Thief's Monthly Movie Loot - 2021 Edition

Here is my final tally for NOVEMBER 2021:

A film with the number 11 (Eleven, Eleventh, etc.) in its title: 11:14
A film with a title that starts with the letters U or V: Under the Skin
A film from the Criterion Collection whose number includes the #11 (i.e. 11, 115, 711): Rififi (#115)
A film from the 2010s: One Cut of the Dead
A war film: Casualties of War
A film noir: The Narrow Margin, Ministry of Fear, Gun Crazy
A film set in Egypt (King Tut Day, November 4): The Mummy's Hand
A film from Poland (Independence Day, November 11): Ida
A film from Jacques Tourneur (born November 12): Out of the Past
A film with the word “Black” or "Friday" in its title: Black Widow



Yet another pretty good month. Several film noirs, of course, but overall, a bit of everything. Not counting rewatches, the best watch was Ida, followed closely by Rififi.

As for the worse, it's probably The Mummy's Hand, which wasn't awful, but just weak.

__________________

And finally, for any looter out here, you can check out Episode 50 of The Movie Loot, in which you can hear my thoughts on all the films I saw during November.

Thief's Monthly Movie Loot 50 - The November Loot

As usual, you can also find the show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and most podcasting platforms.

You've got some pretty damn good noirs in there, my man! I never did get around to writing commentary about Rififi, likely because --although very good, and a landmark French noir-- I wasn't knocked out by it. Great burglary story, and a great mood, but it seemed a tad overrated by so many reviewers. I feel the same way about Pale Flower (1964)-- the Japanese noir.

I really dug Rififi. I was really caught up with the story. If you ever write something about it, whatever it is, I'd like to read it.

I also hadn't heard about Pale Flower, but I will check out what it is about.

The story is not complex at all, although --like Gun Crazy-- a little kinky. But the mood and the cinematography really have to be experienced to see what the production is getting at. It's tricky to describe. I think you'd like it. It's a very noteworthy film. I'll put up some commentary in the next couple of days.

November was a lean month for me, but here's what I got in:

A film with the number 11 (Eleven, Eleventh, etc.) in its title: Eleven P.M. (1928) This was an interesting surrealist drama featuring a Black cast. It's a mixed bag in many ways, and the ending is a little disappointing, but the biggest shame is that Richard Maurice's genuine directorial talent on show here never had a chance to develop further.

A film from the 2010s: Sorry to Bother You (2018) Sometimes funny, sometimes puzzling, often strange, Sorry to Bother You offers a critique of modern capitalism with middling success. Perhaps our era of capitalist culture is such a moving target, offering up its own absurdities so regularly on its own, that any satire risks feeling slightly dated even by the time it appears. Sorry to Bother You tries to get around this by offering a plot twist so absurd it can't be eclipsed by current reality, but it also veers into such absurd territory that it becomes hard to follow the point. Admirable, but imperfect.

The Nightingale (2017) Already pretty notorious for being a difficult watch, I could only conclude that my discomfort was more or less the point. The story--about an Irish convict who enlists the aid of a local Aborigine to (at first, unwittingly) aid her in exacting revenge on a malevolent British soldier--does not lend itself to a great deal of obvious nuance. This is some work done between the hesitating rebels against the colonial power, but in general the characters are broadly drawn. So why are we here? To evoke, I think, the competing emotions of awe and admiration for the natural beauty of the surroundings and the native populations (both human and not) against the horror and revulsion of the brutal and cruel acts of humans against each other. Wrestling with those emotions is necessary, and to be fair, far easier than living through the experiences we're shown.

A war film: Hearts and Minds (1974) The makers of this Vietnam War documentary do not hide their sympathies--squarely against the war and its prosecutioners, they keep their thumbs firmly on the scale. This works better at some times than others, and indeed, almost 50 years of retrospect making it clear that they were, in fact, generally correct about the war's political and moral failings, it is difficult not to agree with the thrust of the film. That said, where the film is most effective is where it just quietly watches people grapple with their own (sometimes conflicting )thoughts and feelings about the war, and especially its cost.

A film noir: Pickup on South Street (1953) I don't much to say about this one except that I enjoyed it and Thelma Ritter is, as always, an American treasure.

I've heard great things about The Nightingale. Need to check it out. That's Jennifer Kent, right?

BTW, I kinda agree with most of what you said about Sorry to Bother You, but I admire its completely bonkers execution

Yes, Jennifer Kent,and I really loved The Babadook. She's a director who likes to challenge the audience, which I appreciate. But I also get why people watch The Nightingale and come away feeling like, "Why did we have to go through all that?"

I liked The Babadook, but wasn't as big on it as most people. Still, I will probably check The Nightingale.

I've been waiting to pull the trigger on it as well. I'm not really a fan of "endurance" films, but honestly I trust Kent more than I'd trust many other directors with such heavy content.

I need to update this. I'm four films into the month already and haven't written anything.

While I update this, feel free to check out this bonus episode I just released in honor of the great Rita Moreno!

Bonus Loot #1: Rita Moreno

As usual, episodes are available on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, and all other podcast platforms.

This small exchange occurs right at the beginning of this film, even before we see the characters faces; and yet, it says so much about their nature and their mindset that we feel like we already know everything we needed to know about them, and not in a good way.

Carnal Knowledge follows these two best friends, Sandy and Jonathan (Art Garfunkel and Jack Nicholson), during three distinct stages of their life: college, several years after, and when they're middle-aged. The focus of each act is how the two interact and engage both with different women in their lives, and with each other.

If there's one thing we can gather from that opening quote, and from watching these two men interact, is that men are pigs. Cause that exchange perfectly encapsulates the contradictory ways these two men feel about women ("I want them to put out, I will even force them to... but if they do, they're sluts"). The two are stuck in a constant quest to prove themselves to each other, while also performing a metaphorical "dick measuring contest".

This male chauvinistic perspective is perfectly captured by Jules Feiffer's script, which highlights how these two men see women as possessions, objects, and trophies to manipulate and concede from one to the other. Add to that the lack of moral scruples or any kind of boundaries from both, but especially Jonathan (Nicholson), and you got a pretty disgusting snapshot of the typical male behavior.

In that respect, both Garfunkel and Nicholson are perfect on their roles. The first act is fairly balanced between the two, and their mutual courtship of Susan (Candice Bergen). However, from the second act on, the film focuses more on Nicholson's character, and you all know that Nicholson owns this sleazy character from start to finish, while subtly showing you where the cracks are in his persona.

The cast is rounded out by Ann-Margret, who plays Nicholson's girlfriend during that second act, and the way she showcases the crumbling of this woman at the hands of Jonathan is excellent. This was the third Nichols film I've seen in a short amount of time (after The Graduate and Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf), and he clearly has a talent for exposing the vulnerabilities of male/female interaction.

As for Rita Moreno, I was surprised to see that despite fairly notable billing, she's only in the last five minutes of the film. But her role is integral to cap everything, as she defines Nicholson's persona in a hazy monologue that serves to feed his male ego and show us what he truly craves.

Grade:

FINALLY, after a massive delay, The Movie Loot - Episode 51 is out. It is our "final" episode so me and my guest, author and Internet friend, Phil Sagan talk about "final films" from directors that passed away.

The Movie Loot 51: The Final Loot (with Phil Sagan)

Spotify users can check it out here, while Apple Podcast users can check it out here, but the podcast is also available on all the main podcast platforms.

Can we acknowledge the irony of the song "Why Can't We Be Friends?" sung by a band called War? But that War song is probably what good ole' Doc (Ned Glass) should have sung to the Jets and the Sharks on this classic musical, since they can't help but fight and kill.

The film follows these two gangs as they struggle for control of their NYC neighborhood. The Jets are a white gang while the Sharks are a Puerto Rican gang. Meanwhile, Tony (Richard Beymer), a former Jet, falls in love with Maria (Natalie Wood), the sister of the leader of the Sharks, which further sparks the conflict between both groups.

However, the original idea was to have Irish and Jewish gangs at the center. This serves to show that fight, kill, and "war" has always been at the center of numerous communities, but also to highlight one of my main issues with the film, which is that it's not, and it has never been, a true representation of Puerto Rican culture and diaspora.

I'm Puerto Rican, and my first experience with West Side Story didn't go that well. The first time I saw it was probably 20-ish years ago and I really didn't like it. Not necessarily for the reasons I mention above, but mostly because I found the two central characters AND performances (Beymer and Wood) to be utterly boring and completely uninteresting. However, as I grew up, I became more aware of the racial issues in its script and execution.

To begin with, the studio cast numerous white actors in the roles of Puerto Ricans, most notably Wood (American) and George Chakiris (Greek), who plays Bernardo, the leader of the Sharks. To make matters worse, Chakiris and even Rita Moreno, who is an actual Puerto Rican, had to wear brownface to "darken" their skin tone to what the studio perceived to be the "right" Puerto Rican skin tone.

In addition, although the story does intend to put the Jets and Sharks on more or less the same level, the script and direction can't help but lean towards the Jets. The film opens with the Jets, and for most of the film's duration, the focus is solely on them, relegating the Puerto Rican Sharks to secondary characters or even the "bad guys". For a film that's heralded as the representation of Puerto Rican culture, that says a lot.

But my first point of contention remained the same; Beymer and Wood just can't hold this. Not only are their performances bland, but their characters are completely boring. The fact that they are completely upstaged by Chakiris and Moreno, whose characters are infinitely more interesting, just adds to the list of film's flaws.

To be fair, this time around I did appreciate the direction and cinematography more. There is a stagey feel to it, but I think it fits the musical template well. Most of the songs and choreographies are catchy and well executed. Unfortunately, that isn't enough to get over the racial and misrepresentation issues, but more importantly, the vacuum of the two lead characters and performances.

Grade:

I liked it quite a bit when I first watched it, but I'm curious how well it would hold up with a rewatch. Out of curiosity, do you plan to check out Spielberg's remake?

__________________
IMDb
Letterboxd

I will probably check it out, although I've already read that, despite improving in some areas, it seems to share some of the same issues. I mean, I will still see it, see for myself, but most local critics have been mixed on it.

Rita Moreno won a Best Supporting Actress Oscar in 1962 for her performance in West Side Story. For most actors and actresses that could've meant an instant recipe for success... but not for Moreno, a Puerto Rican, who found herself being offered the same stereotypical Latina roles she was getting before. What to do? well, like the title says, just go for it, but on your terms.

This documentary, from Mariem Pérez Riera, follows the life and career of Moreno from her birth in a humble town in Puerto Rico to where she is now, a 90 year old Oscar-winner with a renowned career, and a new film about to come out. The path there is neatly defined by film historian Annette Insdorf in the above quote, because when faced with the same stereotypes, she managed to shake it off and diversify her career in a unique way.

After taking a break in the 1960s for personal issues, Moreno came roaring back in the 1970s, winning a Grammy, an Emmy, and two Emmys (the coveted EGOT). And she did so in a most varied way, working on children's shows, TV procedurals, Broadway theater, and many more. Not only that, but she has also received numerous social and political awards from various organizations.

But the documentary also puts a spotlight on the many personal issues she has faced. Aside from discrimination and typecasting, she went through a toxic relationship with Marlon Brando, and even a sexual assault by a former agent. Despite all that, Moreno has managed to become a stalwart of Latin communities and an icon of female empowerment. All of that because she decided to go for it.

Grade:

I grew up watching Rita on The Electric Company. Eventually one day I learned that she was in movies, too.

__________________
Captain's Log
My Collection

Haven't seen WSS yet, but did you ever hear that anecdote (which I first heard here) about Moreno complaining to her makeup artist about having to wear the brownface to look like just another fake Puerto Rican, to which her artist responded by asking her if she was "racist"? Because holy ****, talk about your Hall Of Fame-worthy tone-deaf responses, huh?