Actors: Campbell Scott, Ricky Jay
Director: David Mamet
Why is there not a statue of David Mamet somewhere? No one writes dialogue like Mamet and no one writes plots like Mamet. Yet he's become a ghost of the cinema in the 2000s, hardly writing or directing anything for the screen. We must demand that he return, because there won't be another David Mamet or anything like him again.
Indeed, no one writes like Mamet, but a lot of people direct like him - he's not a particularly interesting director. Everything's very matter-of-fact. He doesn't get great performances out of people - it seems like at times he doesn't want them. Even so, The Spanish Prisoner is the closest thing we get in these diluted times to the wonder of Alfred Hitchcock.
Friday, August 30, 2013
Saturday, August 24, 2013
The Naked City - 1948 - 4 Stars
Actors: Barry Fitzgerald, Howard Duff
Director: Jules Dassin
How much credit do we give to films that break molds? How much generosity do we have towards films that explain things we as a modern audience already know? The Naked City attempts to lay out how homicide investigations work, then leads us methodically through their chase. This feels novel for the time, but it's quite tedious to any veteran of procedural shows. The film's 'gimmick', and the reason why it's any good at all, is that it also has the twist of being shot largely on location. The film even makes it a point to state early on that it's shot on location. As a result, it's hard for me not to experience the exhiliration that must've been watching the film's climax in 1948 - that this feels REAL, and the earlier slow-paced scenes drive home that reality even more. It's a shame how in these days of CGI how so much of film has retreated once again to the studio.
Director: Jules Dassin
How much credit do we give to films that break molds? How much generosity do we have towards films that explain things we as a modern audience already know? The Naked City attempts to lay out how homicide investigations work, then leads us methodically through their chase. This feels novel for the time, but it's quite tedious to any veteran of procedural shows. The film's 'gimmick', and the reason why it's any good at all, is that it also has the twist of being shot largely on location. The film even makes it a point to state early on that it's shot on location. As a result, it's hard for me not to experience the exhiliration that must've been watching the film's climax in 1948 - that this feels REAL, and the earlier slow-paced scenes drive home that reality even more. It's a shame how in these days of CGI how so much of film has retreated once again to the studio.
This Is 40 - 2012 - 3 Stars
Actors: Paul Rudd, Leslie Mann
Director: Judd Apatow
There isn't a great film trapped inside This Is 40, but there's certainly a much better one than what ends up on screen. Juggling comedy and drama is an Apatow forte, but here he manages to make a film that's tonally all over the place - it doesn't know if it wants to be a well-observed drama about the difficulties of marriage (I was reminded most of Husbands and Wives) or a wacky comedy about same. Confounding the matter is the service he has to give to the ensemble of recognizable faces - there's almost something Shakespearean about how he gives minutes of this film over to side characters who have no stake in the action. Rudd and Mann are excellent, and even the Apatow children have difficult scenes and manage them well. I guess I'd just like to see Apatow make a film without all these people. If I can be permitted to read into things, I suspect part of the issue with this film is that Apatow got his start in television, where it's awfully hard to let an audience expecting a comedy to go several minutes without laughing. This could've been an effective drama with several gut laughs instead of a misshapen comedy (still w/ some gut laughs) but whose dramatic elements are scattered. I'm just not sure Apatow will ever make that kind of film though, and his comedic instincts are not evolving, so I unfortunately expect diminishing returns.
Director: Judd Apatow
There isn't a great film trapped inside This Is 40, but there's certainly a much better one than what ends up on screen. Juggling comedy and drama is an Apatow forte, but here he manages to make a film that's tonally all over the place - it doesn't know if it wants to be a well-observed drama about the difficulties of marriage (I was reminded most of Husbands and Wives) or a wacky comedy about same. Confounding the matter is the service he has to give to the ensemble of recognizable faces - there's almost something Shakespearean about how he gives minutes of this film over to side characters who have no stake in the action. Rudd and Mann are excellent, and even the Apatow children have difficult scenes and manage them well. I guess I'd just like to see Apatow make a film without all these people. If I can be permitted to read into things, I suspect part of the issue with this film is that Apatow got his start in television, where it's awfully hard to let an audience expecting a comedy to go several minutes without laughing. This could've been an effective drama with several gut laughs instead of a misshapen comedy (still w/ some gut laughs) but whose dramatic elements are scattered. I'm just not sure Apatow will ever make that kind of film though, and his comedic instincts are not evolving, so I unfortunately expect diminishing returns.
Friday, August 23, 2013
Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol - 2011 - 3½ Stars
Actors: Tom Cruise, Jeremy Renner
Director: Brad Bird
Mission: Impossible has always had a relation to media since the TV show began in the 1960s - think of 'This tape will self-destruct in 5 seconds'. The idea of disappearing, erasable, non-traceable items, posing as other people, etc. It's fared a lot better with technology than its 1960s franchise counterpart Star Trek - the idea of fully manned spacecraft now seems absurd. But spies in an era of facial recognition technology and drones? Still necessary. Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol's best sequence involves the use of a 'real', intra-movie special effect to deceive someone, which both functions as great visual fun as well as a nod to how much film special effects and the conceits of the spy film (and perhaps espionage in general) owe to one another. In addition, it gets around the problem of modern cinema where a character is sitting at a computer looking intently and typing furiously - due to machinations of a particular plot, these computer scenes are often considered action.
I wanted to rate this higher, but action films today (well, not just today, Hitchcock's films often have this issue) have a problem with the final setpiece because you know how the film has to end. Still, for the first 90 minutes, this movie is as good as modern action films get - low exposition, minimal character development, but still high tension and excitement.
Director: Brad Bird
Mission: Impossible has always had a relation to media since the TV show began in the 1960s - think of 'This tape will self-destruct in 5 seconds'. The idea of disappearing, erasable, non-traceable items, posing as other people, etc. It's fared a lot better with technology than its 1960s franchise counterpart Star Trek - the idea of fully manned spacecraft now seems absurd. But spies in an era of facial recognition technology and drones? Still necessary. Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol's best sequence involves the use of a 'real', intra-movie special effect to deceive someone, which both functions as great visual fun as well as a nod to how much film special effects and the conceits of the spy film (and perhaps espionage in general) owe to one another. In addition, it gets around the problem of modern cinema where a character is sitting at a computer looking intently and typing furiously - due to machinations of a particular plot, these computer scenes are often considered action.
I wanted to rate this higher, but action films today (well, not just today, Hitchcock's films often have this issue) have a problem with the final setpiece because you know how the film has to end. Still, for the first 90 minutes, this movie is as good as modern action films get - low exposition, minimal character development, but still high tension and excitement.
Thursday, August 22, 2013
Kind Hearts And Coronets - 1949 - 4 Stars
Actors: Alec Guinness, Dennis Price
Director: Robert Hamer
Old films can sometimes feel like cinematic vegetables - necessary to consume, sure, boring and bland, without question. One of the joys of a director like Hitchcock that so many of his films traffic in dark humor as well as thrills - they're fun, they look like fun to write, direct, and act in. Kind Hearts And Coronets is a film in this tradition. It's a slow starter that relies heavily on narration, but as it gathers momentum it becomes darkly funny, featuring many twists and turns - it's more like a high-class British noir film (noir in theme, not in style). I hadn't even realized that Alec Guinness plays eight different roles, which is good, because that would've been distracting.
Director: Robert Hamer
Old films can sometimes feel like cinematic vegetables - necessary to consume, sure, boring and bland, without question. One of the joys of a director like Hitchcock that so many of his films traffic in dark humor as well as thrills - they're fun, they look like fun to write, direct, and act in. Kind Hearts And Coronets is a film in this tradition. It's a slow starter that relies heavily on narration, but as it gathers momentum it becomes darkly funny, featuring many twists and turns - it's more like a high-class British noir film (noir in theme, not in style). I hadn't even realized that Alec Guinness plays eight different roles, which is good, because that would've been distracting.
Holy Motors - 2012 - 4½ Stars, 2 Stars
Actors: Denis Lavant, Edith Scob
Director: Leos Carax
I was going to think of films and directors to try to describe Holy Motors by way of analogy, but that is decidedly unfair - this is a singular film. At no point is it predictable or does it allow you to get into a rhythm with it. I've given it two ratings because I feel like this aspect of the film succeeds wildly while the other parts of the film are not so well-developed. Its singularity gets in the way of everything it attempts to do.
Warning: I won't spoil any plot elements, but I will be discussing themes which are kinda spoilers for this one
What I'm having trouble grappling with is the idea that Holy Motors is more than a meta-film. It's both an imagination of what could be - how the world theoretically could be, what's going on behind our collective backs - and seemingly also a meditation on the role of the stage/film actor in society. Since the latter film has been done a thousand times and is not particularly interesting or emotionally affecting, I'm trying really hard to get past that. We don't really get a sense of what our lead character truly is (nor does his existence present very much that's equal to our own), so how can we empathize with his life? Indeed, I think that's the trouble with this film and why it doesn't fully work for me - the layers of artifice make it very difficult for any of the emotional sequences in the film to resonate, as they would in a more conventional film. Or is the emotional content our (and the characters') awareness of the artifice itself?
I'm reminded very much of films like 8½ and Synecdoche, New York, and I didn't love either one of those. Then again I'm also reminded of David Lynch and I do like him. I don't know - I wish this had been just a little different, I think I might've loved it. It is one film that I can legitimately call 'post-modern' - every element in this film is unstable and prone to alteration.
Director: Leos Carax
I was going to think of films and directors to try to describe Holy Motors by way of analogy, but that is decidedly unfair - this is a singular film. At no point is it predictable or does it allow you to get into a rhythm with it. I've given it two ratings because I feel like this aspect of the film succeeds wildly while the other parts of the film are not so well-developed. Its singularity gets in the way of everything it attempts to do.
Warning: I won't spoil any plot elements, but I will be discussing themes which are kinda spoilers for this one
What I'm having trouble grappling with is the idea that Holy Motors is more than a meta-film. It's both an imagination of what could be - how the world theoretically could be, what's going on behind our collective backs - and seemingly also a meditation on the role of the stage/film actor in society. Since the latter film has been done a thousand times and is not particularly interesting or emotionally affecting, I'm trying really hard to get past that. We don't really get a sense of what our lead character truly is (nor does his existence present very much that's equal to our own), so how can we empathize with his life? Indeed, I think that's the trouble with this film and why it doesn't fully work for me - the layers of artifice make it very difficult for any of the emotional sequences in the film to resonate, as they would in a more conventional film. Or is the emotional content our (and the characters') awareness of the artifice itself?
I'm reminded very much of films like 8½ and Synecdoche, New York, and I didn't love either one of those. Then again I'm also reminded of David Lynch and I do like him. I don't know - I wish this had been just a little different, I think I might've loved it. It is one film that I can legitimately call 'post-modern' - every element in this film is unstable and prone to alteration.
Tuesday, August 20, 2013
Happy People: A Year In The Taiga - 2010 - No Rating
Subject: Russian sable trappers living in Siberia and their life during each season
Director: Dmitri Yasyukov, Werner Herzog
I give documentaries no rating when I feel that they are about interesting subjects and capably done, but there's nothing extra to them. I feel like it's unfair to rate a documentary by how interesting the subject is, even if the documentary doesn't really hang together as a narrative. This documentary never constructs a narrative, nor does it build to anything, but it is still worth seeing. It's a bit too eager to suggest that people using plane tools, chainsaws, plastic sheeting, and snowmobiles are doing things by the 'traditional way', but some of the traditional ways are also shown and are fascinating.
I'm curious about Herzog's involvement in this project, as he is listed as a director (and narrates). One scene in particular feels like Herzog's contribution to the film, and also feels out of place and mean.
Director: Dmitri Yasyukov, Werner Herzog
I give documentaries no rating when I feel that they are about interesting subjects and capably done, but there's nothing extra to them. I feel like it's unfair to rate a documentary by how interesting the subject is, even if the documentary doesn't really hang together as a narrative. This documentary never constructs a narrative, nor does it build to anything, but it is still worth seeing. It's a bit too eager to suggest that people using plane tools, chainsaws, plastic sheeting, and snowmobiles are doing things by the 'traditional way', but some of the traditional ways are also shown and are fascinating.
I'm curious about Herzog's involvement in this project, as he is listed as a director (and narrates). One scene in particular feels like Herzog's contribution to the film, and also feels out of place and mean.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)