24th Hall of Fame

The Secret in Their Eyes, 2009

In the late 1990s in Argentina, a former judicial investigator named Esposito (Ricardo Darin) is haunted by the lack of resolution he feels over a case from the mid 1970s in which he investigated the rape and murder of a young woman. Turning his memories into a novel, Esposito brings his writing to a former colleague, Irene (Soledad Villamil), and eventually to the bereaved husband, Ricardo (Pablo Rago) in an attempt to make sense of what happened and his own feelings about it.

This movie has been on my radar ever since it came out, and I can only point to the lack of availability on streaming services as to why I hadn't seen it before. I expected to really like it and I did.

The entire film operates under a fascinating interplay of reality, memory, and fiction. The question of perspective and point of view, both in the literal and figurative sense, haunts almost every scene. Esposito is telling his version of the story. And as he writes and has conversations with Irene and Ricardo, he must reconcile his own reality with theirs.

The embedded idea of perspective is wonderfully realized in the way that the film is shot. Frequently we see characters in motion, and as the camera moves we see something that they failed to see: someone standing in a doorway, or another person moving behind them. Things that are there that you don't know are there is a running theme, and it plays thematically as Esposito himself begins to discover truths. Probably my favorite sequence in the film that demonstrates the way that the camera seems to fluidly move from objective to subjective is a scene where the police chase a man through a busy soccer stadium. As the camera (seemingly floating around objectively) follows the man, he suddenly ducks down a flight of stairs and the camera, surprisingly, remains on the upper level, following where you think the man is running, and forcing a horrible suspense as you wait for a clearer view to see if he is still there.

I think that the film walks just the right line with the character of Esposito in terms of showing the way that we all process the actions of others through our own understanding of the universe and human behavior. As he begins to confront the decisions he made in the past, Esposito must contend with the way that the others have chosen to regard that time. In one scene, Irene pushes back a bit on Esposito's portrayal of her in his writing. When he responds that it's the truth, she then questions why he didn't make a different decision. We find Esposito at the tipping point between looking to the past and trying to formulate a future. There are regrets, yes, but I really appreciated that the film didn't play into the bias that once characters pass middle age all they can do is rue their incorrect decisions. Even in their 50s, these characters are still emotionally "in the moment" and can find a way forward.

It's rare that I want more exposition in a film--and maybe to a certain degree it isn't needed--but I did want a bit more insight into the political dynamics in terms of the government and the judicial branch. A young woman being raped and murdered would be quite the scandal in most communities, and at times I wish there had been more clarity about why events were able to evolve the way that they did. (Trying to keep that vague for spoiler purposes).

On a personal note, one of my favorite Spanish instructors in college was Argentinian, and I was surprised at how much nostalgia I had for the Argentinian accent. (And the shock of remembering the prolific use of "vos" as second person!).



I was so excited because I ordered this one from the library and picked it up yesterday . . . but of course it was the American remake. (I must not have looked closely enough before placing the hold). I ended up just giving in and renting it on Amazon. But I have to say that I have not minded spending a few bucks on some of these films.

La Dolce Vita was supposed to arrive on Thursday from Netflix but mail has been really backed up, so we'll see . . .

Hall of Fame write ups are more important than college!

drops out of college

Thanks for the advice!

__________________
IMDb
Letterboxd

From what I've read, there was an enormous amount of corruption in Argentina during that time.

The Day of the Jackal



It seems like Zinneman is a pretty rangy director, with this being my 4th and all of them being vastly different in tone and there from each other. This one was fun from start to finish. I really enjoyed the dialogue in the film, something Zinneman seems to capitalize on in his films. I thought the acting was good, in particular really liked the guy who played as the Jackal. It isn't necessarily the prettiest film visually, but with a story that keeps you on it's toes that kind of an afterthought anyways. I thought that the end really built up to a pretty tense moment, so kudos to that. I was hoping that this wouldn't get too political and become a film viewing similar to that of what I thought of the movie Z, and luckily it didn't.

For never even hearing of the movie before, I must say I enjoyed this pretty well. Nice nom from Ed!

I've heard a couple others say that and I was surprised. I guess I just figured people heard of it because there was a remake.

Been surprised by that too.

Glad you enjoyed it Rauldc.

__________________
Letterboxd

“Except for markf, you’re all a disgrace to cinema.”

I think more people heard of the substandard remake than the original itself.
When @gandalf26 had it as a one pointer in the All-Time Countdown it reminded me of how much I've always wanted to see this and never did.
I have always loved Edward Fox (The Jackal) as the demolition expert in Force Ten From Navarone along with Michel Lonsdale whom I've only seen in Ronin and I've been dying to see more of him from earlier in his career. So, if I recollect, I basically jumped on the opportunity that very night to watch this.
During and especially as the credits ran, I knew THIS was my next General HoF nom.
Very happy to hear folks are enjoying it.

Also, once I get my reviews posted, I'll be watching The Secret in Their Eyes next.

__________________
What I actually said to win MovieGal's heart:
- I might not be a real King of Kinkiness, but I make good pancakes

~Mr Minio

I watched The Day of the Jackal today. I'll post a proper review in the near future, and I assume it'll have a positive tone.

__________________

Barry Lyndon

Title card: It was in the reign of George III that the aforesaid personages lived and quarreled; good or bad, handsome or ugly, rich or poor they are all equal now.

I have not seen this film since I was but a pup, and now, as I experienced this film, the one predominantly thought throughout said experience was: that I was gazing upon paintings that came to life. In pretty much, every single scene. Now, like many Historical Pieces, hell, a lot of visually breath-taking films, this statement can be easily said. But, for me, it felt like a very purposely committed focus of Kubrick and his Cinematographer, John Alcott and I was continually fascinated by this visual method.
Appreciating it after the fact, even more upon my discovery that it was. Specifically the 18th-century paintings of Thomas Gainsborough. Adding the Natural Lighting used, it does give a magnificent canvas for this film to be displayed upon regarding a man of meager means who callously climbs the social ladder to attain a superior station of comfort. Only to find himself in far dire straits when all is said and done.

I do fully get the critiques regarding Ryan O'Neil's lackluster performance during this. Though I cannot help but feel that was the purpose and focus of Kubrick when directing O'Neil's portrayal. Much like when Kubrick suggested to George C. Scott to try playing it over the top, just to see. And then keeping those attempts for Dr. Strangelove.
Like so many aspects that Kubrick insists on, to the point of perfection, I very much imagine that O'Neil's emptiness of emotion was a artistic decision, by a master painter. Regarding the empty soul that remains so, no matter how extreme it gorges its self.

As for this Rise and Fall story, much like I did as a pup, I retained a consistent enthrallment to it all. Though with a more deeper understanding/appreciation of the actions and their consequences than when I was but a youngster.
Stanley Kubrick is forever a satirical Director. Positioning an exposing mirror to his subject matter. And thereby, us, the viewers to that which slithers beneath veneer adornments. And I so do appreciate him and this film, for it.

I am aware of that and even know a bit about some of the stuff that went on at the government level. Have you ever seen La Historia Oficial?

I guess to be more specific, I wondered about how the case had been perceived at a wider level. Like, did it make the news?

This is a really, really minor quibble. But I also find myself thinking that if I had been a little less familiar with Argentinian politics (and I'm very much in the beginner tier on that) I would have been kind of confused by some of the interplay of the characters.

For example (SPOILERS!)

I haven't seen that. Is it good?

I get what you're saying about the News but listen to this. 2 days ago my friend's cousin, a Boston firefighter, was stabbed to death by his wife. I haven't heard a single thing on the News and instead had to Google it.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Mars...&client=safari

I watched it both in high school and college---in Spanish classes--and liked it both times. It is about a woman whose husband works for the government and she begins to question where exactly their adopted daughter came from.

My main memory of it is everyone in class screaming in a part where (sort of SPOILERS).

Oh, I totally get that. It was just that the luck of a broader understanding of how the news was received made me a little disoriented in having a sense of where their culture/society was at the time. Were such crimes happening a lot? It was just a detail about the feel of the community, for lack of a better word, that I thought was missing a little.

But, also, I really get that it is mostly a film about internal struggles. I wanted a touch more sense of place than what we got at the beginning.

Merriam-Webster defines "shame" as "a painful emotion caused by consciousness of guilt, shortcoming, or impropriety". People that feel ashamed usually feel humiliated, unworthy, or disgraced for some reason, be it by their own doing or by surrounding circumstances. There's a lot of that in Ingmar Bergman's aptly titled film.

Shame follows Jan and Eva (Max Von Sydow and Liv Ullman), a couple of former musicians that have sought refuge in a remote island as a result of an impending civil war. Their circumstances are not ideal and their marriage doesn't seem to be on its best shape, but the need for survival trumps every desire to live more "properly", and to survive, you must be willing to give up everything else: your normal life, your dreams, your pride.

Jan and Eva are two very interesting characters. Through the film, they both go through a rollercoaster of emotions, dependence and dislike, hope and despair. From the start, Jan is shown to be weak, meek, emotional, longing for the past while being frequently bossed around by Eva, who shows to be more resourceful, stoic, determined, and looking towards the future. But war and the need for survival will do things to you.

Shame is my fourth Bergman film, and probably my second favorite. The way he moves the camera and shoots every scene makes you participant of what's happening, whether it's the close-up of a loved one during an afternoon lunch, the rush through the woods as fighter planes and paratroopers fly by, or the distance between the two as they sit at the table or the desperate attempt to find someone, something around the house. But everything that happens in the film is anchored by the great performances of Von Sydow and Ullman, who perfectly convey the decay of their individual souls, and as a result, their marriage.

At one point, Jan claims that he can "change" if he wants, that he is not a "determinist", but as the events around them worsens, change surely comes for both. Ultimately, Shame is a story about the deterioration of this couple at the mercy of a war that ravages them from both sides, it's a story of survival at the expense of life itself. A story of great guilt, great pain, and great fear.

Grade:

Review also on my Movie Loot

__________________

The Deer Hunter, 1978

Among a larger group of friends are three men, Nick (Christopher Walken), Mike (Robert De Niro), and Steve (John Savage), who are slated to leave for service in the Vietnam War. After a boistrous wedding between Steve and Angela (Rutanya Alda). Before they leave, Nick asks Linda (Meryl Streep) to marry him and she agrees. After a final deer hunt as a group we jump to their time in Vietnam where the men endure horrific treatment. After returning from the war, their experiences haunt them (and their loved ones) in different ways.

I have avoided watching this movie for a long, long time. It's not a good sign when even the cover of a film gives you the shivers. As I imagined, this film was both incredibly strong and it really hit me on an emotional level.

There is something amazing when a director is able to hit that special pace where an hour can feel like nothing at all. This is probably one of the shortest feeling 3 hour films I've ever seen. In my brain, there were three main parts (the wedding, the war, the final act), and the arc between them managed to both fly by and build suspense.

I think that what this film best captured for me was the way that surviving an intense experience changes who you are. It doesn't matter which man breaks, which man dissociates, or which man stays "strong"--in the end their trauma lives inside of them and unavoidably rears its head in even the smallest of moments. Of the three men, Mike is the one who comes out of the experience the most "normal", and yet he has also been fundamentally altered. And whatever degree of normalcy he can hold onto is further shaken by the ripple effect that everything has had on his friends from the war and those left back at home.

There is also a powerful exploration of violence--what it means to witness it and the capacity for it. Mike has a rule about always taking a deer with one shot, and when the film gets into the Vietnam sequences and the infamous Russian roulette scenes, the idea of "one shot" adopts a new meaning. In an interesting dichotomy, after returning home from the war Mike has both an uncomfortable relationship with violence (finding himself unable to take a shot at a deer) and an explosive reaction to encountering it (majorly losing his cool when one friend jokingly points a pistol at another).

The performances are, of course, amazing. I'm enjoying seeing more of De Niro's earlier work, and Walken's performance as Nick is heartbreaking and haunting. Meryl Streep is head-turning in her role as Linda and her presence on screen is undeniable. While the focus is obviously on the main characters, and specifically Mike, the film gives each character a moment--even if it's just a short, quiet sob alone in a kitchen--and it's a compliment to the entire supporting cast that all of the characters feel real and the connections between the larger group feel legitimate. You can feel the shift in the aftermath of the war, and there's a good deal of empathy to go around. Characters like Linda obviously didn't go through what Mike and Nick and Steve experienced, but they have also been impacted and as part of the landscape for the veterans, their pain also matters.

I haven't read anything about this film, and I'll be interested to hear what others have written. I did think that the Vietnamese characters were all of a similar type, but at the same time it reflects the experience of the characters. On the other hand, cruelty and atrocities were not only confined to one side of the conflict. I'm a bit torn on this aspect of the film.

This was a really hard movie to watch. The last two hours are varying degrees of pain and suffering. I sort of regret watching it so late at night and am now trying to use some comfort TV to regain my equilibrium. I'm not sure that I could watch it again anytime soon.

That said, this was an amazing film. I would unhesitatingly recommend it. I found no major flaws with it, aside from being put through the emotional wringer.




Also: I checked my mailbox. La Dolce Vita? La Dolce NO. I'll have to see if it arrives on Monday. *sigh*.

Hahaha!
At least, with the snow we’re expecting Monday, you may get lucky and have it arrive AND have a whole day to watch it.

Wait, so do we still have to watch The Deer Hunter, or was it removed from this HoF? I'm holding off on it so far.

Unfortunately, one of the "blessings" of Zoom is that snow days no longer exist. But I will happily trek through the snow to the mailbox on Monday, ever hopeful.

Netflix had an arrival date of Thursday, but mail has been really delayed.

I PM'd AgrippinaX like two weeks ago and she indicated she was still in. Since I only had The Deer Hunter and La Dolce Vita left, and I've been meaning to watch the former anyway, I just went for it. But at 3+ hours, I understand holding out until you know it's definitely in.

Totally forgot about that!
😆