaten to bring this friendship/romancing crashing down to earth.

Interesting film this - with a title as provocative as "The Butcher" I was wondering what I was stepping into here, and the first murder clued me in - this wasn't going to be all nice and dreamy. You don't get much of a sense of menace at first, and even though you immediately know that the murders are going to play a large part in this film's narrative, they kind of exist in a place far, far away from what the camera is interested in capturing. At one stage, while Hélène is taking her class out on a field trip, they come across a body themselves - which we only glimpse for a split second. It's only then that there's any sense of danger and darkness - the horror and the beauty intermingle and it's like a water source being slowly polluted. By and by, it seems that everything has gone wrong for the characters in our story, and happiness is an exception for them that always slips by just out of their grasp by being ruined somehow. Yes - I'm dancing around the narrative here in an attempt not to spoil anything. Lets just say that Popaul and Hélène might love each other regardless of anything, and it's a sad truth which Le boucher brings home in a strange yet weirdly touching way.

So - I can honestly say I've never seen a film where a central series of serial murders is distanced to such an extent from our point of view. We rarely see anything, and hardly hear a police procedural detail when it comes to those horrifying actions (Roger Rudel does show up for a moment as an Inspector Grumbach.) What matters in a very complete sense is Hélène and Popaul - principally how they relate to each other, and how they draw each other out in a gradual way. The cinematography is really nice, and the film bright and colourful. The set decoration is scant - and I don't know if that's a deliberate choice or not, but it reminded me of Targets. Stéphane Audran was excellent - and it was her performance I was completely entranced by. She really has that "I had love once, once before, and I lost it" look about her, especially at the critical moments where she needed it. It might look a little low budget at times - a small film - but any sense of it being small is swept away in a powerful final act that brings everything home via a nighttime drive that seems to stop time and make us forget about everything except for these two people in this exact moment. I was well satisfied in the end.

Glad to catch this one - Stéphane Audran won the Silver Shell for Best Actress at the 18th San Sebastián International Film Festival, and Claude Chabrol the Bodil Award for Best Non-American Film.

4

https://i.postimg.cc/Dyx302Lv/le-boucher.jpg

Watchlist Count : 431 (-19)

Next : The Acid House (1998)

Thank you very much to whomever inspired me to watch The Butcher.

crumbsroom

04-13-24, 11:05 PM

The Butcher!

Chabrol!

Everyone should watch every movie he ever made!

!

PHOENIX74

04-13-24, 11:21 PM

The Butcher!

Chabrol!

Everyone should watch every movie he ever made!

!

I have La Cérémonie already on my watchlist, but I've added Torment and plan to sprinkle his films in - because he does seem to have a great body of work.

crumbsroom

04-13-24, 11:31 PM

I have La Cérémonie already on my watchlist, but I've added Torment and plan to sprinkle his films in - because he does seem to have a great body of work.

Ceremonie is probably my favorite. But his first ten movies or so are a particularly amazing run.

PHOENIX74

04-15-24, 12:41 AM

https://i.postimg.cc/h46xM7nv/acid-house.jpg

THE ACID HOUSE (1998)

Directed by : Paul McGuigan

I'm a big fan of the film versions of Irvine Welsh's Trainspotting and Filth, so approaching The Acid House I was expecting something on the same kind of level - I was walking in blind, not even knowing that this was partly comedic, and an anthology film based on three of the short stories from his book of the same name. The Acid House is a great title, and look, this is Irvine Welsh, so I was expecting that parts of this would be puerile - but in service to something greater. I'm not so sure after watching it. It's not an easy watch - the Scottish underclass have a language all of their own, and as such you pretty much need subtitles, which I neglected to take advantage of. Silly me. I can't tell you the number of times I was staring incomprehensively at the screen after some kind of garbled Scottish slang had been released in reams of florid syllables. Two of the stories I found very similar to each other - weak, ineffectual men being punished by a harsh, dog eat dog society. In one, via a fantastical meeting the main character has with God, he gains revenge over his oppressors (by being transformed into a fly.) In the other, the main character maintains a kind of status quo by simply accepting his lot.

My overall impression of the film was shaped by the third and final story - the titular Acid House one. In it Trainspotting's Ewen Bremner plays Colin 'Coco' Bryce, an airheaded football hooligan who takes acid, and during a lightning storm his mind is somehow transposed with that of a newborn baby. It's on the verge of saying something, but does waste a lot of that potential on shoehorning lowbrow jokes into proceedings, and accentuating how silly the whole concept is. The baby (when possessed by Coco) is an animatronic creation that can't quite mimic what's needed from it - it's a blend of creepy and weird, and I imagine CGI would be used today. Bremner is great playing the adult Coco, whose body the baby's mind now inhabits. Despite trying to push home it's meaning during the final scene, the story never manages to kick any surefire goals, leaving us with a vague sense of what it all means and far too many moments are spent rolling our eyes when easy comedic targets (breastfeeding, a baby getting a hold of booze and getting drunk) are nabbed and run with for far too long. It made for a very flat finish.

Films featuring the underclass of any nation walk a fine line in trying to either make comments on society as a whole or make fun of their lack of sophistication - which is hard to do without looking mean-spirited. Often they're confronting, especially when both drug abuse and children enter the mix. The other films I've seen based on Irvine Welsh's writing have never got the formula wrong, but The Acid House often had me asking why I was being subjected to a never-ending stream of debasement, violence, hatred, self-abuse and pure ugliness - there didn't seem to be any other reason except "it's there". Some might want to compare the first story with Franz Kafka's The Metamorphosis, but I don't see any similarity other than the literal metamorphosis inflicted on the slovenly Boab (Stephen McCole). Other than that, it's a simple (if fantastical, sickly and weird) revenge tale. The middle story is by far the best, even if it's also the most bleak. If it weren't for that more intelligent and thought-provoking middle section, my rating for this film would be considerably lower.

Glad(ish) to catch this one - the first story, "Granton Star Cause", debuted on television as a standalone short feature and was nominated for a Best Single Drama BAFTA.

3

https://i.postimg.cc/KvVyhzR1/acid-house-2.jpg

Watchlist Count : 431 (-19)

Next : It's Such a Beautiful Day (2012)

Thank you to whomever inspired me to watch The Acid House.

Stirchley

04-15-24, 01:52 PM

Yeah. He actually practices as a GP from time to time, which is really mind blowing. I've never known a high profile actor that has a medical degree and actually practices medicine in between acting roles.

IIRC, he recently had a tiny part in a movie where he played a doctor, which was amusing.

You probably know that Russian playwright Anton Chekhov was a practicing physician?

My ophthalmologist (since retired) also had a law degree, which always blew my mind.

PHOENIX74

04-16-24, 05:25 AM

https://i.postimg.cc/T1brfWPM/It-s-such-a-beautiful-day.jpg

IT'S SUCH A BEAUTIFUL DAY (2012)

Directed by : Don Hertzfeldt

My mind often takes a time-out just to wonder at the fact that anything exists, and that I happen to exist in the midst of it all - part of whatever this is, as a member of a unique class of life where life itself seems to be a bizarre phenomenon. Are we some kind of one-of-a-kind absurdity in the scheme of things, or is intelligent life part and parcel of an organizing principle in the universe that's inevitable? Don't get me started on death - I can't even conceive of an end to the only thing I've ever known, which is existing. With It's Such a Beautiful Day, Don Hertzfeldt seems to have captured the essence of our natural tendency to dwell on these things, and how we rely on memory during our moments of spiritual searching when we get older. He also makes sure we don't miss the irony about the fact that when we get really old, or ill, it's our memory that starts to fail us. All in this unusual animated feature - the stringing together of three of his shorts (Everything Will Be OK (2006), I Am So Proud of You (2008) and 2011 short film It's Such a Beautiful Day) that appear to flow together perfectly naturally, and with an awe-inspiring, lyrical majesty concerning the cosmic and the inner mind.

This feature starts out easy - resembling any number of funny and weird animated memes you might find online, and stitching them all together by having them all involve the same protagonist. He'll either remember, think or actually live these moments out within the world Hertzfeldt has created for him. There's something very off about this person, as he seems to be going gradually insane, and that's very much part of the problem he has - one which will eventually reveal a lot more about him than if we'd just encountered him while he was rational and healthy. His name is Bill, and as the film advances we learn a lot about his life - but can't be sure which specifics are real, and which have been invented by his slowly deteriorating mind. What we do learn through his misremembering are his fears, desires, hopes and dreams, much like you'd be able to interpret if looking in on his dreams. There's a great mix of the funny, scary, weird, fantastical and philosophical in Bill's musings, memories, and general perception. Most of it comes to us as drawn animation, but at times in-camera special effects using real images are used to exemplify particularly glorious moments.

Well, what can I say about this? Just through the very force of what Hertzfeldt has written, he's making a connection with my innermost musings - sometimes my florid dreams, and sometimes my darkest fears. He also manages to make my heart feel like it's about to fly out of my body and go soaring into the clouds, just through what he's suggesting when he takes his character at the most spiritually significant moments of his life and relates it to us. The simple drawing is cute, often funny and cleverly minimalist - but it's combined with more, sparingly, in order to punctuate this or that. The painstaking use he's made of a 35mm rostrum animation stand means that it's taken one hell of a lot of effort to get this done - but it was a complete success, with many film fans revering the end product of his three shorts knitted together here. It's one of the best representations I've seen of the philosophical contemplations of the dying man - mixed with the slow deterioration of the mind that occurs hand in hand with it. The way Don Hertzfeldt does it is inspired, and has inspired many.

Glad to catch this one - L.A. Film Critics Association named it runner-up for Best Animated Film of the year. It was #1 on the Film Stage's list of "The 50 Best Animated Films of the 21st Century Thus Far", #1 on The Wrap's list of the "Best Animated Films of the 2010s", and #1 on IGN's list of the "Top 10 Animated Films of All Time

4.5

https://i.postimg.cc/Y9qmNfhx/it-s-such-a-beautiful-day-film-457731779-large.jpg

Watchlist Count : 432 (-18)

Next : Black Rain (1989)

Thank you very much to whomever inspired me to watch It's Such a Beautiful Day.

Wyldesyde19

04-16-24, 12:47 PM

Which Black Rain? Shohei Imamura, or Ridley Scott?

SpelingError

04-16-24, 01:38 PM

I should revisit It's Such a Beautiful Day.

PHOENIX74

04-16-24, 10:43 PM

Which Black Rain? Shohei Imamura, or Ridley Scott?

The Shôhei Imamura one, but the fact you asked has me a little interested in the Ridley Scott film as well.

Wyldesyde19

04-16-24, 10:47 PM

The Shôhei Imamura one, but the fact you asked has me a little interested in the Ridley Scott film as well.
Imamura is the correct way to go

PHOENIX74

04-17-24, 11:53 PM

https://i.postimg.cc/d08044HH/black-rain.jpg

BLACK RAIN (1989)

Directed by : Shōhei Imamura

Something I must confess to before I talk about Black Rain - a close, personal friend of mine died a couple of weeks ago, and I watched Black Rain directly after the funeral yesterday. I honestly don't know if that put me in a headspace where I'd be more affected by the loss and sorrow in this movie - it was going to move me tremendously either way, because it's just that kind of film. The dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima had a flow-on effect - so while we're often well aware of the horror that occurred in the immediate aftermath, the pain inflicted in the years afterwards is sometimes less acknowledged. Shōhei Imamura confronts us with both in Black Rain. He doesn't hold back - as characters Yasuko (Yoshiko Tanaka), her uncle Shigematsu (Kazuo Kitamura) and aunt Shigeko (Etsuko Ichihara) move through the blasted ruins right after the bomb has been dropped, we see the charred corpses, burned survivors, and the suffering multitude in many stages of dying. We see horrors of a moment in time we can hardly imagine really happened. The film then goes on to give us a sense of what happened in the years afterward, as this family group (the three live with Shigematsu's mother) loses friends and acquaintances, before themselves becoming sick.

What struck me most about this film was how normal these people seemed to be - they survived the bomb and seemed to be getting along okay. How insidious it is to have the effects of the bombing still working away at killing you, years after the fact - without even obvious symptoms. Black Rain reminded me of Lynne Littman film Testament in the way it presented a normal community whose members are slowly, and sadly, disappearing. The deaths and sickness has a cumulative effect which makes the situation sadder and sadder as time advances, and it seems so unfair that people are still being killed years after the war has ended. While Imamura stages the bombing itself with cataclysmic spectacle and confronting horror, the years after have a gentle, easy-going slow-paced domestic aura reminiscent of a Yasujirō Ozu film. He makes sure we get to know this community well before having it's members lose a step, become more ill, then disappear. It gives us the foreknowledge that saddens us when we see members of Yasuko's family become very ill, get tumors and sport lesions on thier faces. In the meantime, their attitude to nuclear weapons and their potential further use agonizes them.

Some films are so powerful that they do the events they portray complete justice - and that is definitely true of Shōhei Imamura's Black Rain. (The black rain referred to is the fallout that fell in raindrops - Yasuko is one of those who experienced it.) Poor Yasuko - her family tries to hide the fact she came into contact with that black rain, for the conclusions most would draw will prevent her from ever being married. The sadness at the core of this story is one of the most touching I've ever seen in a film. Throughout, Imamura expertly guides us along in a manner that makes this seem like a film from the time period of what it's depicting - you'd never guess this film was made in 1988, with it's soft, black and white visual glow. It retains the look of a relic - of ghosts speaking to us from a past that was decimated and wiped away. I lost myself within it. It had me completely under it's spell, despite the fact that I'd just said goodbye to an old friend myself. It resonated with me in a way where I have no doubt, however, as to it's standing as one of the great films about Hiroshima. Please let this never, ever, happen again - these weapons are so inhumane that the use of them should surely constitute a crime against humanity.

Glad to catch this one - won the Prize of the Ecumenical Jury – Special Mention, Technical Grand Prize at the 1989 Cannes Film Festival, along with 9 Japanese Academy Awards.

5

https://i.postimg.cc/jSP6B8KV/black-rain-2.jpg

Watchlist Count : 432 (-18)

Next : Vortex (2021)

Thank you very much to whomever inspired me to watch Black Rain.

PHOENIX74

04-19-24, 12:39 AM

https://i.postimg.cc/dVGqs7SN/vortex.jpg

VORTEX (2021)

Directed by : Gaspar Noé

I'm familiar with dementia related to parental old age - in my experience I didn't lose my mother all of the sudden when she died, I lost her gradually over the course of years as she became less physically able and more confused/less like herself. There are a few movies that look at this, one great one being Michael Haneke's Amour, which featured a husband and wife (played by Jean-Louis Trintignant and Emmanuelle Riva) where the husband was lucid, but his once intelligent wife starts to lose mental and physical abilities. With Vortex, another controversial filmmaker in Gaspar Noé goes down a very similar road - a departure for him, without the kind of extreme content you'd be expecting in one of his films. Featuring, as the two elderly characters, are Dario Argento (in his first major role in front of the cameras) and Françoise Lebrun - interesting selections. Argento, in his 80s, I never would have recognized, but he has no difficultly at all playing his role. All of the dialogue is improvised, but guided by a screenplay. That's all straightforward, but what's not is the way the screen is divided into two windows, through which we see different perspectives - both Françoise and Dario split from each other. Sometimes these perspectives merge, or at least come into such close proximity that it looks like we're seeing a single screen.

Despite the fact that this film runs 142 minutes, it's wasn't a slog for me - but that may vary depending on who's watching. I've always been interested in how people with dementia operate - there are the mistakes they make that seem on the face of things understandable, and then there are the actions they take which are completely mystifying. Why does the mind work this way? When Françoise turns the gas on in the apartment and then walks away, is it a sneaky suicide attempt, or a misguided mistake? When she rips up Dario's precious notes on the book he's writing, and then flushed them down the toilet, is she making some kind of comment on how he's neglecting her? (She throws the entire contents of a wastebasket into the toilet - while Dario is in the shower to boot, giving him a burst of red hot water when she flushes.) When she leaves the apartment and walks through the shops in town, does she know what she's doing? Relatives, including Dario and Françoise's son Stéphane (Alex Lutz) strive to understand. "You are home," he tells his frightened mother, when she keeps telling him that she wants to go home. What does she mean, in her confusion? Is she simply having trouble communicating?

The sadness in this film comes from the fact that you can clearly see these people love each other in their own way, but they struggle to work together for Françoise's benefit. Dario is a little neglectful, and has had a lover for a number of years preceding this - but he's old as well, and not up to the business of being a carer. He's often in his own world, despite holding onto Françoise with all his might. Stéphane is a wayward son who looks to be doing community service because of issues related to a drug addiction - so he is similarly incapable of offering meaningful assistance. Vortex shows how people can end up drifting into their own private worlds and become disconnected from each other. This is even the case when two people are living with each other, but doing their own thing. Seeing it this way was completely new to me - I'd never seen a film divide itself into two perspectives nearly all the way through. I cannot fault it, and feel like I glimpsed multitudes of truths during my time watching it. It doesn't want to bury you in anguish and fear, but instead explore the fading of life as something akin to waking from a dream, and slowly forgetting it. We're only human after all, and all films that acknowledge that are fine with me.

Glad to catch this one - premiered in the Cannes Premiere section at the 2021 Cannes Film Festival. Won Best Film at the Dublin International Film Festival and Film Fest Gent, and Zabaltegi-Tabakalera Prize at the San Sebastián International Film Festival.

4.5

https://i.postimg.cc/4N5yMNSC/vortex2.jpg

Watchlist Count : 433 (-17)

Next : Le Bonheur (1965)

Thank you very much to whomever inspired me to watch Vortex.

Stirchley

04-19-24, 12:18 PM

PHOENIX74

04-20-24, 06:57 AM

https://i.postimg.cc/2y0ytXHy/le-bonheur.webp

LE BONHEUR (1965)

Directed by : Agnès Varda

Movie experiences like watching Le Bonheur don't come along very often. Agnès Varda seems to be a bit of a magician, making me as uncomfortable as I would be watching a horror movie while watching one of the most placid, peaceful, bright, colourful and happy visual experiences I've ever had. Le Bonheur (happiness) is definitely the central theme of the film, but at the same time it presents us with an insidious wrong that you'd be hard pressed to see in any of the films that came out in the 1960s. It presents us with an absolutely idyllic family - first appearing to us in the bright, flower-filled French countryside holding hands (to the strains of Mozart.) They are a perfectly contented foursome - father François (Jean-Claude Drouot), mother Thérèse (Claire Drouot) and their two kids - a boy and a girl. François loves his wife as much as anyone could love their spouse, and they have an active love life while enjoying the pleasures of watching their kids grow. Despite this, he starts having an affair with a woman working at the post office, Émilie (Marie-France Boyer).

So, why the affair? It's not as if François lacks anything in his life. Well, he feels he has so much happiness and love to share, that he can easily have Émilie, but not love François any less - that's despite him missing events while being with her. He sees this completely from his own point of view, and the film frames all of this in a very neutral way. In fact, the idyllic presentation never stops. Le Bonheur uses colour so beautifully that it looks like a postcard in motion - it's yellow, green and blue tones come from the screen and strike your eyes as if they've never seen those colours before. Even the occasional fade or transition uses a bright colour instead of just using fading images or black, making it seem like we're blinking into the sun on a bright day. This all emphasises that feeling of happiness all the more - but does happiness really signify innocence, justice or what's right? One person's happiness can have a devastating effect on other people depending on where it's coming from, and just because you're happy does not mean you're right - in a moral sense.

This was pretty close to being a perfect movie. It's the first Agnès Varda film I've ever seen, and the way she composes her scenes is absolutely flawless. This is a moving work of art. If you love movies and cinematography, seeing the restored La Bondeur with it's vivid colour re-intensified is a wonderful experience. At first I just thought this was was going to be a perfectly placid film - and for the most part it is, but there's an event two-thirds of the way in that's absolutely disturbing, and that radiates out so that the whole experience of happiness and bright innocence you see feels extraordinarily unnerving. It all culminates with some of the most haunting, uneasy scenes I've ever seen presented in such an outwardly beatific way. Overall this was an unforgettable film experience, and I'd love to see it on the big screen. Described as "a horror movie wrapped up in sunflowers" and "one of the most terrifying films I’ve ever seen" by Jenny Chamarette, it's subversive while being completely innocuous on it's surface. One of the strongest statements I've ever seen in movie form.

Glad to catch this one - Criterion #420. The film is associated with the French New Wave and won two awards at the 15th Berlin International Film Festival, including the Jury Grand Prix.

4.5

https://i.postimg.cc/8501bb2h/le-bon.jpg

Watchlist Count : 437 (-13)

Next : Cléo from 5 to 7 (1962)

Thank you very much to whomever inspired me to watch Le Bonheur.

PHOENIX74

04-21-24, 12:38 AM

https://i.postimg.cc/ZKHDSQfc/cleo-from-5-to-7.jpg

CLÉO FROM 5 TO 7 (1962)

Directed by : Agnès Varda

Woah - it's a dizzying high getting treated to such eloquent, masterful and emotionally captivating cinema all of the sudden, from a filmmaker I wasn't really aware of, but one who had a great deal to do with the French New Wave (going under the radar all the same.) As soon as the tarot cards were being dealt, and interpreted, I knew that a kind of predestination would be heralding our "heroine", pop singer Cléo (Corinne Marchand) toward a high stakes meeting with destiny. This destiny is wrapped up in the answer to a question - does Cléo have cancer? She is to find out when she hears from her doctor, and in the meantime every possible sign and omen will be interpreted by the frightened, flighty, temperamental Cléo Victoire (real name Florence.) So onwards we follow her in real time as she meets her maid, has her lover drop in, rehearses songs with musicians, goes to a cafe, meets a friend and spends some time with a solider called Antoine (Antoine Bourseiller). The film has crescendos, and a rhythm which sees rises and falls in emotional intensity, and is almost documentary-like in the way we simply follow our main character around - a real cinéma vérité classic which mixes in melodrama, music, art and of course, most importantly, fate.

Who is Cléo really? Throughout the film we see her change appearance over and over again, reveal her real name, be seen distorted in various mirrors and reflections and have wildly fluctuating moods. It almost seems like she's lost herself because of her profession, and can't find the real person anymore - so ultimately, when trying to find herself, only sees portents of doom. Agnès Varda reflects this beautifully with framing and cinematography existing at an absurdly high level of perfection and artistic expression. The camera seems light as a feather as it whips around the tempest surrounding Cléo and her life. Corinne Marchand is primarily famous for playing this role - and I can't quite figure why she wasn't a bigger name, or had a bigger career than she ended up having (she's still alive, at 92, and was last in La Melodie in 2017, so she never went away!) She's fantastic in this. As a bonus we get to see French New Wave figures Jean-Luc Godard, Anna Karina, Eddie Constantine, and Jean-Claude Brialy in a silent 'film within a film' which Cléo watches (and which Agnès Varda directed) with friend Dorothée (Dorothée Blanck) - meeting her as she poses for sculptors. We take a really refreshing dive into French art, cinema and music in Cléo from 5 to 7.

I don't think Cléo is the kind of character who would be at peace even at the best of times. With a possible cancer diagnosis on the way, and with a constant drumbeat of bad omens unfolding in front of her eyes, the swinging pendulum has become erratic - it's up to the people she comes into contact with to try and reach her. To help her, and restore her if they can. In the meantime, 1960s Paris seems to be a place frothing with life and energy - almost unfair in Cléo's eyes. What a beautiful way to express all of this Cléo from 5 to 7 is. The music is stirring when it needs to be, the black and white photography unforgettable, and Agnès Varda's real-time narrative somehow both grounded yet transcendental. I actually haven't spent much time familiarizing myself with the French New Wave - almost as if I've been preparing myself over the years to immerse myself amongst these feted filmmakers. As far as that goes, I'm glad I've started with a director that's probably not mentioned enough. I've certainly fallen in love with her great films - and although it's a strange note to end on, I have to mention the editing in this as well, which rises to the absurdly high level everything else is at. Simply because I forgot to, in my review of Le Bonheur and this. I've been dazzled and mesmerized by the beauty, and enchanted by this French cinematic poetry.

Glad to catch this one - Criterion #73 and in Steven Jay Schneider's 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die. Ranked #14 in the 2022 Sight & Sound Critics Poll of the greatest movies of all time. Competed at the 1962 Cannes Film Festival.

5

https://i.postimg.cc/fypNcjy3/cleo.jpg

Watchlist Count : 436 (-14)

Next : Dante’s Inferno (1911)

Thank you very much to whomever inspired me to watch Le Bonheur.

SpelingError

04-21-24, 12:54 AM

You should check out her documentaries as well. They're also very good/great.

Wyldesyde19

04-21-24, 05:12 PM

Love Cleo From 5 to 7.

PHOENIX74

04-22-24, 12:32 AM

https://i.postimg.cc/C1sqDfrp/dantes-inferno.jpg

DANTE'S INFERNO (1911)
(L’Inferno)

Directed by : Francesco Bertolini, Adolfo Padovan & Giuseppe De Liguoro

You can look at the 1911 incarnation of Dante's Inferno in a number of different lights. For one thing, it heralds a number of firsts at present - for example, it's the first ever Italian feature-length film, and the earliest surviving feature-length film. It could be viewed as history's first horror film. It also utilizes an extensive number of special effects - as if being such an early example of long-form cinema wasn't enough by itself. It struck me that these effects were really well implemented, and that there were no end of different locations and complex sets built for the production. For such an early year, it's a staggering achievement in filmmaking. Now, apparently the first ever feature-length film (which no longer survives in it's entirety) is Australian 1906 movie The Story of the Kelly Gang (60 minutes long), followed by the 1909 American Les Misérables - which consists of four short films strung together. They are the only two which predate Dante's Inferno - and when you watch this movie you are struck by the fact that you're watching film history unfold. It makes the fact that it's of such epic scope, and not simple and straightforward, all the more incredible.

The film tells the story of the first canticle of Dante Alighieri's Divine Comedy, Inferno. In it Dante (Salvatore Papa) is trying to ascend to heaven when he's met by three beasts representing avarice, pride and lust. He's also met by the poet Virgilio (Arturo Pirovano), who wards the beasts off and guides Dante through Limbo and then the Nine Circles of Hell, where sinners are punished and tortured in various ways depending on how they erred during their life. There are people weighed down with lead, being boiled in tar, frozen from the waist down in ice and eating each other, pushing along sacks of gold for all eternity, turned into trees and tortured by harpies, entombed alive while at the same time submitted to being burned, blowing around in a cyclonic wind, living in a river of filth and other such treatment from demons and Satan himself. It's still kind of awful to contemplate as each scene unfolds, and I can completely see why it was a useful tool to keep the God-fearing on a righteous path. I've always struggled with the concept of being tortured for all eternity. Eternity. So that means in a trillion times a trillion times a trillion years, you've hardly begun? How about a one with a trillion trillion zeros after it - that number of years, you're still being tortured, with no sight of it ending? Eternity as a concept unsettles me.

Watching Dante's Inferno is a dream-like experience just because of it's ancient appearance, theatrical exaggerated performances, and weird concepts brought to life in a very literal interpretation of Inferno. I was super impressed by special effects which made it possible for Salvatore Papa and Arturo Pirovano to seem like they were amongst giants, for people to walk around with their severed heads, for people and demons to fly or be blown by powerful winds, for angels to appear from nowhere, demons disappear and various modes of fire, different kinds of beasts and monsters and varying other smoke & mirror tricks to be performed. Overall an eerie peek at mankind haunted by divine justice, only undone a little by how funny I thought it that Dante went around scolding famous miscreants for their bad deeds when they were already being tortured in hell. It felt like a Red Cross inspector telling a concentration camp victim to shape up. There was something awfully spooky about Satan also, chewing on Brutus, Cassius and Judas Iscariot - the winged giant in a dark corner like a mammoth brooding spider. Imagery you'll never forget - with perhaps an overabundance of title cards (which fair enough, we probably need.) Those who saw it back in the day must have felt somewhat uneasy.

Glad to catch this one - first screened in Naples in the Teatro Mercadante on March 10, 1911. It grossed more than $2 million in the United States, making it a huge success in it's day.

3.5

https://i.postimg.cc/WpMdgcy6/dante.jpg

Watchlist Count : 436 (-14)

Next : Man with a Movie Camera (1929)

Thank you very much to whomever inspired me to watch Dante's Inferno.

SpelingError

04-22-24, 12:47 AM

It's been a while since I've seen Dante's Inferno, but though it dragged at times, its best bits really stuck with me. The Satan scene at the end, in particular, is quite disturbing.

Wooley

04-22-24, 08:04 AM

Stirchley

04-22-24, 12:30 PM

Love Cleo From 5 to 7.

Et moi. :p

PHOENIX74

04-23-24, 05:02 AM

https://i.postimg.cc/9MQS0yNK/man-with-a-movie-camera.jpg
He misses nothing

MAN WITH A MOVIE CAMERA (1929)

Directed by : Dziga Vertov

So it seems in the late 1920s a Soviet artist finally exploded with excitement about the possibilities film offered, and made a feature-length documentary artifact which explored as much of that possibility as it possibly could - at the same time capturing what life was like in Moscow, Kyiv and Odesa during the time period. If that sounds like a mouthful, it's because Man With a Movie Camera is an eyeful, and because it manages to say so much about the medium by employing an endless series of tricks, montage theory-like Soviet editing, basic life, magic, propaganda and delirious joy in regards to this new artform. The joy seems absolutely genuine. Usually, if I see a Soviet artist expressing joy, I think, "Is that real joy, or is that person successfully faking it because they're afraid they might suddenly "disappear"?" Obviously Dziga Vertov loved the medium, and devoted his life to it. Nothing could express that more than this film, and there's nothing that's contemporary which I can compare this with. There really ought to be. The movie camera has changed, and is still changing, humanity. Vertov's opus also defines a filmmaker as already a necessary cog in the machinery of socialist life by comparing them to all other levels of this workers paradise and making the camera socialism's eye organ-wise.

There is too much packed into this 68-minute film to cover in one review - Vertov employs mirrors, stills, stop-motion, split-screen, different sources of lighting, superimposition, changes in speed, reverse filming and other various methods to produce a whole array of interesting ways to tell his visual story. On the one hand it's a basic "day in the life of the Soviet Union", but on the other it's the very definition of what film is and what it can do, along with who we are as human beings, what life is all about, what socialist life is all about - and much more. It's never satisfied with just saying one thing - instead being a supercharged, manic race through one idea after the other as if there is simply so much to say here that it simply can't help having to keep up it's pace. We watch people do what's ordinary, and we watch people do extraordinary things as well. We see a baby being born, and what could possibly be a dying man loaded into an ambulance. We see a marriage, a divorce, and a funeral. We see miners working underground, and engineers working far, far above the ground. We see mother nature at her grandest, and we see the hectic bustling of a city overflowing with people, trams and traffic. We see nearly everything there is to see, and we also see how film can express ideas about all of these things in ways that no artform before it ever could. That's where the magic in this film really is.

I watched Man With a Movie Camera twice yesterday - once to music (there are many choices out there - I went with a suggestion that was offered to me), and once to commentary. The excitement Dziga Vertov displays is infectious (and if I'm not mistaken, that's his wife editing the film, which we see in the actual film. We actually see the watching of the film in the film too. The cameraman, Vertov's brother, Mikhail Kaufman, is often captured doing his work, which means there's someone filming someone filming) and I think that anyone who loves film will be able to recognize the passion for the way film can enrich the soul, and impart deeper understanding of many ideas and ideals through both the making and watching of movies. The fact that it's partly in service to a communist regime that had a blood-soaked dark side to it doesn't change how innovative it is, or how it seems foremost in service to moviemaking itself. There's simply too much in it that's readily identifiable to all of us, and little that alienates, sidestepping politics while still bowing down to the necessities of socialist filmmaking. In a few decades, filmmaking had gone from being a novelty to a whole new language of the human spirit - and Man With a Movie Camera is like a grand, comprehensive, celebratory example of that and much more.

Glad to catch this one - in Stephen Jay Schneider's 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die. Voted 8th greatest film ever made in Sight & Sound's 2012 critics poll (along with greatest documentary ever made.)

4.5

https://i.postimg.cc/hGsg0F6z/man-with-a-movie-camera2.jpg

Watchlist Count : 436 (-14)

Next : Citizen X (1995)

Thank you very much to whomever inspired me to watch Man With a Movie Camera.

SpelingError

04-23-24, 08:59 AM

Glad you enjoyed it! That's been an all-timer for me ever since I first watched it. I've yet to see a silent film with more visual and editing ingenuity to it.

PHOENIX74

04-24-24, 05:56 AM

https://i.postimg.cc/Z5VqcFDx/citizen-x.jpg

CITIZEN X (1995)

Directed by : Chris Gerolmo

There aren't many HBO-type 'movie of the week' television deals in my watchlist, but Citizen X made it there because I had obviously heard good things about it, and it happened to be about a subject I was very interested in : Russian serial killer Andrei Chikatilo. All serial killers can be considered to be beasts, but the one who really earned the moniker was this savage predator who haunted the Soviet Union. Adults and children. Boys and girls. Chikatilo's victims varied, and his reign of terror lasted from 1978 to 1990, mostly because the Soviet system was ill-equipped when it came to this type of crime, and crime solving. Political officers claimed that the serial killer phenomenon was a product of the degenerate West, and refused to publicize what was happening - which meant nobody was aware a maniac killer was on the loose. With no possible help from the public, and limited resources, the hunt for the "Rostov Ripper" dragged on and on - with excoriated corpses steadily left in this man's wake. I'd read about this guy a little bit when he was originally caught, and whenever I discovered more I found the whole true crime matter utterly fascinating - the different culture, the monster, the hunt and the eventual capture, trial and execution all unique from other famous murder investigations. I looked forward to seeing what Citizen X was going to do with it.

Anyway, from what I could tell this was a more faithful retelling of the story than what I was expecting - at least in very general terms. Stephen Rea leads the cast as Lieutenant Viktor Burakov, starting as a forensic pathologist, and then suddenly becoming a detective, basically learning the job by trail and error. His bosses are a group of incompetent, blustery Soviet bureaucrats who often tie his hands because of ideology, political expediency, general prejudices and petty grievances. The most vocal among them is Bondarchuk, played by Joss Ackland in his usual villainous manner. Heading this council is Colonel (later General) Mikhail Fetisov, played by Donald Sutherland. The relationship between Fetisov and Burakov grows as time passes, and the two become firm friends - Sutherland is well suited to playing a Russian well-versed in sly bureaucratic maneuvering - the more poker-faced of the two. Stephen Rea treats his role as if Citizen X is the year's big Oscar contender, and gives it everything he has - so there's a funny dynamic there. Rounding out the cast is another big name : Max von Sydow drops in as psychiatrist Dr. Alexandr Bukhanovsky. Psychiatrists weren't exactly popular in the Soviet Union, and von Sydow plays with this, making Bukhanovsky a little timid and extremely careful. Playing Chikatilo is Jeffrey DeMunn - one of those 'seen him here and there' actors. Not a bad roster for a television production, and it was shot in Hungary, making this an above average movie of it's type.

Despite being described in some quarters as one of the best 'made-for-TV' movies ever made, at the end of the day it is a 'made-for-TV' movie - it has a score that sounds like it's been ripped straight from a public domain library, and the film as a whole doesn't get creative. In a way, I guess that really suits a film made about the Soviet Union - utilitarian, risk-averse and straightforward. This kind of filmmaking works pretty well when it's in service to a police procedural kind of narrative, and that's definitely what we have with Citizen X - from the first realizations of the fact that there's a serial killer on the loose to his capture and eventual execution, we're with the investigators (mainly Viktor Burakov - as always, standing in for a group of individual real-life detectives) every step of the way. It was interesting enough to watch, and you could really feel the pain of those whose frustration must have been at unbearable levels while this killer kept alluding detection, and the turmoil of trying to work in a system that frustrates your ability to do your job. This would probably serve well as an introduction - to get people interested (check out Harold Shipman: Doctor Death - I found out about Harold Shipman by watching that, and never looked back.) You won't learn a whole lot more than the basics. I enjoyed watching it though, and for what it was, I found it quite respectable and well made. Stephen Rea outdid himself in his role.

Glad to catch this one - based on Robert Cullen's non-fiction book The Killer Department. Donald Sutherland won a Primetime Emmy and Golden Globe. Stephen Rea won some awards at festival circuits.

3

https://i.postimg.cc/t4ZyBrNy/citizenx2.jpg

Watchlist Count : 435 (-15)

Next : Koyaanisqatsi (1982)

Thank you very much to whomever inspired me to watch Citizen X.

PHOENIX74

04-24-24, 11:47 PM

https://i.postimg.cc/dQyYD7x4/koyaanisqatsi.jpg

KOYAANISQATSI (1982)

Directed by : Godfrey Reggio

So, I was given a real snapshot of the entire world and humanity circa 1976 to 1981 last night watching Koyaanisqatsi - it seemed all-encompassing, but it mainly focused on our relationship with the environment, both natural and manmade. I felt very aware of the fact that I wasn't being shown any other lifeform - all of the shots were of vast landscapes or people. Before getting into that though, what is it? It's a series of moving images of the Earth and it's natural processes before segueing into a focus on mankind by way of showing what we're doing to the Earth, before finally finding itself amongst the madness of our cities. Amongst all of this we hear the chanting of the word "koyaanisqatsi" (it feels so uncomfortable to type "q" and not follow it with a "u" - the World Cup in Qatar should have got me used to that though) and the otherworldly music of the esteemed Philip Glass. There's no dialogue - we simply observe, and let the combination of visual and auditory inputs take us where Koyaanisqatsi wants us to go. You get the sense that there's a tidal wave of humanity - a hsunami - buffeting every corner of the globe. In the Hopi language, koyaanisqatsi means "life out of balance" - which is something nobody needs to convince me of, but seeing it in such a gloriously cinematic way is both disquieting and awesome at the same time.

As you'd imagine, all of the shots in Koyaanisqatsi need to be exceptionally interesting and captivating if this non-narrative documentary is going to hold a person's interest. Once an audience's mind starts to wander, it's pretty hard for a film like this to interrupt their thought processes. I did find that most of the shots were pretty spectacular. Godfrey Reggio gets a lot out of time lapse photography, and creates visual sequences which make the ordinary look particularly alien and extraordinary. I loved the colourful vision of city lights, and the way they look when life is sped up to show the continual flow of energy and powerful thrust of humanity which endlessly pulses like an alien heartbeat. I also loved the way sped up escalators in busy cities made the flow of people look like a human waterfall - you get a sense of scale when you realise just how many people are flowing by here. You start to become conscious of the sheer weight of numbers - more so than when you see this at normal speeds. Nothing beats the grandeur of this world's natural landscapes however - this planet has the most varied geology, landscapes and visual patterns in the entire solar system. In fact, I felt the urge to travel to the places I was being shown - because in person the beauty must be all the more spectacular.

The one overriding thought I had while watching this was the fact that since it was made, over 40 years have passed. That's over fifteen thousand days of humanity - individuals expending their ceaseless crusades in automobiles, operating machines and using various technological marvels - since these images were created. It's beyond my imagination, but Koyaanisqatsi helped me visualize it just a little better. By just observing without pontificating, this film has to be one of the most honest and upfront documentaries about our environment that has ever been made. You can't argue with what a camera captures, and it's up to you to make your own mind up when it comes to interpreting this dance with the world, humanity and our technology/industry. I thought the music was purely transcendental, and Ron Fricke's cinematography awe-inspiring. Some people might be challenged by something that has no dialogue - I don't know, perhaps the opposite is true, and Koyaanisqatsi is an easy watch. Undoubtedly, it's a little unnerving to consider where we are at our present moment in history - this wave of humanity and our hunger for more technology is certainly not going to restore the balance this film speaks of, and as such this movie simply becomes more and more relevant over time.

Glad to catch this one - Criterion #640 and in Steven Jay Schneider's 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die. In 2000, the film was selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry by the Library of Congress for being "culturally, aesthetically, or historically significant".

4

https://i.postimg.cc/LX3xNCz8/koyaanisqatsi2.jpg

Watchlist Count : 436 (-14)

Next : Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors (1965)

Thank you very much to whomever inspired me to watch Koyaanisqatsi.

PHOENIX74

04-26-24, 01:31 AM

https://i.postimg.cc/3xwf0Z1V/shadows-of-forgotten-ancestors.webp

SHADOWS OF FORGOTTEN ANCESTORS (1965)

Directed by : Sergei Parajanov

Just as it's title would suggest, our trip back in time to the Carpathian mountains in Ukraine during an era when local custom was everything is both strange and beautiful in this lauded Sergei Parajanov film. The Hutsuls, with their distinctive Ukrainian dress and nomadic, sheep-herding lifestyle, ended up in the mountains during the Mongol invasion of the 1200s, from which they were fleeing. As inhospitable as these icy mountains are, they adapted and became a unique breed of person - the subject of which here is Ivan (Ivan Mykolaichuk) and his 'Romeo and Juliet' tragic-fated love Marichka (Larisa Kadochnikova), made out to be a kind of local legend/folktale. Something to haunt these climbs like Catherine gliding over the moors in Wuthering Heights. We hear the Hutsuls sing about them, recite poems and generally make themselves known around the periphery of the movie - one that's easy to follow, but never rigidly straightforward. A dream of a movie, lost in snowdrifts, deep ravines, and spinning around oak, beech and wild apple trees. Vivid colours flash by and contrast with wide open spaces and miles of bright white ice, rocky outcrops and bare forest. The camera is as lively as an excited child on Christmas morning.

It's so easy to love this movie, and it's strange how the brutality we're witness to never dampens it's festive spirit. Within the film's opening few scenes we see Ivan lose a brother when a tree falls on him (after he saves Ivan by pushing him out of the way.) Apparently, Ivan is the last in a whole host of siblings his mother has lost, and it's not long before his father gets axed to death in a dispute with a wealthy landowner. Ivan is too small to seek revenge, but he takes the opportunity to bully little Marichka, who is the landowner's daughter. Marichka's cuteness is simply impervious to that - and it's not long before the two children are inseparable. The rest of the story is quite tragic, and during the darkest of times for Ivan the colour fades and we spend a portion of the movie in dull monochrome. When colour returns, it never reaches the brightness of Ivan's happy years - suffice to say that the cinematography remains brilliant throughout. I've never been as dizzy as when we whip around branches and dance with the Hutsuls, skip along, or race through thinly wooded areas. I've never seen colour, brightness and darkness as variable, or our mood as affected by mist. The camera itself feels like part of the story - a living embodiment of these people.

Damn, this is an absurd pleasure to watch - an intoxicating mix of old culture and creative filmmaking that translates as sublime beauty. Serene moments of flute playing accompany inventive camera movements, and as tragedy unfolds the light fades but I'm still transfixed and delighted. Red-hued transitions lead to new chapters in the story, and new approaches to how it's filmed. To think - a Soviet filmmaker went rogue to make this the way he wanted to, and Parajanov simply accepted what the ire of his overseers brought him. (Interesting to note that his next film, another Ukrainian-based piece, was pre-emptively banned during preproduction.) The folk songs we hear heartily sung, the strange traditions we see carried out and the general feeling of community make a complete believer out of me - it truly feels like we've taken a step backwards in time, and I completely lost myself in this movie. It's simply marvellous - a simple story told in a way that completely immerses you in an alien culture in a way that keeps reminding everyone of the magic and power of tradition, legends and folktales. I won't be forgetting it any time soon.

Glad to catch this one - In Steven Jay Schneider's 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die, and recently voted Best Restored Film at the 2023 Venice Film Festival.

4.5

https://i.postimg.cc/Fs1BHSRg/shadows-of-forgotten.jpg

Watchlist Count : 435 (-15)

Next : Leave Her to Heaven (1945)

Thank you very much to whomever inspired me to watch Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors.

crumbsroom

04-26-24, 01:37 AM

I really need to rewatch Cleo. It's one of those greats that, while I like, has never affected me like it has so many others. Clearly I'm missing something.

SpelingError

04-26-24, 09:43 AM

I'm a huge fan of Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors. Everything about it - the experimental visuals, the folk music, the customs of the village, the frenetic camerawork - it's all amazing. Speaking of which, I still need to revisit The Color of Pomegranates.

PHOENIX74

04-27-24, 12:28 AM

https://i.postimg.cc/hGh4qxG7/leave-her-to-heaven.jpg

LEAVE HER TO HEAVEN (1945)

Directed by : John M. Stahl

The first thing I did when considering Leave Her to Heaven was pick up Danny Peary's book Alternate Oscars, because I thought Gene Tierney really had a chance of nabbing his pick for 1945. Alas it wasn't to be - but nevertheless, this was one of the more interesting turns I've seen considering that her character in this, Ellen Berent, isn't some batty madwoman running around with wild ideas in her head. She's just really intense, and in the end her jealousy has her commit a few crimes that earns her 'monster' status. For that, her startling icy blue eyes might be one of the reasons this film simply had to be shot in Technicolor (so interesting that during her big murder scene she's wearing sunglasses - the only time in the film she appears to be dead cold.) Ellen's sister, Ruth (Jeanne Crain), describes her as someone who "loves too much" (a polite way of calling someone a bunny boiler these days), and while there's no excuse for murder and the other crimes she commits, the film often sets events up in a manner where she does have genuine reasons to feel hurt and aggrieved. Leave Her to Heaven has a real complexity to it.

Ellen falls in love with Richard Harland (Cornel Wilde) when they 'meet cute' during a train journey. She happens to be reading one of his novels, and his remarkable resemblance to her father gets us off to an early start understanding that her obsessiveness was once directed at this paternal figure. We see her scatter his ashes in one scene, looking like a figure from Greek mythology on her steed - urn placed at her side. I've heard that there are many references to that kind of folklore in Leave Her to Heaven - one thing I don't think I'd have figured out on my own is the fact that this is considered film noir. I won't even get started on the many differences this has with your typical noir outing. The colour is dazzling - I love the old Technicolor films, and the vibrant way yellows and reds glow with such soft intensity. Whatever reasons there are for calling this noir - it's not how the movie looks that swings it. (The film won a Best Color Cinematography Oscar for Leon Shamroy, and although the art direction is worthy of making a special note of, it was only nominated in that category, Frenchman's Creek taking away the prize there.) I think the movie is stunning in a visual sense.

Adding to the film in my eyes is the fact that a little bit of courtroom drama is added to the mix - and here the prosecuting attorney is Ellen's former fiancé Russell Quinton (Vincent Price). I like Vincent Price, so that kind of doubles the enjoyment - even if he's a little shrill when pushing points home while questioning his witnesses. I'll forget him, and Wilde, and Crain eventually however - this is Tierney's film performance-wise, and a high point for veteran director John M. Stahl. My expectations were that Tierney's character would be more unhinged, and disconnected from reality - but the truth is that a sociopath needn't be someone who shows outward signs of being mentally unwell. Sometimes a sociopath also has grievances which are genuine, and sometimes they are hard done by. It doesn't excuse what they do, and it doesn't mean they're any less monstrous - but sometimes you need to acknowledge everyone's actions. In the end though, whenever I think of Leave Her to Heaven, I'll immediately think of that one scene were Tierney sits in her boat on the lake with those sunglasses on - cold, calculating, murderous, jealous, conniving and intense. By the end we're dead against Ellen, but when I look back at this movie as a whole, there's a sadness to her, and I do feel some sympathy for the monster here.

Glad to catch this one - Criterion #1020. Twentieth Century-Fox's highest-grossing film of the decade. Nominated for the Grand International Award at the Venice Film Festival.

4

https://i.postimg.cc/QNnF4nBg/leave-her-to-heaven.jpg

Watchlist Count : 434 (-16)

Next : The Most Hated Man on the Internet (2022)

Thank you very much to whomever inspired me to watch Leave Her to Heaven.

PHOENIX74

04-27-24, 11:54 PM

https://i.postimg.cc/NMndrDHT/hated-man.jpg

THE MOST HATED MAN ON THE INTERNET (2022)

Directed by : Rob Miller

For the most part, as each item on my watchlist crops up I have absolutely no memory of putting it on the list, and only a general idea of what each film is. Getting up to The Most Hated Man on the Internet, it wasn't until I went to watch it that I discovered it was a limited series. Luckily, it only stretches out to 163-minutes - so I can treat it like a feature documentary, but still, this doesn't feel like a bona fide entry. The subject is Hunter Moore, his revenge porn website www.isanyoneup.com, and how he was brought down by a concerned mother, a dedicated journalist, an anti-bully activist and the FBI. There was a time when Moore appeared to be untouchable - another beneficiary of "I can't control what users post on my site" deniability. But when Charlotte Laws (the concerned mother of the story) discovered that many of the girls being exploited on the site had had their devices hacked, it opened the door for criminal charges. If it could be proved that Hunter Moore had actually been a part of illegally gaining access to people's private material, he'd suddenly find himself looking at prison time.

As far as entitled, chauvinistic, narcissistic, sociopathic douchebags go, you can't get any more of a villain for your documentary than Hunter. He's a special breed who crawled out of an emo/screamo bro culture which celebrated misogyny, and his typical response to the ruined lives and pain he caused was "LOL". As the media started picking up on the phenomenon of his website he started to become something of a celebrity, appearing on shows such as Anderson Cooper, brushing off complaints about what he was doing. The Netflix documentary begins, however, with the moment Charlotte Laws' daughter Kayla discovered there were nude pictures of her online - pictures she'd never shared with anyone. The quest to get those pictures taken down led to the beginning of a crusade for Charlotte, so as Hunter became more and more famous, the infuriated people who wanted to take him down were beginning to formulate their plans. We get interviews with all of these people, but Hunter Moore himself refused to be a part of the documentary, despite initially agreeing to be on it. Jail was only a small fraction of the blowback this young man was about to experience - especially after the group 'Anonymous' took this issue up as a crusade.

As it turns out, Hunter Moore was living with his parents - and by all appearances seemed to be spending the money he was earning on lavish parties, drugs, and limos. We learn about what that side of his life was like by listening to the various investigative journalists who spent time with him while getting a story. His whole "ruining lives is so much fun" attitude gave him a dedicated, if twisted, fanbase - but anyone watching would be able to tell that this was unsustainable. The story is a typical 'rise and fall' kind of narrative where the protagonist becomes more and more of a risk taker, and gives those who oppose him more and more impetus to stop him. In the end, his address was leaked, his accounts hacked, his money stolen and his life ruined - and that's all before the FBI finally charged him and dragged him off to prison. He didn't get a really lengthy sentence, but he was barred from social media - not that his power hadn't already waned to the point where his usual boisterous loudmouth self had fallen completely silent. He wanted fame and adoration, but had found infamy and hatred a much greater force. In the end though, his very existence depresses me.

3

https://i.postimg.cc/sgv2rdds/most-hated.jpg

Watchlist Count : 433 (-17)

Next : OSS 117: Cairo, Nest of Spies (2006)

PHOENIX74

04-29-24, 12:54 AM

https://i.postimg.cc/VkqNPC3M/oss.jpg

OSS 117: CAIRO, NEST OF SPIES (2006)

Directed by : Michel Hazanavicius

What a smile. The foolish, clumsy and ignorant secret agent that is somehow also super effective is nothing new movie-wise, but Jean Dujardin might be the most fitting man to play the part. Dujardin is obviously quite handsome (which easily differentiates him from the likes of Mike Myers and Rowan Atkinson), and he works with that by taking 'suaveness' to an absolutely absurd level. Doing so allows Nest of Spies to play with homoeroticism a lot, and make for a character who is insulated from ever being aware of just how ignorant and misguided he is. That character is Hubert Bonisseur de La Bath - OSS 117 - originally created by French writer Jean Bruce, and pre-dating James Bond both in written form (the first novel published in 1949) and on the big screen (the first film released in 1956). Michel Hazanavicius has revived the series here as a spoof on both OSS 117 and James Bond - giving this film the feel, in a visual sense, of an old OSS 117 film or early 60s Sean Connery James Bond picture. The most important factor though, is the comedy, and in this first outing that definitely works very well - both in a screenplay sense, and as far as Dujardin's performance is concerned.

The film starts with a black and white prologue set during World War II, which serves to introduce de La Bath's partner and best friend Jack Jefferson (Philippe Lefebvre) - who aids OSS 117 with stealing secret V2 plans from the Nazis. Years later, de La Bath is deployed to Cairo after being sent notice of Jack's murder, and there he meets his contact Larmina (Bérénice Bejo) and given the cover of being a chicken wholesaler - of which much fun results. At one stage, de La Bath and an enemy fight by throwing live chickens at each other, and de La Bath gets endless amusement from turning the light in the hen storage shed on and off, silencing and awakening the chickens every time he's near the switch. The story, which evolves from trying to find out how and why Jack Jefferson died to the selling of an arms cache, and the various Russians, Nazis and Egyptian revolutionaries who are after it, lacks a little focus. You can forgive the movie that though, because the only reason there is a story is to showcase the various comedic set-pieces and expose just how ignorant OSS 117 is, along with his superior colonial attitude, political incorrectness and chauvinism. He is particularly good in a fight however, as well as the bedroom, if Princess Al-Tarouk (Aure Atika) is anything to go by.

When this film started pretty much laugh-free I thought I might be in for a long 100 or so minutes, but the wobbly takeoff soon gave way to a wonderful comedic performance from Dujardin, and no end of brilliantly funny lines and situations. He manages to both look the part of a secret agent and a buffoon at the same time, mainly due to an exaggerated air of impudence and brashness. The rest of the characters all play their roles completely straight. I loved the way the cinematography, music and art direction (with the help of such devices as rear-screen projection, and night scenes being shot during the day) gave this an exact look of a 1960s spy film. The misogyny and homoeroticism of the early Bond films are given a thorough working over in this spoof, as is the sense of colonial superiority many of those films projected. I know this came along at a time when these spy spoofs had run their course a little bit, but I can't deny it's wit and clever sense of humour. I also can't deny the great Jean Dujardin, who carries much of the load here and does such a great job. I'm glad I got to see this - it was right up my alley.

Glad to catch this one - it won the Tokyo Grand Prix as best film at the Tokyo International Film Festival and Golden Space Needle as the most popular at the Seattle International Film Festival.

3.5

https://i.postimg.cc/tgktV6PG/oss-117.jpg

Watchlist Count : 432 (-18)

Next : The Trouble With Harry (1955)

Thank you very much to whomever inspired me to watch OSS 117: Cairo, Nest of Spies.

PHOENIX74

04-30-24, 05:28 AM

https://i.postimg.cc/3RzwFVYc/the-trouble-with-harry.jpg

THE TROUBLE WITH HARRY (1955)

Directed by : Alfred Hitchcock

This was a definite change of pace for me - and an alternate reality. The time period in general, art direction, acting style and direction of a 1950s Alfred Hitchcock film is it's whole distinct reality to become acclimatized to. Also, I'm so very surprised that I've not even seen a smidge of this film before - in all my life I've never bumped into a scene on television, or caught a moment or two on a retrospective documentary. The only thing I knew about The Trouble With Harry was that it had something to do with a body - I didn't even know the film was a comedy. I know Edmund Gwenn from Miracle on 34th Street, but John Forsythe I'm less familiar with. Mildred Natwick has an eminently recognisable face - but she's not as placeable as the legendary Shirley MacLaine, who made her film debut in this winsome black pantomime. All four play characters who think they may have had something to do with the death of Harry Worp, whose corpse is discovered out on the hillside overlooking the town of Highwater, Vermont. This uncertainty leads to Harry being buried and then disinterred multiple times over the course of the next 24 hours.

Although comedies in general aren't very 'Alfred Hitchcock' kind of fare, the subject of a troublesome corpse definitely is something that would bring Hitchcock to mind. This is based on a Jack Trevor novel, and the screenplay was written by John Michael Hayes - so I'm not sure who gets credit if this or that part makes me laugh. It might be something clever thought up by one of the writers, improvisation from an actor, or suggestion from Hitch, who I'm sure had a great sense of humour. I found the most mirth in the unexpected sexual innuendos sprinkled throughout - which was daring, I thought, for the 1950s. At one stage, character Sam Marlowe (Forsythe), an artist, lets it known he has an urge to paint single mother Jennifer Rogers (MacLaine) naked - which was apparently approaching/crossing a boundary at that time. And yes, continually burying and digging up a corpse due to a hopeless indecision over whether a crime has been committed is amusing. There's a matter-of-factness to the characters who live in Highwater, and their willingness to mess around with this dead body all day is what keeps that comedic pitch raised for the duration of The Trouble With Harry's running time.

The Trouble With Harry was a pleasant enough film - a little dated, but so very positive, kind-hearted in it's manner and peaceful despite it's strange subject matter. The locations look like paintings, despite the fact that a production location error meant that the bare trees had to have their leaves glued to them - proving that we are the strangest species on this planet. It all looks very nice indeed - and that hilltop in Vermont would be a choice place to die if you could get to choose. I wouldn't say no to watching this film again one day - Hitch got the absolute most out of all his performers, both old and young, and I thought it extra sweet that there was a romance in this film which involved older people. The only problem I have with this movie is when I compare it to other Hitchcock films - it feels so much less weighty that the comedy would have had to have been absolutely and unforgettably hilarious for it to match those in stature. It's funny, this - I really thought so, but overall it's not one of his truly great works. Not in my eyes. Still, it was very worth watching - a playful, colourful creation which is very sweet and charming that just happens to revolve around a dead body.

Glad to catch this one - Shirley MacLaine ended up winning a Most Promising Newcomer Golden Globe for her performance in did - very prescient indeed.

3.5

https://i.postimg.cc/FKTcpkXY/the-trouble-with-hrry.jpg

Watchlist Count : 432 (-18)

Next : The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie (1969)

Thank you very much to whomever inspired me to watch The Trouble With Harry.

WHITBISSELL!

04-30-24, 01:57 PM

I liked The Trouble With Harry just fine but you're right about it being so dissimilar to Hitchcock's usual works. And I'm glad you mentioned the art direction. The look of the film is almost burnished. Like what a picture postcard of Vermont would look like. You're also right about it not being one of Hitchcock's heavyweight projects but for what it is it's actually quite enjoyable. It put me in mind of his last film Family Plot. And I don't know if you've ever heard of Leave it to Beaver but the little kid who first found the body was Jerry Mathers.

PHOENIX74

04-30-24, 10:11 PM

PHOENIX74

04-30-24, 10:50 PM

APRIL RUN-THROUGH

Another huge month - I never know when a run of absolute classics are about to hit, and often they come in groups. During April I watched and reviewed another 28 films, which makes the recounted and rechecked total so far 121 movies from my watchlist. That's absolutely crazy. I've kept up a rigorous pace - and I don't know what the future will bring, but I'm committed to going as hard as I can until December 31st. Doing this has also increased my movie knowledge no end, and had me watching a greater proportion of good films (but has created a backlog of non-watchlist stuff, some of which would obviously be more middling - but why bother with that when this is so much more fun?)

BEST OF THE BUNCH

These two films went beyond just being great classics, and transcended the artform itself in my eyes. From now on I'll have a reverence for them - and no doubt they've snuck into 'Top 100' calculations for me as newcomers. Astonishing films.

https://i.postimg.cc/KjHv3Z0j/black-rain.jpghttps://i.postimg.cc/VvCLtxpF/cleo.webp

BEST OF THE REST

The films below are so great that it seems unfair to classify them below the two above - they're all masterpieces in their own way, and even though there were plenty of other watchlist films I watched in April that I loved dearly, the fact that they couldn't even make the run-through makes me realize just how much I've gotten out of going through my watchlist. Anyway - all the films appearing here are ones that I can't praise highly enough. Absolutely brilliant.

https://i.postimg.cc/CMqFcVrG/vortex.jpghttps://i.postimg.cc/8z3KKx0v/le.jpghttps://i.postimg.cc/LsWqGFdz/man.jpghttps://i.postimg.cc/rp1bPMRH/shadows.jpghttps://i.postimg.cc/NGm48pTN/beautiful-day.jpghttps://i.postimg.cc/mZnsMZY3/great-freedom.jpg

All in all a very good month - I'm a third of the way through the year, and I've already watched more great films than I would during an average 12 months. It's been a lot of fun, and created havoc in my mind when it comes to 'favourite' or 'best' film considerations.

PHOENIX74

05-02-24, 12:23 AM

https://i.postimg.cc/FKwm5Vfp/the-prime-of-miss-brodie.jpg

THE PRIME OF MISS JEAN BRODIE (1969)

Directed by : Ronald Neame

Every so often an actor or actress will shake the ground beneath your feet, and I have to say that Maggie Smith, at 35, held in her hand a role she took full advantage of to do that. While watching her cause the earth to tremble as the titular Jean Brodie in this film, I shuffled over to the IMDb, thinking "Gee, she deserved an Oscar nomination for this..." I needn't have worried. She won Best Actress - so I went back to the film well satisfied that justice was served in this instance. Jean Brodie, who had evolved from the pages of Muriel Spark's novel to the stage and now the screen, teaches at an all-girls school in Edinburgh. She believes in a kind of 'all-encompassing' education - about life, love, politics etc - not just the curriculum she's meant to stick to. It's 1932, and red flags start to appear for me personally when she starts espousing the merits of fascism and lionizing Benito Mussolini and Franco - frankly, something that makes everything she says suspect. Her love life is an extraordinarily messy tangle, with a love shared with married painter Teddy Lloyd (Robert Stephens), and a bed shared with choirmaster Gordon Lowther (Gordon Jackson).

Brodie teaches her girls with such unrestrained, operatic pretentiousness and snobbery that she could be seen as an easy target of ridicule, but she's a powerful manipulator. She forms a tight bond with a group of students she calls the "Brodie Set", a member of whom, Jenny (Diane Grayson), she prepares to maneuver into a possible future relationship with Lloyd - for reasons that are emotionally complex. Lloyd ends up seducing the 17-year-old Sandy (Pamela Franklin) instead, who was meant to be spying on Lloyd and Jenny for Brodie. It's a volatile mix, with the headmistress Miss Mackay (Celia Johnson) at the school desperate to get rid of the rogue Miss Brodie - but Brodie powerful enough in personality and intelligence to continually thwart her attempts at dismissal. It's a situation much like a powder keg, and the drama which follows allows Maggie Smith to go full force into every emotional extreme, and absolutely captivate the audience. I may also add, it's an audience the character is losing, because of the foolhardy act of persuading one of her students to travel to war-torn Spain to be with her brother, fighting there. Her romantic ideals are dangerous, and it's her impressionable students who face the consequences.

An interesting character study this - and another one where there's a tug between empathy and condemnation. Frankly, a teacher does hold young lives in his or her hand and has every opportunity to abuse the trust we give them - young people are very suggestable and easily influenced, and as such someone with enough charisma can mould youngsters to their design. As Miss Brodie herself says, "Give me a girl at an impressionable age, and she is mine for life." That sounds like a quote from Hitler, frankly, and a very extreme statement. On the other hand, underneath all of the bluster, strictness, knowledge and discipline is a human being - using the belief that she's 'in her prime' to justify her need to play these games with love and life. There's a sadness buried deep down, and I felt a great deal of pity for her. Once you get past the iron façade you start to see more of the real Jean Brodie, and watching The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie is an exercise in being able to appreciate a truly incredible performance movie-wise - probably one of the best I've ever seen. Maggie Smith, I salute you.

Glad to catch this one - played at Cannes in 1969, and was nominated for the Palme d'Or. Apart from a Best Actress Oscar, Maggie Smith also won a BAFTA, and was nominated for a Golden Globe.

4

https://i.postimg.cc/XqGKsnwv/the-prime-of-miss-jean-brodie.jpg

Watchlist Count : 430 (-20)

Next : Fourth of July (2022)

Thank you very much to whomever inspired me to watch The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie.

PHOENIX74

05-03-24, 01:55 AM

https://i.postimg.cc/WzQ2wtgT/fourth2.jpg

FOURTH OF JULY (2022)

Directed by : Louis C.K.

Firstly, a difficult matter to wrestle with - when I noticed that the next film on my watchlist was directed by a guy guilty of numerous instants of sexual misconduct, I was in a quandary. I hate this modern dilemma - whenever I see Harvey Weinstein's name on a movie's opening credits (and it comes up plenty of times) I feel queasy. Not that it impacts my enjoyment of the movie itself. It's easier, because Harvey himself didn't make the movie - when I see something I like I can praise the actor or director. Now Louis C.K., he directed this and plays a small role in it. I don't like the man - not one little bit - but at the same time I think he has an extraordinary talent for comedy. It's times like these that I thank God that Bill Cosby never made one single film that I think is great and love. Cosby was the absolute worst for picking film projects - perhaps the worst in the history of motion pictures - and as such there are no films that have been wrecked by discovering that this beloved comedian was actually a monster behind the scenes. A monster. But does the fact that Louis C.K. didn't go quite as hard at it as Cosby make his sexual misconduct any more acceptable? Has Louis C.K. paid enough for what he did? If he's genuinely contrite and has learned his lesson, should we forgive him? It's a dark shadow that looms, and it was always on my mind while watching Fourth of July.

Although something fundamentally different, Fourth of July reminded me of Dan in Real Life - it's a film where our main character, Jeff (Joe List), feels the need to confront his family during the annual Fourth of July get-together they have for the numerous issues and grievances he feels burdened with. It's an "annual family gathering" movie, of which many have been made. Jeff's family basically have the feel of a MAGA crowd, but Louis C.K. has made damn sure that there's no talk of politics in the movie - and although it can't be avoided altogether, there are no huge culture war hot-button topics argued or pontificated upon. It's a little disingenuous in that sense, but obviously Louis C.K. didn't want to alienate half of his possible audience. So instead the beer flows, and although Jeff is a loved and accepted part of the family, his interactions with them are awkward. Jeff is a pianist, goes to A.A. and although he's neurotic, he's a thoughtful, intelligent guy who is appalled at the way his family often acts - as Neanderthals in his eyes. He tells his therapist (played by Louis C.K. himself) that he's going to confront his parents and family this time around (apparently he's promised to do this many times, and always backed out) - and he does, with surprising results.

Jeff's parents didn't give him enough love and attention growing up, and it's left him with problems during his adulthood. They consider Jeff's pursuit of music a silly dream (he plays jazz in various New York clubs), hate his wife (who Jeff doesn't bring this year) and consider the fact that they fed and clothed him enough. At first Jeff's attempts at confronting them are feeble - but he eventually finds his feet in that respect and lets loose. In the meantime, Louis C.K.'s film is occasionally funny - but the drama takes absolute center stage here, and as such this is attempting to seriously explore the topics regarding this kind of parenthood, being the black sheep of the family, alcoholism as a social disease, openness and honesty. I thought it was good, and impactful - or at least the screenplay gave me enough of a reason to stay invested and interested. Kind of ironic that a Louis C.K. movie would avoid any and all controversy - but it was a better side to err on in this case. When Jeff's grandfather pretty much shows in his facial expressions that he doesn't consider him a man because he doesn't drink or feels uncomfortable peeing off the side of their fishing boat - we're getting at the cultural divide between generations that I would have been interested in seeing more of. As it is I'll say that although it's not a must-see, Fourth of July is by no means a bad movie.

Glad to catch this one - Kyle Smith of The Wall Street Journal lauded the film as "one of the best films of the year", calling it "acutely observed".

3

https://i.postimg.cc/1Xzgjg8F/fourth.jpg

Watchlist Count : 429 (-21)

Next : Water Lilies (2007)

Thank you very much to whomever inspired me to watch Fourth of July.

Stirchley

05-03-24, 12:55 PM

https://i.postimg.cc/FKwm5Vfp/the-prime-of-miss-brodie.jpg

THE PRIME OF MISS JEAN BRODIE (1969)

Directed by : Ronald Neame

Every so often an actor or actress will shake the ground beneath your feet, and I have to say that Maggie Smith, at 35, held in her hand a role she took full advantage of to do that. While watching her cause the earth to tremble as the titular Jean Brodie in this film, I shuffled over to the IMDb, thinking "Gee, she deserved an Oscar nomination for this..." I needn't have worried. She won Best Actress - so I went back to the film well satisfied that justice was served in this instant. Jean Brodie, who had evolved from the pages of Muriel Spark's novel to the stage and now the screen, teaches at an all-girls school in Edinburgh. She believes in a kind of 'all-encompassing' education - about life, love, politics etc - not just the curriculum she's meant to stick to. It's 1932, and red flags start to appear for me personally when she starts espousing the merits of fascism and lionizing Benito Mussolini and Franco - frankly, something that makes everything she says suspect. Her love life is an extraordinarily messy tangle, with a love shared with married painter Teddy Lloyd (Robert Stephens), and a bed shared with choirmaster Gordon Lowther (Gordon Jackson).

Brodie teaches her girls with such unrestrained, operatic pretentiousness and snobbery that she could be seen as an easy target of ridicule, but she's a powerful manipulator. She forms a tight bond with a group of students she calls the "Brodie Set", a member of whom, Jenny (Diane Grayson), she prepares to maneuver into a possible future relationship with Lloyd - for reasons that are emotionally complex. Lloyd ends up seducing the 17-year-old Sandy (Pamela Franklin) instead, who was meant to be spying on Lloyd and Jenny for Brodie. It's a volatile mix, with the headmistress Miss Mackay (Celia Johnson) at the school desperate to get rid of the rogue Miss Brodie - but Brodie powerful enough in personality and intelligence to continually thwart her attempts at dismissal. It's a situation much like a powder keg, and the drama which follows allows Maggie Smith to go full force into every emotional extreme, and absolutely captivate the audience. I may also add, it's an audience the character is losing, because of the foolhardy act of persuading one of her students to travel to war-torn Spain to be with her brother, fighting there. Her romantic ideals are dangerous, and it's her impressionable students who face the consequences.

An interesting character study this - and another one where the there's a tug between empathy and condemnation. Frankly, a teacher does hold young lives in his or her hand and has every opportunity to abuse the trust we give them - young people are very suggestable and easily influenced, and as such someone with enough charisma can mould youngsters to their design. As Miss Brodie herself says, "Give me a girl at an impressionable age, and she is mine for life." That sounds like a quote from Hitler, frankly, and a very extreme statement. On the other hand, underneath all of the bluster, strictness, knowledge and discipline is a human being - using the belief that she's 'in her prime' to justify her need to play these games with love and life. There's a sadness buried deep down, and I felt a great deal of pity for her. Once you get past the iron façade you start to see more of the real Jean Brodie, and watching The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie is an exercise in being able to appreciate a truly incredible performance movie-wise - probably one of the best I've ever seen. Maggie Smith, I salute you.

Glad to catch this one - played at Cannes in 1969, and was nominated for the Palme d'Or. Apart from a Best Actress Oscar, Maggie Smith also won a BAFTA, and was nominated for a Golden Globe.

4

https://i.postimg.cc/XqGKsnwv/the-prime-of-miss-jean-brodie.jpg

Watchlist Count : 430 (-20)

Next : Fourth of July (2022)

Thank you very much to whomever inspired me to watch The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie.

What a face & figure Maggie had, don’t you think. :)

PHOENIX74

05-03-24, 10:51 PM

What a face & figure Maggie had, don’t you think. :)

It's a funny thing - I've always only known Maggie as this older "Lady in the Van" legend, and she's imprinted on my mind as such. But she really was a stunning looker!

https://i.postimg.cc/YSyRDMHq/maggie.webp

PHOENIX74

05-05-24, 12:12 AM

https://i.postimg.cc/7hnCYDjT/water-lilies.jpg

WATER LILIES (2007)

Directed by : Céline Sciamma

Céline Sciamma's Portrait of a Lady on Fire was huge, so it was interesting to go back and watch her debut, Water Lilies, which also stars the distinctive actress in the former film, Adèle Haenel. I found it a tough film to watch, because it's the kind of coming of age drama where coming of age is a very brutal, scary and painful process. Marie (Pauline Acquart), Anne (Louise Blachère) and Floriane (Adèle Haenel) are teenage girls, all at a stage where sex is entering the equation more and more. Marie notices Floriane during a synchronized swimming meet, and tries to get close to her by joining up as a beginner. At first Floriane is dismissive of her diminutive hanger-on, and uses her as a decoy so she can go make out with her boyfriend - (she has a reputation that's unearned, so even though people assume she's having sex she's still a virgin.) After a while, when Marie decides she doesn't want to do this anymore, Floriane discovers she's come to like Marie and starts hanging out with her - igniting a relationship that blurs the lines between romantic and platonic. In the meantime, Marie's best friend (who she is now neglecting) is eager to share her first kiss with her crush, François (Warren Jacquin), who is generally looking for sex, and not romance. François eyes both Floriane and Anne as conquests.

I didn't envy the girls in this film, because coming to terms with their own desires while at the same time being pressured by teenage boys didn't look fun. None of them ever looked sure about what they were doing, and that's the way it is - uncharted territory. Floriane walks a very crooked line, flirting with all the boys as if it's her job description, while experiencing real lust and love in the arms of Marie. She welcomes the attentions of both. I don't know if her tangles with guys are meant to make Marie jealous, but in the end it simply does more hurt than good - and I'm constantly on edge because there are numerous times I fear one of these guys is going to take things too far. Her reputation with the other girls in her synchronized swim team is how it is because she always seems to be wrapped around this or that guy - but to Marie she reveals that she's playing a role, and doing what she thinks is expected of her. In the meantime Anne is left to flounder, and learn her own lesson - that there can be sex without love, which often feels like you've been exploited. All three girls are learning, but they're definitely learning the hard way - and I hate to see them go through all of that. Even their emotions have a complexity that is hard to navigate.

Let me just add, because this film is about a synchronized swim team - when synchronized swimming became an Olympic sport my friends and family were rather incredulous, and thought it the most ridiculous sport that could ever have been invented. I've kind of got used to it now (and hell, it's basically water gymnastics - except synchronized.) That part of the film gradually fades out, but seeing the girls train and compete was interesting. One other interesting thing about this film was the fact that we never see any of the girls' parents - not even for one scene. It makes their anxiety-ridden journey through this stage of their lives feel all the more lonely and unguided. Of course, when I was their age I told my parents nothing about my private life - to the point where they didn't even know when I had girlfriends until I was 18 and brought one home with me. Looking back, it feels like I was way, way over-secretive, but that's the funny thing about that age. If I could go back in time I'd be nicer to them than I was from, say, 15 to 19 or so - but I certainly had a good relationship with them into adulthood. For guys, it's so easy - compared to girls, who as usual get the tougher end of the bargain. That's clearly exemplified in Water Lilies.

Glad to catch this one - it won the Louis Delluc Prize for Best First Film at the 2007 Cannes Film Festival, and was was selected for screening in the Un certain regard section there. It was also nominated for 3 César Awards.

3.5

https://i.postimg.cc/2jHfbGZB/water-lilies2.jpg

Watchlist Count : 429 (-21)

Next : Seconds (1966)

Thank you very much to whomever inspired me to watch Water Lilies.

crumbsroom

05-05-24, 12:16 AM

Jean Brodie is a great, great movie.

crumbsroom

05-05-24, 12:17 AM

Also, you made me want to see that Nest of Spies movie, which on the surface, is something I doubt I would have ever even considered watching.

PHOENIX74

05-06-24, 06:16 AM

https://i.postimg.cc/dVqkgLMz/seconds.jpg

SECONDS (1966)

Directed by : John Frankenheimer

Where do I even start? That's the question with Seconds, which has a lot going on both under the surface and in a straightforward narrative sense. It's a dream-like (or nightmarish) meld of science fiction and psychological horror that takes an average, dull bank manager, Arthur Hamilton (John Randolph), and, with the help of a secretive, ominous institution called the 'Company' gives him a new life by faking his death and reconstructing his facial features. A painful process in many ways - both physically and psychologically. Hamilton becomes Antiochus Wilson (Rock Hudson) - an artist with a flash pad in Malibu, California. Soon he's hooking up with the free-spirited Nora Marcus (Salome Jens), but the process is taking a toll on him, and when he starts to crack what follows is both a mix of great self-awareness and terrifying horror - when you get a second chance at life, you'd best take it and not go for a third! John Frankenheimer was on a hot streak when he made this film, coming hot on the heels of the other two films which make up his 'paranoia trilogy' - The Manchurian Candidate and Seven Days in May.

One of the most unusual things about Arthur Hamilton's journey is that he doesn't ask for what's done to him - he gets instructions, surreptitiously, from an old friend of his he thought was dead. Those instructions leads him to the Company, who quickly acquire blackmail material to convince Arthur to go through with the procedure - not that they necessarily need it, as they are persuasive nonetheless. Arthur has attained everything he was taught to covet in life - money, a decent home, marriage and security - but it all feels so empty to him. There is no passion in his life, and no meaning. It's as if he's been sold a lie. In the meantime the Company presses it's sales pitch - and whatever they're selling might be equally without merit, and preying on the fact that we're all obsessed with staying forever young. It's a hard sell this time, but the results are fascinating to watch. An old man in a young body, guided through a younger person's world and trying to adapt. Trying to make sense of it all. The psychological contortions are aided visually by Oscar-nominated cinematography from James Wong Howe - a massive plus as far as this film is concerned. Rock Hudson delivers what may be his greatest ever performance.

Despite it's seeming obscurity, it appears that Seconds has picked up an ever-growing cult audience over the years. (It's rerelease attracted a big article in The Atlantic.) Park Chan-wook and Bong Joon-ho have named it as one of their favourite films - a freaky, disorientating trip into the deep subconscious that questions identity and our sense of self. It was booed at Cannes, and dismissed when released - and though it might be something of a cliché, I think that people genuinely weren't ready for something like this. It invades the mind, and invites you to speculate on matters about ourselves that are a little disturbing. It reminds me of the fact that by the time we learn how to really live our lives our life is nearly over! I loved how Frankenheimer used old blacklisted actors as the various movers and shakers of the Company, and I loved the absolutely shattering ending to Seconds, which closes the door on a film that's full of sociopolitical comment. It's left a distinctly eerie impression on me - and I'd reckon that means it worked exactly as it was intended to. It asks such pertinent questions of us.

Glad to catch this one - Criterion #667, In Steven Jay Schneider's 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die and was nominated for the Palme d'Or at the 1966 Cannes Film Festival.

4

https://i.postimg.cc/Mpw2MKFK/seconds2.jpg

Watchlist Count : 428 (-22)

Next : Nothing Bad Can Happen (2013)

Thank you very much to whomever inspired me to watch Seconds.

SpelingError

05-06-24, 08:47 AM

Seconds is one of my favorites. It's middle third got some criticism during a Hall of Fame, but I'd say it's just as great as what came before. A terrific portrayal of a bizarre escapist fantasy gone wrong

Stirchley

05-06-24, 01:01 PM

It's a funny thing - I've always only known Maggie as this older "Lady in the Van" legend, and she's imprinted on my mind as such. But she really was a stunning looker!

https://i.postimg.cc/YSyRDMHq/maggie.webp

Exactly. Or people know her from Downton & that’s how she’s visualized now.

I suppose you know the guy in the movie was her real husband? They later divorced.

StuSmallz

05-07-24, 04:46 AM

PHOENIX74

05-07-24, 05:46 AM

https://i.postimg.cc/htQCTmK7/nothing-bad.jpg

NOTHING BAD CAN HAPPEN (2013)

Directed by : Katrin Gebbe

That title is a lie! I went in blind, but the little clues I got weren't enough to prepare me for Nothing Bad Can Happen, which is frighteningly based on a true story. It's hard to see at first where any of it's so-called transcendent psychological horror is going to come from. Tore (Julius Feldmeier) is a "Jesus Freak" - a true believer whose bunch thrive on heavy rock, tattoos and espousing love and kindness. He's soft-spoken, kind and into turning the other cheek and helping people. One day, he and a fellow member try to fix a random stranger's car through prayer - and the car comes to life again, impressing Benno (Sascha Alexander Geršak), who invites Tore to come to his place to get to know him and his family better. They seem normal - and Tore even starts to fall for Benno's teenage daughter, Sanny (Gro Swantje Kohlhof), before Benno's real personality slowly starts to emerge. What starts as a punch to the face slowly escalates into more violent acts, and Tore truly believes that God/Jesus is testing him. When he discovers that Sanny is being sexually abused, he makes it his mission to save her - but he has to achieve this while at the same time, offering his "other cheek" for Benno to strike. What unfolds is a cycle of abuse as horrifying as you'd likely see anywhere, as Benno's wife Astrid (Annika Kuhl) and others join in on hurting and torturing Tore.

Benno seems to be enraged by Tore's faith, not that he needs that reason to inflict pain and distress on his step-daughter and son - but everything escalates because of his need to test that belief in prayer and Jesus by devising new and cruel modes of punishment and torture. I wasn't far into Nothing Bad Can Happen before I genuinely wanted to beat the hell out of Benno. It would be unfair of me to go into the details (cat lovers beware) of what exactly happens in this story. It's a confronting blend of personal belief and shocking abuse - with neither party able to back down, it spirals into something that becomes more and more extreme. Tore is truly an outsider - when people come and visit the family that this quiet young guy has become a part of, they always note to each other that he's "really weird" and "not normal", but that's mainly because he refuses alcohol, is very kind in his manner, defers much to his belief and always says quiet little prayers depending on what he's doing. It makes him an outsider, and as such he's easily marginalized. As his condition deteriorates, people are concerned - but Tore himself is free to flee. He's not going to go until his mission to save Sanny is complete, however he's to achieve that.

By the time you've watched the whole film you're feeling sick, very uneasy, a little in shock and very, very sad and angry. I didn't know much about this film when I put it on, and it felt somewhat harmless for the most part at the beginning - as did Benno. I understood Tore, but that still doesn't mean it's not frustrating to see him limply accept all the various ways he's exploited and hurt in this movie - without lifting a finger to help or defend himself. His strength to stay true to his beliefs is beyond imagining though, considering what he goes through - something that's more important to this young guy than any humiliation, hurt, injury or grievance. It's up to the viewer to judge for themselves as far as Tore's lack of action is concerned (no doubt the viewer will want Benno strung up.) Make no mistake though - this is horror of the highest order, despite the fact that it's based on a true story. It will test your capacity for sitting through the trials and tribulations of this poor kid, in no small part because of how likeable Tore is, and how undeserving he was of being brutalized and mistreated in the ways he is. As far as nonresistance and Christian pacifism is concerned however, it's an age-old quandary.

Glad to catch this one - it screened in the Un Certain Regard section at the 2013 Cannes Film Festival. It also won the Emeric Pressburger Prize at the 2013 Miskolc International Film Festival.

3.5

https://i.postimg.cc/VL1Mh9F8/nothing-bad-can.jpg

Watchlist Count : 428 (-22)

Next : Chimes at Midnight (1965)

Thank you very much to whomever inspired me to watch Nothing Bad Can Happen.

SpelingError

05-07-24, 01:14 PM

What problems did they have with the middle third, then?
I don't remember the specific issues. I think it was along the lines of finding it less interesting than the first and final third.

PHOENIX74

05-15-24, 05:10 AM

https://i.postimg.cc/1XF4xdy2/chimes.jpg

CHIMES AT MIDNIGHT (1965)

Directed by : Orson Welles

I'll never forget Chimes at Midnight - mostly because of how stuck I've been with it for what feels like forever. I've been ill, and I pushed everything aside to just rest and get better - but the minute I felt well enough to sit through the film and then write something about it I find out my sister is in intensive care, and perhaps is not going to make it. She's been battling leukaemia, and doing so well - but apparently beating that has robbed her of her biological defenses, and we nearly lost her. I could write nothing - just think of her. I dreaded the news this morning - but she's awake and talking and I'm well enough to start this stalled enterprise once again! Unfortunately my familiarity with Shakespeare doesn't extend to the 'Wars of the Roses' cycle of plays - so I don't have any kind of grounding when it comes to the character of Falstaff (who Welles plays in Chimes at Midnight.) I tried to familiarize myself as much as I could with the plot by reading a bit about it, for I knew if the dialogue was going to be Shakespearean in nature I might find myself becoming a mite lost. That did happen in places, even though I pretty much knew what was going on in general.

While I had a hard time following this, I was the most impressed I've ever been when it comes to how Welles has brought his vision to life through cinematography and editing. There is a never-ending pageantry of great shots, bristling with creativity and providing me with something special to focus on - something I was thankful for. The "Battle of Shrewsbury" part of the movie is exceptional, but Welles makes sure that it doesn't make the movie uneven for most everything in Chimes at Midnight is given emphasis and weight simply by the way it's filmed and framed. Falstaff is a scamp. A loveable rogue who, despite being a thief, drunkard and more, has taken the young Prince Hal (Keith Baxter) under his wing - much to the consternation of King Henry IV (John Gielgud). The king is in the meantime preoccupied with a rebellion led by Henry Percy - otherwise known as Hotspur (Norman Rodway) - something that leads to the aforementioned battle. Will Prince Hal prove himself worthy of his father's crown? Orson disappears into his larger than life role here - he really did have exceptional talent in a theatrical sense. A sixth sense about what was needed in any given situation.

Overall, considering how wrecked I feel, I don't think I was able to give Chimes at Midnight it's full due - but I could still manage to see what it's most passionate adherents love about it. If only there were CliffsNotes for me to use. I wonder if there will be future occasions where I watch this and start grasping everything that's said in it, instead of barely anything. I'm not even quite sure if everything in it comes directly from The Bard, or if there's connective tissue written by Welles in Shakespeare's signature style. Why everyone has to talk in lyric-soaked riddles and make their general conversation poetry is beyond me - but it is what it is, and as such there are those of us who will struggle with it. I wonder why I was so eager to put it on my watchlist, considering how much of a challenge it was - perhaps just so I could appreciate how well made it was, and get another step closer to having seen everything Orson Welles made. I think I've heard the chimes at midnight - or perhaps it's just been a trying week or so.

Glad to catch this one - #830 on Criterion and in Steven Jay Schneider's 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die.

3.5

https://i.postimg.cc/MTrnmHBq/chim2.jpg

Watchlist Count : 429 (-21)

Next : The Phantom Carriage (1921)

Thank you very much to whomever inspired me to watch Chimes at Midnight.

SpelingError

05-15-24, 01:55 PM

Easily my favorite Shakespeare adaptation. I think your reaction is similar to my initial reaction, but it's the kind of film which gets better with rewatches once you understand more of, well, what goes on.

crumbsroom

05-15-24, 03:29 PM

I don't know shit about Shakespeare. I guarantee I missed about 80 percent of what Chimes of Midnight offered. But that's enough.

Yet another example of why Welles was better than most at everything. Except success.

Wyldesyde19

05-15-24, 08:44 PM

I haven’t seen Chines at Midnight yet, but I understand it’s considered by many, including Welles himself, to be his best. It’s a shame it wasn’t highly regarded at the time of its release

PHOENIX74

05-17-24, 05:15 AM

https://i.postimg.cc/RhCXBKND/phantom.jpg

THE PHANTOM CARRIAGE (1921)

Directed by : Victor Sjöström

Another movie, another tremendously different experience because this comes from such a faraway time and place. Director/star Victor Sjöström is actually the guy from Ingmar Bergman's Wild Strawberries, and The Phantom Carriage was one of the Swedish filmmaker's favourite films. You've gotta be curious - features were such a new phenomenon, and this one's structure at first took me aback. It starts with a dying Salvation Army Sister's dying wish to see a particular man, and as people go out to search for him we find him first - telling a story about a man he once knew a while back. We transfer ourselves to that time and place, and before you know it this new person starts telling his own story. Now we're within a story that's within it's own story being told by a man that people are searching for. Once familiarized with the film, it all makes perfect sense - but the first time around you feel you only have the most tenuous grasp on The Phantom Carriage's narrative. It's not a complex tale, but it's told in nonlinear fashion, with many flashbacks and different points of view.

So, the spectral carriage itself is driven by a new person every year - someone who dies on the stroke of New Years, who will be cursed to act as Death himself. Every night as this carriage driver lasts 100 years from a person's perspective - it's a real cruddy job, and this particular year the driver is Georges (Tore Svennberg) - a friend of David Holm (Victor Sjöström), who is the man being sought by the dying Salvation Army nurse with consumption. David is an alcoholic who has caused nothing but misery for his brother, wife and two children - and this nurse had taken his cause up to only be let down and rebuffed by David time and time again. Well, it turns out David has just died - on the stroke of midnight on New Year's Eve wouldn't you know it, and is being inducted into his new job by Georges - who wants to take him to see the nurse, and show him things much like the three ghosts do in A Christmas Carol. You see, David's wife is about to poison the kids and kill herself - having had enough of the drama. Is it too late, considering that David is now a ghost? I won't spoil anything - I guess it depends on the rules and regulations regarding this Phantom Carriage, which collects souls over a year that lasts (*gets calculator out*) a seeming 36,500 years for the poor soul which has to operate it one human year.

This was really interesting from a film fan's point of view. It's not so easy watching this, because it's dialogue heavy, and you always have to watch characters natter away and wait...and wait...until intertitles finally pop up, with the Swedish text translated for us (I do prefer that authentic touch.) Sometimes we're left to figure out what characters are saying ourselves - and they do gesticulate more than normal people would do - it's very theatrical. Still, it's well shot, although I prefer straight black and white to the many colour tints we get throughout this film. Victor Sjöström is a force of nature, and bellows through the film whether he's drunk, or possessed with emotional desperation - it's a fiery performance. I also liked the nurse, played by Astrid Holm - these were all famous, well-regarded Swedish stars of the stage and screen. I didn't know Swedish cinema was as well established as it seems to have been in 1921 - but The Phantom Carriage seems to be the biggest title of this period - a central work from the biggest name in Swedish film, Victor Sjöström. A fascinating peep through a time gap that now extends past a century.

Glad to catch this one - #579 on Criterion and in Steven Jay Schneider's 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die. It's notable for it's double-exposure special effects, and was released on New Year's Day 1921.

4

https://i.postimg.cc/8PPJ2ZXB/phantom-carriage.jpg

Watchlist Count : 433 (-17)

Next : A Visitor to a Museum (1989)

Thank you very much to whomever inspired me to watch The Phantom Carriage.

SpelingError

05-17-24, 09:24 AM

Another of my favorites. Yay!

crumbsroom

05-17-24, 11:26 AM

I haven’t seen Chines at Midnight yet, but I understand it’s considered by many, including Welles himself, to be his best. It’s a shame it wasn’t highly regarded at the time of its release

Is it a shame that Welles didn't get the full wallop of proper recognition in his lifetime? Sort of. I'm sure Welles never doubted what he was though, even though he probably at times resented how frequently he was considered a washed up has been or charlatan.

But he got to make 23 films. Nearly all of them worthy of his legend. And he did it while very rarely compromising his pretty uncompromising vision. If the guy really truly wanted to be a consistent success in his time, I'm sure he could have figured out how to do that. But he would have had to be a smaller and less adventurous man, and it would have shown in his work. Instead, he chose to go where his own instinct took him, and that is why he is remembered. So, I'm sure on some level he must have accepted this fate. Even though I do imagine it was frustrating at times.

With very few exceptions, you don't end up mattering if you try to appeal to everyone. The two things rarely go together. So, I guess we should be thankful that he proceeded exactly as he did, and burned all of those bridges, and got himself laughed into frozen pea commercials.

The tragedy of Orson Welles is very small, compared to the largeness of everything else about him.

PHOENIX74

05-18-24, 05:10 AM

https://i.postimg.cc/5NQSSx1k/a-visitor-of-a-museum.jpg

A VISITOR OF A MUSEUM (1989)

Directed by : Konstantin Lopushansky

The religious no longer say "Amen" in Konstantin Lopushansky's nightmare world created for A Visitor of a Museum (sometimes called Visitor to a Museum.) They say "Let us out." Interesting too that there's a dividing line between those who practice faith and those who seem content watching television and dancing - the former are "degenerates", or mentally ill. Some in his native Russia criticized Lopushansky for lacking a sense of humour, unlike say, a Terry Gilliam - but his post-apocalyptic dystopias thrived on their own severity, and anything funny would have seemed particularly out of place. I still remember his previous film, Dead Man’s Letters, which took place after nuclear Armageddon - this time it's more of an environmental collapse that has left mankind clinging on desperately to a trash-filled, broken, unpredictable existence. Ocean tides flow in and out to such great degrees that abandoned cities can only be explored at certain times - and there's a museum which a man known only as "The Visitor" (Viktor Mikhailov) is determined to see while he's on vacation. It's a trip that will test his sanity, and see him come into contact with the tenuous remnants of a people completely broken - the inheritors of a rubbish dump of a planet, where beauty is a thing of the past.

You can tell that Lopushansky studied under Andrei Tarkovsky - there's that same kind of co-opting of unusual environs, repurposed to represent something new. A world of endless rubbish, deterioration, fire and encroaching ocean. It's a dark world, both literally and figuratively - and that's why The Visitor thinks it hilariously ironic that it's here he's chosen to spend his vacation time. Even the train is simply known as the "dump train" - it's broken down carriages transporting more garbage and dirt than people. It's a violent world, although we rarely see that violence. Religious hysteria also bubbles away under the surface - but it's kept out of sight, with the ruling class sedated by television. A lot of this is pretty dour - with The Visitor waiting at a run down hotel for the tides to change so he can travel to where he wants to go - a trip that will unexpectedly become something of a religious pilgrimage for him after he becomes a target for the cult-like movement the "Degenerate Maid" (Irina Rakshina) belongs to. It becomes a transformative experience, and The Visitor something of a Christ-like figure.

I wasn't so sure of A Visitor of a Museum until I saw it's particularly powerful final scenes and everything seemed to fit neatly into place. Up until then there's such a miserable stasis that the film was testing my patience - a dogged sadness, mixed with failure, dirt, despair, indifference, darkness and desperation. Lopushansky wants to show us a humanity that's long, long past the point of no return, where redemption has become a purely personal matter. With no cause left worth fighting for, the only escape for the lonely is either dogma or mindless entertainment. I don't know how much of humanity remains, but it seems not at all too different from the nuclear wasteland of Dead Man's Letters. It's harsh watching that in such an unrelenting manner, especially when characters just start lingering and losing their motivation. When the tide went out, I thought The Visitor might not even bother going to his museum - which would have upset me. In the end though, the whole carcass of refuse, waste and destruction was under my skin anyway. My anguish matched the pinpoint spot that Lopushansky was aiming for.

Glad to catch this one - it was entered into the 16th Moscow International Film Festival where it won the Silver St. George and the Prix of Ecumenical Jury..

4

https://i.postimg.cc/3rV1b0dj/visitor-of-a-museum.jpg

Watchlist Count : 432 (-18)

Next : The Ruins (2008)

Thank you very much to whomever inspired me to watch A Visitor of a Museum.

PHOENIX74

05-19-24, 12:13 AM

https://i.postimg.cc/d0FfRTqR/the-ruins.jpg

THE RUINS (2008)

Directed by : Carter Smith

Damn films where the whole premise is a spoiler that's revealed a quarter of the way into the movie - forcing me to tip-toe my way up to it and then write around the central thing that's happening. Anyway - four American travellers are holidaying in Mexico when a German tourist invites them to visit some Mayan ruins with him - once there they're forbidden to leave by some gun-wielding locals. Why? Because the ruins have a ghoulish, deadly secret to them that's basically staring you right in the face from the beginning. Something spreadable. Trapped, they're forced to treat serious injuries suffered when two of them fall down a central shaft, looking for the friends they were supposed to be meeting there. There are forced leg-amputations and some impromptu surgery necessitated by medical emergencies - and then there's that creepy something which keeps threatening the lives and sanity of the kids who can't leave this ancient abode. It's a tale of survival and investigation, and it's kind of a shame the characters aren't a little more interesting, because there's not much more to this 2008 horror film from Carter Smith.

Whenever you're exploring a foreign country, and a taxi driver tells you that the place you want to go to is "a really bad place", I know it's tempting. For some strange reason, tourists feel immune and impervious to danger in foreign lands - as if you have to live there officially to be touched by whatever evil is laying in wait. The kids in this film actually get to declare their invincible "we're Americans!" status, except for Mathias (Joe Anderson), the German, who is the one who is heading down into the temple when the rope holding him breaks. Despite him sorrowfully declaring that he can no longer feel his legs, our four intrepid explorers feel the need to drag him out of the temple - and in pretty short order cut his legs off to prevent infection or something. Turns out he can feel his legs! These kids hardly need any kind of horrendous outside threat - they're dangerous enough to themselves - but after a night on the temple they discover something very creepy happening. They can't leave, because they're surrounded by an armed force - and none of them can speak Spanish, so the bullets and arrows do the talking.

So - five characters are trying to survive on the temple, and what's pretty damning for this movie is the fact that I know one thing : one of them, Jeff (Jonathan Tucker), is studying to become a doctor. That's the only thing I picked up about any of the characters. There is not one other identifying feature about the characters that I can mention after watching the film - their blandness is stultifying. Oh - Amy (Jena Malone) drinks too much, and flirts when she's drunk - other than that these are very random human beings that I seriously don't care all that much about, despite the moments of gore which gave me a visceral empathetic reaction to people being harmed. I'm kind of surprised that this is based on a novel - written by Scott Smith, the author of A Simple Plan. Smith wrote the screenplay, (and also adapted A Simple Plan, which earned him a Best Adapted Screenplay Oscar nomination.) There was no nomination for The Ruins - there's simply not enough to it, despite it's winning, creepy premise which I won't mention for fear of spoiling it. There should be more meat on this film's bones - it feels light on, like an episode to an anthology show.

2.5

https://i.postimg.cc/wTgyKsCr/the-ruins2.jpg

Watchlist Count : 431 (-19)

Next : The Devils (1971)

Thank you to whomever inspired me to watch The Ruins.

WHITBISSELL!

05-19-24, 02:14 AM

I can't for the life of me remember if I've seen The Ruins but I really liked Scott Smith's novel.

PHOENIX74

05-20-24, 01:25 AM

I can't for the life of me remember if I've seen The Ruins but I really liked Scott Smith's novel.

The book reviews do sound really good - I'll grab myself a copy and read it when I get the opportunity.

PHOENIX74

05-20-24, 01:32 AM

https://i.postimg.cc/tgJ6xM4n/the-devils.jpg

THE DEVILS (1971)

Directed by : Ken Russell

I'm thinking I should check out more of Ken Russell's films - his unflinching look at the absurd political power inquisitors could wield in 17th Century France combines sexual repression and corruption in a fiery, fierce film. It tells the real-life story of Father Urbain Grandier (Oliver Reed) - a French Catholic priest who wielded some power and influence in Loudun, and ended up getting tortured and burned at the stake after being accused of witchcraft. His accusers were a group of nuns, chief among them Sister Jeanne des Anges (Vanessa Redgrave), who in the film harbours deeply felt sexual desires for Grandier. The trouble starts when she discovers that he's married another woman, after refusing to become her convent's new confessor - two rejections which compel the Sister to go along with the Baron de Laubardemont (Dudley Sutton) and Father Pierre Barre (Michael Gothard) with their plans to have him tried for bewitching her and the nuns in her Ursuline convent. Grandier's own pride and libido have already made him many enemies, despite his efforts to protect his fortified town from destruction, and soliciting the protection of King Louis XIII (Graham Armitage).

Nobody was really ready for The Devils' sexuality when the film came out in 1971 - and it was that aspect which overshadowed it's brilliance so completely that nearly every influential critic rubbished it upon release. While it might seem tame today, you could arguably say that there might be an excess of boobs throughout the middle portion of the film - and certainly enough to satiate anyone who wants to watch The Devils for purely prurient reasons. What probably disturbed some the most was Russell's dogged attempts at sacrilege, with nuns masturbating with crucifixes and using statues of Christ to pleasure themselves - and Redgrave gets to work with Grandier's charcoaled femur during the film's closing stages. Sex is a source of pride and power in The Devils - it both drives most of the characters, influences their decisions, is used to persecute and scandalize and defines a person's spirituality far more than praying and lighting candles can. It's a religion unto itself, and it complicates Father Urbain Grandier to such a degree that he becomes a fascinating character - and I have to say that Oliver Reed is particularly good in this, although sometimes he does look a little drunk.

Okay, so I thought The Devils was pretty fantastic - a film of extraordinary power, and one that I found visually outstanding, very well written, and directed with absolute confidence and a complete lack of fear. Vanessa Redgrave's unhinged portrayal of the deformed, hunchbacked Jeanne des Anges clearly defines her as calculating and cruel from the outset, while being tormented by a confused desire that lights the destructive flame which burns Grandier at the stake. Dudley Sutton is also great, wielding his power with conspicuous relish, and I have to mention George and Mildred's Brian Murphy, because his likeable presence appearing in the form of a torturer's assistant tickled me. Most of us know full well how weaponized religion can be when the state decides to use it to persecute people, and the power of religion and sex combined make for a monstrous beast which perverts the sanctity of love, which is what sex and religion are supposed to be all about. It's the ultimate irony, and an irony that's not lost on Ken Russell or the original writer of The Devils of Loudun - Aldous Huxley. A magnificent cinematic achievement.

Glad to catch this one - Ken Russell won Best Director at the 33rd Venice International Film Festival, as well as from the U.S. National Board of Review. The film appears in Steven Jay Schneider's 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die.

4.5

https://i.postimg.cc/jSG5LKZD/the-devils2.jpg

Watchlist Count : 429 (-21)

Next : November (2017)

Thank you very much to whomever inspired me to watch The Devils.

PHOENIX74

05-22-24, 12:26 AM

https://i.postimg.cc/6qwdGC7c/november.jpg

NOVEMBER (2017)

Directed by : Rainer Sarnet

Rainer Sarnet's November is a mad, mad, mad movie. It takes place in 19th Century Estonia, and immediately introduces us to "kratts", which are jumbles of scrap, pipes, bones, material or whatever that have been animated by giving them a soul (this is often arranged via making a deal with Satan - played by Jaan Tooming.) Kratts basically make life easier for the downtrodden, filth-ridden peasants by doing work, and of course stealing stuff for their masters. The film opens with a kratt stealing a cow, which it drags up into the air - flying about, because of course a kratt can do that. Now - I've just wasted a considerable part of my review on kratts, but November is such an odd beast that kratts are the least of it. Ghosts walk about and converse with the living as if they're still alive - they're dressed in white and clean. The plague takes various forms - a girl, a goat or sometimes a pig - and must be fooled. You fool the plague by wearing your pants on your head, because if it thinks you have two bums then it won't dare infect you. It takes a little while to get used to how strange this movie is, but once you get a grasp on this superstition-as-fact world it's charms will no doubt win you over.

At first November seemed a little random to be, and rudderless, but eventually a love story coalesces - or more accurately, a story about a love triangle. Liina (Rea Lest-Liik) is a werewolf (to be fair, we never see her kill anyone, but she often transforms into wolf form), and she has fallen in love with Hans (Jörgen Liik) - despite her father promising her to the fat, old and disgusting Endel (Sepa Tom). Hans though, has fallen in love with the Baroness (Jette Loona Hermanis), who is far about his station. The two love-struck youngsters try various ways to make the objects of their affection fall for them. Liina is given a magical arrow with which to kill the Baroness, but she fears that killing her would in turn kill Hans by causing him to grieve. Hans promises the Devil his soul in return for a kratt - and proceeds to make his kratt a snowman, who informs him that kratts can't steal people, only livestock. The snowman kratt does recite a lot of romantic poetry though, and tells Hans many tales of love - for he was once water, and has travelled the globe extensively. In the end, what will the efforts of these two lovelorn people amount to?

There is just so much fun to be had with November - every scene has various quirks that simply feel so right. The way people relate to each other, and the socioeconomic reality here, is twisted in a way that makes for an amusing, and very interesting world. The way kratts, werewolves and ghosts are incorporated as if all three are simply a natural part of life is inspired - and extends to people like witch doctors, whose spells now seem as real as the medicines we buy in modern society. Fooling the plague sounds like an old superstition, but in November the plague does take different forms - and has to be fought with wits (something the villagers sometimes lack.) Greed, stealing and corruption are so endemic there's a constant flow of goods - and the low moral fibre is matched by the physical dirt and muck these people are covered in. The pure imagination is matched by some brilliant cinematography, making this an inspired effort that takes a little getting used to, but after that is pure hallucinatory fantasy of the highest order. This is a spectacularly peculiar festival-type movie, and I enjoyed it a great deal.

Glad to catch this one - it won the Spotlight Award by the American Society of Cinematographers, and won Best Cinematography in an International Narrative Feature at Tribeca Film Festival.

4

https://i.postimg.cc/mg9Bdrbx/november2.jpg

Watchlist Count : 428 (-22)

Another recent watchlist movie I saw incidentally was Haunt (2019), a not too shabby horror movie.

https://i.postimg.cc/hv4Vrwxw/haunt.jpg

Next : The Eternal Road (2017)

Thank you very much to whomever inspired me to watch November.

PHOENIX74

05-23-24, 04:57 AM

https://i.postimg.cc/R0fK6FJL/eternal-road.jpg

THE ETERNAL ROAD (2017)

Directed by : Antti-Jussi Annila

The Eternal Road is fine, but it's certainly not a movie to get too excited about. Seems that a lot of people immigrated from Finland to America, and then went home when the Great Depression hit. In the meantime, in the early 1930s, people on the far right in Finland started to kidnap suspected communists and dumped them all in the Soviet Union. "Enjoy your worker's paradise!" Jussi Ketola (Tommi Korpela) is one such man - when we start the film he gets kidnapped by Finnish Nazis, and nearly executed when these thugs can't get him across the border. He escapes, runs to the other side, then wakes up in a Soviet hospital - but he's forbidden to go home. Instead he's told he has to spy on a commune that consists of ex-American Finns who have come to the country voluntarily, thinking that the U.S.S.R. really was going to be a socialist wonderland. Jussi just wants to go home, and be back with his family, but all of those efforts fail and soon he finds himself with a new wife and two kids. He has no real information for his handlers, but soon enough crazed, paranoid charges start to befall this innocent conclave and everyone discovers that the only 'paradise' anyone is going to get close to here is the real one you find after death.

This movie looks really nice - in fact visually, it's something that's deserving of a much better screenplay, and more interesting lead character. Jussi is dull, and even though he's adamant that he be let go, he doesn't take too much prodding when it comes to substituting his old family for his new one. Tommi Korpela's mode of acting consists of much scowling, and he has such a mess of beard, eyebrows and hair that his features just seem to disappear into the tangle. He's too much of an introvert for us to really hitch our wagon to his cause, and instead of raging at each hurdle he just seems to shrug and give in. When an emissary shows him he's been pronounced dead in Finland, he just kind of scowls, gets frustrated, then gives up. His three go-to modes along this journey of his. His remarriage (mere months after his kidnapping) comes completely out of the blue - and by the time the story has got to that stage it's about to barrel through the years and events as if the time apportioned to telling the story has been misjudged. The ending makes little of his momentous final journey, which seems a little strange.

In the end we've learned about the Finnish Americans, nearly all of whom ended up being executed for no other reason than Stalin was suspicious of why they were there. They went to the Soviet Union in good faith, and their end was brutal and completely senseless. The other characters - Jussi's new wife Sara (Sidse Babett Knudsen) and NKVD chief Kallonen (Hannu-Pekka Björkman) make very little impact and are ultimately forgotten as soon as the credits have rolled. I appreciated the bit of history, and the excellent visual aplomb with which the story is presented to us, but ultimately I was expecting much more from a film that was on my watchlist. I guess Finnish heroes are hairy and stoic for the most part, and pretty much roll with the punches while scowling a lot. The end of the film seemed particularly undeserved - but that's all part of the awkward rhythm and pacing The Eternal Road has. The story of one hard to define man asking many times to be let go and being told no. The time and place are interesting - but the protagonist is really lacking.

Happy enough to catch this one - it won a whole heap of Jussi (the Finnish Oscars) Awards, including Best Picture, Best Director and Best Cinematography.

3

https://i.postimg.cc/4yQ5sXrf/eternal.jpg

Watchlist Count : 427 (-23)

Next : Petite Maman (2021)

Thank you very much to whomever inspired me to watch The Eternal Road.

PHOENIX74

05-23-24, 11:59 PM

https://i.postimg.cc/vmwrQTBx/petite.jpg

PETITE MAMAN (2021)

Directed by : Céline Sciamma

Spoilers

This was a really nice movie - warm and bittersweet, but for the most part brimming with love and emotional sincerity. It's a magical movie in which eight-year-old Nelly (Joséphine Sanz) briefly visits her grandmother's home when she passes away - staying with her father for a number of days until everything is packed and carted away. While staying there, she visits the woods her mother used to play in as a child, and while there actually comes across her mother, Marion (Nina Meurisse) as an eight-year-old child (Gabrielle Sanz). In this bizarre kind of time-warp, Marion takes her to her home where she meets her Grandmother as a younger woman (Margo Abascal). The young Nelly and Marion become firm friends, and eventually they're inseperable. In the meantime, her adult mother disappears and Nelly must depend on her dad (Stéphane Varupenne) to provide the emotional support she needs to deal with the strange circumstance she's in. It's a film that explores the different kinds of bonds a child makes with those around her, and how they relate to each other. Nelly wants to know more about her parents, to the extent that she learns so much more about her mother by relating to her as a child.

You know, I was wondering why this was called Petite Maman - that title didn't make sense to me until I found out what this movie was about. It's a departure for Céline Sciamma, because there's nothing about sexuality that's explored here, although she did delve into childhood with her 2011 film Tomboy. The only feature of hers I haven't seen is Girlhood, and that looks like one that's well worth catching. I'd never want to have met my mother as a child, mostly because if she got a crush on me things would have been super awkward. So, I contemplated meeting my father as a child, and kept thinking that I wouldn't have liked him very much (awful of me, but I just know what he would have been like, and that means we wouldn't have got along.) But even though I couldn't put myself into Nelly's shoes, it was incredibly easy to still have my emotional empathy working it's way inside her and feeling much of what she may have been feeling. Love is love - it's just that Nelly has the bonus of being on childhood Marion's wavelength psychologically. It would have been the same with me and my mother - perhaps to too great an extent.

I wasn't looking forward to this movie because I thought I couldn't possibly relate to an eight-year-old girl, but there's something about the joyful sincerity coming from the Sanz sisters that won me over completely. Those two kids were freaking fantastic performers, even when the camera really pulled in close to their faces, and forced them to act - beyond what I would have asked of a child. They were just terrific. It was a sweet, contemplative, lyrical and poignant movie that didn't feel the need to drag itself out like many films do today. It was very emotionally satisfying, and had me thinking a lot about my childhood, and how I related to other kids compared with how I related to my parents. It was beautiful seeing Nelly and Marion slowly build their relationship from the ground up, and the film had a perfect tempo to it as far as that's concerned. The only other thing I have to say is - time gets strange when you get older. I thought the Marion of the past would have been living in a time long since gone, but 8 from 31 is only 23 years - meaning, in 2021, that the young Marion would have lived in 1998. Even the internet would have been around. I remember a time when a household would have one television set, and a radio - and that's all.

Glad to catch this one - Criterion #1181. It was nominated for a Best Foreign Language Film BAFTA, and won similar awards at the Los Angeles Film Critics Awards, San Diego International Film Festival and Jakarta Film Week.

4

https://i.postimg.cc/fTZC0X3K/petite-maman.webp

Watchlist Count : 427 (-23)

Next : Gargi (2022)

Thank you very much to whomever inspired me to watch Petite Maman.

PHOENIX74

05-24-24, 11:08 PM

https://i.postimg.cc/W3ngPfdz/gargi.jpg

GARGI (2022)

Directed by : Gautham Ramachandran

I'm sure Indians aren't as bad as they're made out to be in Indian-made dramas - I've never seen a people portray themselves as mercilessly as they do. I've heard, though, that misogyny is a deeply-rooted problem there, so I'm willing to accept that. In Gargi, we're dealing with the aftermath of a particularly heinous gang-rape of a ten-year-old girl, so there's no doubt that this shocking crime could only be committed by absolute monsters. Four men freely admit their guilt, but one, a security guard called Brahmanandam (R. S. Shivaji) says that he's not guilty. This film revolves around the distress this causes his daughter, Gargi (Sai Pallavi), and her efforts to prove her father's innocence. There aren't many people willing to help her, because of the negative stigma attached to Brahmanandam, but an inexperienced lawyer (who is also a part time pharmacist), Indrans Kaliyaperumal (Kaali Venkat), feels sympathy for her and takes up the case. Indrans has a stammer, and has never tried a case before, so the odds are stacked against the defense in this matter.

Of course, the public behave very badly in this matter. Brahmanandam is presumed guilty, and he's constantly attacked by crowds whenever he's transferred, getting smashed over the head and in a few cases nearly stabbed. People also write horrible graffiti on his family's house, while smashing the windows, and the media hounds Gargi and ask her questions which assume that her father is a child-rapist. In the meantime, the police where he's being held refuse to let Gargi or any of Brahmanandam's family visit him, in contravention of the law - and it looks like he's getting rough treatment while in there. They do this in a cruel manner, letting his family trek all the way there before telling them "He's asleep, try again tomorrow." Throughout the film, we get flashbacks to Gargi's childhood, where she was paid special attention by a lecherous male teacher who would stand close to her, and stroke her while giving her intense looks. It's extremely discomforting to sit through and watch. Oh, and the little girl who was raped nearly didn't survive, because her family didn't want to take her to hospital because this incident would "ruin her reputation".

When thinking of India I have to take into account that this movie got made, so the myriad issues it highlights are up for discussion throughout this nation. I saw a good one that dealt with homosexuality called Aligarh (2015) - but like I say, I can't judge what Indian society is like from these films. I think they give us the feeling that there's much hate and stupidity because that ups the stakes and makes it feel that the good, heroic protagonists are up against it. It certainly feels that way in Gargi. The courtroom scenes don't add up to much here - so if you're hoping for a courtroom drama, be warned that's there's probably only 5 to 8 minutes total out of a long running time. This mostly deals with public perceptions, the media, being a woman in India and corruption - and adds a little mystery to that mix. We even get a musical montage, which felt a little strange for a movie with such a disturbing subject matter. Overall, I have to say that it didn't drag, and kept it's tension running tight from start to finish - it's crisp, sure-footed and careful to put a woman's perspective front and center in a society where most women are 2nd class citizens.

Glad to catch this one - it won various Ananda Vikatan Cinema Awards (the Tamil Oscars) such as Best Actress (Sai Pallavi), Best Supporting Character (Kaali Venkat) and Best Screenplay.

3

https://i.postimg.cc/9QJJZhym/gargi2.jpg

Watchlist Count : 430 (-20)

Next : Love Exposure (2008)

Thank you very much to whomever inspired me to watch Gargi.

crumbsroom

05-24-24, 11:34 PM

I've been wanting to see November for a couple of years now, but I keep sleeping on it. I think it used to be on one of my streaming services, but I am sloth like these days getting around to watching anything, so that opportunity passed me by.

PHOENIX74

05-25-24, 12:16 AM

PHOENIX74

05-26-24, 12:48 AM

https://i.postimg.cc/nrkH0jDz/love-exposure.jpg

LOVE EXPOSURE (2008)

Directed by : Sion Sono

Four hour movies are always a challenge - I mean, I consider anything over 2 hours a long movie, which makes Love Exposure nearly twice as long as what I consider long. I decided to watch as much as I could last night, and finish off in the morning, but this film was good enough to keep me hanging in there - so I surprised myself by watching from start to finish in one sitting. Now, how on earth do I describe Love Exposure? Religion, parenting, perversion, sin, cults, love, erections, family and upskirt photography all mixed together in a crazed swirl that races forward for an epic duration (that was originally 6 hours, before the pleading of producers was finally heeded.) It's a certain level of funny, because Sion Sono doesn't seem to have wanted this to be a comedy, but at the same time pushes an absurd and amusing tone to the very forefront of his film. We see almost everything from the perspective of main character Yū Honda (Takahiro Nishijima), whose upskirt photography perversion takes off because his depressed priest father Tetsu (Atsuro Watabe) starts demanding that Yū confess greater and greater sins, and the latter is desperate for his father's love, with his mother having passed away years prior.

In the main, Love Exposure is a love story. Yū searches for his "Maria" - a mythical future love that his mother implants into his imagination from a young age. He eventually meets Yōko Ozawa (Hikari Mitsushima) when he helps to fight off a gang of men, but unfortunate complications arise because Yū is dressed in drag (he lost a bet), and as such Yōko thinks that Yū is a woman. Enter cult leader Aya Koike (Sakura Ando), who has been watching Yū from a distance ever since he tried to take an upskirt photo of her. Aya guides most of what happens in this film, acting as a kind of 'puppet master' figure who becomes almost obsessed with Yū, and going so far as to seduce Yōko while pretending to be the woman who helped her fight off that gang of men - all to stop Yū from realising his romantic ambitions. All of this is presented in a very frenetic and fun way, although at it's core the film feels serious, outwardly it can be quite silly while always maintaining a very clever and winning sense of humour. It takes the distasteful act of upskirt photography, and turns it into a kung-fu like act of transcendent martial arts.

Love Exposure, as brilliant as it is (and it is), is going to be a very difficult film to just throw on and watch if the mood takes me. The film's opening title comes up 58 minutes into the film, which must be some kind of record, and it's overall length is daunting. All the same, I loved it. I remember watching Sion Sono's Himizu (2011) a while back, and becoming interested in his films, of which this is probably his most famous, and I have to say it earns it's reputation as a "modern masterpiece". For the most part it's an entertaining story with myriad twists and turns, giving us a particularly flawed protagonist that we cheer for nonetheless, and it takes cues from many old dramatic classics, giving them all a subtle, perverted and surreal twist. The funny stuff keeps us amused, but under the surface the film is working away at it's many themes - with many characters desperately trying to reach each other, but being blinded by their own preconceptions and the influence of others. It's the kind of mix that could only come from Japan, and fans of Japanese cinema would be crazy to miss out on it. It's something special.

Glad to catch this one - it won almost everything it was nominated for, including the Caligari Film Award and the FIPRESCI Prize at the Berlin International Film Festival.

4.5

https://i.postimg.cc/B6CRDzbK/love-expos.jpg

Watchlist Count : 429 (-21)

Next : The Empty Man (2020)

Thank you very much to whomever inspired me to watch Love Exposure.

PHOENIX74

05-27-24, 12:18 AM

https://i.postimg.cc/7LPmh2F4/the-empty-man.webp

THE EMPTY MAN (2020)

Directed by : David Prior

The Empty Man isn't your usual psychological horror romp - not nearly as much as the trailer would have you believe. It's a little messy, but tries hard to weave an undercurrent of philosophy and complexity into the narrative. It starts with a 15-minute (this film is in no hurry, it goes for 137-minutes - unusual for a horror film of this type) prologue set in the Ura Valley of Bhutan, with four hikers stumbling across something ancient buried in the rock - it's a short film in and of itself, with a beginning, middle and end. Cut forward 23 years, to the present day so to speak, and we're introduced to James Lasombra (James Badge Dale), an ex-cop who now works at a security/self defense shop. His neighbour, Nora Quail (Marin Ireland), whom he's close to has a daughter who has seemingly run away (but not before daubing "The Empty Man made me do it" in animal blood on a bathroom window.) James agrees to help Nora find this daughter, Amanda (Sasha Frolova), and so begins a The Ring-type investigation which will entangle James into the mythos of what The Empty Man really represents, and what it is.

I can't say too much, because this film is a journey of discovery, but I can say that there's a cult involved, and that Stephen Root pops up as leader Arthur Parsons, spouting much nihilist philosophy. I guess with a title like The Empty Man we shouldn't be surprised. I think, therefore I am, but what about the rest of it - isn't it dubious? I think about these things all of the time, and although this film dabbles, it is in the end a horror film and the plot must come first. Horror-wise, the film is pleasingly light on jump-scares and gets by with some decent imagery without over-exposing specifics. There's a creepy mass suicide which is going to stick with me. Does it all make perfect sense though? I'd have to look into the film more carefully to know that, although the golden caveat of "all of that wasn't actually real" can be applied so liberally in this movie, which makes just about anything dismissible. I have to re-emphasize - this is one damn long horror movie, and it crams a lot in.

So, I walked away from this movie thinking that I was happy that it was so ambitious (unusual these days), but unhappy that it ended up feeling a little muddled. Everything doesn't fit neatly into place, and making sense of it as a whole feels like it would be an exercise akin to formulating a modern conspiracy theory. I did like the effort the film went to in regards to including themes that link up with depression, loss, pain, anger, grief, and fear, while touching on suicide. We get a lot of warnings about triggers these days, but I guess if you decide to watch a horror film it's on you if you become messed up by watching it - chances are it will touch on many of these themes. What I hate the most is animal cruelty - and the only thing related to that in The Empty Man is an encounter with an already-dead dog. To those who constantly wish modern horror films would be a bit more intelligent and more meaningful, The Empty Man is a really ambitious try at doing just that. It doesn't all come off, and it doesn't spook or scare as much as it should, but there's a lot to it that's interesting and you walk away with a lot to think about. That's worth some praise, at least.

Glad to catch this one - it's based on Cullen Bunn & Vanesa R. Del Rey's The Empty Man graphic novel series published by Boom! Studios. Ended up being a box office bomb, but is picking up a strong cult following.

3

https://i.postimg.cc/HkfPXZbd/the-empty-mn.jpg

Watchlist Count : 428 (-22)

Next : HyperNormalisation (2016)

Thank you very much to whomever inspired me to watch The Empty Man.

PHOENIX74

05-28-24, 05:19 AM

https://i.postimg.cc/x1Fv5FKd/Hyper-Normalisation.jpg

HYPERNORMALISATION (2016)

Directed by : Adam Curtis

HyperNormalisation pretty much covers the history of the world during my time on it, which you could pretty much sum up as "less global conflict, but more corruption and craziness" - although let's face it, the world has always been a crazy place. It looks at a bunch of specifics in order to make it's points : New York City's financial crisis in the 70s, Henry Kissinger's influence on the Middle East, the 1982 Lebanon war and the birth of the suicide bomber, the birth of the internet, humanity's vision of what cyberspace could be, Ronald Reagan, Muammar Gaddafi, new military technology, Ulrich Beck's Managed Outcomes, the collapse of the Soviet Union, Donald Trump, the civil war in Syria, the popularity of disaster films, 9/11, the Iraq war - and the repeated feeble lies that led to it, the Occupy Wall Street movement, the Arab Spring revolts, the failures of the Occupy Wall Street movement and the Arab Spring revolts, Vladimir Putin and his cynical politics, Trump's victory over facts and truth and Brexit. Of course, there's a lot more in it's 166-minute runtime, but this is a documentary that hones in on specifics. In the end, it tells us that we live in a world that's pretty close to what the Soviet Union was like towards it's collapse - one where dishonesty and cynicism is so widespread we just kind of expect and accept it.

This film is about a lot more than dishonesty and cynicism though - that is an oversimplification that doesn't do this justice. Hypernormalisation was Alexei Yurchak's term for the way Soviet citizens all walked around pretending everything was okay while their country was in freefall - politicians would make speeches about how wonderful everything was, and people would enthusiastically clap. No toilet paper, proper food or necessities? That's normal. Why complain? Why demand better? Adam Curtis argues that our new global community is too complex and unpredictable to govern in ways human beings have always done. Politicians no longer make plans, because they're invariably swept away in a world that has changed radically by the time the plan reaches it's half-way point. So, our leaders now mitigate risk, and try to foresee imminent dangers - managing nations, but no longer guiding them towards any kind of goal. It's a sad place for the human race to be, because we've always been such a goal-oriented species. We weren't built to just hang around - we want to achieve things! None of this can be talked about though, of course, without the central crux - the banks and financial institutions.

Adam Curtis also argues that banks, corporations and financial institutions now have far more power than politicians do, and that the resolution of New York's financial collapse in the 1970s was the start of a new way of thinking - which led to them basically taking over New York, and then the rest of the world. They're invincible - too important to society's functioning and the world economy to fail, or be held to account for the blazing corruption gutting the entire system. The presidents and kings have not only withdrawn from making plans, and having visions - they've also subjugated much of their power to these modern goliaths. It is these institutions who now have visions and plans - of plundering the earth for more resources, building more capital, squeezing more value out of labour and it's a process that won't stop - and can't be stopped. In the meantime, we go about our day pretending that everything we see happening is normal, and accepting it. The complexity of the world is now such that any attempt to fix it will have completely unpredictable and surprising consequences. I didn't even get around to the internet, and what that's doing - but c'mon. This is a 166-minute documentary. It's impressive in that it makes it's point while providing us with a steady stream of verifiable facts - and no conspiratorial conjecture. I only wish the last 8 years could be added to everything Curtis has done here.

Glad to catch this one - nominated for a Best Documentary BAFTA and Diversity in Media Awards' Movie of the Year. It makes extensive use of footage from the BBC Archives.

4

https://i.postimg.cc/tCMjnLTC/hyper.jpg

Watchlist Count : 427 (-23)

Next : Be Natural: The Untold Story of Alice Guy-Blaché (2018)

Thank you very much to whomever inspired me to watch HyperNormalisation.

Mr Minio

05-28-24, 08:41 AM

HYPERNORMALISATION (2016) Curtis' takes can be so historically incorrect and tinfoil hat, but I love the atmosphere of his films and Eno's music.

While I generally grasp Curtis’ intentions, his concepts, and his underlying messages, the examples he uses and the logical deductions he makes seldom stem from factual evidence. It’s not merely a question of historical coherence. It’s about how he reads a piece of information and extrapolates sweeping conclusions from it. He gives the impression of someone who has a superficial understanding of the subject, yet is quick to weave conspiracy theories. Adding a dash of populism, he oversimplifies complex issues by providing straightforward answers. This is particularly ironic and paradoxical, considering he has an entire film dedicated to how politicians nowadays oversimplify intricate matters and reduce reality to simple terms.

PHOENIX74

05-28-24, 11:05 PM

Curtis' takes can be so historically incorrect and tinfoil hat, but I love the atmosphere of his films and Eno's music.

While I generally grasp Curtis’ intentions, his concepts, and his underlying messages, the examples he uses and the logical deductions he makes seldom stem from factual evidence. It’s not merely a question of historical coherence. It’s about how he reads a piece of information and extrapolates sweeping conclusions from it. He gives the impression of someone who has a superficial understanding of the subject, yet is quick to weave conspiracy theories. Adding a dash of populism, he oversimplifies complex issues by providing straightforward answers. This is particularly ironic and paradoxical, considering he has an entire film dedicated to how politicians nowadays oversimplify intricate matters and reduce reality to simple terms.

I haven't seen his other work, so I can't judge it as a whole - where I'd agree with you there is that he does make a few sweeping generalisations, especially in regards to Syria, financial institutions, the internet and politics. He's careful though - unlike your average, everyday conspiracy theorist you can't pin him down on interpreting hearsay or grab specific interpretations and prove him wrong. Depending on where you stand, he can be bothersome - and he can sound like a conspiracy theorist. He's one of the most vociferous critics of conspiracy theorists, theories and the like I've ever heard - and I can't say that I heard him expound on a conspiracy theory throughout HyperNormalisation. The closest he does come is attributing the Col. Gaddafi saga to a deliberate decision from the U.S. to use him as a visible political target to placate a public demanding action against U.S. causalities in suicide bombings and the like. He uses verifiable facts all the way through though - so it's up to our interpretation - and he paints it in a very similar light to the whole 'weapons of mass destruction' affair in '03. It sounded convincing, but of course it would be foolhardy of me to be convinced from this one source.

Now, there's another side to all of this, and it's one you alluded to as well - and that's the fact that he's entertaining us, and doing a damn good job. This isn't a complex manifesto, but entertainment. I think I forgot to mention the soundtrack and score in my review, which is a terrible oversight because it's one of the things which makes his documentary exciting and watchable. I'd like specific examples on where he's historically inaccurate though, and that's not me claiming the opposite - if he's hoodwinked me at times in that documentary I want to know, because I was sat there thinking that the show looked and sounded like any conspiratorial claptrap you'd see on the internet, except I was impressed by how it stuck to verifiable facts for the most part. If someone tells me a person is lying, I want to know specifics so I can agree or disagree! A blanket statement leaves me in no man's land. If tinfoil hats are on, it ought to be easy to point out a couple of whoppers right off the top of your head. That's what I had a hunger for after reading your comment, because I found myself unable to either agree or disagree with it - call me a dummy, but I need specifics pointed out to me that confirm your logic.

PHOENIX74

05-29-24, 12:10 AM

https://i.postimg.cc/V6QK8rBT/be-natural-3.webp

BE NATURAL: THE UNTOLD STORY OF ALICE GUY-BLACHÉ (2018)

Directed by : Pamela B. Green

I'm proud to be able to say (before having watched this documentary) that I'd seen a few of Alice Guy's films - although this no doubt stems from the fact that there's been an explosive rebirth in recent years concerning her place in the history of cinema. I'm ashamed to have to say, however, that I didn't know the historical significance of what I was watching at the time. Alice Guy-Blaché (1873–1968), the first female director and producer, and was a pioneer during cinemas earliest days. She began as a secretary at a photographic company that was taken over by Léon Gaumont, and as such became an expert when it came to cameras and attempts to produce moving pictures, getting to know the likes of Georges Demenÿ and the Lumière brothers. She was in attendance at the famous 'surprise' Lumière event on March 22, 1895, where Workers Leaving the Lumière Factory was shown. She immediately grasped that this new technology could be used to tell stories, and Gaumont gave her permission to use the latest developments in moving picture cameras to make movies of her own. This led to her becoming a prodigious, prolific and well-regarded director of movies - many of which survive to this day.

Alice Guy made her first film in 1896 - it goes under various titles, and Letterboxd calls it The Cabbage-Patch Fairy. It shows Alice herself plucking real-life newborn infants from a cabbage-patch - and I'm sorry to say that when I first watched it I took it at face value, without considering the inventive leap forward films like this were. "Who wants to see this?" was probably my thought at the time. I feel a lot differently about it after watching this excellent documentary. Alice Guy would continue to make increasingly-popular films in France and The United States over the next 24 years, but was eventually squeezed out of the industry in America after Solax Studios, her film company, went broke. The industry as a whole turned on her, and despite being desperate to continue making films, she was never given another opportunity. This documentary gives us a narrative about her life in chronological order, and sometimes uses a recorded interview with Alice Guy-Blaché herself, made when she was near the end of her life. It also takes us along for the ride in hunting down various relatives, and relatives of her old friends, not to mention interviewing various famous faces of all sorts from the film industry and Hollywood about Guy-Blaché, her seeming anonymity in modern times, and her importance regarding the history of cinema.

This was simply a great documentary about a pioneer who we should all know more about - and even if the information was already out there in some form, bringing it together and providing it to a large audience should be applauded. Narrated by Jodie Foster, and directed by Pamela B. Green, one of it's thrusts is definitely aimed at gender equality by exemplifying just how capable women were when it came to making films, even in the late 19th Century. It also laments the way film historians shoved Alice Guy-Blaché into the margins, and often omitted her name altogether from film histories - often attributing her films to other directors! When Guy-Blaché died, she'd been misrepresented in almost all important film history books, and nobody would publish her memoirs. It was fascinating to see parts of her films, and it was especially interesting to be shown the fledgling technology being used in the 1890s to try and make moving pictures a reality. This documentary takes us along on the hunt for surviving cameras, the hunt for surviving films, and their eventual restoration. What else could be more fun for cinephiles and those interested in history? Be Natural was a real hoot, and I really appreciated it.

Glad to catch this one - nominated for the L'Œil d'or documentary prize at the 2018 Cannes Film Festival. It won and was nominated for many other such awards worldwide..

4

https://i.postimg.cc/DyJnCR0z/be-natural-2.jpg

Watchlist Count : 430 (-20)

Next : Spider Baby (1967)

Thank you very much to whomever inspired me to watch Be Natural: The Untold Story of Alice Guy-Blaché.

PHOENIX74

05-30-24, 02:26 AM

https://i.postimg.cc/DwstnSXW/spider-baby.jpg

SPIDER BABY (1967)

Directed by : Jack Hill

Well, this is certainly something. Cult favourite Spider Baby or, the Maddest Story Ever Told certainly has the requisite energy to be a fun watch, and goes all-in with a bunch of performances that exemplify the best about low budget schlock horror comedies. Everything is dialled up, with a few standouts to make watching some characters better than watching others. It's a "The Munsters" kind of affair, with the 'Merrye' family (a group of young, inbred guys and girls with a hereditary, regressive disease of the mind) being looked after by Bruno (Lon Chaney Jr.) in a dilapidated old house. There's Virginia (Jill Banner), who likes to play at being a spider, catching people in her "web" (some rope) and "stinging" (stabbing) them. Elizabeth (Beverly Washburn) is the more responsible one, but that's not saying much. Ralph (Sid Haig) is pretty far gone, but although he can't speak, he sure can do sexual stuff. Distant relatives of the Merryes, Emily (Carol Ohmart) and her brother Peter Howe (Quinn Redeker) threaten this domestic bliss when they intrude with lawyer Schlocker (Karl Schanzer) and his secretary Ann (Mary Mitchel), hoping to claim the property as their own, and send the Merrye "children" to an institution.

I must say, Quinn Redeker was a surprise favourite for me amongst all of the crazy and silly - his good natured, naïve, happy-go-lucky goofball, who saw good in everything around him despite the creepy nastiness evident everywhere was so amusing to watch. As for Sid Haig, well, I now know that he and Jack Hill had a close working relationship dating back to 1960 - but I'd never seen him this young before. I'd never realised that he was in Diamonds Are Forever. I mustn't go on about Haig in general, but he's a fascinating actor to watch, and it's hard not to talk about him. Lon Chaney Jr.'s character, Bruno, is a strange bastion of upright morality and good sense amongst all the carnage that takes place in this film. "Just because something isn't good doesn't mean it's bad," is an oft-quoted line of his, and it can apply equally to life in general and this film as a whole. Beverly Washburn and Jill Banner also get to have a lot of fun overacting and generally acting like evil, and yet somewhat innocent, as young vamps. I also have to mention the legendary Mantan Moreland, who appears as a messenger who is unfortunately snared in one of Virginia's spider webs and dispatched with gusto - he plays up the 'scared stiff' comedy, which probably wouldn't fly today, but in the mid-60s was pretty much par for the course.

So, when watching Spider Baby it's obvious that this was made on a shoestring budget (some $65,000), and that this could only exist as a campy, humorous and wacky piece of entertainment that people love for the vibe and silly fun there is to be had. There's a whole load of freaky stuff to keep us all interested - the girls kiss an old, desiccated corpse goodnight each night. Virginia keeps a host of pet tarantulas in the writing desk near the dining room. There are a whole host of freaks, including what looks like a couple of wolfmen, locked up in the basement. The unfortunate dinner that the Merrye family all sit down to eat with their guests happens to be a stray cat, and included on the dinner table is a plate of suspect mushrooms, a bowl full of dead bugs, and a salad bowl full with what looks like hay and twigs in it. There's a whole load of sexually suggestive stuff, which I guess is to be expected in an exploitation film of this calibre. There's a rock musical version developed for the stage in 2004, attesting to it's undeniable cult status. This was assuredly a dose of fun, discovering Spider Baby during my long trawl through my watchlist.

Glad to catch this one - the low budget Dustin Ferguson-directed, schlocky 2023 remake looks terrible, and the fact that it feels the need to use CGI spiders means it's actually a step backwards from this one.

3.5

https://i.postimg.cc/jSqNn5T2/spider-baby-2.webp

Watchlist Count : 431 (-19)

Next : El Infierno (2010)

Thank you very much to whomever inspired me to watch Spider Baby.

PHOENIX74

05-31-24, 12:25 AM

https://i.postimg.cc/YSqB9P54/el-infierno.jpg

EL INFIERNO (2010)

Directed by : Luis Estrada

Luis Estrada's image of Mexico is as scathing as it ever was in 2010's El Infierno. I last caught up with him while watching his 1999 critically lauded breakthrough Herod's Law (La ley de Herodes), and I'd never seen such a grim portrayal of the country, both morally and culturally. Estrada's muse, Damián Alcázar, returns as lead once again - this time as Benny García, a washed up good-for-nothing who travels to the United States to support his family, but ends up in prison - returning to Mexico (by way of being deported) 20 years later to find out that his beloved younger brother turned to a life of crime, and ended up being murdered by an unknown assailant. Benny gets to know his brother's de facto widow, Lupe (Elizabeth Cervantes) on a very intimate level, and becomes something of a father figure to her son (his nephew), Benjamín (Kristian Ferrer). When Benjamin ends up in prison for theft, and the police demand 50,000 pesos for his release, Benny turns to the only person he knows can help him - old friend and drug dealer/gangster Cochiloco (Joaquín Cosio). From this moment on, Benny is working for crime lord don José Reyes (Ernesto Gómez Cruz) - making a fortune selling drugs, killing and torturing.

From the moment Benny returns to Mexico, we're given a glimpse of a country in complete freefall. Anarchy reins. Benny is robbed on the bus home, and later the cops stop the bus and shake everyone down for the money and valuables they managed to keep hidden. Once home, he can't help but notice that there is gunplay and murder occurring regularly on the streets - as if there's a civil war being fought. Benny may have thought things were bad in Mexico when he left all those years ago - but now it's descended into hell. Here you either live in poverty and fear, or you turn to a life of crime - and that is equally true of the nation's law enforcement, which is often making it's money from the mega-crooks that own their own sections of the country. Thank goodness then that Luis Estrada often turns to comedy to elevate our moods and see the farcical situation in a way that ridicules those who Dante Alighieri would have seen as demons with pitchforks. How else would we make sense of Benny's vacant grin, which remains stamped on his face right up until the tide turns against him? The ridiculous is funny, and there's a lot of that played with in El Infierno.

Rating a film like this can be hard. I have to take into consideration the fact that I enjoyed watching it - and that using comedy to lighten what would otherwise have been the bleakest of terrible stories really worked. I mean, I wasn't laughing, but it did balance out my mood. Looking back on it now, without contemplating it's more comedic moments, it's a depressing indictment of Luis Estrada Rodríguez's homeland. Crooks make great earnings, but never live long enough to justify this style of making money. The corruption is so endemic it's a part of the system. The cops are paid to protect criminals, and make their lives easier. So, when there are parades and the Mexican national anthem is sung out of tune, or there are bicentennial celebrations, they all ring so false - and those who are keeping the country down are the ones giving speeches about how great it is. Estrada wants there to be no doubt - Mexico has become hell, and there's little hope of change in the near future. How's that for the basis of a comedy? If we weren't amused, it'd be too depressing to justify watching. To get a true taste of Mexico, with it's Mariachi music, sombreros, siestas, murder, torture and drug cartels, just pop on El Infierno and witness Benny's travails once he returns from the United States. It's 150 minutes of fun and horror.

Glad to catch this one - it has a sizeable cult following in Mexico where it was a big success. It also won the Grand Coral – First Prize at the Havana Film Festival and Corazón Award (Best Film) at the San Diego Latino Film Festival, amongst many other wins.

3.5

https://i.postimg.cc/MpZVbvGr/el-infierno-2.jpg

Watchlist Count : 430 (-20)

Next : Beau Travail (1999)

Thank you very much to whomever inspired me to watch Spider Baby.

PHOENIX74

05-31-24, 11:34 PM

https://i.postimg.cc/mDCvjthn/beau-travail.jpg

BEAU TRAVAIL (1999)

Directed by : Claire Denis

There's a lot going on in Beau Travail, although I felt a little disoriented when I first started to watch it, because it's very different to the films I've been watching lately. Claire Denis is letting us see things both external and internal, specifically to do with masculinity and men, and she uses motion mixed with narration to do it. Adjudant-Chef Galoup (Denis Lavant) is a leader in the French Foreign Legion in Djibouti, serving under Commandant Bruno Forestier (Michel Subor) - a man he envies due to the ease with which Forestier can relate to the men under his command. One day a new recruit, Gilles Sentain (Grégoire Colin) is added to the section they're serving in, and Galoup is immediately struck by this young man. He becomes overwhelmingly jealous when Forestier strikes up a close relationship with Sentain, and his repressed desires lead him to become intensely hostile to this new Légionnaire. Unable to control his more base impulses, Galoup comes up with a plan that will forever alter his and Sentain's lives.

There are many scenes in this film of both men training, and men and women dancing. It strikes me that when the men are on duty they train for combat by performing rigorous movement, often of a set design (and in fact, most of this was tightly choreographed when the film was being made), and that when the men are off duty they're once again performing rigorous displays of movement when they're trying to attract women, and light up romances. There they have freedom of movement. This is why when Galoup and Forestier circle each other before a mandated wrestling match the lines become so blurred as to whether this is combat or passionate, emotional outpourings of physical desire. Through all of this moves cinematographer Agnès Godard's camera, just as fluid in it's motion as the men are - searching and probing. We're searching also, because the meaning weaved into Beau Travail isn't pushed into the foreground like the physicality of these men is. Through the non-linear narrative it's a case of everything adding up as we make connections when recalling previous scenes, and thus make important discoveries.

So, I was really intrigued by this film about repressed desires and male physicality - along with jealousy and envy, the emotionally reactive component. It was really original and different - though I don't have any other Claire Denis films to compare it to, because it's the first of hers I've watched. (So interesting to read that she was an assistant director on Wim Wenders' Paris, Texas.) Much male passion is expended in energy, either through dance or through some kind of violence - both of which we see here. Denis really zeroes in on this and gives us a very close view while managing to poeticize it to a high degree, and adds an element of isolation by having her characters exist as part of the French Foreign Legion. That just seems to intensify everything the characters go through, and Galoup's relationship with his Djiboutian girlfriend feels distant with the two of them hardly ever interacting in the same shot. It's a focus on where movies rarely go, and an enjoyable change of pace. I left the film feeling like I'd learned something about masculinity, and both it's positives and negatives.

Glad to catch this one - Criterion #1042, and in Stephen Jay Schneider's 1001 Moves You Must See Before You Die. In the 2022 Sight and Sound critic's poll, Beau Travail was ranked the 7th best movie of all time.

4

https://i.postimg.cc/hP876BXQ/beau.jpg

Watchlist Count : 430 (-20)

Next : S&Man (2006)

Thank you very much to whomever inspired me to watch Beau Travail.

PHOENIX74

06-01-24, 12:05 AM

MAY RUN-THROUGH

My Watchlist project ran up against real life in May, which crimped my output a bit - but I still ended up watching and reviewing 21 films. Way more than I thought I would considering my expectations. That means I've done a mind-boggling 142 films so far in this thread (not counting the incidental watchlist hits which I've simply noted as I went along.) Since I've only caught up by 20, that means an impressive number of movies have gone into my watchlist so far this year, despite my stringent screening. There's plenty of movie-watching in me yet! Lets hope this continues on.

BEST OF THE BUNCH

For the first time, I went through a month without any 5/5 ratings - but there were some movies that I consider absolute classics that were the best I saw in May. They went as close as you can get to perfect ratings, and I absolutely love them now.

https://i.postimg.cc/fb493RSL/devil.jpghttps://i.postimg.cc/3NgKc3JL/love.jpg

BEST OF THE REST

Other than the above two movies, I saw plenty of other first-rate, memorable films that defied the fact that May was such a troublesome month for me. When we hit the next run-through, I'll have got to the halfway point of this project. Somehow my focus just keeps going, and I always look forward to the next movie along my journey, because I've enjoyed so many of them. I recommend all of the below.

https://i.postimg.cc/PqPvF8G2/jean.jpghttps://i.postimg.cc/MHWWNhMq/sec.jpghttps://i.postimg.cc/BQrzv2p1/phantom.jpghttps://i.postimg.cc/SNgWT42Q/visitor.jpghttps://i.postimg.cc/wB83F4VT/nov.jpghttps://i.postimg.cc/LXhdP21q/be.jpg

A pretty good month when I sit back and look at the best films that came out of it. Maybe all of my ratings were half a point too harsh, but in the end what really matters is having watched them and hopefully encouraged somebody who hasn't seen this or that one to go out and find them. I'm still as enthusiastic as I ever was about this project, so on it goes - right to the end of the year, and there will probably end up being a 2025 version.

SpelingError

06-01-24, 01:51 AM

I've made a few attempts to fall in love with Beau Travail, but I keep falling short. I love the first and final act, but the middle section always loses me. I'm not sure if I can put my finger on why, but I felt Galoup's and Sentain's rivalry grew less evocative at that point and bordered on being aimless. Throughout my 3 or 4 viewings, I've somewhat chipped away at it, but I feel I still have a long way to go. Its best parts though are outstanding, so part of me hopes I'll finally click with it someday.

Also, I don't believe you mentioned it, but I have to give some serious credit to Lavant's narration. I normally don't pay attention to acting, but the subtle mournful regret and melancholia he displays throughout the film is utterly perfect. It works at foreshadowing the tone of the final act and adding nuance to Galoup's unlikable behavior.

PHOENIX74

06-02-24, 11:58 PM

https://i.postimg.cc/s2r9HmsZ/sand.jpg

S&MAN (2006)

Directed by : J.T. Petty

At it's most basic, S&man is a documentary about a certain trend in extreme horror films, which try to emulate realistic, found footage snuff films. For example, Fred Vogel, director of August Underground, is one of the interviewees. Director J.T. Petty tries to weave a fictional narrative into his own documentary-making process, however, mixing genres in an attempt to make a more clever, interesting film. By his own admission, he's doing this because the subject this was initially going to be about - a peeping tom who recorded hundreds of hours of footage of his family's home - refused to be a part of his film. Go figure. So Petty takes the act of voyeurism and tries to make sense of why people want to watch what amounts to manufactured snuff films. He interviews film professor and author Carol J. Clover and horror director Bill Zebub, the latter of whom is drunk much of the time, dragging Petty's film project down further into the muck. When we get to watch Zebub attempting to film a scene from his next movie, he's so drunk he can hardly organise what's going on - and the scene takes so long to film that the girl who has to lay face down, still, for hours while make-up is applied ends up in tears.

S&man simply isn't that good a documentary. The fictional narrative inserted into it feels terribly awkward - and for something that was meant to be taken as possibly real, it really doesn't do a good job of selling it. Instead of subtle hints, Petty goes at it hard and completely shows his hand, ruining the effect. Filmmaker Eric Rost (Erik Marcisak), who is meant to be a real murderer masquerading as a filmmaker, isn't performed with any conviction or believability. It all comes off as silly and not very well edited. It really would have been better if Petty had of convinced his peeping tom to be a part of the movie, and by his own confession, he was pressed for time to think of an alternative seeing as his movie had already been financed. As much as I like horror, I didn't feel like I gained any insights, and the drunken Bill Zebub is a real slap in the face for people who want to see a good doc, and not a messy series of what should have been out-takes. It's good that Petty had enough insight to include some interviews with the girls who play victims in these movies - most of whom seem quite happy to get any kind of role they can get in a film, according to what they say.

I didn't enjoy S&man at all (S&man is what Eric Rost calls his series of snuff films.) Better execution, and Petty may have had something here - but I feel like I learned nearly nothing from his movie, and that's despite it covering territory that isn't explored very often. I've watched a couple of these "found footage snuff film" movies, and pretty much found them to be an ordeal. Since I liked horror, I had to give them a go - but I don't think they're for me. If people want to be shocked and horrified, it's better to add some degree of fun to the mix, instead of just assaulting them with realistic, gory, torture footage. In the end Carol J. Clover, whose segments are a rare bright spot in this documentary, goes on to note that real horror is starting to seep into the public consciousness, taking for an example what happened in Abu Ghraib, and how the world pored over the photographs and films that came out. Online, there are various beheadings, burnings, torture and murder out there - for the medieval among us, who crave the excitement of Ancient Rome and the horrors of the Colosseum. Apparently it's something in us that still needs to be fed.

Disappointed with this one - Meg Hewings of Hour Community reviewed the film negatively overall, describing it as "puzzling" and "somewhat pointless".

2

https://i.postimg.cc/PJrW0Cmj/S-man.jpg

Watchlist Count : 430 (-20)

Next : The Woman in the Window (1944)

Sorry, to whomever inspired me to watch S&man.

PHOENIX74

06-04-24, 05:54 AM

OOOOPS

For the first time in this thread, I accidentally watched the wrong movie.
The House on Telegraph Hill is still a watchlist movie, so all is good. It counts.

https://i.postimg.cc/C1dsdWGX/the-house-on-telegraphy-hill.jpg

THE HOUSE ON TELEGRAPH HILL (1951)

Directed by : Robert Wise

The House on Telegraph Hill isn't included on Wikipedia's page on films related to the Holocaust, but that's where we start this twisted tale where the woman stealing someone's identity to inherit her wealth happens to the good one. Victoria Kowalska (Valentina Cortese) finds herself in Bergen-Belsen, going mad under the deprivation handed out by the Nazis, and drawn close to Karin Dernakova (Natasha Lytess) - whose son was sent to America to live with a wealthy aunt. When Karin dies, Victoria decides that, since the relatives in the United States never really saw Karin as an adult, she might possibly be able to exchange identities, and find a better life for herself. When she goes through with it, she ends up marrying Alan Spender (Richard Basehart), the guardian of Karin's son, Chris (Gordon Gebert), and sharing the house on Telegraph Hill that's now hers with her new family and the somewhat sinister nanny, Margaret (Fay Baker). Questions arise when Karin finds out the playhouse Chris used to play in has been blasted to smithereens, and soon enough Karin finds herself the target of a series of "accidents" that look like attempts to kill her. Is it all in her stricken, traumatized mind?

It feels a little unreal to see 1950s Hollywood try to tackle the complexities when it comes to concentration camps and the like. We kind of race through that introductory segment to The House on Telegraph Hill, as if the American writers were uncomfortable with the subject matter. Soon enough we're in familiar territory, with an "is my husband trying to murder me?" veil descending over proceedings, and darkening Karin/Victoria's new beginnings. Actually, it's easy to forget that Victoria has stolen someone's identity - which isn't exactly small potatoes! When Victoria finally confesses to someone, they brush it off and basically tell her that she deserves it after having survived the camps. I bet you the law would take a different approach to that - but it opens up one of the more interesting aspects to this film - ie, should we take that into account? There's an eerie pall over everything when the child's playhouse is discovered, and I thought the film benefitted from that as well. The film was nominated for a Best Art Direction-Set Decoration Oscar - it was all about mood and menace.

I don't know if this really followed through on a lot of the promise it had, but it's all up there as grist to really think about while watching the film. The fact that Victoria might be imagining threats because of what she went through in the camps. The fact that she's actually committing a pretty horrible and large-scale crime, but is so easily forgiven because of what she went through. The impossible combination of guilt, fear of discovery, and trauma that strikes this woman and practically tears her apart in front of our eyes. The natural jealousy that emenated from Margaret when the boy she's been looking after all of his life is suddenly giving all of his affections to someone else (someone who is much nicer to him.) In the midst of it all is Major Marc Bennett (William Lundigan), an outside party that decides to help Victoria because lord knows we need someone in this movie who is stable and not infected by the drama playing out on Telegraph Hill. I thought this was an average thriller elevated by the sinister mood it cultivates, and one that, while I don't think it's brilliant, will stick around in my mind I'm sure.

Glad to catch this one - Richard Basehart and Valentina Cortese ended up getting married soon after making this film, after meeting because of it. They got divorced nine years later.

3.5

https://i.postimg.cc/MGJcT8pP/the-house-on-telegraph.jpg

Watchlist Count : 433 (-17)

Next : The Woman in the Window (1944) - for sure this time.

Thank you very much to whomever inspired me to watch The House on Telegraph Hill.

Citizen Rules

06-04-24, 01:23 PM

I've been meaning to watch The House on Telegraph Hill for years, well like we say on MoFo...one of these days.

Wooley

06-04-24, 02:15 PM

https://i.postimg.cc/DwstnSXW/spider-baby.jpg

SPIDER BABY (1967)

Directed by : Jack Hill

Well, this is certainly something.
3.5

[CENTER]https://i.postimg.cc/jSqNn5T2/spider-baby-2.webp

Thank you very much to whomever inspired me to watch Spider Baby.

This has really become one of my favorite movies over the last 5 or 6 years. I'd rather watch Spider Baby than most things.

PHOENIX74

06-04-24, 11:36 PM

https://i.postimg.cc/90fPQG62/the-woman-in-the-window.webp

THE WOMAN IN THE WINDOW (1944)

Directed by : Fritz Lang

From what I've learned on true crime shows and when reading, it's pretty hard to get away with murder - even more so if the case is high-profile. You leave hairs, dead skin, clothing fibers, tire tracks, footprints - and lord knows what else at the murder scene without even knowing it. Professor Richard Wanley (Edward G. Robinson) learns this the hard way after being lured by the beautiful Alice Reed (Joan Bennett) to her home, having to kill jealous boyfriend Claude Mazard (Arthur Loft) to save himself. Alice is the titular "woman in the window", at first a painting that transfixes Richard before appearing in the window's reflection - right there next to him on the street. Richard reckons they'd both serve prison sentences no matter how they explain what happened, so he decides they ought to just dump his body in the middle of nowhere. How could they be connected to this unidentified corpse? Well, turns out Claude (neither Richard nor girlfriend Alice know his real name) is kind of a big deal, and the cops aren't about to just shrug their shoulders on this case. They'll be doggedly following every clue as Richard and Alice doggedly try to erase each misstep they both took. Claude's bodyguard, a man named Heidt (Dan Duryea) knows what they've done however, and it just turns out that blackmail is his favourite game...

When this started I couldn't help but think to myself that Edward G. Robinson was the original Ernest Borgnine, except for the fact that Robinson would usually play characters that were a lot smarter. It's a bit of a mystery why a woman like Alice would pick him up like she does, but that mystery is somewhat solved during the film's ultimate denouement. Fritz Lang goes full film noir here, with darkness encroaching from every possible angle of each shot, and just like in Night and the City, there seems to be an endless number of blackened nooks and crannies where Richard and Alice live. What I enjoyed most was how the film directly pointed out to us each mistake Richard made as he tried to take care of the body, giving the audience many opportunities to facepalm or yell at the screen. We don't want this kindly, stocky, old professor to go to jail - lord knows how he'd deal with that. Robinson makes him appear tired beyond his years, right from the start. As the guilt and worry takes over, Richard gets even more sickly and world weary. It's a really good performance. Alice is harder to get a read on. Dan Duryea makes his awful character as slimy and awful as the grottiest *four letter word*, and succeeds in getting us to hate him.

Look - the ending of The Woman in the Window yanks the rug, and I don't think it serves the movie well at all. Everything apart from that is really good, and I enjoyed watching this 1940s film noir exercise by Fritz Lang. It was nominated for a 1946 (don't ask me) Oscar for Best Score - one aspect of much older films that I'm not completely in tune with, but given a second chance to watch the film I'd listen out more carefully to try and ascertain why it was that noteworthy. I usually turn the volume way down when these films start, because early opening title music was like being blasted by eight dozen howitzers. The opening titles here are no different. But there was a load of great suspense and tension in this film, which was probably exemplified by the music as Richard keeps on coming so close to being caught out by something. Pesky evidence. All this because of self-defense - and as it turns out, those in the know are well aware of Claude's jealous rages. It pays to call the police and stick to the truth 100% - I won't say you can't go wrong doing that, but it's a lot better than frantically dumping bodies on the fly and dodging police investigators who dig up evidence. Pretty good, edge of your seat stuff.

Glad to catch this one - The term "film noir" originated as a genre description in part because of The Woman in the Window, and in August 2015, the online entertainment magazine Paste named the film the best film noir of all time. They were all drinking absinthe the day they decided that I reckon, despite the film's qualities, is it the "best film noir of all time"?

3.5

https://i.postimg.cc/13g5xgVn/the-woman-in-the-wind.jpg

Watchlist Count : 432 (-18)

Next : The Taking of Deborah Logan (2014)

Thank you very much to whomever inspired me to watch The Woman in the Window.

PHOENIX74

06-05-24, 11:53 PM

https://i.postimg.cc/wvRrcx0r/the-taking-of-deborah-logan.jpg

THE TAKING OF DEBORAH LOGAN (2014)

Directed by : Adam Robitel

It's a problem with found footage that the characters in The Blair Witch Project felt the need to address directly. Would these people still be recording when they're terrified? When snakes are attacking them and they're fighting a possessed lady over the fate of a young girl, and trying to rescue the woman herself? I guess you could argue that some people are so career-driven that their journalistic compulsions overcome their utmost terror. In The Taking of Deborah Logan, a documentary crew - Mia Medina (Michelle Ang), Gavin (Brett Gentile) and Luis (Jeremy DeCarlos) - are making a record of Deborah Logan's (Jill Larson) battle with Alzheimer’s. Deborah's daughter, Sarah (Anne Ramsay) guides them, and tries her best to look after her often confused, and irritable, mother. As the documentary progresses however, Deborah becomes more hostile, and more unpredictable - lashing out with self harm, attacking the film crew, and doing very strange things around the property - such as digging holes. As the attacks become more violent, paranormal activity also starts to occur, and it all points to a serial killer, Henri Desjardins (Kevin A. Campbell), who disappeared decades ago. A battle is about to erupt, involving snakes, a young cancer patient from the hospital Deborah is situated in, and holy hell.

At a certain stage I don't think those participating in this bedlam would still be holding their camera and making sure they got everything - especially considering their lives are at stake and they're participating in the action. But in any case, The Taking of Deborah Logan isn't a bad horror film. I thought I'd seen this before, but fortunately I had this confused with another, much inferior, movie. There are many and varied criticisms to aim at this one however. Jump scares are very frequent - so much so that at a certain stage they just become very annoying and ineffective. How many times can you slowly approach people facing away from you, inching closer until they suddenly turn around and scream at you with a demon face? Many times - according to this film. Also - if you're looking for a corpse, and you go into an attic, and find a large bundle that smells putrid and more rotten than you can stand...would you be shocked and surprised that it's a corpse? No, you'd be thinking "I guess we found our corpse". Plot holes and logic aside though, Jill Larson absolutely nails her part as the befuddled lady, desperately clinging to what little dignity she has, slowly descending into a demonic kind of awfulness, and exhibiting horrifying behaviour. We have her to thank for this movie being as watchable as it is.

This isn't the first film I've seen that uses possession as a kind of metaphorical comparison to dementia. As I noted when looking at 2020 film The Relic, it's a case of "that isn't grandma anymore" - because people suffering from Alzheimer’s change before your eyes, often suddenly. They become short-tempered and accusatory, overly emotional and unpredictable - as if they're being taken over by a malevolent force. The Taking of Deborah Logan jumps the shark a little in it's closing stages, but for the most part sticks to that metaphorical comparison, and it's often hard to tell where the dividing line is between Deborah's disease and her possession. There's something about Jill Larson's stare that sends shivers down my spine - and every time she looks at a character holding the camera, it's a case of "if looks could kill". I had an enjoyable enough time watching this, and it wasn't so dumb that I couldn't buy into everything, despite the above-mentioned problem with found footage believability, overuse of jump scares and some strange skips in logic. Not a great film by any stretch of the imagination, but there is far, far worse out there.

Glad to catch this one - the film was nominated for various Fangoria Chainsaw awards, Fright Meter awards and iHorror awards, especially when it comes to the performances of Jill Larson and Anne Ramsay

3

https://i.postimg.cc/nzSN7HNs/the-taking-of-deborah.jpg

Watchlist Count : 431 (-19)

Next : Blue Collar (1978)

Thank you very much to whomever inspired me to watch The Taking of Deborah Logan.

PHOENIX74

06-07-24, 04:17 AM

https://i.postimg.cc/t4MwZ3WP/blue-collar.jpg

BLUE COLLAR (1978)

Directed by : Paul Schrader

Paul Schrader's directorial debut, Blue Collar, is pretty scathing about everything concerning being a manual laborer in 1970s America. The bosses push you hard, the unions are corrupt and don't help you, the tax man hounds you for exorbitant amounts of money you can't possibly pay and everything costs a small fortune considering what you get paid. In this film, three friends who word at a car manufacturing plant, Ezekiel "Zeke" Brown (Richard Pryor), Jerry Bartowski (Harvey Keitel) and Sam "Smokey" James (Yaphet Kotto) are all in a bind of some kind or another, with financial pressure bearing down on them. When they learn about a safe at the Auto Workers Union and details regarding how to get past security, they decide to go ahead and burglarize it. There, they might not find the riches they need, but instead come across information with which they can blackmail the head honchos - if they aren't murdered, threatened or otherwise dissuaded first. It's as filthy as getting down and dirty putting hunks of metal and steel together, and much more dangerous for these three characters, who are all very different from each other - by the film's conclusion they all end up having taken very different routes to where they finish their journeys.

I see those distributing the film at Universal leaned pretty heavily on the Richard Pryor angle to promote this film - for some reason this comedian was taken as a magical genie by the film industry in the 70s and 80s who used him in all manner of movies - comedy and non-comedy - to sell their product. This is probably the most serious role I've ever seen him in, and he blends in as well as he can in a three-man ensemble effort (but there are a few moments where his funnier side just can't help but break loose.) It's a bit of a distraction, but also a welcome one in a film as dour as this one can be - and it somehow all ends up working perfectly as the unusual ingredients gel together with a thrum of power and fury. Yaphet Kotto is on fire as the rough and ready street-smart Smokey, and at times threatens to dominate. Harvey Keitel holds his own as the family man who is losing track of his family, and finds himself unable to provide for his high school daughter. They're all angry - and have very good reason to be. Their wages aren't enough to sustain even a small family in the United States, and as such there's a sense that they've been lied to, and sold a turkey. In the meantime, debts of various kinds threaten to swamp them - until there's only crime to turn to.

Blue Collar manages to get a swipe at so much. Race profiling in the United States, recreational drug use and prostitution, the power of the unions, and the government agencies that yearn to bring them down...it's all a stench-filled, acrid and acidic mixture - you wonder why revolution isn't in the air. Look through history though, and it's been mankind's lot. There's always been a 1%, with the other 99% slaving away for their benefit. Often it's still just a matter of birth. Sure, you can educate yourself and rise up - but even that costs money, and also needs a child to have had a stable and lucky upbringing. The rage Smokey, Jerry and Zeke feel is well justified. But if you think their characters were angry, just read a bit about what went on during this film's shoot, which had Paul Schrader having a mental breakdown and deciding at times that moviemaking had been a mistake for him. (I think the angst on set actually made the movie better.) Seems that the improvisation studios loved Richard Pryor for made life hard for other actors, and the likes of Harvey Keitel reacted with violence. All of that doesn't matter today though, because in the end Blue Collar ended up being one of the best films ever made about labor exploitation, unions, capitalism and the gritty side of industry. It has a resonant ring with a flawless tone to it, and is one of the best films all three of it's main stars have been in.

Glad to catch this one - The New York Times placed the film on its Best 1000 Movies Ever list, and Spike Lee included the film on his "Films All Aspiring Filmmakers Must See" list.

4.5

https://i.postimg.cc/1zvDh79F/blue-collar-2.jpg

Watchlist Count : 430 (-20)

Next : Marketa Lazarová (1967)

Thank you very much to whomever inspired me to watch Blue Collar.

Wyldesyde19

06-07-24, 08:52 PM

I’ve seen most of Schrader’s films, but this is one of the few I haven’t yet.
Pretty good director, but Mishima is his best that I’ve seen.

PHOENIX74

06-10-24, 12:06 AM

https://i.postimg.cc/rs1Pc0Tj/marketa.webp

MARKETA LAZAROVÁ (1967)

Directed by : František Vláčil

Marketa Lazarová wouldn't give itself up to me easily. The first night I tried to watch it, I was a little tired and distracted - and this is a film that requires investment, so I became hopelessly lost. Halfway through (which is still a good 80 minutes) I went to bed, and the next day I read up a bit on what I'd seen the night before, familiarized myself with the characters and situation, and sat down to watch it again from the start. Most other movies pale in comparison - this Czech film is a stunner, and almost Biblical in it's epic proportions despite mostly being about a simple squabble between tribes, nobles and a king's captain. Of course, Christianity plays a sizeable role as well, especially thematically - and in comparison with paganism. Visually, it's one of the most beautiful black and white films I've ever seen in my life - and the narrative rises to match that impactful impression. Despite the fact that we get some intertitles to guide our way, it's still not the easiest of films to follow until you really have your bearings. There are many hallucinatory moments, some of which are remembrances which only make sense once you've seen the whole film. I was overwhelmed by it, and whenever I compare it to any other film it's competitors don't match up. This is truly a masterpiece, and great work of art.

Warlord and clan leader Kozlík (Josef Kemr) - a scarred, intemperate man - has two sons, Mikoláš (František Velecký) and Adam-Jednoručka (Ivan Palúch), who kick the plot off by robbing a stagecoach, murdering most of it's passengers and taking the noble Kristián (Harry Studt) hostage in the hopes of scoring a ransom payment. Unfortunately, one of the travelling party has escaped - and while their backs are turned rival clan leader and neighbour Lazar (Michal Kožuch) is found picking over their bounty and stealing items. Lazar prays to God that Mikoláš won't kill him, and has a holy vision which convinces him to give his daughter Marketa (Magda Vášáryová) to God by sending her to a convent. Because of all this, there will be much rage and conflict shared between Kozlík's clan and Lazar, not to mention the king's captain Pivo (Zdeněk Kryzánek) when he hears of what Kozlík's sons have done to people of noble birth, and the fact that they have Kristián. Complicating matters further is the fact that Kozlík's daughter, Alexandra (Pavla Polášková), has fallen in love with Kristián and now bears his child. From the icy depths of winter to the muddy, sodden spring thaw, there will be much anguish, killing and sorrow before this epic tale comes to it's conclusion.

It's quite simple, but also complex in it's way. For example, just before a major attack by one force against another we segue to an hallucinatory dream, and when we return the battle is well over and the forces are long gone from the area leaving only a couple of characters behind. Everything we need to know was in the dream, and it's a fascinating way to move a story forward. During another part of the film we learn the shocking truth about an earlier dream-like sequence whose meaning we can only guess at when we first encounter it - although at the same time, it has a definite contextual meaning then also. As a whole though, once you comprehend it at it's most basic, Marketa Lazarová is stupendously beautiful and incredibly textured narrative-wise, with every element of filmmaking turned into a fine 14th Century world-building craft. Editing, costume design, sound, lighting - everything is finely tuned and turned out in epic style. There are pools of depth everywhere to swim in, and I'm counting it as one of the very best films I've watched this year. It might even possibly by number 1. I'm floored by it. Knocked off my feet. Incredible.

Glad to catch this one - Criterion #661, and in Steven Jay Schneider's 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die. Also voted the all-time best Czech movie in a 1998 poll of Czech film critics and publicists..

5

https://i.postimg.cc/7L2vbVZ4/marketa-laz.jpg

Watchlist Count : 432 (-18)

Next : Revenge (2017)

Thank you very much to whomever inspired me to watch Marketa Lazarová.

SpelingError

06-10-24, 12:19 AM

I'll have to revisit that one. I felt I wasn't in the right mind set for it when I first watched it several years ago.

PHOENIX74

06-11-24, 05:00 AM

https://i.postimg.cc/pXCcmzxr/revenge.webp

REVENGE (2017)

Directed by : Coralie Fargeat

I was a little dismissive of Revenge before watching it. Another revenge thriller? Yawn. What this is, though, is kind of I Spit on Your Grave from an intelligent woman's point of view - and what we get from it is blood, courage, and the idea that women are made to tolerate great pain, which can be transformative. That's an advantage exploited to the full by Jen (Matilda Lutz), who had joined Richard (Kevin Janssens) on a trip to his out-of-the-way vacation home in a desert location to have fun (and cheat on his wife.) When Richard's friends Stan (Vincent Colombe) and Dimitri (Guillaume Bouchède) join the couple, all is leisurely and there's a party atmosphere. Stan, however, takes Jen's intimacy as permission to have sex, and when she refuses him he rapes her while Richard is out. When he returns, Jen wants to leave immediately, and when she refuses to accept a pay-out and job offer to forget the whole incident she's pushed over a cliff and ends up impaled on a tree. The three men go hunting, with the intention of coming back later to take care of the body. When they return though, the body is gone...but how much trouble could the badly injured Jen possibly cause them?

Revenge is gory fun. We get to watch people pull glass shards out of their feet, tree branches out of their guts, and generally splatter flesh and bone everywhere. It only falls down, in my eyes, as far as believability goes. For example (mild spoilers coming), Jen spends half a day or so with a tree branch sticking through her midriff, and it's far too painful to pull it out and cauterize the wound - so she turns to peyote, which she's heard can completely separate herself from her agony. When she's completely under the influence she pulls the branch from her body and burns the wound with a discarded beer can heated over a fire. I don't know if any of this is really possible, and I'm not sure if her wounds are survivable, let alone not severe enough to completely incapacitate her. In fact, she's hurt so badly that I at first assumed that Jen was going to come back as a zombie and hunt down her foes - I did not think it possible for her to do what she does, considering the fact that she's been impaled on an entire tree branch. If you or I survived what she does, we'd need the help of two nurses slowly getting to and from the hospital toilet. Jen is running and diving around like a commando the very next day. It's a quibble though - because this is an enjoyable movie, and it also manages to double as great horror.

Revenge has the feel of an early Peter Jackson film, and that has me excited about Coralie Fargeat's next movie, The Substance, which is already receiving rave reviews. I've never felt as much of a supporter of the feminist cause as I was while watching this exploitation film - and that's a sentence I never thought I'd ever type. It distils the very best of it's genre, and see's it's protagonist reborn through suffering and pain as a kind of phoenix-figure. Better yet, it doesn't feel the need to hammer home it's points about a woman's strengths and abilities - that's part of the narrative, as are the darker subjects of sexual aggression and consent. There's a fine balance when it comes to how trashy a film like this can be (just take the abovementioned I Spit on Your Grave as an example), and here the feel of everything is so right. I found myself fascinated by Fargeat's approach, which fixates on horror, gore, pain and suffering - and how they're overcome - rather than the usual role reversals we get in most revenge thrillers. It was a little different, while still being familiar - but overall it was so surprisingly good. I was really amazed in the end - keep an eye out for this young filmmaker.

Glad to catch this one - it has a 93% rating at Rotten Tomatoes, and is one of 16-or-so movies with the title "Revenge".

4

https://i.postimg.cc/vZxQMSYy/revenge.jpg

Watchlist Count : 432 (-18)

Next : Bliss (2019)

Thank you very much to whomever inspired me to watch Revenge.

Wyldesyde19

06-12-24, 08:02 PM

I liked Revenge. Decent film.

PHOENIX74

06-13-24, 01:00 AM

https://i.postimg.cc/tgPD7gfj/bliss.png

BLISS (2019)

Directed by : Joe Begos

I guess vampirism and drug addiction go hand in hand, and in case the connection is a little hazy Bliss provides us with a character who scores the double - ending up addicted to some kind of powdery hallucinogenic drug, and blood. Or is it all in her mind? Hmmm. Dezzy (Dora Madison) is a successful artist with a creative block - and this block is causing all kinds of financial difficulty for her. To help deal with the stress, she visits her friend and dealer Hadrian (Graham Skipper) who provides her with a big bag of the experimental drug Diablo (it's kind of explained as a mix of DMT and cocaine.) He warns her though, that it's potent stuff and she should start with small doses. Before long, Dezzy and her friend Courtney (Tru Collins) are partying, snorting and having threesomes. Problems arise when Dezzy starts having blackouts, and funnily enough she paints during them. Later on, while at a club, she becomes violently ill and witnesses Courtney bite a woman on the neck and drink her blood - which she shares with her buddy. Before long Dezzy's lust for blood becomes like the worst addiction you could ever imagine, and her life erupts in chaos, despite her artistic inspiration being at maximum levels. Looks like she'll finish her latest commission in time after all.

Movies about addiction tend to feel like horror movies - the likes of Trainspotting requires a strong stomach to get through, as does Requiem for a Dream. Bliss goes straight for the jugular, and you can practically feel the warm blood running over you as it dominates this film in a visual sense. I don't know if we're quite there performance-wise - but I might be mistaken in that instance seeing as Dezzy is completely intoxicated for 87% of this film's running time (a very specific guess.) Her expressiveness kind of goes - and she becomes like a zombie. Visually, this is a very dark kind of horror in a literal sense - with a deep red/crimson kind of hue to most scenes. Of course, it would make sense that if Dezzy really becomes a vampire, then the daylight scenes at the start would be the only ones we see through the entire film. It gives us a good sense of Dezzy's evolving madness through convulsive movement, and the special effects look practical - if that's true I give Bliss a hearty slap on the back, and if it's not then that's some good CGI. There's nothing I hate more than CGI blood, because I can always immediately spot it, and it looks incredibly fake. So I really liked those horror effects.

I liked Bliss, despite not being a huge fan of vampire lore - I don't know why, but it's never excited me. That said, Dracula is a great novel - even if nobody has ever quite nailed it's adaptation to film. This film brings the whole subject into a completely modern context - the whole clubbing aspect reminded me of the start to The Hunger, especially when combined with sexuality and eroticism. I also got strong Mandy vibes from it, especially in a visual sense. The production and art design is top-notch too - and whomever did it, I want them to do some interior designing for me. Bliss often rises above what threatens to be a very trashy experience, but still delivers on that front if that's what you're looking for. It's also enough to frighten any kid watching it off drugs - better than any Public Service Announcement on that front. To hell with "Just Say NO", put Bliss on and make your kids watch it. Show them what a descent into addiction and madness really looks and feels like. That's all I have for Bliss - it's really doing something and I completely respect that in a horror film.

Glad to catch this one - The A.V. Club reviewer Katie Rife said that it "represents a stylistic leap forward for its director" and compared it to the work of Lucio Fulci, Gaspar Noé, and Abel Ferrara.

3.5

https://i.postimg.cc/KcnDgNb3/bliss2.jpg

Watchlist Count : 433 (-17)

Next : Emily the Criminal (2022)

Thank you very much to whomever inspired me to watch Bliss.

PHOENIX74

06-14-24, 11:00 PM

https://i.postimg.cc/4NhPPxHy/emily-the-criminal.webp

EMILY THE CRIMINAL (2022)

Directed by : John Patton Ford

We might not be born bad, but our "gifts", as that specific designation suggests, are inherent within us. It might be imagination, physical prowess, intelligence or nurturing. In Emily's (Aubrey Plaza) case it's aggression and criminality. John Patton Ford's film Emily the Criminal starts off with an example of how tough life can get in the United States if you've been convicted of a crime. Emily is trying to land a job good enough to allow her to repay her student debts - but her record, despite only consisting of a DUI and assault charges, are enough to cause her problems. Once you turn down that road, the system makes it hard to do anything other than commit more crimes. You're more likely to spend time in prison in the U.S., which can criminalize a person further - and poverty is becoming all too common. Still, Emily fights the good fight - putting in long hours at a catering business who awards their workers "contracts" which allow them to rob them of union-based rights. When she's given an opportunity to earn $200 for one hour's work, doing something illegal, she balks at first but then caves and so starts her journey.

It's not that Emily has an urge to be bad - she's a good person. It's simply the fact that she's so damn good at it. She immediately attracts the attention of Youcef Haddad (Theo Rossi), who sees in her not only that spark of ingenuity but also a capability of handling herself physically when the need arises. The two become close, with Haddad being a mentor of sorts, before the student eventually surpasses the teacher. This adds an interesting romantic sub-plot to the narrative - and running side-by-side with all of this is Emily's attempts to get a high paying job that might be enough to divert her from the path she's taking. Most criminals start off in their childhood, but some, like Emily, "break-bad" through necessity or simply because of an opportunity to do so. It's nice to see all of these strands interwoven so well, which enhances the strength of the film as a whole. Aubrey Plaza has charisma enough to command the screen for the film's duration, and we believe her capable of everything she eventually does, and like so many of these films we're on the side of the protagonist simply because of a system that is broken and in bad need of repair.

Emily the Criminal didn't exactly have a huge budget, but all the same it barely broke even despite all of the positive reviews that came in it's wake. It's an oversaturated marketplace, despite the "death of film" being heralded from every street corner these days. I think there's a middle ground it awkwardly sits in, where it's far too good to be cast aside, but not good enough to be talked about 20 years from now - I have no regrets watching it though. Now lets see if John Patton Ford can take his next step forward, this being his feature-length debut. He's certainly shown that he can pace a movie with precision, and also write a good screenplay - so I do hope he gets future opportunities. For me, personally, it's very interesting to note that Aubrey Plaza's first role came in the 2009 comedy feature Mystery Team, which at the time was a 'branching out' effort from YouTube comedy team Derrick Comedy (I was a huge fan), that featured among it's trio a 'before-he-was-famous' Donald Glover. As per this film, it kept me glued to the screen from start to finish and certainly heralds a newcomer that has the potential to do anything.

Glad to catch this one - the movie earned four nominations at the 38th Independent Spirit Awards, including Best First Feature, with Ford winning Best First Screenplay.

3.5

https://i.postimg.cc/X7w1fkPX/emily-the-crim.jpg

Watchlist Count : 433 (-17)

Next : Elmer Gantry (1960)

Thank you very much to whomever inspired me to watch Emily the Criminal.

Takoma11

06-14-24, 11:31 PM

[CENTER]https://i.postimg.cc/pXCcmzxr/revenge.webp

REVENGE (2017)

Revenge is gory fun. We get to watch people pull glass shards out of their feet, tree branches out of their guts, and generally splatter flesh and bone everywhere.

I really enjoyed this one. Gory and tense, and the violence sits on this fine line between impactful and outlandish. (I mean, around the time she literally sears a phoenix onto her body you are somewhat liberated to not worry too much about the realism.)

It also does something that I think Mandy did to strong effect, which is to invert the usual trope of a nude woman running from a clothed man to a dressed woman being menaced by a nude man. I think that it flips the typical "male gaze" of assault sequences and is very jarring.

PHOENIX74

06-15-24, 10:24 PM

Very happy to see you back Takoma11 !

Takoma11

06-15-24, 11:15 PM

Very happy to see you back Takoma11 !

Thanks! I have been watching your attack on your watchlist with a mix of jealousy and intimidation. My watchlist is definitely moving in the opposite direction!

PHOENIX74

06-15-24, 11:50 PM

https://i.postimg.cc/B6g71msR/elmer-gantry.jpg

ELMER GANTRY (1960)

Directed by : Richard Brooks

Elmer Gantry feels like the very definition of a film I have to watch a second time before I really know how I feel about it. Truth be told - I wished I knew a lot more about evangelism and it's history while watching it. Apparently, the role of Gantry (Burt Lancaster) himself is a take on famous evangelist Billy Graham, and Sister Sharon Falconer (Jean Simmons) is Aimee Semple McPherson, the first such figure to take to radio to preach hellfire and damnation. Not being an American means I have absolutely no first-hand experience other than what I've seen in other films. It's interesting that the novel this was based on (a 1927 book written by Sinclair Lewis) and this film expose the darker side behind these characters, something that has been exemplified in more modern times with various scandals related to modern-day televangelists. Put simply - they don't practice what they preach. In any case, most of them shamelessly fleece their congregation for so much money they own their own private jets, palatial mansions and an embarrassment of riches. "It's what God wants," they tell their followers, with a straight face. (Interesting that this film came out the same year as Inherit the Wind also - fundamentalist, bible-thumping religiosity really took a pounding that year.)

Elmer Gantry is a womanizer and a drinker, along with having a job as a travelling salesman that nonetheless gives him a lot of time to spend conning his marks with evangelistic sermons delivered with verve and energy. When he comes across Sister Sharon Falconer he's blown away by her gift for talking to audiences, using humour, wry observation and a common vernacular. Soon enough, using flattery, he's become part of her travelling revivalist roadshow - he's the one who preaches hell and eternal torture, while she preaches the love and forgiveness of the lord in a kind of 'good cop/bad cop' routine. Before long, they fall in love with each other. Newsman Jim Lefferts (Arthur Kennedy), a cynic and non-believer, travels with them to report on the whole circus-type enterprise. One day, after delivering a particularly scathing piece in the newspaper he works for, Gantry sees an opportunity open up and demands an equal platform to respond - on radio. Doing this, he expands the revivalist's audience - and before long he's leading crusades, intending to close brothels and prohibition-era speakeasies. Quite accidentally, while doing this, he's reintroduced to a prostitute he once had a relationship with, Lulu Bains (Shirley Jones), who could bring the whole enterprise crashing down.

Compared with his modern counterparts, Gantry is something of a saint in this film. Sure, he drinks and has slept around - but by the time he's become part of Sister Falconer's travelling circus he's pretty much faithful to her, and not as much of a drunkard. He's intoxicated by the power he has over the crowds of people that come to see him. He's a complicated figure, right to the end - and it's impossible to dislike him, which had me wrestling with this film's intentions. I think having a modern perspective makes watching Elmer Gantry a more challenging prospect - but that's not a bad thing. How shocked would the audience of this film in 1960 be with the exploits of today's evangelists? The drugs, the sex and money - the corruption - it's the proof in the pudding as far as this what this film was saying goes. They're simply con-men using religion as the ultimate grifting tool - and millions of people fall for it, believing their lives will be blessed if they send as much money as they can to these people. Lancaster sells his role with as much verve as Gantry preaches, and gives an unforgettable performance - which is what I liked best about Elmer Gantry the film in the end.

Glad to catch this one - was nominated for a Best Picture Oscar (beaten by Billy Wilder's The Apartment), with Burt Lancaster winning a Best Actor Oscar, Shirley Jones a Best Supporting Actress Oscar and Richard Brooks a Best Adapted Screenwriting Oscar. André Previn's score was also nominated.

3.5

https://i.postimg.cc/y6fv4fPr/elmer-gantry2.jpg

Watchlist Count : 432 (-18)

Next : Things (1989)

Thank you very much to whomever inspired me to watch Elmer Gantry.

Wyldesyde19

06-16-24, 01:36 PM

Not a big fan of Elmer Gantry. It’s been years since I’ve seen it though, so perhaps a rewatch is in order.

PHOENIX74

06-18-24, 06:12 AM

https://i.postimg.cc/Nf2xfRmr/things.jpg

THINGS (1989)

Directed by : Andrew Jordan

When I sit back, rub my temple, and think to myself, "I do believe that was worse than Manos, the Hands of Fate", I must have seen something exceptional. In all fairness, Manos wasn't what Andrew Jordan and Barry J. Gillis were aiming for here. They had their sights set on emulating Sam Raimi's The Evil Dead. If Raimi could cobble together something like that with friends and basically no budget to speak of, why couldn't they? The only problem was, Sam Raimi knew what he was doing, and Jordon/Gillis by all appearances are absolute idiots. Their movie is basically a strange mix of Evil Dead and Aliens - and if that sounds like two movies that couldn't possibly be combined, you're obviously sorely mistaken. Don Drake (Barry J. Gillis) and Fred Horton (Bruce Roach) head to a cabin off the beaten track, the home of Don's brother Doug (Doug Bunston) who has a pregnant wife, Susan (Patricia Sadler). Susan couldn't initially become pregnant, but with an experimental treatment provided by Dr. Lucas (Jan W. Pachul), she realized this long sought-after dream. Unfortunately, the dream becomes a nightmare when monstrous creatures burst from her abdomen, attacking those present and causing a nightmare situation.

It's a simple enough plot - but the way it's delivered is particularly incoherent and bizarre. All of that is made worse by the fact that whomever pushed this project forward considered the need of a "name" to attract an audience. Porn star Amber Lynn turned out to be the best available for Things, and her part in the film is that of a news broadcaster who interrupts the film with her segments - most often these have nothing to do with the film, and only do more to add to the chaos factor. The makers of Things were so hyped up by having her that they include a post-credits scene where the real Amber Lynn talks about an anecdote related to her appearance in John Frankenheimer's 52 Pick-Up. I can imagine how they felt - how there was only one degree of separation between them and John Frankenheimer. Their excitement is adorable. Other than that, the dubbing ended up being a complete disaster, the cinematography is awful - at times the lighting non-existent, and there are long stretches where the characters lounge around doing nothing. The special effects are primitive, the acting is amusingly awful and there's no sense that these people know anything about the language of cinema. It's a mess that's a true shock to watch unfold.

The characters talk in Things as if they were hard-pressed to think up something in the moment - was there a script? At one stage they find a tape-recorder and book in the freezer, and not long after Don decides to put his jacket in the freezer. Later he waters down his beer, as if that's a perfectly normal thing to do. These are the moments I guess audiences were meant to laugh at (there's a joke one of the characters tells later that barely qualifies as one), but it just strikes one as so random you start to suspect that Andrew Jordan and Barry J. Gillis aren't human. That they don't get us, or our motion pictures, but are doing their best to emulate movie-making, and human behaviour. Better that, for if not, then these guys are so incompetent their movie is becoming a cult phenomenon as "one of the worst movies of all time", and considering the fact that I think The Evil Dead is one of the best films of all time, that leaves all of cinematic history between them and their goal. They fell as short of that goal as they possibly could - a perfect failure. Consider my rating a badge of recognition - it's not often that such a feat is "achieved".

Glad to catch this one - like I said, regarded as one of the worst films of all time, and therefore now regularly plays in cinemas throughout the world.

0.5

https://i.postimg.cc/4NP8Nr8Y/things2.jpg

Watchlist Count : 434 (-16)

Next : Certified Copy (2010)

Thank you very much to whomever inspired me to watch Things.

SpelingError

06-18-24, 09:04 AM

Takoma11

06-18-24, 11:17 AM

I really enjoyed Things.

crumbsroom

06-18-24, 11:29 AM

One of the very few things I have ever taken pride in my life, is I was likely the first Things stan in all of humanity.

Weeks after it was released I was torturing friends with it. For twenty years I tried to find evidence of a single person outside of my orbit having ever seen it. Owners of all sorts of underground video stores claimed no such movie existed when I asked if it was ever going to be released on dvd, as my old VHS copy was worn to shit.

And now it exists in that rarefied air of The Room or Plan 9. Except it's better than both of those. It's a movie that is too strange and impenetrable to have ever been made by anything but the purest sincerity. It's like an alien artifact somehow made by human hands.

I couldn't love it more

PHOENIX74

06-19-24, 12:22 AM

I was so torn on what to rate that film. Its "flaws" are blatantly obvious (terrible acting, terrible dialogue, terrible/misaligned sound, terrible monsters, terrible horror sequences), but it's also fairly entertaining in its relentless badness to the point those elements seem like charms of the film. I ultimately chose to mostly embrace that and give it a 7/10. I don't know if this is too high or too low, but that's the rating I'm sticking with for now.

Rating films that are incredibly bad but super enjoyable varies quite a bit I think. I'll be bringing Things to fun film nights, and I have to admit I loved it too - my 0.5 rating is an objective one, which I decided quite a while ago to give to these kinds of films regardless of how much they delight me, and I can't see how anyone could possibly dislike Things. It's a best worst movie contender for sure.

PHOENIX74

06-19-24, 01:45 AM

Note : I couldn't get to Certified Copy last night, but it'll be the next film after this.

https://i.postimg.cc/3RV6XfHG/the-great-debaters.jpg

THE GREAT DEBATERS (2007)

Directed by : Denzel Washington

There's no doubt that Melvin B. Tolson (Denzel Washington) was a great man, but The Great Debaters wisely stands back and instead of glorifying him gives it's attention to his students at Wiley College in Marshall, Texas - representative of a generation of African Americans who would be fighting for equality in a few decades time. James L. Farmer Jr. (Denzel Whitaker), Henry Lowe (Nate Parker), Samantha Booke (Jurnee Smollett) and Hamilton Burgess (Jermaine Williams) are members of the debating team who go on to win so many debates against other college campuses around the United States that they become the first African American debaters to compete against the prestigious Harvard University. (In real life this was against the reigning champions - University of Southern California.) By doing this they get to explore issues of human rights, politics, racial injustice and other matters both practically and theoretically. The film includes them stumbling upon a lynching, and James' father James Snr. (Forest Whitaker) accidentally killing a white farmer's pig with his automobile and being forced to pay $25 (around $600 today) compensation or else face deadly consequences .

Before I get to the grist of what I thought of The Great Debaters, I have to mention how surprised I was to find out that Denzel Whitaker, who plays Forest Whitaker's character's son and kind of looks like him, isn't actually Forest Whitaker's son - in fact he's not related to him at all. To add to the overall coincidence of him being in this, he was actually named after actor Denzel Washington, who he costars with. I'm sure his name caused plenty of confusion during and after this production. The movie itself? Yeeeah, it's okay. It's quite good in fact. The only problem I had with it is the fact that Denzel Washington and Forest Whitaker - two men of prodigious talent - kind of stand back to try and let the four young performers playing the debaters carry the movie during long stretches. Because they're not up to the impossibly high standards of their two older costars the movie suffers a little from that imbalance of talent. Denzel Whitaker was the most interesting out of the four young actors, but none of them could rise to match the two goliaths. I guess it was a no-win situation for director Washington - if he'd given his own character even more emphasis he might have been seen as robbing the film of it's focus and purpose.

Other than that I found it interesting how Washington and screenwriter Robert Eisele have reversed racial stereotypes in this film. Most of the white characters we come across are ignorant and dumb, and suffer terribly in comparison with these bright young students, their teacher, and Minister J. Leonard Farmer, who was an American author, theologian and teacher himself. Not that this can help them in the pre-WWII American south, where these four kids couldn't even officially be considered the debating champions because African Americans weren't allowed to be members of the debate society of the U.S. until ten years after this film is set. Washington gets daring with the aforementioned lynching scene, and the tension during the scene where the pig is run over is almost unbearable - but other than that he doesn't give his kids too hard a time of it. In fact, when they arrive at Harvard they're treated like celebrities and kings. The Great Debaters isn't a film that'll press you too hard, or really hit you and sear itself into your memory. Perhaps Washington and Eisele thought a softer approach would curry favour with the Academy. Measured up altogether, this was good though - I can't disparage it despite it's weaker points.

Glad to catch this one - it was nominated for a Best Motion Picture – Drama Golden Globe and won various Image Awards.

3

https://i.postimg.cc/Dzq4Qdwm/the-great-debaters-2.jpg

Watchlist Count : 434 (-16)

Next : Certified Copy (2010)

Thank you very much to whomever inspired me to watch The Great Debaters.

PHOENIX74

06-21-24, 05:10 AM

https://i.postimg.cc/15mLn1ZR/certified-copy.jpg

CERTIFIED COPY (2010)

Directed by : Abbas Kiarostami

Well, Abbas Kiarostami certainly isn't going to spin his wheels and make commercial films - his Certified Copy is another film which explores a topic in an incredibly oblique and original way. It's a film that's going to be hard to describe, for there's a certain moment part-way through - a big spoiler I won't divulge - where the game changes and the audience is forced to ask themselves "wait...what's going on here?" One of the issues at hand, though, is presented to us on a platter from the very moment the film starts, where writer James Miller (William Shimell) is appearing to promote his new book, which posits that copies and forgeries are just as valuable as the originals they're copied from if they bring pleasure and appreciation for those beholding them. It's all a matter of perception anyway, and that's something that comes up again and again in Certified Copy. Arriving late to the presentation is an unnamed woman (Juliette Binoche) who has to leave early because her son is nagging her - and afterwards he teases her for having a crush on Miller, who she's made an appointment to see later. The two meet up, and go for an aimless journey through the streets of Tuscany, and Miller's theory is put to the ultimate test.

This is one of those "conversation" movies, much like Richard Linklater's Before trilogy - but far, far more contemplative and philosophical. It also gives it's audience a much sterner test, and benefits from an achingly beautiful performance from Juliette Binoche, and a hugely surprising one from opera singer William Shimell in his first cinematic feature. Tuscany pretty much takes care of the film's visual aspect, apart from having an extremely good looking pair of lead performers. I kept on changing my mind on what was really going on through the whole film - it's that kind of tantalising narrative, which leaves everything up to the viewer right to the very end. It's very much like Kiarostami to construct something that can be seen in a whole variety of different ways, like a riddle with more than one answer. There I was thinking "this is unusually straightforward" at first, before it all become not so straightforward, and I still don't think I have a real handle on this movie. I don't feel like I've fully thought out all of what it's suggesting I should - I think I need to see it again, this time without being completely sidetracked by what it does to us mid-film.

I'll say this for Certified Copy - every moment there's either something interesting being said, or some dynamic between our two lead characters that's fascinating or exciting in some way. Those moments can be either good or bad, but they all add up to a measured and full whole that puts this movie amongst Kiarostami's real achievements. I don't know how many languages this guy can speak, or how adept he is from leaping into differing cultures, but it seems to me that he's one hell of a multifaceted and intelligent man. He explores ideas in ways that would simply not occur to the rest of us - and as such is a real artist with his own unique voice. I was already knocked sideways when I saw Taste of Cherry earlier this year, and Certified Copy lives up to the high standard set by that film and Close-Up. It's very, very simple, and yet vastly complex when you stop and start thinking about what all of it means. That's cinematic poetry, with two people up there on the screen seemingly living their roles. It all feels so right, and in a world where filmmakers make mistakes and studios mess everything up, it's nice to see something from a person who knows exactly what he's doing.

Glad to catch this one - Criterion #612 - Binoche also won a Best Actress Award at the 2010 Cannes Film Festival, and Certified Copy was voted 46th greatest film since 2000 in an international critics' poll conducted by BBC. .

4

https://i.postimg.cc/mkDmf2yp/certified-copy2.jpg

Watchlist Count : 434 (-16)

Next : Jeanne Dielman, 23, quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles (1975)

Thank you very much to whomever inspired me to watch Certified Copy.

SpelingError

06-21-24, 12:52 PM

I like Certified Copy quite a lot and I especially love the next film you have on there as well.

Stirchley

06-21-24, 01:20 PM

I like Certified Copy quite a lot and I especially love the next film you have on there as well.

Same for me. Seen his next movie a million times.

SpelingError

06-21-24, 01:48 PM

Same for me. Seen his next movie a million times.
How do you know it was 1,000,000 times? Perhaps it was actually 999,999 times.

PHOENIX74

06-24-24, 04:15 AM

https://i.postimg.cc/c4X2LX9v/jeane-dielman.jpg

JEANNE DIELMAN, 23, QUAI DU COMMERCE
1080 BRUXELLES (1975)

Directed by : Chantal Akerman

Once in a while (even a rare while) a film comes along and gives you a completely new and novel film-watching experience. I came to Jeanne Dielman late one night, for some reason mistakenly believing that it was an 80-odd minute sprint. When I checked the running time and saw "201 MINUTES" staring me in the face it both gave me pause as to whether I should watch something else, and also altered my expectations as to what kind of film this was going to be. I'd gathered that this film mostly consisted of a woman, alone, in her house - and the fact that this was a marathon hinted at it's artistic, avant-garde credentials. I decided, in the end, to split the viewing over two nights. In the end that heightened my sense of unease, which is something that slowly seeps in as you watch Jeanne (Delphine Seyrig) go about her day, performing domestic chores that you can see have become carefully worked out rituals for her. Although she spends most of her time alone, she lives with her young son Sylvain (Jan Decorte), talks to neighbours and people in the neighbourhood, and occasionally prostitutes herself for extra money.

For most of us, that last detail would be the scandalous central obsession that Jeanne Dielman would be expected to focus on, but although Jeanne's selling herself is a key narrative ingredient here we instead focus very much on the daily rituals - which are filmed not only with precision, but precise timing and a detailed eye for set decoration and art design. Writer/director Chantal Akerman seems to be saying a lot about repression, and how the work of a housewife can become a compulsive act of intentionally forgetting the more urgent needs of womanhood, femininity and humanity. Thus, this was a remarkable film. But it's interesting to hear Akerman herself talk about how fond she is of all the specific actions she shows Jeanne do in the film, because she grew up in a household full of those kind of rituals. I did also, and it really took me back to my childhood in the 70s and early 80s, when part of being a housewife felt more regulated, and my mother very much a model of Jeanne Dielman herself - possibly repressing her own desire for freedom and sexual fulfillment. Every scene in the film felt somewhat hypnotic and at times it held me spellbound - while at others it allowed my mind to roam freely and ponder what it all meant.

I wonder what a younger version of me would have made of all this. I probably would have been confounded beyond all reason - and for sure I would have been waiting for something dramatic to happen. Now, that's not me saying that nothing dramatic does happen - watchers have to contend with that if they haven't seen this before. I'm just saying that such a specific focus on ritualized household chores is so far different to what we'd normally expect in a film that this is surely not for everyone. That said, I could tell I was watching something remarkable here and although I split the movie over two nights, I doubt a watch in one sitting would have felt as long as three hours and twenty minutes - the film actually feels a lot shorter! Perhaps that's because this is filmed in such a hypnotic way - time begins to lose it's meaning when you're in Jeanne Dielman's groove. When I started to realise what this was, I begin to question whether I was really going to like it - but in the end (especially after a lot of the meaning in the film began to unfold in the second half, along with the film's final scenes) I was totally onboard. You can argue about how original it is in context with realism in "slow cinema" - but for me it was a totally unique, and extremely meaningful, film experience.

Glad to catch this one - Criterion #484 and in Steven Jay Schneider's 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die. It was voted Best Film of All Time in the 2022 Sight and Sound poll.

4.5

https://i.postimg.cc/CKW615b6/jeanne-dielman.jpg

Watchlist Count : 433 (-17)

Next : O Auto da Compadecida (A Dog's Will) (2000)

Thank you very much to whomever inspired me to watch Jeanne Dielman, 23, quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles.

Takoma11

06-24-24, 06:08 PM

Love Jeanne Dielman. And I think it's somehow even better on a second viewing.

Here's what I wrote (https://www.movieforums.com/reviews/2352425-jeanne_dielman_23_quai_du_commerce_1080_bruxelles.html) about it after my second watch.

Like you write in your review, the film has a complicated relationship with the domestic rituals it portrays.

Wyldesyde19

06-24-24, 07:07 PM

Great film that is, weirdly, the source of a lot of controversy over its recent Sight and Sound ranking.
So much to take in with every scene.
Yes, even the infamous potato peeking scene.

SpelingError

06-24-24, 11:09 PM

Here's what I wrote on the film some time ago:

Jeanne Dielman, 23, quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles (1975) - 4.5

It's boring and repetitive - just as I expected it would be - in almost every sense of the word, yet it's also one of the most impactful experiences I've had in film. Watching this film was reminiscent of The Passion of Joan of Arc as both films use their repetition to put you in their protagonist's headspaces. As I watched Jeanne complete more and more chores around her apartment, I grew bored, but the boredom I felt was all at the heart of Jeanne's boredom. Just as I found the scenes of Jeanne performing her daily routine tedious and repetitive, she felt that as well - for a while, in fact. Showing only a couple scenes of Jeanne completing some chores wouldn't have sufficed. The film needed to keep piling them up one after the other to the point it wears you down, and this is where the film excels at. Like, why include a clunky expository line of dialogue which explains her boredom when the film can get you to feel this instead?

Throughout the first half of the film, everything runs like clockwork for Jeanne. Around the middle of the film though, her routine begins to unravel as she begins making various mistakes. These mistakes include running out of potatoes, walking into the wrong room, dropping a spoon on the ground, or even subtler mistakes such as bumping a jar of milk with a plate or getting her apron stuck on a chair for a couple seconds. As these errors keep piling up, the more clear it is that the film is building to something and a sense of impending doom slowly grows. This will be the culmination of the tedious lifestyle she lived with for what was presumably a long time. During the second half of the film, I found myself paying more and more attention to every action she took, trying to spot another error she'd make, regardless of how insignificant it may be. As this went on, I began to notice how meticulous the film was with all the details of her daily routine. Once I got to Jeanne attempting to make coffee, I realized that, in spite of this film taking place almost entirely in an apartment, its scope is as epic as 2001 concerning how much information is shown onscreen. Overall, I loved this film and I'm definitely going to rewatch it soon. I have it at a 9/10 now, but I could see it going up to a 10/10 in the future.

Takoma11

06-25-24, 12:47 AM

I also think that someone could write an absolute banger of an essay about looking at Jeanne Dielman alongside the rise of the "trad wife" movement on social media (and also maybe encompassing the genre of cleaning videos, and the "embrace the mess" idea of housekeeping).

crumbsroom

06-25-24, 11:32 AM

Jeanne Dielman asks a pretty basic question of its audience: is there something worth watching here, too?

Movies all throughout cinema's history have turned our gaze towards all kinds of novel and sometimes seemingly insignificant things, so why not this?

It shouldn't be a controversial question to answer.

Now outside of the films fairly basic premise, is it 'difficult'? I guess. Sort of. There is definitely this attitude that the film can only be appreciated through some kind of intellectual or ideological lens. That it can't be enjoyed in the same way Kane or Vertigo are enjoyed, even though when we boil it all down, the only thing that its long extended scenes actually require to be appreciated can be found in one simple concept: empathy.

Just like Italian Neorealists who pushed the trills and trinkets of most standard cinema at the time to the sidelines, in order to simply observe life, Akerman is only doing the same here. All she wants to know is: Do we see her? And if not, have you looked into your own kitchen recently?

When it comes to this films politics, this is really all it boils down to. It's not a question that should provoke such a weird amount of hostility, and it's really only because of the hyperbolic reaction it receives from so many people, that its ideological element becomes so prominent in its discussion. When ultimately, this is simply about one thing, and one thing only: is there something worth watching here?

I would say, clearly there is. As long as critics keep throwing up there hands and screaming that this isn't even a movie, it has something to show us about ourselves. About why we try to deny the invisible people in society the luxury of even having a narrative to call their own. But most importantly, even if we ever get to the point where the controversy over the film goes away, and people stop frothing at the mouth at the simple mention of her name, this will still be a life worth examining because, just like Vertigo does with Scotty, or Citizen Kane does with Charles Foster Kane, Jeanne Dielman reveals someone to us:Jeanne Dielman. And her commonality shouldn't exclude us from seeing value in her. Or her story. Or the movie she is in.

Torgo

06-26-24, 12:34 PM

Argh, wish I hadn't seen that. Hope that won't affect my enjoyment of the movie.

Takoma11

06-26-24, 12:38 PM

Argh, wish I hadn't seen that. Hope that won't affect my enjoyment of the movie.

So I went into the film knowing that piece of information and it didn't really impact my enjoyment of the film. Obviously it takes away some impact of a moment like that when you know it is coming, but this isn't a film that hinges on just a single moment in the last act. Also, weirdly, considering it's the most dramatic thing that happens in the film from a conventional point of view, I almost never think about it when I think back on the film. I'm always like, "Oh, yeah. That's a thing that happened."

It honestly never ceases to amaze me how many people/websites will include that particular plot element in a summary when clearly it is something the viewer should arrive at on their own.

Stirchley

06-26-24, 12:39 PM

Argh, wish I hadn't seen that. Hope that won't affect my enjoyment of the movie.

It probably will & I deeply apologize. I never even thought about spoilers until someone yelled at me in a comment. It’s that kind of day. :eek:

Torgo

06-26-24, 12:40 PM

It probably will & I deeply apologize. I never even thought about spoilers until someone yelled at me in a comment. It’s that kind of day. :eek:No worries, stuff happens, and thanks, Takoma.

Stirchley

06-26-24, 12:46 PM

No worries, stuff happens, and thanks, Takoma.

I’m so thick sometimes. Why put spoilers when I could just delete my post. Duh. Just deleted it now.

Once again, so very sorry. :rolleyes:

Takoma11

06-26-24, 12:48 PM

I’m so thick sometimes. Why put spoilers when I could just delete my post. Duh. Just deleted it now.

Once again, so very sorry. :rolleyes:

It happens! One time I didn't close a spoiler tag correctly and it left a huge plot twist just out in the open in a review that I wrote.

I think your question was a good one for discussion and didn't need to be deleted, it just needed those tags for those who haven't seen the film yet.

Stirchley

06-26-24, 12:54 PM

It happens! One time I didn't close a spoiler tag correctly and it left a huge plot twist just out in the open in a review that I wrote.

I think your question was a good one for discussion and didn't need to be deleted, it just needed those tags for those who haven't seen the film yet.

It just seems that nobody ever mentions the ending.

BTW, your essay is excellent.

Thank god you saw I didn’t put spoilers.

Ok, I am out of this thread for the remainder of the day before I get into any more trouble. :eek:

Takoma11

06-26-24, 01:14 PM

It just seems that nobody ever mentions the ending.

The ending is something I need to ponder a bit on my next viewing. On one hand, I don't like that it feels a bit like the film submitting to "make something happen!". Obviously most women in Jeanne's situation don't commit violence/murder, they just carry on and carry on until they can't. But I think that the ending is also powerful because it reflects just how ground down Jeanne is by her life, and more specifically by the people (mainly men) who take and take from her.

At the same time, like I said, it's something that weirdly doesn't really come to mind when I think about the movie. And I think that says something kind of interesting. Because a literal killing sticks with me less than the ruined potatoes.

BTW, your essay is excellent.

Thank you!

Thank god you saw I didn’t put spoilers.

Ok, I am out of this thread for the remainder of the day before I get into any more trouble. :eek:

Again, I think it's fine. We've all had films spoiled---accidentally or on purpose---and yet we find a way to survive! It's not like you maliciously revealed a spoiler to intentionally ruin someone's day.

SpelingError

06-26-24, 02:12 PM

Argh, wish I hadn't seen that. Hope that won't affect my enjoyment of the movie.
I knew about the ending going into the film as well, and I still loved it. I don't think it's the point of the film, so I hope you'll still check it out someday.

Torgo

06-26-24, 02:17 PM

I knew about the ending going into the film as well, and I still loved it. I don't think it's the point of the film, so I hope you'll still check it out someday.Takoma reassurance + SpelingError reassurance = Remains on watchlist.

SpelingError

06-26-24, 02:18 PM

Takoma reassurance + SpelingError reassurance = Remains on watchlist.
Also, this is a massive spoiler, but there's a scene of a woman doing chores in the film.

Takoma11

06-26-24, 02:21 PM

Also, this is a massive spoiler, but there's a scene of a woman doing chores in the film.

Dude!!!!!! Tags!!!!!!!

Torgo

06-26-24, 02:22 PM

Also, this is a massive spoiler, but there's a scene of a woman doing chores in the film.Great...you ruined it. Deleted!
:D

Wyldesyde19

06-26-24, 08:51 PM

Spoilers. The woman also peels potatoes.

Takoma11

06-26-24, 09:04 PM

Spoilers. The woman also peels potatoes.

I don't usually use the Report feature on people I know on this site. But you guys are really. pushing. it.

Wyldesyde19

06-26-24, 09:08 PM

I don't usually use the Report feature on people I know on this site. But you guys are really. pushing. it.
😎

SpelingError

06-26-24, 10:51 PM

Spoiler: Something happens in the film.

Wyldesyde19

06-26-24, 10:53 PM

Spoilers:
Chantal Akerman directed it

PHOENIX74

06-27-24, 12:27 AM

PHOENIX74

06-27-24, 02:01 AM

https://i.postimg.cc/GhNBG05c/a-dog.jpg

O AUTO DA COMPADECIDA (2000)
(A Dog's Will)

Directed by : Guel Arraes

It's not often that a controversy over a film's rating on internet sites kind of becomes the dominant talking point about it. This was a matter I had to chase down after watching A Dog's Will - because while it's not awful by any means, I couldn't square the fact that according to Letterboxd and the IMDb, it's one of the greatest films of all time. That said, there are plenty of people giving it a perfect 5/5, and that's fair enough. For me though, I don't like comedies where all the performers give overly exaggerated, outrageous, clownish performances - so I was at odds with this one aspect of the movie. How I would have loved this if things were just a little (actually, a lot) more restrained and natural. It's something that cuts across all cultures, and is why I've hardly ever laughed at the likes of Jerry Lewis or The Three Stooges. From the get-go, our two pauper heroes João Grilo (Matheus Nachtergaele) and Chicó (Selton Mello) were contorting their faces on a Jim Carrey level, and I could feel my heart sink as I realised I wasn't on their wavelength. Then one of the first comic set-pieces in the film involves a pet dog being poisoned and killed. Talk about shaky starts. Underneath all of that however, there's a really clever and layered story that plays out - leading to a wonderful climax as all of our main characters find themselves in the afterlife, being judged by Christ, the Virgin Mary and Satan himself.

I think I first came across A Dog's Will because of the fact that it stuck out at the very top of Letterboxd's Top 250 films, which meant I really wanted to see what all the fuss was about. Now, although it shouldn't matter, most of the ratings that had come in for the film were from it's native Brazil - where it's a beloved classic already (and is an adaptation of a play by Brazilian playwright Ariano Suassuna.) Letterboxd users complained, thinking that it's high rating was unfairly weighted by it's parochial fanbase, and the website completely changed it's algorithm, meaning that it's no longer placed in the Top 250 at all, never mind near the top. Now, this might actually be the definition of racism - who's to say Brazilians' opinions are worth any less than those of other countries? When we approach The Godfather, should we try to ignore the opinions of all Americans when appreciating that particular film? I personally think that Letterboxd would have been a better place for having this film up in it's lofty perch, even though I don't personally rate it as high as many others do. What we're left with is less diversity, and less surprise - a selective Top 250 which picks and chooses which members it allows to be part of the club.

To the movie itself however - the full mini-series (this is a cut-down 104-minute version) is something I'm curious to see, but this doesn't suffer at all by being shortened. You'd never know there was a longer version out there. João Grilo and Chicó work for a baker and his wife, fall foul of a priest and bishop, and generally use their wits to overcome their poverty. There are bandits, and most of the other characters (a soldier, a town bully etc.) are nasty. Chicó meets and falls in love with the mayor's daughter, Rosinha (Virginia Cavendish) and the two must come up with a cunning plan to make the mayor think that Chicó belongs to a higher caste than the absolute bottom rung (and also convince Rosinha that the cowardly Chicó is brave.) It's fun, there are plenty of antics, and the screenplay is especially clever. It's a confirmation that pureness of heart doesn't necessarily correspond to worldly riches and goods, and that those who spout religion aren't necessarily the most holy. It's also an ode to those who use thier wits instead of bemoaning their station. I could have done without all of the performers pulling funny faces most of the time, but other than that I liked it well enough. Personally though, it falls short of the greatness it's ratings led me to expect it had.

Glad to catch this one - 8.6/10 on the IMDb (the mini-series has a rating of 9.2/10), once in the Top 10 of films on Letterboxd, 95% on Rotten Tomatoes. One of Brazil's highest ever grossing movies and winner of four awards at the 2nd Grande Prêmio Cinema Brasil.

3.5

https://i.postimg.cc/pXtfTWCM/a-dog-s-will.jpg

Watchlist Count : 433 (-17)

Next : Camera Person (2016)

Thank you very much to whomever inspired me to watch O Auto da Compadecida.

Takoma11

06-27-24, 08:38 AM

In regards to the ending of Jeanne Dielman...

I was kind of expecting something extremely incongruous to happen right at the end. Although I didn't pick up on this naturally, just by watching the film, Chantal Akerman and commenters point out that her second to last client gives Jeanne her first ever orgasm. That's why she keeps making mistakes in her normally flawless rituals - overcooking the potatoes, dropping stuff etc. Her mind has been pulled out of it's slumbering, stagnant, focused attention. She has another orgasm with her last client - and this results in her doing what she does. She can't go on anymore, and gives in to something she's been wanting to do forever - knowing that in an ironic way it will "free" her.

So one more layer that I would add to this:

I will forever push Emily Nagoski's book on female sexuality, Come as You Are, and one of the biggest takeaways (and frankly ah-ha! ideas) in the book was about arousal non-concordance. This is when what's happening in someone's mind in terms of arousal doesn't match their body. It can work both ways, ie someone can be mentally really turned on but their body isn't, or someone can be mentally not turned on but their body reacts physically as if it is.

For both men and women, experiencing this non-concordance can be really upsetting. For example, a person's partner might be very unkind if someone can't "perform" during sex due to lack of physical arousal.

But the other direction is where it can be super upsetting. In the book, she talks about a young man who (I think during a college party?) walked in on a young woman being sexually assaulted and was afterward very upset that he had become physically aroused by seeing this act of violence. She also talks about women who experience orgasm during sexual assault, which can lead down terrible mental pathways ("Did that turn me on? Did I actually enjoy that?" etc).

I think that this concept makes a lot of sense when I think about Jeanne in that final act. It's not just that the sensation of the orgasm is jarring, but also the kind of self-disgust that she might feel about experiencing it. She has worked so hard to put up barriers in her life, and now something has happened that might have her thinking that she's enjoying the sex she is paid to have. I think that a lot of women can mentally justify engaging in survival sex work, but to be the kind of woman who enjoys such a thing might be a bridge too far for her.

And I hope you enjoy your rewatch. I found it to be very engaging the second time around. There are so many details to notice.

Stirchley

06-28-24, 12:15 PM

And I hope you enjoy your rewatch. I found it to be very engaging the second time around. There are so many details to notice.

I’ve read that some women have an orgasm whilst giving birth. :eek:

Stirchley

06-28-24, 12:17 PM

Do we want to discuss what happens to Jeanne next?

Or shall we just leave it alone?

Takoma11

06-28-24, 04:50 PM

Do we want to discuss what happens to Jeanne next?

Or shall we just leave it alone?

Jeanne Dielman SPOILERS

I find myself absolutely uncertain about her ultimate fate. Would her actions be seen as self-defense? Would she even try to defend herself? Would her very meek life and age earn her mercy?

Wyldesyde19

06-28-24, 07:08 PM

I think the uncertainty at the end is a big reason why the film worked as well. We’re left to ponder her reasoning and motivation for the final act, and what her fate is as a result.
It hits you like a lightning bolt, forcing you to sit up and react with astonishment and you ask yourself “How did we get here?”
I imagine she asked herself the same question at the end.

PHOENIX74

06-28-24, 11:29 PM

https://i.postimg.cc/bNLmYPff/cameraperson3.jpg

CAMERAPERSON (2016)

Directed by : Kirsten Johnson

By assembling unused footage from some of her films, some of the films she worked as cinematographer on, and personal recordings, Kirsten Johnson manages to paint a portrait of a filmmaker personally involved in all of the stories she captures - and an integral part of the landscape she's capturing. That might sound self-serving, but it's her humanity, empathy and keen interest that transform what she captures into moments that feel alive and compelling. She comforts, cries, guides, questions, supports, condemns and reveals deeply personal truths - all to peel away the layers that stand between us and the truth a camera simply can't capture by itself through clinical, technical precision. What's most remarkable is the way a bunch of outtakes can reveal so much about all of the stories she was out to record and relate to her audience. Adding what she documents regarding her two young twins, and her mother, who has Alzheimer's disease, speaks of a person who has become an integral part of the world she captures, and of her discovering both the best and worst of humanity. Her patience, good advice, and ability to calm and give guidance to others is exemplary - and again, it sounds like she's on a narcissism trip the way I describe it - but those are my observations, not prominent themes.

While out filmmaking, Kirsten has to interview Bosnian Muslim women who were tortured and raped during that nation's civil conflict, Afghans who lost family members due to war and the Taliban, a prosecution team during a trial where a man was dragged to death behind a car, filming Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, capturing the rise of Liberia's first ever female head of state - and much, much more. There are so many poignant moments, and also parts where I couldn't believe the footage wasn't used in whichever film was being made. There's one "everyday" scene where a midwife struggles to get a newborn baby to breath his first breaths that had me gripping what I was sat on and nearly in tears. Watching that newborn gulp like a fish out of water, and the African midwife trying all manner of ways to clear his airways, was terrifying and seemed to take forever - and I knew right there and then that I could never do this lady's job. I'd be all panic, and any stillborn or death in childbirth would devastate me beyond all help. Yet the midwife did her job calmly, with a sense that this goes on every day and it's become routine. It's a side of childbirth I'd never seen before. Other than that, I was drawn in and up close to all the other moments that weren't deemed important enough to see the light of day before now. Kirsten Johnson has a gift when it comes to showing her audience.

So - to the big debate this film sets up. Should a cameraperson do what wildlife photographers do and not interact with their subjects? Does interacting with the people you're filming contaminate the purity of what you're trying to capture? Going by Cameraperson, interacting the way Kirsten does with her subject actually brings every subject to vivid life, as her tears are reflected back to us through the horror that's being recorded. Her prompting brings forth jokes and laughter, anger, catharsis, rage, understanding and her digging reveals a lot of truth - for she interacts on a very genuine level. The cameraperson is a part of the world as well, and it's illustrated well when we see moments when she bumps into something - eliciting concern from those she's filming, or else when philosopher Jacques Derrida talks about what she's presently doing while she's filming him in New York. But aside from all that - here we get a dozen or more documentaries in one, because all of what we see is emotionally charged, interesting, beautiful, horrifying and real. It fills Cameraperson with enough spiritual essence to satisfy and entrance the most disinterested of viewers, and is a must see as far as documentary filmmaking is concerned.

Glad to catch this one - Criterion #853 and winner of over 20 awards at various film festivals around the world. Cameraperson also has a 99% Fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes

4

https://i.postimg.cc/LXh1VkgX/cameraperson2.jpg

Watchlist Count : 434 (-16)

Next : Caterpillar (2010)

Thank you very much to whomever inspired me to watch Cameraperson.

Takoma11

06-28-24, 11:43 PM

I loved Cameraperson (review HERE (https://www.movieforums.com/reviews/2346675-cameraperson.html)). I think it raises a ton of interesting ideas about what it means to work in a profession where "witnessing" is what you're meant to do, and where interfering would be looked down on.

Have you seen Dick Johnson is Dead? I really loved it.

EDIT: Also, related to that sequence in the maternity ward: my sister worked for a newborn photography company at a hospital, and she was one of the photographers who was willing to photograph babies that did not survive childbirth or died very shortly after. It wore on her terribly (even though she knew it was part of healing for many of the families). There are a lot of jobs that I just can't imagine doing and not having a total nervous breakdown about three days into it.

SpelingError

06-29-24, 12:05 AM

I'm tempted to rewatch Cameraperson to refresh my memory as so many great vignettes are captured throughout it. One of my takeaways was how its able to change your impression of a given image so much by adding a single bit of context to it. One early scene shows Johnson talking with her mother when she suddenly starts acting vaguely distant. Only for a line of text to come onscreen which explains she has Alzheimer's. I also found certain sequences quite emotionally powerful, like the Penn State and James Byrd scenes. Not to mention all the great little moments captured throughout. And yes, the childbirth is easily the standout sequence.

PHOENIX74

06-29-24, 12:31 AM

Have you seen Dick Johnson is Dead? I really loved it.

My watchlist just went back up to 435.

SpelingError

06-29-24, 12:35 AM

I prefer Cameraperson by a slight margin, but Dick Johnson is Dead is also great. Its final act, in particular, is truly something else.

Takoma11

06-29-24, 01:02 AM

My watchlist just went back up to 435.

Sorry, not sorry. It's so good. SO GOOD. Honestly, I'm not sure that I've laughed so hard and cried so hard in the same film.

PHOENIX74

07-01-24, 12:38 AM

https://i.postimg.cc/4dtg7vMd/caterpillar.jpg

CATERPILLAR (2010)

Directed by : Kōji Wakamatsu

The war dead are easily mythologized, because we never see the terrible ways they die - the indignity, terror and gruesome realities never occur to people when they walk past memorials with endless names inscribed into them. The whole matter is different, however, with the wounded who come home. Caterpillar tells a tale about one such soldier coming home to Japan after fighting in the Second Sino-Japanese War. Tadashi Kurokawa (Keigo Kasuya) has lost both of his legs, and both of his arms, along with exhibiting some awful wounds and severe burns to his face. He's a living torso, who has been rendered deaf, and is partially mute. His wife, Shigeko (Shinobu Terajima) is expected to take care of him - he's a war hero after all, and has been declared a "War God" in all the local newspapers. Although Shigeko enjoys earning the respect and pride of her fellows, she soon begins to tire of cohabiting with a lump of flesh who only eats and sleeps in an endless cycle. She's disgusted by Tadashi's sexual needs, but feels compelled to do her duty as a loving wife. As the war turns, and food becomes scarcer, the mood in the Kurokawa household darkens, and this husband and wife's past history comes back to haunt this War God and dutiful carer. She begins to taunt Tadashi, calling him a "caterpillar" as he psychologically struggles to process the war crimes he committed before being wounded.

Japan's reckoning with their right wing militaristic past has been a long time coming, and while Germany immediately went through stages of shame, guilt and change, the Japanese spent many decades kind of pretending their part in the war's atrocities never happened. This is why Australia has had such a contentious relationship with this nation - many of our soldiers, while prisoners of the Japanese, were needlessly executed, tortured and worked/starved to death. Japanese leaders have steadfastly refused to acknowledge this. Caterpillar makes a mockery of the so-called 'honor' serving the emperor these soldiers, who raped and massacred the Chinese they mowed through on the Asian continent, represented and "gained". Kōji Wakamatsu and writers Hisako Kurosawa and Masao Adachi pull off quite an achievement by making sure we never feel really sorry for Tadashi, despite his predicament. Instead, we see a man haunted by raping and murdering civilians, and through his wife's eyes a loathsome, disgusting, useless husband. The medals and newspaper headlines displayed in their house seem to taunt them, because they essentially feel useless, especially when you consider that this militaristic crusade Japan was on was morally repugnant and in the end futile. It's a surprise to see a Japanese film which takes such a brutally honest and unsparing look at this tragic past.

I can't say I really enjoyed watching Caterpillar, because it's a tough movie to stomach and sit through. There's a cornucopia of sex scenes in this film, and believe me, there's nothing erotic about them. The filmmakers expertly convey the mood of the nation with flashbacks and short scenes that show civilians either celebrating the emperor and Japan's war effort, or preparing to become part of a civilian army to fight off an invasion. This mood filters into the Kurokawa household, and while at first you feel kind some kind of pride for Shigeko selflessly looking after her crippled husband, that all changes when the couple's past is dredged up, and Tadashi's grunting demands wear on the viewer in much the same way they do on her. If Tadashi represents Japan herself, then there's little wonder it took so long for these people to face themselves and come to terms with an ugly portion of their history. Tellingly, it takes until the end of the film for Tadashi to face himself. No nation should ever forget what blind obedience to the whims of strongmen leads to, and that true honor comes from doing what is right, not necessarily what you're told to do. You won't feel really good while watching Caterpillar, but I can't fault it's intentions or execution. War is the ugliest, most vile creation of man, and it's by-product is the caterpillar of this film's title.

Glad to catch this one - a big hit at the 60th Berlin International Film Festival, where it was nominated for the Golden Bear, and Shinobu Terajima received the Silver Bear for Best Actress.

3.5

https://i.postimg.cc/nrSDZvvc/caterpillar2.jpg

Watchlist Count : 436 (-14)

Next : The Changeling (1980)

Thank you very much to whomever inspired me to watch Caterpillar.

PHOENIX74

07-01-24, 01:09 AM

JUNE RUN-THROUGH

I've slowed down - a real-world project taking up a lot of my time, and forcing me to do a little less here until it's finally finished. Only 17 films watched and reviewed in June, but that's still a great run of watchlist movie watching - only in comparison with earlier months does it lack impressive statistical qualities. Anyway, I saw some movies that I'll long remember - and if I don't have those good ones on DVD already, I'll no doubt track them down. Overall, I've watched and reviewed 159 films (not counting the incidentals, which aren't reviewed.) I'm at the mid-point of the year. My target was 300 films - which means I'm on pace, but I've added way more films to my watchlist (I must be particularly aware of adding them these days - I only add the must-sees, but even so, it's hard to even keep pace with what's going on that list.)

BEST OF THE BUNCH

There are a couple of movies that are shoe-ins for declaring the best. These two are a couple that belong in their own special category of greatness.

https://i.postimg.cc/1XQYcfMy/marketa.jpghttps://i.postimg.cc/13k0NbvQ/dielman.jpg

BEST OF THE REST

Although I don't have as many to trawl through to pick out really wonderful movies, I nevertheless saw some I really loved.

https://i.postimg.cc/bJC9drM6/blue.jpghttps://i.postimg.cc/DyddbxtJ/reven.pnghttps://i.postimg.cc/nh9FPWpM/certified.jpghttps://i.postimg.cc/MG2vzwph/cam.jpg

Not a bad month for one that had less activity in it, and hopefully soon I'll be back up to my usual output. I think this watchlist thing is going to make 2024 the year where the percentage of really great films I see compared to average or no good ones is at it's highest. I'll have never gained so many new 'favourite movies' in such a short space of time - there must be around 30 or so that are crying out for rewatches already, so this has been a really productive project I embarked on, and it has been an awful lot of fun to boot.

Stirchley

07-01-24, 01:45 PM

PHOENIX74

07-03-24, 01:04 AM

https://i.postimg.cc/7Y4ZkG4j/the-changeling.webp

THE CHANGELING (1980)

Directed by : Peter Medak

The Changeling is a supernatural horror film, but the reason I liked it so much was that it managed to meld so many other types of genre in with it's main thrust, giving the sometimes garish 'haunted house' moments a deeper bed to ground them. It's a mystery film, and a drama - so in the end I don't think it depended on it's spook factor. One other reason I thought this was an excellent excursion into the ghostly and spectral is that it's lead, George C. Scott, gives a masterclass performance as grieving ex-family man and music professor/composer John Russell. It was refreshing to see a character neither dismiss what is obviously something paranormal, or descend into hysterics and start shaking people by their shoulders. He's alarmed of course, but also intrigued - with a sense of wonder and a determination to get to the bottom of the various terrors his new mansion is visiting upon him. The film starts with his wife and daughter getting mowed down by a skidding truck on an icy road, and Scott paints a portrait of grief that looks all too painfully real. It's his move to Seattle that has him take up residence in an old place restored and let out by the local historical society. Turns out the place has a tragic history, both known and unknown.

I tell you, if the restless dead, killed in a manner that reeks of betrayal and underhanded malevolence, could make their voices heard like the ghost in this film, the living would never get a moment's peace. That's one of the skips in logic that makes me doubt the existence of ghosts - I mean, shouldn't Auschwitz by swarming with them? Still, there's one small corner of my mind that begs the question - what about that unexplainable 1%? The "1%" is brought up directly in The Changeling when Russell visits the somewhat dubious "Psychic Research" department at some university. How very 1970s. I bet you all the other faculty members play many, many, many, practical jokes on the "Psychic Research" department. There follows a completely mad séance, with objects flying across the room and a certain "Joseph" (Voldi Way) communicating to Russell, sending him on a crusade to solve a mystery that reaches back nearly a century - one that was hidden within a perfect crime that nobody knew anything about. It's the way that this all unfolds that keeps the film from derailing during it's sillier moments - the audience is really hooked on a crime investigation that walks hand-in-hand with the scares and uncanny happenings.

I loved the way Scott's John Russell uses what happens to him during the ghost story to process his own grief and find some semblance of peace. That's another kind of story which adds another thread to give The Changeling added strength. I liked the sense of responsibility he felt to the apparition who was reaching out to him - a kind of humanity which feels empathy even for the dead. Strangely enough, the screenplay for this film was based on a true story - that of playwright Russell Hunter, who was apparently subjected to much weirdness in the Henry Treat Rogers mansion in Colorado - solving a mystery much like Russell does in this film, and uncovering human remains (also a medallion, which has special significance here as well.) I don't know how much of that is actually true, but I won't let my inner skeptic interfere with the tantalising prospect of a "real" ghost story too much. They're fun, but often the fun is wrecked when you find that the facts don't stand up under real scrutiny. The Changeling was a whole lot of fun as well. Added to that - this and 1981 chiller Ghost Story gave old-time performer Melvyn Douglas a last hurrah. So I ended up quite liking this film, and wouldn't say no to watching it again some day. It has the strength of a timeless classic to feel this fresh and be this enjoyable after such a long time.

Glad to catch this one - it won eight inaugural Genie Awards, including Best Motion Picture, and was nominated for two Saturn Awards. Now it also has status as a cult classic.

4

https://i.postimg.cc/FRkLKNmf/change.webp

Watchlist Count : 435 (-15)

Next : Deep End (1970)

Thank you very much to whomever inspired me to watch The Changeling.

Wyldesyde19

07-03-24, 01:11 AM

The Changeling is a very decent film, that was terribly under appreciated when it was first released.

Wooley

07-03-24, 12:25 PM

The Changeling was pretty well-received among my people when I was young. All my friends liked it a lot and it was a movie my mother and I could both get into, which was nice.
Too bad there's no such thing as ghosts. ;)

PHOENIX74

07-05-24, 11:56 PM

https://i.postimg.cc/7YxLm3HR/deep-end-3.webp

DEEP END (1970)

Directed by : Jerzy Skolimowski

Deep End's very first shots is are of something that's unidentifiable and blood red, evocative of something less innocent than the bicycle it's revealed to be - and as Cat Stevens belts out "But I Might Die Tonight" while Mike (John Moulder-Brown) rides this bicycle to his first day on the job at an East London public bath there's an undercurrent of psychological danger I'm picking up on. It's a bold way to put a stamp on a narrative that will now take it's time to develop, but it's fitting all the same. Mike is only 15-years-old, but it's old enough for him to develop an obsessive infatuation with workmate Susan (Jane Asher). Susan is engaged to marry Chris (Christopher Sandford), a wealthy but thoroughly unlikeable Londoner, but is otherwise sexually involved with other men - something that drives Mike mad. As Mike's behaviour becomes more unhinged, he starts to behave more like a stalker than Susan's friend, and Deep End shifts away from workaday antics towards much more emotionally painful, sharp and dangerous waters. It's a shame that some young people don't give themselves more time to develop wisdom before letting their fragile, immature minds get the better of them.

I thought Deep End an extremely well made and powerful film which develops it's narrative at just the right pace, giving us time to really get to know Mike and Susan before gradually turning them towards their fates in this movie. Mike's boyish good looks cause many of the older ladies who visit the public baths to go a bit ga-ga over him, and Susan encourages the shy and inexperienced boy to take advantage of that for the extra tips he's sure to make. At the same time she teases him, and the two develop a kind of playful repartee - something that's probably a first for Mike, and invariably he falls for her. He's open and painfully honest, while Susan is much more hard to read but also a lot more worldly. Throwing Mike into the deep end like this is a recipe for disaster, at least for him, but I think it was a lot more common for 15-year-olds to drop out of school and start their working lives back then. By the time I was in high school, most of us were hanging on because prospects would be dim for those who drop out so early. Mike is so ill-equipped for adult life you kind of think he shouldn't be there to begin with, and the "he shouldn't be"s only increase as this film's running time advances.

Young love can completely consume a young mind, and it will certainly make a young person do the craziest of things. Deep End uses this to take us into a plethora of places that range from the fun, to the hilariously humorous to the tragic, dangerous and horrific. It's exquisite in the way it mines so much from these two characters in it's exploration of the younger/inexperienced and older/experienced dynamic. Ordinarily, if he were older, what Mike does in this film would be extremely creepy, but since he's basically a child it's more a case of him not at all understanding adulthood, and instead I simply saw a kind of childishness and immaturity that at the same time is alarmingly dangerous because now he's interacting in the adult world. That dangerous element develops to a greater and greater degree until the film's fraught climax leaves us breathless. For some reason, the film's very first shots reminded me of George A. Romero's 1977 film Martin, and that comparison might be apt for the film as a whole as well. At least as far as the character's age is concerned, and how dangerous severe psychological aberrations in very young men/boys can be. This was a fine British film, and I can't believe the BFI included Carry on Up the Khyber in it's top 100, but not this movie.

Glad to catch this one - it's in Steven Jay Schneider's 1001 Films You Must See Before You Die, but hasn't been released on Criterion (yet.) It was Jerzy Skolimowski's first English language film after writing Roman Polanski's Knife in the Water (a movie I love.)

4

https://i.postimg.cc/63Hrqjqk/deep-end2.jpg

Watchlist Count : 435 (-15)

Next : Badlands (1973)

Thank you very much to whomever inspired me to watch Deep End.

SpelingError

07-06-24, 12:51 AM

Love Deep End. Skolimowski's EO is also very good.

PHOENIX74

07-08-24, 12:25 AM

https://i.postimg.cc/6Q5Cpk5d/badlands.webp

BADLANDS (1973)

Directed by : Terrence Malick

Watching Badlands was a long time coming, and I have to really wonder what to say about it to avoid simply repeating what's always said - at least when it comes to celebrity and mid-20th Century American malaise. Just a trigger-happy, talkative, charismatic young man, Kit (Martin Sheen) and his 15-year-old girlfriend, Holly (Sissy Spacek), whom he absconds with after killing her father, played by Warren Oates. I've been seeing stuff like this all my life, with Natural Born Killers and True Romance being heavily influenced by this Terrence Malick classic - but the story seems purer and more pared down to it's essentials here. Kit seems to be the most likeable murderer in cinematic history, no matter how abhorrent his crimes are - and they are pretty bad. Many films have their flawed protagonist kill people who are clearly more despicable than they are, but in Badlands Kit kills nice people whose only crime happens to be inadvertently being in Kit's way. Still, Kit approaches life without the hateful misanthropy you'd normally see in a killer. He's no angry young man - he simply doesn't think twice about ending someone's life, like a normal person would. He seems to revel both in the fame this brings him, and the excitement of the chase his killing spree instigates.

Holly may have been lost in Kit's glare a little if it wasn't for her narrating this tale. Although Kit doesn't lose her affections after he kills her father, her feelings towards him are complicated. She's in love, and wants to be with Kit, but life on the run irks her. The killings are rather understated in her mind - she's neither shocked nor infuriated by them, but rather philosophical about her beau's homicidal tendencies. At times I got the impression that Kit was doing all of this because he had an audience in Holly, and was conscious of making an unforgettable impression with regards to her. The craziness she sees in him is an endearing one, and I have to admit that I can understand where she's coming from - it's a rapturous madness that propels him forward to meet his destiny. Although he never says much of real substance, he's a lot of fun to listen to all the same. Kit has all the makings of an American celebrity, and I'd expect that if he'd been born in today's age he'd have become internet famous, and have had a ready waiting audience online. As it is, the two characters are based on two famous killers : Charles Starkweather and his teenage girlfriend Caril Ann Fugate, the former of whom was eventually executed for his crimes.

This was an extremely nice looking, well acted and very well directed first feature from Terrence Malick, whose signature style wouldn't really take shape until his next film, Days of Heaven was made five years after this. If I'd just come across it without knowing who made it, or anything else, I'd probably have been blown away by Badlands - but as it stands I was full well expecting something this good, and as such wasn't all that surprised by it's quality. Not only did it announce the arrival of a great filmmaker in Malick, it was also a huge breakthrough for Martin Sheen, and it was fun seeing him so young and energetic in such a boyish way. You can see he's really giving this his all, and I don't think it was the easiest of roles to get right. He had talent. The exact same goes for Sissy Spacek, who is every bit Sheen's equal and has gone on to continue being his equal throughout her career. I can't be sure, but I think this is probably the only Malick film with only two main characters in it (three if you count Holly's father.) It was really nice seeing the director himself make a cameo as well - the only time he's ever done that. Great movie - enjoyed it a whole lot.

Glad to catch this one - Criterion #651, and it's in Steven Jay Schneider's 1001 Films You Must See Before You Die. Also selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry by the Library of Congress as being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant"

4

https://i.postimg.cc/vmhk5hkJ/badlands2.jpg

Watchlist Count : 435 (-15)

Next : A Royal Affair (2012)

Thank you very much to whomever inspired me to watch Badlands.

SpelingError

07-08-24, 12:29 AM

I should revisit Badlands. Coincidentally, I rewatched Days of Heaven earlier this year and it still held up really well.

Stirchley

07-08-24, 12:42 PM

PHOENIX74

07-10-24, 12:18 AM

https://i.postimg.cc/mZS226vq/a-royal-affair.jpg

A ROYAL AFFAIR (2012)

Directed by : Nikolaj Arcel

A Royal Affair has a bit of a dip into the enlightenment period in Denmark during the late 18th Century, and more specifically King Christian VII (Mikkel Følsgaard), his wife Caroline Matilda (Alicia Vikander) and his doctor, most trusted advisor and friend Johann Friedrich Struensee (Mads Mikkelsen) - a champion of the progressive freedoms, reforms and ideas advanced by enlightenment thinking. That's where all the trouble starts, because those at court who are only interested in maintaining the status quo are some powerful enemies to have, and when Struensee starts giving Caroline some of what she's not getting from the king, they have the perfect excuse to go after him. By this time, Struensee had basically become de facto ruler of Denmark because of the influence he had with Christian VII. Love knows no boundaries, but it was such a silly thing to do - start making the beast with two backs with the Queen of all people. Anybody else but her. The movie seems even more relevant now than it was when released, considering the way progressivism is clashing with right wing regressive policy trends today. The clashes in this film feel all too familiar in today's political climate.

This film was interesting and informative, if a little too cold and clinical without any moments of levity to help ease the tension and dour 18th Century social landscape. Mikkel Følsgaard is excellent as the "mad King" with a penchant for prostitutes and playing like a literal child. Mads Mikkelsen is his usual dependable self - understanding why Christian VII is why he is, and being the only one who can reach him without causing some kind of tantrum from the recalcitrant monarch. Alicia Vikander reminded me a little of Natalie Portman, and a model of noble restraint, in spite of the King's cruelty. David Dencik and Trine Dyrholm are delightfully hateable as the religious, regressive statesman Ove Høegh-Guldberg and former Queen Juliana Maria respectively. If there's any complaint to make with those two, it's the way their villainy makes them a little one-dimensional. As you'd pretty much expect, the costumes are amazing and must have cost a fortune. The period elements are very satisfactory, and include a torture device called the wooden horse that I'd never seen before, and early inoculations for smallpox (which, to the religious skeptics, was rumoured to turn those who dare use it into cows! Vaccine skepticism and bizarre idiocy is nothing new.)

So, I was quite pleased to skim through this period in Danish history and see so much of it actually lining up with what's in this film. It gives the narrative some extra power - which it really needs in order to justify it's very straight and grounded mood. Apparently the locations used were mainly in the Czech Republic, and I can't for the life of me understand why it wasn't actually filmed in Denmark (other than the fact that this was partly a Czech Republic production.) Perhaps the old palaces and locations no longer exist in Denmark, or are too hard to get permission to film in and around. Anyway, I absolutely love mad Kings and Emperors - my favourite being John Hurt's take on Caligula in that classic series I Claudius (one of the greatest things I've ever watched.) I really liked how there was a complexity to Christian VII and why he was the way he was. Stunted and child-like, it was advantageous to keep him that way for the powerbrokers who could ride roughshod over him, and the King's frustration would make him lash out in unpredictable and strange ways. If you like historical period films, this is probably essential watching - a tragic tale about the dangerous path reformers sometimes must tread, and how what we're going through at this moment in history has it's echoes in the past.

Glad to catch this one - nominated for an Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film in 2013, and a Golden Globe in the same category. Also winner of two Silver Bears at the 62nd Berlin International Film Festival.

3.5

https://i.postimg.cc/xdXRMCMJ/a-royal-affair-2.jpg

Watchlist Count : 434 (-16)

Next : The Handmaiden (2016)

Thank you very much to whomever inspired me to watch A Royal Affair

PHOENIX74

07-11-24, 12:49 AM

https://i.postimg.cc/xdm1f3w1/the-handmaiden.webp

THE HANDMAIDEN (2016)

Directed by : Park Chan-wook

Well, that sure was spicy. There's a lot to unpack regarding The Handmaiden, but I have to say that the most unforgettable impression it leaves is due to it's erotic love scenes between Japanese heiress Izumi Hideko (Kim Min-hee) and thief/pickpocket/fake maid Nam Sook-hee (Kim Tae-ri). They're so well conceptualized - for example, one takes place while Sook-hee has her finger in Hideko's mouth and is lovingly filing down a sharp tooth she has. There is a lot of intimacy shared between a maid and her mistress as per the job description - but when there is desire between them, the sparks will no doubt cause a mighty conflagration. The story this takes place in, though, is one where forger and con-man "Count" Fujiwara (Ha Jung-woo) is using Sook-hee to help lure Hideko into marriage so he can have her committed to a mad-house and steal her inheritance. Is everything that straight-forward? Of course not, but to say anything else would ruin the many surprises a first-time watcher will get. Rounding out the cast of characters is naughty book collector Uncle Kouzuki (Cho Jin-woong), who plans to marry Hideko himself, despite being related to her.

Thirteen years on from his breakout masterpiece Oldboy, it seems like Park Chan-wook is smashing the old ten-year rule as per filmmakers being at their peak, and delivers a majestic, beautiful and at times painful and shocking film in The Handmaiden. Obviously he has a lot to work with here, but considering the fact that he co-wrote the screenplay as well, it's quite a feat. He also backed that up once again in '22 with Decision to Leave - not to mention leaving a great impression on me with Joint Security Area, his first big cinematic venture which came out in 2000. South Korean cinema at it's finest. The only problem I had with this film (and it's a tiny problem, hardly worth mentioning) is that it races through it's set-up (I had the same problem with Ari Aster's Midsommar.) The whole story is set in motion via a single flashback monologue by Fujiwara, and I remember debating with myself whether I should go back and listen to it a second time to make sure I have what's going on straight in my mind. In the end I could follow the story well enough regardless, so it's a really minor quibble. This is an excellent movie, and I'm agreeable enough with us not wasting too much time setting everything up.

So, The Handmaiden is definitely one to watch multiple times (I confess to starting the film all over again after I finished watching it, both because I liked it so much and to see what it was like to experience it while knowing how the story plays out.) It had been in my peripheral vision ever since it came out, but now that I'm knuckling down on actually watching all the films on my watchlist I've finally caught up with it, and I was not at all disappointed. The cinematography and art direction are first-class, and the production design also wonderful - but what's best is that they play support to a great story (based on British crime novel 'Fingersmith' by Sarah Waters, which has been transposed to 1930s Japanese occupied Korea.) I don't know how Park Chan-wook arrived at the conclusion "I must direct an adaptation of Fingersmith," but I'm glad he got there somehow. Ably assisted by four great South Korean thespians, and a dab hand at directing lesbian erotica, he's given us film lovers another great addition to our libraries and put himself on the map as another Kubrick, Hitchcock or Spielberg - ie, a filmmaker whose quality career output extends beyond that of your average, everyday movie-maker.

Glad to catch this one - in Steven Jay Schneider's 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die, and competed for the Palme d'Or at the 2016 Cannes Film Festival. It also won the BAFTA for Best Foreign Language Film in 2018.

4.5

https://i.postimg.cc/k4Y1nQ94/the-handmaiden-2.jpg

Watchlist Count : 433 (-17)

Next : Overlord (1975)

Thank you very much to whomever inspired me to watch The Handmaiden

Takoma11

07-11-24, 10:26 AM

While undeniably sexy, I also thought that The Handmaiden was very funny at times.

AgrippinaX

07-11-24, 10:40 AM

While undeniably sexy, I also thought that The Handmaiden was very funny at times.

In what ways?

crumbsroom

07-11-24, 10:42 AM

Deep End is very much on my list of greatest overlooked films of all time.

FilmBuff

07-11-24, 10:52 AM

Glad to catch this one - in Steven Jay Schneider's 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die, and competed for the Palme d'Or at the 2016 Cannes Film Festival. It also won the BAFTA for Best Foreign Language Film in 2018.

4.5

The Handmaiden is a pretty great film, but if you really want to enjoy it to the max, you should watch the more explicit uncensored version, which runs 169 minutes. Most people end up watching the edited theatrical release version (144 minutes).

AgrippinaX

07-11-24, 11:07 AM

The Handmaiden is a pretty great film, but if you really want to enjoy it to the max, you should watch the more explicit uncensored version, which runs 169 minutes. Most people end up watching the edited theatrical release version (144 minutes).

I would agree.

Takoma11

07-11-24, 11:09 AM

In what ways?

The totally overwraught part with the suicide attempt was just very funny to me.

I also think (hope) that there was some self-awareness about the absurdity of some of the lesbian content, like "the bells".

But it's also been many years since I watched the movie, so I'd have to give it another spin to see if the tone and content were the way I'm remembering them.

AgrippinaX

07-11-24, 11:19 AM

The totally overwraught part with the suicide attempt was just very funny to me.

I also think (hope) that there was some self-awareness about the absurdity of some of the lesbian content, like "the bells".

But it's also been many years since I watched the movie, so I'd have to give it another spin to see if the tone and content were the way I'm remembering them.

Boy, am I glad that you’re back here! I went through a split second of, Dare I Google ‘the bells’? and am now laughing. I… do not even recall a suicide attempt in that film, which sounds terrible? But yeah, I saw it maybe three times when it came out, my entire family loved it (which has its own hilarity to it), but I don’t remember a suicide attempt. I do remember the sex scene everyone was talking about. I mean, I don’t know how much self-awareness you can expect from something that’s pure male gaze. I think for me, I don’t tend to like most lesbian films for a large host of reasons, but I did like that one. It was kind of appropriately outlandish and thrillery and ‘cute’ (odd as that sounds) all at once.

Takoma11

07-11-24, 12:33 PM

Boy, am I glad that you’re back here! I went through a split second of, Dare I Google ‘the bells’? and am now laughing. I… do not even recall a suicide attempt in that film, which sounds terrible? But yeah, I saw it maybe three times when it came out, my entire family loved it (which has its own hilarity to it), but I don’t remember a suicide attempt. I do remember the sex scene everyone was talking about. I mean, I don’t know how much self-awareness you can expect from something that’s pure male gaze. I think for me, I don’t tend to like most lesbian films for a large host of reasons, but I did like that one. It was kind of appropriately outlandish and thrillery and ‘cute’ (odd as that sounds) all at once.

So unless I'm confusing this with another film, there's a part where one of them is trying to hang herself from a tree and the other one is trying to stop her/save her, and I just remember cackling. Maybe I'm thinking of a different movie and/or maybe I'm a terrible person.

I also think that the film does capture some real erotic fire (like the frequently cited scene in the bathtub), but I also definitely feel like there were some moments that just scream "we didn't actually talk to any lesbians about this." Like, I'm just picturing some guy trying to come up with a sexy idea for lesbian sex and going "What if they put bells in their vaginas and just, like, smashed them together?!" and all the men in the room clapping. (Various internet trivia assures me that they consulted at least one queer woman about "lesbian sensibilities", but that does not change the logistical absurdity of the act, nor the performance-over-pleasure implications of it). And to be very clear: I find the ridiculous elements of this film endearing, sexual acts that are "performance" can be a mental turn-on even if the physical element is lacking, etc.

The pan away from the ferry in that last shot and then we hear *CLANG CLANG* sent me cackling again into the closing credits.

AgrippinaX

07-11-24, 12:40 PM

So unless I'm confusing this with another film, there's a part where one of them is trying to hang herself from a tree and the other one is trying to stop her/save her, and I just remember cackling. Maybe I'm thinking of a different movie and/or maybe I'm a terrible person.

Ah, yes. Right you are. That scene was so absurd (and out of place!) that it seems to have been wiped from my mind altogether. That being said, I would have also maybe called it (aiming at, if not quite succeeding at) ‘cute’?

I also think that the film does capture some real erotic fire (like the frequently cited scene in the bathtub), but I also definitely feel like there were some moments that just scream "we didn't actually talk to any lesbians about this." Like, I'm just picturing some guy trying to come up with a sexy idea for lesbian sex and going "What if they put bells in their vaginas and just, like, smashed them together?!" and all the men in the room clapping. (Various internet trivia assures me that they consulted at least one queer woman about "lesbian sensibilities", but that does not change the logistical absurdity of the act, nor the performance-over-pleasure implications of it). And to be very clear: I find the ridiculous elements of this film endearing, sexual acts that are "performance" can be a mental turn-on even if the physical element is lacking, etc.

Oh, I fully agree with you. That’s what I meant by saying it’s very male gaze.

The pan away from the ferry in that last shot and then we hear *CLANG CLANG* sent me cackling again into the closing credits.

PHOENIX74

07-11-24, 11:21 PM

So unless I'm confusing this with another film, there's a part where one of them is trying to hang herself from a tree and the other one is trying to stop her/save her, and I just remember cackling. Maybe I'm thinking of a different movie and/or maybe I'm a terrible person.

Yes, there's a moment during that scene when...

Sook-hee is holding Lady Hideko aloft so as to save her, but when she finds out that Fujiwara has double-crossed her she gets into such a rage that she drops Hideko and she strangles as Sook-hee curses and shouts in anger.

The Handmaiden is a pretty great film, but if you really want to enjoy it to the max, you should watch the more explicit uncensored version, which runs 169 minutes. Most people end up watching the edited theatrical release version (144 minutes).

You probably can't hear me from wherever you are, but right at this moment I'm screaming profanities at not having watched the longer version (not knowing beforehand it existed.) At least it gives me an excuse to watch the film again, which it looks like I'll be doing in the not too distant future. Thanks for alerting me.

Takoma11

07-12-24, 12:05 AM

Yes, there's a moment during that scene when...

Sook-hee is holding Lady Hideko aloft so as to save her, but when she finds out that Fujiwara has double-crossed her she gets into such a rage that she drops Hideko and she strangles as Sook-hee curses and shouts in anger..

Yes! LOL.

PHOENIX74

07-12-24, 12:49 AM

https://i.postimg.cc/L4k3zzH5/overlord.jpg

OVERLORD (1975)

Directed by : Stuart Cooper

Pan across the faces of soldiers waiting in a landing craft during an amphibious invasion these days, and I see boys - reminiscent of the "children's crusade" I first heard mentioned in a Kurt Vonnegut novel. Thomas Beddows (Brian Stirner) is not quite a boy, but not quite a man - he lives with his parents, and the love of his life happens to be the family Cocker Spaniel. Overlord is about Tom's journey from his front door, through basic training, and onwards to his appointment with destiny as Europe in the meantime is engulfed in flames during the Second World War. It's not your usual war film though, as around half of the footage we see is real, and was selected by filmmaker Stuart Cooper from the three thousand hours of footage he's said to have viewed in preparation for the making of this film. (Twenty-thousand feet of film are stored at the Imperial War Museum in London.) What's most surprising is how seamless the effect is - I was actually lulled during moments of the movie into a state where I wasn't quite sure where the more contemporary stuff ended and the WWII stuff began. To help with this effect, cinematographer John Alcott (of Kubrick film fame) used German lenses which had the right black and white look to achieve the right kind of balance.

We might expect Overlord to become a little impersonal, like many war documentaries are, but the narrative focus on Tom throughout really provides us with a human being at the center of the humungous military machine he's now a part of. Tom's story is what makes this a worthwhile endeavour because on some level an understanding is reached that there were millions upon millions of Toms, and our emotional connection with him brings the tragic nature of war into sharp focus - something that often fails to happen in movies dealing with war itself. The stock footage on the other hand gives us a sense of scale, organisation, ingenuity, effort and raw industrial output - the other side of war, which is often focused on to the exclusion of humanity, lest we lose enthusiasm for whichever war effort our country needs us to get behind. It's an interesting juxtaposition that gives Overlord a two-pronged effect, and it's all aided with a rather artistic, non-linear, dream-like approach to filmmaking, editing and storytelling. During Tom's journey he often dreams of his own death, and thus we see and share his anxieties, which he eventually simply comes to accept and be at peace with. Having watched him fall in love and start becoming an adult, we sure aren't at peace with this boy being killed - as we fear he will be.

Amazing to think that this came out in the mid-70s (it's easy to forget that while watching it, especially considering the way it's filmed - with the archival footage blending in so well with what was shot.) During this time anti-war feeling was at it's peak due to the conflict in Vietnam, and Overlord adds to the appreciation of how wasteful and terribly appalling modern warfare is, and how innocent young lives get chewed up by the monstrously gigantic machinery set in motion on an industrial scale. If we were to take a day to consider each soldier that died in World War II, we'd be spending around 55,000 years counting the cost, and if we were to spend a day considering each person, it would be nearly 165,000 years. Overlord gets us in touch with one such person, over the course of only 84 minutes. That's enough to make it hurt a little, and while we get to know him we see that in the meantime bombs continue to fall, cities burn, and civilians are captured on camera as charred remains - all someone's mother, daughter, son or father. Overlord is overdue some recognition and it's set to claim a place amongst the pantheon of great war films out there, the best of which are the likes of Paths of Glory, All Quiet on the Western Front, Come and See and The Cranes Are Flying.

Glad to catch this one - Criterion #382. It won the Silver Bear - Special Jury Prize at the 25th Berlin International Film Festival.

4

https://i.postimg.cc/DZb95JRz/overlord2.jpg

Watchlist Count : 433 (-17)

Next : Gifted (2017)

Thank you very much to whomever inspired me to watch Overlord

Takoma11

07-12-24, 12:59 AM

Just added Overlord to my Criterion Channel watchlist this morning!

My watchlist is definitely moving in the wrong direction, lol.

crumbsroom

07-12-24, 01:03 AM

I love Overlord too!

crumbsroom

07-12-24, 01:09 AM

Wyldesyde19

07-12-24, 01:33 AM

I….don’t think I have heard of this? yeah, Overlord doesn’t look familiar, so I’ll just have to throw it onto the watchlist as well.
I’m not even familiar with the director

pahaK

07-12-24, 01:55 AM

Oh, and The Changeling is about as good as haunted house movies get. No frills, just a house a ghost a mystery and a deep penetrating sadness. Understands the basics.

It's totally up there with The Innocents and The Haunting.

I'd say it's quite a bit above those two. Especially The Haunting, which I watched just a couple of days ago, was truly disappointing in its mediocrity.

AgrippinaX

07-12-24, 05:14 AM

You probably can't hear me from wherever you are, but right at this moment I'm screaming profanities at not having watched the longer version (not knowing beforehand it existed.) At least it gives me an excuse to watch the film again, which it looks like I'll be doing in the not too distant future. Thanks for alerting me.

It shall be worth your while, though, I think.

AgrippinaX

07-12-24, 05:15 AM

I love Overlord too!

Wyldesyde19, I also really liked Overlord, think you might enjoy it.

PHOENIX74

07-13-24, 12:31 AM

https://i.postimg.cc/qMfW4DjB/gifted-3.jpg

GIFTED (2017)

Directed by : Marc Webb

Some stories will be told over and over, and Gifted is the one where a child prodigy, Mary Adler (Mckenna Grace), is involved in a tug of war between an uncle, Frank (Chris Evans), who wants her to have a childhood, and a grandmother, Evelyn (Lindsay Duncan), who wants her to be a great mathematician. The best weapon in it's arsenal is the cuteness and charisma of young Mckenna Grace, who lights up the screen and seems to be an acting prodigy herself. She steals the attention away from Chris Evans, and makes him seem rather dull in comparison. In fact, she makes everything else about Gifted seem a little dull - there's not that much more to it, other than a half-hearted attempt at a relationship side-plot between Frank and Mary's first grade teacher Bonnie Stevenson (Jenny Slate). It does do well at delineating the opposing sides, with Evelyn's blinkered focus on Mary picking up where her mother left off, even though her mother committed suicide before leaving her child in the hands of Uncle Frank. You see, Mary's mother was also a maths prodigy, as was her grandmother. It's this unhealthy, obsessive quest for maths greatness that drives Frank in his efforts to provide some healthy normality for this young child.

Gifted never quite did enough to make me care about anything other than Evelyn not getting her way, and Fred the cat being saved from getting euthanized. I thought the screenplay could have done with a little more work, and the crux of the film - the relationship between Mary and Frank - never seems to really gain traction and become something I buy into. In other words, the chemistry between these two leads is a little lacking. Even neighbour Roberta Taylor (Octavia Spencer) seems to share more closeness with Mary. Some of this could possibly be down to Chris Evans not being suited to the material. He can play a noble hero, but emotionally I can't see much going on inside of the man. Amazingly, it's 9-year-old Mckenna Grace (already a seasoned pro) that fills the void left open and absolutely sparkles at every moment. She's completely believable as a maths prodigy, and hits every emotional mark she's aiming for, whether it be anger, excitement, frustration, joy or worry. In such a hackneyed excursion, her charisma is a much needed tonic to the predictability and straightforward plod of the narrative. It's a child performance up there with Abby Ryder Fortson's in Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret.

Gifted asks all of the stock-standard questions regarding prodigies, and how there's no really easy fit for them in a world with societal systems structured for the average, everyday kid. There are no really easy answers, but this film sides with giving them the birthright of a childhood that is fun, social and loving - and not pressing them hard in the hopes that they do extraordinary things with their lives. In other words, what's pretty much self-evident. Be kind, and be generous - we all have the right to lead happy, healthy lives. If I were to complain, I'd feel like a bit of a film snob - but there's nothing overly original about it. The courtroom drama we get is brief, but engaging enough. The Cat Stevens musical montage number might have had me rolling my eyes, but it's Cat Stevens, so I didn't even mind that. "The Wind" is great, and I'd gladly watch any montage accompanied to Yusuf Islam's songs. For me this was a mixed bag overall, but I'd say in my final estimation that it's worth watching for what it has at it's core - the adorable little Mckenna Grace playing an impossibly precious and darling girl, and giving such a memorable child performance.

Glad to catch this one - 73% on Rotten Tomatoes and 7.6/10 on the IMDb. Reviews were mixed, but audiences polled by CinemaScore gave the film an A/A+. I guess it's a crowd-pleaser.

3

https://i.postimg.cc/DfBcZgVG/gifted-4.jpg

Watchlist Count : 433 (-17)

Next : The Turin Horse (2011)

Thank you to whomever inspired me to watch Gifted

Takoma11

07-13-24, 12:51 PM

PHOENIX74

07-13-24, 11:05 PM

I looooooooved Gifted. (REVIEW HERE (https://www.movieforums.com/reviews/2239544-gifted.html)).

No, it's nothing original, but I loved the whole cast, and I liked its take on the plight of children with exceptionalities.

Also, in featuring someone who is good at math and rescues cats in need, the movie basically crafted my perfect human, so it has that going for it.

It's interesting that you said you didn't think Evans fit the film. To me, he, Jenny Slate, and Octavia Spencer are all actors who have what I think of as "natural depth". Like, I always just buy that they have stuff going on inside, even when the writing isn't stellar. And the child performance was, as you noted, really good.

Something I really agreed with in your review was how refreshing it felt to have a child character actually behave and communicate like a child, and not a pint-sized adult - so many screenplays seem to veer towards the latter. I adored Mary (as you probably gathered from my review) - Chris Evans is such a superhuman, handsome, stoic, strong-willed and perfect protagonist acting as Mary's uncle, and I find it so hard to see past that and find the human being inside.

PHOENIX74

07-14-24, 12:31 AM

https://i.postimg.cc/0QNXbh7H/the-turin-horse.webp

THE TURIN HORSE (2011)

Directed by : Béla Tarr

The Turin Horse profoundly disturbed me, and left me with two distinctly diverging feelings. Firstly I felt a kind of awe at what I found to be a particularly great work of cinematic art, and secondly there was a brooding sense of doom, both personal and all-encompassing. There's also a little bit of a call-back to a movie I watched not so long ago - Jeanne Dielman, 23 quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles, because here again we have a film which focuses on drawn-out scenes featuring daily chores and household tasks. Any lover of Theodoros Angelopoulos will be appreciative of the way Béla Tarr has organised these moments into extraordinarily long unedited takes (only 30 takes encompass this 155-minute film.) There are two characters in it for the long haul with us - a coach driver, Ohlsdorger (János Derzsi) and his daughter (Erika Bók). At first I thought it was set in the 19th Century, because the film starts with a recounting of Friedrich Nietzsche's final years in Turin, and how his witnessing the flogging of a horse precipitated a mental breakdown. The events in the film however cause one to doubt when and where these events are happening.

Knowing nothing about this film, I at first found it hard to grasp at what it was trying to express - but as Ohlsdorger and his daughter go through their daily routine, little packets of information inform the viewer of what's happening in the world outside. We find out what's normal, and what's not - all the while visitors to the property bring disturbing news of happenings further away. Ohlsdorger's horse refuses to pull his cart or move at all, and eventually refuses to eat or drink, fretting about something internal or external. The movie counts off 6 days, each one a little more worrying and omen-infused than the last. Everything becomes more difficult as a permanent gale-force wind pounds the Ohlsdorger property, but the strong-willed father and daughter carry on as if there's nothing amiss. In the meantime we're treated to some first class black and white cinematography, and we're given the opportunity to sit back and soak in the atmosphere and general tone of the piece. Eventually everything seems to make more sense, but at the same time we slip into something that feels nightmarish and unreal. Almost biblical. By the time I'd finished I felt like I'd been through a meditation on death, decay and disaster - and a disquieting sense of unease crept through my entire being. Is this what the end feels like?

Be warned, The Turin Horse is a cold film, but it's powerful message speaks to something essential in the human spirit - an acknowledgement of a basic, fundamental part of life itself. It relates to our needs and our relationship with the world, both spiritually and elementarily. It does this with simplicity, but there's nothing simple about the way this film is staged, or filmed - as a whole it's a staggering achievement which shook me to my core. In my much younger years, I probably would have complained that nothing happens in this movie, but today my aesthetic appreciation and my eventual comprehension instead made this a film I'm never likely to forget. In fact, I'm very much looking forward to watching this again, because I can imagine everything being a lot more powerful knowing from the start where this is heading. Never has a simple trip to the well to fetch water felt more compelling, dramatic, dynamic and potent. Never has a strong breeze felt as laden with dark foreboding. That horse though - that sad, whipped, scarred, downcast horse was what my heart bled for. The Turin Horse was quite noble in giving the mistreatment of a horse such a significant role to play in such a cataclysmic drama. I thought it a flat-out masterpiece, and one of the best films I've sat and watched this year. I ought to finally get to seeing Werckmeister Harmonies.

Glad to catch this one - Won the Jury Grand Prix Silver Bear at the 61st Berlin International Film Festival, where it premiered. In BBC's 2016 poll of the greatest films since 2000, The Turin Horse ranked sixty-third.

5

https://i.postimg.cc/gkpT6Gfr/the-turin-horse-2.jpg

Watchlist Count : 432 (-18)

Next : The Visitor (2007)

Thank you very much to whomever inspired me to watch The Turin Horse

crumbsroom

07-14-24, 01:27 AM

I'm pretty sure Turin Horse is my favorite Tarr.

Takoma11

07-14-24, 03:40 PM

Something I really agreed with in your review was how refreshing it felt to have a child character actually behave and communicate like a child, and not a pint-sized adult - so many screenplays seem to veer towards the latter. I adored Mary (as you probably gathered from my review) - Chris Evans is such a superhuman, handsome, stoic, strong-willed and perfect protagonist acting as Mary's uncle, and I find it so hard to see past that and find the human being inside.

I felt like his humanity comes through in any scene where he talks about what happened to his sister.

I guess in a film like this, I don't mind if he's a bit of a Mary Sue. Yes, Chris, use those strong arms to rescue all those cats, you handsome empathetic soul, you!

SpelingError

07-14-24, 06:15 PM

I'd probably rank The Turin Horse at the top of Tarr's filmography as well. If you love his style, you should check out the short film Szel. It's incredible.

Takoma11

07-14-24, 09:41 PM

I thought The Turin Horse was fantastic. (Review HERE (https://www.movieforums.com/reviews/2357964-the_turin_horse.html)).

It's one that I keep an eye out for in case it ever has another theatrical run for some reason.

(And something I want to add: horses are, for the most part, notorious people pleasers. They will literally walk or run themselves to death. For a horse to stop is something else, and I think that the horses who stop in this film---both in the framing story and in the story that is the core of the movie---are very interesting omens.)

PHOENIX74

07-15-24, 12:38 AM

https://i.postimg.cc/QdY0NkBZ/the-visitor.jpg

THE VISITOR (2007)

Directed by : Tom McCarthy

I didn't think I was going to like The Visitor all that much when it started, but by the time it finished the film's overall quality and authentic feel was undeniable. It's not often a drama manages to really capture something true-to-life about how people relate to each other that's so very believable, and specifically here what it might be like for an older, introverted intellectual to connect, by chance, with young immigrants. This older man is Walter Vale (Richard Jenkins), a widowed economics professor sleepwalking through life, disinterested in everything apart from his efforts to learn piano. Tellingly, this was his late wife's occupation. Walter wards off friendship and human contact, but when a young Syrian man, Tarek (Haaz Sleiman) and his Senegalese partner Zainab (Danai Gurira) are conned into renting out Walter's apartment in New York, he feels obliged to help them out by letting them stay. From that moment on, as a connection begins to form between Tarek and Walter, long dormant parts of his personality and passion start to come to life. Tarek teaches him how to play the djembe (a type of drum), but a chance encounter with subway security lands Walter's new friend in immigration detention, and as he fights for this young man's right to stay in the U.S., a further bond is made with Tarek's mother, Mouna (Hiam Abbass). The highs come with lows, but for the first time in a long time, Walter actually feels a part of the world again, expressing himself verbally and musically.

While the focus of this film is Walter, the shadow of 9/11 and Middle Eastern immigration hangs over this film - when an illegal immigrant is caught, it seems that many of their human rights no longer exist. Here in Australia, things are even worse - I'd love to talk about that, but it would be too much of a digression from this review. What's most heart-rending in The Visitor is how powerless Walter is to help his new friend, and when he becomes especially close Mouna, that impotency feels even more tragic. We do feel his passion being reignited though, and this Richard Jenkins performance is something I obviously have to mention here - it's a standout, phenomenal turn that deserves all of the plaudits it received. Jenkins has to make believable the man's awkwardness, introverted personality, sadness and numbness - but eventually transform, to a degree, while still maintaining the character's core make-up. If this wasn't filmed sequentially (and most films aren't), then this had to have been a particular challenge. I never saw the actor while watching The Visitor, only Walter Vale, and as such much of this film's success and watchability is down to this man. As I mentioned earlier, everything we see in this movie feels true to life, and, contrary to expectations, nothing seemed particularly contrived.

Life is full of chance, life-altering encounters. It's amazing to sit back and think "If I hadn't of been at such-and-such a place at this particular moment, and met this person, my entire life would have turned out differently." There's a moment in The Visitor when Tarek and Zainab are leaving Walter's apartment, and he's doing nothing to offer them a place to stay until they organise alternate accommodation. On the one hand I know he must eventually, but that can't stop me from pushing the character in my mind to do it as he sits, blankly, and lets them leave. I liked that there were painfully awkward moments - Walter's small talk with Zainab, Tarek's habit of practicing drums with no pants on (and the "don't worry, I'll keep my pants on!" joke Walter shares with Zainab that goes down like a lead balloon.) The New Yorker's interaction with Zainab at her custom jewelry stand, which is kind but has an underlying racist tone to it. There's always an appreciation as to how tough it was (and is) being of Middle Eastern origin and living in New York post-2001. This was a wonderfully grounded movie, and when it comes to transformations it keeps itself on the level and well within the bounds of reason while still being inspirational - with a mix of feel-good and sad in very balanced proportion. It outweighed my expectations considerably.

Glad to catch this one - Richard Jenkins scored a Best Actor Oscar nomination for his role as Walter Vale (Sean Penn ended up winning for playing Harvey Milk in Milk.) Director McCarthy won the 2008 Independent Spirit Award for Best Director.

4

https://i.postimg.cc/8zv8RMkg/the-visitor2.jpg

Watchlist Count : 431 (-19)

Next : The Queen of Spades (1949)

Thank you very much to whomever inspired me to watch The Visitor

xSookieStackhouse

07-15-24, 03:40 AM

https://i.postimg.cc/zfFrfZyC/mad-god.jpg

MAD GOD (2021)

Directed by : Phil Tippett

I marvel at what I can hardly describe. A stop-motion "world" - or perhaps "hell" would be a more accurate description, although I doubt hell would be this much fun to watch. Phil Tippet's project - which had it's genesis 30 years ago and finally came to fruition thanks to the likes of Kickstarter (for shame, but thank goodness) - was worth the wait. A maelstrom of monsters and creatures fallen prey to the likes of mad scientists, sadistic madmen and a dimension full of fire and fury. This world has all of the bad, and none of the good - but is a pure joy to watch. At one stage the character we follow through the first portion of this film steps on a trio of bickering tiny gnome-like creatures (was one of them Santa Claus?) which manages to ease much building apprehension. This isn't misery porn - it's a celebration of pure invention and wonderful creative spirit. It's stop-motion at it's very best, and while dark there's no malice or ill-will involved here. There seems to be a natural order to this very unnatural place.

So, is there a story? Not quite. There's a progression, for sure, but this film is too surreal to describe in any narrative sense. There's as much sense to things as your imagination provides, even for the journey of the redoubtable "assassin" who makes his way through the dangerous levels of this ultimate dystopia. What I loved were the monsters themselves, created by hand and brought to life through stop-motion. The imagination here is on an inspired level, and it's not only what the monsters look like, but what they do and the way they do it - which is invariably horrible, and earns the film's tag as horror. What they do and what we see isn't always logical, but purely surreal and adds to the psychological impact of the place as a whole. There's so much here as well - Mad God is another one of those films I'm going to have to see multiple times, and I'm very much enthused about that.

I can remember reading about Mad God now, when it first came out - and that just goes to show how valuable a watchlist is for keeping in touch with films you hear about and grab your attention. If not for it being on my list, it would have never come up again in my mind - and that would have been a real shame. A subconscious trawl through a dreamscape featuring war, torture, experimentation and one which makes references to God's warning of fire, brimstone and vengeance in Leviticus, you'll find a panacea encoded in our universe's natural tendency for regeneration and creation. It's the driving force of everything (just think of Darren Aronofsky's Mother!) Around the time Phil Tippett won an Oscar for his effects work on Jurassic Park, he figured the days of stop-motion were long over. If this is a clue, it might be around for quite a while yet - there's no surprise to learn that I like it more than CGI.

Glad to catch this one - available to anyone who's currently subscribing to Shudder!

4

https://i.postimg.cc/zD7VnkrF/mad-god2.jpg

Watchlist Count : 450

Next : Funeral Parade of Roses (1969)

Thank you very much to whomever inspired me to watch Mad God

reminds me of the 80s and 70s poster

Takoma11

07-15-24, 10:45 AM

THE VISITOR (2007)

While the focus of this film is Walter, the shadow of 9/11 and Middle Eastern immigration hangs over this film - when an illegal immigrant is caught, it seems that many of their human rights no longer exist. Here in Australia, things are even worse - I'd love to talk about that, but it would be too much of a digression from this review. What's most heart-rending in The Visitor is how powerless Walter is to help his new friend, and when he becomes especially close Mouna, that impotency feels even more tragic.

The way that immigrants in particular are treated by government bureaucracy is maddening. I think that the film does a good job of capturing Walter's surprise and dismay at the way that those wheels start turning and nothing can be done to stop them.

You're watching a lot of things that I've watched in the last year or two! Here (https://www.movieforums.com/reviews/2361581-the_visitor.html)'s my review of The Visitor.

crumbsroom

07-15-24, 10:56 AM

For an anecdote about The Turin Horse, and the supposed impenetrability of these kind of films, a couple of years ago my grandmother talked about coming across some movie about a horse and two people in a shack and a lot of potato peeling. My grandmother has always been hesitant towards these kinds of films, and being that she's almost a hundred, has been virtually unable to watch any one thing for more than a few minutes at a time without losing interest and staring out the window

But this was the first movie in awhile she not only watched the vast majority of (possibly all of it), but that she talked about repeatedly. A part of her seemed dubious about such a minimalist kind of film, but this was also apparently what left the strongest impression on her. "Have you seen that movie with the potatos", even briefly became somewhat of a catchphrase of hers whenever anyone new came to visit.

In short, this all goes back to previous discussions about these things where there is this belief that these movies need to be unpacked intellectually, and they have to be entirely understood to have an impact. But the truth is, they really are about as direct a cinematic experience as you can get. And while there is nothing bad about trying to find deeper meaning in them, sometimes just the experience of watching is all that it required.

And, also, as an aside, Tarrs earlier neo realist work gets constantly overlooked beneath the shadow of all his other colossus films (Harmonies, Satantango, Turin). They shouldn't be. In some ways, I prefer them.

Stirchley

07-15-24, 12:32 PM

Stirchley

07-15-24, 12:34 PM

PHOENIX74

07-17-24, 01:01 AM

https://i.postimg.cc/v81TSFjg/the-queen-of-spades.jpg

THE QUEEN OF SPADES (1949)

Directed by : Thorold Dickinson

Alexander Pushkin's short story The Queen of Spades lives on in a variety of cinematic adaptations (along with radio plays, and operas), but as far at the English-speaking world is concerned, Anatole de Grunwald's British screen version, directed by Thorold Dickinson, is the one to watch. I had no idea as to how the plot would develop, but to sum it up in one brief moment, it's about selling your soul to win at cards - and one Russian officer's (Captain Herman Suvorin - played by Anton Walbrook) quest to pry the supernatural formula from an old woman, Countess Ranevskaya (Edith Evans). It's an evil plan made all the worse by the fact that he seduces Ranevskaya's innocent young ward, Lizavetta Ivanova (Yvonne Mitchell) to get close to the crusty, mean, cruel and very elderly secret-hoarder. Not everything goes as planned though, and supernatural elements come into play that make The Queen of Spades a spooky, kind of haunting film with an absolutely brilliant final act. I loved the way we get to see Suvorin throw all pretenses at civility, dignity and morality aside as he desperately tries to make his plan work - even when it has seemingly slipped from his grasp. When you're really close to realising a goal that will make you supremely rich and powerful, madness takes a hold.

All of the Russian gamblers in The Queen of Spades play a card game known as "Faro", but when I read about how Faro is played it seemingly has nothing to do with the simplistic "Snap" version played in this film. Perhaps this was done on purpose to make sure everyone following the story knew exactly what was happening as they watched the games in progress. Basically your card has to match the dealer's as each card is drawn - one card called out as "I win" and the next "you win" and so on until a match is made, the winner or loser depending on which side of the equation it landed on. That becomes especially crucial at the end of the film. Suvorin, in the meantime, is such a fun villain/anti-hero. Once he gains access to Ranevskaya's mansion he starts to forget himself, and becomes wide-eyed, desperate and openly contemptuous of everyone and everything that can't help him either get what he wants, or help rescue him from trouble he's in once he's in too deep. There's one scene where he steals into Ivanova's room and with a complete lack of empathy or regard, just blurts out his secret plan, along with how it's going awry and the fact that he needs an escape route. Ivanova, in the meantime, has to deal with a multitude of devastating facts, including the realisation that the man she loves doesn't really love her, and the truth about her being used in the meantime.

I have to say, when summing everything in this film up, that my favourite aspect was the supernatural one - especially one moment where Suvorin approaches a coffin during a funeral, only for the corpse to open their eyes and look right at him. It made Suvorin jump - and I'm pretty sure the audience as well. What's also great though, is that the film (and story) gives us a choice - is this all only in Suverin's mind? It could be. Also memorable was the performance from Edith Evans, who was in her 60s, but playing a character in her 100s - a cruel one who is nonetheless haunted by the supposed deal she made with dark forces while young, and terrified by the sudden appearance of Suvorin in her bedchamber one night. But of course, it's Anton Walbrook's movie - he puts in a very well-rounded, mad turn as the obsessive, crazed Suvorin - lending him an air of near-sighted self-consciousness at first, which is what gets him on the track he ends up on. As a lowly engineers officer at his age, he has a need to "show everyone", which never, ever, leads to something good. For a 1940s film, the period design, costumes, art direction and production values are all extraordinarily high. The Queen of Spades is a first-rate introduction to a classic Russian story from one of literature's great storytellers.

Glad to catch this one - nominated for a BAFTA Award for Best British Film, and entered into the 1949 Cannes Film Festival. Once thought to be a "lost film" until it's rediscovery in 2009.

4

https://i.postimg.cc/GpG36Znd/the-queen-of-spades2.jpg

Watchlist Count : 434 (-16)

Next : Topper (1937)

Thank you very much to whomever inspired me to watch The Queen of Spades

Takoma11

07-17-24, 10:57 AM

Yes, Queen of Spades is great!

I've never seen any other versions of it, and I'm not sure I need to.

Here's (https://www.movieforums.com/reviews/2362732-the_queen_of_spades.html) what I wrote about it when I watched it. I thought it did a great job of keeping certain details just vague enough that you don't have to worry about the logistics.

Wooley

07-17-24, 11:11 AM

Excited to hear your thoughts on Topper.

PHOENIX74

07-19-24, 01:17 AM

https://i.postimg.cc/C5N2jZbN/topper.jpg

TOPPER (1937)

Directed by : Norman Z. McLeod

I really didn't expect Roland Young to come out of nowhere and be the epicenter of fun and hilarity in a screwball comedy featuring Cary Grant - but that's what happened when I watched Topper last night. Grant was just about to hit his groove, and the success of Topper led to his string of major starring roles in big movies after it, such as two of my favourites of his - Bringing Up Baby and The Awful Truth. But in Topper it's the titular character, Cosmo Topper (Roland Young) - who has been reserved, polite, punctual and quiet all of his life - that makes for the fun that's to be had when the ghosts of Marion Kerby (Constance Bennett) and George Kerby (Grant) try to free him from the constraints of his slavish, dull, monotonous and predictable lifestyle. One of the challenges to overcome is the mindset of Cosmo's wife, Clara (Billie Burke), who at first chafes at Cosmo's wild antics - not knowing that they're being caused by a pair of wicked, prank-prone and wildly funny spiritual antagonists. What I found most funny amongst all of this were the crazy goings-on caused by the invisible Marion and George, often hilariously explained away by the quiet, uncertain Cosmo Topper with his quavering style of speaking. But will Marion go too far with her pet project, and cause a jealous George to retaliate instead of help?

I wasn't sure about Topper at first, but everything changed as soon as Cosmo Topper was introduced, having a conversation with his wife about having to run to avoid missing his train the previous day ("I didn't run like a silly chicken. I ran.....beautifully.") - apparently, to Clara, a nearly scandalous state of affairs. All of the sudden I was being tickled by absolutely everything Roland Young was saying - his weedy, tremulous speech a cock-eyed mix with his desire to break free of the exactitude that marked every moment of his day-to-day existence. The first great big laugh came as he was breaking into a defiant jog to his front door to go to work, and his wife's voice loudly reminds him not to hurry - "Don't run dear!" It was great work sound-wise, because the voice is made to sound like it's coming from the same vicinity Cosmo is in - as if his wife is a constant presence, even when she's not near him. I was expecting all of the laughs to come from Cary Grant - but here I was falling in love with this wonderfully-realised character. Apparently it wasn't just me coming to this conclusion - Roland Young ended up being nominated for an Oscar for his portrayal of Topper, and seeing as it was his one and only time being nominated, this is probably one of his best ever performances.

As fun as it is watching this character, the comedy is only accentuated once Topper has a couple of spectral friends poking and prodding him in an effort to force Cosmo out of his regimented lifestyle and strict adherence to predictability. Madcap antics, with objects moving about as if they have their own will, and Topper looking as if he's talking to himself, makes for a perfect comedic coupling with this politely reserved character. At one stage the invisible Marion and George help a drunk, passed out Cosmo walk from his hotel room to his car, and the effect to everyone looking on is comically absurd. This made for a very funny movie - with the added bonus of including one of my favourite character actors, Eugene Pallette, as a hotel security guard later on in the movie. Another great scene occurs in his hotel at the end of the film, when George is after Cosmo and keeps pushing a chair at him, which prompts Cosmo to quietly inform everyone that he's "having a little chair trouble, but, don't pay any attention to it," as this chair, as if it has a mind of it's own, chases him around the lobby. This is simply a screwball comedy that hit upon a very profitable combination, having an absolutely adorable, winsome main character and devil-may-care fun set-up that allowed for no end of crazy situations for him to end up in.

Glad to catch this one - as noted, Roland Young was nominated for a Best Supporting Actor Oscar (why supporting?) and a Best Sound Recording Oscar. No. 60 on the AFI's 100 Years, 100 Laughs list. It also spawned two sequels and a television series.

4

https://i.postimg.cc/kgBdDx2n/topper2.webp

Watchlist Count : 434 (-16)

Next : The Child (2005)

Thank you very much to whomever inspired me to watch Topper.

Wooley

07-19-24, 03:32 PM

https://i.postimg.cc/C5N2jZbN/topper.jpg

TOPPER (1937)

Directed by : Norman Z. McLeod

I really didn't expect Roland Young to come out of nowhere and be the epicenter of fun and hilarity in a screwball comedy featuring Cary Grant - but that's what happened when I watched Topper last night. Grant was just about to hit his groove, and the success of Topper led to his string of major starring roles in big movies after it, such as two of my favourites of his - Bringing Up Baby and The Awful Truth. But in Topper it's the titular character, Cosmo Topper (Roland Young) - who has been reserved, polite, punctual and quiet all of his life - that makes for the fun that's to be had when the ghosts of Marion Kerby (Constance Bennett) and George Kerby (Grant) try to free him from the constraints of his slavish, dull, monotonous and predictable lifestyle. One of the challenges to overcome is the mindset of Cosmo's wife, Clara (Billie Burke), who at first chafes at Cosmo's wild antics - not knowing that they're being caused by a pair of wicked, prank-prone and wildly funny spiritual antagonists. What I found most funny amongst all of this were the crazy goings-on caused by the invisible Marion and George, often hilariously explained away by the quiet, uncertain Cosmo Topper with his quavering style of speaking. But will Marion go too far with her pet project, and cause a jealous George to retaliate instead of help?

I wasn't sure about Topper at first, but everything changed as soon as Cosmo Topper was introduced, having a conversation with his wife about having to run to avoid missing his train the previous day ("I didn't run like a silly chicken. I ran.....beautifully.") - apparently, to Clara, a nearly scandalous state of affairs. All of the sudden I was being tickled by absolutely everything Roland Young was saying - his weedy, tremulous speech a cock-eyed mix with his desire to break free of the exactitude that marked every moment of his day-to-day existence. The first great big laugh came as he was breaking into a defiant jog to his front door to go to work, and his wife's voice loudly reminds him not to hurry - "Don't run dear!" It was great work sound-wise, because the voice is made to sound like it's coming from the same vicinity Cosmo is in - as if his wife is a constant presence, even when she's not near him. I was expecting all of the laughs to come from Cary Grant - but here I was falling in love with this wonderfully-realised character. Apparently it wasn't just me coming to this conclusion - Roland Young ended up being nominated for an Oscar for his portrayal of Topper, and seeing as it was his one and only time being nominated, this is probably one of his best ever performances.

As fun as it is watching this character, the comedy is only accentuated once Topper has a couple of spectral friends poking and prodding him in an effort to force Cosmo out of his regimented lifestyle and strict adherence to predictability. Madcap antics, with objects moving about as if they have their own will, and Topper looking as if he's talking to himself, makes for a perfect comedic coupling with this politely reserved character. At one stage the invisible Marion and George help a drunk, passed out Cosmo walk from his hotel room to his car, and the effect to everyone looking on is comically absurd. This made for a very funny movie - with the added bonus of including one of my favourite character actors, Eugene Pallette, as a hotel security guard later on in the movie. Another great scene occurs in his hotel at the end of the film, when George is after Cosmo and keeps pushing a chair at him, which prompts Cosmo to quietly inform everyone that he's "having a little chair trouble, but, don't pay any attention to it," as this chair, as if it has a mind of it's own, chases him around the lobby. This is simply a screwball comedy that hit upon a very profitable combination, having an absolutely adorable, winsome main character and devil-may-care fun set-up that allowed for no end of crazy situations for him to end up in.

Glad to catch this one - as noted, Roland Young was nominated for a Best Supporting Actor Oscar (why supporting?) and a Best Sound Recording Oscar. No. 60 on the AFI's 100 Years, 100 Laughs list. It also spawned two sequels and a television series.

4

[CENTER]https://i.postimg.cc/kgBdDx2n/topper2.webp

This pleases me very much.
I absolutely adore this movie.

PHOENIX74

07-20-24, 12:09 AM

https://i.postimg.cc/JzMMLFnt/the-child.jpg

THE CHILD (2005)
(L'Enfant)

Directed by : Jean-Pierre and Luc Dardenne

I like the Dardenne brothers - when you watch one of their films you get documentary realism, and you get characters that feel very close to the average person you might see passing you on the street on any given day. Sonia (Déborah François) has a newborn baby, and has just returned home after a stint away (possibly in prison), only to discover that her apartment has been rented out by her partner, Bruno (Jérémie Renier). Bruno is a thief, and his other crimes all revolve around making fast cash by nefarious means, which he's loose with once he has it. When Sonia catches up with him, he seems mostly uninterested in his son, despite the fact that he's only just meeting him. When left to look after him, Bruno takes a course of action that is an absolutely stunning betrayal of Sonia - his maturity, general awareness about other people, selfishness, intelligence and morals all called into serious question as his course of action has a cascading, flow-on effect which both isolates him and determines his short-term future. Bruno might have recently reached adulthood, but he obviously hasn't fully developed in spite of how street-smart he may be. Can he learn to take responsibility for his actions before it's all too late for him?

It's not often you're left completely shocked and appalled by something you see in a movie, but I was left reeling when I watched Bruno do what he does in The Child. Also, what kind of person reacts with complete indifference when first encountering their baby child? I go all goo-goo when encountering a passing cat, or cute dog when I'm out, and if I were to first encounter my child I wouldn't be able to stop the tears from flowing. Is Bruno a full-blown sociopath? I don't think so. He just seems to have fallen through the cracks and been left to his devices to such an extent that he simply never developed into a functioning adult, and the Dardennes make sure to show us plenty of scenes in which he engages in tomfoolery with Sonia, along with associate with children, who help him steal goods and cash. He simply regards a baby as another "thing", with no more importance than a new bike, couch or jacket. The filmmakers, as is their style, also manage to background their movie with the socio-economic situation the characters exist within, where crime is a natural response to scarcity of employment, lack of government resources and general malaise.

There's nothing more mood-dampening than noticing people with young children that really shouldn't be raising young children, but our biology doesn't mesh all that well with modern society, and as it turns out, anyone can make a baby. Jérémie Renier and the Dardennes shape a character study here in which arrested development can has serious consequences, and as is usual this makes for a spellbinding film that simply held me in a complete trance. A lot of the time a movie co-exists with stray thoughts, distractions, snacks and interruptions - but The Child was one of those that pretty much made the rest of the world disappear completely, and the only thing that existed for me were on that screen. Whatever the Dardennes wanted me to feel at any particular moment, I felt. I didn't hate Bruno, but I sure wanted him to face serious consequences for what he did - so he'd at least be shaken and pushed into adulthood and learn a lesson. Turns out the consequences were just as severe as I wanted them to be, and my feelings remained in lockstep with every scene that unfolded. I love that kind of unity with a movie - where everything feels exactly right, and as a whole The Child is as satisfying as you can get. Social awareness, societal commentary and narrative synthesis are rarely as good as they are here - but I've come to expect that with these two filmmakers.

Glad to catch this one - The Child won the Dardennes another Palme d'Or at Cannes, making them one of only six who have achieved that twice. In 2017, the film was named the fourteenth "Best Film of the 21st Century So Far" by The New York Times.

4.5

https://i.postimg.cc/kg80FqfY/the-child2.jpg

Watchlist Count : 434 (-16)

Next : Playground (2016)

Thank you very much to whomever inspired me to watch The Child (L'Enfant)

Takoma11

07-20-24, 12:44 AM

Is Bruno a full-blown sociopath? I don't think so. He just seems to have fallen through the cracks and been left to his devices to such an extent that he simply never developed into a functioning adult, and the Dardennes make sure to show us plenty of scenes in which he engages in tomfoolery with Sonia, along with associate with children, who help him steal goods and cash.

Again, we totally agree (https://www.movieforums.com/reviews/2361273-the_child.html).

I do think that Bruno has some mental health issues, but I think that they are exacerbated by the life he's living where he has to see everything as an opportunity to hustle and cash-grab. I think that one thing that the very wealthy and the very poor have in common is that the lure of cash is a compelling force to make someone dehumanize others.

PHOENIX74

07-22-24, 12:01 AM

ANOTHER WATCHLIST THREAD FIRST!
I watched the wrong movie altogether...

Last night I watched Laura Wandel's Playground (2021) - a Belgian film which won the FIPRESCI Prize in the Un Certain Regard section at Cannes. It's actually a really, really good movie and I highly recommend it to everyone reading this. It isn't, however, Bartosz M. Kowalski's Playground (2016), which is the movie on my watchlist. I never really remember putting movies on my watchlist, so I can't say if I put the wrong movie on the watchlist or watched the wrong one last night (I say that because this other Playground doesn't look as good as the one I watched last night), but I'll stick to what is on the list. I don't regret making this mistake though, because I really enjoyed Laura Wandel's movie (reviewed in the "Rate the Last Movie Saw" thread right here (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2473838#post2473838).)

Allaby

07-22-24, 12:05 AM

Stirchley

07-22-24, 12:58 PM

PHOENIX74

07-24-24, 02:29 AM

https://i.postimg.cc/4xVXPgM9/playground.jpg

PLAYGROUND (2016)

Directed by : Bartosz M. Kowalski

I went into Bartosz M. Kowalski's Playground completely blind, and the only hint I got as to what kind of film this would be was the "EFFEDUPMOVIES.COM" watermark on the version I was watching - a constant reminder that this might go places I was unprepared for. Did it? It sure did. In fact, as the final act took shape I recognized what was occurring - revealing that this is based on real events. Real events that I've always thought particularly terrible to contemplate. The rest of the film, however, is the lead up, and involves a young girl, Gabrysia (Michalina Swistun), preparing to reveal her love to Szymek (Nicolas Przygoda) - but not before her father opens the door to the bathroom while she's naked, creating a suspiciously anxious moment. Life for Szymek isn't innocent either, with his shoplifting and smoking painting a picture of a boy sliding down the wrong slippery slope. In the meantime Szymek's friend Czarek (Przemyslaw Balinski) has home troubles of his own, and although his general attitude seems fine you feel something is a little off when he shaves his head and then teases a hungry dog instead of being kind. Gabrysia arranges to meet Szymek alone, after school, but he brings Czarek along with him, and the sweet moment prompts the boys into revealing just how dark and dead their souls already are by this early stage of their lives, leading onwards to the absolutely, shockingly unbelievable actions they take later on.

You get to a certain stage in a film where things are decidedly unpleasant, and for me that means I either keep the faith in the hopes the film as a whole will really reveal something, or else I get angry at it. Watching Playground, I was kind of angry. Although it's not readily apparent from the get-go, Gabrysia is a nice, intelligent and pleasant girl with a great attitude and perfect work ethic. Szymek and Czarek are monsters. I'm not exaggerating for effect, they are both monsters, and one ethereal scene at the half-way point of the film clues us in that their actions are about to shock and appall all of Poland. The real kids on which this is based shocked the entire world, but this isn't a factual retelling of their story. Szymek and Czarek seem a little older, and obviously belong to a different culture, but unfathomable monsters are a blot on any nation, city, town or village the world over, and I don't think they're emblematic of kids from any certain place, or even time, but outliers. A lot of kids can be cruel, and can be bad. A lot of kids can get up to all kinds of mischief, do drugs, have sex, get violent - but horrors like Szymek and Czarek take their behaviour beyond all reason, and often manage to attain that special "evil" benchmark when talked about. What's worse is the fact that, from all appearances, they seem to be normal, everyday kids. Kowalski makes sure we see a lot of that normality, as it contrasts so much with the horror and reveals the disguise the rotten creatures who walk among us are often wearing.

I won't forget Playground in a hurry, but it was a distinctly unpleasant watch with the barest of silver linings to justify going to such dark places. In it's final stretch it manages to show us the unwatchable by filming it from a great distance - but in the end it was still a little too upsetting and awful for me. It didn't seem to be flat-out exploitation, but at the same time I wish this movie had of had more to say instead of just showing us a causal link between these horrible kids and their troubled home lives (Szymek has a disabled relative who he has to look after, including taking him to the toilet, and the young boy takes out his frustration at having to do this by beating and slapping him when he gets the chance.) All Gabrysia really knows about attracting boys is taking her clothes off, possibly because of her father. Czarek is forced to sleep in the same room as a baby brother, which means he can't actually sleep all night - and he's berated and ridiculed by his mother. Well, at least I wasn't being told that these kids are the way they are because of horror movies or violent video games. Dour and depressing, I'm not sure where a lot of the enjoyment might come from when appreciating Playground, but I'm no doubt reminded that there are two men out there (their identities protected by law) who did the unthinkable as kids - it sends a shiver down my spine. There might have been a time when I lauded Playground for being able to really shock me - but there has got to be an "awe" component to the equation these days. It was memorable, with a certain rhythm and flow to it, but very prickly.

Glad to catch this one - Bartosz M. Kowalski won the Best Debut Director award at the Polish Film Festival, and the movie itself was nominated for Best Film at the like of the San Sebastián International Film Festival and Art Film Festival.

3

https://i.postimg.cc/2yDWgPgV/playground2.jpg

Watchlist Count : 433 (-17)

Next : Remake, Remix, Rip-Off: About Copy Culture & Turkish Pop Cinema (2014)

Thank you very much to whomever inspired me to watch Playground

Takoma11

07-24-24, 10:16 AM

Dour and depressing, I'm not sure where a lot of the enjoyment might come from when appreciating Playground, but I'm no doubt reminded that there are two men out there (their identities protected by law) who did the unthinkable as kids - it sends a shiver down my spine. There might have been a time when I lauded Playground for being able to really shock me - but there has got to be an "awe" component to the equation these days. It was memorable, with a certain rhythm and flow to it, but very prickly.

I assume you have to be alluding to the case (I think from England) where the two kids killed the third kid.

There is so much media around this story. I can remember watching a Law & Order episode that was just a slight variation, and I remember reading good reviews about Boy A when it came out.

Like you, I am unimpressed by a movie that mainly wants to horrify with the details of what happened. And these days, I don't think that it's so much even about exploitation (though it is a little about that, especially considering the true nature of the story). But increasingly, I think that I partly get upset because such an approach to the story dodges the complex part of it.

We can all agree that the torture and murder of a child is a horrible thing. But what is harder to reckon with is how such a thing happens and what we do with the very young people involved afterwards.

Stirchley

07-24-24, 01:07 PM

I’m so confused. So there are two movies named “Playground”? One Polish, the other French?

FilmBuff

07-24-24, 01:40 PM

The Polish Playground Is a 2016 release. The French one is a 2021 release.

PHOENIX74

07-24-24, 11:09 PM

I’m so confused. So there are two movies named “Playground”? One Polish, the other French?

Yeah, that's what tripped me up, and how I ended up watching the wrong version of Playground I watched the Belgian/French language 2021 movie, but it was the Polish 2016 Playground that was in my watchlist.

I assume you have to be alluding to the case (I think from England) where the two kids killed the third kid.

That's the one. Although the characters are different, and the lead-up fictional, the incident itself is very faithful to the true facts of that case. I don't know if I knew that when I put the film in my watchlist, because I didn't really want to watch it happen.

Takoma11

07-24-24, 11:22 PM

That's the one. Although the characters are different, and the lead-up fictional, the incident itself is very faithful to the true facts of that case. I don't know if I knew that when I put the film in my watchlist, because I didn't really want to watch it happen.

Hopefully no one would want to watch it happen.

Making the people responsible teenagers instead of younger kids is something that honestly changes the dynamic for me.

I think that young people (and I guess for me that's like people under the age of 18, acknowledging that it's a somewhat arbitrary line to draw) doing terrible things is one of the hardest things to contend with, personally and as a society.

PHOENIX74

07-25-24, 12:31 AM

https://i.postimg.cc/wx72m5sv/Remake-Remix-Rip-Off.jpg

REMAKE, REMIX, RIP-OFF: ABOUT COPY CULTURE & TURKISH POP CINEMA (2016)

Directed by : Cem Kaya

I thought that maybe Remake, Remix, Rip-Off would simply make fun of Turkish films that ape successful American blockbusters like Superman and Star Wars, but thankfully it takes a deeper dive than that, and has a close look at the history of Turkish cinema, where films are mass produced very cheaply and very quickly. Up until very recent years, there were no copyright laws in Turkey, which means that film productions - often working on an absolute shoestring budget - would simply use music from famous American movies, steal actual scenes from overseas films, and also transplant entire plot-lines, characters, ideas and dialogue wholesale. The reasoning behind this is layered - firstly, a Turkish screenwriter would be required to pump out so many films per year that they'd have no time to actually author a script themselves, and secondly the money needed to hire orchestras and musicians to compose and record music wasn't there. In fact, film stock itself was so limited that it was extremely rare for multiple takes to be shot while filming. The filmmakers interviewed in Remake, Remix, Rip-Off also contend that no films these days are original - that all movies are combinations of various well-worn plotlines that have existed since the dawn of storytelling. Are they making excuses for simply copying other movies? I think part of what they say is true, but a part is also them justifying their practices. The result of their filmmaking method is crude sometimes, and often hilarious.

This documentary is a German one, and since there is a sizeable Turkish population who live in Germany, there's some familiarity there with the number of Turkish video stores that opened up during the advent of the VCR age - stacked with thousands of movies. Large indoor and outdoor Turkish cinemas often opened up in Germany, with anywhere from 2000 to 4000 patrons showing up for each screening (cinema owners could only dream of such stuff today), meaning that in a single day, over 10,000 paying customers would be buying tickets. There were many melodramas, with constantly rehashed storylines that film lovers still enjoyed, but for some bizarre reason there was a "sex movie boom" in the industry which turned families away, and for a time puerile fare become the norm. The reason I watched this doc though, was to be introduced the likes of "Turkish Star Wars", which looks like the craziest, most surreal film ever made. I have to see it. Does it have John Williams music? Yes, of course, his score for Raiders of the Lost Ark is used for some reason, so we get Star Wars set to the Raiders march. The costumes are cheap and ridiculous, and the effects primitive - but it looks like so much fun. For those interested, it was released in 1982 and is called The Man Who Saved the World, but you'll find it on YouTube, by simply searching for "Turkish Star Wars".

As the documentary advances to more recent times we get a broader view of Turkish society and the political problems this nation has faced, with civil strife and dictatorships often curtailing the freedoms Turkish filmmakers once had. Censorship (of the political kind, and often draconian) became a major problem, and Turkish censors would often act in ways that can only be described as paranoid and puzzling. Today there's unrest due to the unreasonable working hours filmmakers are forced to endure to produce enough material for streaming platforms, and the "one-take, mistakes or not" fashion of madcap shooting continues to this day. You walk away from this documentary with a real appreciation of how Turkey's attitude to films and filmmaking is extraordinarily unique, and it takes an hour and a half to really wrap your head around how demand and a lack of resources, along with cultural factors, produced such a bizarre landscape. How many famous Turkish actors have over a thousand films to their name, and how the music from The Godfather became so popular that it's used in so many Turkish films - not just one. What makes this really enjoyable, though, is the obvious love the Turkish people had for watching movies, no matter the quality or originality. In a country where every single production looks like the one in The Disaster Artist, how can you not enjoy a glance at this country's take on cinema?

Glad to catch this one - This isn't a widely seen documentary, but it did win an Audience Award at the annual Dokufest International Documentary and Short Film Festival. It was also nominated at the Edinburgh International Film Festival.

3.5

https://i.postimg.cc/SNWCn992/remake-Remix-rip-off2.jpg

Watchlist Count : 432 (-18)

Next : Egomania: Island Without Hope (1986)

Thank you very much to whomever inspired me to watch Remake, Remix, Rip-Off: About Copy Culture & Turkish Pop Cinema

PHOENIX74

07-26-24, 01:22 AM

https://i.postimg.cc/hty77Cbs/egomania.jpg

EGOMANIA : ISLAND WITHOUT HOPE (1986)

Directed by : Christoph Schlingensief

Here's another filmmaker I've just started to familiarize myself with : German writer/director Christoph Schlingensief, who I first encountered when seeking out The German Chainsaw Massacre - a pretty wild, farcical and cynical take on that nation's reunification. By watching Egomania, and thereby having a point of comparison, I can say that Schlingensief's films are absolutely mad - even when taking his theatrical, avant-garde credentials into consideration. Both films have featured Udo Kier - a particular favourite of mine, who is allowed to unleash all of his impromptu, improvisational urges and manic energy here. Characters are loosely defined in Egomania, but Kier basically plays a wealthy industrialist living on an island with what might be the last vestiges of humanity (I had a hard time interpreting anything in this film), and who at times transforms himself into "Aunt Devil" - his character's official name. I think he has a son, William, played by Uwe Fellensiek, and this son, much to the dismay of some on the island, falls in love with Sally, who is played by Tilda Swinton (making her debut in this European arthouse movie.) Why is their love forbidden? I couldn't quite make that out. Most sources point to the island's population coveting misery, which is threatened by the love affair. Aunt Devil has an almost incestual, obsessive love for William, and is extraordinarily possessive. Jealousy plays a prominent role in the film.

Egomania's very first subtitle (and all thereafter) had me struggling a little to understand what was being said - and I think it might be a case of deliberately vague expression. Like poetry, it wants to bypass the critical thinking part of the brain and allow for a more varied kind of interpretation. Either that, or the translations were really, really bad. In any case, there's no narrative flow to help us orientate ourselves - instead our introduction to the world of this film consists of broad artistic expression. Schlingensief's theatrical roots are on full display, and in the first few minutes we're treated to various cinematic techniques and styles, almost haphazardly and randomly. Most of our attention, however, is completely stolen by Udo Kier, for better or worse. He has a bearded companion, played by Sergej Gleithmann, whose career consists nearly exclusively of appearances in Schlingensief films - he's an Igor to Kier's Gothic villain, and is only noticeable due to the fact that he's in close proximity to his master so often. He's someone who can absorb a lot of the manic energy, frenetic physical activity and loud expressiveness coming from Aunt Devil - a partner to drink and dance with, and a reason to be as loud and dance-happy as our main character is. Yet, for all of the excitement, Aunt Devil's fixation on William remains the most identifiable factor in what can only very loosely be termed a "story".

Tilda Swinton, despite being the second name on the bill, doesn't have as large a part in the story until the last third or so of the film - and has very few lines. I was wondering if we'd get to hear her talk in German, but she actually delivers her dialogue in English. She plays much of her role as if she's in a silent film, and I do wonder if that was because she couldn't speak the language fluently (she has mentioned in interviews that she speaks German "like a child".) In any case, it's all peripheral to the nexus of the movie, and the broad, artistic, interpretive style. There's a madness to Egomania that combines the arthouse with something uniquely Schlingensief - and the closest I can come to explaining what that feels akin to is drunkenness. The energy, the way it veers off in many different directions, and the way it gets a little too loud and boisterous, crass, unsteady and wobbly makes it feel like the movie itself is inebriated - but completely confident in what it is saying, and sure of what it wants to do. It's a visual carnival ride, and once your mind has tired of trying to make sense of it, you just sit and take it in. Like a dream, it all makes sense on a certain level. Obsessiveness, jealousy, evil, hatred - one helps the others maintain a grip on us like sticky-tape to our fingers. If you want to watch something completely different, watch a Christoph Schlingensief film.

Glad to catch this one - part of the 1987 Berlin International Film Festival. Tilda Swinton was Christoph Schlingensief's lover at the time this was made - she'd appear in Derek Jarman's Caravaggio the same year Egomania came out, making her an arthouse actress who crosses over to the mainstream and back again from time to time.

4

https://i.postimg.cc/VvL58W1S/egomania2.jpg

Watchlist Count : 432 (-18)

Next : Skin (2008)

Thank you very much to whomever inspired me to watch Egomania : Island Without Hope

PHOENIX74

07-30-24, 11:57 PM

https://i.postimg.cc/gjs2wzf0/skinn.jpg

SKIN (2008)

Directed by : Anthony Fabian

Skin is a mainstream race-based biopic set in South Africa that ticks a lot of the usual boxes as far as these films go, but it also ticks a few that are original and unusual enough for it to be interesting. 10-year-old Sandra Laing (Ella Ramangwane) is a dark-skinned mixed-race girl born to two very white parents in the apartheid South Africa of 1965. At first I thought her parents, Abraham (Sam Neill) and Sannie (Alice Krige), were going to champion anti-apartheid rights because they insist that she go to an all-white school. She's a lightening rod for ridiculous discrimination, as both parents and children look at her when she arrives as if she's naked, or has horns - but Abraham doesn't want her to go to the school because he believes black and white people are equals. He wants her to go because he insists that she's "white", and as the film progresses it's revealed that Abraham is just as vehemently racist as he could possibly be. As he struggles to have her classified as white, Sandra starts to defy her parent's wishes that she date white boys, and as time goes by, the older Sandra (Sophie Okonedo) falls pregnant to Petrus Zwane (Tony Kgoroge), a black man, which causes an irreparable rift between her and her parents. Sandra goes on to struggle in apartheid South Africa because she's been classified as white, and therefore it's officially illegal to even live with her own children - something which highlights the absurdity of that nation's former racial segregation system.

It dawned on me where this film was headed as soon as Abraham hears a news broadcast confirming a change in South African law, and he comes bounding out of the house shouting "She's white again! She's white again!" It was a moment where he managed to be both offensive and ridiculous at the same time, while lacking the self-awareness to realise how he was proving just how silly and nonsensical the dividing line was between black and white. It was so arbitrary as to be meaningless. Skin shone brightest during moments like that, along with scenes where Sandra battled to have herself reclassified as black to assure herself a future with her husband and children. Just going by appearances, Sandra is black - which is why so many white South Africans scoff when she identifies herself by her official "white" designated racial status. Sannie gives birth to another seemingly black child during the film, and there's one brief uncomfortable moment when director Anthony Fabian and the film's writers show Sannie flirting with one of the black men around her (hushing up quickly when Abraham arrives on the scene), that seems to suggest that maybe she has liaisons with them. Equal weight is given to discussions that these children might be biological throwbacks, but all of that should be a moot point when considering that they're all just human beings with one simple difference - the colour of their skin. There has never been any argument as silly as the suggestion that people with different coloured skin might be superior or inferior to each other. As wrong as it would also be, it would make more sense to test a person's IQ when they reach adulthood so all of the stupid people could be segregated from the more intelligent.

So, in Skin we follow the life story of a real person that nicely illustrated the idiocy of race-based discrimination - where an official designation of "white" or "black" decided whether she could associate with her own children, or have access to proper housing and healthcare. Her own parents, specifically her father, turned their backs on her once she identified as being black - despite the fact that she was their daughter, and the same person as she'd been the day before. The film's title itself alludes to the basis on which this all rested, and while the repugnant amongst us would probably argue that this is all based on race, not skin colour, the basis of all Sandra's problems are the fact of her appearance rather than the fact that she's Abraham and Sannie's natural-born daughter. Segregationists were not the least bit interested in the tangible abilities which suggest themselves when "superior" or "inferior" are talked about - or else segregation would be based on said ability. It was all about their feeling of repugnance based on the colour of someone's skin. Skin is a nice, real-life illustration of this which comes from a time and place suffering from arrested development. The ludicrous situations Sandra and her parents would find themselves in are the basis of a film that makes a firm statement simply by showing us the absurdity of it all.

Glad to catch this one - the film won won 19 international festival awards, and is based on the book "When She Was White: The True Story of a Family Divided by Race" by Judith Stone .

3.5

https://i.postimg.cc/3NLc42Rc/skin2.jpg

Watchlist Count : 434 (-16)

Next : American Revolutionary: The Evolution of Grace Lee Boggs (2013)

Thank you very much to whomever inspired me to watch Skin

Takoma11

07-31-24, 12:32 AM

In a time where DNA testing wasn't a thing, the scene where they go before the judges to "test" if she is Black or white really stands out. You know, the science of "what happens if we stick a pencil in her hair?"

I had two students in my classroom this last year who were Black or biracial but totally white-passing (one was literally the palest child in my room, the other was a red-haired freckled child). The way that race was coded by the students in my classroom (which was by a vast majority white) was absolutely fascinating to me. I had a student who was from the middle east who referred to himself as Black. Obviously people from different regions have characteristics that you can generalize, but there's not really a "rule" about what makes a person one race or another (or especially what those rules would even mean for someone who has parents of different ethnicity). I also had a student years back who was the oldest of three children but had distinctly darker skin than either of her siblings, and with their facial structure, her coloring would probably at first glance make you assume she was Indian. There's so much variation, even within families that share the same genes. Putting up legal walls around people based on that variation is absurd, and I thought that this film did a great job of showing both the ridiculousness of it and the tremendous hurt, trauma, and life-altering results that can come from such laws.

I also thought that it was interesting to consider the father's dilemma: either his family has Black lineage somewhere along the line (which, like, everyone does, but you know what I mean), or his wife has been unfaithful. These are two different social "shames", and watching him try to navigate that is both sad and super frustrating.

My review of the film is HERE (https://www.movieforums.com/reviews/2368125-skin.html). You and I had a lot of the same thoughts about it.

PHOENIX74

08-01-24, 07:09 AM

https://i.postimg.cc/Tw67mM6h/grace-lee-boggs.jpg

AMERICAN REVOLUTIONARY: THE EVOLUTION OF GRACE LEE BOGGS (2013)

Directed by : Grace Lee

You never know what's going to pop up in a watchlist. This was a PBS documentary about an activist and author I'd never heard of before who devoted herself to understanding the kind of revolution needed in the United States to emancipate and empower black America. Would it be through non-violence, as Martin Luthor King Jr. was advocating? Or would it need to be one that meets violence with violence, as Malcom X argued? Or was it something completely different to what everyone could possibly imagine during the heady days of the 1960s and 1970s in the States? Grace Lee Boggs, a Chinese American who married a black man, was in the thick of it with her husband James Boggs. We catch up with her here as she reminisces, talks about activism today, and shares her thoughts about growing older and confronting the fact she'll die soon. She lives in her home town of Detroit, which has hit hard times because of the sudden vacancy the departing auto industry has left in the city. It now has the highest unemployment rate of any city in the U.S., and Boggs has also done her part in trying to confront crime, drug abuse, and poverty with revolutionary and evolutionary fervor. Her passionate activism also encompassed environmental matters and feminism, and she was still active and writing published works in her 90s.

I can't get sidetracked too much by the remarkable person here, because this is meant to be a review about a "movie" - documentary or otherwise. The problem is, I find that docs on the level of PBS biographies are pretty much cut and dried interview segments matched to stock footage clips of the eras and locations involved with what they're talking about. There's little artistry involved with that, and that's why the subject tends to take center stage - and this was a subject I generally call "worthy", if I had to think of one word to describe it. Boggs had my complete admiration, not only for what she'd done, and her views, but also the way she was confronting her own mortality. She was a happy person through and through, having reached a stage of contentment with what she'd done in life. Director Grace Lee, who just happened to have run into a subject that's her namesake, has obvious admiration for her subject, but it's the students we see interacting with Grace Lee Boggs that illustrate just how awestruck great figures can make their admirers. One girl, when asking her questions, is simply bursting into tears - possibly because she feels overwhelmed by the world's problems, as she asks Boggs how she maintained any sense of hope without feeling overwhelmed herself at times.

One other factor I really enjoyed here was watching an elderly lady really enjoying life still - Grace's face would beam when she entered a room and saw familiar faces in front of her. Once my mother had grown old and then passed away, I was left with an intensely protective feeling about the elderly - and a real need to know they were okay, and happy. Watching this lady simply made me feel happy myself. At a time when I feel absolutely terrified about the direction the world is heading in, seeing somebody so confident that we can meet the challenges we're about to face is a real salve/tonic. If you're ever feeling drained, and in need of inspiration, catch up with a documentary about a figure like Grace Lee Boggs. Somebody who didn't just walk around holding a sign, but put serious thought into creating a more effective mode of activism - one that could help revolutionize her country, and help it's people to evolve to a point when the dark trends eating away at it's soul start to change for the better. When she witnessed the race riots during the civil rights era, she felt that there must be a less destructive and less impotent way to instigate lasting change. To say more with confidence would probably have to start with me reading some of her books. In any case, I felt enlightened and a little better off having watched this.

Glad to catch this one - in 2021 this documentary was used as part of the "May 19 Project", which is meant to encourage and explore Asian American solidarity with the African American community

3.5

https://i.postimg.cc/DZTxNTRK/american-revolutionary.jpg

Watchlist Count : 433 (-17)

Next : Impetigore (2019)

Thank you very much to whomever inspired me to watch American Revolutionary: The Evolution of Grace Lee Boggs

PHOENIX74

08-02-24, 12:18 AM

JULY RUN-THROUGH

Has it really been another month already? I managed to watch another 17 films throughout July (the exact same number as the month prior) bringing the total up to 176 movies from my watchlist seen and reviewed. That's not including incidental watches (not reviewed in this thread), which might get the total closer to that 200 benchmark. What's happened ever since I started this, however, is that I'm a lot more watchlist-aware, and movies go on my watchlist around the same rate as I view them - even though I only add the absolute "must see at any cost" titles. At least that means I can do this as long as I want and never run out of movies I'm excited about seeing.

BEST OF THE BUNCH

There's one clear winner as the best of July - an unforgettable experience which I now have on DVD with an allotted place in the forefront of my 1000s of titles. The Turin Horse goes down as one of the best films I've watched all year.

https://i.postimg.cc/Gm41vSnW/turin.jpg

BEST OF THE REST

Honorable mentions in this section should go to the likes of Topper, Badlands and The Changeling - they kind of belong in this section, but I didn't feel as if I could include so many. There were other films, as well, which I thought were excellent.

https://i.postimg.cc/d3dczh4J/hand.webphttps://i.postimg.cc/4y4p0cJ9/chiuld.jpghttps://i.postimg.cc/FHxdMRBb/ego.jpghttps://i.postimg.cc/W1dCKF3C/over.jpghttps://i.postimg.cc/rsCRqwpL/deep.jpg]

Having kept a record, I'm actually quite surprised at the number of enjoyable movies I've kept a record of watching here - at the end of the year it's going to be nearly impossible to whittle down my Top 10, but that's what I'm going to try to do. I used to rewatch a lot of old favourites, but I don't have much time for that anymore. I'm hoping to get out and see more classics on the big screen over the remainder of this year - while I see a lot of new films in virtually deserted cinemas, whenever I go out to see a great old film that's being shown, the place is full of film fans like myself - booked out with no spare seating. It adds a lot to the viewing experience.

PHOENIX74

08-02-24, 02:59 AM

https://i.postimg.cc/CKVW3rkf/impetigore.webp

IMPETIGORE (2019)

Directed by : Joko Anwar

Maya (Tara Basro) travels with her best friend Dini (Marissa Anita) to the Indonesian village she left when she was only 5-years-old, hoping to track down an inheritance that might solve her financial difficulties. She remembers nothing about her early childhood, and the aunt who adopted her told her nothing of her parents, who died mysteriously before leaving the largest house in the area abandoned for 20 years. Does her heritage have anything to do with the man who attacked her with a machete one night, claiming to know who she and her parents were before being shot by police? When the two get there, they notice regular funeral processions, and the locals seem suspicious. The village graveyard has an inordinate amount of children's graves, and Maya keeps hearing strange noises and seeing kids who disappear when encountered. When she finally learns of her parents' tragic story, and about the horrific curse which plagues this place, she'll regret making this pilgrimage back to her birthplace. In fact, there might not be one hope in hell of her or Dini ever leaving the place alive once the people who live here find out who she truly is. Impetigore mixes traditional Indonesian folk horror with modern storytelling methods to bring Joko Anwar's latest dark offering to life.

As is well known, when something disturbs our suspension of disbelief it can take us out of a movie - and Impetigore does need one plot contrivance that irked me somewhat. Being such a spoiler-rich movie, I won't go into details - but just let me say that I can believe in ghosts and curses more than convenient occurrences which help a film's story out. This is all balanced a little by something it does well - something that many horror movies don't quite manage to succeed at. It fleshes out it's characters with the everyday and a lot of humour, so that when something happens to one of them it's genuinely shocking and show-stopping. So many horror films are populated by characters who don't seem real enough to leverage that kind of emotional reaction from an audience. In the meantime, in a technical and especially visual sense, this is an extremely well made movie. It really makes the most of Indonesia's jungle-like, green topography and also the unique kind of dwelling usually encountered off the beaten track. When you leave Jakarta and visit the more rural areas, you do get a sense of the mystical, 'back-in-time', superstitious part of this nation - with it's own horror traditions. It was cool to sit back and experience something a little bit different.

So all-up, a bit of a mixed bag. I was surprised to find out that Imetigore was Indonesia's entry to compete for a Best Foreign Feature Oscar nomination, but I guess when you look on the bright side there's culture and a very specific identity that adds a sheen to the package. That's when it's not lapsing into common horror tropes (pale, ghostly children seem such a common staple these days - thanks to the likes of Ju-On), and when it's not lacking in logic, common sense and relying on contrivance. There's some pretty good down-to-earth humour - mostly injected into the film through the character of Dini, and performances which are nicely understated and grounded. With a few more really memorable moments, and some squaring away of the troublesome flaws in the story, it might have been really great. As it is, it's good. I was full-on worried about Maya and Dini, and especially concerned with their welfare. When something bad happened, I really felt it because of the strong, layered construction given to fleshing out their characters - the recounting of which reminds me that Impetigore is the kind of movie that keeps me switching from praise to criticism when I write about it - you get both, and depending on your personal taste this might be worthwhile.

Glad to catch this one - a big box office hit in Indonesia, winning many of that nation's top film awards. As mentioned above, it was put forward as that nation's entry for a possible Best Foreign Film Oscar nomination.

3

https://i.postimg.cc/vmqC93g1/impetigore2.jpg

Watchlist Count : 432 (-18)

Next : Blue Ruin (2013)

Thank you very much to whomever inspired me to watch Impetigore

Takoma11

08-02-24, 05:04 PM

You've never seen Blue Ruin? Oooh, that's one I really like.

PHOENIX74

08-02-24, 10:53 PM

You've never seen Blue Ruin? Oooh, that's one I really like.

I've been looking forward to getting to Blue Ruin, it's a film I've seen mentioned many a time around these parts.

Takoma11

08-02-24, 11:27 PM

I've been looking forward to getting to Blue Ruin, it's a film I've seen mentioned many a time around these parts.

Have you seen any of Saulnier other films? Blue Ruin is by far my favorite, but Murder Party and Hold the Dark are both worth a look. I tried watching Green Room and technically it played to the end while I was in the same room, it was a bit too violent, sad, and intense and I just disconnected from the viewing experience. I couldn't rate or review it, and I'll probably try again at some point when I'm in a better mental space for it.

Macon Blair, who stars in Blue Ruin, directed a movie called I Don't Feel at Home in This World Anymore which has a similar enough vibe that I am constantly mistakenly thinking that it's one of Saulnier's. (My lovely internet friends are always happy to step in and correct me on this).

PHOENIX74

08-03-24, 12:11 AM

Have you seen any of Saulnier other films? Blue Ruin is by far my favorite, but Murder Party and Hold the Dark are both worth a look. I tried watching Green Room and technically it played to the end while I was in the same room, it was a bit too violent, sad, and intense and I just disconnected from the viewing experience. I couldn't rate or review it, and I'll probably try again at some point when I'm in a better mental space for it.

Macon Blair, who stars in Blue Ruin, directed a movie called I Don't Feel at Home in This World Anymore which has a similar enough vibe that I am constantly mistakenly thinking that it's one of Saulnier's. (My lovely internet friends are always happy to step in and correct me on this).

The only one of those I've seen is Green Room, and the one thing I remember about it is it's violence and the precarious position it's protagonists are in, along with Patrick Stewart playing against type. I have it on Blu-Ray, but haven't seen it since around the time it came out - so specifics are hazy, but I really remember it as one of those movies where I'm extremely worried about the main characters because the situation they're in seems impossibly stacked against them. I liked it, well enough - but I'd need to see it again to be sure where I stand on it today.

Takoma11

08-03-24, 12:16 AM

I really remember it as one of those movies where I'm extremely worried about the main characters because the situation they're in seems impossibly stacked against them. I liked it, well enough - but I'd need to see it again to be sure where I stand on it today.

I went through---and might still be in??--a stage of feeling incredibly anxious about Anton Yelchin when I see him in anything. His death, at such a young age and in such a senseless way, made a huge impression on me, and seeing him as characters in distress just kicks my anxiety up to a point that I disconnect.

In any event: I'll be really interested to hear your thoughts about Blue Ruin. As a meditation on the messiness of revenge, I think it's pretty stellar.

PHOENIX74

08-03-24, 10:53 PM

Macon Blair, who stars in Blue Ruin, directed a movie called I Don't Feel at Home in This World Anymore which has a similar enough vibe that I am constantly mistakenly thinking that it's one of Saulnier's. (My lovely internet friends are always happy to step in and correct me on this).

I've just seen that I Don't Feel at Home in This World Anymore is the next film on my watchlist. I must have picked that title because it came up in whatever first piqued my interest in Blue Ruin.

Takoma11

08-03-24, 11:15 PM

I've just seen that I Don't Feel at Home in This World Anymore is the next film on my watchlist. I must have picked that title because it came up in whatever first piqued my interest in Blue Ruin.

It's weird, because it's a very intense movie, and yet I've rewatched it several times. I think that the performances from Lynskey and Wood are really excellent. I also think that it offers a really interesting and nuanced answer about how to cope with general alienation and depression/anxiety.

SpelingError

08-03-24, 11:29 PM

Takoma waiting for Phoenix's Blue Ruin review:

https://media1.tenor.com/m/33h98anrPCsAAAAC/stressed-out-suspense.gif

Takoma11

08-03-24, 11:31 PM

Takoma waiting for Phoenix's Blue Ruin review:

https://media1.tenor.com/m/33h98anrPCsAAAAC/stressed-out-suspense.gif

Accurate!

PHOENIX74

08-04-24, 12:46 AM

https://i.postimg.cc/XqSGGBqN/blue-ruin.jpg

BLUE RUIN (2013)

Directed by : Jeremy Saulnier

Revenge should be a pretty cut and dried process for Dwight (Macon Blair), but new information coupled with the unintended side-effects of his bloody vengeance cascade until it has spread like a cancer through both of the families involved - his and his target's. It's a messy process, and tellingly, you never see an ounce of satisfaction in Dwight's eyes - only sadness, pain and uncertainty. At the same time, he's set on his path, as if there's no doubt in his mind that it's the only way to assuage the grief he feels about the wrong done to him. You can see that it has become his identity, and during the time when the target of his need for revenge, Wade Cleland, has been in prison, he's lived the life of a transient vagrant - simply because life has no real joy, and because he is completely consumed. Set on his path when Wade is released, Dwight causes himself physical and mental anguish while targeting those in Wade's family who are in turn gunning for him - often causing a mess because Dwight is no expert in either taking lives or physical violence. His sister, Sam (Amy Hargreaves) and childhood friend Ben Gaffney (Devin Ratray) become embroiled when Dwight needs help, adding to the sense of messiness and showing us how revenge and trauma radiates out to touch all those in close proximity.

It's something of a measure regarding Macon Blair's performance, but also very much Jeremy Saulnier's direction, that I was dogged by Dwight's physical and mental pain throughout this film. This character is tormented by some physical injuries that I could feel in sympathy, but it's the psychological aspect that dominates Blue Ruin. Blair never relents as far as body language and facial features are concerned, putting on full display his anguish, distress, torment and suffering. Interestingly, Saulnier pushes anger completely aside - making his revenge tale all about a desperate attempt to fulfill a destiny decided upon many years prior. Dwight's rage seems to have completely subsided, and he seems almost regretful that this is something he has to do, as if he has absolutely no choice in the matter. His sadness is for everyone touched by the tragedy at the core of the movie - both friends, family and enemies - and it's as if his grieving process is stuck in a kind of intolerable feedback loop which gives him no other option but to complete the cycle of violence which itself began via an action that could be considered "payback". As wrong as vengeance is, human beings are wired in such a way. Sadness can be as much of a motivator as anger.

It's nice to see films that actually look at revenge as a serious subject instead of simply making it a protagonist's motivator. There's a 1971 Toshio Matsumoto film, Shura, which also does this - but they're the exception, and not the norm. Also praiseworthy is the fact that Blue Ruin is so economical, with Jeremy Saulnier taking the maxim "show don't tell" to heart, and imparting volumes of information in mere moments - visual storytellers are often the best. This is a film that doesn't need a lot of dialogue to tell it's entire story, and it's interesting to note that both Saulier and actor Blair have been close since childhood - it's so beneficial for a director and lead actor to understand each other as these two must. Every act of physical violence in the film is as horrifying as it should be, and it does nothing to glorify any of it - we recoil from it all, even when those suffering at the hands of it are miscreants or villains. What's most surprising is the fact - ruefully noted by Dwight himself - that this whole cycle of horror was set in motion through an act of love. Overall though, the complete focus of the movie is on how grubby, tangled, unpleasant and chaotic vengeance often is - something revenge films often don't accurately reflect. This one really does.

Glad to catch this one - it won the FIPRESCI Prize at Cannes, where it premiered in 2013, and was nominated for the John Cassavetes Award at the 2015 Independent Spirit Awards. It was funded via a Kickstarter campaign.

4

https://i.postimg.cc/TPHkH4rs/blue-ruin2.jpg

Watchlist Count : 433 (-17)

Next : I Don’t Feel at Home in This World Anymore (2013)

Thank you very much to whomever inspired me to watch Blue Ruin

Takoma11

08-04-24, 01:13 AM

it's as if his grieving process is stuck in a kind of intolerable feedback loop which gives him no other option but to complete the cycle of violence which itself began via an action that could be considered "payback".

I think that it's incredibly tragic that you can sense that Dwight maybe believes that getting revenge will somehow square the circle, and that in the fog of sadness, revenge is the only guiding light that keeps him moving. The movie starts already a tragedy, and you're just waiting to see how much more tragic things will get.

I Don’t Feel at Home in This World Anymore (2013)

Definitely interested to hear your thoughts on this one. While I'm not sure it's "as good" as Blue Ruin, it's a film I keep coming back to again and again. It's probably because I identify so strongly with the protagonist.

PHOENIX74

08-07-24, 12:37 AM

https://i.postimg.cc/KzC1tgk2/I-don-t-feel-at-home.webp

I DON'T FEEL AT HOME IN THIS WORLD ANYMORE (2017)

Directed by : Macon Blair

It's rare that my giddy enjoyment of a film lasts from it's very first scene to the very last, but I Don't Feel at Home in This World Anymore gave me that reward for watching it. It's main character, Ruth Kimke (Melanie Lynskey), is a great audience surrogate as she casually observes the absolute worst of today's modern world - all the things that drive most of us a little mad, so that we completely understand the tipping point she reaches at a certain point in the story. Each instance also ranges from the knowingly amusing to the completely hilarious, where Macon Blair shows he has a flair for Coen-Bros levels of wry comedic ability. Ruth's sudden team-up with neighborhood outcast Tony (Elijah Wood) - chalk and cheese at first glance - also seems like a natural flow-on effect of her "not going to take this anymore" attitude, with Lynskey and Wood giving their characters the naïve underdog characteristics we all love to love. Charming and somewhat child-like, they take on those they think have wronged Ruth with nervous bravado, which usually ends in a chaotic, crazy and often violent, fashion. The real criminal element, by comparison, seem in another league - and we pray that the two sides of the equation never meet, at the same time knowing that they must.

Melanie Lynskey, who we first met as murderous teenager Pauline in Peter Jackson's Heavenly Creatures way back in 1994, is award-winningly and stupendously great in this film. She's aided by a screenplay from Blair that is abounding with memorable lines - funny enough to be comedy gold while co-existing in a dramatic thriller that gets bloody and at times brutally savage. Ruth is nice, and when she does something like pick up a grocery item someone has simply dropped on the floor without caring and puts it back on the shelf I get to think, "Oh, she's just like me." She's sick and tired of those in society we can loosely class together as 'jerks', and it's the way her character confronts this that makes her character so much fun. She has a hand-drawn prohibition sign on her front lawn with artistically-rendered dog droppings on it. When Tony ignores this and lets his dog do his business on her lawn, she picks it up and throws it at him. That tells us everything we need to know about her - she's nice, fastidious, but confronts wrongs done to her in ways that are probably not the wisest nor most mature course of action. Tony is harder to figure at first - and tells the audience directly that everyone in the neighborhood hates him. He's the kind of guy that practices martial arts every day, but always alone. He's a devout Christian with a strict moral code that coexists in a contradictory way with bouts of rage and violence.

I cared so much about the two main characters in I Don't Feel at Home in This World Anymore - two of the least-equipped, funniest vigilantes I've ever seen in a movie. An endearing odd couple whose secret weapon is probably that contrast between how nice and polite they are coupled with how determined they are to complete their ill-advised quest to right wrongs. Most of all though, I think that this was simply my kind of movie through and through, with a razor-sharp wit about it and a perfect rhythm and timing. I loved the duality of Ruth and Tony, who always seem both right and completely wrong with everything they do. Verbally harangued by a wealthy lawyer and thrown out of his house, Tony observes that he's just being that way because he's "unhappy - it's eating him up inside." He's right, of course, but at the same time shamed. In the meantime Ruth lashes out in anger, destroying various lawn ornaments and stealing a decorative tiger. Tony gets upset with Ruth, constantly reminding her "It's not your lawn tiger," all the way home. How do we confront the jerks of society when any act of retribution is obviously morally wrong? This movie confronts this question in a light-hearted, fun and very blood-soaked way, with characters that actually do the impulsive things we think of but never dare do - because it's best and wise not to.

Glad to catch this one - Macon Blair won the Grand Jury Prize: Dramatic for this film at Sundance in 2017, and Melanie Lynskey was nominated for Best Actress at the Gotham Independent Film Awards.

4

https://i.postimg.cc/MTpTCmRx/I-don-t-feel-at-home-in-this-world.jpg

Watchlist Count : 435 (-15)

Next : Best of Enemies (2015)

Thank you very much to whomever inspired me to watch I Don't Feel at Home in This World Anymore

Takoma11

08-07-24, 12:57 AM

Ruth is nice, and when she does something like pick up a grocery item someone has simply dropped on the floor without caring and puts it back on the shelf I get to think, "Oh, she's just like me." She's sick and tired of those in society we can loosely class together as 'jerks', and it's the way her character confronts this that makes her character so much fun. She has a hand-drawn prohibition sign on her front lawn with artistically-rendered dog droppings on it. When Tony ignores this and lets his dog do his business on her lawn, she picks it up and throws it at him. That tells us everything we need to know about her - she's nice, fastidious, but confronts wrongs done to her in ways that are probably not the wisest nor most mature course of action.

I'm so glad you liked this one! Like I said, I revisit it often.

I think that it's important to note that Ruth taking action against wrongs is triggered by the loss of her grandmother's things in the robbery. All of the things that keep us from standing up for ourselves or trying to hold people accountable for their actions----mainly, what if they are crazy and/or violent and murder you?!?!?!?---Ruth shoves them to the side. As someone who is painfully non-confrontational, it's both thrilling and terrifying to watch Ruth refuse to let anything slide, whether that's a confrontation in a grocery store or eventually a literal murder attempt.

I really like Wood's character. His religious faith, his throwing stars, his fashion sense. I think that he stands out as someone who, like you say, has crafted his own personal code for morality and just life in general. The way that this intersects with Ruth making radical decisions about her own conduct is fantastic.

I also appreciate that the film shows that getting back at the "bad guys" isn't always so straightforward. The scene where she goes to get back her stolen laptop really exemplifies this. Should the people in the house have been more skeptical about the source of the used laptop they purchased? Maybe. Do they deserve to be threatened with violence? No.

But this really is Lynskey's movie. She absolutely embodies decades of frustration, backing down, suffering insults/slights, etc. Her decision to just go for it and do whatever it takes to get back her stolen things exists on this amazing line between heroic and self-destructive. And the writing is great because you see how Ruth is able to make these jumps from one action (scoping out the market) to actions that are just a little more risky or unwise.

And both Lynskey and Wood deserve praise for their physical comedy chops.

PHOENIX74

08-07-24, 01:12 AM

I also appreciate that the film shows that getting back at the "bad guys" isn't always so straightforward. The scene where she goes to get back her stolen laptop really exemplifies this. Should the people in the house have been more skeptical about the source of the used laptop they purchased? Maybe. Do they deserve to be threatened with violence? No.

I loved their wild celebration after that scene. Sitting and watching the movie, their discovery that they're bringing retribution upon the wrong people, and that the people who have the laptop are mostly innocent, made what they did a real "oh...wait" kind of mistake - but once the scene ends they celebrate with so much gusto anyway. For them it wasn't because they'd done the right thing or that justice had prevailed, but because they'd conquered their fears and gone ahead and done something they'd both never done before, and ended up getting that laptop back. All of these story choices really add layer upon layer to their characters, who always seem an interesting mix of right and wrong.

Takoma11

08-07-24, 11:18 AM

I loved their wild celebration after that scene. Sitting and watching the movie, their discovery that they're bringing retribution upon the wrong people, and that the people who have the laptop are mostly innocent, made what they did a real "oh...wait" kind of mistake - but once the scene ends they celebrate with so much gusto anyway. For them it wasn't because they'd done the right thing or that justice had prevailed, but because they'd conquered their fears and gone ahead and done something they'd both never done before, and ended up getting that laptop back. All of these story choices really add layer upon layer to their characters, who always seem an interesting mix of right and wrong.

Exactly. The movie has enough common sense to realize that people aggressively standing up for themselves---especially with violence---isn't actually the solution. But we also highly empathize with (and get some vicarious thrills out of) two people doing what we sometimes secretly wish we could.

Wooley

08-07-24, 11:26 AM

Takoma11

08-07-24, 11:48 AM

I have had this movie under serious consideration for quite a while and I think your review has just tipped the scales.
Plus I didn't know Melanie Lynskey when I put it in the queue and now I think she's a treasure who should be in everything so finding out it's her definitely adds some urgency.

It's really good.

And to stay as vague as possible, I had worried about it being too much of a downer, but there's some sweetness and even some optimism in there.

Wooley

08-07-24, 12:47 PM

It's really good.

And to stay as vague as possible, I had worried about it being too much of a downer, but there's some sweetness and even some optimism in there.

That's good to hear because that was also my concern. I saw some of the charm in an early trailer but I worried that the darkness of it would just depress me too much, especially in that I consider myself to feel pretty much exactly how it sounds Ruth feels. I was actually drawn to the movie initially just because the title sounds like something I would say.

Takoma11

08-07-24, 12:51 PM

That's good to hear because that was also my concern. I saw some of the charm in an early trailer but I worried that the darkness of it would just depress me too much, especially in that I consider myself to feel pretty much exactly how it sounds Ruth feels. I was actually drawn to the movie initially just because the title sounds like something I would say.

This movie is not at all a rug pull. I also get tired of movies that are advertised as being off-kilter comedies and then end up being super depressing. Don't get me wrong: the movie deals heavily with themes of depression, social alienation, isolation, etc. But it's not just out to twist the knife on people who feel those things. It's also about human connection and how someone might find a way to cope with a world that can feel arbitrary and cruel. So it's not all sunshine and rainbows, and it is sad in some ways, but it's also very funny and human. Especially heading into the last act, I just think the movie nails it.

Stirchley

08-07-24, 01:12 PM

https://i.postimg.cc/KzC1tgk2/I-don-t-feel-at-home.webp

I DON'T FEEL AT HOME IN THIS WORLD ANYMORE (2017)

Directed by : Macon Blair

For some reason I’ve never heard of this movie. It’s in my watchlist now.

WHITBISSELL!

08-07-24, 08:51 PM

Blue Ruin is in my Top 10 of all time. And I Don't Feel at Home in This World Anymore is so good. Blair's screenplay made the people Ruth and Tony were after seem truly evil. That's a hard thing to pull off. I spent most of the movie scared shitless for Ruth and Tony.

PHOENIX74

08-09-24, 01:29 AM

https://i.postimg.cc/7ZSQtpst/best-of-enemies.jpg

BEST OF ENEMIES (2015)

Directed by : Morgan Neville & Robert Gordon

I'll try not to get into too much of a groove as far as expressing my own political views go when reviewing Best of Enemies, because talking about a documentary such as this, it would be easy to lapse into just that. I can tell you though that the story of William F. Buckley Jr. and Gore Vidal isn't warm, as I was almost expecting it to become. You might think I'm crazy for thinking someone on the extreme right and someone on the extreme left would have eventually become good friends, but the two intellectual heavyweights had so much in common, aside from their political views. When television stations kept on calling the two back to debate each other at presidential conventions during election cycles, the repeated proximity might have been the cause for some kind of guarded respect and admiration at least. But no - Buckley Jr. and Vidal hated each other venomously, to their dying day. They were the epitome for a lot of what we regard as the "culture wars" these days, and their ideas and arguments are the same as the ones that remain unresolved as the United States becomes more and more polarised and divided into two camps. On the verge of the Nixon era, the fight for civil rights had, as an opposing force almost, a fight for "law and order", which the left accused the right of being thinly veiled racism. This, and many other subjects, were debated between the two acid-tongued ideologues.

This documentary walks that difficult line in being balanced - which I thought was it's best feature. It interviews people from both sides of the equation, many of them being acquaintances or friends of Vidal or Buckley Jr. At the time their debates were first being aired, during the late 1960s, being gay was not socially acceptable to the mainstream, but Gore Vidal was openly expressing his opinion that there's nothing abnormal about homosexuality. While never admitting he was gay, it's kind of widely accepted that Gore Vidal was - and while I feel like I'm treading on dangerous ground here, it's suggested in this documentary that William F. Buckley Jr. may have been also. He seems to have the mannerisms, but honestly - they also square neatly with people who are extremely wealthy intellectuals. Both of these men had rubbed shoulders with political giants (Buckley Jr. ended up being a close friend, confidante and advisor to Ronald Reagan, while Gore Vidal's sister-in-law was Jackie Kennedy, giving him access to the inner circle being related to JFK opened up) and were born with silver spoons in their mouths. They were both writers, and were both the same age (their birth dates were only one month apart.) This documentary shows how parallel their lives really were, but it seems that political views can be friendship kryptonite.

In the end I really liked what this documentary was really about - how it bemoaned the fact that back in the late 1960s and early 1970s, political debate was still possible in a meaningful way because all Americans were watching the same three television channels. These days, everyone is watching media that simply confirms their worldview - right or wrong - and that impedes the discourse and discovery essential to the healthy progress of our functioning political processes. Best of Enemies is best exemplified as being emblematic of that by working as a worthy and tolerable watch from people on both sides of the fence. We get to revel and commiserate with both William F. Buckley Jr.'s glorious victories and agonizing defeats and Gore Vidal's. We get to hear withering debate from both sides, look at the people making these arguments, and see how much we've got in common with those we hate simply because they espouse views we think are incorrect and unsound. From a historical point of view, we get to see the seed of future culture wars being planted at a time of great civil unrest in America. All of that makes for a very interesting and stimulating hour and a half - and makes this a really good documentary.

Glad to catch this one - a play based on this documentary was written by James Graham, premiering at the Young Vic in 2021. The film itself premiered at Sundance in 2015 - highly rated and winner of numerous film awards.

3.5

https://i.postimg.cc/1RbcXFFh/best-of-enemies2.jpg

Watchlist Count : 436 (-14)

Next : The Fits (2015)

Thank you very much to whomever inspired me to watch Best of Enemies

PHOENIX74

08-10-24, 02:36 AM

https://i.postimg.cc/jdQ6J1g7/the-fits.jpg

THE FITS (2015)

Directed by : Anna Rose Holmer

At it's core, The Fits is a coming of age drama that takes place in Cincinnati, with eleven-year-old Toni (Royalty Hightower) starting to find herself when she happens upon a girl's dance team called the Lionesses, joining them and making the transition from more tomboyish pursuits such as boxing with her brother, who is older and a kind of mentor. What makes it more unique are the background events framed against Toni's story, which incorporate a contagious series of fits that all the girls eventually find themselves having. The source of these convulsive and scary episodes is a mystery, but slowly, as the days progress, one girl after another find themselves afflicted. As the newsworthy events evolve, it becomes obvious that experiencing this has become a kind of rite of passage for the girls - with those who have just had their attack suddenly finding themselves popular, and the source of wonder as they recount what it felt like. Are they really the victim of some biological, physical illness, or are the victims continuing the process because they feel compelled to play their part in a kind of conversion disorder? Will Toni find herself an outcast if she never gets to experience one of these fits?

First-time director Anna Rose Holmer found inspiration for this film when she became interested in stories involving historic cases of mass psychogenic illness - the most famous of which is probably the Dancing plague of 1518, which occurred in Strasbourg, Alsace (France). It's generally regarded as a case of stress-induced hysteria - us humans being particularly susceptible to certain kinds of influence under certain situations. As kids we're particularly vulnerable to influences, especially from our peers - so makes sense that this kind of thing would propagate in the environment we have in this film, but that makes me wonder - why doesn't this happen with any regularity in real life? In any case, although I'm focusing on it right here there is a much more heavy emphasis on Toni herself, and her personal story than there is on what's happening with this series of seizures - making The Fits far, far more grounded than what I'm making it sound like. It's slow-paced, and our protagonist hardly speaks a word during the first half of the film - and I think that's more because she's reserved than shy. I expect it has a much more heavy resonance with those who grew up girls, with specific kinds of girlhood experiences explored in many scenes.

I could see that it was doing many interesting things film-wise, and I'm really interested in the whole 'conversion disorder' side of things, so I feel a little guilty and disappointed that The Fits didn't grab me as much as it has others. Being a regular movie-watcher, I might be suffering from a little "coming of age fatigue", and while I obviously think that a female perspective is absolutely essential to cinema, and too-often disregarded, I found it hard to identify with a movie in which one of the central metaphors is related to the onset of menstruation, and there are so many connections being made with the minds of those in the audience who grew up girls. I can't say I wasn't intrigued by it's approach however, and as is usual I kind of feel the urge to watch it again after thinking about it as much as I have as a requirement to write about it. Essentially, it's a movie about initiation - the kind of which you can't control, which can leave people at risk of isolation if the initiated consider themselves a tight-knit group or community. Using dance enhances everything Holmer is looking at because it's an activity in which those participating keep in step, and replicate what others are doing - whether that be painting your nails, piercing your ears or having a convulsive fit.

Glad to catch this one - 96% on Rotten Tomatoes, 90/100 on Metacritic, and a winner of various film festival awards after gaining universal acclaim.

3

https://i.postimg.cc/QMgq6sRq/the-fits2.jpg

Watchlist Count : 436 (-14)

Next : When a Woman Ascends the Stairs (1960)

Thank you very much to whomever inspired me to watch The Fits

Takoma11

08-10-24, 02:42 PM

while I obviously think that a female perspective is absolutely essential to cinema, and too-often disregarded, I found it hard to identify with a movie in which one of the central metaphors is related to the onset of menstruation, and there are so many connections being made with the minds of those in the audience who grew up girls.

To let you off the hook a little here: I didn't think that this movie really did what it had set out to do. The idea is just fine, but it's not executed in a way that cuts to the heart of belonging and the idea of "affliction" as being a right of passage. It's frustrating, because it's right there, so close to saying something powerful about performance and belonging and things in your body that are out of your control, but it somehow falls a bit flat. I think this is merely an okay film, menstruation not required.

Also, a friend just posted a trailer for a new Saulnier film! "But then I was like, nahhhhh". Very much looking forward to it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gF3gZicntIw

PHOENIX74

08-11-24, 01:05 AM

To let you off the hook a little here: I didn't think that this movie really did what it had set out to do. The idea is just fine, but it's not executed in a way that cuts to the heart of belonging and the idea of "affliction" as being a right of passage. It's frustrating, because it's right there, so close to saying something powerful about performance and belonging and things in your body that are out of your control, but it somehow falls a bit flat. I think this is merely an okay film, menstruation not required.

I really struggled to pinpoint why this movie didn't excite me more, despite the fact it had all the elements of a really great film - and had so much going for it. In the end, flailing around in the dark, I think I settled on me not relating to the feminine perspective (and a very unfortunate grasp for a potential metaphor there) - but I think you simply said it more succinctly, plainly and in an infinitely better way. It's frustrating, because The Fits really is hovering around that area of awesomeness like a golf shot that is one blade of grass from being a hole in one.

Also, a friend just posted a trailer for a new Saulnier film! "But then I was like, nahhhhh". Very much looking forward to it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gF3gZicntIw

The delivery of that line - I'm going to be all over Rebel Ridge as soon as it's released as well. Good timing, getting into Jeremy Saulnier's stuff right now!

Takoma11

08-11-24, 05:10 PM

In the end, flailing around in the dark, I think I settled on me not relating to the feminine perspective

I have that too sometimes. Like "Maybe this movie would resonate with me if I were [a parent/a baseball fan/a veteran]". And certain parts of the movie definitely capture some of the anxiety of adolescent girlhood, but those moments of recognition aren't the difference between "getting" this movie and not getting it.

PHOENIX74

08-12-24, 02:35 AM

I have that too sometimes. Like "Maybe this movie would resonate with me if I were [a parent/a baseball fan/a veteran]". And certain parts of the movie definitely capture some of the anxiety of adolescent girlhood, but those moments of recognition aren't the difference between "getting" this movie and not getting it.

My getting the movie, liking/admiring it in many ways and enjoying it were never all on the same page with this one. Usually those three catch the same bus, but this time one walked, one caught the bus and the other stayed home.

PHOENIX74

08-13-24, 05:13 AM

https://i.postimg.cc/6Qpx8TWf/when-a-woman-ascends-the-stairs.jpg

WHEN A WOMAN ASCENDS THE STAIRS (1960)

Directed by : Mikio Naruse

Ever since I first saw You Only Live Twice as a kid, it has been stamped into my mind that gender inequality is so broadly accepted in Japan that people can walk about saying "a woman's job is to serve a man" without being considered chauvinist - at least in the 1960s - but the bar hostesses in Mikio Naruse's When a Woman Ascends the Stairs strike an unusual balance between independence and subservience. The bars that light up certain districts are being kept profitable by free-thinking ladies with business plans of their own, and they basically do what they can to make a guy feel special so the business they work for thrives. It's not particularly noble much of the time, with these ladies often being tasked with luring wealthy new patrons by having dalliances with them and more - but their earnings provide them with opportunities. Keiko Yashiro (Hideko Takamine) is considered fairly old to be one of these hostesses (she's approaching 30 - so old!), and being a widow, she's of the opinion that she'd like to open a bar of her own. If she could only scrape up enough money to do so. The only other option is to marry again, but matters of finance and the heart can be cruel, and her path is strewn with disappointment, dashed hope, and the mirage of happiness.

When a Woman Ascends the Stairs is narrated by Keiko, who compares these bars during daylight hours to ladies without make-up on, in a very poetic, Japanese way. She's a little severe with her family, but the demands they make for money (to keep her brother out of jail, to help with her nephew's hospital bills and placate her mother) come right on the heels of her financially troubled friend's (Yuri - played by Keiko Awaji) suicide - where at Yuri's funeral the creditors come a-knocking to demand Yuri's mother pay up - now. While Japan's economy really takes off, it seems there are plenty of people biting off more than they can chew, hoping to emulate the success of others. But despite Keiko's taciturn attitude to many, she won my sympathy wholeheartedly - losing her husband at such a young age, and having this tough gig by circumstance helps, but I was mostly won over by way of a truly wide-ranging, sorrowful, angst-ridden performance from Takamine. It sees her exploring the depths of desperation people like her character are driven to in a system that's not geared towards a woman having much chance at succeeding. While being a hostess doesn't look like the most wonderful of occupations, the clock is ticking and the abyss looms in front of poor Keiko.

So - what I liked about When a Woman Ascends the Stairs is that it shows quite clearly that although Japan had a culture where women had seemingly always been seen the way they were, it was still obvious to artists like Mikio Naruse and writer Ryūzō Kikushima that this was unfair, and that the whole "hostess" line of employment wasn't something anybody would really enjoy as a career choice without feeling demeaned. Whenever Keiko goes up those stairs, it seems like a little part of her spirit and self-respect dies a little - but she sees her chance to own one of these establishments as something she can look at and consider that all of those years did amount to something that she could be proud of (another, very different, form of ascension.) Unfortunately, to have enough money to do this puts her at the mercy of the men she's been entertaining for so long, and the men who treated Yuri with such contempt and lack of respect. There are many great performances in this - but the only one that really counts is Hideko Takamine's, who covers all the bases in an emotional sense, and it's to Mikio Naruse's credit as well that the exploration of her character isn't one-sided or glib. I was so, so, so sad and affected by her and this film - and feel a deeper appreciation for how tough it was for women in 1960s Japan who wanted more than to simply be of service to a man.

Glad to catch this one - Criterion #377, with a 100% critics score on Rotten Tomatoes. Also included in Kinema Junpo Critic's Top 200 best Japanese films of all time.

4

https://i.postimg.cc/HkJj4JM0/when-a-woman-ascends.jpg

Watchlist Count : 435 (-15)

Next : Grey Gardens (1975)

Thank you very much to whomever inspired me to watch When a Woman Ascends the Stairs.

Takoma11

08-13-24, 03:12 PM

what I liked about When a Woman Ascends the Stairs is that it shows quite clearly that although Japan had a culture where women had seemingly always been seen the way they were, it was still obvious to artists like Mikio Naruse and writer Ryūzō Kikushima that this was unfair, and that the whole "hostess" line of employment wasn't something anybody would really enjoy as a career choice without feeling demeaned.

When people speak about abuses/inequities of the past, that common line is "Well, people didn't know any better." But the fact is . . . people DID know better. And it's always interesting seeing glimpses of that in art (books, movies, music) from those eras.

Next : Grey Gardens (1975)

You've never seen Grey Gardens?! Ooh, you are in for a treat. I think about that movie at least once a week, and after you watch it I'll tell you specifically why.

PHOENIX74

08-14-24, 04:25 AM

https://i.postimg.cc/QMfSwbHH/grey-gardens.jpg

GREY GARDENS (1975)

Directed by : Albert Maysles, David Maysles, Muffie Meyer & Ellen Hovde

Our introduction to Edith Ewing Bouvier Beale (known as "Big Edie") and Edith Bouvier Beale ("Little Edie") in Grey Gardens does a little to malign them in our eyes to start with, but at the same time it's quite accurate. Instead of it being on the personal level brothers Albert and David Maysles manage to give us through the rest of this film, we at first see them as their fellow East Hampton residents do in New York. That is, through news reports on a general call to arms because of the state the Beale house is in - which includes the mess a few dozen cats make, along with the wildlife they freely invite to take up residence. It's the kind of squalor you encounter sometimes on your local news, on TV shows about hoarders or even, if you're unfortunate, in real life - but what strikes us as most incongruent about this case is the fact that the Beales are close, direct family members of ex-U.S. First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis. This virtually makes them American royalty, and in newspaper clippings we see that Jackie Kennedy herself ended up paying a visit with a crew of her own to fix the place up and save these two ladies from the possible consequences the Suffolk County Health Department had in store for them. If that's not a shaky enough start in itself, our first impression when we actually meet and start to get to know these two ladies is that they're both dancing to the beat of a very different drum to most of us.

Once we're settled in, and have gotten used to the dynamic, our whole perspective starts to change. Sure, Little Edie might be suffering from a little arrested development (she strikes me as being perpetually around 14-years of age) and their standards of clean, healthy living might be a little impaired, but there's certainly overlap with the craziest members of my family. This all sweetens all the more once you know them well enough to understand that they're actually nice. The mechanism behind this revelation is the relationship mother and daughter manage to build with camera-operator and director (at times either Albert or David), which starts to feel quite intimate and inclusive. It reminds me of the Kirsten Johnson methodology concerning bringing herself - the observer - into the picture in Cameraperson. You don't feel the presence of either during the first half of this documentary, but as the ladies reference them more and more, they start to appear - as if ghosts summoned via invocation. In fact, there are many uncomfortable (and yet seemingly, sweet and adorable) moments where it seems Little Edie is flirting with one or the other. Overall, it's obvious that there's a deep reservoir of love shared between mother and daughter as well, who bicker as any parent and offspring might.

The Beale house, Grey Gardens itself, is ramshackle, flea-ridden, filthy and in disrepair. The gardens surrounding it aren't really gardens anymore - with overgrown fields of weed and grass, tangled vines, and dense scrubland as far as the eye can see. The critters most of us try to keep out are lovingly fed with the bread and cat food Little Evie deposits in the attic, and they can constantly be heard skittering in every gap open to them throughout this wonderland. From the heart of all this comes singing and dancing - with Big and Little Edie (the former once a recognized singer, and still capable of pleasing the ear) often filling the air with impromptu tunes. Their existence doesn't seem an unhappy one - just, nostaligic to the point of being a little regretful. It just seems typically familial in many ways. Although seemingly being reclusive, there's a gardener, Brooks Hyers, and handyman, Jerry Torre, seemingly caught in their orbit. Look, it felt like I could literally smell their filthy living conditions at times watching this (how anyone could sleep on Big Edie's mattress is beyond me), but I actually enjoyed listening to them wax lyrical about their past, in their very own eccentric manner. They are now both immortalised on film, their personalities igniting a fever-dream of reminiscence, mother-daughter ties, peculiarity and dilapidation. All very human, and not without a touch of sadness despite the hurricane force of manic energy and joie de vivre that emanates from our subjects. Set against the physical ruins of what was obviously a grand place years ago, there are echoes of what once were - and that combined with the connection we manage to make with the Beales - who so often look back - worked through me, right into my heart as a profound contemplation of how a life goes by.

Glad to catch this one - Criterion #123 (which also includes The Beales of Grey Gardens, a companion film edited together from unused footage in 2006). In the 2014 Sight and Sound poll film critics voted Grey Gardens the tenth-best documentary film of all time. In a PBS poll conducted in 2012, it topped the list of the 100 greatest documentary films of all time.

4.5

https://i.postimg.cc/nLSqQGrf/grey-gardens2.jpg

Watchlist Count : 435 (-15)

Next : Manon of the Spring (1986)

Thank you very much to whomever inspired me to watch Grey Gardens

John-Connor

08-14-24, 04:40 AM

Next : Manon of the Spring (1986)

^ Great film but start with Jean de Florette 1986 mate, Manon of the Spring is "Part 2".

PHOENIX74

08-14-24, 04:48 AM

^ Great film but start with Jean de Florette 1986 mate, Manon of the Spring is "Part 2".

Ah! Jean de Florette was the very next film on my watchlist - I must have put these two in at the same time. Thanks for the info!

Next : Jean de Florette (1986)

John-Connor

08-14-24, 05:02 AM

Ah! Jean de Florette was the very next film on my watchlist - I must have put these two in at the same time. Thanks for the info!

Next : Jean de Florette (1986)
Enjoy! 👍 Both of them combined are in my new and refreshed top 250. Look forward to your review(s).

Takoma11

08-14-24, 11:10 AM

So sometimes I let my cats have a midnight snack, and instead of putting it in each bowl I will sometimes just drop some kibble on the ground, and I always picture myself as Little Edie throwing the cat food to the raccoons.

Stirchley

08-14-24, 01:20 PM