Aaron Watches Criterions

[DSNT]

http://cdn.cultofmac.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Screen-Shot-2011-11-08-at-8.31.42-PM.jpg

It has been awhile since I've regularly frequented this board. A lot of that time was spent growing up, finishing school, and pursuing other interests. Meanwhile, I have remained a film buff. In fact, I will soon graduate with a film studies minor (was going to be a double major, but the department had staffing issues for a couple years). I've continued to watch plenty of films, new and old, and have amassed a large collection of DVDs.

The Criterion Collection DVDs are the ones that I cherish the most. I began collecting them in the early 2000s. I remember there was one time where I sold a lot of old belongings on eBay. Rather than put the money in my bank account, I turned around and ordered a number of Criterions. As they have transitioned to Blu-Ray, I've collected them more regularly and aggressively. Lately I have bought a large amount of Blu-Rays and have put together a decent collection.

You can see my entire collection here. (http://www.criterion.com/my_criterion/138372-aaron-r/collection?sort_by=title)

I have seen many of these movies before, although I'll frequently blind buy a title if it looks interesting. If I hate it, I'll just resell it online, although that has only happened a couple of times.

Out of the 156 titles currently listed in my collection (some of which are pre-orders), there are probably about 50 I haven't seen. Some of those titles are large box-sets with many films, for instance the Zatoichi Box (http://www.criterion.com/boxsets/1012-zatoichi-the-blind-swordsman) has 26 films. So the actual number of unseen films is probably above 100.

I own others I have seen before and treasure. For instance, the upcoming La Dolce Vita (http://www.criterion.com/films/28619-la-dolce-vita), which I have pre-ordered, is one that I saw about a decade ago. It is among my favorite Fellini's, but with the passage of time and having seen many other films in between, the details have faded from memory. Criterion gives me the opportunity to revisit a film like this, and since their Blu-Ray transfers are usually top notch, it is practically a new experience. In addition, the features give me a lot of context about the films. Although I've studied some of these movies in classes, in a lot of respects, a Criterion disc is a film class in a box.

Match Cut seems to be the most appropriate place for me to post and blog about my Criterion experiences as they happen. I look forward to hearing feedback and comments on what I watch, even if they do not agree with me.

In some ways this will be like a blog. I'll talk about the film, whether it is a new viewing or rewatch, will watch all or most of the features and talk about those, give a rating, and so on. Since I pre-order most of the Criterions as they are released, this will become a place for me to review a lot of releases. Meanwhile I also rent titles from the library, especially titles that haven't been upgraded, so I'll give those a look as well.

I hope you enjoy, and I encourage you to share any thoughts and suggestions.
I'm glad to be back, and looking forward to this project.

Index of Titles:

All That Jazz (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5544-Aaron-Watches-Criterions&p=525247&viewfull=1#post525247)
The Big Chill (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5544-Aaron-Watches-Criterions&p=522469&viewfull=1#post522469)
The Bitter Tears of Petra Von Kant (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5544-Aaron-Watches-Criterions&p=533977&viewfull=1#post533977)
Bottle Rocket (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5544-Aaron-Watches-Criterions&p=532156&viewfull=1#post532156)
Cul-de-sac (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5544-Aaron-Watches-Criterions&p=519533&viewfull=1#post519533)
Down by Law (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5544-Aaron-Watches-Criterions&p=529009&viewfull=1#post529009)
Eraserhead (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5544-Aaron-Watches-Criterions&p=525765&viewfull=1#post525765)
The Fantastic Mr. Fox (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5544-Aaron-Watches-Criterions&p=519615&viewfull=1#post519615)
The Innocents (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5544-Aaron-Watches-Criterions&p=526200&viewfull=1#post526200)
Insomnia (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5544-Aaron-Watches-Criterions&p=520316&viewfull=1#post520316)
In the Realm of the Senses (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5544-Aaron-Watches-Criterions&p=534542&viewfull=1#post534542)
It Happened One Night (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5544-Aaron-Watches-Criterions&p=530591&viewfull=1#post530591)
La Cienaga (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5544-Aaron-Watches-Criterions&p=534256&viewfull=1#post534256)
La Dolce Vita (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5544-Aaron-Watches-Criterions&p=527906&viewfull=1#post527906)
La Promesse (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5544-Aaron-Watches-Criterions&p=526983&viewfull=1#post526983)
The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5544-Aaron-Watches-Criterions&p=520682&viewfull=1#post520682)
Macbeth (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5544-Aaron-Watches-Criterions&p=526489&viewfull=1#post526489)
My Darling Clementine (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5544-Aaron-Watches-Criterions&p=527259&viewfull=1#post527259)
My Winnipeg (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5544-Aaron-Watches-Criterions&p=534624&viewfull=1#post534624)
The Night Porter (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5544-Aaron-Watches-Criterions&p=533032&viewfull=1#post533032)
The Palm Beach Story (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5544-Aaron-Watches-Criterions&p=534043&viewfull=1#post534043)
Pickpocket (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5544-Aaron-Watches-Criterions&p=519710&viewfull=1#post519710)
Richard III (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5544-Aaron-Watches-Criterions&p=527635&viewfull=1#post527635)
Ride in the Whirlwind (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5544-Aaron-Watches-Criterions&p=530413&viewfull=1#post530413)
Safe (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5544-Aaron-Watches-Criterions&p=532580&viewfull=1#post532580)
Scanners (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5544-Aaron-Watches-Criterions&p=519489&viewfull=1#post519489)
Shoah (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5544-Aaron-Watches-Criterions&p=522840&viewfull=1#post522840)
The Shooting (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5544-Aaron-Watches-Criterions&p=530017&viewfull=1#post530017)
Something Wild (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5544-Aaron-Watches-Criterions&p=534123&viewfull=1#post534123)
Sundays and Cybele (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5544-Aaron-Watches-Criterions&p=526776&viewfull=1#post526776)
Sweet Smell of Success (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5544-Aaron-Watches-Criterions&p=521109&viewfull=1#post521109)
The Sword of Doom (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5544-Aaron-Watches-Criterions&p=533871&viewfull=1#post533871)
Tie Me Up! Tie Me Down! (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5544-Aaron-Watches-Criterions&p=523122&viewfull=1#post523122)
Time Bandits (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5544-Aaron-Watches-Criterions&p=532103&viewfull=1#post532103)
Tokyo Drifter (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5544-Aaron-Watches-Criterions&p=535001&viewfull=1#post535001)
Tootsie (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5544-Aaron-Watches-Criterions&p=532951&viewfull=1#post532951)
Vengeance is Mine (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5544-Aaron-Watches-Criterions&p=524308&viewfull=1#post524308)
Y Tu Mamá También (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5544-Aaron-Watches-Criterions&p=523573&viewfull=1#post523573)


Box Sets:

Cassavetes: Five Films
Shadows (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5544-Aaron-Watches-Criterions&p=521339&viewfull=1#post521339)
Faces (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5544-Aaron-Watches-Criterions&p=522398&viewfull=1#post522398)
A Woman Under the Influence (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5544-Aaron-Watches-Criterions&p=523318&viewfull=1#post523318)
The Killing of a Chinese Bookie (long version) (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5544-Aaron-Watches-Criterions&p=523822&viewfull=1#post523822)
Opening Night (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5544-Aaron-Watches-Criterions&p=526265&viewfull=1#post526265)

The Complete Jacques Tati (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5544-Aaron-Watches-Criterions&p=531629&viewfull=1#post531629)
Jour de Fete (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5544-Aaron-Watches-Criterions&p=528016&viewfull=1#post528016)
Monsieur Hulot's Holiday (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5544-Aaron-Watches-Criterions&p=528575&viewfull=1#post528575)
Mon Oncle (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5544-Aaron-Watches-Criterions&p=529222&viewfull=1#post529222)
PlayTime (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5544-Aaron-Watches-Criterions&p=530485&viewfull=1#post530485)
Trafic (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5544-Aaron-Watches-Criterions&p=531018&viewfull=1#post531018)
Parade (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5544-Aaron-Watches-Criterions&p=531052&viewfull=1#post531052)
Tati Shorts (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5544-Aaron-Watches-Criterions&p=531362&viewfull=1#post531362)

David Lean Directs Noel Coward
Blithe Spirit (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5544-Aaron-Watches-Criterions&p=527660&viewfull=1#post527660)

The Essential Jacques Demy (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5544-Aaron-Watches-Criterions&p=524528&viewfull=1#post524528):
Lola, Bay of Angels (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5544-Aaron-Watches-Criterions&p=520104&viewfull=1#post520104)
The Umbrellas of Cherbourg (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5544-Aaron-Watches-Criterions&p=520435&viewfull=1#post520435)
The Young Girls of Rochefort (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5544-Aaron-Watches-Criterions&p=520971&viewfull=1#post520971)
Donkey Skin (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5544-Aaron-Watches-Criterions&p=524483&viewfull=1#post524483)
Une chambre en ville (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5544-Aaron-Watches-Criterions&p=524520&viewfull=1#post524520)

Les Blank: Always for Pleasure
Part One (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5544-Aaron-Watches-Criterions&p=532207&viewfull=1#post532207)
Part Two (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5544-Aaron-Watches-Criterions&p=533208&viewfull=1#post533208)
Part Three (http://criterionblues.com/2015/01/31/les-blank-always-for-pleasure-part-3/)
Part Four (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5544-Aaron-Watches-Criterions&p=534321&viewfull=1#post534321)

Zatoichi: The Blind Swordsman:
Discs 1-3 (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5544-Aaron-Watches-Criterions&p=519558&viewfull=1#post519558)
Disc 4 (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5544-Aaron-Watches-Criterions&p=520252&viewfull=1#post520252)

[EyesWideOpen]

Looking forward to it!

[DSNT]

SCANNERS, DAVID CRONENBERG, 1981

http://s3.amazonaws.com/criterion-production/release_boxshots/4263-b19526d80886549d802edcb4da93a4 f5/712_DF_box_348x490_original.jp g

I first saw Scanners as a teenager. I cannot remember precisely where, but it was a cable stable in the 1980s-1990s, and it infamous for that exploding head scene. It was Cronenberg's breakthrough film, which established what would be an interesting and diverse career for someone who cut his teeth making raw horror films. When I was younger, I embraced the novelty of the special effectives, especially that head that I have seen probably 1000 times via GIFs.

Sometimes time and experience can change perception. My memory was that Scanners was a cutting edge, state of the art, ground breaking horror film. It is some of those things, lots of those things, but I remembered it being a little better than what I saw yesterday. The plot is scattershot, and some of it hasn't aged well (like having the protagonist scan into a monochrome computer system via a pay phone). Until the final scene, it lacks character conflict. We don't really understand the motivations for each of the two scanning leads, and the clunky corporate exposition doesn't help matters. Michael Ironside practically steals every scene he is in, and I found myself wanting more of him -- one of my favorite scenes being the archived videotape where he explains drilling into his own head. His adversary, played by Stephen Lack is barely interesting and could have used some acting lessons.

The head explosion scene was absolutely fan-f'ing-tastic! I had forgotten when to expect it, and I love that it came 13 minutes in. It sets the tone for the violence and special effects to come. The Blu-Ray transfer didn't make too much of a difference, but it probably would have if I had watched frame by frame.

I found much of the exposition to be plodding, and some of that makes sense now that I understand the production difficulties. And then comes the ending, which I will do my best not to spoil. Let me just say that these effects are most definitely dated, and I still cringed at what they did with the veins, which DID look a lot better in Blu-Ray.

Rating: 6/10

Special Features:

The 25-minute or so featurette about the visual effects was more engaging than the movie itself. I had no idea how they pulled off the exploding head, and I won't say here, but it is worth watching just to see that. I will say that the way they did this would not happen in a studio production today. It also spoke to the issues with production, the daily re-writes, and what a mad, chaotic scramble the entire production was. Yet they managed to bring in some of the best in the business, which showed in the end product.

There were interviews with Michael Ironside and Stephen Lack, which were somewhat interesting, but I find myself less interested in Criterion interviews, especially when they are nearly half an hour a piece. There are exceptions, like Sterling Hayden's interview for The Killing, but that's a topic for another day. Ironside's was somewhat more compelling because he's since gained a lot of credibility by working in countless features. Lack was, well, lacking, and I probably am biased because I didn't like him in the role.

The Cronenberg appearance on Canadian television was short, to the point, and my 2nd favorite feature. It was mostly a retrospective, as they showed trailers for his handful of prior films (Shivers, The Brood, etc.) and had him say a few words about them. It was mostly interesting to see Cronenberg in 1981, in his element, looking like one of the early Microsoft programmers. He said that he wasn't really a horror fan, yet the genre found him. That speaks to his later work, where he would dabble in other areas, and has practically abandoned the horror film today.

Despite this not being a Criterion-caliber film, its position in pop and specifically horror culture makes it worth a look.

Criterion Rating: 7/10

[Watashi]

I tried this once.

I failed.

[DSNT]

I tried this once.

I failed.

Did you try to go from spine #1 to present? That's way ambitious. I watch a ton of Criterions so I'll succeed at taking a chunk out of the collection, just not the entire thing.

[Izzy Black]

Awesome thread. I'll be following.

[EyesWideOpen]

I tried this once.

I failed.

You also tried Disney films. :lol:

[Kurosawa Fan]

Phenomenal to have you back, DSNT. Looking forward to this thread.

[ledfloyd]

Aaron Watches Criterions or: How I Spent My Spouse's Jeopardy Winnings

[Irish]

:lol: Damn, nice one, Floyd.

[DSNT]

LOL. Don't get me in trouble now.

[DSNT]

CUL-DE-SAC, ROMAN POLANSKI, 1966

http://s3.amazonaws.com/criterion-production/release_boxshots/3418-4fd08132fa9497b7176cd78b987e1b 08/577_BD_box_348x490_original.jp g

Some might consider this a lesser Polanski, but it was produced during what I consider his peak. Repulsion[i], which I consider to be the best Polanski (sorry Chinatown!) came out just the year before, and this pictures uses many of the same crew, including the DP, Gilbert Taylor. It has a similar look and feel to [i]Repulsion. While this film is lighter in tone and has some comedic moments, it still had similar, dark themes as his surrounding films, which would culminate a couple years later in Rosemary’s Baby, another of his best films.

Cul-de-Sac could have been a three-act play using mostly four lead actors, but the location of Lindisfarne / Holy Island was almost like another character. It was the dead end, or cul-de-sac in many ways for all of these characters, whether temporary or permanent. The castle was beautiful, but remote, isolated, and subject to the tidal whims of the sea. It was a change in tide that created the situation that put these characters together, as the car of two gangsters stalls on its way to the island.

The ensemble case consisted of lesser known talent, but they really shined here. Most notable was Donald Pleasence in his effeminate portrayal of the cuckolded husband George. Françoise Dorléac played his restless French wife. I admired her work in Truffault’s The Soft Skin, and it is worth noting that she is the elder sister of Catherine Deneuve, who was absolutely fantastic in Repulsion. In many ways the two characters were similar, albeit Dorléac’s Teresa responds to her isolation with adultery rather than psychosis. Finally, Lionel Stander played Dickie, the gangster who occupies and bullies the quiet lives of this odd pairing. He was perfectly cast as the loudmouth ruffian, which results in terrific character conflict between Pleasence and Dorléac.

I would be remiss if I didn’t mention the amazing long take. There is a period where the threesome are on the beach, when Dorléac strips naked, runs into the water and leaves the men to argue. As they continue their bickering, a noise is heard from overhead which Dickie thinks is a helicopter coming to rescue him. Instead, to his disappointment, it is a low flying airplane. The actors play off it exceptionally well, and the plane enters the frame with perfect timing. Dorléac right on cue, returns from her swim towards the end of the shot. It was over 8-minutes, and it’s difficult for me to remember a better orchestrated take in Polanski’s long career.

Movie Rating: 8/10

Special Features:

The disc has a short, making-of featurette. What I like about the Criterion documentary features compared with traditional releases is that they aren’t self-congratulatory. They are honest about the production, warts and all. First off, I was surprised that they practically bash Stander, who was extremely difficult to work with. You wonder whether they would have been so frank about his behavior if were still living. They also talked about the animosity on the set between Polanski and pretty much everyone else. Finally, they talk about how they put together and timed the praiseworthy long take. If it weren’t for production problems and delays, it may not have happened.

They show a black and white TV interview with Polanski in 1967, just after he had filmed The Fearless Vampire Killers. Sometimes these features don’t work well, but this was a good interview, especially considering this was from when Polanski was young and at the height of his career. He touches on his rough childhood in Poland during the war (he was a Jewish refugee whose mother died), and focuses more on his career, and shows old shorts and previous works of his. It is a nice retrospective and Polanski is always a good interview subject, young or old.

The disc is light on special features and that is okay. Other Polanski releases, including Repulsion have a lot of features. This is a good companion to all of them.

Criterion Rating: 8/10

[DSNT]

ZATOICHI: THE BLIND SWORDSMAN (DISCS 1-3)

http://s3.amazonaws.com/criterion-production/release_boxshots/4173-5242eb352c079a31e6d952eb4c2ab1 c5/679_DF_box_348x490_original.jp g

First off, the Zatoichi boxset from Criterion is a gem. You can tell just by holding it or flipping through the discs that it’s on a completely different level than all other box sets. It is the largest, most ambitious release, with 25-films total. That’s too much to tackle in a short period of time, much less to summarize in a single post. For that reason, I’m dividing these into a series of three posts.

Zatoichi is genre filmmaking and it unquestionably follows a formula with few deviations, but it is still a treasure. A lot of this has to do with the time in which these films originated. They were produced during some of the best years of Japanese cinema. They followed in the footsteps of Mizoguchi’s samurai films and Hiroshi Inagaki’s Samurai trilogy, and were contemporary of some of Kurosawa’s best films. One of the films even included Yojimbo, one of Kurosawa’s most iconic characters. Meanwhile, the Japanese New Wave was in its prime, most notably Seijun Suzuki and his Yakuza films. The Zatoich was a serialized amalgamation of all of these narrative forms, and it even shared some of the same crew and cast as these classical Japanese artists. These essentially were template art films, with some thrills and adventures to keep audiences hooked.

The quality varies on each film. None that I have so far seen come close to the highs of the contemporaries that I just discussed, but I didn’t expect to see Ozu, Kurosawa or Naruse. At best, they are excellent, stylized, escapist genre films. At worse, they are mediocre yet still engaging and watchable. In many respects they are like a high quality TV series today (and Zatoichi did become a series), with some amazing episodes and some that are just okay. None are poorly put together or not worth watching. Again, like a TV series today, they are easy to binge watch just to see what happens to the hero next.

The premise is usually that Zatoichi wanders into a town inconspicuously where there is corruption present. There’s usually a woman in the picture, often (although not always) innocent and being taken advantage of. There are often warring factions, and when they realize who Zatoichi is, they try to lure him to their side with food, money, comfort, or whatever it takes. They are almost always unscrupulous, evil people. Zatoichi has his faults. He is greedy, likes to gamble, is susceptible to the charms of woman, but he is basically good and looks out for the common man. Regardless of what side he takes, he looks down on all who will make trouble for others.

You have to suspend a lot of disbelief. Yes, Zatoichi is blind, yet he gets around very well for himself and hardly ever stumbles or runs into walls. He is always deadly with the sword, and most battles have him engaged with several people. He never strikes first, and will often kill 2-3 people with a single spin and sword stroke. And, spoiler alert, he doesn’t get killed – there are 25 movies, after all. He barely gets hurt. Sometimes the action can get monotonous because the outcome is clear; other times it is thrilling.

Of the nine that I have seen so far, I appreciated the ones where they peeled away at the character. The first two, which happen to be the only black and white ones, establish the legend and develop the character. They are not short of action either, but they spend more time investigating this unique character. The films shift to color with the third film, and there’s a little more action, and they settle somewhat lazily on the formula. The high point for me was the seventh film, Zatoichi’s Flashing Sword because it makes the best use of color and is the most stylized, while deviating from the formula enough to show that Zatoichi has some weakness, can be harmed, and is capable of blood lust. The films blend together to a certain degree, but Flashing Sword’s imagery has stuck with me the most. The latter two films I felt suffered from monotony as they tried to unsuccessfully break away from the formula. One of them has Zatoichi interacting with a child and a flawed woman, which would normally be a nice change, but it came across stilted and less confident.

1. The Tale of Zatoichi – 8/10
2. The Tale of Zatoichi Continues – 7.5/10
3. New Tale of Zatoichi – 7/10
4. Zatoichi the Fugitive – 6.5/10
5. Zatoichi on the Road – 7/10
6. Zatoichi and the Chest of Gold – 6/10
7. Zatoichi’s Flashing Sword – 8.5/10
8. Fight, Zatoichi, Fight – 5.5/10
9. Adventures of Zatoichi – 5/10

Special Features: None yet until the end.

Criterion Rating: 9/10

[MadMan]

Cul-De-Sac is one of the handful of 60s Polanski films I still need to watch. I like Scanners but I don't love it. Maybe it needs a rewatch.

[ledfloyd]

I really like Cul-de-Sac. Haven't seen the others, but I'm interested in Scanners.

[DSNT]

THE FANTASTIC MR. FOX, WES ANDERSON, 2009

http://s3.amazonaws.com/criterion-production/release_boxshots/4210-eba0640940d7c3b6a0d9ca142a06f6 c9/700_DF_box_348x490_original.jp g

As I began re-watching Fantastic Mr. Fox for the second time, I tried to convince my wife to watch it with me. “I’m allergic to Wes Anderson,” she said. I tried to explain that this was different from the typical Anderson film because it is animated and based on a Roald Dahl work. As it reached the five-minute mark and she heard Bill Murray’s voice, she said “yes it is! It is just a Wes Anderson movie with animation!” and she was gone. I still think she might enjoy this, as it seems to be one that other Anderson haters embrace. That includes me, to a certain extent.

Among some circles, this is blasphemy, but I am not a huge Wes Anderson fan. I respect him immensely as a filmmaker and acknowledge his creative vision, but his filmmaking mannerisms (or Andersonisms) are a little too organized, calculated, and a departure from reality. I like Bottle Rocket and Rushmore, and I liked The Grand Budapest Hotel. I loved The Royal Tenenbaums when it first came out, but it hasn’t aged well because he has gone back to the well too often.

That said, I cussing adore The Fantastic Mr. Fox! It is a cussing brilliant film, and easily my favorite Anderson.

Oddly enough, even though these are animals, they feel more real than any Tenenbaums, Zissou’s or other Andersonish characters. There’s a little of Mr. Fox in all of us, adventurous, impulsive, occasionally brilliant, and yes, egotistical. His faults can be frustrating and endearing, and that materializes with his marriage to Mrs. Fox, so eloquently voiced by Meryl Streep. Even his child and nephew and their little rivalry and is easily relatable. Most people can put themselves in either the Ash or Kristofferson category, and you can empathize with both. That they are so far apart makes their chemistry and eventual friendship that much more moving. They find that they both have different strengths and weaknesses, which is sort of the point of the entire film. On top of that, I love the wolf scene and how it embodies facing and embracing what we are most afraid of, which often is just as afraid and nervous about us.

That’s not to say that there are not a lot of Andersonisms added to the project. The game of Wackbat and the Owen Wilson quickly narrated instructions while showing an overhead view of the field with complicated, graphical examples that populate and crowd the screen. And yes, he relies on a lot of his stable of actors, such as Murray, Schwartzman, Murray, Wilson, and his brother Eric. If you only listened to the film, it probably wouldn’t sound too different than other Anderson movies. Even though I’m not a fanboy, that’s not a bad thing. Anderson has a lot of talent and a distinctive style, which I found to be a better fit with animation than live action.

Movie Rating: 8.5/10

Special Features: This disc is absolutely loaded with features. There’s an animatic version of the film, which is basically the same voices with storyboards. I’m sure there’s an audience of that, and I thought it was interesting for 10 minutes, but couldn’t re-watch the entire movie this way.

The making-of scenes were vast and fantastic. They range from showing the actors out on a farm doing their voice acting, to seeing the laborious stop motion animation process, to seeing the musical composition. They number more than a dozen little vignettes that are all enjoyable.

One of the coolest features is Dahl reading the original story, which I enjoyed for a short duration. There have been audio tracks like this on other discs. Red River for instance had the full radio play. All are interesting, but you have to keep the DVD in the player on that screen to listen to the audio. It is too bad Criterion doesn’t let you download the file to listen later on a mobile device.

There’s also a terrific audio commentary by Wes Anderson. He talks a lot about the technique and process, but also talks about where he got his vision. I liked when he pointed out where he lifted objects from, whether they were from Dahl’s house or borrowed from other films, such as Truffault’s The Story of Adele H, which Anderson wonders out loud if he can be sued for mentioning. Probably not since it made the cut.

If that’s not enough, there’s also an hour-long documentary about Roald Dahl. I watched the beginning and my interest was peaked, but I will save it for a day.

Because of the extensive special features and the gorgeous digipak case, if you have any appreciation for this film, I’d recommend the Criterion. I consider it among the best that have been released this year.

Criterion Rating: 10/10

[Watashi]

THE FANTASTIC MR. FOX, 2009

As I began re-watching Fantastic Mr. Fox for the second time, I tried to convince my wife to watch it with me. “I’m allergic to Wes Anderson,” she said.

Divorce her.

[DSNT]

Divorce her.

Now, now. Her windfall has purchased 3-4 Wes Anderson Criterions. Allergic or not, she's giving him money.

I forgot to mention in my write-up my favorite feature. It was labeled "Discussion and Analysis." Sounded interesting, and when I clicked there were two young kids who debated the themes of the movie. Of course the topics were basic, like whether stealing is ethically right or wrong. One of the kids was sharp, the other not so much. I heard somewhere that they were kids people involved with the production. The smart kid looked a lot like Jason Schwartzman.

[MadMan]

8.5 is my rating too. For now anyways. I'm glad I saw Fantastic Mr. Fox in theaters.

[DSNT]

PICKPOCKET, ROBERT BRESSON, 1959

http://s3.amazonaws.com/criterion-production/release_boxshots/4270-3905c49758013d8f83652e1754cb7a 39/314_DF_box_348x490_original.jp g

Pickpocket is one of those films that I'm surprised I haven't seen. It has been referenced numerous times in film class, and its influence on other films is well documented. It is arguably the most influential Bresson film, which is saying something. Even though I hadn't seen it, I felt like I had. I've seen the ending maybe a half-dozen times, and I've seen it copied, most notably by Paul Shrader who was obsessed with the film and contributed towards it being revisited and eventually enshrined as one of the greats.

I have seen enough other major Bresson works that I'm familiar with his quiet, contemplative, and spiritual style – the Bressonian tone. Au Hazard Balthazar, Lancelot du Lac and others are beautiful, yet challenging films. A Man Escaped shares more in common with Pickpocket. They both have quiet, downtrodden characters, both with often expressionless performances. These explain why the film is often watched multiple times, because the subtleties in expression are easier picked up on subsequent viewings. Even the slightest reaction becomes more monumental, more telling, and makes you question what the film is trying to say.

I've heard people describe both Pickpocket and A Man Escaped films as slow, but compared to some of the spiritual films, they are quite fast paced. Pickpocket moves very fast for a Bresson movie, as pointed out in the commentary. If you break down the events that take place in the plot, it sounds like a bit of a thriller:


Man steals to help his sick mother.

Man gets caught, gets let go.

He learns more about how to steal.

Goes on a thieving spree with two accomplices.

Gets interrogated by police, close to being caught.

Leaves country, comes back and tries to steal again.

Gets caught, thrown in jail.

Gets redemption through a girl.


I could see another director taking the same plot points and making the film more exciting, less memorable, and a more fleeting and bland experience. This film is not just about what happens to the pickpocket. It is about exploring his soul, why he becomes what he becomes, how he lives with it, and why he comes back to it.

Movie Rating: 9.5/10

Special Features:

The introduction from Paul Schrader is interesting and useful, but not essential. He explains what he sees in the film, how it has affected his career, and why it has lasted.

There is a short French TV interview with Bresson in 1960. What I found interesting about this was that the interviewers were antagonistic, and somewhat attacked the film and it’s cool reception. For instance, they asked why Pickpocket was disliked when A Man Escaped was liked. Bresson handled himself well, and said that people identified more with the hero and escapist rather than the criminal.

Film scholar James Quandt’s commentary was extremely well prepared and said a lot about the film. If anything, it was too academic and robotic, but that’s what I look for in academic commentaries. These are the types that really enhance the perception of the film. He points stuff out that you might eventually come to on your own after half a dozen views, or looks into various readings of the film. Because Pickpocket is such a quiet film, I appreciated his constant vocal presence and that he always had something to say.

The best feature was a documentary from 2003 where the filmmaker tracked down three of the former stars. The interviews with Pierre Leymarie and Marika Green were captivating because they go through the Bressonian process, and how he breaks down the performance for the amateur actors (or Models, as he called them), so that they are not really acting. He takes take after take to get what he wants and never lets the actor know which it is, but tends to use the later takes when the actor is tired. That is certainly apparent in Pickpocket, where all the actors have a worn down look, and explains why the tone and character appearance is consistent throughout most of his films, because he just about always uses non-actors and molds their performance the way he wants.

In the second half of the documentary, they find Martin LaSalle living a quiet life in Mexico City. He recalls his experience in fascinating detail, but focuses more on the emotional impact that the entire process left on him. He said it took him 10-15 years to recover from the experience. He went to study with Lee Strasburg and barely worked in the decade after Pickpocket, until eventually settling in and making a living. His personality was affable and gregarious. You could see moments of dourness, especially as he recalled the aftermath of the movie, but overall he was a pleasant person. I see that he has continued to act in Mexican films, and he is probably very happy with these occasional small roles that allow him time to tend to his gardening.

Criterion Rating: 10/10

[Pop Trash]

Wait...Julia Collins is your wife?!

[DSNT]

Wait...Julia Collins is your wife?!

Nope. We missed her by a week. My wife won at the next taping, but nowhere close to as much.
She posts here occasionally as Hugh Grant.

[DSNT]

Today's haul:

http://steepclimbs3.files.wordpress.c om/2014/07/photo-25.jpg

[Hugh_Grant]

Wait...Julia Collins is your wife?!

This made me laugh. :) No, I'm not Julia Collins. I'd hate to see what Aaron would buy if I were Julia.

[Gittes]

Very nice thread.

I'm coveting your impressive collection. I really want that Rossellini/Bergman box set, among numerous others in your full list (Red River, Rosemary's Baby, On The Waterfront, Kiss Me Deadly, etc.). I also spied a number of Criterions that I'm fortunate enough to own, and which are definitely among my most treasured: Black Narcissus, Repulsion, Days of Heaven (not the Bluray, sadly), The Sweet Smell of Success. If I'm not mistaken, The Red Shoes isn't included in your list. You should definitely pick it up. It's magnificent.

[dreamdead]

We're also in the middle of a rewatch of Fantastic Mr. Fox (thanks, Barnes and Noble, for this month's Criterion sale!), and I too wonder if something about the remove from the artifice inherent to his live-action style allows the animation to feel freer and more lived-in. It's also something likely to do with Clooney and Streep as vocal leads, which keeps the majority of Anderson regulars as secondary characters rather than central. That quality lets it feel different, I think.

[DSNT]

Very nice thread.

I'm coveting your impressive collection. I really want that Rossellini/Bergman box set, among numerous others in your full list (Red River, Rosemary's Baby, On The Waterfront, Kiss Me Deadly, etc.). I also spied a number of Criterions that I'm fortunate enough to own, and which are definitely among my most treasured: Black Narcissus, Repulsion, Days of Heaven (not the Bluray, sadly), The Sweet Smell of Success. If I'm not mistaken, The Red Shoes isn't included in your list. You should definitely pick it up. It's magnificent.

The Red Shoes is on my wish list and will be part of the collection someday. Haven't seen it, but I've enjoyed the Powell and Pressburger's I've seen. Black Narcissus is up there when it comes to most memorable locations ever.

The Rosselini/Bergman set was worth it just for Journey to Italy. I've still yet to see the other two.

Days of Heaven is one of my favorite movies of all time, and is the film I chose for my blog background and Criterion profile, yet I still haven't seen the Criterion. And might not for awhile since we're taking a trip to NYC in two weeks and it is playing at MoMA. If only I can drag the Jeopardy champ there.

[Russ]

My Brakhage and 'Qatsi blu box sets want to know if there are any Criterion DVD's that are not worth the upgrade? (I ask to (a) test your knowledge of some of Criterion's more esoteric offerings, and (b) because I wasn't bowled over by the blu upgrade of the 'qatsi docs. To me, the grain seemed much more pronounced and distracting in the Criterion blu's, over the MGM DVDs).

[/off-topic?]

[DSNT]

My Brakhage and 'Qatsi blu box sets want to know if there are any Criterion DVD's that are not worth the upgrade? (I ask to (a) test your knowledge of some of Criterion's more esoteric offerings, and (b) because I wasn't bowled over by the blu upgrade of the 'qatsi docs. To me, the grain seemed much more pronounced and distracting in the Criterion blu's, over the MGM DVDs).

[/off-topic?]

Good questions, stranger.

Those two boxes are the only two Blu-Ray boxes that I don't own. For the Qatsi, I'm only really interested in one of the films. I guessed that the Blu would make a difference, but maybe a library rental is the way to go. Brakhage intrigues me and also intimidates me. One day probably.

I would say that some Criterions are not worth the upgrade. I've now watched both the regular and Blu versions of The 400 Blows, which isn't exactly esoteric, but a good benchmark for lower budget B&W shoots. I noticed a surprising amount of grain, and usually the special features are the same. That said, I owned the original Picnic at Hanging Rock, sold it and upgraded to the Blu-Ray, which looked like a different movie in comparison. And I've seen some screens of the original Insomnia compared with the upgrade that arrived today, and there was a startling difference. So I'd say not to bother on older, lower budget productions. I passed on F For Fake and Hearts and Minds, both good films, but there probably wouldn't be much of a difference in image quality.

[Russ]

I owned the original Picnic at Hanging Rock, sold it and upgraded to the Blu-Ray, which looked like a different movie in comparison.

You don't say? I love me some Picnic...

[Watashi]

I want that Demy boxset so bad. But... money.

[DSNT]

THE ESSENTIAL JACQUES DEMY

http://s3.amazonaws.com/criterion-production/release_boxshots/4262-cf5a10147d55431dd401b2a3ed6601 60/713_DF_box_348x490_original.jp g

So begins my journey into the world of Jacques Demy. In the interest of disclosure, I'll admit that I'm not a major fan of his work. Yes, that sounds like sacrilege to many Francophiles, but a major part of that is my limited exposure. I've pretty much only seen The Umbrellas of Cherbourg, and clips here and there of other movies, such as The Young Girls of Rochefort. I try to keep an open mind, and with this stacked new box set release, I can dive into his career from the beginning. One of the major selling points is the presence of his ex-wife and widow, Agnes Varda, who I adore. I especially like her Le Bonheur, which has a Demy-like feel to it and was released around the same time of his major films. She will be prevalent through these discs, and there will be some documentaries of hers later.

LOLA, 1961

http://33.media.tumblr.com/a15f4e3f50e58ae2c49ad9ebe3b64e 5b/tumblr_n43fsw6enA1qa6obyo2_400 .jpg

Demy's first feature came in the midst of the New Wave. In fact, he probably got his shot thanks to the successful efforts of Louis Malle, Francois Truffault and Jean Luc Godard. Lola is in the spirit of the New Wave. The narrative and plot do not follow a formula. There are a number of different characters with intersecting plotlines, and no direct narrative.

Lola, played by Anouk Aimée, and Roland, played by Marc Michel are the pivot points for these characters. There is also an American sailor, a mother and daughter, and the off-screen presence of Michel, Lola's first love, who she is still dedicated to after all these years. Roland is a lost dreamer, who was just fired from his job for being tardy and has no regrets about it. He finds purpose when he encounters Lola, a long lost friend that he hasn’t seen in years. They rekindle their friendship, and it becomes immediately clear that he wants something more. Meanwhile, Lola is having a tryst with the American sailor, while still longing and waiting for her first love and the father of her child, who she is convinced will come back someday.

The mother takes to Roland, and the teenage daughter finds herself charmed by the sailor, but not in a romantic way. The sailor is fond of Lola, but he will be leaving soon for Cherbourg and knows that any sort of commitment is not realistic. The mother is a lonely war widow and single mother who seems to have affection for the Roland, but he does not look at her in that way. He sees her platonically, just like the sailor sees her daughter, and like Lola sees Roland. Demy juggles these complicated character motivations with delicacy and explores the nature of human relationships. Basically, his message is that oftentimes what you want does not want you.

Lola was filmed with a low budget, just like many of the early New Wave films. The Criterion print had a lengthy and arduous restoration process, overseen by the Demy estate, but was an uphill battle because the original negative had been lost. They had found a print and worked to get it as close to the original as possible, which was demonstrated in a special feature about the restoration. Unfortunately the print looks terrible, and not quite up to par with most Criterion releases. That said, since this is an ‘Essential’ box set, the movie has to be included as long as the restoration allows the film to be watchable, which it does. This first work is most essential in seeing the roots of what the filmmaker would become. Some have called it a musical without music (although there is one song performed by and about Lola). It’s themes will reoccur in his next films, whether they are nouvelle vague or mainstream musicals.

Movie rating: 7/10

Special Features:

This disc sets the stage for what will be a stacked set of special releases. It contains most of Demy’s early shorts, including his first filmed project, Les horizons morts an 8-minute depiction of a lonely man. The most impressive short in my opinion was Le sabotier du Val de Loire, where a pastoral family makes clogs. What makes this short special is the care and fondness for the subjects. It is more about their way of live rather than the clog-making process. It reminded me of Robert Flaherty documentaries, only without being staged or embellished. There are four shorts in all, which vary in quality, but are still worth seeing.

The documentary about the restoration is interesting, although you can tell that they are making some excuses for why the print is so poor. Mathieu Demy oversaw the process, and his input was primarily how to preserve the artistic intent rather than creating a technically perfect restoration. Since his part was mere snippets, I’d rather not play the blame game, but given the condition of the print, I think a little bit of artistry could have been sacrificed for clarity.

BAY OF ANGELS, 1963

http://38.media.tumblr.com/83058754d5653d147b8aeb06e17aa2 77/tumblr_n43fsw6enA1qa6obyo3_400 .jpg

One thing that is immediately apparent when watching Demy’s second feature is that it is a grander production. It may not measure up to his later color films, but it is ambitious. The main draw is that he cast Jeanne Moreau, who at the time was queen of the New Wave, having starred in Elevator to the Gallows, The Lovers, Jules et Jim, and La Notte. Despite her track record, her role as Jackie was a departure for her. First, she ditched her reknowned dark hair for a platinum blonde. Second, the character was hopelessly addicted to gambling, completely self-centered, impulsive, and basically a wreck of a person.

Like with Lola, the male lead is a meek, naïve, lovesick young man, this time named Jean, who basically becomes Jackie’s lapdog. He tries his hand at gambling in a local casino, has some beginner’s luck and a large windfall, which he then uses to take a trip to Nice for more gambling. There he runs into Jackie at the roulette tables. His luck rubs off on her, and they bond for adventures in Nice and Monte Carlo. He begins the movie being reluctant to fall into the trap of gambling, and disturbed to hear the pathetic stories of Jackie’s addiction. They have a roller coaster of winning and losing, and eventually he becomes like her. He makes poor decisions, mostly because of his romantic desire for her. She treats him like a puppy dog, and at one time admits that she is using him for his luck.

While I was impressed with the look of the film and the performances, particularly Moreau, I had some problems with the film. The major plot hole for me was that the gambling was completely unrealistic. I’ve spent my time near a roulette wheel and have never seen someone win or lose in such quick and dramatic fashion. Then there’s the matter of the ending, which I won’t go into detail about. I’ll just say that it didn’t seem realistic given how the characters were developed.

Movie Rating: 6/10

Special Features:

This disc was pretty thin. There was a 12-minute interview with Jeanne Moreau that I enjoyed. There were a few dumb questions, which I thought she handled well. I liked how she talked about choosing roles and how she chose to work with directors regardless of the material. That worked out pretty well for her.

There was another, shorter featurette about the restoration. Since they had the master, the process was not as difficult.

Criterion Rating: 7.5/10 (both discs)

[ledfloyd]

I want that Demy boxset so bad. But... money.

Marry Julia Collins.

[DSNT]

Marry Julia Collins.
Or Arthur Chu.

[DSNT]

ZATOICHI: THE BLIND SWORDSMAN, DISC 4


ZATOICHI'S REVENGE

https://awculture.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/zatoichi-10.jpg

After a couple lighter and lackluster entries to round out 1964, the series re-invented itself in 1965, taking the character away from the formula and towards some darker areas. The foundations of the formula are still intact, with the hero wandering to a village to find distress and abuse. This time the adventure is personal, as he encounters a former mentor of his whose daughter has been forced to prostitute for the bosses in order to pay off her father’s debts.

Not only was the tone darker in this iteration, but the filmmaking was more creative. They experimented with different shot angles, which enhanced both the character moments and the actions. They also take Zatoichi away from his ethical code to never attack unless attacked. As the title implies, this time Zatoichi takes more initiative and initiatives the attack and murder of the villains. This is the first time in the series that he has used his cane sword as an offense rather than defense.

Movie Rating: 7.5/10

ZATOICHI AND THE DOOMED MAN

https://awculture.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/zatoichi-11.jpg

They cannot all be diamonds. The 10th film in the series was, in my opinion, easily the worst. Aside from some good landscape shots, a more confident use of color, the direction was lazy. The character development was practically non-existent, and the pacing sluggish. This one features one of the largest battles in the series, and they instituted a series of traps to try and outsmart the swordsman – not a man idea, both logistically and creatively – but the execution was off. It was one of the least thrilling action scenes in the series. On top of that, the ending was rather sudden without much resolution.

Movie Rating: 4.5/10

ZATOICHI AND THE CHESS EXPERT

https://awculture.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/zatoichi-12.jpg

My disappointment with the 11th film didn’t last long, as I quickly found myself engaged with the 12th and it is my favorite of the bunch so far. Zatoichi finds a friendly, chess-playing samurai who he forges a bond with and becomes a traveling companion. The chemistry between the two actors reminded me of the debut film, where Zatoichi gained respect and forged a friendship with a samurai hired by the opposing clan. Adding a richly drawn, strong male character contrasted well with Zatoichi’s demure and quiet persona. There were other strong character moments, such as his relationship with a woman that he had widowed by killing her husband, and the daughter that he becomes fond of. There was less action, but that worked to give the characters space to breath, and let the character suspense develop. The climax chess match was brilliantly done.

Movie Rating: 8/10

[Irish]

I never knew that Blind Fury, 1990, with Rutger Hauer, was a Zatoichi remake. Or that Beat Takeshi did a version in 2003. My only exposure to Zatoichi has been in Stan Sakai's Usagi Yojimbo comic. I think I need to check some of the original films out now, DSNT.

Also: Did you really blind buy a 26 movie box set? Wow. Hugh_Grant really needs to keep you on a shorter leash. ;)

[DSNT]

I didn't know about that remake either. I saw Kitano's version when it came out, which I liked, but I think I'll appreciate more after getting through this set.

I halfway blind bought it. I watched the first 4-5 on Hulu Plus, and liked them enough to spring for the entire box during the 50% off sale. It's completely worth it.

That said, I have blind bought half my collection, so that leash was broken a long time ago. ;)

[DSNT]

INSOMNIA, ERIK SKJOLDBJAERG, 1997

http://s3.amazonaws.com/criterion-production/release_boxshots/4268-b5f836a4c97cdb8f3f1579e2b438ed 1e/47_DF_box_348x490_original.jpg

Before I delve into the review, please forgive me for a little bit of gushing. This Blu-Ray transfer looks fantastic. The light blue and stark, shining white hue jump really bounce off the screen. The crucial foggy scene where an accident occurs is breathtaking with this transfer. I know of some people that were mixed on the original yet liked the Christopher Nolan remake. My advice is to give this another look on Blu-Ray. Because of the better transfer, the film language is more prominent and speaks better to the characters and their motivations.

Jonas, played flawlessly by Stellan Skarsgård, is a Swedish homicide detective who is called to investigate a murder up in northern Norway. The town is north of the arctic circle, dubbed the “Land of the Midnight Sun,” where for a few months in the summer the sun will remain shining throughout the day and night.

Jonas is far from a sympathetic character. In fact, he’s the opposite. He is not quote an anti-hero, because his actions are so despicable that it’s near impossible to root for him. In one scene he shoots a dog point blank just to dig in and peer into its bloody carcass. The most pivotal scene is after planting some evidence as bait, they chase the likely killer into the shack where the murder occurred, but find that the suspect has escaped through an underground tunnel that leads to the coastline, where a dense, blue fog waits for them. The pursuers split up in. One gets shot in the leg, while the other takes a shot at Jonas. His vision blurred, he sees a shadow of who he believes is his man, and takes a shot. Moments later, he discovers that he killed a fellow officer. Rather than report the crime, he covers it up and tries to pin it on the killer at large, which just adds to the depravity of the character.

Meanwhile, Jonas cannot adjust to the continuous, bright conditions. He tries to duct tape sheets to the windows, yet there is one penetrating beam of light always staring back at him. The hotel room lighting was truly spectacular in setting up the tone of the tortured character. Is he evil because of this hell in which he is living in, or is it a hell because he is evil?

The pulp mystery-novel type of plotting has a couple of problems, but it is secondary to the visual filmmaking and tremendous performances, most notably when Jonas meets the killer and finds common ground. In a way, they are in this together, and Jonas acts accordingly.

As the film progresses, and Jonas’ state degrades, Skarsgård just gets better. He looks like a man delirious, broken, worn down by the punishing sun. His gaze goes blank at times, his head held downward. He makes many pauses, trying to reconcile this dream-like world he is living in. Of course I’ve seen the actor in many tremendous performances such as Breaking the Waves and Dogville, but I believe this is his masterwork, and he single-handedly elevates what would otherwise be mediocre material.

Because of Christopher Nolan’s successful remake, it cannot helped but to make comparisons. Visually both are top-notch filmmaking, and the Nolan version has a better ensemble, is better written, and captures some of the moral ambiguities in the original. It has a half hour running time and adds more exposition to the story, which does help payoff with the conflicts near the end. That said, sometimes less is more, and I’d say the predecessor is better than the higher profile reproduction.

Movie Rating: 8.5

Special Features:

There is a 20-minute conversation between Skarsgård and writer/director Erik Skjoldbjærg. They discussed the process of putting the film together. The lead character was originally going to be Norweigan, but was changed to Swedish after casting the lead actor. One thing that was telling was that Skarsgård admits that he didn’t like the script when he first read it, which led to an uncomfortable pause from the director. It is understandable since this was a first feature, and the actor would be taking a major risk. Skarsgård adds that it was the rich character that drew him to the role. He made the right decision.

There are two short-films, both student films of Skjoldbjærg’s, which I decided to pass on. While I adore Insomnia, the director doesn’t have enough of an impressive body of work that makes me want to explore his originals, unlike someone like Jacques Demy. Maybe one day.

I wish they had added a commentary, whether academic or with the Director and Actors. Since the lead is Swedish and the country Norweigan, there are numerous mentions of the language gap that are probably lost to me and most Western viewers. I’d also like to hear more about the shot selection and some of the behind-the-scenes work.

Criterion Rating: 9/10

[DSNT]

THE UMBRELLAS OF CHERBOURG, JACQUES DEMY, 1964

http://38.media.tumblr.com/28c7e93dfd294c72add724f69b5e9b d1/tumblr_n43fsw6enA1qa6obyo4_400 .jpg

After the opening credit sequence, the film begins in a garage, with Guy finishing up his work. There are not many images that are more masculine than a group of male auto mechanics fraternizing. Think of the crew from Drive a Crooked Road as they hoot and holler at the women passing by. This is a different auto shop, and the masculinity is quashed the moment they open their mouth. This is not a musical with regular actors occasionally breaking out into song. This is a movie where every line is sung, and not in the manner of a Mick Jagger or Tom Jones. The men sing with high pitched voices, in falsetto, in an instant shattering the stereotype of the masculine image.

While Demy was undoubtedly influenced by American musicals, what he created was truly original and groundbreaking. From the concept that every line of dialogue is sung to the sharp, loud and bright background colors that match the actor’s wardrobes, he broke through convention with a blowtorch.

Even now, some 50 years later, the world that Demy created takes some getting used to. I’ll admit that for me, giving it a second try with this Blu-Ray disc, it was not easy to get absorbed into this movie, but once there, I didn't want to leave. The next 90 minutes fly by, as you become invested in the relationship between Guy and Geneviève, and whether it will survive his departure to the Algerian war.

Even though the movie’s presentation is the embodiment of consumptive lightness, the overall theme is rather complicated and not altogether pleasant. It is the choice between passion and practicality, something that most adults have to face at some point in their lives, and something that was the theme to what could be considered the film’s prequel, Lola. Roland daydreams and yearns for passion, but is ultimately scorned and chooses a responsible, practical life. Lola has plenty of temptations that might make immediate sense, including the potential coupling with Roland, but she waits for her original passion, and that choice pays off.

In The Umbrellas of Cherboug, Roland has changed entirely and is the face of practicality, whereas Geneviève is a shopkeeper's daughter that is madly in love with someone from a lower class, Guy, who works in a garage of all places. This relationship could work, although it would not be without challenges, which is something that both parental figures realize and try to convey to the love-struck lead characters.

Because we have been trained by Hollywood that true love always survives despite all obstacles, the ending of Umbrellas is bittersweet and difficult to absorb. Even though they both have their doubts, they have made their bed and have to sleep in it. Guy is at peace with the decision he has made, and that is exemplified by how he happily plays with his son in the film’s final shot. Geneviève’s appears to be consumed with regret, even if she’s the one driving the Mercedes, wearing expensive clothing, and looking as upper class as her recently passed mother wanted for her. Together, they would have made for a more passionate pairing, but they would have faced struggles in life that might have hurt them in the long run. Did they make the correct choice? That depends on your perspective. However, the choice was made and time has passed, so they have to live with it.

Some people have problems with the ending, but I think it is one of the film’s strengths. This is a movie about love, sure, and you become invested in the two main characters, but it is also about life and the choices we make.

Movie Rating: 8/10

Special Features:

This disc is full of extras, making it appropriately the most loaded yet in the box-set.

The Once Upon a Time documentary was fixating, nearly as good as the movie itself. It has many archived interviews with Demy, Legrand, Varda, Deneuve, and it peels away the layers that went on behind the scenes. As some would expect, the voices were not the actor’s, but they did sing as they acted in order to get the affectations correctly (and apparently they all sang awfully). I thought it was fascinating how tough the movie was to sell to distributes, seeing how successful and iconic it is in hindsight. Yet since it broke boundaries, I can see why people were reluctant.

There is a short interview with Demy and Legrand for French TV. These pieces are always of interest to me because the French media can ask direct, difficult questions. I thought the questions they posed to Legrand about how he compares with Bach and Beethoven, and whether those classical composers would have made film scores was pointed, but a very good question. They were basically asking whether he had compromised his own integrity in order to create film music. I thought he handled the questions with aplomb, and rightfully did not elevate his own talent to the world’s best composers ever.

Film Scholar Rodney Hill gives a 20+ minute interview that I thought worked effectively well. He gives a bit of a retrospective and contextual basis for Umbrellas, and makes the thematic connection with Lola. He talks about many of the difficult realities with the movie, and how it was a product of the Algerian war, which had just ended when the film was released and was fresh on the minds of the masses of people who saw the film.

Just like the previous two discs, there was a short piece on the restoration. They repeated some points from the previous two, but I liked how they showed the RGB print composition and color correction. In some ways, they have used controversial Turner-like methods to adjust the color, but they are doing so to get as close to Demy’s artistic vision as possible.

Criterion Rating: 10/10

This is the disc that makes buying the box-set worth it. Umbrellas is a landmark in French and World cinema, and Criterion has held up to their reputation of putting everything they can into their biggest and best releases.

[Peng]

I watched it earlier this year, and it dethrones Singin' in the Rain as my favorite musical of all time. Loved your write-up. Apart from the complexity of the ending you described, I also love how the theme song, which has always been played with a sad tinge throughout, is in full-blown operatic mode. Really stresses the bittersweet irony.

[MadMan]

I watched Insomnia last month and loved it. Despite Nolan being involved I'm dreading viewing the remake.

[DSNT]

I watched it earlier this year, and it dethrones Singin' in the Rain as my favorite musical of all time. Loved your write-up. Apart from the complexity of the ending you described, I also love how the theme song, which has always been played with a sad tinge throughout, is in full-blown operatic mode. Really stresses the bittersweet irony.

Thanks. The theme is one of my favorite parts too. That's another thing I took away from the special features. Legrand showed how he had theme songs for each of the main characters (Guy, Geneviève, Roland), and how he would intermingle them when they were together. Truly brilliant. This may now be my favorite musical of all time as well, but I have to let it settle in a little more first.

[DSNT]

THE LIFE AND DEATH OF COLONEL BLIMP, POWELL AND PRESSBURGER, 1943

http://s3.amazonaws.com/criterion-production/release_boxshots/4057-09f48ca8b638ec8d4535b377f76316 78/173_BD_box_348x490_original.jp g

“BUT THE WAR BEGINS AT MIDNIGHT!!’ frustratingly exclaims General Wynne-Candy, known to the film audience as Colonel Blimp. There are a lot of points to the Powell and Pressburger epic, and the most potent and appropriate is that in the era of the Great War, wars do not begin or end at a certain designated time. They begin when they begin and end when they end.

The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp is an unparalleled masterpiece. It is far and away from most historical epics, but in a completely different way. You cannot really compare it to something from David Lean. It is no Lawrence of Arabia; nor is it anything that could have come from the vision of a Cecil B. Demille or anything that starred Charlton Heston. It is unquestionably a Powell & Pressburger film, and it captures the lofty rise and thudding fall of the British ideal of civilization. It encompasses the Boer War, two World Wars, the rise of Naziism, and a lot of hunting expeditions that would yield mounted animal heads on an upper class British wall.

I remember taking a history class on the two World Wars, and we talked a lot about the actions that led to them, and how effectively war had changed. WWI was a war of attrition and ended with a harsh peace for the Germans. WWII was something entirely new, total war, and it was exceedingly difficult for the British ‘Blimps’ who used to run the entire world to come to terms with. In that class, we had the benefit of decades of academic study and hindsight, but Powell & Pressburger arrived at the same prescient conclusion right in the thick of it. And they were absolutely right. You could not fight a gentleman’s war in that era or any era since. That was the lesson that was so difficult for Candy and the Blimps to discover, but it was the right one. The enemy was not notified of the starting date and time of D-Day, or things might have ended quite differently.

It is almost unimaginable that any other actors would play the three leads in this film. Roger Livesey carried the swagger, the charm, and the pomposity of Blimp from his foolhardy youth to his rotund and thick-headed old age. Deborah Kerr plays three roles, and each one is the object of his affection, essentially the motivation for everything he does. However, it is the performance of Anton Walbrook, and the way his friendship unfolds with Candy, that is the emotional core. He has lived the highs and lows of the wars, whereas Candy has been comfortable smoking cigars, drinking sherry and hunting trophies all his life. My two favorite scenes in the film are Walbrook monologues – the one he delivers to the alien board when trying to return to England, and the one he delivers to Candy as they engage in a timely political debate after the General is sacked.

One of the strengths of the film is that the partnership between Candy and Theo are familiar territory given the partnership with the British director Michael Powell and the Hungarian ‘alien’ writer Emeric Pressburger, an unlikely pairing that would produce some of the most magnificent works of their time. You can see both of their voices in the characters, and they are wonderful.

I cannot say enough good things about this movie. It is one that I adore and thanks to such a wonderful restoration, is one that I will revisit many other times in my life.

Movie Rating: 10/10

Special Features:

Martin Scorsese gives a passionate introduction. He has been obsessed by Powell and Pressburger for many years, and cites them as influences for much of his work. He references the duel in Colonel Blimp, which doesn’t actually happen on screen, but is one of the best shots in the film as the camera flies away from the building into the snowy wonderland. He used that same technique in Raging Bull. Sometimes it is not necessary to show the conflict, but instead the magnitude and reactions of the outcome.

The commentary is given by Scorsese and Michael Powell. The beginning portion is mostly Scorsese, and he talks a lot about the use of color, the technical matters of the production and the staging. Michael Powell was quite old when he recorded his portion. His speech staggers some and is at times unintelligible, but his presence is comfortable. He tells small stories about the production, points out the many Deborah Kerr hats that he is proud of, and shares a lot of what came from him and what came from Pressburger. It is like watching home video with a grandfather you love.

The 2000 documentary A Profile of “The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp” is also excellent. It talks a lot about the background and controversy of the film, and you hear from a lot of British directors who were directly influenced by it, including Stephen Fry and a young Kevin MacDonald.

The restoration demonstration is again mind-blowing. The original print had a lot of mold and resulted in many green waves flowing across the screen. Plus the color plates and aged poorly and resulted in a disorienting view. The before and after swipes of the restoration are truly impressive. Given the condition and age of the original print, this is one of the most impressive restorations that I’ve seen.

And this just scratches the surface. There is also an interview with Thelma Powell, production stills, and the original Colonel Blimp cartoons that inspired the film. If you are going to choose a handful of Criterion Blu-Rays to own, this would be near the top of a short list.

Criterion Rating: 10/10

[MadMan]

Yes! I bought that film two Criterion sales ago and its still the best film I've watched this year. A towering achievement.

[DSNT]

Last batch from the Barnes & Noble sale today. I've seen most already, but they are some of my favorite films.

https://steepclimbs3.files.wordpress.c om/2014/07/photo-271.jpg

[Gittes]

Great. The Red Shoes! Woody Allen's recent comments about his filmmaking preferences come to mind: "Matisse said that he wanted his paintings to be a nice easy chair that you sit down in, and enjoy. I feel the same way: I want you to sit back, relax, and enjoy the warm color, like take a bath in warm colour." I first watched The Red Shoes around this time of the year, when the Bluray came out, and some kind of seasonal association developed between it and the summer months (the same thing happened with Eyes Wide Shut and December, and it sort of became one of my favourite Christmas movies). I often think back to it around this time of the year. I'm due for another viewing.

Nice Bergman films, too. The oneiric images of Wild Strawberries are so impressive.

I remember being taken aback by some of the bizarre acting and behavioural decisions in The Night of the Hunter. It warrants another viewing, though, if only to reconsider its formal strengths and the atmosphere sustained, which, in retrospect, probably means observations like "bizarre acting and behavioural decisions" are decidedly negligible criticisms.

[DSNT]

Yeah, 4 out of the 6 of this batch are films I've seen before, some of them more than once. The only ones I haven't are The Red Shoes and The Big City. Night of the Hunter is due for a re-watch. Wild Strawberries is among my favorite Bergman's, which is saying something, and Umberto D is the quintessential neo-realism movie (well, maybe next to Bicycle Thieves.

Oh, and I saw Chaplin's Monsiuer Verdoux the very morning that my wife won Jeopardy. She went in at 7:30 and guests couldn't arrive until 10:30, so I watched a library-rented version on my laptop. Great film, but even better for sentimental value.

Thanks again for the rec. I have a lot of material to chew through over the next few months.

[DSNT]

THE YOUNG GIRLS OF ROCHEFORT, JACQUES DEMY, 1967

http://33.media.tumblr.com/c5857b3523aa66ff7b0dce292aafb5 0f/tumblr_n43fsw6enA1qa6obyo5_400 .jpg

Recently with a group of film buffs, we’ve had some conversations about Blind Spots. These are the films, genres, directors, themes, or whatever attributes that just rub you the wrong way and turn you off from a film. My blind spot are many of the American musicals from Classical Hollywood. I’ve tried and just cannot get into them. Part of it is the overdose of style over substance, and I think they often spend too much time and space distracting from what makes films good (plot, character, conflict). For instance, why spend 5-minutes on a song saying one thing about a character when you can reveal plenty more with actions against other characters?

Basically I like musicals where a character is a musician and that says something about him (Once), or where the art of the musical is a major part of the narrative (All That Jazz), or pretty much anything directed by Ernst Lubitsch. There are other conventional musicals I like, such as Singing in the Rain, Meet Me In St. Louis, and some I hate, like An American In Paris and My Fair Lady. I know, it's not too defensible and I realize that. Despite my personal tastes, I understand that the American musical was a major institution, created by enormously talented people, and they deserve their place in the lists of the best of American film.

The Umbrellas of Cherbourg is an exception to this Blind Spot because it is revolutionary, and breaks from the formulas that I dislike. The music actually adds to the characters, all of whom are deeply drawn and identifiable.

I was wary of The Young Girls of Rochefort because I knew this was more in the style of the musicals that rub me the wrong way, especially An American in Paris. Fortunately I found that, while Rochefort is nowhere close to as groundbreaking as Umbrellas, there was enough there to make me appreciate the film. The characters were not as deep and their encounters more fleeting, but the film is made exceptionally well and manages to transcend what is not my favorite formula.

There are a number of characters with various objects of affection that dance around each other (literally and figuratively), with their perfect matches seemingly just barely outside of the picture. First, there are the carnies, who are basically interested in a good time and act more as distractions to the real romantic interests. There is the sailor who has devised his ‘feminine ideal’ and even painted her, which coincidentally looks like Catherine Deneuve’s demoiselle character. Meanwhile, the twin sister, played by Francois Dorleac (who tragically died the year this was released) encounters and brushes off Gene Kelly, who is a fit for her artistically and creatively, since they are both musicians. Finally, there is a shopkeeper with the unfortunate last name of Dame, who used to be involved with the demoiselle’s mother, who operates a frites stand and has no idea that he is even nearby.

The Umbrellas of Cherboug managed to have a deep message and a light presentation, and I thought that might be the way that Rochefort would go as well. Since the sailor and the demoiselle kept barely missing each other, was Demy saying that the feminine ideal is unobtainable? Even to the end I wondered what he was saying here.

As we learn in the final scene, the circus that is en route to Paris picks up the sailor as a hitchhiker, so we assume that he will meet his feminine ideal. It isn’t tightly wrapped up, but the message is clear. It is strengthened by the statement by her ex-lover who lies and tells her that this love interest is in Paris, which is “too small for your passion” and that she will find him. So, overall, there isn’t much of a message here. It is more about the journey of finding someone, at least for the demoiselles, or not finding someone for the carnies, who will go from place to place and stay lonely, although they don’t seem bothered by this.

Movie Rating: 7/10

Special Features:

The big one here is Agnes Varda’s The Young Girls Turn 25 documentary, which revisits the town of Rochefort 25 years later. It shows how the city has been revitalized, how the locals remember the project, and how it has become a permanent part of their culture. One local proudly carries around the VHS cassette of the movie everywhere she goes (hopefully upgraded to Blu-Ray by now).

It is a little more than an hour-long, but is a lot different than the standard documentary special feature. This is a Varda film, and rather than just rehashing a lot of tidbits of information from the film shoot (which it does to some respect), it takes a journey. In this case it is much of the crew, stars, and extras all coming together to celebrate the anniversary of the film. Much of it is jubilant, although some is somber. The scenes where they dedicate streets to Jacques Demy and Francois Dorleac were especially touching, the latter of which had Catherine Deneuve breaking a bottle to christen her sister’s street, barely able to hide the emotions of her loss through large sunglasses.

There are other quaint, fly-on-the-wall types of features. There’s another French TV special with Legrand and Demy working out the music of the film and answering some questions. The song was the one that the carnies sing, and it was a treat seeing them work out the timing, the ending, and how it would transition to the next scene.

There were also a couple features surrounding the costume designs and set designs, which were mostly about Rochefort, but also touched on Umbrellas. I enjoyed hearing about how the costume designer collaborated with her husband who was the art director to match clothing. Rochefort wasn’t as flamboyantly colored, but it certainly had a look. They paid a lot of attention to little details, such as coloring 1,000 total shutters on random buildings.

Criterion Rating: 8.5/10

[EyesWideOpen]

Weird that you talk about your blind spot being American musicals from classic Hollywood for the first two paragraphs and the film you're discussing is not one. Then you mention The Umbrellas of Cherbourg being an exception to this blindspot and it is not one either.

[DSNT]

Weird that you talk about your blind spot being American musicals from classic Hollywood for the first two paragraphs and the film you're discussing is not one. Then you mention The Umbrellas of Cherbourg being an exception to this blindspot and it is not one either.

Yeah I guess I could have been clearer. The point was that I expected to not like Rochefort because I knew how much it had been influenced by American musicals. I may revisit some of these musicals and see if I can get past the blind spot.

[DSNT]

SWEET SMELL OF SUCCESS, ALEXANDER MACKENDRICK, 1957

http://s3.amazonaws.com/criterion-production/release_boxshots/3127-511e8c127a43ef7c374c62ced5ff90 8b/555_BD_box_348x490_original.jp g

Sweet Smell of Success is one of many in a long line of New York City masterpieces. It captures not only the high traffic sprawl, but also the culture and especially the seedy underbelly. In this case the sludge is the press, and is based on the life of Walter Winchell, one of the earliest and most influential gossip reporters. He had a massive following, seemingly limitless power, and according to many, was completely unscrupulous, unethical, and would use people and spit them out, building and destroying lives and careers.

Burt Lancaster and Tony Curtis star in this vehicle, with Lancaster as the Winchell-inspired reporter named J.J. Hunsecker, and Curtis plays Sidney Falco, the smarmy press agent that thinks of little other than climbing the ladder to success. He is at the columnist's mercy, since being locked out of the column would mean the end for him. In order to curry favor, he goes the extra mile by trying to split up the relationship of Hunsecker's sister with a local musician. He is blackballed in the papers until he succeeds in the division, and none of his actions can trace back to Hunsecker.

There was a lot of talent behind this picture. Alexander Mackendrick was an unrecognized genius, known for making a handful of successful pictures for Ealing Studios. This was his first American film, and even though he was not equipped to handle the Hollywood-style kill-or-be-killed environment, he managed to pull off an amazing film. His success would not last as he would be fired from his next product. The writing was based on stories by Ernest Lehman, which were thinly veiled to be about Winchell, and the best parts of the screenplay were penned by playwright Clifford Odets. The rapid fire and biting dialog that occurs between the two larger-than-life characters was mostly the product of Odets and his constant rewriting. The result was a tightly-written and quickly-paced pictures, especially since it is mostly dialog driven. On top of all this talent, was James Wong Howe, cinematographer extraordinaire, who through Mackendrick's vision, captured New York City like no other.

Appropriately for the subject, the style and tone resembles a film noir, only without the typical stereotypes of the genre. There are no private detectives or unsolved murders at the core of the story. Compared with the noirs of the era, the plot is actually quite mundane, mostly about the rivalry and dependency between the two men, and what deceptive machinations they will undertake to accomplish their goals. The film looks, sounds, and flows beautifully.

The only weak point, and this is a minor one, is that it is such an indictment of the changing newspaper industry, most notably Winchell, that it seems heavy handed at times. Winchell, for all his faults, was not as calculating and overbearing as Lancaster's Hunsecker. If he were, he would have never achieved such a powerful position in the industry. On the other hand, his confrontational characterization made for some terrific character drama. If he were a weaker character, the climax might not be as impactful.

Movie Rating: 9.5/10

Special Features:

This disc has a treasure of features, almost too many. There were two that were exceptional. The 40-minute documentary, Mackendrick: The Man Who Walked Away, was fascinating, chronicling how the director went from the top of the British film system to an American director, to completely out of a career and into academia. His life is an example of how Hollywood was not all that indifferent from the cutthroat newspaper world that he so eloquently portrayed in his first American film.

Another terrific feature on the disc was an interview with Neal Gabler, a film critic and historian who had written a book about Winchell. His commentary was mostly about Winchell's history and legacy, and how his life was portrayed on the screen in what was a major character indictment. The character of Hunsecker was protective of his sister, but in real life, Winchell was protective of his daughter and outcasted one of her suitors, which is what the movie was based on.

There are other features, including a lengthy interview given by successful Hollywood filmmaker James Mangold, who studied under and was mentored by Mackendrick.

On top of that, the commentary by James Naremore has a wealth of information about the film, the time, and the production. There are many interesting details pointed out. One that struck me was how this film pushed back against the production code by ignoring its reservations and going forward as scripted anyway. He also points out that this is one of the first films that references the McCarthyism trend in the press of calling out communists, and that much of those behind the film had leftist leanings and an anti-HUAC agenda. This is peppered throughout the film, and it is used as the smoking gun that shoots the narrative into the third act, which is the leaked item suggesting that Dallas is a pot-smoking communist elitist.

This disc has some fine features and I didn’t even go into the packaging, which is also terrific. This is also a must for Blu-Ray owners and anyone with an interest in film history towards the end of the studio system.

Criterion Rating: 10/10

[dreamdead]

Sweet Smell... was one that I was tremendously expecting to love, as Odets's Waiting for Lefty remains insightful and stirring. I liked it upon finishing it, mainly because Burt Lancaster cuts such a striking portrait of narcissism and barely repressed desire, but something about it just felt slight to me. I think I wanted more from Susan's character.

In terms of newspaper men, jackassy leads, and Criterion films, I didn't love either this or Ace in the Hole which makes me feel like I'm more compassionate than I expected (I expected both films's cynicism to 100% register with me), so there's that, though I find SSoS to be more interesting to reflect upon.

[DSNT]

Sweet Smell... was one that I was tremendously expecting to love, as Odets's Waiting for Lefty remains insightful and stirring. I liked it upon finishing it, mainly because Burt Lancaster cuts such a striking portrait of narcissism and barely repressed desire, but something about it just felt slight to me. I think I wanted more from Susan's character.

In terms of newspaper men, jackassy leads, and Criterion films, I didn't love either this or Ace in the Hole which makes me feel like I'm more compassionate than I expected (I expected both films's cynicism to 100% register with me), so there's that, though I find SSoS to be more interesting to reflect upon.

Interesting parallels. I like Ace in the Hole, but consider it to be on a lower level than SSoS. I also think the audience is more in on the joke. It is pure satire and cynicism about media sensationalism, whereas SSoS is more of a straight noir and the cynicism towards the press was directed more at the individual rather than the institution, and there are a lot more layers to the story.

Lancaster was terrific in the role. The special features said they wanted Orson Welles, which I have a tough time visualizing. I just see a cross between Harry Lime and Citizen Kane, and I'm sure he'd be good, but it would be a completely different character than what Lancaster brought.

I actually liked the way they handled Susan, especially during the pivotal scene where Dallas confronts Hunsecker about the planted article. After all the bickering, they ask her what she wants, but they don't let her speak and they talk down to her. And I noticed more when watching the 2nd time with the commentary that she does a lot more with expressions, which fits because she was reduced to basically little beside these dominating, over-powerful individuals.

[ledfloyd]

I would like to revisit both films, but my experience with them parallels dreamdead's pretty closely.

I generally love journalism films too, being a journalism major.

[DSNT]

SHADOWS, JOHN CASSAVETES, 1959

http://s3.amazonaws.com/criterion-production/release_boxshots/4076-6bdcb35aa2a604742b9e7b8e1dc2c6 af/251_Single_box_348x490_origina l.jpeg

As I watched John Cassavetes’ first film, I was struck immediately by how different it was from the films of the era, and how much in common it had with the French New Wave films that were just about to burst onto the scene. I have no idea whether Cassavetes had any inkling of Cahiers du Cinema or any of the young filmmakers who were concurrently putting on their first projects, but I think it is reasonable to say that they arrived at a similar place by taking the same route – the influences of the post-WWII films, particularly from the Americans.

Many have argued that because of the code and the routine during the last vestiges of the studio system, that innovation was falling by the wayside. The film world was ready to be shaken up and it most certainly was in the years to come, mostly by the French, but also by the advent of the American indie that Cassavetes could arguably have begun. The young American filmmakers to follow would be influenced by the New Wave in a huge part, but also by Cassavetes films, if to a lesser degree.

That’s not to say that Shadows is exactly like all the New Wave films, but neither were they like each other. Few people would lump Elevator to the Gallows, The 400 Blows and Breathless together as part of the same style. The point was they came from fresh, young perspectives, which was exactly what Cassavetes brought. Nothing like his portrayal of racial relations or the Beat Generation would be found in a studio film, and that was why it was revolutionary for American film. On top of that, it gave Cassavetes a filmmaking foothold to put together the type of independent dramas over the next two decades that he would become known for, even if they were different stylistically from his debut.

Shadows is not a great film. It is barely a good film. The post-script proudly proclaims that it was improvised (which wasn’t entirely true), and the actors were mostly novices, and the rust shows. The lack of polish is part of its charm. Some of the scenes were stilted, wooden and disjointed, like the African-American musicians talking about their business and the embarrassment of introducing a girl group. Other scenes seemed more natural and fluid, like the courtship and consummation between Ben and Lelia.

Even though it is hit or miss, it is valuable for capturing a scene that wasn’t always represented. There aren’t a lot of movies about the Beat Generation. It is in many ways a document of the culture, even if not a realistic representation of what it was really like.

Movie Rating: 6/10

Special Features:

This Blu-Ray disc features A Constant Forge, a whopping 3 hour and 20 minute documentary about Cassavetes and his process. Wow! From what I have read, the documentary is watchable, if not spectacular. I’m passing on it for now and may revisit after I’ve explored more of Cassavetes’ filmography.

The remaining features are minor. There is a brief interview with Lelia Goldoni, where she describes how she became involved with Cassavetes’ workshop and the atmosphere of his teachings. She talks about her experiences with the films and the improvisation or lack thereof. There is also some silent footage from the workshop and some stills, which gives a distant taste of what it might have been life.

Criterion Rating: TBD (once I watch the long documentary)

[DSNT]

And that's probably the last one for a little while. We leave tomorrow for NYC for a week. I'd like to complete the Demy set when I get back, and then make my way through the Cassavetes set before diving into Love Streams when it comes out.

Also will be finishing Shoah when we get back.

[Pop Trash]

I generally love journalism films too, being a journalism major.

What are your favorites? I'd go with All the President's Men and Zodiac.

[ledfloyd]

What are your favorites? I'd go with All the President's Men and Zodiac.
All the President's Men is as good as it gets for me. I feel like Zodiac was heavily inspired by it. The Insider is great. His Girl Friday even though it's a less serious take on the subject. Citizen Kane qualifies, I guess. Quite fond of Almost Famous and Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas even though they aren't quite as good as those other five. Oh, Network, duh.

Still a lot of big ones I haven't seen. The Parralax View, The Killing Fields, Year of Living Dangerously, et al.

[DSNT]

See The Parallax View if you can. Good film and a phenomenal ending.

I'd also add The Passenger and Shattered Glass as good journalism films, although the list begins and ends with Network for me.

[Briare]

However, it is the performance of Anton Walbrook, and the way his friendship unfolds with Candy, that is the emotional core. He has lived the highs and lows of the wars, whereas Candy has been comfortable smoking cigars, drinking sherry and hunting trophies all his life.


I was actually struck when I watched it recently about how influential it seemed to be on later American war films, Patton sticking out the most. Entire portions of Coppola's script for Patton, most notably Patton's rapport with General Bradley seems to be inspired by this movie. I agree with this the most though, Anton Wolbrook's character provides the film with its heart beat and moral compass and while they remain great friends he's a great foil for the over the top Candy.

Its amazing this was ever released in WWII era Britain at all. Guess Churchill preferred his films to be galvanizing pictures of "moral fibre". Ya know, crap like Mrs Miniver in which there is nary a British character to even be found rather than a sensitive inward looking, soul searching movie like this one.

[DSNT]

I was actually struck when I watched it recently about how influential it seemed to be on later American war films, Patton sticking out the most. Entire portions of Coppola's script for Patton, most notably Patton's rapport with General Bradley seems to be inspired by this movie. I agree with this the most though, Anton Wolbrook's character provides the film with its heart beat and moral compass and while they remain great friends he's a great foil for the over the top Candy.

Its amazing this was ever released in WWII era Britain at all. Guess Churchill preferred his films to be galvanizing pictures of "moral fibre". Ya know, crap like Mrs Miniver in which there is nary a British character to even be found rather than a sensitive inward looking, soul searching movie like this one.

Great comments! Churchill wasn't thrilled with it, for sure, and didn't support it, but couldn't really stop it either. Plus Powell and Pressburger had already helped deliver some messages he approved, most notably in The 49th Parallel. With their popularity, I doubt he would want to make noise by stifling their creativity.

I can definitely see the influence in Patton. You could draw a lot of parallels to Candy and Patton, and they had similar rises due to their cunning strategic abilities and strong moral fiber, and similar downfalls because they failed to adapt and let the world pass them by. You're right about it being the template for many other western war movies, especially when different generations are depicted. Powell and Pressburger happened to do it exceptionally well, and they were working with perhaps the best example of contrasting ideologies between the Colonial and Great War periods. There were a lot of older, Blimp-like characters and young bucks like Spud at the time.

I'll have to re-watch Patton sometime with Blimp in mind because I honestly hadn't made the connection until you just pointed it out.

[MadMan]

The Killing Fields is really good. I was disappointed with The Parallax View although I still found it to be decent. It's been ages since I last saw it though.

[Briare]

Great comments! Churchill wasn't thrilled with it, for sure, and didn't support it, but couldn't really stop it either. Plus Powell and Pressburger had already helped deliver some messages he approved, most notably in The 49th Parallel. With their popularity, I doubt he would want to make noise by stifling their creativity.

Wouldn't have surprised me considering how easily the British government has been able to use film censorship to keep anything they objected to off the screen, the portrayal of the Blimp character being damaging to the image of the British army officer- depicted as something of an old fashioned blustering buffoon refusing to fight dirty in the face of the odious Nazis. Though history remembers Churchill's objections might have been something a little more personal he seeing the film as nothing more than parody of him personally.

Regardless, great film.

Sweet Smell of Success is another one of my favorites. Burt Lancaster is such a magnificent asshole in it.

[Gittes]

I really love The Sweet Smell of Success; it's one of those great movies that I will continue to revisit (I saw it on Bluray for the first time but I was also fortunate enough to catch a theatrical screening earlier this year). Tony Curtis' performance is one of my all-time favourites.

[DSNT]

FACES, JOHN CASSAVETES, 1968

http://s3.amazonaws.com/criterion-production/release_boxshots/4079-895fccd16e7671461766f4b268a0a5 a3/252_Single_box_348x490_origina l.jpeg

There are a lot of faces in John Cassavetes’ second film, Faces. His camera is not afraid of getting close, sometimes so close that it almost feels like you can see inside the faces inside the characters heads, and behind the façade they exhibit while they are out cavorting. The extreme close-ups are unnerving, the jump-cuts jarring, but altogether, it feels as polished as ever. The story is of a broken marriage, but it is told in an unconventional matter where, of all things, the characters spend much of their time laughing, telling bad jokes, singing, and living it up.

What is Cassavetes trying to say here? Is it that behind every happy face, there is a sad one underneath? Is he saying that laughter is a way of hiding the pain? I cannot claim to have these answers, and probably neither did Cassavetes. Writing this with the benefit of hindsight, we know that he was an alcohol and that’s what led to his eventual passing. He certainly had a lot of loud, raucous nights filled with laughter, but that laughter inevitably ends, and he certainly endured his share of hardship.

He wrote a good script and wanted to do something a little different with it, and some of what happened on screen was probably a direct result of the lack of a budget. Since they were shooting in 16mm, they had to get creative, and had to play with conventions. What he had played around with in Shadows, he nearly perfected in Faces. He made the characters seem like they were real people, with real issues and problems. The fake laughter was and wasn’t acting, as the characters themselves were acting out a scene that was not exactly true to their world – that they were all playing a part in the downfall of a relationship.

And I cannot say enough about the acting. There were two Oscar nominations, for Seymour Cassel and Lynn Carlin, but I think that Gena Rowlands and John Marley brought everything they could to the roles. Even Fred Draper, playing a character with his own name, was terrific at being the schlub who eventually becomes the third wheel, with his transparent attempts to stay within the party being refused. Another terrific performance was given by Joanne Moore Jordan as Louise Draper, who plays a jilted woman trying to take solace in a younger man, Chet, who has eyes for another. The entire ensemble was the best of the few Cassavetes films I’ve seen thus far.

Movie Rating: 8/10

Special Features:

Alternate Opening: The original cut had been over 180 minutes, and has not survived to this day. Apparently Cassavetes buried it after he cut down the film to the theatrical length. This new opening was found later and mixes things around. It begins with the bad joke banter between the Forsts, wbich comes later in the theatrical version. It also fleshes out some of the earlier scenes, including the bar at which Freddie and Richard meet Jeannie and how they end up at her apartment. It doesn’t add much to the movie, but you see that some of what was originally shot and was later cut around was originally a little more developed.

Cinéastes de notre temps: An episode of the French program was has footage of Cassavetes talking about the filmmaking progress before the release of the film, and giving a formal interview after the release. Usually I really enjoy these TV pieces, but this one went a little long and didn’t reveal much about the movie.

Making “Faces”: This was a lot better. It was nearly a feature length documentary about the process by which Faces was made, and had a lot of interesting tidbits from the actors. One thing that struck me was how Cassavates did not direct the actors. He would let them know when they weren’t on their game, but aside from that, they owned the role.

Lighting Faces: This was very technical and probably can only be truly appreciated by those who understand the finer details of cinematography. I admired some of what was revealed about how they used natural lighting, or made the film stock fit the mood of the scene, but much of it was robotic to me.

Criterion Rating: 8.5/10

[DSNT]

THE BIG CHILL, LAWRENCE KASDAN, 1983

http://s3.amazonaws.com/criterion-production/release_boxshots/4266-bca1a097e28115dd32b60aec898f81 7b/720_DF_box_348x490_original.jp g

I first saw The Big Chill ages ago, when I was much younger and had a different perception of the world. I thought it was okay, recognizing that it was an above average film for the time, but wasn’t something I could relate to. At my age now, I should be able to relate to the material more, being in my early middle ages and having reunited with many old friends over the last several years. Sometimes a Criterion release will change my mind about a film, and I’m always willing to go in with an open mind.

My perception may have changed, but so has my appreciation for good cinema. I’ve seen at least a thousand films since that first viewing, and having seen so many good ensemble movies, this one felt lackluster by comparison. I actually liked it far less than the first time, when I was a teenager, and that is partly because I have experienced other, better films, but also because I have lived enough to have an understanding of genuine nostalgia and emotion.

In one of the special features, someone mentioned that one of the producers said “I had no idea this was a comedy.” I actually felt the same way, and didn’t realize that it was intended to be a comedy until hearing this from the filmmakers. There was not a funny note. Sure, there were some playful moments, and the way they incorporated the big dance scene was fun. My guess is they intended Meg Tilly and Jeff Goldblum to be comedic relief, but they completely fell flat.

They also try too hard to make things seem important. The emotional character moments are not earned and don’t seem genuine. Sure, it is difficult to develop such a large ensemble where there’s not a leading man, but it has been done before. From the same era, there’s The Breakfast Club and Hannah and Her Sisters. More recently, there’s The World’s End, which is a real reunion comedy with emotional moments. The big difference between The Big Chill and these other films is that Chill goes out of it’s way to try to create profound, insightful character moments, yet with completely undeveloped characters. These other films develop the characters around the story and let the emotional moments come from there.

What is most interesting about this project is that the large ensemble became pretty well known, and most of them are actively working today. Some are famous, and most are now proven, experienced, quality actors. You can tell that they were just beginning to develop their chops, and maybe with better material and direction, they could have pulled it off. The potential was there, which makes it all the more disappointing to revisit and witness its failure.

Movie Rating: 3/10

Special Features:

Lawrence Kasdan Interview: I’m not sure what it was, but Kasdan does not come off as very bright in this interview. Maybe it is his speaking cadence. He talks about working within the Hollywood system to create good movies, and seems a bit arrogant by talking up his work, which to me has been mostly mediocre. He talks about some films that inspired him, and compares this one to Rules of the Game. I hope he wasn’t serious.

1998 Documentary: This also didn’t work for me, and I think I might have enjoyed it more if I liked the movie. Most of it was about people talking about their characters, the production, with a lot of clips. I actually didn’t finish this one.

TIFF Reunion Panel 2013: This was better, but that’s because the actors have now become successful, and it is interesting hearing them recall their experiences and the wonderful times they had.

Deleted Scenes: Pass. If they weren’t good enough to make the movie, then I’d rather not see them.

Criterion Rating: 4/10

[Hugh_Grant]

I hated it when I saw it in college over twenty years ago, and I hated what I saw of it when DSNT rewatched it. Just a terribly phony movie.

[Kurosawa Fan]

I hated it when I saw it in college over twenty years ago, and I hated what I saw of it when DSNT rewatched it. Just a terribly phony movie.

Apart from watching it with DSNT, this sums up my feelings as well. Terrible film.

[DSNT]

Glad I'm not alone.

I'm not a fan of every Criterion film, but I usually understand why they are added to the collection. Not in this case. This film is not worthy in my opinion.

[Irish]

You're not alone. I've never met anyone who appreciates this movie who isn't a Boomer. It's a generational circle jerk, the kind of thing that was overpraised by critics who were roughly the same age as the characters in the movie at the time of its release. (I dunno what the GenX and Millenial equivalent would be-- Richard Linklater's _______?).

For some reason, Big Chill stuck around. I never understood why.

[DSNT]

(I dunno what the GenX and Millenial equivalent would be-- Richard Linklater's _______?).

Dazed and Confused was another example I thought of while writing this up, but The Big Chill isn't even in the same league.

My parents are Boomers and they like the film, so maybe you're onto something.

[Irish]

Dazed and Confused was another example I thought of while writing this up, but The Big Chill isn't even in the same league.

Dazed and Confused is a good example. Maybe Slacker too or something like Boyhood or Zach Braff's Garden State.

[DSNT]

November Criterions

The Shooting/Ride in the Whirlwind - Monte Hellman
It Happened One Night - Frank Capra
L'avventura - Antonioni Blu-Ray upgrade
Tootsie - Sidney Pollack
Les Blank Documentaries - boxset

Interesting month. I haven't seen the Hellman duo or any Les Blank flicks.

Not a fan of Tootsie and it doesn't seem Criterion-worthy, but neither did The Big Chill.

Possibly grabbing all of these. Definitely the Hellman, Antonioni and Capra.

[ledfloyd]

I'm not overly fluent in Les Blank, but you should at least see Burden of Dreams, which is great.

[DSNT]

I'm not overly fluent in Les Blank, but you should at least see Burden of Dreams, which is great.

Forgot about that one. I've seen it and loved it. But it's not on this boxset.

[DSNT]

SHOAH, CLAUDE LANZMANN, 1985

http://s3.amazonaws.com/criterion-production/release_boxshots/4124-227b7ce48923df180fd633fae57139 c2/663_BD_box_348x490_original.jp g

Roger Ebert famously refused to rank or categorize Shoah with other films, whether they were narrative or documentary, because it simply could not be compared with other films. It stands on its own. As a history buff, I hold similar feelings. This is as much an historical document as it is a documentary about the holocaust. That said, it also turned out to be a groundbreaking documentary with a distinct style that influenced other films. The documentaries of Ken Burns and Werner Herzog owe a debt to Shoah, as do many others. It turned out to be a certain benchmark of documentary filmmaking, and it still stands near the top.

The right time to create an all-encompassing, reflective, history of the holocaust was exactly when Lanzmann set forth on his lengthy project, in the early-70s, which we spent an exhaustive 12-years working on until it was finally finished and released in 1985. The timing was ideal for two reasons.

The first is obvious, because many of the major players were still alive. The second is because there had been a time to reflect. Many of the stories that were told during Shoah could not have told 20 years prior. It was simply too close to the tragedy of the actual events. People could not have delved so deep into a painful past without having time to process and reflect on it, time to move on. This is the case with the barber, talking about how he had to participate in the ruse to lure unsuspecting Hebrews to the gas chambers, when he encounters people he knew. These are excruciating memories, and he can almost not tell the story. The same is the case with a lot of these people. These are wounds that cannot be re-opened when they are fresh.

Additionally, people were able to come to terms with the impact of the holocaust. Even after the war, people didn’t really know what to make of it. The fact that a nation would nearly successfully exterminate an entire race is simply unfathomable. Some that were closer to the actual events had to deal with their own guilt of being caught up in the wave of anti-semitism, even if they didn’t participate in the holocaust nor would have wished it to happen. Lanzmann captures this sentiment when he interviews Polish towns near the extermination camps. They were aware that the Jews were going away and had feelings about it, but in many respects the full impact was kept at arms length. One witness, when asked about her feelings towards the Jews during that time, boldly points out that she does not feel pain when someone else cuts their finger. Ouch!

And then there’s Lanzmann. Without his obsession in getting the countless hours and hours of interviews, or deciding to finally travel to Poland to see and film the camps themselves, to painstakingly and patiently search for financing what must have been a tough sell. His obsession was the key in making this film what it is, and his presence is felt in nearly every frame, as his curiosity and interviewing technique is how the layers are peeled that reveal the process of how the Jews were exterminated.

Shoah is not an easy film to watch. Not by a long shot. There’s the 9+ hour length, making it impossible to watch in a single sitting, and the unwieldy translated subtitles, which make you wait for the translation from Polish/Hebrew/Yiddish to French before you see the subtitle. It is a film that has to be split up and requires patience. And then there’s the actual content. Lanzmann asks the penetrating questions about how the Jew-killing machine actually worked, and the answers arrive in graphic detail. Hearing stories about the death panic, the screaming, the cruel teasing by the German soldiers, and many others, are among the darkest you’ll ever hear. Some of the most difficult portions are the clandestine interviews with German Nazi’s who proudly unveil the killing ritual step-by-step. This is a film that will leave you shuddering many times, in disbelief that such acts could have actually happened.

However difficult and sobering, it is a worthwhile tribute to the events and to the departed. The visual film language complements the troubling stories. They are not manipulative, but respectful. The cinematography is muted, with a lot of blues and greens, with slow moving cameras that tour the camp sites, or the slow-moving trains as they approach the camps that we know mean the end for thousands, but the people who actually traveled to their ends were completely unaware. Even though it is unimaginable what these people endured during their last days, weeks and months, we can almost put ourselves in their shoes, if only for a second, thanks to Lanzmann putting us there with his many tracking shots shown as the stories are told.

Shoah may be one of the most heart-wrenching and difficult movies to watch, but it is also one of the most important and one of the deepest. It requires some investment to dedicate the time to view, and the patience with the dialogue, but it is a film that almost has to be seen. However dark, disturbing and at times grotesque, by the end, it is a thing of beauty to capture such a tragic era of world history.

With all due respect to Ebert, Shoah is a film that can be ranked against others. It ranks as one of the greatest documentaries ever made and is a monumental historical achievement.

Movie Rating: 9.5/10

Special Features:

The Criterion boxset has three discs, two for the film and one of the supplements, the latter of which could comprise about half of the actual film.

There are three more documentaries, all from Shoah outtakes:

A Visitor from the Living – This documentary is about a Swiss Red Cross official who toured what turned out to be a façade of a camp. The Germans had anticipated his visit and put together a show of better conditions, but that’s all it was, a show. He made his report and they later exterminated all who he encountered. The interview is compelling because the interviewee now knows about the horrors of the holocaust, and talks about sensing how things were out of order, but his report was glowing. They dance around how he looked the other way until the very end, when Lanzmann uncharacteristically calls him out for either not being honest in the interview, or not being honest in the report.

Sobibór, October 14, 1943, 4 p.m. – This is one of the rare uplifting tales on the entire disc. It is the story of a young man who had previously escaped concentration camps eight times only to eventually be recaptured. He eventually ends up in Sobidor, which was an extermination camp where hundreds of thousands were processed. He took part in an uprising and describes it in detail, as it began at 4pm exactly, and would not have happened if Germans were not so punctual. Even though this is a sit down interview and there is a language barrier that requires two translations, this is an adventure of freedom that is told to Lanzmann.

The Karski Report – I realize that Jan Karski is an influential figure that reported on the travesties going on in the ghetto, but I had trouble getting through this one. He also was one of the weaker parts of Shoah, partly because his story was a digression from the majority of the film (the ghettos versus the extermination camps), and also because of his manner of speaking in English that makes him hard to understand. I did not complete this documentary.

Two Interviews:

Both of these are fascinating. The shorter one is Lanzmann talking about A Visitor from the Living and Sobibór, October 14, 1943, 4 p.m., which is brief and interesting to hear why these stories were omitted from Shoah and why he made certain decisions in bringing them to their own films. The cream of the supplements was an hour long discussion between Lanzmann and Serge Toubiana, which gives a lot of background information on the making of the film and what Lanzmann was trying to accomplish. It was random that he was given this project, and if he had known what it would eventually entail, he might not have gone through with it. We’re lucky that he did.

There is also a segment with Caroline Champetier, who was an assistant camera person, and filmmaker Arnaud Desplechin, who has written about Shoah and has a respectable body of work of his own.

Criterion Rating: 10/10

[Briare]

Keep in mind that I've yet to watch Shoah -it has been sitting on my shelf at home since Christmas- and thus some or most of this may be unfounded but I've had some concerns with things I've read so here goes:

I have read more than my share about the film in preparation and something I keep coming back to with it is Lanzmann's politics and how that actually prevents it from becoming a pure act of witness, or whatever Ebert said about it. Basically what I'm getting at is many an academic has attacked Shoah for the way it portrays the Poles as completely complicit in the destruction of their Jewish neighbors, Lanzmann himself has stated that the French peasantry would never have tolerated an Auschwitz on the outskirts of Paris, presumably his reasoning being that Majdanek (for example) is visible from the houses of Lublin. I'm more or less just wondering how much or if at all these political cannotations permeate what is probably otherwise an extremely powerful document.

I more or less want to be prepared for any such subtext when I do watch it, I've always been scared off first by the 9 hour running time and then by some essays I read on it and its supposedly questionable angle. I've never much cared for the French attitude toward the holocaust, I don't doubt the French probably had a bit more guts when it came to their Nazi occupiers compared to some other occupied peoples but the attitude some of their films seem to take (see: aur revoir les enfants, where literally, an illiterate cripple is the informer), it comes down to having no stomach for more buck passing on this subject.

Maybe I'll watch it tomorrow, its my birthday and the wife has to work.

*edit* Also, what would be the best to watch it without destroying the experience would you figure? I know its broken into four sections (gas vans at Chelmno, Auschwitz, Treblinka and the Warsaw Ghetto) so would you think that would be an appropriate way of going about it?

[DSNT]

I had read about the reaction and criticisms. Since I'm not Polish or French, I don't feel qualified to persecute or defend Lanzmann's politics or agenda, but at the same time, it did not seem like a political statement. I can understand how Poland might be offended by the way they were portrayed, but he did visit their country and interview the people. Some said nasty things while others said very respectful things about the Jews. There's an early scene in front of a church with a holocaust survivor surrounded by Polish Catholics, all of whom gushed about the Jews. Others didn't, or at least you could sense some anti-semitism that they were trying to keep below the surface. That said, having studied the French resistance in college, I think the comment that the extermination camps couldn't happen in France is probably true. We know how the French peasantry reacted towards being occupied, and they constantly undermined German authority and ultimately paved the way for the Allied invasion. The Poles were completely subjugated by the Germans, in part because of the brutal tactics and the high number of civilians killed. They managed to keep the camps relatively quiet, at least for awhile, which would have never happened in France.

Viewing from my perspective, nearly 30 years after the release, it seemed to be on the level. It did not seem overtly political.

If you are to watch it, I would start from the beginning. The middle sections are the most impactful, but it is cut in a way that builds up towards them. And I would make sure to split it up in bite-size pieces rather than trying to tackle the entire thing in 2 or 3 sittings. The Criterion organizes them in 2 or 2.5 hour sections that make it more palatable.

[Briare]

Interesting. Just something that I saw kept coming up and wanted to see how prevalent it was, if at all and two hours episodes sounds about right.

[Pop Trash]

Dazed and Confused is a good example. Maybe Slacker too or something like Boyhood or Zach Braff's Garden State.

Maybe Dazed and Confused but even that is a stretch. Slacker is way too weird with its crazy structure. Something like Reality Bites is probably more apt.

I actually got Gen-X Big Chill vibes from The World's End but that is at least more critical of the main character's inability (or lack of desire) to grow up.

EDIT: oops DSNT already brought that up. I guess it would help if I read these reviews first : )

[Pop Trash]

Come to think of it, Young Adult is a rather salty version of this kind of thing. I'm a pretty big fan of Young Adult though.

[Irish]

Something like Reality Bites is probably more apt.

Oooh. Reality Bites is a good one.

[DSNT]

Yeah, Reality Bites is a good example. One that came to mind afterward was Diner, which was from the same era as TBC.

I guess the point is ensemble movies don't have to suck. ;)

[Pop Trash]

I'll probably catch shit for this but American Reunion wasn't that bad. At least it's not nearly as self satisfied as The Big Chill. Not that I'm expecting a Criterion edition of American Reunion anytime soon.

[DSNT]

TIE ME UP! TIE ME DOWN, PEDRO ALMODOVAR, 1989

http://s3.amazonaws.com/criterion-production/release_boxshots/4272-14bf5a3093cf91d12797c27901c734 0f/722_DF_box_348x490_original.jp g

Welcome to the Collection, Pedro.

Tie Me Up! Tie Me Down! (or the better Spanish title, Átame!) would not have been my first choice for an Almodovar film, nor probably my 2nd, 3rd or 4th, but I’ll take what I can get. I had seen it previously twice already. The first time was back around the time it came out, before Almodovar was on my radar as a filmmaker, and I was mostly curious because of the census X/NC-17 rating controversy. I remember feeling underwhelmed back then, and revisited it some time after Talk to Her. By that time I had revisited some of Almodovar’s other works and become an enthusiast if not quite a fan. That second viewing changed my opinion a little bit. I appreciated the Almodovar touch, but thought the story was bland, and frankly, ludicrous.

So here goes the third try. By this time, Almodovar has been established as a legendary filmmaker. I’m not as rabid as others about him, but I certainly appreciate him as an artist. That made me eager to approach what was arguably his breakthrough film, just to see if there was another reading of the film that I may have missed. Having an idea of some of his pet themes, I know a little better what to look for.

Speaking of pet themes, Almodovar is a master at handling sexuality, and this was again apparent in Tie Me Up. From the intro, with the director ogling and obsessing over his lead, to the nautical voyage in the bathtub, and climaxing (no pun intended) with an intense sex scene that, surprisingly, shows very little nudity. In the extras, Almodovar proudly states that Elia Kazan said it was the best sex scene ever. I’m not about to put together a top 10 or anything, but it was tastefully done and carried an intensity that helped sell what was still a ludicrous plot. The pyramid shot from above was a creative way of punctuating the scene with an artistic flair.

In retrospect, Tie Me Up! seems artistically constrained. The story was pretty banal, like an upbeat version of William Wyler’s The Collector, albeit with quite a different ending (of which I won’t spoil for either movie). While this was clearly an attempt to make a more consumable film that the prototypical Almodovar, there is more than meets the high. As an example, by taking the bondage approach, I think he is poking fun of the romantic boy-meets-girl formula that had been rinsed and repeated for the entire decade in American cinema. The plot was completely ludicrous, albeit I think somewhat intentionally, and he showed the rough layers of romance by touching on abuse, drug addiction, and mental instability. Yet this falls short of being a satire, as he treats his characters with a depth and seriousness that could never be seen when Andrew McCarthy falls in love with a Mannequin. Even if he is poking fun at the cycle of romantic comedies, we are continually reminded that these characters are highly flawed and seeking redemption.

I found some new appreciation for the film during this re-visitation. A lot of that had to do with the keen direction and vibrant, bright colors schemes with vivid color, which would become a staple in Almodovar’s later films. It’s as if we are seeing the painter stumble onto his signature style. While this is still a far cry from his better works, it is a good, accessible starting point.

Movie Rating: 7/10

Special Features:

Documentary: This is a run of the mill, 30-minute feature about the film, mostly with talking head interviews. Some of the discussion was about the impact of the film and the ratings controversy. This is the only part of the disc where Victoria Abril was involved. I cannot find the details, but it appears she had a falling out with Almodovar. She talks about the difficulty of working with him.

Michael Barker Interview: This was an odd inclusion, as I believe Barker is an executive for Sony Picture Classics. I’m sure he has worked closely with Almodovar, but he’s not the type of figure to usually get a Criterion supplement. He gushes about the director and how much fun it has been to be involved in his career. It’s more of a fluff, retrospective piece. Not too impressive.

Banderas and Almodovar: I really enjoyed this one. It’s basically a short conversation between the two actors filmed in 2003. By that time they were both highly successful, with Banderas an established Hollywood star and Almodovar fresh off his surprise Oscar win. The two talked about all sorts of things, especially how it impacted their lives. At the end, they vow to work together again, which happened almost a decade later for The Skin I Live In.

Criterion Rating: 7.5

[DSNT]

A WOMAN UNDER THE INFLUENCE, JOHN CASSAVETES, 1974

http://s3.amazonaws.com/criterion-production/release_boxshots/4077-40760f4f5bc01ebd77f61bbde700d5 91/253_Single_box_348x490_origina l.jpeg

What I love about Criterion is that they tend to canonize the most important films. When something is added to the collection, it’s for a good reason (even if I disagree on occasion (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5544-Aaron-Watches-Criterions&p=522469&viewfull=1#post522469), and let’s not get into Armaggedon). That’s why when I revisit a Criterion film that I thought was poor or mediocre, I will often re-evaluate. Sometimes the supplements or commentaries will help guide my opinion by pointing out things that I missed, or sometimes it is simply giving the film another chance and watching it a second time. The latter is what happened here.

The first time I saw the film, I was blown away by the performances, but felt that Cassavetes got a little carried away with himself. He let scenes go on too long, far past when the point was made. He seemed so proud of the performances, and rightfully so, that he did not want to interfere.

After a second viewing, I still have that feeling, yet I’ve come around to Cassavetes’ way of thinking. Part of this is because I’ve also fallen even more for Gena and Peter’s performances, and I found that I almost didn’t want the scenes to end. The fact that they sustained their characters for such lengthy and powerful scenes speaks volumes about their dedication and what they brought to the characters. The spaghetti and doctor scenes were where this was more apparent. They go on a long time, but the acting is magical, even if what happens is awkward and unsettling. At 2.5 hours, Cassavetes could have still trimmed a couple scenes or tightened a couple others up, but I am a little more forgiving of that now.

Another reason why I am more enamored of the movie now is because I’ve looked at it in proper context. Shadows was concurrent with the French New Wave and Faces was inspired by it, while this version was on the heels and owes a slight debt to the American New Wave. However, like his other films, it is wholly original and distinctively a Cassavetes. He is imitating nobody, although plenty of people who try (and mostly fail) to imitate him later. For the time period, this type of independent character exploration was revolutionary, and is probably one of the key origins for the indie movement that would follow in the 80s and 90s.

Film Rating: 8/10

Supplements:

Commentary: Unlike the usual commentaries with directors, actors, or historians, this was unique because it had the sound recordist and the composer. That worked well given the Cassavetes method. They described a lot of the inexpensive techniques with a lot of fascinating stories about the cast and crew. The most interesting part was hearing them describe seeing Gena and Peter give their performances, how they were when not in character, and simply seeing such amazing performances as they happened.

Gena Rowlands and Peter Falk conversation: Even though they had both aged, especially Falk (RIP), you could see they had a rapport and fond memories of their experience with this movie. They shared some neat anecdotes, like how Cassavetes would call theaters in big cities that were showing films he liked. Some would turn them down, but they would all take his call.

1975 Audio Interview with Cassavetes: I’m not crazy about it when Criterion places audio recordings on the disc. It’s not that the content is not interesting. Usually it is the opposite. The problem is that DVD is not the best method for audio only. I listened to only a little bit of this recording.

Criterion Rating: 8.5/10

[ledfloyd]

I didn't realize there were three other Lanzmann docs in that Shoah box. Maybe I need to pick that up.

[DSNT]

Y TU MAMÁ TAMBIÉN, ALFONSO CUARÓN, 2001

http://s3.amazonaws.com/criterion-production/release_boxshots/4279-a6bdafbd2955f6f4fe76bf27a501e9 65/723_DF_box_348x490_original.jp g

I thoroughly enjoyed Y tu mamá también on the first viewing back in the early 2000s. However sexually charged, it was a breath of fresh air compared to the formulaic Hollywood versions of adolescence, like the raunchy 80s comedies like Porky’s, or the more recent American Pie, both of which would spawn multiple sequels in pure Hollywood fashion. This was in the same vein, at least it explored similar themes, but it couldn’t be further apart in style and execution.

Also back then, I barely knew of Alfonso Cuarón. Over 10 years later, he has made what I consider to be the highlight of the Harry Potter series, and made what two technically impressive films with breathtaking and groundbreaking cinematography -- Children of Men and Gravity. The former is among my favorite American movies of the 00s, and the latter was a wild ride. It fell short of my expectations probably due to the deafening hype, but I was still pleased to see the auteur pick up his Oscar. He deserved it for the last three films.

One aspect that escaped me upon first viewing was how gorgeously framed and shot it was. This was the origin of Cuarón’s creative partnership with Emmanuel "Chivo" Lubezki (although they had been friends for years). Lubezki also has an Oscar, for the same movie as Cuarón, but arguably deserves four – one for Children of Men, and two for his work with Malick in Tree of Life and The New World.

Visually, Y tu mamá también is similar to Children of Men in that it is not afraid to show the seedier sides of the world. He shows the rural, impoverished Mexico country, which is contrasted with the upper class background of the bratty young main characters. Children of Men does the same, but with a dystopian society where ugliness is expected. In both films, they manage to make the ‘warts and all’ viewpoint aesthetically pleasing, while they both show the best and worst of humanity and how that does not correlate with being rich and poor.

Y tu mamá también is first and foremost a coming of age film. The characters are deviants that happen to not get intro trouble. Their worst exploits are self-exploration on swimming pools or purposely spilling beverage on a nice suit at a presidential wedding. They are naïve when it comes to life, women, and as we’ll discover later, most notably themselves.

While the two leads grow during their journey across rural Mexico, the audience finds the nature of the country, at least as the characters encounter it, is in a form of decline. The tangential voice-overs talk about the people they encounter, some living, some not, and how their lives turn for the worse. The main characters barely notice the plight, and why would they since they are on their own course of discovery, yet as they blossom, others shrivel. The same could be said for Mexico, which makes Y tu mamá también a deeper film than it first appears.

Just like Tie Me Up! Tie Me Down!, this film is known for its sex, and I doubt that releasing both titles on the same day were coincidental. I recall discussing Y tu mamá también with a friend ages ago, and he called it basically a pornographic movie and that the sex was gratuitous. I could not disagree more. Sure, there are plenty of films, artistic or mainstream, where sex is used to fill seats.

In this film, the sex fits with the character development. Sex was a constant topic of the two lead character’s, which was realistic for two young kids at that age. All kids go through that phase where they explore themselves, although maybe not to quite the same extreme. The sex itself said more about the character’s inexperience and immaturity. Whether they were nervously and apprehensively standing there with a towel, or sitting in the backseat of the car, they were far from sexual champions. They were children that were following the lead of a dominant female. They were so stricken by the fact that she would consider them, that their fantasies could become reality, that their confidence and bravado faded in an instant. And they failed to perform adequately, something that Luisa frankly reminded them during a later pivotal scene.

The sex was part of their coming of age. Through Luisa, they got it out of their system and left the club of the Charalastras. When we last see them, they have barely aged physically, but mentally and emotionally, they are years older. They have come to terms with their sexuality, just like Mexico had (or has) to come to terms with its poverty and the class division.

Film Rating: 8.5/10


Supplements:

Then and Now: There are two documentaries reflecting on the movie. The first was roughly 10 minutes and was filmed shortly after the film was released. Another documentary was filmed recently and is over 40 minutes in length. Of course the second documentary gave a lot more information, and the most valuable parts were hearing Cuarón reflect on how he wanted to leave the Hollywood system and create something original. This was a decision that has paid off for him.

The Making of the Film: This is more like a traditional behind-the-scenes short documentary like the ones found as extras on mainstream discs. Compared to the other serious and analytical features, it is a lot more fun. It show that there were tough times, like dealing with angry drivers when they close a street, and fun times, like when they throw the producer in the pool as a way of baptizing him. You can tell that the work was work, but it was also fun, and I think that contributes to the quality of the final product on the screen.

You Owe Me One, Carlos Cuarón. This is a short film by Alfonso’s brother, Carlos, who wrote Y tu mamá también. This is similarly themed, with lots of sex and playfulness, only this time it is a family of three that all have their own illicit sexual experiences under the same roof in a span of 12-minutes. The short is a good companion to también because of the comedy and focus on sex, but it is by comparison a lot more shallow and more of a romp.

Criterion Rating: 9/10

[Russ]

Visually, Y tu mamá también is similar to Children of Men in that it is not afraid to show the seedier sides of the world. He shows the rural, impoverished Mexico country, which is contrasted with the upper class background of the bratty young main characters.

It's been awhile since my last viewing, but I do remember one standout scene that perfectly illustrates your observation. It's stuck with me moreso than any other scene in the film -- it's the one where the main characters stop on their way to the beach for a couple of beers. They enter and, after they order their drinks, the camera tracks away to give us an extended glimpse into the local culture that is a permanent part of the bar. I was mesmerized at the juxtaposition of classes, and I'm sure that was the desired effect. An absolutely brilliant scene, imho.

[DSNT]

It's been awhile since my last viewing, but I do remember one standout scene that perfectly illustrates your observation. It's stuck with me moreso than any other scene in the film -- it's the one where the main characters stop on their way to the beach for a couple of beers. They enter and, after they order their drinks, the camera tracks away to give us an extended glimpse into the local culture that is a permanent part of the bar. I was mesmerized at the juxtaposition of classes, and I'm sure that was the desired effect. An absolutely brilliant scene, imho.

At first viewing it is easy to get distracted by the sex comedy. I surely was. But I noticed this Mexican class contrast was all over the place the second time around. At times it was overt, like with the Godardian voice-over digressions, and others subtle. One that struck me was near the end when they are at the beach bar. The trio are loudly talking about blowjobs or all other sexual activities, at times yelling towards the peasants sitting at the table across from them, but getting just blank stares in return.

I think he was basically that the upper class doesn't give a shit about the poor, which if you know anything about Mexico, is a valid criticism.

[DSNT]

Online sales are evil.

NEW ONES

http://steepclimbs3.files.wordpress.c om/2014/08/photo-29.jpg

[DSNT]

THE KILLING OF A CHINESE BOOKIE, JOHN CASSAVETES, 1976

http://s3.amazonaws.com/criterion-production/release_boxshots/4078-0f80a4f84cf1d46b831227f445bd0d 38/254_Single_box_348x490_origina l.jpeg

Criterion often packages multiple versions of a film. Often the theatrical release is cut to shreds and the longer release is the director’s cut, which is usually the better version. As a habit, I’ve usually chosen the longer cut for the first viewing, and sometimes (usually never) will revisit the film by watching the shorter version. That’s how I approached this Cassavetes film, but I forgot one important difference between his work and all the others. He didn’t have to worry about studios, editors, or final cut. He wrote, directed, produced and usually financed his own films, so he had the ability to cut the film however he liked. So in this unusual case, the longer version is the inferior version.

Chinese Bookie has a lot going for it, especially the performance of Ben Gazzara as Cosmo Vitelli, a down on his luck New York cabaret club owner who finds himself in a difficult situation. He plays it with subtlety, but also with charm. He’s a likeable guy. He acts as a sort of caretaker for his performing girls, and feels very close to them. One of them is his girlfriend. He takes pride in his club, and puts all the money he makes back into it. Cosmo is a well-drawn character, like most in the Cassavetes world, and Gazzara plays him exceptionally well. He keeps himself calm and composed for the most part, and only loses control for a brief moment later in the film, a moment that is powerful because of how the character has been played.

As much as I liked the character and the actor, everything else was a slog. During the first 40-minutes or so, the film seems like it is going to be up to par with other Cassavetes films, mostly because of the strength of the performance and the character. He carries the momentum through his interaction with Seymour Cassell’s character. After that, the film just hits a brick wall. It should have been exciting when the titled act is carried out, but not really. It is hard to tell whether Cassavetes was going for artistic photography, pacing and editing, such as he had with Faces, but it simply didn’t work.

From there it gets worse. We go further inside the club. Most of the ensemble actors were amateurs and it shows. They show full musical numbers with a made up character named Mr. Sophistication doing the narration and provocatively dressed women playing out the parts. The catcalls from the audience suggest what the show is really about, as they bellow “Take it off!” and erupt in applause when one of the women momentarily pulls down her top. The problem is that we see too many of these numbers; they go on far too long; and they are not interesting. It is hard to imagine this show being popular. Early in the movie when Cassell visits on a Sunday, it seems that it isn’t, but during the performance sequences, the place seems packed. On screen, these performance sequences were overlong, awkward, and unnecessary. They took away from the character moments that bookended them.

After completing the film, being disappointed and navigating the supplements, I discovered that the longer version was, in fact, not the preferred version. Cassavetes felt that he was rushed to edit the film and did a poor job. The second version, released in 1978, is about 30-minutes shorter, but it isn’t simply fat being cut out of the film. Scenes are re-arranged. Many are cut, like the performance sequences that I loathed so much, and other scenes are included that weren’t in the longer version. The shorter version is supposed to be the definitive and preferred version. After watching the monstrosity of the longer version, I was not ready and willing to give it another try. Take this rating with a grain of salt because someday I will revisit this, and will probably prefer the 1978 version.

Film Rating: 3.5/10*

Supplements

Interview with Gazzara and Ruban. This is where I learned much about the controversy with the versions. When the 1976 version was released, it landed with a thud. People hated it, just like I did, and the actor and producer talk about how difficult that was to deal with.

Cassavetes interview: I always enjoy hearing Cassavetes talk about his style and his films. He conveys his passion, which can also be seen on screen.

Aside from the two versions, this disc is relatively thin on extras. It is the weakest thus far from the Cassavetes box.

Criterion Rating: 3/10*

* Could change when I see the 1978 version.

[DSNT]

And that is the 20th entry in the thread, and I've almost finished off two box sets.

https://steepclimbs3.files.wordpress.c om/2014/08/10544377_10152426546178462_759 1433770277560911_n.jpg

P.S. Suck it, Watashi!

https://steepclimbs3.files.wordpress.c om/2014/08/1609715_10152426593663462_2444 12409208039155_n.jpg

(credit for images and humor: Hugh Grant aka Wifey aka Sugar Momma)

[Hugh_Grant]

Ultimately, credit should go to the great Allie Brosh. :)

[ledfloyd]

The first time I watched Killing of a Chinese Bookie it was the longer version and I adored it.

The second time I watched Killing of a Chinese Bookie it was the shorter version and I didn't care for it.

I still don't know what I think of Killing of a Chinese Bookie.

[Pop Trash]

Online sales are evil.

NEW ONES

http://steepclimbs3.files.wordpress.c om/2014/08/photo-29.jpg

If you give Slacker less than an '8' I won't be your BFF anymore.

[DSNT]

If you give Slacker less than an '8' I won't be your BFF anymore.

You're in luck. Slacker is one of my favorite Linklaters. I've still yet to see Boyhood, but with this, Dazed and Confused, Waking Life, and the Before ... series, he's really become one of our great modern auteurs.

[dreamdead]

I'm fairly confident I only watched the 1978 cut of Killing... it's been seven or eight years since I viewed it, but I remember the pace being a pleasurably languid experience, without much emphasis (comparatively) on the female dancers. Essentially, I remember valuing it for the way it extended the mood and atmosphere inherent to many of these pictures even as it provided a way to do genre within Cassavetes's style.

Meanwhile, this far into your experience:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tI87_X52wmk

[DSNT]

That's awesome. Had never heard that before. Misogynist? Genius? Alcoholic? Messiah? Probably all true except for the last ..

The 1978 version is probably what you've seen. Cassavetes hated the longer version and did his best to rid the world of it. Criterion probably only included it since they tend to be completists. For example, they included all the releases of Mr. Arkadin/Confidential Report, when the longest is considered the definitive and the shorter ones were consider butchered.

One day I'll give the shorter version a try, but after I finish this box and Love Streams.

[Pop Trash]

You're in luck. Slacker is one of my favorite Linklaters. I've still yet to see Boyhood, but with this, Dazed and Confused, Waking Life, and the Before ... series, he's really become one of our great modern auteurs.

:pritch:

[DSNT]

VENGEANCE IS MINE, SHOHEI IMAMURA, 1979

http://s3.amazonaws.com/criterion-production/release_boxshots/4274-6879f75268d074d8437077b635bea6 6b/384_BD_box_348x490_original.jp g

Shohei Imamura's Vengeance Is Mine was his first foray into narrative films after more than a decade of working with documentaries. It shows, as this is based on true events. With a couple of exceptions, Imamura does not rely on artistic storytelling methods. Aside from bouncing back and forth across the timeline via flashbacks, the storytelling itself is a straightforward portrayal of a man who has committed crimes and is on the run.

Within the confines of this narrative, Imamura uses a great deal of creativity with his shot selection. Even though he had more than established himself as an auteur during the Japanese New Wave, he still borrows from his heroes, namely Kurosawa and Ozu. You'll see a lot of unique framing, such as shooting through doorways or blocking shots with walls, which Ozu was famous for. The lead character Iwao Enokizu, played by Ken Ogata, is usually subdued, but has moments of rage and extreme behavior. He is reminisicent of Mifune characters in Kurosawa films -- tough minded and rarely showing weakness, and generally a tough character to penetrate.

At the center of the film is a moral crisis. That is not confined to just the serial killing of the protagonist, but most notably by the peripheral characters and how his live impacts theirs. His father is a devout Catholic that is tempted by Iwao's wife, who holds him with high esteem. She is also Catholic, but her husband has left her with an emptiness and she clings to his father for support, sexually or otherwise. The only instance that she encounters another man, she only succumbs (and this is not perfectly clear) because he was recommended by her father-in-law.

The other moral question is with the ladies of the Asano Hotel, who harbor Iwao after he masquerades as a professor. At first they are taken with him, and when they discover his true nature, they respond in curious ways. The mother, also a former killer, is opposed to Iwao being a part of their life, whereas the daughter believes in him and tries to hide and protect him.

The flashbacks are put together well, not to the point where they confuse the narrative, although the film benefits from being watched a second time. They range from when Iwao defies his father at a young age prior to Pearl Harbor, and continue to the time of his murders, his subsequent escape and time on the run, and his subsequent arrest and interrogation.

Iwao is not a character that is easy to understand. We do not and cannot see inside his soul to see why he does things. Instead, Imamura plants little clues that shows that he has complete disregard for anyone else. There are a couple occasions when he shows a bit of humanity, like in the second half when he is carrying on an affair, he at times shows feelings towards her. You wonder whether he is falling in love or just playing with her. Yet he ends the relationship in a way that clouds his feelings even further. The character is mostly an embodiment of evil. Anyone that he encounters is either an obstacle or an opportunity, and he has ways of handling both.

The title of the movie is ambiguous. Who is taking vengeance? Is it Iwao for all the people who he feels have wronged him the past? His father perhaps? I'm sure there are plenty of theories on the internet, which I have not read, but I have a feeling it relates to the final scene. His ex-wife and daughter throw his bones into the air, only to have them freeze midway through. Even though his final wishes were an act of rebellion, just to throw his bones off a mountain, they were not granted. You could argue that the vengeance was of the Christian God that he turned his back on, not letting him have his final resting place, damning his bones from reaching the earth. You could also argue that this is Iwao's spirit, rejecting any sort of resolution, especially anything coming from his despised father. Imamura leaves this open-ended, which punctuates the film. Why did he freeze the bones in the air? We'll never know the answer, just as we'll never understand what possessed Iwao to perform such unspeakable acts.

Movie Rating: 8/10

Supplements:

Audio Commentary with Tony Rayns: This was an exceptional commentary. He filled in a lot of the gaps regarding the source material, Imamura's career, his influences, actors, themes and styles. For the entire 2:20 running time, he barely pauses and always shares interesting details.

Interview with Imamura: This is a brief interview where he talks about the film. You can tell he is pleased with how it came out. One interesting tidbit was how the crew would frequent a noodle shop run by the real killer's sister.

Criterion Rating: 8.5/10

[DSNT]

DONKEY SKIN, JACQUES DEMY, 1970

https://awculture.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/tumblr_n43fsw6ena1qa6obyo6_400 .jpg

After watching two New Wave-ish films, and the two arguably most popular French musicals of all time, the last thing I expected was a surrealistic and unusual fairy tale. It is based on one of French Author Charles Perrault’s (Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty) lesser-known fairy tales, and is nearly a reverse Beauty and the Beast, which was not a Perrault work.

The tale begins with a king losing his fair wife and promising to not re-marry any princess that is not as lovely as her. This seems to be a typical and benign fairy tale premise until it takes a wide left turn. After reviewing the available princesses, he finds that none are worthy of the vow. Finally he realizes that there is one princess that he has forgotten to consider, his own daughter, played by Catherine Deneuve. He decides he must marry her. She isn’t opposed to the idea since she loves her father, but for some reason it doesn’t feel right. She demands that specific colored dresses be made for her, which the king obliges, until she finally requests a dress made out of the hide of a Donkey that, umm, defecates jewels. The king also obliges, and she uses this skin as a disguise to escape.

If that doesn’t sound weird enough, much of the rest of the film has Deneuve traipsing around with a Donkey head on top of her, looking ridiculously silly. On top of that, she encounters a kingdom that is obsessed with the color red. Everything is painted red, including the horses. The fairy tale aspect reminded me in a way of Louis Malle’s Black Moon, albeit with a clearer narrative and without the nudity. To my surprise, I found in the supplements that Demy intended this to be a children’s film, and he said that the incestual content would not seem unusual to young children because they naturally love their parents. I’m no prude, but I wouldn’t show my children a movie that even touches on them having a relationship with their parents, but maybe he is right that a child would miss this taboo. It’s difficult to put yourself in that position as an adult.

While this one doesn’t exactly fit tightly into the already established Demy oeuvre, it contains many elements that are familiar from his earlier films. I wouldn’t call this a musical, but it does contain a few Michel Legrand songs, which the actors sing in the same manner as Umbrellas and Rochefort, clearly lip-synching. The use of color and attention to detail is also Demy-esque. This is the case in the first palace, but it really stands out in the latter kingdom with the strong red color scheme. The costumes are also fantastic, and overall this is a technically accomplished film.

The problem is everything else. This does not quite work as a children’s fairy tale, and the reverse Beauty and the Beast plot is mundane and lazy. Some scenes go on for far too long, such as when the king is reviewing princesses, or later when the prince is trying to fit a ring on a maiden’s finger. It seems that Demy meant this as a commercial work without saying much. I’d say he failed on that level, yet still managed to put together a visual feast.

Film Rating: 4.5/10

Supplements:

Pour Le Cinema: This French TV program contained set interviews with Demy, Deneuve, Marais and others. This is the supplement that has Demy talking about how the children would not pick up on the incest theme. Aside from that, most of it was light and promotional, with the participants talking about how much they liked working on the film.

Donkey Skin Illustrated: This was rather interesting. They showed sketches, drawings and paintings inspired by the story. The best ones were those of the princess wearing her donkey skin. Many of them were the way that Demy portrayed it on screen.

2008 Discussion: This is a round table discussion with a critic, psychoanalyst, and literary buff about the film and it’s themes. While I said above that the film said very little, they brought out a few themes that I had missed, like the theme of liberation that embodied hippie generation of the time.

Demy AFI Interview: This was an audio recording at AFI, which I didn’t listen to in its entirety. In the parts I listened to, they talked about the process. Unlike a lot of other lighter interviews (like the French TV one), the AFI asks good questions about the filmic elements. It seems like an interesting interview.

Criterion Rating: 5.5/10

[DSNT]

UNE CHAMBRE EN VILLE, JACQUES DEMY, 1982

http://awculture.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/tumblr_n43fsw6ena1qa6obyo7_400 .jpg

After an opening strikers versus police scene that seems yanked from the Les Miserablés play (it wasn’t), the camera cranes up to an overlooking room with a baroness looking down at the commotion. After the conflict dies down, the baroness speaks with her boarder, who happens to be one of the strikers.

Strike that. She doesn’t speak, she sings, and he sings back. The wallpaper is a blood red, which matches her outfit. Immediately this scene recalls The Umbrellas of Cherbourg. It may be unfair to compare the two films, but Demy clearly intended to use the same style to tell this new story, and there are parallels with both films, albeit with a far different tone. Every line is sung, wardrobes and sets have matching colors, and so on.

As a musical, Une Chambre is no comparison to Umbrellas. The missing ingredient is Michel Legrand. I’m not sure why his collaboration with Demy didn’t continue, possibly because of the time commitment as he was a busy man at the time. Either way, his presence is sorely missed in this format. Michel Colombier is the replacement, and while he has put together a decent career scoring films, the only other thing he has in common with Legrand is the first name. His music in this film is uninspired and the sung dialogue doesn’t fit into the narrative as snugly as Umbrellas. Without Legrand, I wish they would have chose to let the actors speak rather than sing (or lip-synch). The intensely dramatic script could have made for a much better acting vehicle. Alas, that is not Demy’s style.

From the first ten minutes as the two characters sing the exposition to each other, I was prepared to dislike this film. It was immediately clear that it was trying to be another Umbrellas, and it was also clear that this was anything but. It took some time to introduce the characters and get the narrative rolling, but eventually I found myself taken in. While the music was lacking, everything else was vintage Demy. The costumes, set design and wallpaper did compare respectfully with Umbrellas. I particularly liked the scene with Edith and Guilbaud in his room, with the earthy colors of yellow and brown. These are colors that aren’t bright or flamboyant enough for Umbrellas, but they fit better with the darker story in Une Chambre.

Speaking of dark, when I reviewed Umbrellas, I mentioned how the ending was bittersweet, yet it manages to leave us on a high note. Aside from that, it is bright and bubbly despite being about a romance interrupted by the Algerian War. Une Chambre has a similarly dour premise, with a romance happening at the same time as a 1955 worker’s strike, but this is not bubble gum and butterflies. We know that when Edith and her husband Edmond first fight and the result is domestic violence. Later when Edmond confronts Edith’s mother, the baroness, he threatens to kill both Edith and her lover, if his suspicions of adultery are correct. Edith wears a fur overcoat with nothing underneath and she is bold enough to share the mystery underneath, which is an act far too seedy for the characters of Umbrellas, or any other Demy film for that matter.

I will not spoil how this plays out because it is worth watching. I’ll just say that it lives up to the dark foreshadowing. Compared with Umbrellas, Une Chambre has more grisly violence, stark sexuality, and the characters are not nearly as likeable, but the payoff is daring and not something you would expect from Demy’s universe.

Film Rating: 6.5

Supplements:

There are a handful of supplements on this disc, such as a retrospective and a couple of interviews, but I’m going to ignore those and focus on the two big ones, which happen to be the best supplements in the entire box set.

The World of Jacques Demy: Agnes Varda is an excellent documentarian, but none of her works is nearly as personal as this one. Created within years of her husband’s death, this is a retrospective and love letter of his entire body of work, including all of the inclusions in this set and other notable films like Model Shop and his final film, Three Seats for the 26th. It features Varda and family to a certain degree, but the most powerful sequences are three young girls who are simply fans of Demy. One of them reads a lovely letter she wrote to the director, thanking him for giving her life beauty and inspiration. The others felt the same, and they shared personal stories of how they grew up to Demy, how much they adored him and his work, and how they were left empty with his loss. Neither Varda nor any of his two children talk about his death, but they don’t have to. These three girls say enough.

Jacques Demy, A to Z: Film Critic James Quandt narrates this Criterion-produced visual essay about Demy’s body of work. He uses the alphabet to track Demy’s career, talking about the people who inspired him, motifs in his work, characters, and especially his family. With the letter B, he mentions Robert Bresson. Quandt also did the excellent commentary for Bresson’s Pickpocket, so he knows what he’s talking about. My first reaction when I saw Bresson’s name was that the two filmmakers have little in common with each other. Bresson is austerity while Demy is an eruption of style. Yet, Quandt still demonstrates a number of similarities that I had missed. Many of the male characters in Demy’s world are quiet, austere and understated, especially in his first two black and white films. Quandt parallels these characters with Bresson’s Michel and shows certain Demy scenes that were directly inspired by Bresson scenes. Near the end we get V for Varda, which is the most fitting. Oddly enough, they never worked together and they convey distinctly different styes and tones, but they complement each other and are forever intertwined. Finally, we have Varda and the Demy family to thank for putting this box set together and letting us experience Demy through their eyes.

On the strength of these two supplements, this is the best disc in the entire box set. Also note that The Young Girls of Rochefort is included in the DVD version.

Criterion Rating: 9/10

[DSNT]

THE ESSENTIAL JACQUES DEMY, 2014

http://s3.amazonaws.com/criterion-production/release_boxshots/4262-cf5a10147d55431dd401b2a3ed6601 60/713_DF_box_348x490_original.jp g

This is the first completed box set for this thread, although there should be another one following pretty closely behind. This was a good one to start with. Going in, I had limited exposure to Demy, and wasn’t a huge fan of what I saw. Even though this set only includes the ‘Essential’ titles, it’s the best representation of his work, and with the shorts included, I felt that I had seen the development and evolution of style.

Even though I wouldn’t call any of his films masterpieces, I closed this set having a lot more respect for his craft. He went to places that other filmmakers wouldn’t go, and did some things that were truly original. I really like that his film universe had some connectivity, with reoccurring characters, motifs, and references to other films in the mise-en-scene. This would not be as easy to pick up if you watched the films individually over a longer span of time.

There are a couple of titles omitted that I wanted to see, especially Model Shop. My expectations are not high, but it seems to fit into the Demy universe since it is a sequel to Lola. Since the Demy family was so involved in this project, I am hopeful that Criterion will work on some of these other titles as standalone releases. On that note, I’m praying for an upgrade of Varda’s 4-films. The fact that this set was so comprehensive and she was heavily involved, I’d say it is a strong possibility.

Aside from Lola, the restorations were all impressive. Many of the discs had a short restoration supplement, and it was neat to see them remove blemishes as they found them. Lola’s restoration was poor, but I know that they had problems getting a workable master print. Since it was his debut feature film and it set the stage for so much of his later work, it had to be included regardless of the quality.

As for my impression of Demy, as mentioned, it improved. Musicals are my blind spot, but I found myself enjoying The Umbrellas of Cherbourg far more on this new visit, and I appreciated The Young Girls of Rochefort. As I progressed further into the set, I found myself appreciating Lola and Bay of Angels a little more, and will enjoy revisiting them at a later date. Donkey Skin was disappointing. While Une chambre en ville didn’t measure up to it’s stylistic sister, it was surprisingly effective, and it was refreshing to see Demy push beyond the boundaries he set for himself.

There were no commentaries on any discs. While that was disappointing, the vast number of supplements almost made up for it. I appreciated the two Varda documentaries a great deal. In fact, her The World of Jacques Demy is my favorite film of the entire set. I missed a lot of the critical examinations on the earlier discs, but was pleased to view James Quandt’s A-Z evaluation. His essay and Varda’s documentary were on the final disc, and that punctuated the set extremely well.

Here are all of the films:

Lola, Bay of Angels (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5544-Aaron-Watches-Criterions&p=520104&viewfull=1#post520104)
The Umbrellas of Cherbourg (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5544-Aaron-Watches-Criterions&p=520435&viewfull=1#post520435)
The Young Girls of Rochefort (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5544-Aaron-Watches-Criterions&p=520971&viewfull=1#post520971)
Donkey Skin (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5544-Aaron-Watches-Criterions&p=524483&viewfull=1#post524483)
Une chambre en ville (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5544-Aaron-Watches-Criterions&p=524520&viewfull=1#post524520)

Box Set Rating: 8.5

[DSNT]

ALL THAT JAZZ, BOB FOSSE, 1979

http://s3.amazonaws.com/criterion-production/release_boxshots/4277-b3d85e0639a53173880f55517a3cd7 b4/724_DF_box_348x490_original.jp g

What separates All That Jazz from most musicals, is the level of honesty and authenticity. The musical numbers are all ways of expressing reality in an entertaining and artistic fashion, whether they are about the process and mechanics of putting together a Broadway music, or about one’s own mortality. Fosse’s mostly-autobiographical tale brings us into his world, the theatrical and directorial world, and uses that as a means to another world. More on that latter world in a moment.

The theater world is the one that Fosse knows the best, and he portrays it as a true insider. It begins with the cattle call, an arduous and brutal ordeal. The sequence goes on for a long time, nearly in a documentary style with clever editing to show the magnitude of performances that take place. George Benson’s version of “On Broadway” plays, reminding us what the stakes are. One of the dancers says he’s willing to change his given name (Autumn) if he gets the job. A job in a Gideon (or Fosse) production could make a career.

There are other theater sequences that are particularly effective. This was my third viewing, and one that struck me this time was the audition sequence with Victoria, who Joe had recently taken as a lover. Some may think that entitles her to special treatment, yet she gets none. She lacks in the talent department, so Joe pushes and pushes her away from mediocrity. You can see the pain on her face with every new attempt, and you sympathize when she thinks about quitting. This probably happens all the time in the theater world. She doesn’t quit and after a number of repetitions and being drenched in sweat, she gets the nod of modest acknowledgement. Gideon says that a take is better, and a sense of relief passes through her exhausted face. It was a nice character moment, performed well by the actress.

The other music pieces are part of Joe’s world. The adult-themed airplane number is performed as a dress rehearsal for the producers, but it takes a life of its own. It shows the director’s brilliance, but also his bravado. He’s not afraid to push the envelope, and the number is a reflection of how he lives – sex, drugs, and smoking. Another musical number is performed by his girlfriend and daughter, and is a great way of developing the character relationships in an entertaining and touching manner.

The other dance numbers were also part of Joe’s world, but not the same world. This world is just as open and honest, maybe more so, and they again show how Joe/Bob will go to depths that most filmmakers won’t.

Be warned, the remainder of this summary is going to be full of spoilers. This movie cannot really be discussed without referencing the ending.

Even though the dance numbers are entertaining and even fun, they are a contrast with the harsh reality of what Joe is facing. This is shown in graphic detail during the heart surgery, where they show the medical procedure happen – something I had never seen prior to this movie, and never expected to see.
That takes the movie to a different level. While in the hospital, Joe has a musical hallucination, which talks about how much he has done wrong, how he has failed. His decisions have led him to this point, with a fractured marriage, a stressful career, and literally, a breaking heart.

The final scene is pure brilliance. It is Joe saying goodbye to the world, including his professional peers, his family, even his enemies. The lyrics “Bye bye life. Bye bye bappiness. “ are dark, morbid, yet they are celebrational. “I think I’m going to die. Bye bye my life, goodbye.” Even though the movie clearly is leading up to the finality of Joe’s life, the harsh, abrupt ending is still shocking. It is still bold. It is still amazing. Even though the prior ten minutes were full of smiles and festivity, the stark reality is that you will be zipped up into a body bag.

Phenomenal movie. I’ve long called it my favorite musical ever, and that was cemented with yet another viewing.

Film Rating: 9.5/10

Supplements:

There are a ton of supplements, so I’ll give an abbreviated survey here.

Commentaries: There is one full commentary with Alan Heim, the editor, and Roy Scheider, the lead actor. Even with the shorter duration, Scheider’s is the more interesting, as is to be expected. Heim’s is good too, but there is already a featurette about the editing on the disc that is more effective. One thing that’s surprising from both commentaries is about Fosse’s take on the autobiographical details. It seems that he minimized the fact that it was based on his own experiences, yet they were undeniably him. Heim points out that the address on the medications was Fosse’s address, and he would refer to the lead character as “you” when addressing Fosse, which the director didn’t like.

Ann Reinking and Erzsebet Foldi: The actresses that played the girlfriend and daughter have a good rapport as they reminisce about their experience. The young actress had no idea of the scale of the movie when she was doing it, and it was something hearing her talk about seeing people lined up around the block.

TV Appearances: There are three of these; one with Fosse and Agnes de Mille, and the other two with Fosse solo. It’s weird seeing Gene Shalit doing an interview. I’m not a fan, but Fosse makes for an interesting subject.

Featurettes: There are several. My favorite was on the editing, which sort of negated Heim’s commentary. There were others about the music, on-set footage, and even one on the making of George Benson’s “On Broadway.”

Documentary: This is short by Criterion standards, but long considering everything else on the disc. It is roughly thirty minutes and has several interviews with people involved with the production, including Sandahl Bergman, who was flown in just three days before her scene and had to learn a complicated dance routine.

Between the quality of the movie, restoration, and the extensive features, this is so far the best Criterion release of the year.

Criterion Rating: 10/10

[dreamdead]

It's been years since I last watched this one. I mainly remember the phenomenal balance that Fosse achieves in making Joe both repugnant as an individual, even as we get clear glimpses into his remorse over his actions. It's a delicate balance and one that could too easily veer into maudlin territory, but there's just enough self-disgust that it works, and works admirably. That airline dance routine is top two or three in terms of sensuality--Fosse musicals always have enough carnal knowledge that they override any pretense to innocence, and that fact is one of the key facets that makes his work so translatable to modern audiences.

I could see double-dipping for this work, just for a cleaner transfer and the extras.

Any chance of putting a shortlist up on the first page so that we can know what's up the pipeline and can (re)watch them along with you? A lot of these were formative viewings for me but I haven't seen them in forever. Knowing what's coming up could give us a bit to refresh ourselves...

[DSNT]

That's a great idea. Over the next couple months these will probably slow down to new releases and maybe a handful of others.

Next up will be Eraserhead, then The Innocents and Macbeth.

I'll put up a list of the other random titles I have in my queue (aka stack in front of the TV) over the weekend.

[DSNT]

And I think you hit the nail on the head with this being an aspect of Fosse's self-disgust, which probably explains why he was reluctant to admit how autobiographical it was. The scenes with Jessica Lange were basically a confessional of his own sins, through the character of Joe.

The airplane scene was great from a technical, artistic and character perspective. I'm racking my brain to think of examples from other movies that are even close to as effective.

[DSNT]

Here is the pre-ordered new release schedule for the next few months. I'll be looking at these shortly after buying them, although some will require more time (like Tati!).

Star means I haven't seen them. Bold means I consider them important releases.

09/23 - Macbeth*
09/23 - The Innocents*
09/30 - Sundays and Cybele*
09/30 - Ali: Fear Eats the Soul
10/16 - My Darling Clementine*
10/21 - La Dolce Vita
10/28 - The Complete Jacques Tati
11/11 - The Shooting/Ride the Whirlwind*
11/18 - It Happened One Night
11/25 - Tootsie
11/25 - L'avventura
11/25 - Les Blank: Always for Pleasure*
12/09 - [Safe]
12/09 - Time Bandits
12/09 - The Night Porter*

Queue: (note: could change based on whim or whatever)

1. Eraserhead
2. La Promesse*
3. Down by Law*
4. Opening Night*
5. Days of Heaven
6. Love Streams
7. On the Waterfront
8. Les cousins*
9. Summer Hours*
10. The Leopard

Next Box Set:

Dave Lean Directs Noel Coward
1. Brief Encounter
2. Blithe Spirit*
3. This Happy Breed
4. In Which We Serve

Posting these on the front page under spoiler tags and will keep them updated.

[DSNT]

ERASERHEAD, DAVID LYNCH, 1977

http://s3.amazonaws.com/criterion-production/release_boxshots/4282-4623aaa5aa54020dbc710d7cfc081a 36/725_box_348x490_original.jpg

Some might call David Lynch a weird dude; others would call him a visionary artist. To me, he’s a little of both, and I can take him or leave him. Some of his work leaves me cold, like Lost Highway, while I consider others to be masterpieces, most notably Mulholland Drive, and also the underappreciated Inland Empire. Eraserhead is somewhere in between. It is something I respect far more than I like, and it represents a starting point for one of the most inventive and creative cinematic minds of the modern era.

One thing that is remarkable is that this film was made at all. That’s one reason why I love these Criterion releases. Every film has a story behind the story, and Criterion teaches as much about the process of getting it to screen as it does the images as art. Eraserhead took a long time to get made, and the project came about as a happy accident when Lynch nearly had a falling out with AFI. They were giving filmmakers a lot of rope, and they pretty much left him alone and did his thing. The final product, to me, is not perfect, but it is of unquestionably high quality, and not something you’d expect from someone who had previously directed a handful of experimental shorts.

The movie itself doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. Lynch acknowledges as much and refuses to share his interpretation. I actually really admire that. As anyone who has been in a good English, Film or Art History course can attest, the creator’s original intent has very little to do with how people interpret and understand the film. In some of the marathon discussions in which I’ve participated, we have deconstructed the piece of art far far beyond the creator’s vision or intent, and that’s what makes it beautiful. Something that can be a lot of things for a lot of different people has power, and that’s why a films like Eraserhead and Mulholland Drive can take hold.

It doesn’t take a lot of searching to find popular theories on the Internet. Here’s one. (http://eraserhead-interpretation.blogspot.com) Here’s another (http://www.thecityofabsurdity.com/papers/wolfe.htm): And this is just the tip of the iceberg. You could scour blogs and discussion boards for hours just reading different interpretations. Lynch likened the film to a Rorschach test, implying that the way people interpret the film says more about them.

Aside from enjoying it as a piece of entertainment a few times, I cannot say that I’ve gained much more understanding of it, but I have picked up on several themes and motifs, just like everyone else. The sexual symbolism is overt, with the spermatozoa-like objects (for lack of a better word) popping up on occasion. In one scene Henry finds them all over the bed he is sharing with his girlfriend/wife. Could that be sexual guilty? We don’t know. Fatherhood is another key theme, as embodied by the freaky, mutated baby, that I’d still rather not know what it really was. On this recent viewing, I picked up on some commentary on modernity and technology. This is expressed all throughout the movie, most notably through the constant humming of the machinery. There are other moments where it comes into play, such as when Henry’s girlfriend’s father marvels at the smaller-sized chickens, which he proudly exclaims are new! And of course those chickens foreshadow the eventual baby, so if the message is of modernity, it is interwoven with the pressures of the nuclear family.

For such an independent and low budget film, it is technically brilliant. One element that stands out to me is the sound design -- which is often a constant hum. The black-and-white cinematography looks terrific, especially on this Blu-Ray (I had previously seen this on VHS or streaming).

There are a lot of different avenues to take when interpreting the film, and there really is no wrong answer. David Lynch isn’t going to take out his red pen to anyone's conclusion. He’s just proud that we’re still thinking about it.

Film Rating: 7/10

Supplements:

David Lynch Shorts: The majority of these are from early in Lynch’s career, prior to the release of Eraserhead. Some of them were created concurrently with that project since it took so long. The only exception is his one-minute contribution to Lumière and Company, using the same century-old equipment that the early pioneers of film used.

If Lynch hadn’t become the filmmaker that he is today, these most likely would not have seen the light of day. They are clearly amateur filmmaking, yet they are experimental and show glimpses of what would become his style. That’s not to say they are not good on their own right. For what are essentially student films, these are high quality. These were part of the reason AFI favored him and gave him freedom to make a feature.

And yes, as you might expect from Lynch, the shorts are weird. The Amputee has a double amputee transcribing a letter while her wounds are being tended to by a nurse. The Grandmother is about a bed-wetting child who grows some sort of object on his bed that births his an old lady. This was the longest and best of the shorts. Most of them mix crude animation with live action, which gives them an added surrealism. All of the shorts are worth watching, especially for Lynch fans.

Documentaries and Interviews: The remainder of the supplements are arranged by the year in which they were released, with no explanation. You just click the year and see what happens, which is a very Lynchian format. These were all interesting in their own right. I enjoyed the interview from the set that was conducted after the release about the time the film was achieving cult status off as a midnight movie. Lynch was frank about his methods, but silent about his meanings. That’s a silence he would keep throughout his entire career. There was another documentary that was basically Lynch talking into a microphone about the process. This one was the least interesting, even if he gave the most information. I particularly enjoyed the most recent documentary, which features some of the actors and crew members, which most likely was recorded just for this release.

Criterion Rating: 8/10

[Russ]

Disappointed that they dropped The Cowboy and The Frenchman from the collection of shorts gathered for this release. Guess I'll have to hang on to the original releases from Lynch's website.

[DSNT]

Disappointed that they dropped The Cowboy and The Frenchman from the collection of shorts gathered for this release. Guess I'll have to hang on to the original releases from Lynch's website.

They have to leave something for Mulholland Drive, which seems pretty likely to happen at this point.

[MadMan]

Lost Highway is great despite receiving some poor reviews over the years. I like but don't love Eraserhead. What a bizarre film.

[DSNT]

Hard to believe, but I saw Lost Highway before Mulholland Drive and Eraserhead. My mind was blown and not in a good way, but think I'd probably be more into an upgrade.

Four new releases are sitting in the stack: The Innocents, Macbeth, Sundays and Cybele, and Ali: Fear Eats the Soul.

I'll start tackling these and hopefully some others before the next batch of releases ... and soon, Jacques Tati.

[DSNT]

THE INNOCENTS, JACK CLAYTON, 1961

http://s3.amazonaws.com/criterion-production/release_boxshots/4286-89a36614a977566a2b012b2b615af1 5c/727_box_348x490_original.jpg

My first exposure to Henry James’ The Turn of the Screw was as a young teen. It scared the daylights out of me, and I never really forgot it. Jack Clayton also experienced the material as a youngster, and was likely scared just like me, but he could identify with the children in different ways – the sense of loneliness, abandonment, and that is part of the reason the material remained special for him, and eventually he would be responsible for the best visual representation of the novel.

The Innocents is, more than any film I’ve yet seen, the quintessential gothic movie. Of course a lot of that is due to the James source material and Truman Capote’s eerie script, but most of it has to do with the look and feel. It was not just Freddie Francis’ brilliant cinemascope camerawork, but also the clever editing, the mise en scene complete with a distinctly gothic floral motif, the dissolves between shots, and of course the location and the Victorian-style house.

The performance salso deserve some accolades. While Deborah Kerr is the focal point that carries both the plot and the ambiguity, and she is amazing, I was also impressed by the children. It was interesting to hear that much of the ghost-story plot was withheld from them so that it would not impact their performance, so perhaps Clayton deserves just as much credit. Pamela Franklin is brilliant as Flora, in an understated and fragile role, but Martin Stephen’s Miles really stole the show and sold the possibility of what was taking place in the house and/or in Miss Giddens’ head. The scenes where Stephens and Kerr interact directly were particularly exceptional. He played wise beyond his years, and was able to hold his own when discussing and debating the goings on with Miss Giddens. His intelligent, knowing looks made clear that at the very least, he had some behavioral problems, and was at worst possessed by a ghost.

There are two readings of the film, and they were intentionally ambiguous. I cannot continue without spoiling the film, so please stop reading from here if you have not seen it.

The question is whether the ghosts are present or whether they are a figment of Miss Giddens’ imagination. There are plenty of arguments scattered throughout the film, although upon repeated viewings, there does appear to be more evidence of the latter theory. She notices the apparitions before the children, or at least as much as they will admit, and reacts before they are shown on screen. The children continually seem oblivious to what she is observing, and she implants thoughts and feelings into their minds that do not always seem rational.

Another piece of evidence that suggests the ghosts are real is that Giddens sees Miss Jessel at the lake before learning that’s where she committed suicide. Also, as noted, Miles is a clever human being, and the best evidence for the real apparitions is at the very end when he lashes out at Giddens, with the ghostly Peter Quint appearing in the window engaged in laughter at the tirade. Then, as she sees Quint clearly just before the child’s last breath, there is a shot of him with a momentary look of acknowledgement. Had he finally seen the ghost? Was he indeed possessed and this act of exorcism was his undoing? A third theory could also be explored, that Giddens was possessed by Jessel, who wanted her revenge on Quint and achieved it during the final scene. It was brilliant of Clayton to leave this ambiguity intact.

I cannot say enough about the film’s quality, especially the lighting. The highlight for me was the dream sequence about an hour into the film, which consists of a multitude of dissolved sequences, ranging from flocks of pigeons, dancing with the music box, or praying hands like opening and closing of the film. Whether they were real or imaged by Miss Giddens does not take away from their brilliance.

Film Rating: 9/10

Supplements:

Audio Commentary: Christopher Frayling, a cultural historian, brings a lot of detail from the Henry James novel, the adapted play of The Innocents and stories from the set. He also does a good job at pointing out the filmic elements that are used to support the different readings of the film.

Introduction: Frayling again introduces the film by visiting some of the locations of the shoot. The remainder is mostly repeated in the commentary, with a few scant unique details.

John Bailey Interview: Bailey is an accomplished Director of Photography, and he discusses Freddie Francis’ techniques in detail. The technical limitations of the Cinemascope cameras give more appreciation with the final product given what Francis had to work with. He made the absolute most of it, and the film would be completely different with another aspect ratio or a different DP.

Making Of: This is a newly edited series of interviews from 2006 with Freddie Francis, editor Jim Clark, and script supervisor Pamela Mann Francis. These are all interesting in their own right. Francis has the least screen time, but he is mentioned constantly by Clark and Francis. They also credit Capote’s contribution and Clayton’s vision. The interviews are mixed with HD clips from the 4k restoration and are a suitable accompaniment.

Criterion Rating: 9.5/10

[Kurosawa Fan]

Not sure how long you have been collecting these, DSNT, but it seems Criterion is having an issue with the pressing of some of their discs that were made around '09. They are experiencing disc rot, with yellow discoloration and unreadable or freezing discs. There is a list of affected films that Criterion is exchanging with a new pressing. I think the info is on their website. Just wanted to bring it to your attention.

[DSNT]

Not sure how long you have been collecting these, DSNT, but it seems Criterion is having an issue with the pressing of some of their discs that were made around '09. They are experiencing disc rot, with yellow discoloration and unreadable or freezing discs. There is a list of affected films that Criterion is exchanging with a new pressing. I think the info is on their website. Just wanted to bring it to your attention.
Yep. And they have already put together a battle plan here (http://www.criterion.com/current/posts/3317-exchanging-defective-discs).

I own several on the list and the ones that I've checked look okay. I'll try to watch a couple of them just to make sure.

Thanks man!

[DSNT]

OPENING NIGHT, JOHN CASSAVETES, 1977

http://awculture.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/255_box_348x490-2.jpg

At times while watching Opening Night, it felt like I was watching the ideological sequel to A Woman Under the Influence. Gena Rowlands again plays a woman going out of her mind, only this time it is not her immediate family that suffers, but the production staff of the play of which she is the star. Cassavetes explores her character a little deeper, focusing less on the peripheral characters, and more on her internal breakdown. We see what she sees, mostly from her perspective. She is primarily haunted by an autograph seeker who died outside of a playhouse, and sees images of this dead, young girl as she continues with the production.

It is probably unfair to compare the two movies despite the similarities, because Opening Night is more abstract and deeper in how it approaches its central theme, the aging of a famous actor – something certainly close to home in the real lives of Cassavetes and Rowlands. Age is the subject of the play, and it is overtly part of Rowlands’ hallucinations of this younger girl, who she at first feels sorrow for, which eventually transforms towards resentment. As she descends further into madness, her downfall has less to do with any feelings of guilt towards the girl's death, and more as a wrath for her representation of youth. The character looks like a younger Rowlands, and as she rejects the script of a play that characterizes her as older, she takes out her wrath on this phantom youthful ideal.

If anything, age was too much of a central theme, and even if it was approached creatively, it was not portrayed with much subtlety. I felt that too much of the lengthy running time was dedicated to exploring this theme, but the message would have been just as clear with a lot less.

With the utmost respect for Cassavetes and his craft, and some people that I regard highly consider this his best work, but I had some problems with Opening Night. Part of this has to do with the heavy-handed treatment of aging. Another part was that I felt the independent nature of a Cassavetes production did some damage to this film. Sometimes answering to a producer can keep someone accountable with their ambition.

Realism went out the window, and I'm not referring to the hallucinations. The plot became unbelievable as the producers of the play continued to abide by someone who they could tell was losing it. I don’t expect they would have kept this person in the lead role and risk disaster during opening night. Or they would have delayed the open until they got the situation under control, resolved, and the star actress became comfortable with the material, which she clearly wasn’t. I also had problems with the final scene with Rowlands and Cassavetes playing off of each other, obviously improvising, and the audience gushing at them. The scene itself was entertaining simply because of the magnetism of two experienced actors. The problem was that the play did seem all over the place, and an actual audience would have trouble enjoying it. A real broadway audience would have problems with this play within a play. The final scene continues for awhile and expresses very little, and I feel the audience would have become impatient.

Film Rating: 5.5/10

Supplements:

Gena Rowlands and Ben Gazzara: There was a similar conversation after The Killing of a Chinese Bookie. It's enjoyable to hear these two talk to each other and reflect. They discussed how disappointing it was that this movie essentially flopped after Bookie did as well, and that the final scene was mostly improvised.

Al Ruban: This was a short interview yet was one of the more revealing interviews of the entire disc. He said that Cassavetes gave his crew almost carte blanch to work based on their own interpretations of the script. He also revealed that John could be difficult to work with, and during one period of the shoot they ran out of money and had to go on hiatus for two weeks. Ruban had a falling out with Cassavetes and considered walking off, but Gazzara convined him to finish his work.

Criterion Rating: 5/10

[DSNT]

MACBETH, ROMAN POLANSKI, 1971

http://s3.amazonaws.com/criterion-production/release_boxshots/4284-bf4e43991be9d8e2885c48cf613222 23/726_box_348x490_original.jpg

This entry will be a little different. I won’t try to establish and discuss the major themes of this work. Scholars, far smarter, more educated, and better read than I, have been exploring Shakespeare for centuries. Plenty of ink has been printed on the subject to Macbeth, and my take having is far from academic having read some of the play in High School and now seen interpretations from Polanski and Kurasawa. Instead I’ll look at this as a unique representation of the bard, and as a large-scale epic, which is truly unique compared to other Shakespeare adaptations.

Polanski’s take is far more accessible than most Shakespeare on film, and has more in common with Monty Python and the Holy Grail or Game of Throne than it does a traditional Olivier Shakespeare adaptation. It is a medieval epic on a grand scale with plenty of action, royal intrigue, brutality, and yes, even nudity (although not what you’d expect). The dialog is directly from Shakespeare, but it is spoken in a different manner. Rather than have the actors digress with poetic speeches, they use much of Shakespeare’s words as voiceover to show their interior dialog and establish their thoughts and motivations. As a result of these slight diversions, the material is more consumable and flows smoothly. It’s more engaging and less perplexing, yet it still isn’t dumbed down for a mainstream audience. It is distinctly Shakespeare, but presented through the lens of a young, trouble director in Polanski.

The elephant in the room is that this was Polanski’s first work after his wife and friend were savagely and brutally murdered by the Manson family a couple of summers ago. Some of the violent choices he made for this movie are curious given what he was dealing with. Some of the departures from the original are to show more violence. There is one scene in particular when a family gets slaughtered in their own home that had to have been inspired by the events of that fateful summer. You have to wonder whether this was a cathartic way of dealing with the tragedy. The one thing we can tell is that there is a personal edge that comes through the brutal telling of the story.

Despite his personal tragedies, this is a period of transition in the career of Polanski. He was already among the top directors at the time, having churned out a number of hits. Some of them were artistic (Repulsion, Cul-de-Sac), while he had also experimented with mainstream genre (Rosemary’s Baby). Macbeth was not only more literary than his previous works, but also his first attempt at an epic. He does quite a bit with a small budget, using elaborate, genuine costumes, glorious sets, and amazing cinematography. We can see here the filmmaker who would eventually make Tess and even The Pianist, many years later.

As a piece of art, Macbeth is up there with the best of the Shakespeare adaptations, and it’s a shame that few director’s (no offense to Branaugh) have been up to the task of putting together such an ambitious and daring treatment of the material since.

Film Rating: 8/10

Supplements:

Toll and Trouble: Making “Macbeth.” This new hour-long documentary touches on a lot of interesting subjects. One of which was how the film got made in the first place. No major studios were interested, so the surprising financier was Playboy. That led to a little bit of pressure and some stigma that would be added to the film, but also made it a little unique. Eventually they gave Roman plenty of artistic freedom. Also featured are Francesca Annis who played Lady Macbeth. She talks frankly about the mood on the set and her thoughts of doing nudity for the production. Martin Shaw talks at length about the project, and speaks about how Jon Finch came to be cast as Macbeth (he met Polanski on a plane), and how good he turned out.

Polanski Meets Macbeth: This documentary shows plenty of behind-the-scenes footage of the production, ranging from directing large scale acting scenes, to seeing how the cast and crew are fed (and hearing the complaints of the people who feed them.) This documentary isn’t enthralling, yet it is neat to see how much footage was captured from the shoot.

Dick Cavett Interview with Kenneth Tynan: This interview was conducted prior to Macbeth’s release, and most of the interview is not about the Polanski project. They discuss it briefly toward the end.

British Television “Acquarius”: Polanski and theater director Peter Coe discuss their Macbeth projects. The former is of course the Polanski epic, while the latter is “Black Macbeth” which couldn’t be anymore different.

Criterion Rating: 8.5/10

[DSNT]

So Criterion had a Flash Sale (http://www.criterion.com/sale) today.

The damage I did today would get a lot of people divorced, but I want all the Criterion Blu-Rays eventually and I'd rather them come from Criterion because of packaging. The wife understands. And no, this is not her Jeopardy money I'm spending. That is tucked away in a safe place.

So after today, I own about 80% of the Blu-Rays and that includes all the box sets. Pretty much the only ones I don't own fall under these categories:

A. I own the regular disc (like Rules of the Game, Wages of Fear, 8 1/2, etc.)
B. I've seen the Criterion before, and in no hurry to buy (like Ministry of Fear, Investigation of a Citizen, etc.)
C. Movies I dislike (like La Vie Boheme, The Long Day Closes, Mad Mad World, etc.)
D. Movies I don't want in my house (like Salo, Antichrist, etc.)

Here is my collection now. (http://www.criterion.com/my_criterion/138372-aaron-r/collection?sort_by=title) And yes, it is gross, exorbitant and disgusting, but I love it.

[DSNT]

SUNDAYS AND CYBELE, SERGE BOURGUIGNON, 1962

http://s3.amazonaws.com/criterion-production/release_boxshots/4287-6a0eda41296181f8168a11702b1218 0b/728_BD_box_348x490_original.jp g

One thing I love about Criterion is they manage to balance title releases based on popularity and credibility. Rather than just sticking to top selling auteurs for every release, they’ll often pull a movie out of obscurity and allow it to be rediscovered, even if that means it won’t sell as well as Ford or a Lynch. Sundays and Cybele is hardly obscure, having won international acclaim at the time of its release, including an Oscar win. Yet, for an early 1960s release during the height of the French New Wave, plenty of other films overshadow it. Unlike his contemporaries who enjoyed lengthy, prosperous careers, Serge Bourguignon mostly disappeared into obscurity, his career all but dead by the end of the decade.

Sundays and Cybele is almost the antithesis of a French New Wave film, which may explain why it is such an outlier in the movement. It is slower, more poetic, less spontaneous, and more deliberate. It has more in common with Bresson than Godard, and it dabbles into a darker and less fanciful theme than most would care to engage.

Pierre (Hardy Krüger) is a shell-shocked veteran of the Indochina War, racked with guilt for possibly killing a young girl civilian. He has amnesia and struggles with a return to ordinary life. His former nurse Madeline (Nicole Courcel) becomes his lover and caretaker, yet he his progress with her has limits. It’s through a chance encounter at a train station with Françoise/Cybèle (Patricia Gozzi) that he finds his anchor. She is a 12-year old girl, abandoned at the boarding school, basically an orphan, and he poses as her father to visit her every Sunday. What follows is a friendship and, in a unique way, a romance, yet does not quite reach the level of pedophilia.

The film is visually stunning, thanks to some unconventional shot selections and the camerawork of Henri Decaë (who oddly enough had made his career shooting New Wave films). Most of these shots were visual representation of the disconnection with society and the haziness within Pierre’s persona. For example, there’s one tracking shot that shows the reflection of the street through a vehicle side mirror. As the vehicle climbs a hill, we eventually see Pierre walking, and the shot continues with the driver getting out of the car. There is another excellent shot when Pierre is having lunch with Madeline and her friends, when he gets up and wipes a circle in the fogged up window, where two horse riders are interacting on the other side of a pond. Not only were these shots gorgeously photographed, but they were precisely choreographed. These were but two of many that likely took a lot of thinking and staging, and the execution resulted in a strikingly original looking film.

There are several motifs throughout the film, but the one that impressed me the most was the use of glass, mirrors, and how it interacted with the photography. Glass objects are used as props, and at one point in the lunch scene, the camera takes Pierre’s perspective as he looks at his companions through a wine glass, again showing his distorted worldview with filmic elements.

The relationship between Pierre and Cybele is complicated. He is continually infantilized. Even Cybèle playfully observes that “deep down you’re like a lost child.” She unmistakably loves him in a romantic way, at least as much as she understands of love at her age. His responses are affectionate, yet he stops short of vocally acknowledging her interpretation of their relationship. She is his conduit to his inner self, and he is possessive of her affections, yet is actual intentions are unclear the audience, as they likely are to himself. She daydreams of marrying him when she is 18 and he is 36, which might have happened if the relationship were able to progress. To further complicate matters, he finds himself romantically impotent towards Madeline. Cybèle is the one who fulfills him, while his lover leaves him empty.

Even though this is a gorgeous film with richly drawn characters, it has some storytelling problems getting to the final act. The film plods when Pierre disappears and Madeline recruits Bernard to help find him. The finale is temporally out of synch, as we learn of the outcome before we see it. While that results in an effective scene, with Madeline’s reaction seamlessly cutting to Cybèle’s, it is makes the ending less impactful and somewhat unsatisfying.

Film Rating: 7.5

Supplements:

Serge Bourguignon interview. Much of the time is spent discussing the film and it’s themes, but I thought the most interesting aspect of the interview was hearing him explain why his career ended. He seems to think it was due in large part to the jealousy of the New Wave filmmakers for his American success and the Oscar. It sounds like there were some disagreements, and he acknowledges that some of the problems may have been his own fault.

Patricia Gozzi interview. Her experience is also interesting because she was such a young actress, and this was her first significant role. She also disappeared from acting approximately a decade later, yet she does not give her reasons (I believe it was for marriage). Her relationship with Krüger was a close friendship, and that translated to the screen. I wonder if she grasped the taboo nature of their relationship during the filming. That’s another topic she doesn’t address.

Hardy Krüger interview. Krüger is undoubtedly the most successful of those involved with this project, having gone on to do major American pictures like Hatari, Flight of the Phoenix, and Barry Lyndon. He remembers the production fondly. Even though they initially wanted Steve McQueen in his role he made it his own and was proud of the movie and its success. He was living in Africa at the time of the Oscars, so had to learn of the win via a telegram, but the excitement was not lost on him.

Le sourire: This documentary short won the Palme d’Or and ultimately launched Bourguignon’s theatrical career. It is a 20-minute short about Buddhists in Burma. You can see here how his slower, poetic approach to filmmaking originated. The film displayed the physical beauty of the temples and the people, while conveying their spirituality and purity. Having lived in Thailand when I was younger, this was quite familiar to me. In a way it felt like a trip to the past, so my rating might be a little biased, but I absolutely loved the short.

Criterion Rating: 9/10

[DSNT]

Mixed up the queue a little bit:

1. My Darling Clementine*
2. Richard III
3. La Promesse*
4. Down by Law*
5. Days of Heaven
6. Love Streams
7. Les cousins*
8. Summer Hours*
9. The Leopard
10. Something Wild

Next Box Set: David Lean Meets Noel Coward

I might jump into the box with Brief Encounter and tackle the John Ford next week when it comes out.

[DSNT]

LA PROMESSE, LUC DARDENNE AND JEAN-PIERRE DARDENNE, 1996

http://s3.amazonaws.com/criterion-production/release_boxshots/3947-c5e127190a69060227952ca2575de1 52/620_BD_box_348x490_original.jp g

A friend once told me that once you’ve seen a Dardennes film, you’ve seen them all. He didn’t mean this in a flattering sense, but as an argument against their stature as modern auteurs. I’ve seen enough of their work to see what he means. They clearly have found a comfortable formula, a distinctive style, and a certain amount of predictability. For instance, I correctly predicted what would happen in the final scene about midway through the movie. Just like with the Classical Hollywood theory of “regulated differences,” it is the texture, nuances, and execution that makes their work stand apart.

La Promesse is the first significant example of what would become their filmmaking and thematic style. It is filmed in documentary style, with hand-held cameras, no musical score, and in unflattering, dirty locations. They are more existential filmmakers, highlighting how people live in squalor and by what means they go about trying to survive.

It is set in the industrial Belgian town of Serainge. The lead characters are working class, trying to scrape together a living by exploiting the illegal immigrants into the country. The father, Roger, is the most crooked. He is a terrible father and borderline evil, although even he has enough nuance to keep him from being a completely flat character.

The lead character is his son Igor. He is introduced as a thief and a liar, just like his father, as he blatantly steals an elderly lady’s purse with her pension money, and then tries to help her retrace her steps to find it. He then lies to his boss about going to the restroom, takes the money, and hides the pocketbook by burying it in the backyard. This would foreshadow another illicit burial that would take place later in the film.

The child is the moral center, and for much of the film has few redeeming qualities. His father is responsible for many of his faults, as he is trying to mentor his son to become street smart, savvy, and unscrupulous – basically to become another version of himself. His father is overbearing, sometimes commanding and violent, and Igor rebels by going behind his father’s back and breaking his wishes. He is still not an upstanding citizen, but is a saint compared to his father.

Even though the father is dominant and Igor is subordinate to his whims, he often tries to act as if they are peers. They sing songs together. There is one scene where Roger tries to playfully tickle his son. In his own warped way, he loves his son and is trying to ensure that, like him, his son will be able to play the system to his advantage. He even gives him tattoos and talks to him about sex. Their relationship is not like the traditional father and son. Roger wants them to be more like working peers, yet he still maintains absolute control in the relationship.

The child’s lack of morality is challenged by a dying man’s last words, and his own guilt for doing something that cannot be rationalized as being right, regardless of what his dad says. He feels a kinship with the widow, who is also subordinate and being kept in the dark from the real world. He does not act ethically towards the widow. The opposite is mostly true as he continually lies to keep her from threatening his and his father’s situation, but he gradually takes an interest in their well being which is absolutely wrong according to the values of his father. His father considers immigrants as subhuman.

However predictable, I will not reveal the ending, but I will say that I think they pulled it off perfectly. This is a penetrating character study and I understand why it launched the careers of arguably the top European filmmakers today.

Film Rating: 8/10

Supplements:


Dardenes interview: For Criterion interviews, this was quite well done. A lot of the credit goes to Scott Foundas, who asks terrific questions. The Dardennes prove to be excellent interview subjects as they talk openly about their craft. They value their independence and vision in production above all else, and they say that everything revolves around what they want. This is a type of freedom that is seldom enjoyed by any producer/writer/director team, but it absolutely works.

There are numerous interesting tidbits from the interview, a couple of which I found notable. One is that they said they tend to do about 7-8 takes because the actors grow tired and more spontaneous, and their best work is often the later takes. Bresson felt the same way, although he would do even more takes and would completely break down his actors. The Dardennes stop short of using them as models, but they get the most out of their performance. The fact that they keep a solid stable of actors, unlike Bresson, shows that the actors respond well to their methods. Another interesting thing is that they reject a lot of actor ideas about their character. One in particular is that they don’t allow actors to choose their costumes because that puts them in a comfort zone.

Interviews with Actors: La Promesse was basically the major film debut for both Jérémie Renier and Olivier Gourmet. They describe the process. The audition was more like a job interview, which they clearly passed. They became good friends on the set and Gourmet mentored Renier, which also came out in the Dardennes interview. This helped create the father and son bond as it was portrayed on the screen. They elaborated more on the process, that one scene was short per day and that they shoot chronologically, so that they are able to stick with the character. That makes the performance easier in a sense, but it can also make it evolve differently. It gives them some freedom, which they seem to appreciate.

Criterion Rating: 8.5

[DSNT]

MY DARLING CLEMENTINE, JOHN FORD, 1946

http://s3.amazonaws.com/criterion-production/release_boxshots/4290-f7ecd2ca4142ebbe58389daa582ae0 de/732_BD_box_348x490_original.jp g

The best genre films are those that touch on deeper themes, and John Ford was an expert at using the Western as a way of examining his present. My Darling Clementine is considered by many to be among the best of his films, and I’ve seen it mentioned as best of the genre. While it maintains many of the genre conventions that are found in his and other films, it is as much a statement about the horrific war that had just completed and Ford had seen, and the relieving peace and prosperity with his return.

Walter Brennan’s Clanton gang begins the film by welcoming Wyatt Earp and pointing him towards Tombstone, which we discover soon enough is just a ruse for them to rustle his cattle and kill one of his brothers in the process. Despite their benevolent first appearance, they are the embodiment of evil and completely merciless. In a later scene, Pa Clanton is unhappy with his sons when they create a ruckus in a saloon. At first we think he is angry because of their behavior, when in reality it is for pulling out their gun and not killing their opponent. This is the nature of the enemy, pure evil, and there is not a redeemable quality within them. This portrayal is not dissimilar to Nazi Germany, and that is probably no coincidence. Ford had seen the evils of total war firsthand.

Ford makes good use of darkness versus light in order to isolate his themes. Most of the beginning takes place at night, and Ford uses light and shadows to frame his shots, similarly to how he did with Gregg Toland on The Grapes of Wrath. When he discovers the misdeeds of his enemy, night is not only dark, but a torrential rain falls. Many of the confrontional scenes take place at night and oftentimes the characters are obscured by shadows and speak openly of death, especially Doc Holliday who is obsessed with the subject and his own mortality. This could again be yet another statement about the horrors of war.

However, the battle between the Clantons is not the only storyline in the film. After establishing Earp’s motivation of revenge and getting him situated as the town Marshall, the title character of Clementine appears on the screen. She is a former paramour of Holliday’s when he was a different person from a different world. She is grace incarnate, and she is out of place in the tumultuous town of Tombstone. With her comes peace and progress. Not long after her arrival, the foundation of a church is laid and later a school will be coming. She is not coincidentally filmed almost exclusively during the daytime, which is lit so brightly that it is the antithesis to the scenes that square off the the Earps versus the Clantons. On top of this, aside from her role as a nurse towards the end of the film, her storyline and the battle with the Clantons does not intersect. When she interacts with Earp, there is almost no sense that anything amiss is happening.

When Clementine is present, things are calm, peaceful. One of my favorite scenes is when Earp spots her getting out of the coach. He is calm yet is obviously stricken by her. Aside from the ending, the daylight scenes are total peace. Earp seems unaffected during these scenes by his feud with the Clantons. In another terrific scene, he does a little balancing trick with a support beam while leaning his chair back, seemingly without a care in the world. In the daytime, Tombstone is a nice, relaxing place to be.

The presence of Clementine is somewhat perplexing, and we cannot really tell what Ford intended. This disc includes two versions, the one cut by Zanuck and the rough cut put together by Ford. The latter is not a director’s cut by any stretch, but it gives a better idea of how this relationship was supposed to play out. The changes that Zanuck made were sometimes slight, like using the score more forcefully in Earp and Clementine scenes. There were other, bolder changes, like the ending that required a re-shoot to give the relationship a more romantic touch. In Ford’s version, the relationship between Clementine and Earp is of mutual, platonic interest, with an ambiguous hint of a possible romance. Earp is reticent to show pursuit because of his friendship with Holliday, and it is almost out of character for a man with his set of values to be so forward in the final scene. The platonic relationship, on the other hand, keeps him from committing between war and peace. He is playing both sides.

The final battle at the OK Corral is a thing of beauty. It is John Ford doing action at his best. He builds to it with the Earp party slowly and deviously approaching, using decoys through the center of town, photographed in gorgeous long shots that show the monolithic structures of Monument Valley in the background. The shoot out is quicker yet more satisfying because of the pacing to get to it, and the dust storm that he uses is another move of cinematic, action genius.

Film Rating: 8/10

Supplements:

Comparison of versions: This was terrific. This is one of the movies, like with The Killing of a Chinese Bookie, where the consensus is that the shorter version is the better version. This lengthy comparison shows many of the key differences between the two, so you really don’t have to watch the longer version to understand it (although I probably will someday). As I noted above, a lot of the changes had to do with the Clementine scenes, and Zanuck also cut some of the light comedy. There were some cuts that I agreed with, and most likely Ford did too, and some I didn’t like as much, like the ending.

Video Essay: Often these are my favorite supplements on a Criterion disc, and this was good, but it was a little short. That said, Tag Gallagher is an often cited, leading western genre scholar, and he shows a lot of things that I might have missed. He touches on the war motif, although I took it a little further in my reading of the film.

Bandit’s Wager: This was a mediocre 1916 short directed by John’s brother Francis that stars Francis in the lead and John in the supporting role. While the film is nothing to write home about, it does give a glimpse of what western elements John would use in his later films.

1963 news report about Tombstone and 1975 report on Monument Valley : I found that I appreciated the historical featurettes the most of supplements. They are short and sweet. They show that Ford’s version of the Earp legend was mostly fiction and not shot anywhere near the real location.. Tombstone has fascinated people because of the legend and has been portrayed in many films before and since Clementine. Monument Valley, on the other hand, was a favorite of Ford’s because it provided the aesthetical beauty of the outdoor shots. Whether it was realistic or not, the location and the legend added to the film.

Audio Commentary: I’ve heard better and I’ve heard worse. Joseph McBride is a John Ford biographer and has worked in the industry. He discusses many of the things that are touched on in the other supplements, such as the historical accuracy, the differences in versions, and the war motif. He also talks about Ford’s methods, how he worked with actors, and how he got along with Zanuck. There were numerous interesting anecdotes even if the commentary wasn’t the most compelling.

Criterion Rating: 9/10

[DSNT]

RICHARD III, LAURENCE OLIVIER, 1955

http://s3.amazonaws.com/criterion-production/release_boxshots/4074-3f915af4604052a71653d63434429f 75/213_BD_box_348x490_original.jp g

After tackling Henry V and Hamlet, Laurence Olivier directed and starred in his third and final Shakespeare feature, in spectacular VistaVision Technicolor. Many consider this to be his magnum opus, and as an actor, the character he is most commonly associated with. It has inspired many actors and performances, ranging from theatrical actors to punk rock singers (Johnny Rotten). It is undoubtedly a performance for the ages.

Unlike Polanski’s Macbeth, which I recently reviewed and highlighted that the character’s speeches to the camera were handled via internal monologue as voiceover, Olivier continues the tradition of speaking to the screen/audience as the ‘Vice ‘ character. One can argue which is the preferable method, but in the mid-1950s, the sort of revolutionary direction that Polanski undertook would have been too radical. Not to mention, the film would have lost something special in Olivier’s performance. His finest moments in the film are when he is speaking to us, beginning with the “Now is the winter of our discontent” to the infamous “My Horse!” line – although in fairness, the latter plea was desperately spoken to everyone.

As Olivier puts it, he prefers to work from the outside-in. He develops the look of the character and uses that as his starting point for the performance. In Richard III, he worse a long, dark wig, a prosthetic nose and walked with a hunched gait in order to demonstrate the character’s disability, which could be seen as his evil motivation. He wore brash, ostentatious costumes, which for half of the film made him appear as if a bird of prey. His look was ferocious, and blended together splendidly with the evil nature of Richard’s inner self.

The performance is the cornerstone of this production, and Oliver shines throughout. There are a couple of scenes where he was extra impressive. The two scenes in which he is scorned by, and later seduces The Lady Anne. He goes from being spit on by her after she suspects (rightfully) that he murdered her husband, to being manipulated into loving him. This is one scene in the play, which Olivier cuts into two in order to make it seem more plausible. Even that is a reach, but through the performance and Richard’s urging The Lady Anne to end him, he makes it somewhat believable. It does not hurt that Claire Bloom is up to the task of playing opposite him.

Other scenes that stand out are when Richard goes from a measured speaking voice, to lashing out at anyone and everyone within earshot. His moods were explosive, larger than life, and he stopped at nothing to achieve his ambitions. Yet, he was also a charismatic leader, which was on display at the Battle of Bosworth Field as he gives a rousing speech to rally his troops.

Olivier was not the only star in this vehicle. Sirs John Gielgud, Cedric Hardwicke, and Ralph Richardson. The other performances are more grounded, solemn, and more in tune with Shakespeare’s blend of theatrical acting, whereas Olivier contrasts them with his emotional and tonally flat reading. The peripheral cast are superb, but they are rigid, and upstaged by the flamboyant and electrifying Olivier. This contrast reminded me some of the British stage actors contrasting with method actors in Hollywood. Richardson’s performance in William Wyler’s The Heiress is an example of this, as he had to trade barbs with method actor Montgomery Clift. This enhanced that movie, just as the supporting performances do for Olivier’s production.

The film is not without flaws. Another contrast with Polanski’s Macbeth is that he shot exclusively on location. The majority of Richard III is shot on a stage, which gives it a more theatrical look and feel. Some of the stages were not very realistic, with obviously painted clouds as background and buildings that look like a theatrical production designer could have created them. The Technicolor, while superb for most of the film, makes these facades all the more evident, and at times it feels like we are watching a stage play that just happens to have a camera there.

There are other problems with the middle acts. The beginning and final acts are electrifying. The former is due to Olivier’s introductory speech and stage setting for what is to come, and the finale for the location shooting and the battle action. The middle seasons suffer as being plodding. Following Shakespeare dialogue is difficult without knowing the play already, and the original audience lived in a time where they would be aware of the history, which happened to be told through previous Shakespeare plays. We are not as in tune with that history, and it becomes difficult to follow the machinations of Richard as he consolidates his power by eliminating his enemies. The only obvious end is in a decapitation scene, but the outcome of The Lady Anne and the two princes are more muddled. Since Olivier had taken license with Shakespeare’s words in the beginning, he could have continued in order to make the play more understandable for a wider audience.

That leaves us with Olivier in arguably his best performance and without question his most iconic on film. The film stands up and is remembered because of him, and he carries it through the long running time of 160 minutes. Even though he is an anti-hero and easy to root against, he sparkles when he is on the screen and we want him to succeed just so we can see where his performance will head next. This is my favorite performance of his, but not my favorite film.

Film Rating: 7/10

Supplements:

Audio Commentary: Criterion has a good habit of using commentaries that complement the film and educate the viewer. Here they use two people involved with the theater, stage director Russell Lees and former governor of the Royal Shakespeare Company John Wilders. While they are educated on the film language, they share details about the theatrical nuances and how they are translated to film. Lees dissects the iambic pentameter style of verse, giving some background into how and why it was used during Shakespeare’s time. He also shows how Olivier deftly plays with the verse to make it oftentimes sound like he is speaking directly, whereas the other traditional actors tend to speak in a Shakespearian manner.

1966 Interview: This is from the BBC series Great Acting[i], where theatrical critic Kenneth Tynan interviews Olivier as a career retrospective. Olivier is a great subject out of character and talks candidly about various subjects. He does discuss the differences between his and Gielgud’s style, which he defines himself as ‘earthy’ and his rival as ‘spiritual.’ He also speaks about how significant his Richard performance became, and how he modeled the look and demeanor after Jed Harris in as uncomplimentary a fashion as possible.

Restoration demonstration: Martin Scorsese talks about the challenges with restoring this film. One was with the VistaVision print, which most labs cannot scan. Another major problem was that there had been cuts to the film, most notably for the American TV audience. They had to find a Premier print and use that as a guideline for what should be included in the original film, and then re-insert those scenes. In addition the normal scratches and blemishes, there were chemical stains and color fading, all of which had to be corrected digitally. Fortunately we are living in a golden age of film restoration, otherwise we might not be able to see the film as Olivier intended.

[i]Criterion Rating: 8/10

[DSNT]

BLITHE SPIRIT, DAVID LEAN, 1945

https://awculture.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/blithe-spirit.jpg?w=604

Blithe Spirit can easily be dismissed as one of the lesser of the Lean/Coward collaborations, or the inferior of Lean’s two comedies, or the mediocre movie that Lean got out of the way before focusing on arguably his finest masterpiece, Brief Encounter. All of these statements are true to an extent. This is a light, mediocre effort, yet it is engaging and at times pleasurable despite its flaws.

Lost in the comedic ghost story is a great deal of class-consciousness and their virtues, or lack thereof. Charles Condomine states early on that “it’s discouraging to think how many people are shocked by honesty and how few by deceit.” His current wife, Ruth, is shocked by his later honesty, even though she claims that she would not be offended by his calling his dead wife Elvira more attractive. Both Condomines act under the auspices of honesty, but in fact, there is a deceit going on that will be uncovered later.

Madame Arcanti is a lower class medium who travels by bicycle to the Condomines to reach out to the dead for them. She is excited by having some interest in her gift, but she is the object of their upper class ridicule. As it turns out, this is a clever deceit, as they believe none of it, and are merely using her to witness her methods for Condomine to write a mystery book later. Unlike her hosts, Arcanti is completely honest. She even states in a later scene that “honesty is the best policy.” After the ghosts are brought back into the world, she is fascinated by her abilities coming true, yet is clear about her limitations. She is helpless as to how to get them to leave. A lot of unsuccessful trial and error ensues.

Much of the comedy has to do with Arcanti bumbling around during her séances, and later when Charles’ ex-wife appears to his eyes and ears only, and he tries to talk to both her and his wife Ruth at the same time. His current wife is easy to offend, shocked by his honesty, even if it is directed at his dead wife and not her.

Kay Hammond is a delight as Elvira, and her capricious bantering with Charles is when the film is at its most enjoyable, especially since his responses end up with him inadvertently insulting his wife. Elvira relishes in Ruth’s reactions, pulling the strings to drive the couple apart.

Ruth comes off worse as the film progresses, and she seems to represent the worst of her upper class upbringing. She maligns Elvira, referring to her as not having the “slightest sign of breeding.” She does not get along with Arcanti either when she recruits the medium for a solution, and insults the poor woman’s credibility. She proves to be a poor wife to Charles, and the deceit is that she has his best interests in mind. She is thinking of herself only, and the only way to rectify her situation is to rid the living world of Elvira.

Elvira is a unabashed liar, lout, and rarely gives anything but a flippant response to anything Ruth or Arcanti says. She is the spirit that is being described as blithe, which is defined as “showing a casual and cheerful indifference considered to be callous or improper.” Over time, she wears out her welcome to Charles as well, and she admits that even during their marriage, she was unfaithful. She is the queen of deception and the antithesis of honesty.

Despite being occasionally charming, Blithe Spirit can be plodding and tiresome. It is a good thing that Lean made Hobson’s Choice later to prove that he had a comedic voice, although it is unfair to compare Charles Laughton with Rex Harrison on any level. This was a spirited attempt, but more of a stepping stone on the way to better things for Lean’s career.

Film Rating: 5.5

Supplements:

Interview with David Lean scholar Barry Day: Day was also not altogether thrilled with the film, although I don’t necessarily agree with all of his criticisms. He thought that Kay Hammond as Elvira was a problem because she was not as physically attractive on screen as Constance Cummings. Perhaps this is true on a physical role without being made up for the roles, but attraction is not always derived from looks. Her Elvira, however unscrupulous, was more desirable than the square-pegged Ruth. Day concludes that the film is “not bad, but not as good as it could have been.”

The Southbank Show on Noel Coward: This gem of a TV documentary is better than the actual feature, in my opinion. It is a life retrospective of Coward, from his upbringing to his death, and finally to his legacy. Some of the best parts were archived versions of him singing his songs, something I had never seen before. They go on through his plays, the failures and the successes, show him as an actor, and discuss his closeted homosexual personal life. He was unquestionably an interesting and talented man and this was a worthy portrait of him. As for his legacy, one of his later quotes are that he “was not all that keen on being significant.” He may not have been keen on it, but the works stands on their own as being extremely significant.

Criterion Rating: 6/10

[DSNT]

LA DOLCE VITA, FEDERICO FELLINI, 1960

http://s3.amazonaws.com/criterion-production/release_boxshots/4292-0b5e4a90fbe687a463b134b548a14d 92/733_BD_box_348x490_original.jp g

While ultimately a distinctively Fellini arthouse project, La Dolce Vita is also an ambitious, sprawling epic. There’s a lot of story to tell, and it does so through a tightly structured sequence of loosely connected scenes, taking place mostly during the night or at dawn after the night’s events are over. There is not so much a plot as a sequence of episodes that say a little something about the hidden side of Rome, and a lot about the lead character of Marcello, even if he happens to be often be a passive observer during many of these adventures.

At the core is a statement on the media, and given that it’s about celebrity and media, it was ahead of its time. In fact, the term ‘paparazzi’ originated with the film because the photographer that works with Marcello is named Paparazzo. When the American/Swedish actress of Sylvia exits her airplane, a mob of photographers await, and she milks the attention by posing and even making a second, more photogenic exit from the plane. It is a negotiation between the two worlds, and she does a little dance with them, specifically with Marcello into the evening. He is a reporter and is part of the machine, yet he does not quite lower himself to the vulture-like behavior of the photographers.

Marcello, played by Marcello Mastrioanni, is not the most scrupulous individual. He is engaged to a woman that he tolerates, yet does not seem to adore. He is ill at ease basically everywhere he goes, and is always on the pursuit for something better. Whether this is a better looking or more intriguing girl, or a more fun time, he is never pleased with his situation. He seldom acts out, but instead shows his dissatisfaction through his nervous energy. Even when he encounters his father in a later scene, having not seen him in ages, he is not pleased with the way the night unfolds and tries to get away. The only time he raises his voice is when his fiancé finally calls him out. Even then he runs away, only to come back later and reconcile.

Many of the most notable scenes are when Sylvia (Anita Ekberg) is on the screen, whether running up the stairs, dancing to rock and roll music, or walking in the fountains. To Marcello and the audience, she is magical, but she is fleeting. She is not his or ours. She is the unobtainable, and that reminds Marcello that his world of the media can interact but not intersect with the celebrities that he engages. There’s a later scene where he enjoys the company of Nico (of Velvet Underground and Andy Warhol fame) as part of a group that tours an abandoned castle. Like Marcello, she is just a bystander, a participant. It is during this scene that the rich heiress friend and part-time lover Maddalena (Anouk Aimee) finally professes love to him and suggests marriage, but even that is a mirage. The moment the words escape her lips, she is intertwined with someone else's embrace and hides from Marcello. He never does find her again.

The title means ‘the sweet life,’ but for Marcello, life is not so sweet. He finally stops being merely a passive participant at these late night gatherings near the end, and decides to become active in the party by humiliating a drunk girl and covering her in feathers. It is a sadistic side of him that, aside from the tift with his fiancé, doesn’t materialize elsewhere in the film. It is here that he physically and violently rejects this world, yet he is stuck with it. He cannot leave.

His encounter with a young and pretty teenager is what accentuates his misery and hopelessness. Her beauty affects him, but she is a child and not something to pursue. The presence of this childish innocence divides the film in half, and then punctuates it by returning at the end during what is, in my opinion, the best ending in Fellini’s career. The girl doesn’t belong to the world of galas and gatherings. The child's innocent life is not obtainable, but in a different way that the life of Sylvia and the celebrity are unobtainable. The girl tries to talk to Marcello, but he cannot hear her over the noise of the ocean. After muttering and gesturing and getting nowhere, he leaves her with a slight movement of his hand, not quite a wave, and returns to the world to which he belongs and hates. It is a powerful, unsatisfactory, yet beautiful and moving end to a film.

Film Rating: 9/10

Supplements:

The Eye & the Beholder. This is a short featurette about the perspective of the film, beginning with where the girl gazes into the camera. That ending is compared with Godard and Truffault. The narrator also draws attention to a nod from Steiner to the camera that takes place so quickly that you could almost miss it. He then walks into another room and the perspective changes. It is a daring way of acknowledging the narrator, and distancing it from the point of view of Marcello. We are seeing the film partially through the lead characters eyes, but also through our own.

1965 Interview with Fellini. He Does not like to evaluate, analyze or rank his films, but then he does name La Strada and 8 ½ based on where he was in his life. More importantly he talks about why he shouldn’t comment about the meaning of his films The work should speak for itself. His voice clouds the work and interpretation. My favorite part of the interview was when he discusses how film is hypnotic, and you can control heartbeats and how people breath. In that way, film is a certain type of magic.

Lina Wertmuller Interview. Also a Director that would eventually have a successful career, she worked as an Assistance Director with Fellini on La Dolce Vita and 8 ½. She talks about Fellini and what made him tick. Some of her comments were humorous. One out there comment was that he likes asses. Yes, asses, and I don’t mean donkeys. One time he stopped a taxi and got out so that he could an ass. She bought a tiny bikini and that set Fellini off.

Scholar David Forgacs. This is a short, critical look at the film. He talks about how this was a transitional time in Italian history, and how the film juxtaposes the new, vibrant and economic Rome with the ancient history. He uses the opening shot as an example, with the helicopter carrying a statue of Christ over the ancient aqueducts. He talks about the Ekberg performance, and how she had already been a celebrity in Rome while working there, and had been photographed in the fountain. Fellini reconstructed what was a media event.
Antonello Sarno, Italian film journalist. Sarno talks at length about the production details. He talks about how Dino de Laurentis backed out and how Fellini had trouble finding financing. Aside from that, he discusses anecdotal details about the production, such as how the fashions were designed. One interesting story was that there were 1,000 bystanders at the fountain scene. He also talks about the film’s legacy, and how through its popularity, it became a brand, put Italy on the map.

Marcello Mastrioanni Interview. This is an audio interview that shows several still images throughout. Marcello talks about his engagement with the project, and how he had been a working actor in Italy that wanted to do something substantial. He wanted to work with Fellini because of how much he liked his films, especially I Vitelloni.

Criterion Rating: 8/0

[dreamdead]

Re: La Promesse. I concur with the general consensus that every Dardenne Brothers is of roughly equal quality. That makes it harder to truly prize The Kid with the Bike over something like Rosetta over La Promesse--I think the only film of theirs that I'd highlight over the others is The Son, and naturally that one's not a Criterion.

Theirs is a filmic space wherein I'm always enraptured by the thoroughness of the scripting and naturalistic pacing. I kinda want to return to La Promesse simply because it originates many of their thematic interests, but I still generally feel that a rewatch of The Son or L'Enfant would prove more rewarding. This is probably an erroneous assumption.

[DSNT]

JOUR DE FETE, JACQUES TATI, 1949

https://awculture.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/tati_jourdefete_dvd.jpg

Jacques Tati’s debut feature film would be a sign of things to come. It was about a goofy, clumsy individual (played by Tati) in a small, provincial Franch town, going about things in his own, charming way, while being threatened by progress and pressure from overseas.

Jour de Fete also showcases what would become Tati’s trademark, charming style. Through his bumbling persona, we see hints of what would become Monsieur Hulot, and we see the inspiration of the silent slapstick kings like Keaton, Lloyd, and of course, Chaplin. We also find that the film is genuinely pleasant and comedic, which for the time, was a welcome reprieve from serious films such as Melville’s La Silence de la Mer and Cocteau’s Orpheus. In this regard, Tati was an outlier, a renegade, who made fanciful and silly films, yet they all had similar themes about the encroachment of technology and bureaucracy.

At its core, Jour de Fete is humorous and delightful, nearly silent physical comedy. There are plenty of voices and dialog, but not so much is heard from the protagonist, Francois the mailman. He is clumsy and is constantly the butt of jokes, especially from the visiting carnies. He is terrible at his job as a mailman, mostly because his priority is with helping out the townspeople their troubles and activities. He helps fix a fallen pole in the town square in one scene, while graciously delivers a cake out of his way in another. Even though he is a mischievous and troublesome character, he is endearing both to the audience and inhabitants of the small town. They enjoy joking about his hopeless ambition to deliver the mail in the American style, knowing that he will not succeed, but they are not malicious. His failings are part of his makes him such a charming character to us and them.

While Francois can be seen as a bumbling idiot a lot of time, at other times he shows remarkable ability and intelligence. In one hilarious sequence, he manages to re-arrange stakes in the ground so that a cross-eyed man can hit them correctly. In another sequence, he hitches his bicycle to a truck and does his paperwork on the rear flatbed. When he attempts to do his work quickly and efficiently, he finds brilliant ways of delivering the mail to people who are not in a hurry to receive it, such as fastening it to an animal’s behind, placing it into grain machinery, or sticking it onto a rake that someone is carrying. However goofy, he cannot be disregarded as a complete idiot.

A prevailing theme, which was prescient given the upcoming technological advancements, is tradition versus progress. Francois is happy to deliver the mail inefficiently with his bicycle, and he even curses at a speeding car that passes during one scene. He’s an advocate of a slower life. His mind is blown when he sees a video of aerial postmen in America, and how that sort of speed and efficiency will someday make its way to his country. With his livelihood threatened, he does his best to do his work “American style,” which means fast and with barely any social activity or engagement. Even though these scenes are funny, he loses his humanity and becomes merely a tool.

Even though he excels at first, the “American style” is not for him, nor is it for his townspeople. In one of my favorite scenes, he even loses his bicycle and it practically rides itself through the country roads until it conveniently comes to rest at the bar. “Even Americans take a drink, don’t they” he asks as a motorist beckons him to resume his American style. He ends up pedaling into a lake, and a lot of mail gets ruined. His experiment failed, but the movie is a delight.

Film Rating: 7.5/10

Supplements:

There are two other versions of the film on the disc:

1964 version. Tati was not pleased that after shooting with color cameras, he had to settle on a black and white film due to technological problems – how ironic given the themes of his films! – so for a later version he used rotoscoping to give his film a hint of color. He introduced a character of an artist in order to bring color into the story. Flags would be painted, as would the balloon he sees in the tavern and the rear light of his bicycle. In addition to the color additions, the film was re-cut, re-edited and had a different soundtrack. The dialog sounds more artificial than the original version, and while the color additions are a nice novelty, this version does not quite measure up.

1995 version: Tati’s daughter, Sophie Tatischeff, obtained a negative of the color print and was able to get it developed. This color version was the result. While it is interesting to see how Tati originally envisioned the film, the color quality is poor, not nearly up to par with the quality of his later color films, and probably not up to the standard that he envisioned. Again, this is more of a novelty and not the ideal way to view the film.

In Search of the Lost Color. This is an episode from a 1988 French TV show that documents the process of filming in both color and black-and-white, and how the negative was discovered that would eventually lead to a color print being released. It shows two cameras on set during the shooting, both side-by-side. This was to be the first French film in color using a Thomson technology, but it failed due to competition from Technicolor and Agfacolor, and the development factory was never built. The shoot was a lengthy 6-months to accommodate both filming techniques, and we are fortunate that they had the black-and-white cameras as backups, otherwise this film and may have never seen the light of day. That may have also meant that Tati’s career would not have continued since his debut film was among his greatest successes.

A L’Americaine. This is almost an hour and a half documentary about the film. It again goes into the history with the color cameras and the multiple release versions, and then it goes a lot further. A lot of time is spent demonstrating the anti-technology themes that would materialize again in Tati’s work. The clips of Playtime make for quite a contrast in what Tati was going for. It talks about about the comic inspiration from silent film stars such as Chaplin, Keaton and Lloyd and how some scenes were homages to their work. That said, Tati in some respects resented being compared to the old masters like Chaplin, because he felt it reduced his films to mere imitations while he was creating something he thought of as original. On that point, I agree.

Criterion Rating: 8.5/10

[DSNT]

MONSIEUR HULOT'S HOLIDAY, JACQUES TATI, 1953

https://awculture.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/tati_hulot_dvd.jpg

Summer vacation is a time to get away, to adventure, relax, and get away from the hustle and bustle of daily life. Jacques Tati plays with this logic, as some of his characters make the most of their vacation, while others bring their city lives with them. At the center is the theatrical debut of Monsieur Hulot, who aligns with and is arguably the catalyst for people enjoying themselves during their time off.

From his first appearance as he is driving his meager, sputtering and backfiring, tine Samdon A3, Hulot is introduced as a different type of character. He’s odd, clumsy, sometimes uncomfortable in his own skin, and his unconventional behavior and tastes make him an outlier compared with the traditional vacationers. He barely speaks, and is the center of the comedic gags that take place. He is also the embodiment of the central theme of Tati’s film (and those to come) of tradition versus modernity. Hulot initially seems not to belong because he awkwardly interacts modern technology, but he ends up belonging in his own way.

Holiday is ultimately a comedy, and bears a strong resemblance to the silent comedies that inspired him. He does pack in quite a lot of big gags, the type of which would be familiar in a Buster Keaton or Harold Lloyd picture. One example is the shark scene, which was added to the 1978 version in order to satire the recently released Jaws. There are other big laughs, like in his unconventional method of tennis playing, where he trounces his opponents by playing by a different set of standards and rules, not unlike how he behaves during personal interactions.

There are plenty of little laughs as well, like him painting a boat and the paint can rolls away from and towards him without his noticing. Or the older man who casually throws away seashells as his wife collects them. This is just the tip of the iceberg, as there are countless subtle oddities that Tati throws into the scene, many of which are humorous and sometimes are hidden. He rewards people for paying attention to the details.

There are plenty of other scenes that are not funny, nor are they intended to be, and this is what separates a Tati film from plenty of other comedies. He slows things down and lets the film breathe. This is, after all, a vacation, and he conveys the sense of getting away.

Not all of the characters participate in the vacation. The businessman is constantly taking calls about his stock purchases. A young political idealist is consumed by continually talking about intellectual matters. The characters who interact the moat with Hulot, however, appear to leave life’s trappings behind them. The children take to Hulot, and they are at home away from home, caring only for enjoyment, music and treats. A number of females also take to Hulot, although not so much in the romantic sense. One young, attractive lady finds herself a dancing partner that keeps a comfortable distance. Another older Englishwoman is delighted by the klutzy Frenchman, and she embraces his quirkiness. Even the older couple adore Hulot,and they spend most of their vacation walking around quietly and peacefully.

Those who accept and enjoy Hulot get the most out of their vacation, and that’s because they challenge their comfort zone. They don’t just follow the herd of modern trappings, but they embrace being outsiders and distant from this quagmire of a society.

Film Rating: 8/10

Supplements:

Terry Jones introduction. The Monty Python member gives a short introduction by Criterion standards and basically highlights his favorite scenes. His presence on the disc speaks more for the influence of Tati. His influence on people like Rowan Atkinson is obvious -- the Pythons less so.

Clear Skies, Light Breeze: Critical essay. This is a French critical essay by Stéphane Goudet. She talks about Tati’s art and his comedy, how he embraces the middle class and ridicules bureaucracy and technology. One example is the untillegible speaker at the train station, which people follow blindly. She compares many of these same themes to Tati’s later films.

Sounds of Silence: Interview with Michael Chion. He talks about Tati’s use of sound. The sounds in the film do not fill up spaces, but they are used to complement the space. Tati uses sound to guide our eye to the object (like the swinging door in the restaurant). It enhances the silence. There’s actually quite a bit of sound in Tati films, like the sea in Hulot and the music, and there’s lots of dialogue, but it seems to be primarily in the background.

Cine Regard. This is a French TV program where Tati watches clips from his films and discusses them. He begins by telling a funny story about how he went to a screening of Holiday anonymously, entering in the dark so that nobody would recognize him. He sits next to a man who laughs throughout the film, nudges Tati and constantly calls the director an asshole, not realizing the object of his ridicule is sitting next to him. Tati shares a bit of insight into his films, but it is clear during the discussion that he is protective of their integrity. They are like his children.

1953 version of the film. This original version is not the primary version on the disc, because Tati was a proponent of adapting and improving his films over time, which in my opinion he succeeded with Holiday. Many of the changes are cosmetic, especially with the sound. The older version is busier and slightly more political. The older version is also about 10 minutes longer. Unlike a lot of directors, Tati didn’t mind cutting things out to increase the flow, and he did the same with Jour de Fete.

Criterion Rating: 9/10

[EyesWideOpen]

Since it looks like you haven't been getting a lot of responses I just wanted to say I enjoyed reading these. Most of these films I haven't seen and I've kind of stopped watching movies lately but I find these posts very will written and informative.

[DSNT]

Since it looks like you haven't been getting a lot of responses I just wanted to say I enjoyed reading these. Most of these films I haven't seen and I've kind of stopped watching movies lately but I find these posts very will written and informative.
Appreciate that. A lot of these don't lend well to discussion, especially since a lot of the titles are obscure that people haven't seen, but I am enjoying the project nonetheless. I've received a lot of positive feedback about this, publicly and privately, so I'm not worried about having a gazillion responses.

And I am graduating on 12/15 so they will slow down until then, and then they will speed up ..

[DSNT]

DOWN BY LAW, JIM JARMUSCH, 1986

http://s3.amazonaws.com/criterion-production/release_boxshots/3932-94a6b5098c3854a73045d2b857d233 d0/166_BD_box_348x490_original.jp g

The Tom Waits lyric of it’s a “Sad and Beautiful World” originated a Roberto Benigni misunderstanding of the line, but it fit better and they chose to keep it. As it turns out, this line of dialogue encapsulates and can be thought of as a conclusion to the movie. The characters find sadness, misfortune, and beauty throughout their travels.

Down By Law is Jim Jarmusch’s third film, although he would argue that the first one, Permanent Vacation, didn’t count since he was young and had no idea what he was doing. His 1986 effort has a number of similarities with his second film, Strangers in Paradise, which turned out to be his breakthrough. A significant difference is that he had $100,000 to make that film, whereas he had over a million for the follow-up. He made the most out of his money for both movies, as they both look better than most similarly budgeted independent productions of the time. In fact, Down By Law looks far better than many more expensive films. Jarmusch was always good at making the most out of his limited resources, which was a skill that would continue throughout his career.

Like , there are three central characters that become companions based on circumstance and whim. Two of the actors were talented musicians that were popular in independent/alternative music circles. John Lurie was a member of the [i]Lounge Lizards, and Tom Waits was … well, he was Tom Waits – basically an icon of his genre. Both are good actors, and you can tell they have good chemistry together. One of the better scenes with the two was when they are both in a jail cell and Lurie’s Jack gets Wait’s Zack to demonstrate his DJ abilities. To Jack, who was a grimy pimp in New Orleans, being on the radio was another world, and he takes a liking to his cellmate.

Both men are innocent in a sense, victims of a vindictive setup by someone in their life. They had the intent to commit crimes, and Jack’s profession was a criminal. Zack was simply down on his luck and would do anything to make a buck. He encounters Roberto in an early scene, where he is playing music and lamenting being thrown out by his girlfriend. That’s when the “Sad and Beautiful World” song occurs.

Jack and Zack are not the ideal prison cellmates. While they initially find common ground and friendship, that devolves into animosity and anger. They get sick of each other quickly. They fight. Fortunately a new cellmate interrupts their bickering. Roberto is the same person who encountered Zack earlier, although neither of them men make that connection. Roberto is not innocent, but you could argue that he was justified in his crime and that it was self defense.

Roberto, played by the young, exuberant and affable Roberto Benigni that Hollywood would fall in love with 10 years later and then forget in 20 years. He basically plays himself here, an Italian immigrant who has very little command of the English language. Roberto is engaging and plays intermediary between his cellmates. Roberto, a stranger to the country, is the one who initiates action. Jack and Zack have little ambition. It is fitting for their characters that they would later pedal around in circles when Roberto, who cannot swim and is petrified of water, is helpless to guide them. Benigni continues to guide them, even catching food, which at first the quarrelling friends are too stubborn to eat. He is the one who takes the initiative to enter the only building they encounter, while the other two wait outside for something to happen. They are literally lost and out in the woods without him.

Down By Law is a more accomplished and mature film than Stranger than Paradise. It is clear that Jarmusch has learned a great deal in the intervening two years where he first achieved success. The beauty is thanks to the gorgeous Louisiana locations and the cinematography of Robby Müller. He had previously worked with Wim Wenders on his major works, including The Road Trilogy and Paris, TX. As we learn in the supplements, Jarmusch gave him the freedom and respect to shoot as he desired, and the end product was mesmerizing. There are many examples of some great shots, but the one that stuck with me was when the trio are running through a tunnel/sewer that’s light is textured by mirroring shadows of the shimmering water.

Because of the excellent photography, the performances (especially Roberto Benigni), Down By Law is among the best of Jarmusch’s work.

Film Rating: 8.5/10

Supplements:

Audio from Jim Jarmusch. It is unusual to have a lengthy speaking track on a Criterion disc that is not a commentary track. This supplement has Jarmusch discussing the film with only his picture on the screen. Perhaps he just doesn’t like audio commentaries, as he is a little picky with how his films are represented. At a 1:15 running time, this was a little much to get through.

Robby Muller Interview. He talks about his collaboration with Jarmusch. The only direction he got was that “it’s just a fairy tale” and he made Louisiana his canvas. He was allowed to follow his instincts. One surprising portion of the interview was that, of all the director’s he’s worked with, he has the most respect for Jarmusch. They had a long collaboration, but he has also worked with directors like Wenders, Von Trier, Friedkin, Winterbottom, and others.

Cannes Film Festival Press Conference. This was an interesting press conference because they revealed some details about the film, yet also it was something to see Jarmusch interact with the audience, some of whom asked terrible questions. He said so at times, and refused to answer. One of the most hilarious questions was near the end of the conference. Someone asked whether they felt the film was too long. They also asked whether they felt Paris, TX was too long. The questioner sais that while she enjoyed the film, she fell asleep during the early portion, partly because she had seen numerous films during Cannes. Jarmusch didn’t take the bait about whether his film was too long, and didn’t seem to take offense either. He shrugged it off. As for Paris, TX, he wouldn’t be so bold to re-imagine a work he respected. He said that if anything, he would make it longer, and snipped that “you would have fallen asleep earlier during my version.”

During the interview he sticks to his guns as a true independent spirit. He was not interested in big budget films, and has mostly stayed true to that in the years since (although Only Lovers Left Alive had a large budget). At the time he had already been offered larger budget projects, and had been offered larger budgets for his own projects, but he did not believe in having more money just to have it. He felt the cost should be dictated by the content of the movie.

While a lot of the attention was dedicated to Jarmusch, Roberto Benigni got his share. He was just as as hammy and energetic as we’d see during the Oscars for Life is Beautiful, although his command of the English language was not as strong.

John Lurie Interview. This was a short interview and Lurie looks tired, yet was frank and revealing about how it was on set, and what his career was like. He was offered lots of parts and turned them down, which was fortunate because a lot of them turned out to be bad movies. Like Jarmusch, he had an independent spirit and wanted to work on the right project, whether it was in film or music.

John Lurie Commentary on his interview. It was funny that he even did this. Years later, Lurie did a commentary track for this short interview. “Who is that guy?” he asked. He shows some self consciousness as he reflects on his younger self, and a little bit of embarrassment because he had been up all night when giving the interview and it showed.

Deleted scenes. The majority of these scenes were deleted for good reason. There were only a couple that really added much to anything. There was one where Zack is complaining about being innocent to a fellow prisoner in a nearby cell. The prisoner responds with laughter. “I’m fucking innocent!” he says, although obviously he isn’t. He is mocking Zack, who really was not innocent. He was just set-up.

There was another scene where Roberto is trying to coax Jack back from stewing after a fight with Zack. He had just cooked the rabbit and was using it to lure Jack back. “Buzz off!” Jack says, recalling the earlier scene where Zack says the same thing to Roberto.

It’s All Right With Me. This was a Tom Waits cover of a Cole Porter songs. Jarmusch directed the music video. It was a little more experimental than his cinematic work. It had jarring camera movements with Waits dancing in his own way.

Jarmusch Audio Q&A: This was more interesting than the audio conversation because the questions were better. It was the same format, with Jarmusch’s picture on screen as he talks. We finally learned to pronounce Jarmusch’s last name. Another answer was that Tom Waits was not drunk, which means he’s a good actor. They had some wild times while not filming. Jarmusch laid down the law and wouldn’t let drugs or drink on set, but didn’t try to control what happened off set. Influenced both by French New Wave (Godard, Rivette) and NY Punk scene, which he grew up in, and that shows. He talks about books and music that he’s into, and is very literate, very well read, and ensconced in independent pop culture of the day. This contributes to the quality and cynicism found in his films. He’s a punk, but a smart one.

Telephone conversations: This is more of a novelty, as Jarmusch calls the three leads and records their conversations. Roberto is shot out of a cannon, just like he always is. Hardly spoke English during the filming, but speaks well now. John Lurie and Jarmusch name dropped all the music they saw down there, most of which I’ve never heard of. Jarmusch cannot watch the movie, which may explain why he chose not to record a commentary.

This is a great film and stacked release with plenty extras. The only thing lacking is a commentary. I’m tempted to give this one a perfect score, but I cannot justify giving that to any release without a commentary.

Criterion Rating: 9.5/10

[DSNT]

MON ONCLE, JACQUES TATI, 1958

https://awculture.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/tati_mononcle_dvd.jpg

Jacques Tati can be an absolute riot at times, and in my opinion, Mon Oncle is his funniest effort. While he does not relax his recurrent theme of tradition versus modernity, he has more fun with these characters, and the material is ripe for comedy with big laughs. Playtime also has some scenes with big laughs, but is a little quieter, slower paced, and takes the theme a little further. The latter is my favorite of the two, yet Mon Oncle is one I could see myself watching more frequently just because it’s a lighter and more pleasurable experience.

The fact that the movie is bookended by dogs running around randomly without a care in the world is no accident. The dogs are contrasted by the silly adults who spend the majority of their effort on appearances, trying to show off their nifty little gadgets and elaborate architecture. The Arpel family are pre-occupied with exemplifying their higher class, while the dogs care less – and that includes the house weiner dog. Even though he wears clothing that would only come from an upper class family, the dogs are seen as equals. They run together where they wish and do not discriminate, nor do they care about such symbols.

The behavior and attitude of the dogs are similar to that of the children. The young Gerard Arpel is dressed in a fine suit representative of his class, yet when he goes out to play with the lower class children that wear patchwork sweaters, he is treated as an equal. Like the dogs, they collectively gallivant around, have fun, and engage in whatever mischief they can find. This can be doing cruel things to others, like pushing on cars to make people think they were in an accident, or whistling from hidden locations and placing bets whether people will hit the signpost. Gerard cares nothing of the technology back at home. He would prefer to eat a cruller with jam and sugar rather than a technologically advanced boiled egg.

Gerard looks to his uncle, Monsieur Hulot, as a mentor and influence. Hulot is from an older, traditional France. Like with Villa Arpel, his home is a maze of sorts, but his is out of necessity and not intent. His is run down and he has to go through a variety of different paths in order to reach his loft apartment. The path to his door is not aesthetically crafted and manufactured like the Arpels. He has no fish fountain. Instead he finds that a bird sings when he opens the window enough to let the sunlight shine on it’s cage. This he does for his own amusement, and not to impress others.

Villa Arpel is another matter entirely. Their house is the height of design. They have a winding S-shaped pathway to get to the front door. There is a small pond with a gigantic fish standing vertically with mouth in the air, which will erupt with blue water when the correct button is pressed. The courtyard has small square pads for walking, surrounded by gravel, grass, or some other brand of landscaping, requiring people to walk carefully if they venture off the main path. The house is modern even for today, with two large portholes that can appear as eyes in some scenes (which Tati uses for great comic effect!).

The house is ostentatious if not completely ridiculous. It is actually quite nice. What is ridiculous is the behavior of the Arpels that inhabit it. They are only concerned with what the neighbors think. The most obvious example of this is that they wait for the doorbell before turning on the fish fountain. If the visitor is a deliveryman or anyone else from a lower class, including Hulot, they immediately turn it off. It is not meant for the lower classes. If it is for a neighbor, co-worker, or any other guest, then the fountain continues to flow as long as the guest is present – or if the fountain breaks, which is another hilarious scene.

There are two worlds in this movie: The Arpel’s world and Hulot’s world. In one of the supplements, Francois Truffault is quoted as saying that one world is 20 years in the past, while the other is 20 years in the future. The old France is the traditional France. The colors of the town are muted and drab, mostly earth colors, with clutter and disarray everywhere. There is one notable pile of garbage that remains in the middle of the street for the entire film. There’s even someone who is sweeping (a reference to the postman in Jour de Fete), but he is doing his job as slowly and inefficiently as possible. The Arpels, on the other hand, are immaculate and obsessed with cleanliness. Mrs. Arpel goes so far as to wipe off her husband’s car to make it as shiny as possible as he is departing for work.

A lot can be said about the contrast between old world, pre-war values and the coming modernization and Americanization. It is no secret that the shiny cars that Arpel and others of his class drive are all American. Mr. Arpel drives a 1957 Chevy Bel Air. By contrast, those in the old France usually walk or ride bicycles. The plastic factory is another statement of modernization and industrialization, and the film mocks how they are merely making plastic hoses. Hulot is so out of touch with this world that he cannot even make a simple hose, and ends up making what looks like sausage links.

Did I mention this movie was funny? There are a few scenes that had me roaring with laughter. The Arpels’ dinner party scene was a riot, and I loved that one of the guests (one from a lower class) couldn’t help but laugh at the ridiculousness as it took place. Another funny scene was when they mistake a neighbor for a rug salesman, but she was just trying to impress them with flashy clothing.

After all of this poking fun of modernity and technology, the dogs are shown running around. The ending is perfect, and reminds us yet again that this artificial world, the high tech gadgets, and the attention means absolutely nothing in the big picture.

Film Rating: 9/10

Supplements:

Terry Jones Introduction. Jones was disappointed with the film at first, and then came around and it became his favorite Tati film. He thinks that the main titles speak to the primary theme just like anything else in the film with hand-created nameplates showing the production credits amid heavy industrial background.

My Uncle[/]. This is the English-language version, which was filmed concurrently with the French version. There are English signs and dialog, which was dubbed in later. The background voices are still French, but that does not matter since the audio is unintelligible. The spoken language version does not make much of a difference because so much of the film is silent, at least not spoken, and the sound effects are all the same.

[i]Once Upon a Time: My Uncle. This featurette talks about the production and puts it into historical context. There are many interviews, including some archived with Tati. Pierre Etaix speaks a great deal as his assistant. He talks about how well Tati choreographed each character’s movement down to the smallest detail.

“Lines, Signs and Designs.” This is a short feature about the architecture behind the house. They talk to different architects about the house, who give their opinions about the designs. Many of them agree that the design was a little much, but they do not overly criticize. Some of them get a little defensive. One architect says that Tati would have slammed his early work.

“Fashion.” This feature talks with a fashion designer about the outfits. She said the apparel was very 1950s. She singles out the rug lady that resulted in funny misunderstanding, all because she was trying to outdo Ms. Arpel. Back in the 1950s, there was a lot of attention to matching colors. One instance where this is seen in the film is with the dog’s vest matching Mr. Arpel’s scarf.

“Have a Seat.” Some designers reproduced the rocking chair, the “kidney” couch and the two cylinder couch. The latter is not very comfortable until people relax in it, and experiment with different ways to use it. This was not mentioned in the feature, but the entire house is reproduced here:
http://deco-design.biz/en/reconstitution-de-la-villa-arpel-au-centquatre/2491/

Everything’s Connected. Visual essay and critical analysis by Stephane Goudet. This is the most conventional plot of all his films.. Tati is not against modern archictecture, but the way people use it to show off. It is more of a class contrast. She compares it to other films, like in Monsieur Hulot’s Holiday where Hulot becomes a role model for the kids, but not what the parents probably want. That’s the case with the Arpels. He is more of a role model for Gerard and the child adopts Hulot’s values more than his parents.

With walking on the water lilys into the pool, Tati’s character enters water just like in his two previous films, but this time he is not submerged because the water is not deep enough. This provides continuity between the films and his world, but this instance of water is distinctly artificial whereas the others are real.

This was subtle and probably not noticeable to non-French speakers, but the name Hulot is mixed up with “hublot” on at least one occasion. “Hublot” means means porthole. There are many portholes in this movie, such as the holes in the garage, the holes upstairs as windows (or eyes), and the porthole in the interview scene.

“Le Hasard de Jacques Tati.” In this TV special, Tati talks about all the dogs in the film and his relationship with them, including Chance the mutt, his own dog. The dogs for the film were obtained from the pound, and afterward he put out an ad for people to adopt the “stars” of the film. He wishes he had 30-40 dogs because he could have found homes for all of them.

Criteron Rating: 9.5/10

[MadMan]

Hey I own that one. Love that movie fully. I wish I have seen more of your collection so I could comment more.

[DSNT]

THE SHOOTING, MONTE HELLMAN, 1966

http://s3.amazonaws.com/criterion-production/release_boxshots/4301-e6a5ab3fe3d2ef5f9d8ef59488bc22 37/734_735_BD_box_348x490_origina l.jpg

The Shooting and Ride In the Whirlwind were companion, low budget westerns pieces, shot together over a 7-week schedule (3 weeks for each with a week off in between). At the time they were overlooked, but have become cult classics and influenced many of the ‘Acid Westerns’ that followed.

Of the two, I consider The Shooting to be superior. Maybe not so coincidentally, it also had the most problems with the production. Some flooding took place early and forced delays. While the movie was wrapped up in time and within the budget, there appear to be some short cuts taken. Some scenes probably did not get the coverage they deserved, and there are gaps in editing. Towards the end, the narrative skips and jumps ahead without dissolves, making the passage of time less clear and challenging the viewer

For such a small budget, the film looks spectacular. Some of the beginning photography has a gritty, washed out look, which may have more to do with the production delays than anything. The later scenes in the desert are brighter and more photogenic, in part because of some great choices in locations. Aside from a handful of interior shots, most of the movie was lit with natural light on location. DP Gregory Sandor deserves credit for making the most with limited resources, as the film does not look cheap by any stretch on the screen.

Compared to Ride In the Whirlwind and other westerns that came before and would come later, The Shooting is minimalist, with sparse dialogue and a lot of long shots of the characters that highlight the locations.

Warren Oates, who would become familiar to most film buffs later, was starring in his first lead role. Willett Gashade was a fitting character for him. He is quite, sober, sensible, and stoic, which is in stark contrast to Will Hutchins’ Coley Boyard, who is boisterous, cowardly, and wears his emotions on his sleeve, particularly his fondness for the mysterious woman that would set the narrative in motion.

Millie Perkins plays the unknown woman. We never learn her name, despite Coley’s attempts to learn it and get closer to her. She is also uniquely portrayed. In previous westerns, the villain’s are almost universally male. She is more like the mysterious femme fatales in noir films of the 1940s and 1950s. While we learn early on that she is on a mission of revenge, she keeps quiet as to her motivation until the very end, and we never learn of the circumstances that brought her there.

It is impossible to review Jack Nicholson’s involvement outside of the context of his later performances. While The Shooting was created before he was known, this is the same, familiar Jack that would rise to stardom in the upcoming decade. Like Perkins, he plays a reserved and quiet character and reveals next to nothing about why he does what he does. He reveals some information about a crime he has committed, but does so in the confidence of a character and the audience never understands how and why. His character relishes in cruelty, and he shows the same bright white, wicked smile that we would see later in his career. He grins widely and wickedly as he tells Coley, “Your brain is gonna fry out here. You know that?”. It is the same expression he would later use in The Shining, Cuckoo’s Nest, and many other roles throughout his career. Even though he does not appear until the middle of the film with an unceremonious entrance, he steals most of his scenes.

The last 15 minutes are where the picture is the most impactful. They are when the action resolves, and they are also the most enigmatic and would embody the “acid” characteristics. There are some questionable editing decisions, such as when Gashade is burying a body. Most of the events unfold visually without narrative. We do not know how long they have been out there. The ending resolves the fate of some characters, but we do not know the fate of the rest. The actual ending is amazing, as ‘The End’ is written on the screening during a long shot with one of the remaining characters. Does that mean it is his end as well?

https://awculture.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/the-shooting-end.jpg

Film Rating: 8/10

Commentary:

The audio commentary was recorded this year with Hellman, film critic Bill Krohn, and western historian Blake Lucas. The three have an interesting dynamic. At times I wanted to hear more from Hellman about the production of the film, but on the other hand, I enjoyed them interacting with him and asking film geek types of questions. Without them, we probably wouldn’t have learned as much about his influences going into the film.

With this project, he wanted to get to the major question, as Hellman put it. He actually eliminated 10 pages of exposition just to speed up the plot. He eliminated dissolves as well, which he attributed to the French New Wave and the lack of a budget. Dissolves are more expensive.

His influences were of course John Ford films, and he mentioned a few others. One curious influence was One Eyed Jacks with Brando. He also mentioned that he was influenced by Antonioni, the French New Wave, and other arthouse cinema directors. Perhaps the most interesting influence was the JFK assassination. This project began soon after those events, and he said they were an influence on the film. You can see remnants of the Zapruder film and the footage of Oswald getting shot in the final scene.

This was a transitional period in westerns, which the critics commented more about than Hellman. The John Fords and Anthony Manns were slowing down, while Peckinpah was yet to come. One detail that came up but was not delved into was that Hellman was under discussion to do Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid. I can only wonder how that would have turned out under his hand rather than Peckinpah.

[MadMan]

I'm thinking of still buying that one. Maybe it can wait until next year.

[DSNT]

RIDE IN THE WHIRLWIND, MONTE HELLMAN, 1966

http://s3.amazonaws.com/criterion-production/release_boxshots/4301-e6a5ab3fe3d2ef5f9d8ef59488bc22 37/734_735_BD_box_348x490_origina l.jpg

While Ride in the Whirlwind sbould be compared with the film that preceded it, The Shooting, it is not a carbon copy. It shares many things in common with the companion film. The most obvious is the cast members of Jack Nicholson and Millie Perkins, but there were also many of the same locations, the same crew, and even the same horses.

Despite these similarities, the differences are more distinctive. First and foremost, the style is different. If these two pictures are considered “acid” westerns, then The Shooting is far more “acidic.” Whirlwind is actually quite linear in comparison. Rather than being oblique with major plot elements left to the viewer’s imagination, this time the narrative is clear and direct. There are four different groups of characters with conflicting motivations, and we get the general idea of what they are about. The first group are outlaws; another is a group of cattle-hands trying to pass through; the third group are the vigilantes, and the final group is a farming family in the wilderness.

The premise is that the cattle-hand protagonists end up in the wrong place at the wrong time. They encounter the outlaws, who unsuccessfully try to pass themselves off as cattle-hands. After an awkward meeting between the two groups, they camp out and find themselves under fire from the vigilantes before they can depart. They are completely innocent, but in the eyes of those with the guns, they are guilty by association.

Only two of the three cattle-hands survive, played by Cameron Mitchell and Jack Nicholson, and they make it out of the camp on the same horse. From here begins the existential dilemma on who is and isn’t an outlaw. Who is good and who is moral?

After escaping out of the valley, they encounter the farming family. They assure them that they are good people, not outlaws, but they have to do certain things in order to escape from their accusers. One thing they need to do is take the farmer’s horse, which is theft. They try to justify it because otherwise they will hang for something they didn’t do, but theft is theft. In the farmer’s eyes, they are taking his horses and that is unjust. They are intruding on the family, eating their food, making them uncomfortable and putting them in harm’s way. As the story unfolds, the ‘innocents’ commit other acts that blur the lines even further. Every man that turns towards the immoral has to follow a series of actions. While we side with the main characters that we believe are good people, it is perfectly justifiable that they would be seen as evil under the circumstances.

Nicholson and Perkins play completely different characters than in the previous film. Nicholson’s character is unlike most of what he would play in his later, illustrious career. He is softer spoken, kinder and gentler. He tries to endear himself towards Perkins, whereas most outlaws would not care one bit. He plays the character well, but in an understated, muted fashion. There is no chewing scenery here.

Perkins played a sort of Femme Fatale in The Shooting, but here she plays a meek, naïve and inexperienced young farm girl. She is not nearly as savvy or manipulative. In the special features, Perkins says she tried to play the girl as if she was imitating one of her chickens. That makes sense, as the girl is physically and socially awkward, and does not know how to behave around people outside her family.

It is clear that even when the duo has the family hostage, that Hellman wants us to like them. They remain kind and respectful, and plead that they are not evil people. They even play checkers to pass the time. They can be as nice as they want, but the existential crisis remains. They are in control of the situation, holding people against their will and forcing them to keep their presence quiet. The circumstances of how they ended up in that situation are immaterial. There are there, and in the eyes of the victims, they are just as criminal as the stage robbers.

Even though both of these films were shot inexpensively, they get the most out of the small budget. Visually, both films look far better than other independents from the era, even if The Shooting has more showy shots. Whirlwind is more straightforward and linear, mostly because that is what the plot calls for. There are more characters and more events to unfold, which require shorter shots with more cuts. There are a few exceptions where the camera is allowed to breathe, such as the visually striking scene when the pair are climbing to get out of the valley. Another, more impressive shot, is the final scene. It may be the prototypical cliché shot of a character riding off into the sunset, but it adds some panache. Rather than just watching him ride off, he is enveloped into the misty clouds, or the whirlwind as the title implies. It looks good visually, but it also fits the film thematically. The world has changed for this character, and we know that even though he survives, it will not be a pleasant existence. He has come full circle and is what he hated.

Film Rating: 6.5/10

Supplements

Commentary: Again, we had the same participants from The Shooting and they had a similar dynamic. The film historians would comment based on their own knowledge and experience, while peppering Hellman with questions about the production and background.

One interesting aspect of this commentary was the level of Nicholson’s involvement. He was not the star that we know today, and he wrote and acted in the film. We don’t think of him as a writer, and it says something that the character he wrote for himself was so far from the type he would play throughout his career. For the screenplay, Nicholson researched stakeouts at the library, and this particular story was based on a real shootout that took place over three days.

It was impressive hearing Hellman discuss how the cabin burning took place. It looks spectacular on the screen, yet they had to contain the fires so they could continue shooting without destroying the set. Had to show multiple stages of the fire, and of course, it ended with the set destroyed. It was risky to try to pull off with the limited budget, but it worked amazingly well on screen.

This was a productive year for Hellman. He had made two Philippines movies prior to this, so with these two westerns, he had made 4 movies in 12 months. That is a third of his career output in one year, which is saying something.

House of Corman – This was a conversation between Roger Corman and Monte Hellman. It’s a very chummy talk. One thing that they do not bring up, that Hellman revealed in the commentary, was that Corman did not want to make the films once he saw the screenplays. He didn’t think they could be commercially successful. Instead they talk about Corman’s decision to make two westerns, and his influence on American filmmakers by that time. His influence was considerable, and Hellman was one of his protégés that would not have the same career otherwise.

The Diary of Millie Perkins – In The Shooting, she put dirt on her face to cover discrete makeup. She wanted some sort of unique look, so the mud became her makeup. She talked about her horseback riding, which she handled quite well, a lot better than the other actors. She had an interesting relationship with Jack during the time, and they are still friends. They bonded.

Whips and Jingles – This is a Will Hutchins interview. He talks about running up hill with chalk. He was in decent shape, but not an easy run and had to call a medic. One thing that comes up often in all these features is Jack and Monte arguing about budget, but they had to pay out of their pockets if they ran over. He accidentally stumbled into a Parisian theater in 1969 and was surprised to see The Shooting and RTW playing. He had no idea it had been released anywhere.

Blind Harry – This was a short discussion between Hellman and Harry Dean Stanton. Jack said don’t do anything, play yourself, just act. That’s interesting because he’s been accused of doing that on a couple occasions. Harry was head of the gang so he didn’t have to do anything. This was a major influence on his future approach to acting.

The True Death of Leland Drum – Hellman talks to B.J. Merholz and John Hackett, actors in Ride in the Whirlwind. They were amateurs, which Hellman makes the point is not a dirty word. They talk about the horse wrangling, which is a recurring theme in all of these supplements because a high percentage of the budget went towards horse wrangling due to the teamsters union.

Heart of Lightness – Hellman speaks with Assistant Director Gary Kurtz. They talk about all the rain early in The Shooting that caused production delays. The crew was small, with one or two in the art department, one horse wrangler, two cameramen, two sound men, and one on wardrobe. Again, it is quite a final product for such a slim production.

The Last Cowboy – They talk to Calvin Johnson, the horse ranger that worked on the films. He had worked on westerns since he was 10 years old. They revisit the locations. Pahreah was one of the towns where they shot, which is long gone now. Talks about shooting at the “staircase” near Bryce Canyon where they had the final scene in The Shooting. The locations were just gorgeous.

An American Legend – This was my favorite supplement on the disc. It is a critical piece by Kim Morgan on the career of Warren Oates. Much of it is a career retrospective, but she also discusses the “it” factor that made him such a renowned actor. She says it starts with the face. He was a type of “gorgeous ugly,” as she puts it, recounting his attractive, grizzled look. The Shooting was his first leading role, which began a Hellman collaboration over a few films. He was thought of as a character actor, which is unfair, probably because his lead films were in smaller, grittier films from Hellman and Peckinpah. He died too young. Who knows what the future auteurs of the 90s and 00s could have done with him?

Even though there are far better movies in the Collection, this disc is loaded with two quality films and a ton of features. One of the notable absences on the features is anything from Jack, although he has been in retirement lately and may not have been up for it.

Criterion Rating: 9/10

[DSNT]

PLAYTIME, JACQUES TATI, 1967

https://awculture.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/tati_playtime_dvd.jpg

One of the recurrent statements found in the PlayTime supplements is that you have to see it more than once to truly appreciate. Due to the continual long shots, the wide frame, and the crowded amount of characters, there are many gags or comic touches in the background that will be missed. I first saw PlayTime years ago, as my first exposure to Tati, and I fell in love with it right away. This marked my third viewing, and as expected, I found plenty that I had missed during previous viewings, and I adored the film even more.

PlayTime is the culmination of Tati’s artistic and comedic exploits over the previous twenty years, which shockingly only resulted in three feature films. In this time he developed his ‘silent yet noisy’ comedy film, inspired by the giants of silent film, all the while making artistic statements about the modernization of society after the war. While PlayTime is just as hilarious as Mon Oncle or Monsieur Hulot’s Holiday, it is grander on every level. It has more comedy, a more direct and pointed message, and is a more ambitious and impressive production.

Tati poured everything into this project, his time, fortune, property, and his credit, leaving him in shambles. Although it is a shame that the film ultimately was a failure and he suffered devestating consequences as a result, at least we were able to see on the screen exactly the type of film that he aspired to make. He even said that he had no regrets because of the final product.

The targets in PlayTime can be isolated and listed as modern architecture, tourism, invention, privacy, taste, or many, many others, but that takes away from the primary message he is trying to convey. Like much of his work, it returns to tradition versus modernity, just like the dogs that contrast with the humans in Mon Oncle, the revelry and lack of boundaries that the partiers experience when they finally get to ‘play’ is the message of PlayTime. Why be so serious and distracted by the trappings of modern society? It does not matter whether you can buy a pair of glasses that allows someone to apply makeup without taking them off, or buildings made of glass so clear that one cannot distinguish what is inside or outside. They are all ludicrous, tasteless, and take away from the essence of humanity, which I think Tati is able to illuminate at the end film.

The first half of film shows various characters, including American tourists, Monsieur Hulot, businessmen, and others frequenting a number of sleek and modernized locations. There are some instances where true French landmarks, such as the Eiffel Tower, Arc de Triomphe and Sacre Couer are reflected from opening doors, but those momentary images are all that we see of the beauty of Paris. Instead, most of the people spend their time at an expo with ridiculous inventions, most of which are impractical and some worthless (like a broom with lights or a silent door). We know that the tourists see some of France, because buses take them to Montmarte or Montparnasse, and they return with baubles and mementos, but they always return to these lifeless and nondescript buildings.

The latter half of the film takes place almost entirely in a restaurant and nightclub called the Royal Garden. It has been undergoing construction until literally the very last minute before customers arrive, and we soon find out that the restaurant is not quite ready to function. That does not stop people from flooding in. For awhile a doorman does what he can to keep the riffraff out, until Hulot destroys the glass door, allowing everyone entrance. Some are humorously guided there by the light fixture at the entrance, that turns them in a circle and points them into the restaurant. The restaurant is an absolute disaster until, yet again, Hulot’s clumsiness does more destruction. This time he destroys the framework of the architecture, and in it’s wake, leaves a more traditional looking bistro. This is where PlayTime begins, where he encounters a number of different characters, some of whom are locals and others tourists, but it does not matter. They all have quite a time by breaking the rules set forward by modernity.

What Tati is saying really comes into form through the last few images. He takes a liking to one of the American tourists, Barbara, and gets her a parting gift that she opens on the bus ride to the airport. It is a flower arrangement that resembles the street lights that enlighten the trip to Orly, reminding us that beauty can be found in the most unsuspected and curious places, but it is not some type of artificiality and disconnection to be manufactured, packaged and sold. As the cars continue towards the airport and day turns to night, the beautiful imagine remains in the unlikeliest of places.

Film Rating: 10/10

Supplements:

Terry Jones Introduction: He first saw it on a 70 mm screen, which I can only dream of. He could see all the detail in the long shots, and understood why there were not many close-ups. It was the most expensive French film of all time, a failure, but a ‘tour de force’ of filmmaking. Jones calls it the “most ambitious expression of Tati’s genius.”

Selected Scene Commentaries:

There are three commentaries. Historian Philip Kemp looks at roughly 45 minutes of footage and points out how the plot structure is that a number of straight lines in the beginning of the movie become curves towards the end. The statement is abstract, but he is able to demonstrate it by the on-screen behavior.

He talks about how PlayTime was a failure and bankrupted Tati and his family. He goes into the details of how Tati and the family put up so much of their own property and inheritance to finance the film, but it was a financial disaster and wasn’t screened in USA until much later.

Stephane Goudet looks at the beginning scenes in the office and expo, and then the later scenes with the “shopwindow” apartments. Even though the office setting appears intent on creating a more organized and efficient environment, it does the opposite. The spatial proximity of the cubes provides distance and disconnection. The apartments show no boundary between private and public life, and resemble the class conceit previous exhibited by the Arpels. It is no surprise that this scene was originally written for Mon Oncle.

Jerome Deschamps, a Theater Director, looks at the early scenes in the office. One scene in particular, which happens to be one of my favorites, is Mr. Giffard’s long walk down the corridor, coming from the background while Hulot and the secretary wait on the left in the foreground. They can hear his footsteps, but cannot see the long walk like the audience can. The scene takes a long time to unveil, but is worth it. Deschamps then looks at the scene in the waiting room, where Hulot encounters and is fascinated by Mr. Lacs, and then misses Giffard because he is staring out of the window.

“Tativille” – This is an interview on the set of playtime from 1967 British TV. It was built on a hilltop outside of Paris. Tati escorts us through the set, which is barren and deserted, even more so than in the film. It shows how he choreographs actors, especially during restaurant scene. They are all amateurs and Tati orchestrates their actions a person at a time. The crew talks to the American wives from the nearby base, who really have no idea what type of film they are in, but they are enjoying the experience all the same.

“Beyond Playtime” – This is a short 2002 documentary from Goudet. There are more tours through Tativille, with background about the process. It took two years of filming, where a gigantic set was built from scratch, and it cost 15 million euros. Sadly, the set was later destroyed. Tati affectionately says “Playtime will always be my last film.”

“Like Home” - 2013 Visual essay from Goudet.
Talks about the criticism that Playtime has a lack of structure, but gives the same ‘straight lines turn to curves’ argument. He goes through many of the themes and points out gags that are easy to miss. Finally, he talks about how the film ends with a sense of poetry. Tati said that “I want the movie to begin when you leave the theater.”

Sylvette Baudrot – Interview about the behind-the-scenes process with Baudrot, She talks about a gag that they were not able to pull off, which was an attempt to make the streetlights appear to be watering pots that are hydrating the tourists in the buses as they pass. Instead that premise is used in the restaurant where it appears the waiter pours Champagne onto the ladies hats. She talks about how Tati was an ultra perfectionist with timing, color, and just about everything else. They used cutouts of the Paris buildings that we would see through the windows, as well as cutouts of people as extras and side columns on the building. These were expensive, but in some cases it was cheaper than the alternative, like hiring 100 more extras. One terrific touch that she shared was how funny Tati could be when he acted out the parts to the actors, which included the ladies. Because of his early career as a mime and experience as an actor, he was able to show them virtually everything.

Criterion Rating – 10/10

[DSNT]

IT HAPPENED ONE NIGHT, FRANK CAPRA, 1934

http://s3.amazonaws.com/criterion-production/release_boxshots/4299-d0d021a206ec103669330dc733fa3a 25/736_BD_box_348x490_original.jp g

In the interest of full disclosure, I’ll come clean that I’m not a Capra fanatic. That’s not to say that I don’t have tremendous respectful for him as a talented and influential filmmaker, and I like most of his films, even if I do not love them. My first exposure to him came during my younger cineaste years, when I was being reared on the edgy indies of the 90s and the new auteurs of the 00s. Compared to Todd Haynes or Tarantino, the “Capraesque” pictures of the classic Hollywood era seemed rather plain and mundane. Again, I thought they were good pictures, but they laid everything on a little too thick. There was too much ideology in Mr. Smith Goes to Hollywood, too much populism in Meet John Doe, and too much sentimentality in It’s a Wonderful Life.

When I first saw It Happened One Night, I had an anti-Capra bias. Just like with those other films, I did not hate his breakthrough comedy, but I did not love it either. I was ambivalent. That was easily 15 and possibly 20 years ago. I gave it another shot earlier this year, and came out with a newfound appreciation, yet still was not completely enamored. This Criterion disc gives me another chance for a re-visitation, and like their best releases, a new contextualization. Having a lot more knowledge about film history doesn’t hurt either. On this third viewing, the film grew on me quite a bit more.

First, in the context of his library, this film is not as “Capraesque” as I had originally remembered. Beginning with Mr. Deeds Goes to Town, his signature style really started to take shape, and was cemented as he continued to work. This film is actually unlike a lot of Capra’s later work, in that it’s more spontaneous, faster paced, and has a lot more of an edge.

It’s worth pointing out that this is a pre-code film. That said, it is a relatively benign pre-code film. The code would begin just a few months later. The writing may have been on the wall, but Capra did not indulge too much. When he did, it served the plot, such as the hilarious mannerisms of speech of Mr. Shapeley. At it’s core, the film is about sex, yet Capra danced around the subject in ways that undoubtedly inspired post-code filmmakers. The ‘Walls of Jericho’ way of dividing the hotel room is the perfect way to have a man and woman sleep together in a non-threatening way. It also became a suitable metaphor for the unspoken subject throughout the film. Some of the dialogue, the undressing scene, and the payoff of the ‘Walls of Jericho’ metaphor would probably have been altered in a post-code world, but it was indirect enough that it could have been a workable canvas to present sex in film.

There are three elements that make this simply a fun movie: Clark Gable, Mr. Shapeley, and “The Daring Young Man on the Flying Trapeze.” Gable was a delight, and played opposite the stone-faced Colbert with precision. The confident, charming and funny way he delivered his lines during their banter really sold the hostile courtship. He interacted with other characters in the same way, such as his boss, the detectives that try to search his hotel, and last but not least, Mr. Shapely. One of the funniest scenes of the movie, in my opinion, was the way in which Gable manipulates the misogynist character of Shapeley. Even though the character was funny, he deserved comeuppance, and the manner in which he was dispatched was one of the comedic high points. The song they sing on the bus does very little for the plot. It is more of a diversion than anything, but it conveys the relaxed, jovial atmosphere, where the courtship and the ‘One Night’ would eventually take place.

Film Rating: 8/10

Supplements:

Frank Capra, Jr. Remembers – Frank, Sr’s son remembers and discusses a lot of the details about the film. Of course he was born in 1934, so he did not remember anything firsthand, but he probably was exposed to a lot more about the film as a Capra than most others involved. He talked about the situation with Claudette Colbert, how she was about to leave for vacation and would only take the project if they doubled her pay and finished in four weeks. They agreed and literally had to begin production the next day. She was complaining all the time, and told friends that “I’ve just finished the worst picture of my life.” He says that Capra and Gable had a lot of fun making the picture. It shows.

Screwball Comedy? – Conversation between critics Molly Haskell and Phillip Lopate. It Happened One Night is sometimes called first screwball, but that is not altogether accurate. It is only loosely a screwball in the first place, at least in the way that future films would be considered. It was not as fast talking as Howard Hawks’ films, including Twentieth Century that came out that same year. The conversation moves on from looking at it from a screwball perspective and becomes a straightforward critical analysis, although they would often return to view the themes from a screwball point of view.

Fultah Fisher’s Boarding House, 1921 – This is the first Capra film. While his amateurism is on display, some of his skill is also clear. It works well visually, and he blends the title cards into the action effectively. The action scenes were effective, but the title cards were excessive and made the short film tough to follow.

Frank Capra’s American Dream, 1997 – This feature length documentary about Capra’s life was a treat. This and many of the other supplements make the disc far more than just the film. This is a tribute to the entire legacy of the filmmaker. Ron Howard narrates as they follow his origins as a child immigrant, the hard work that gave him opportunities in life, and of course his career in Hollywood. What was surprising was that after the huge success of It Happened One Night, Capra fell into a deep depression due to his success and guilt towards those suffering in the depression. This is where his career took a turn and he worked towards making films that the common man could appreciate. While this is often a criticism of the “Capraesque” method of filmmaking, it is also a justification for it. People in the depression were suffering. Movies were a low-cost escape for them. Capra gave them hope and inspiration, and considering the time, it does not matter how realistic his worlds were. Through this journey, I gained respect and appreciation for the man and his methods, even if I do not always adore his movies.

AFI Salute to Frank Capra – This was the 10th life achievement award in 1982. It plays as an hour-long awards ceremony. Jimmy Stewart hosts the show, beginning with a short feature about Capra’s childhood story up to his breakout in silent pictures. Many other celebrities speak, including Bette Davis and Peter Falk, who worked with him in Pocketful of Miracles. Claudette Colbert came out and was respectful, which is ironic since she had such a miserable time on the picture. Lionel Stander, from Mr. Deeds Goes to Town, said a few words, as did many stars who were influenced by Capra. These included Bob Hope, Jack Lemmon, Burgess Meredith, Fred MacMurray, Steve Martin, many more. It ended with Capra giving his acceptance speech, and truly enjoying the moment.

Criterion Rating: 9/10

[DSNT]

TRAFIC, JACQUES TATI, 1971

https://awculture.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/tati_trafic_dvd.jpg

As workers and mechanics are preparing to send their model car off to Amsterdam for a car show, we hear them whistle a number of familiar tunes. We hear snippets from Monsieur Hulot’s Holiday, Mon Oncle, and probably various others if you listen carefully. The trace of Hulot’s presence is immediately evident, even if we do not see him for a few minutes.

The shock of Hulot’s introduction in Trafic is that he is employed. Previously, he was basically unemployable. In Mon Oncle, he bombed an interview, and in PlayTime, he could not even navigate the modern world to get time in the same room with a potential employer. Even in Jour de Fete, where Tati’s Francois could be seen as a prelude to Hulot, he has a job and is absolutely terrible at it.

In the years after PlayTime, Hulot has clearly had a change in ideals. Not only is he employed at an auto company, but he is an actual designer. The car that he ends up designing would be admired by the Arpels from Mon Oncle or by the invention expositioners in PlayTime. It is an entirely modern camper, a way of getting outdoors and enjoying life, but with a lot of clever, innovative and sometimes useless features that are the exact type of thing that baffled Hulot previously.

The fact that he obtained the job and designed something modern and silly is a mystery, but that’s not at the heart of the story. He and his team are responsible for transporting his model camper car to an auto show in Amsterdam. As can be expected, a lot of hijinks occur along the way that slow down and threaten to half the trip entirely.

In some ways Trafic is similar to the previous three films. They are mostly in long shot without close-ups, with sight gags that are easy to miss the first time through, not too much dialogue from the main characters, plenty of background noise, a mixture of languages, and of course, Monsieur Hulot is at the center of it all. Despite these similarities, this does not feel like the same type of Tati film. Perhaps it is unfair to compare it to the previous trio, which are arguable masterpieces, but everything seems a little more watered down this time out. The jokes are not quite as inventive. There are big laughs, such as when Hulot hangs upside down while trying to fix some ivy, but it feels like it has been done already. Previously Tati had been pushing his art a little further each time, and that resulted in PlayTime, his finest film. Trafic feels like a creative step back.

That is not to say this is a bad movie. Lesser Tati is still enjoyable and worth watching, and there are plenty of quality scenes. The traffic accident scene ranks up with the best of Tati’s scenes across his entire filmography. There are other lighter touches, such as the windshield wipers reflecting the look and personality of the drivers, and the mass of umbrellas at the end, that are full of the Tatiesque charm. Yet, for all of those, there are other scenes that don’t quite work. I could have done without the anonymous nose-picking in cars, which is too easy and not nearly as intelligent as most of Tati’s humor. There is also the cruel practical joke that makes Maria mistake her dog for dead, when the doppelganger is a mop with a button nose and far from realistic.

The ending is up to par with the rest of his work. When Maria is on the boat in the water, we see her appreciate the beauty of her surroundings, which is consistent with Tati’s typical arc of anti-technology and humanizing his characters. When they get away from the hustle and bustle, they find themselves refreshed and their personality changes for the better. Like with PlayTime, they go in circles rather than squares, only in Trafic they embrace quiet and solitude as opposed to the everlasting automobile congestion.

The end is bittersweet. Even though this film is not quite up to par with the remainder of Tati’s work, it is the final film for an endearing character. The outcome for Hulot is no surprise, but we’d like to know what awaits him next. We’ll miss him. It is not easy to say goodbye to Monsieur Hulot. Adieu, my friend!

Film Rating: 6.5

Supplements:

“Jacques Tati in Monsieur Hulot’s Work” – This is a 1976 program from the British show Omnibus. It begins at the beach house of Monsieur Hulot’s Holiday. Most of the special consists of interviews with Tati about his craft and his films, jumping backward and forward throughout his work. The one thing I have learned from this set is that Tati is not the greatest interview, which is perhaps because of the language barrier, but more likely because he is protective, defensive and not too revealing about his art. Nevertheless, he does say some interesting things about his work. Tati says he is not criticizing modernity, but is defending people who feel they have to change. This makes sense with Trafic because Hulot tried to assimilate into this new, high-tech society, only to fall on his face yet again. My favorite part of this special was his comparing himself with the old masters, specifically Chaplin. His comedy is passive rather than Chaplin’s active. He talks about the wreath and tire part from Jour de Fete, and how differently Chaplin would have orchestrated the gag.

People ask him why he made so few films over the years, but he liked to do them in his own way with creative freedom, without making something that doesn’t live up to his style. He adds that “in life, you only have so many ideas.”

With only one major supplement and a film that doesn’t measure up to Tati’s filmography, this disc is the most disappointing, yet still worth a watch.

Criterion Rating: 5/10

[dreamdead]

I really need to rewatch Playtime some time. I've seen Mon Oncle multiple times and just love the design of the gags and storytelling, from the repetitive dogs, to the electric door, and most magically (yet simply) the fish-fountain. And the whole city/town divide, while obvious on a narrative level, still play so seamlessly. I haven't seen Trafic but I expect that MO will remain the pinnacle of his art for me.

Playtime's rhythm was just something I couldn't align myself with. I don't think there's much different between this one and MO but it feels less central to Hulot's character. That might be the hindrance I end up having with it.

These continue to be wonderful reads, and reminders that I wish I used Hulu Plus for what we originally purchased it for.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Tati is someone I'm very anxious to give another chance. When I watched him back in high school (or just after), his films just didn't work for me. While I'm a totally different person now, I still loved Chaplin and Keaton back then. Still, I feel I owe it to myself to watch his films again. Would I be better off starting with Mon Oncle or Playtime?

[DSNT]

If I were to recommend Tati, I'd go in this order:

Mon Oncle
Monsieur Hulot's Holiday
PlayTime
Jour de Fete
Trafic
Parade

Some people have a lot of problems with PlayTime for the reasons that Dreamdead gave above. Hulot is more of a peripheral character and it is an exercise in patient observation. Tati challenges the viewer a lot more to find the gags, and he rewards the attentive with some obscure gems. But it may be a tough movie as a first viewing. Mon Oncle is the funniest and Holiday is the most charming.

You could probably pass on Trafic and Parade unless you're a completist.

[DSNT]

I abandoned the queue during the remainder of the semester, so I'll be playing catch-up with the new releases for awhile.

Here is what I'll be looking at once I wrap up the Tati set:

Time Bandits
Safe
L'Avventura
Les Blank: Always for Pleasure
The Night Porter
Tootsie

And I'll try to work in:

Something Wild
Monterey Pop
Les cousins
Summer Hours
The Leopard

Of course this can always change depending on what I feel like watching.

[DSNT]

PARADE, JACQUES TATI, 1974

https://awculture.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/tati_parade_dvd.jpg

I wrapped up my discussion of Trafic by quoting Tati from an interview about why he made so few films. His answer was that he did not want to make something that failed to meet his standards. His quote was that, “in life, you only have so many ideas.” Parade is most certainly one of his big ideas. It is ultimately his lifelong idea, a culmination of all his years working in the entertainment industry, beginning in the music hall, continuing with his mime training, and to a lesser extent, his experience in films. This is Tati the showman, which was ultimately what he was all his life, even if that side of him was disguised in his most popular works because the real Tati was somewhere within the character of Hulot.

By that same token, ideas for a variety show on TV and a feature film are drastically different. Parade stands apart from all of Tati’s cinematic output because (and apologies to Jafar Panahi), this is not a film. This is a TV show that was later converted to film. As a TV, show it would be quality entertainment. As a stage show, it would be an experience one would never forget. As a film, it is a decent and fleeting experience. As a Tati film, it is the outlier, the movie that does not belong and cannot be measured or even categorized with all of his previous efforts. For that reason, Parade is a disappointment.

The show is a form of a circus with Tati as the host. There are acts of juggling, balloons, magic, animals, and musicians (especially during the latter third of the film). The acts that take place when Tati is not on the stage are at times enjoyable, at others trite and uninspired.

It is when Tati is on screen that the film shines. He does a few pantomimes. My favorite was his attempt at boxing. His act is coordinated with the drummer to register the punches and the end of the round. It is short, but absolutely hilarious. Other acts are also good. The soccer goalie is a joy, whereas the tennis match is a riot, especially when he performs his mime in slow motion and captures the anguish of the tennis player on every shot to comedic effect.

The audience participates in the escapades. During the tennis match, they look left and right using the sound effect of the ball as their cue. At times it is clear that they are plants, such as when an audience member does a magic act that upstages the amateur on stage who fails at his act. There is also a husband and wife couple in the audience during the mule sequence. The husband is tempted to walk onto the stage and try his hand at the mule, but his wife gets in the way. When he finally gets away from her and onto the stage, he manages to ride the mule. He follows it up with a couple pratfalls and we catch on that the joke is on us. He was part of the entertainment. There is another family with two small children who are given a great deal of reaction shots during the entirety of the film with no explanation as to why, but they come back into “play” at the end of the film. It was probably a blast for the children, but as a film finale, it was unsatisfying.

It begs to wonder why Tati brought this to screen in the first place. The simplest explanation is the lure of money. He had been critical of the idea of ‘selling out’ to get a paycheck, but after two failures in PlayTime and Trafic, he may have had no choice. He may have needed the cash. On the other hand, he is clearly proud of his background as a pantomime and entertainer, and what better way to exhibit such hidden talents than on a TV screen? Given that he shot it in video (and it shows), it also begs to wonder whether this is something he wanted to stand on the same footing as his artistic films. Whatever his reasoning, it is a disappointment that this is the final appearance on film for such a cinematic genius.

Film Rating: 3/10

Supplements

In the Ring – This is Stéphane Goudet’s critical analysis. He has provided a lot of the better content on this box set. His commentary is useful here in pointing out some of the background of the production, such as the fact that this was the first French movie filmed on video that was shown in theaters. He points out that the cinematographer was Gunnar Fischer, the same DP who filmed many of Ingmar Bergman’s classics (The Seventh Seal, Wild Strawberries, Smiles of a Summer Night). The filming style is different than Tati’s other works, not just because it is filmed on video, but it also has close-ups and zooms, which capture the action of the performance. Of course Tati’s traditional long shots would not work with this type of production.

He provides some background on what Tati brought to his performance. Many of the acts were developed 40 years earlier as he was a developing pantomime and comedic actor. Goudet is fond of this work because it shows that side of Tati, and he dismisses the argument from a Tati biographer that this was a tragic mistake. Goudet feels like this is an extension of Tati’s earlier work. I disagree with Goudet, as is clear in my write-up above.

In the Footsteps of Monsieur Hulot” – This documentary is one of the better special features of the set. It was directed by his daughter Sophie Tatischeff, and separated into two parts. The first part is about Tati’s early life, how he developed his comic sensibilities, and through the filming and exhibition of Mon Oncle. It shows a lot of 1930s footage of Tati doing his mime acts in the music hall as a young man, and these are a treasure to see. There are interviews of Tati, and he discusses his move into short films, the first of which he considers to be terrible, but he learned from it, and eventually made features. He wrote Jour de Fete while in the war, stationed at Saint-Severe, and promised to return to film there. He kept his promise and that launched his film career. The whole town participated. He based Hulot on someone he had met in the military, someone good natured and goofy. From there, as we know, he made Monsieur Hulot’s Holiday and Mon Oncle, the latter of which launched him to international stardom.

Part two follows the remainder of his career. He tours the world for Mon Oncle. He wins at Cannes and an Academy Award. He gets to meet the star of his choice after winning the Oscar, and chooses Buster Keaton, and eventually spends time with Keaton, Harold Lloyd, Mack Sennett, and Stan Laurel. From there they cover PlayTime, with the construction and destruction of “Tativille,” and the economic failure of Tati. Trafic is glossed over, but Parade is cherished by Tati. He made it in Sweden because he felt they had supported him in his career, even during the bad times. It ends with him giving a parting quote: “If I’ve managed to bring a little smile to people’s everyday lives, in the end [ … ] I think I did well in choosing this marvelous means of expression.” You did well, Jacques.

“An Homage to Jacques Tati” – This is a 1982 episode of the French TV show Magazine. Artist and set designer Jacques Lagrange pays tribute to his friend. He talks about how he created the Arpel house from a sketch, and they received letters of outrage from architects, all of which they cherished. He talks about the process by which they would write their gags, which was carefully thought out and visualized.

Even if the film itself is not up to the quality of the rest of Tati’s work, the disc is worth watching for the supplements, especially Tatischeff’s feature length documentary.

Criterion Rating: 6/10

[DSNT]

TATI SHORTS, JACQUES TATI

https://awculture.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/tati_shorts_dvd.jpg

When accepting the Honorary César award in 1977, Tati urged the film industry to support short filmmakers, even if they had to sacrifice a small percentage of their profits. It is through shorts that filmmakers are allowed to get creative and take risks. He points out that without shorts, the careers of people like Keaton, Chaplin, Fellini and Rene Clement would not have flourished. The same is true of himself, even if he humbly left his own name out. Through his short films, we see the evolution of his style that would materialize in his six feature films over fifty years, three of which are arguably masterpieces. This disc has all of the films shorts with his involvement, either as actor, writer, director or even father.

On Demande Une Brute, 1934 – This was written by and starred Tati, but written by Charles Barrois. It is pure slapstick comedy, that is not so much Tatiesque. He claims in one of the supplements that the first film was not very good, but he learned from it. I don’t agree with his assessment, as I think it works as a comedy, even if it doesn’t resemble what would become a Tati comedy. Tati played a naïve youngster, caught in a tough position having to accept a wrestling match with a menacing champion. Plenty of shenanigans ensure, including a major plot point that involved an umbrella, perhaps foreshadowing things to come. 7/10

Gai Dimanche, 1935 – Tati co-directed this short with Jacques Berr, co-starred and co-wrote with Enrico Sprocani (circus clown that went by name of Rhum). This is a better effort than his first film, even if the direction is amateurish and there is some poor framing. I’m a little more forgiving because I know the filmmakers were young and learning their craft. The results on screen are more in line with what Tati would later do, including using long-shots and creative sound effects in order to enhance the humor. There’s even a scene with a malfunctioning sign, which is nearly mimicked in Jour de Fete, and signs would be a recurring motif in all of his future work. 7.5/10

Soigne Ton Gaughe, 1936 – This was directed by René Clément, only his second credited project, and starred Tati. Even though Clément was not yet the accomplished director he would become, it is apparent in this early work that he had potential early on. Even though Tati did not write the story, it played to his tastes and his strengths. He starts out as a bicyclist that resembles Francois from Jour de Fete. He does a boxing routine when he thinks nobody is looking that is much like a performance he gave 40 years later in Parade. Tati again proves himself to be a capable comic actor, and the shot selection and framing are the best of these early works. 8/10

L’Ecole Des Facteurs, 1946 – This is the first sole directorial credit for Tati, and anyone who has seen Jour da Fete can tell. This is the first introduction to Francois the Postman, and is essentially a truncated version of what would become Tati’s feature length debut. Many of the shots look identical to the feature, and it they were not the same shots, then I have to give Tati kudos for recreating them so efficiently. The story begins with the bicycle school, where Francois and two other postmen learn the proper way to ride and hand for certain types of letters. There’s also the famous bike riding itself scene, which ends with it parked comfortable at the café. While it lacks the charm and character development of the feature film, it is quick to get to the point and highlights some of the better gags. 8/10

Cours du Soir, 1967 – This was made on the set of PlayTime, directed by Nicolas Ribowski, starring Tati who dresses in Hulot clothing. But this character is not Hulot! He is teaching an evening class about an unknown subject. If anything, the class is to become Hulot. He starts by doing impressions of different sorts of smokers, then segues to sports impersonations and other pantomimes. Finally they have to practice stumbling on a step and then running into a column, which of course Tati can do masterfully. The students cannot quite manage, and they perform nonsensical calculations (using shoe size?) to figure it out. Even though this is a showcase for Tati’s talents, the humor is not as effective. We’ve seen him do many of these same routines in other places without making up an absurd classroom scenario. 4.5/10

Degustation Maison, 1977 – This was Tati’s daughter, Sophie Tatischeff ‘s directorial debut. Tati was not directly involved, but most likely gave his daughter a great deal of assistance. The short film has some Tatiesque elements, and is filmed in Saint-Severe, the same location as Jour de Fete. The premise has locals frequenting a bakery and having an insatiable demand for tartlets. Most of the short just watches them interact, which is the type of observation that her father favored. The joke is that the café is like a bar. As they eat the tartlets, they get looser and eventually appear drunk and get cut off. While the short was one-note and the joke is not very funny, it was a decent debut. 5.5/10

Forza Bastia, 1978/2002. This is a film that Tati began and did not finish. His daughter Sophie wrapped it up over two decades later. This is very much unlike any other Tati film. It is a pure documentary, which I don’t believe he had previously attempted. This is about a football match between Eindhoven and home team Bastia. Not so surprisingly, Tati is more interested in the behavior of the participants rather than the actual match. He films the town as they represent and celebrate their team in the days leading up to the match, waving flags and honking horns through congested traffic. Even during the match, he captures more footage of the fans in the crowd and curiosities on the field, such as the groundskeepers creatively trying to make the soggy field playable. He shoots some of the match, but very little, and the results are anti-climactic. Instead he accomplishes what he most likely intended, which was to capture the culture surrounding the match. This is my favorite of his shorts. 8.5/10

Supplements:

Professor Goudet Lessons – Stéphane Goudet is all over this box-set as the preeminent Tati scholar, so it is only fitting that he conclude the disc with a half hour lecture that concludes the themes and methods of the filmmaker.

One of the more common recipients of Tati’s ridicule is the education system. He made fun of schools, which we see more in his short films rather than his features. He is primarily interested in leisure, especially sports and holidays, and these do become prominent themes of his features. Constant targets are those who take themselves too seriously at anything.

The basis of Tati’s cinema is observation. He likes to show us people looking, and subsequently, he challenges us to observe as well. It is curious as to why he made so few films in such a long timespan. At first it was because he needed time to observe humanity, to pick up on personal nuances and trends that he could ridicule. He says that PlayTime was the only film that the French didn’t like because they didn’t know how to watch it.

For someone that is consistently compared to silent filmmakers, sound is a major attribute of his films. He likes objects or people to have one sound to characterize their function, which he often manipulates in order to highlight ridiculousness or humor.

David Lynch, Olivier Assayas, Michel Gondry, Patrice Leconte and Wes Anderson all contribute snippets to this lecture.

Tati Story – This is a brief bio of the life of Tati through his works. Begins with his silent period, then feature films, and shows many examples from the short films on this disc. For someone with such a limited output of work, his reach and genius was limitless.

Criterion Rating: 8/10

[DSNT]

THE COMPLETE JACQUES TATI

http://s3.amazonaws.com/criterion-production/release_boxshots/4294-ae2c9282bb480a1ef20ec0bcfcf0b8 83/729_BD_box_348x490_original.jp g

It is both fortunate and tragic that we can package an innovative filmmaker’s life work into a 7-disc box set. The tragedy is that he was not able to share more of his artistic vision, either due to financial or creative issues. You would be hard pressed to find another auteur who matches the quality of the heart of his output from 1953 until 1967 with Monsieur Hulot’s Holiday, Mon Oncle, and PlayTime. The last film of the trilogy, which is arguably the best, essentially ended his creative freedom and harnessed his talents. His career ended with a whimper, and his final projects never made their way out of development.

On the other hand, despite the lack of production, it is quite a journey to wade through all of the creative works from someone of Tati’s caliber. The Jacques Demy box set that came out earlier this year similarly captured the essence of his career, but not the entire narrative. There were notable omissions, some of which would be a good fit for Criterion (Model Shop), while others wouldn’t (Parking). For Tati, even the lesser films are Criterion-worthy, as they highlight his talents and his style in various ways. He had financial problems after PlayTime, but that did not force him to compromise his artistic integrity in order to make a fast buck.

Tati began his career as a music hall performer and a mime, and in many ways, he remained as such throughout his career. The oddball characters of of François the Mailman or the popular Monsieur Hulot showcased his physical talents and comic ability. Since his characters were mostly mute, he was a mime without the makeup, a music hall performer without the music (at least not the same type of music). And he could always make us laugh.

People fascinated Tati. He used his films as a way of observing the habits of ordinary people, however odd and nonsensical, and how they transformed during the period of economic prosperity and American innovation following the war. He was always an observer, and his film style made us observers as well, rewarding us for our attention to details, with hidden gags buried layers below the surface or in the background of the frame. He challenged us to be curious like him.

Tati denied that he was critical of modern architecture. He constantly claimed to be impressed by it, but not always by the people who inhabited it. A large part of his work satires the preposterous lengths that people go in order to improve their lives, whereas deep down they are merely trying to impress others. Hulot as a character and Tati as a person were less than impressed by these displays. To them, having the latest gadget, or the most immaculately manicured landscaping, or an appliance that has an inexplicable additional feature were pointless. He wanted to get to the core of humanity, get people away from the hustle and bustle of the city. This sometimes meant meandering around a small town where garbage lies in the middle of the street, or transforming a ludicrously designed restaurant into a relaxing bistro where companionship and revelry were most important.

These little treasures from the old France were being lost, little by little, but there was beauty still to be found among all the chaos. Few scenes illustrate this point better than Playtime when Barbara opens Hulot’s gift en route to Orly airport, to uncover a lovely flower arrangement, which not-so-coincidentally resembles the streetlights that guide their way back home.

The box set is a delight, and ranks at the top of the Criterion sets that I’ve explored to this date.

Criterion Rating: 10/10

Jour de Fete (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5544-Aaron-Watches-Criterions&p=528016&viewfull=1#post528016)
Monsieur Hulot's Holiday (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5544-Aaron-Watches-Criterions&p=528575&viewfull=1#post528575)
Mon Oncle (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5544-Aaron-Watches-Criterions&p=529222&viewfull=1#post529222)
PlayTime (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5544-Aaron-Watches-Criterions&p=530485&viewfull=1#post530485)
Trafic (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5544-Aaron-Watches-Criterions&p=531018&viewfull=1#post531018)
Parade (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5544-Aaron-Watches-Criterions&p=531052&viewfull=1#post531052)
Tati Shorts (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5544-Aaron-Watches-Criterions&p=531362&viewfull=1#post531362)

[Irish]

Now that was an enjoyable read. Especially that second-to-last paragraph ("Tati denied he was critical of modern architecture"). Great stuff.

The only downside to these essays, Dsnt, is that they make me want to watch movies I don't have immediate access to!

[DSNT]

Thank you. I truly enjoyed experiencing some of his films that I already loved and discovering some new ones.

If you get the spare coin, then I'd highly recommend buying the set. The individual titles might be available on Hulu+ soon (if not already).

[DSNT]

TIME BANDITS, TERRY GILLIAM, 1981

http://s3.amazonaws.com/criterion-production/release_boxshots/4312-f5007fde8ae89596166e6aba56ed0d 70/37_BD_box_348x490_original.jpg

Time Bandits came at a curious time in the career of Terry Gilliam. It could be considered a crossroads. He had cut his teeth animating for Monty Python, which eventually led to him co-directing Monty Python and the Holy Grail with Terry Jones. From there he moved towards imaginative fantasy worlds like Jabberwocky, where he was still finding his craft. Time Bandits was yet another step forward into exploring a fantastical world, while still clinging to his Python roots and trying to achieve a mass appeal. What resulted was a blending of the Python comedy, the Gilliam fantasy, and another stepping stone towards the career of a unique auteur.

Gilliam uses a child’s perspective to establish the fantasy, contrasted with the crass commercialism of the adults – Kevin’s parents – and a yearning toward the adventures of yesteryear. While he is dreaming of historical and fantasy worlds, his parents are dreaming of an appliance that prepares their food just a little quicker. Meanwhile, they sit on furniture that still has the plastic covering seemingly to keep it from becoming worn and old.

The mise-en-scene of Kevin’s bedroom is a template for the entire remainder of the film. The pictures represent locations where Kevin and his Time Bandits will later travel, while the toys will similarly reappear as objects in later scenes. This is a clever and creative way of planting a gun in the first act to have it reappear in the third. Gilliam places everything in the first act, which begs the question as to whether the events take place in reality or whether they are in the dreams of a child’s mind.

The fact that Kevin’s travel companions are dwarves help anchor the camera to a child’s perspective, so that virtually everything in the movie is shot from below. All of the adults (save for Napoleon) tower over the camera. This also suggests the mystery between this being a child’s imaginary world or whether the bandits and their perspective are real.

John Cleese and Michael Palin are the link with Gilliam’s Monty Python roots. While they are funny in Time Bandits and steal every scene they are in, they restrain Gilliam’s artistry and imagination. It is no coincidence that his best work would come when he was ultimately divorced from the Python aesthetic. We laugh when Cleese steals the rich bounty from the bandits only to give it away to the poor, or when he turns a blind eye to those poor being punched for no apparent reason. We also laugh when Michael Palin tries to hide an ailment from his beloved Shelley Duvall, whether it is in the forest or on the Titanic.

When the Python actors are not on the screen, the film becomes less of a comedy and more of a deeper examination of the spirituality of this world. In this sense, Time Bandits is two different movies. It is in part a Pythonesque comedy and in part an artistic examination of commercialism, the concept of good versus evil, and at it’s core, a coming of age story. Given that it is so many things and is partially effective at each, I feel that it falls short of its potential, yet remains wholly entertaining.

Film Rating: 6.5/10

Supplements:

Commentary: – Gilliam discusses his experiences with the film in a decent commentary. I did not realize that this began as a children’s film while he was struggling to make Brazil. I can see that ambition in Time Bandits, and for that reason I’m glad he used a mainstream canvas to stretch his creative legs, and that experience probably helped Brazil become a great film. It is interesting that he used Python actors and dwarf actors from Star Wars, yet was inspired by Visconti in terms of production value. This is readily apparent by the terrific historical set pieces, which stand on their own for any genre of film.

There are other participants in the commentary. Child actor Craig Warnock played Kevin and shares some of his fond memories of the experience, since he was young during the filming, he does not have the sharpest memory of how everything came together. He share some interesting stories, such as how he got the part, which of course would be difficult to forget.

Also participating in the commentary are Michael Palin, John Cleese, and David Warner. Palin helped write the movie. He was initially going to only write the dialogue, but he ended up contributing to the plot as well. And he casted and wrote his own part. It was a short shoot for John Cleese and he did not know entirely what the movie was about, but he enjoyed his scene. Warner enjoyed playing the evil genius, which was a sort of comic villain that he had not played before.

“Creating the Worlds of Time Bandits” – This piece is about the set and costume design. Like many good Criterion features, it points out things that are easy to miss when first viewing the film. One thing I missed was that the bandit characters had relics from history as part of their costumes. Talks about different locations – Ancient Greece was Southern Morocco. The Napoleon scenes were filmed in Wales. There were other scenes shot in Kent, and a lot on the studio. The Titanic was shot in a studio by just creating a deck, but it worked well. The sinking was from A Night to Remember.

Terry Gilliam and Peter von Baugh – This is a conversation between the director and film scholar from 1998. Gilliam talks about films he loves as a kid, like epic films (Ben Hur), which can be seen in his personal and Monty Python works. Talks about using movies as escapes, which makes sense since his major works – even the most artistic -- really are about escaping into a sort of fantasy world. He did not know art cinema as a child, but adored people like Jerry Lewis. Of course he would eventually discover art films. At one point in the interview he references La Jetee, which of course he would remake into 12 Monkeys.
Shelley Duvall – Interview with Tom Snyder in 1981 on his Tomorrow show. He introduces her as a big star, which she really was at the time, but her film career derailed afterward and she worked more on children’s projects (Fairy Tale Theater). She talks about how smart Monty Python guys are, which is true as they are all Oxford scholars, and many of their post Python works have been academic. This was a short, promotional segment where they showed a clip.

Criterion Rating: 7.5/10

[MadMan]

I really enjoyed Time Bandits but I do agree that it didn't quit live up to expectations.

[DSNT]

BOTTLE ROCKET, WES ANDERSON, 1996

http://s3.amazonaws.com/criterion-production/release_boxshots/4241-522a83bdce23536bff7af52a1fff27 3f/450_BD_box_348x490_original.jp g

It would be unfair to only talk about Bottle Rocket as Wes Anderson’s first film, and how it planted the template from which his future style would grow. It technically was his first film and certain stylistic and performance elements would reoccur, but it feels to be more substantial than a first feature. Wes Anderson and the Wilson brothers were learning, certainly, but the real first feature was the short film a few years earlier. That was their low-budget, independent way of figuring things out, and that’s what gave them the attention and confidence to be trusted with a larger production. Bottle Rocket cost nearly $8 million dollars and had some influential and experienced people involved, notably producers James L. Brooks, Polly Platt, and actor James Caan.

It is fair to compare this alongside Anderson’s other works, and in my opinion, it rates rather highly. Anderson begins the making of documentary by saying that people usually have one of two responses to the movie – they either love or hate it. There isn’t much in between. I’m in the love it camp, and have been since I first saw it many years ago. I’ve already talked about my respectful ambivalence toward’s Wes Anderson in my Fantastic Mr. Fox write-up (all of which will eventually be revisited), but it is worth repeating that the style of all of his films can be divisive. Sure, he’s a critical darling, and deservedly so, but some people find his quirky indie style to be unappealing. That has been me to a certain degree, but not with Bottle Rocket.

I think it is among his best films, somewhere around Fantastic Mr Fox, Rushmore and Grand Budapest Hotel.. On some days I might call it my favorite Wes Anderson.

Why do I like it so much? First off, Anderson is a phenomenal filmmaker, and this is apparent from throughout the feature debut, and to a certain degree with the short film. Of all his films, I think Dignan is the best-drawn character, and I will delve into him further in a moment. Even though the film is eccentric, compared to many of Anderson’s other works, it is more realistic. Sometimes he will take the quirkiness too far, such as with The Royal Tenenbaums, The Life Aquatic and Darjeeling Limited, and they appear to be more of a fantasy world than reality. Bottle Rocket and also Rushmore are grounded in a lower class, youthful and naive reality, with two (three if you count Bob) lost souls trying to scrap together a place in this world.

Another strength of Bottle Rocket is the strong romantic element, which I Anderson has only come close to replicating with Rushmore. The fact that Anthony falls for a hotel housekeeper speaks to his desperation and to his benevolence. Most housekeepers are invisible, even to the lower classes. It speaks for Anthony’s character that not only he recognizes her, but he pursues her in the kindest, gentlest way possible, yet is genuinely infatuated.

One of my favorite scenes in all of Anderson’s movies is the pool scene where the romance is effectuated. The scene is beautifully lit and the pool is a gorgeous shade of blue. The camera angles are not linear, but not disruptive either. The way the scene is shot lends to the awkwardness and uncertainty of the characters, and the satisfaction for both of them once they finally act on their feelings for each other. The scene ends appropriately with Dignan interrupting them.

Dignan is the type of character that is easy to love and feel sorry for at the same time. He is ignorant, naïve, and not very self aware, but he is also charismatic and confident. He has qualities that everyone has to a certain degree, yet they are accentuated. He is like a more eccentric and less intelligent Max from Rushmore. He will say what he means, but he will instantly back down when it comes to a confrontation. His most endearing characteristic is his optimism and glass half-full outlook on life. I will not spoil the ending, but the fact that he utters the line “We did it” triumphantly to Anthony and Bob, just sums up everything about him. He gives another great line while in the midst of a heist – “They’ll never catch me because I’m fucking innocent.” He gets the best lines in the movie, as he should, because he’s …. well, he’s just Dignan.

Film Rating: 9/10

Supplements:

Commentary with Wes Anderson and Owen Wilson - They can barely remember the movie because they made it so long ago, but they still share a number of good stories. They weren’t sure whether they would cast the Wilson brothers because they had little acting experience and wouldn’t give the project much panache. The producers were the ones who convinced them. Jim Brooks thought Luke had a Montgomery Clift feel.

It was interesting that they cut roughly 20-minutes of an action sequence. This was Bob’s pot plant being discovered by police and them running away, much of which is in the deleted scenes. The odd part is that the remainder of the movie has very little action save for the very end, yet they cut the scene that had a lot of action because it simply didn’t fit.

They talk about the disastrous test screenings, and how they thought their film was funny, but discovered later that “there was not a big laugh in the movie.” They remembered one incredibly positive comment card out of 500 from that first screening where most people walked out. Anderson coincidentally met the person who wrote the card later and he recognized her because he cherished that card and kept it.

The Making of Bottle Rocket – This is mostly a series of interviews from the participants, since not much footage exists from the actual shooting. Anderson and the Wilsons talk about how young they were and how little they knew, but others say they were more professional and confident on the set. Andrew Wilson, for instance, says that they play possum because they knew exactly what they were doing. Interestingly enough, they were making $700 a week and $100 per diem during the production. They were kids and had never earned this type of money before, so a lot of people accused them of milking the production time to keep getting paid. The jury is still out whether that was the case, but they at least established the slow pace at which they would develop films. Anderson has never been in a major hurry, and that has helped his films retain a sense of quality.

Bottle Rocket, 1994 – This is the short 13-minute film that was recognized at Sundance. There are many similarities to the movie, such as the stealing of the earrings, playing pinball, the book store heist, and many more. For a student film, they do a good job and I can understand why people saw enough promise to give them a feature. It also looks inexpensive. For instance, they don’t show the bookstore robbery. They just show the actors talking about it later.

Deleted scenes – You can see the amateurism of the filmmaking from the deleted scenes far more than anything else, and they were smart to delete them. They would have slowed the movie down with irrelevancy. The pot chase was a fun scene, but most others were just distractions.

Photos and Storyboards – The photos were from Laura Wilson and encompassed the feature and the short. These stills are more for the die hard fans.

Shafrazi Lectures, No. 1: Bottle Rocket – For a critical commentary, this one was disorganized and inarticulate. He says some things about the characters, but mostly looks at random scenes and comments on them. Most of his comments are not very insightful, such “I love that,” for one or “I don’t like that” for another.

Murita Cycles, 1978) – This is Barry Braverman’s documentary about his father Murray. Braverman was a collaborator and friend of the filmmakers and this early work inspired them. You can tell that they modeled some of their characters from Murray. He is quirky and soft-spoken, and reminds me of some of the Bill Murray characters in later films. He is sort of a hoarder entrepreneur, yet is unafraid of getting himself dirty. Like a lot of Anderson characters, he is endearing and refreshing despite his flaws.

Criterion Rating: 9/10

[DSNT]

LES BLANK: ALWAYS FOR PLEASURE. PART ONE.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/criterion-production/release_boxshots/4303-e8334fc711d041e0f684e8cb875caa 82/737_BD_box_348x490_original.jp g

I’ll be tackling the Les Blank movies in the order they appear on the discs, which is mostly chronological. The first post is starting with four movies and their respective supplements, but it will probably be a mixture depending on the length and significance of each movie. Since there are fourteen in all, I expect about four long posts to cover the entire box set.

THE BLUES ACCORDING TO LIGHTNIN' HOPKINS, LES BLANK, 1970

This is actually Blank’s second musician documentary. The first is about Dizzy Gillespie, which is not included in the set. His portrait of Lightnin’ Hopkins is a fitting intro to his style. It is scored with the subject’s music, and there are a few interviews, but a lot of time is spent exploring the world in which he lives. There are scenes of people simply walking down the street, or people dancing to the music, riding horses, or doing many other activities that would not seem noteworthy to most, but fit in here.

While this is a portrait of the musician, it also explores the nature of the blues, hence the title. According to Hopkins, it is “hard to get acquainted with, just like death.” When you get a sad feeling, you can tell the world with song that you have the blues. To him and his friends, it is a deep, guttural expression of one’s misery. In one instance, he has his friend sing a blue song, who is literally crying when he sings.
These are not fake tears. The blues consumes him.

Blank just observes and listens to these people as they live through the music that is part of them.

Film Rating: 8/10

The Sun’s Gonna Shine, 1969 - This is a shorter, similar film about Lightnin’ Hopkins. It has more images of the small town of Centerville, TX set to his music. There are various, random faces, that are saying little or nothing to their camera, but they say plenty about their surroundings. For instance, there is one Gulf station employee sitting quietly and looking pensive. Blank explores the scenery more with this film, focusing on flowers, barbwire, and the landscapes. Another moving sequence is when a kid is running through sunflower fields with a guitar in his hand. He eventually reaches the train tracks and sits there. This child is behaving probably like Hopkins did at a young age.

Mister Charlie – Hopkins tells introduces and plays a song about a man whose mill burns down. This is good, singular example of how Hopkins can tell a story with a song.

Lightnin’ Les: Hopkins made up this song and performed it for Les Blank after deciding to make the documentary. They played cards the entire night before. Hopkins narrates the night and the decision making process. We know that he likely made up the words on the spot.

Making “Lightnin”: This is a brief documentary about the making of the film. They showed him the Dizzy Gillespie film to get him interested. At first he was skeptical, but they bonded over that card game. Of course Les let Lightnin’ win because the card game was not as important as the movie.

An Appreciation by Taylor Hackford – Hackford is not one of my favorite directors, but he has explored this type of filmmaking with his experience making Ray. He relates story from Ray about how Charles cared only about getting people out to their seats to dance. They gotta enjoy themselves “get drunk, dance and fuck” is what Ray said. While Lightnin’ Hopkins doesn’t say such a thing in the Blank documentary, you can tell that’s what he is going for. Hackford talks about how documentaries weren’t considered art back then, but Les Blank’s films were art and capture the essence of America.

GOD RESPECTS US WHEN WE WORK, BUT LOVES US WHEN WE DANCE, LES BLANK, 1968

This is a film about Los Angeles Elysian Park Love-in that took place in March of 1967. There is no dialogue in the film, just images of people dancing, playing, discretely engaging in drug use or sex, blowing bubbles, and just having a great time. As always, Blank’s documentaries capture a culture, and this is among the best representations of the hippie culture.

Blank is interested in the people. You see dozens up close, maybe even hundreds of them, but for short amounts of time. He gives different sorts of profile shorts; some from up front, and some from the side where they are oblivious to the camera.

The score begins with a harpsichord tunes that does not seem to fit the vibe, but it eventually transforms into hippie psychadelia. People are playing music in the park, whether as individuals (horns, whistles, saxophones) or as a collective (rock bands), but no audio from the actual event is shown on screen.

I would wager that 99% of the people captured in this film were high as a kite. He captures some of that. There are some profile images where you can just tell that someone his high by the vacant, lips widely parted stare. There are other scenes that you can tell from their behavior. There is one person who is looking at the crowd through a kaleidoscope, and then Blank’s camera captures that same visual, showing a distorted view of the people.

He primarily wants to convey the images of love, dancing and enjoyment. The movie is bookended by a brunette dancing girl wearing a red shirt and carrying flowers. Perhaps Les thought she was attractive or just that she embodied the culture. He shows her at the beginning, during the middle, and at the end. He shows a lot of signage, most of which has words of love. He shows many shots of flowers and as much dancing as possible. Probably half the film is just people dancing. In some scenes they are dancing aggressively, wearing face and body paint with hippie imagery. At other times they are dancing playfully, like when groups of people are holding hands and running around, which maybe shouldn’t be considered dancing at all. Regardless of one’s opinion of the short-lived hippie movement, Les Blank captures its essence.

Film Rating: 8/10

Flower Power, 2014 – This is a short documentary about the hippie film. Harrod Blank, Les’ son, said he filmed flowers and women his whole life. This short was originally made for a PBS station. As Skip Gerson, producer, retells, it was shown once on TV and then re-cut to the movie we know today. He said that all historical documentaries about the 60s include a shot from the Les Blank short.

SPEND IT ALL, LES BLANK, 1970

Of the documentaries I’ve seen thus far from Les Blank, this is my favorite. It is about the Cajun culture of Southwest Louisiana. The film begins with title cards telling the history of how the Acadia people from Canada were exiled from their homes and re-settled in Louisiana. They were a peaceful bunch and preferred not to fight, and that tradition continues with much of their culture intact, even if some of it has been lost to modernity.

Just about every American knows about the delectable Cajun foods, but probably few understand its culture. I thought I did, having studied some in college, but seeing it from Les Blank’s perspective taught me more than any class I could ever take.

These are people that can live off the land. They are shown engaging in numerous activities involving food, from harvesting oysters, shrimp or fish from the waters, to butchering and cooking a pig. Food is a major part of their culture. In one scene a man talks about a homemade dish of venison sausage, rabbit meat that is cooked in a red sauce and later poured over Cajun rice. He said this is their version of spaghetti.

There are two major themes to be found in this documentary. The first is that the people are kind-hearted, peaceful, and brotherly. One of them proudly says that he has “yet to meet a stranger in my life.” They watch out for each other, and most importantly play and celebrate together, and those festivities usually involve music and food of some variety.

The other theme is about the trappings of modernity. These people are unique because their land is rich enough that they did not have to work, at least not in the modern sense. One of the subjects spends his time and money participating in local horse races. He says that he makes nothing out of it, because he has to invest so much in the horses, but he is not doing it for money. He is doing it because it is what he enjoys it. That is the Cajun way – to spend your money doing what you love.

The times are changing. The older people did not have to work or go to school. They lived off the land, but many have to work out of necessity. One subject drives a bus and sells life insurance, but he still engages in the culture and celebrations on the weekends. Another is a musician that has his own music shop, but this is something he enjoys Even if it is considered working, it is something he enjoys. What he likes about Cajun culture is that they are free. He had been in prison for one day and had distaste for losing that freedom. Working for someone else is also a way of losing that freedom. He cannot think of living in downtown New York City, wearing a suit and working in an office. That would be tantamount to being in a prison.

One of the most memorable and shocking scenes is when a group of Cajuns are sitting around, getting ready to enjoy a nice meal, when one of them takes a pair of pliers and pulls his own tooth out right on camera. He spits the blood out and says “I feel better already.” The tooth had been bothering him for days. “Now I have more room in my mouth,” he says joyfully, showing that he has other dental vacancies in his mouth. Even though a lot of people would see a lack of dental care and other facilities as a shortcoming to this lifestyle, they do not seem to mind.

Film Rating: 9/10

An Appreciation by Werner Herzog - Herzog was influenced by Les Blank, specifically the Spend it All film, and he borrowed the tooth-pulling scene from one of his narrative films. He likes that Blank filmed people on the fringes of society, not in the mainstream, and you can see that Herzog has carried that tradition to a certain degree in his own documentary filmmaking. He shares one example where they were filming in Antarctica, and someone wondered how to describe and explain this place to America and elsewhere. Borrowing again from Les Blank, he said nothing needs to be explained. It can just be shown.

Blank famously shot the documentary Burden of Dreams, which is about Herzog working with Klaus Kinski on the Amazonian epic, Fitzcarraldo. Blank would just quietly observe. At one time, Herzog told Les that they were about to have an eventful scene, and Blank responded that “I’m not here to film events.”

A WELL SPENT LIFE, LES BLANK, 1970

This time Les Blank looks at another Texas blues musician, Mance Lipscomb. Mance is an engaging and peaceful interview subject, and shares some of his story. He was 75 years old and had lived his life as a farmer and sharecropper. Some time passes before we learn what a fantastic musician he is, although his music is the soundtrack the entire time. He is a friend with someone named “Peg Leg” who, as you might guess, is missing a leg.

Mance talks less about his music and more about his feelings on life. He has two Greyhound dogs, which might be considered a rich breed, but they catch rabbits, which he can then sell for $1 apiece. He said that the hunt is the fun part, so if he catches six or seven, then he gets $6-7, but for $100 worth of enjoyment.

Just like with Lightnin’ Hopkins, Blank shows random scenes while the music plays. For example, one time he shows a lady just checking her mailbox. Again, he makes the ordinary look extraordinary. He shows another scene with a construction crew digging a hole to put in a telephone pole, while the lyrics from his music says “the bossman works me so hard, cannot even sleep.”

For the last 11 years Mance has been pretty free, enjoying life, able to play where he wants. It is not revealed in the documentary, but we find out from the supplements that this is due to him being discovered in 1960 and getting a record contract. Mance clearly does not see this as getting rich or successful. It is just a means to do what he enjoys.

Recalling a theme that came up in Spend it All, he talks about the trappings of modernity and the speed of life. “We living a fast life now.“ This is in the context of Mance talking about how they would play baseball in a field and make do with ordinary objects rather than using mitts and balls. This wouldn’t change how much fun they have. Today, in this fast life, the equipment is necessary and kids don’t play with it anymore. The only time we hear Blank speak is when he asks Mance to place a value on the speed of life. He responds without hesitation that the fast life is a negative thing.

Many of Mance’s musings are philosophical. He thinks and talks about his own mortality. In the final, unforgettable scene, he tells the, that “you won’t find another Mance.” He is in extreme close-up for this shot, and we see his eyes wander, ruminating on the gravity of what he just said. He then looks directly at the camera, and it freezes on him.

Film Rating: 7.5

No Man Like Mance, 2014 – This is another behind-the-scenes look at the documentary. Again, Blank captured the people and the environment as much as he did the musician. Skip Gerson said that they spent 4-5 weeks for the Cajun film and this one took 2 weeks with Mance. Mance was different than Lightnin’. He was a preserver of songs, whereas Lightnin’ made stuff up as he was going along. They did not have a plan for the documentary, but instead played it by ear. Gerson says that Blank shot a lot of film, and especially a lot of B roll, He tries to capture what resonated for him.

Meeting Mance – Chris Strachwitz, who was a friend of Blank’s and founded a Texan record label talks about meeting Mance in the 1960s. He drove out to country to find blues singers. “Do you know of guitar pickers in these parts?” They sent him to Navasota, TX. Was sent to look for “Peg Leg,” who introduced them to Mance. At first he was not crazy about Mance because he played traditional songs and not the guttural, mean blues like Lightnin’ Hopkins, but the musicality was there and he gave Mance a contract. That was in 1960 and was the beginning of the 11 years that Mance speaks fondly of in the movie.

[DSNT]

SAFE, TODD HAYNES, 1995

http://s3.amazonaws.com/criterion-production/release_boxshots/4309-d81cf3d384870e3952d46c2fe8d811 2a/739_BD_box_348x490_original.jp g

[Safe is not your everyday 90s independent film. About the only thing it has in common with the most celebrated films from the era is the miniscule budget. That is not meant as a slight against what was an innovative film movement, but merely a way of setting Todd Haynes’ project apart. It is the outlier of the movement, and like many outliers before it, has come to be recognized over time.

Let’s face it, Safe is bleak. It is about the degradation of everything in a human being’s life. Carol goes from a materialistic housewife, albeit an unhappy one, to a state of constant suffering that necessitates a rejection of the modern world. We feel for Carol with every cough, every sneeze, and yes, every time she vomits.

However depressing, it is also a beautiful world. We can thank Todd Haynes and Alex Nepomniaschy for creative such a visually stunning world without spending much money. Haynes’ shot construction and Nepomniaschy’s lighting complement each other. Haynes likes to fill the shot with a lot of empty space, which gives a good director of photography plenty of room to achieve the light and draw our attention to the focal point of the scene. One such example is when Carol frantically pulls into a parking garage in the midst of a couching fit. The sequence ends with a long shot of her car in the garage. We hear her coughing, but all we see is the car, alone and detached in the distance. The lighting does not draw attention to itself because it creates the illusion of the unflattering and dull light of a parking garage, but in this sequence, it captures a visual beauty that portrays a sickness.

Because of budget restraints, Haynes uses a lot of long takes, but that really works for this type of film. Another remarkably framed scene is early on in the house. The scene begins with a long shot of the living room. Carol is on the phone in a tiny corner of the frame, yet it is dominated by the ostentatious display of their interior decorating. The point Haynes is making is that Carol is consumed by the materialism of this world of the 20th century. As the shot continues, she moves closer to the camera, which tracks slowly backward outside of the room to reveal a doorframe. Carol makes her way to the door and when the shot ends, she is framed inside it as if she is a woman in a box. For those who have seen the film a couple of times, the film language highlights the central theme, and foreshadows how the plot will unravel.

Safe is one of those films that you can pause at just around any shot and find the still image visually striking. In that sense, it reminds me in a certain way of an Orson Welles film (not that I am comparing these two filmmakers), because his movies also had the quality of working as still images. Not too many of Haynes’ 90s contemporaries have that same aesthetic. Filmmakers like Tarantino, Sayles, Soderberg and others that found independent success in the early 90s were more concerned with creating a mood, often one of grittiness, and were not consumed by visual imagery. Those that would come, like Paul Thomas Anderson and Wes Anderson were more interested in framing and shot construction, and possibly were very likely inspire by Haynes’ Safe

It is no secret that the message of the movie is that of AIDs. The autoimmune disorder of Carol being ‘allergic’ to the 20th century is simply a façade for the real illness that was permeating the world of the filmmakers. This message is clear from watching it more than once, and Haynes and Vachon speak of their intent openly. They wanted to make a film about AIDs. In case there’s any doubt, it is erased by Carol’s final image where she clearly has Kaposi’s sarcoma on her forehead. This happens to be the cover art.

In hindsight, the AIDs epidemic is compelling. We live in an era where the disease is still not cured, but at least is in control. People are not dying from it like they were in the 1980s, at least not in this country. I could discuss this film and talk about nothing other than AIDs, but I’m going to pass on that temptation. It has been discussed plenty enough already, and I think there is more to reveal behind even the AIDs reading of the film, much of which Haynes intended even if he did not say so explicitly.

A bulletin board advertisement asks: “Are you allergic to the 20th century?” This is the turning point of the movie. Previously Carol has been mostly in denial about her illness, even if it is clear from her symptoms that it exists, regardless what her doctor says. When she reads this ad, it is as if a light bulb is turned on in her mind. She IS allergic to the 20th century. As she further explores this program and others, that belief is reinforced. It is not just the culture of materialism and the social mores that she has trouble fitting in with, but her body is explicitly rejecting the chemicals.

The movie transitions from inaction to action, as Carol sets herself on a course to remedy her illness. We know where that will eventually take us, but the process reveals a lot about the world in which Carol, Haynes, Vachon, and Julianne Moore lived.

Eventually she lands in a retreat, which resembles a 12-step program facility. If you’ve known anyone in the program, you will know that it can work to curb addiction, but it also has a rhetoric and jargon that goes along with it. There is one scene where Carol is speaking with her friend Linda in a café. Previously in the movie, she was pensive and nervous when speaking in public, even if it was just with a close friend. Now she has a script to read from. She has bought into the program and is one of its strongest advocates. In this sense, her anti-chemical refuge resembles a cult. This is her Jonestown (without the Kool Aid).

Doctor Dunning is the Wrenwood program leader, and he is quite the curious figure. He seems like a charming enough person. He speaks well and proves to be a good leader. Is he a good person? That’s not so clear. When he is not speaking to the crowd, he seems to be more concerned whether people are buying into the program, whether they are rejecting the outside world. In a candid conversation with Carol, he reveals as much. In one speech he speaks of keeping one’s mind open, and then later, he tells his people to shut it tight. He even goes so far as to say that he has stopped reading the news or watching television because he cannot bear to see what is happening to the world.

This transition in his message can parallel many totalitarian leaders. While Haynes is using AIDs and other autoimmune disorders as his main thrust, he is rejecting the groupthink that encompassed a lot of social movements during the day. To a lesser extent, this can be construed as rehabilitation programs, but I think the ultimate recipient of the scorn, and the one that he would not admit to, is Scientology. There are even many references to becoming ‘clear’ of chemicals, which is the essence of the Scientology message. During the 1990s when this movie was put together, the church was not as powerful in Hollywood as it was now. John Travolta and Tom Cruise had not yet signed on, but it did have a strong presence. And it was not the only type of post-modern, trendy social movement. There were many like it. Haynes is warning us not to blindly trust demagogues who would suggest that we close our eyes and shut out the world.

Of course I cannot talk about this movie without discussing Julianne Moore, in what was unequivocally her breakout performance. Today we know her as one of the top actresses of her generation, but back then, she was an up-and-comer that had just had her start working with artistic auteurs in Short Cuts. Moore has had quite a career, and has given two of her best performances to Todd Haynes (the other is Far From Heaven, which I would LOVE to see on Criterion). In my opinion, this is the best performance of her career. Her great acting is especially on display when she is acting sick, but I found her strongest in the first act when she is pretending not to be sick for fear of social or marital ostracization. Her face is often expressionless with a hint of fear, her speech soft and nervous. She seems to be on the brink of falling apart at any moment, yet somehow she manages to hold it in. That makes the times where she does break down even more powerful. Even with Haynes’ remarkable direction, it is hard to imagine the staying power of Safe without Julianne Moore.

Film Rating: 8/10

Supplements:

Commentary: – This commentary was recorded with Haynes, Moore and Vachon in 2001. This was probably around the time they were filming Far From Heaven together, perhaps after it wrapped and they were in the same place at the same time. Oddly enough, Julianne had never seen the final cut of Safe before.

Haynes reveals that a lot of scenes were shot at his grandfather’s place. After all, despite how the film looks, they had to save money. The opening shot where they drive up is on way to their house. Much of Carol and Greg’s house was shot in his grandfather’s house, like the kitchen and living room. Even the furniture company is their office. Throughout the commentary, he reveals that a lot of the extras were people that worked in the film in some capacity. They simply didn’t have a lot of money to pay people for small roles.

Moore tried to speak without using vocal cords too much, so she would breath her dialog. This gave a hint of fragility and sickness, and really enhanced her performance. They shot out of order and Moore had to lose a lot of weight for the ending scenes, which is remarkable given that she is in just about every shot.

There is a scene where Moore covers her face in Xander Berkeley’s shoulder and starts a coughing attack. She then vomits. You would think that the vomit was planted there, but no, that came from her. They highlight her process for that in the commentary. Most actresses would not attempt such a thing, but Moore gave everything to this role.

A lot of the shooting was during and after the big 1993 earthquake. That derailed a lot of their exterior shooting plans. The scenes in Wrenwood were shot in the Simi Valley, which was near the epicenter. There was an earthquake aftershock tremor that interrupts her final speech where she stumbles. It was probably a huge ordeal working around such a calamity with a shoestring budget. It is amazing that the film came out so good.

The Suicide, 1978 – This is a Todd Haynes short film, made when he was a child. For his age, he was already a talented filmmaker. The premise is a child is attempting suicide in a bathroom, and it flashes back to school confrontations and other problems that motivated the decision. It looks very because it was not shot on expensive film stock, and it is clearly amateur, but it shows a filmmaking and editing prowess.

Todd Haynes and Julianne Moore – This is a 2014 conversation between the two where they reflect on their career together that began with Safe. She aggressively wanted the part and auditioned in a T-shirt. They show the audition tape. The art in Safe, according to Haynes, is inverted. It followed the “cinematic trope,” as he puts it, but turns the formula on its head.

There were some TV articles in the 80s describing “environmental illness” or “20th century illness” Haynes had seen them and questioned whether they were authentic. Of course AIDs was at the forefront of his mind. He says that due to the time, you cannot think of Safe or his first feature, Poison without thinking of the epidemic.

Christine Vachon Interview – She was producer for Poison and Safe. They got together when he was editing Superstar. She saw the talent of Haynes and wanted to work with him. She put together a production company and went for a more ambitious project with Safe. She talks about auditioning process with Julianne, and how agent didn’t want her to read, but Haynes asked her to read when they met and she was glad to.

She talks about the AIDs virus and the affect it had on their community. He wanted to confront topic without dating itself, yet the LGBT community rejected the movie because it was not “gay enough. They wanted something more direct. Critics were not warm to it at first, but they came around. It made top ten lists that year, and by the end of the 1990s it had been understood and praised.

Criterion Rating: 8.5/10

[DSNT]

TOOTSIE, SIDNEY POLLACK, 1982

http://s3.amazonaws.com/criterion-production/release_boxshots/4305-7a55e98c99978718640daeb4eed478 dc/738_BD_box_348x490_original.jp g

At one time in my life, I spent a year living in North Hollywood. It was almost like living on a different planet. Even though the northern side of Laurel Canyon and Mulholland Drive is more suburban sprawl, it is inexorably linked with the film industry. Most of the people I worked with had some aspiration of working in Hollywood. Many had written scripts; others had dabbled into acting, while others were more interested in the technical side of things. When we went to lunch, the waiters and waitresses were gorgeous. We didn’t have to guess which ones arrived with the hope of becoming celebrities.

Most of the people I met didn’t make it in the business. Most won’t. It is a cutthroat industry and there simply aren’t enough jobs out there for the people who want for them. If people had dedicated their lives and failed, I could see them doing something absurd or even unscrupulous as a result of such desperation.

That sort of desperation is where Tootsie comes in. It takes place in New York, but that makes it even more complicated. There is a film industry, but there is also Broadway and television work. In the case of Michael Dorsey, he was brought up as a New York “actor’s actor.” He had undeniable credibility and some ambition, but was suffering because of his inability to make compromises. When the truth hits him, when he hits the bottom of his career, he arrives at the ultimate compromise and both a comical and absurd way of “selling out.” He becomes a woman.

Even though Tootsie is a mainstream comedy with a ridiculous premise, it touches on a number of realities. The fact that actors face such an uphill battle when it comes to career choice is a minor reality. It is more the reality of gender roles and inequality that drives this movie and is the source of the comedy. It also speaks to the reality of the times. It came out on the heels of the women’s liberation movement. Society had progressed by that time and there was more equality in the workplace, but it was (and to a certain degree still is) a man’s world – and that’s not only in the entertainment industry. Tootsie turns the idea of inequality on its head. It is the man that has to change roles in order to further his stagnating career. As a woman, he has a sense of security.

Tootsie could not be made today, at least not in the way it was made in the 1980s. In some ways it would be too tame today, since transsexualism is becoming more commonplace. As I write this, a show about a transsexual-themed show just won a Golden Globe award. We also live in a more political correct world. The idea of someone being objectified is not as prevalent today thanks to countless sexual harassment lawsuits. It probably does happen, but a boss would have a hard time getting away with calling a female employee Tootsie, or pinching her bottom, or placing her in a situation where she has to kiss someone against her will. Things are different today. While Tootsie was an effective comedy in the 80s, it is funny today in a nostalgic and dated sense. It is like we are watching an older world being poked and prodded.

In some ways, Tootsie is an anti-feminist movie. Dorsey is a scoundrel of a man, someone who will use the same line on three women at a party, and will use privileged information under the guise of Dorothy to try to get a woman into the sack with Dorsey. He is morally weak, and the fact that he uses womanhood to jumpstart his career is in itself chauvinistic. He is depriving other capable women from the same opportunity, one of which is a friend of his who he casually sleeps with while he longs for another woman.

The character arc of Dorsey makes him become feminist to a certain degree, at least much as someone from his beginning mindset could in the early 1980s. He realizes that women have challenges and that not everything is a bed of roses. They are objectified, ridiculed, and they are not expected to retaliate. He gives advice to Julie (Jessica Lange) to stand up to her ill-behaved boyfriend (whose actions aren’t dissimilar from Dorsey’s), yet she fails to stand up for herself. Julie doesn’t have a backbone, yet Sandy (Teri Garr) has just as forceful a personality as Dorsey, yet she is lied to, cheated on, and treated with complete disrespect.

As a film, Tootsie is decent. The filmmaking is not particularly inspired and they rely a great deal on montages. The soundtrack, most notably the annoyingly catchy “It Might Be You” song is also dated. It is elevated by a brave gender-bending performance from Dustin Hoffman, some terrific improvising from Bill Murray, and a witty script.

Film Rating: 6.5/10

Supplements:

Commentary: This one took place in 1991 with Sidney Pollock for the original laserdisc. This was in the infancy of audio commentaries and it shows, although we learn some new and interesting things about the production.

The script had believability problems from the beginning. They had to establish that Dorsey had the chops to pull off acting as a woman. They spent the beginning of the movie and the first of many montages as exposition to establish his credibility as an actor.

The first shot of Hoffman as Tootsie was a risk because it is a jump in time. They had some logical problems because they did not show expositional shots of the mental and physical process of his deciding to become a woman. He simply appears in costume. Later they would show a montage with him doing the makeup and transitioning from a man to a woman. I think it was more effective the way Pollock shot it. It is a great, abrupt and funny entrance for Dorothy Michaels.

Interviews

Dustin Hoffman – He was self-critical. He was fighting with Pollock on the set. One thing he wanted was a more farcical scene in the bedroom with Lange, but there were many other fights. He talks about how people generally get casts as character actors unless they are lucky enough to get famous. The Graduate got some reviews that said Dustin was ugly. He says that what defines a good piece of work is it doesn’t date. He feels The Graduate and Tootsie do not date. I agree with the former, but not the latter.

Phil Rosenthal, Everyone Loves Raymond creator – The “guy in a dress” is oldest gag in world, going back to Ancient Greece, but Tootsie works because he sets up the scenario in a modern world that a man would go to that length. Tootsie is a sitcom, believable people in incredible situations. They chose a soap opera because it is believable that an actor can get that role, can get stuck in that role, and can have a live, televised scenario. He says the movie is not a lesson in feminism, but Dorsey becoming a better man.

Dorothy Michaels and Gene Shalit – This was a silly and unused interview from the movie. It invents a theatrical background for Dorothy, who has mixed feelings about being in a soap but has to make some money. “Do you feel that you are Emily?” “I feel that I am Dorothy Michaels playing that part.” She even asks Shalit out.

The Making of Tootsie, 2002 –It shows Pollock & Hoffman fighting about the creative elements, which Dustin alludes to in his interview. They both acknowledge that the fighting was productive. Pollock talks about how stressful the business can be. This was his 13th film and they get harder and create more anxiety.

A Better Man: The Making of Tootsie, 2007 – This is a longer documentary and uses much of the footage from 2002. The idea began with a story of a tennis player that was unranked and then changed into a woman and became ranked. Murray stated the backbone of the movie: “about someone who becomes a better man by imitating a woman.” That premise was what got Pollock to do the movie.

Pollock did not want to act in the film, and he even talks about how difficult it was in the commentary. Dustin really wanted him in the part. He sent Pollock daily roses to convince him to act: “Please be my agent” – signed Dorothy.

Development delays eliminated the rehearsal time and caused some problems on set. This may have benefited the film as there were lots of exchanged ideas on set, some of which created animosity between Pollock and Hoffman, but sometimes they would laugh too.

Lange was not a comedic actress and did not have the capability of playing comedic. According to Garr, Lange simply wasn’t funny. So she played it straight and it worked. Bill Murray saved for last three weeks of shooting because “they wanted something in the can” first. Murray’s behavior was unpredictable, and at point on set he thrashed his room.

Deleted scenes – Like with most deleted scenes, you can understand why they were cut. The best scene here was when Sandy (Garr) intrudes on Hoffman and he plays sick. He uses oven mitts to cover his nail polish and she finds a garter that he cannot explain.

Wardrobe / Makeup tests – These were for Hal Ashby, who was initially going to direct. This test had Hoffman wearing a nurses uniform and speaking in character, but without the voice he would use in the film. There was also silent footage of him walking in costume.

Criterion Rating: 7/10

[dreamdead]

Everything you identify about Tootsie's gender politics are absolutely why I feel so utterly angry, when I'm not ambivalent, about it. The dismissive treatment of Garr spits in the face of the uplift about Lange, and the fact that the film chooses to gloss over that fact is precisely why it's depressing for the film to be viewed as a great film.

It's got good intentions, and Murray's good, and I'm intrigued about what Elaine May added to it, but the final product is so damn regressive that I can't shake my animosity toward it.

[DSNT]

A lot of the anti-feminist stuff I touched on was commonplace in the 80s. A true transgender movie like the type we might see today was practically unheard of in mainstream. This one floats along under the guise of a sensitive movie that is positive towards woman because of the "becoming a better man" arc, but I don't buy that. He bamboozled the girl, screwed over another one, and got away with it.

It isn't particularly deep either, which is why I am surprised it has been canonized (and Criterionized) .. but it is funny at least.

[Irish]

Uh, do you take requests?

Please buy this & review on release :D

http://www.criterion.com/boxsets/1104-eclipse-series-42-silent-ozu-three-crime-dramas

[Irish]

We also live in a more political correct world. The idea of someone being objectified is not as prevalent today thanks to countless sexual harassment lawsuits. It probably does happen, but a boss would have a hard time getting away with calling a female employee Tootsie, or pinching her bottom, or placing her in a situation where she has to kiss someone against her will. Things are different today.

I don't think Tootsie could be made today for the same reason that something like All in the Family couldn't be made today-- both concepts would die a death from a thousand cuts. These are subversive comedies told from the point of view of the privileged, and they sympathize enormously with that privilege while satirizing its cruder elements. That's the real problem with them. It's not so much that they weren't politically correct.

I disagree that the world is different today. Frankly, any place there are white guys ages 25+ with money and a little taste of power, you'll see overt examples of racism and sexism. I've brushed up against Hollywood, Silicon Valley, and Wall Street and met plenty of good people. But I've also met the other kind. They are direct and unaware about the things they say and it's always ugly and shocking... And nobody ever calls them on it.

Tootsie's brand of sexism is crass and unsubtle and that's where a lot of its humor comes from. I dunno if it's regressive.

There's a key scene where the head "doctor" on the soap runs roughshod over social convention and pushes his way int Dororthy's apartment. Jeff comes home early and saves the scene from becoming truly ugly, and the doctor-actor leaves. Jeff makes a couple of jokes about it but Dorothy cuts him off--- "That's not funny. Rape is never a laughing matter."

I can't call Tootsie so horribly regressive when it does things like that so effortlessly. In one sequence the movie portrayed the bullshit micro-aggressions women put up with daily (and never talk about) and called out rape culture on top of that. In my mind, that makes it about 20 or 30 years ahead of its time.

Dreamdead raised a good point about Garr, but her character is also the key to Michael/Dorothy's arc. How he treats her changes over the course of the movie, and that change is brought about by Michael's growing empathy, empathy he gets from playing Dorothy. (The incredible part about it is that Garr's character doesn't stick out like a sore thumb. She doesn't feel tacked on or incidental to the movie's story or Michael's life.)

What always surprises me about many movies from this period is how loosely they're structured. They don't feel like they're written to trailer moments or act breaks. Their stories feel organic in ways that modern movies really don't.

The other thing that surprises me is they started this thing without a finished script. It's amazing that it plays as well as it does.

[DSNT]

Uh, do you take requests?

Please buy this & review on release :D

http://www.criterion.com/boxsets/1104-eclipse-series-42-silent-ozu-three-crime-dramas

Soooooo tempting. Right now I'm not doing Eclipse releases, simply because Criterion takes up enough of my time and money. I only have the Early Bergman and some of the Lubitsch. I probably won't change this soon, but the Ozu set looks great. The only silent feature of his I've seen is A Story of Floating Weeds which is exquisite.

If anyone would like to write or discuss Eclipse titles, then be my guest.

[DSNT]

THE NIGHT PORTER, LILIANA CAVANI, 1974

http://s3.amazonaws.com/criterion-production/release_boxshots/4314-efaaf459ea26083478beb1cd4d613e 45/59_BD_box_348x490_original.jpg

I knew going in that The Night Porter was controversial. What I didn’t expect was for it to be so perplexing, confusing and illogical. It is certainly artistic, brave and creative filmmaking, but it is also needlessly provocative, tasteless, and in some ways insulting. I’m not referring to the nude scenes, most of which are tame given the Italian cinematic landscape of the time (see any early 1970s Pasolini film for an example). What is unsettling is the way two people deal with their tragic memories of captor and prisoner.

From a filmmaking perspective, Cavani is right there with the best of peers from the era. The film looks tremendous, especially in this restored Blu-Ray version. She uses crooked angles for many of her shots, which adds to the disturbing nature of the narrative as it unfolds. She shoots in a darker hue, with lots of muted blues, greys and blacks, which looks great, yet is consistent with the mood of the primary characters.

Most of the early film consists of a back-and-forth between the war years and a Vienna hotel, where one of the Nazi camp leaders, Max, works as a night porter. He encounters one of his prisoners, Lucia, who recognizes him and that triggers some terrible memories.

The flashbacks are of the harsh realities of the war. There is one scene where Germans are taking shots at kids on a swing set, disturbing because it combines a playful, jovial activity with atrocity and murder. There is another scene where a large group of prisoners are stripped naked in a room and examined by the Nazis. This is not an erotic scene, but instead one of abject humiliation.

The best and most effective scene comes about a third into the film, and is the best example of contrasting horror with beauty. Both Max and Lucia are attending a performance of Mozart’s The Magic Flute. They see each other in the audience, and again the memories are triggered. The wonderful, uplifting music continues in the background as we see a woman’s dormitory, crowded with cots a few feet away from each other. Lucia is lying in one cot as a German soldier is raping another woman within earshot. There are other powerful flashbacks, such as an instance where her captor inserts two fingers into her mouth, simulating fellatio. She looks fearful and apprehensive as this happens, still with the joyful music playing in the background. When we see her in the audience of the performance, her face is solemn and she looks distracted. This is not a pleasant memory to re-live.

From there the plot takes a left turn into the perplexing territory that I noted above. There are a group of former Nazis that Max belongs to. Most of them are proud of their deeds, yet Max feels shame. They know of the “witness” to their crimes and agree that she needs to be eradicated. The audience would expect Max to act according to the orders of his peers, but he defies them. Soon enough we will discover why.

This is where I have problems with the film. Max and Lucia are in love. He calls her “my little girl,” confesses his love, and they rekindle their romantic and sexual relationship in the hotel. Lucia reciprocates the love, yet there are still grossly disturbing flashbacks, like her singing a song bare-breasted for the German soldiers, and receiving a severed human head as her reward. This is what is baffling. The Stockholm Syndrome is a real thing and may have happened to a certain extent during the war, but being a captor of the Nazis is not the same as Patty Hearst being captured by the SLA.

Together they rebel against the Nazi conspirators that want to silence Lucia. He wants to save her, while she does not want to expose him. They want to live together even if circumstances, society, and their wartime past makes that an impossibility. They become the prisoners, and the post-war society is their captors.

Even though this turn defies logic, I am willing to forgive it to a certain degree because Cavani is using the horrors of war and imprisonment to make an artistic point about post-war society. She goes out of her way to reveal Max’s shame for his actions, and how he is protecting his “little girl” as a sort of penance, while Lucia is masochistically re-living a version of the worst years of her life in order to support him. They suffer in the hotel room because of their isolation and inability to escape. They starve, just like the prisoners during the war were starved. This could be read as society being imprisoned in 1958 by not being able to come to terms with the terror, with some who participated in the torture quietly being prideful of their actions, and the sufferers still haunted and unable to deal with the transformed world.

In this last paragraph I am going to spoil the ending, so please stop reading here if you have not seen the film.

Lucia had no option to leave her captivity during the war. The Germans, including Max, would not allow it. In 1958, he even chains her to the room, which is unnecessary since she is committed to remaining with him. Together, they have limited options. If she goes to the authorities, Max will be discovered and punished. Max has no options that do not involve killing Lucia, since she is the witness. Their only avenue is to leave willingly, famished, with barely enough energy to move one leg in front of the other. Their ending is inevitable and tragic, as they are shot in cold blood as they try to cross the bridge. We can tell from their body language that they have accepted this ending as inevitable. In some respects, this is also Cavani attempting a form of closure. The captor and the prisoner are gone, however tragic, but life goes on. The world needs to accept what was terrible and move on.

Film Rating: 7/10


Supplements


Introduction to Women of the Resistance – Cavani introduces the film and says that The Night Porter originated with this documentary project for TV. She had watched a lot of western footage between 1940-1945, but could not get any footage from the Eastern Block. She says it is the only resistance documentary that focuses on women.

Women of the Resistance, 1965

Much of the documentary consists of archival footage and interviews with women who were directly involved. The images are not sharp, but that probably has more to do with the TV format rather than any restoration issues.

As with anything about the war, this is difficult and not altogether pleasant to watch, but it is rewarding. There are difficult issues that the women discuss, and one simply refused to discuss her own situation because it was too difficult.

The film begins with letters that imprisoned women write to their family hours before they are to die. All of the letters are powerful. One example: “Don’t think of me as being any different from any soldier on the battlefield.”

The resistance began in France and united all against the anti-fascist parties. Many were killed in the resistance, men and women. The women that participated were sometimes in service roles, but they also served as effective partisan fighters. Just like with the men, they suffered harsh treatment and persecution if they did not go along with the fascist regimes. Of the female resisters, 623 were shot while 3,000 were deported to Germany. The captured women were beaten, had their hair pulled out, starved, and suffered countless other tortures. One lady tried to make earplugs out of her clothing in order to not hear the screaming. They did not work so she tried to kill herself.

There are many topics in the documentary that would form the narrative of The Night Porter . While many of the subjects did not describe the sexual torture on camera, Cavani likely heard many such stories and chose not to broadcast them. Starvation of course becomes a theme, as Lucia and Max are unable to obtain food, not even from their neighbors, yet they live in a free society and have money. In the documentary, the ladies talk about how they were starved and many would die from hunger. One way they were tortured was by being tantalized by delicious food that they would not be allowed to eat. This comes into play in The Night Porter with the jam that Lucia eats ravenously. She sees it on the counter and cannot contain herself. The only difference is that in this captivity, she is allowed to eat what is in the room, but nothing else.

Most of the stories are tragic and painful, but there is an undercurrent of gratitude towards women who served and satisfaction from the participants. After the war, these women are remembered for their service and bravery. One person states that the women were sometimes sent in with the front lines because they simply had more courage than the men. All women that survived are proud of their experience and their service, even if the memories are filled with sorrow. Most importantly there is still a sense of duty to be watchful and wary of the potential of fascism and racism to come back. We know from history that it does not happen again, at least not anywhere close to the extent that it happened in the war.

Film Rating: 7.5/10

Liliana Cavani 2014 interview – She knew right away that she wanted Rampling or Mia Farrow to star in the lead role. She made the right choice as Rampling was brilliant. She did not want the female character to be Jewish because she did not want it to be about race. Instead, Lucia was the “daughter of a socialist.” She had to make the movie as a tragedy because of the era. It was not possible to make a happy film about this topic.

She speaks about the controversy surrounding the film. Catholics came out against the film, although they were not bothered by the torture or misogyny. They were simply against the sex.

Criterion Rating: 7.5/10

[DSNT]

My first reaction to The Night Porter was hatred, and initially I rated it a 4/10. The one thing about Criterion is that they provoke thought and re-evaluation. This one wasn't heavy with special features, but they were enough to let me re-think the film and finally "get it."

It isn't practical to have a queue, but here are some that I'll be watching soon:

The Complete Monterey Pop
L'Avventura
The Bitter Tears of Petra Von Kant
Les Blank: Always for Pleasure

I'm trying to catch up on the new releases, but need some Jimi Hendrix to wash my brain after Cavani.

[Irish]

I watched about 20 minutes of Night Porter once and turned it off. I always meant to get back to it but never have. Your essay may convince me to do that.

Aside: The Criterion cover specifically downplays Nazi iconography, while the original poster and VHS cover did the opposite. I think this is an interesting design choice, especially because both of them pushed a certain passive sexual element.

[Irish]

Curiously, Ebert gave this thing 1 star-- http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/the-night-porter-1975

I'm not saying his angle on it is "correct," but I do enjoy the fiery way he approaches the review.

[DSNT]

Yeah, I had read his review and a couple others. Many friends hate it. There's a lot of hatred and vitriol towards the film and it isn't one I would really recommend. My first reaction was the same and I was tempted to turn it off like you. But after peeling away the layers and learning more about Cavani, I felt there's no way she could be portraying the characters in this way as anything other than allegory.

[DSNT]

And I really like the Criterion cover because it is more in tune with the look and feel of the film. I think the original cover was too jarring and aggressive with the Nazi iconography. Even though the film is clearly about Naziism, it is more about the characters and that is captured better in Rampling's look.

[Russ]

Monterey Pop is a great concert piece, but it's an even better film. Lightning in a bottle is capturing the stunned look on Mama Cass's face as she takes in Janis Joplin's blistering performance of Ball and Chain.

Magical.

[DSNT]

I saw Monterey Pop via the old Criterion. Agreed that it is magical. I'm starting this one with Jimi Plays Monterey to warm myself up for the Andre 3000 movie.

[DSNT]

JIMI PLAYS MONTEREY, D.A. PENNEBAKER, 1986

http://s3.amazonaws.com/criterion-production/release_boxshots/2323-372b8ba1f597c03afa7a6647f71e37 d6/169_BD_box_348x490_original.jp g

Jimi Hendrix was like a being from another planet. He showed up, transformed culture and music as we know it, and then he quickly said goodbye, leaving us to marvel at him nearly half a century later. His performance at Monterey was still relatively early in his three album career, but it was a monumental moment. He had already been immensely popular, but this was when he truly arrived, and he frankly blew people away.

The documentary is introduced with high-speed graffiti artist painting a picture of Jimi in his element while “Can You See Me?” plays in the background. He begins with a beige base as the first layer, where we can barely make out the primary features of Jimi’s face. From there he applies other paints and more layers. When he gets to the red, he sprays it seemingly randomly, but it becomes Jimi’s trademark bandana. When he is finished with his creation, the song is over and the poster boy for late 60s guitar psychedelia is clearly fashioned on the wall.

The exposition is brief, which is fine. The core element of this documentary is the performance. John Phillips narrates the origins of Jimi’s career, including beginning playing in clubs with R&B acts, being discovered and eventually managed by The Animals, who brought him to London and changed many different worlds, including Jimi’s. As Phillips puts it, Jimi “went like a fireball once he hit London.” The Experience was formed and the rest is history.

The obligatory setlist:

Saville Theater, 1967

Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band
Wild Thing

Monterey Pop Festival, 1967

Killing Floor
Foxy Lady
Like a Rolling Stone
Rock Me Baby
Hey Joe
The Wind Cries Mary
Wild Thing

People did not know what to make of him. There are alternating shots of Jimi shredding, nonchalantly playing complicated riffs on his guitar, while making unnatural sounds on his Stratocaster. There are occasional shots of the crowd. Many are simply floored. They had never seen anything like this. Others are exuberant, moving to the music.

Even when he talked, he sounded like he was from another world. “Dig, man .. “ as he liked to say, “laying around and picked up these two cats” as he points toward Mitch Mitchell and Noel Redding, his Experience bandmates.

He played covers, old blues standards, and a handful of his own hit songs. This was before he had much of a body of work, like my favorite Axis: Bold as Love, which he would record next, and Electric Ladyland in 1968. One great thing about Hendrix is that his own material was not required. Covers would be staples in his live shows until the very end, because he somehow transformed them into Jimi Hendrix songs.

He was ever the showman and pulled out all the stops during his Monterey performance. During "Hey Joe", he plays a solo while picking with his teeth, and it sounds no different than the brilliant solos he played with his hands. Later he plays another solo with the guitar behind his head, and again, it sounds perfectly fine. He effortlessly swivels and moves his guitar around, yet never misses a beat. He actually makes such complicated playing seem easy as he is completely relaxed while playing (probably thanks to chemicals).

It is the final song where things finally go bonkers. Before he covers The Troggs’ "Wild Thing" he combines the American and English anthems into something unrecognizable and otherworldly. He uses the tremolo and feedback to create sounds. At times they sound like the driving of a car; at other they sound like a space ship.

Even though "Wild Thing" is a relatively simple song. Even I can play the primary riff and it would be flattering to say that I’m even a beginner. Jimi takes the simple and makes it complex, and frankly just destroys the song. Between the verses, he continues to use his weapon to make sonic and beautiful sounds. Towards the end of the song, he destroys his guitar, with it still plugged in. Even in destruction, it manages to sound like he is “playing.” Finally, it burns in flames, still transmitting sound.

Backstage before the show, he and Pete Townsend had a debate as to who would go on first. It apparently became contentious and they had to flip a coin. When it was settled, The Who would go on first, but that just inspired Jimi to push his performance to another level. That he did. As his guitar was burning on stage with the crowd going out of their collective minds, I’m sure he was thinking, “Pete, take that.”

Film Rating: 9.5/10

Supplements

Commentary with Charles Shaar Murray –

He calls Jimi’s performance one of the epochal single performances in 60s rock and roll. Jimi was great because he had roots in real rhythm and blues, whereas the Englishman just had the records. Nobody had done the type of things that Jimi did with guitars. Stratocasters were not designed with this type of playing in mind. Nobody envisioned this.

What was amazing is that this performance and the heights he reached in his career were a mere year before he had left the USA for London. He was an avid drug user, and was on acid for this performance, and that inevitably helped with his creativity and innovation with sounds and feedback.

It is interesting that he played Bob Dylan songs. Dylan was an influence in many ways. Not only did he write some of the best songs of the era, but he had no voice and still managed to sing with success. Jimi was self-conscious about his own voice, which was hardly the strong choir-like voice of R&B, and probably would not have tried singing his own material if it were not for Dylan. He paid tribute by playing the folk hero’s songs, yet like all other covers, he played them in the Jimi way. He played “Like a Rolling Stone” with the same chords that he played “Wild Thing,” and Dylan’s lead guitarist was in the audience and bore witness to how the song transformed in Hendrix’s capable hands.

His genius is that he plays so casually. On “Rock Me Baby,” he was playing keyboard, horn and guitar riffs all on his guitar, while singing. If you looked at his playing, you would barely notice. He made the complicated seem mundane. His guitar would get out of tune from his playing, but he was able to gradually bend the strings back into tune while playing. Nobody else could do that.

Additional Audio Excerpts – There is plenty of biographical information, including details about his rise to success and arriving at Monterey. This is an audio recording of 45 minutes.

Interview with Pete Townsend – “Jimi was out of his brain, on acid, and wouldn’t discuss the question” of who went on first. They were both going to introduce pyrotechnics for the first time, so part of the argument was who would do it first. Townsend’s perspective was that he didn’t feel like following Jimi because Jimi was far more talented. Jimi’s team did not see it that way, as it was more of him wanting to be the first to do something special.

[dreamdead]

Count me among the many who are left adrift by Cavani's film. It's impressive acting and dedication to a narrative by the two leads, but everything about the ex-Nazi party who barricade them inside their house is just so odd. It feels like a narrative decision from a much weaker film, as the central power dynamic between the two leads could support a film without any needless excess. And the final sequence of the film is so obvious that it needs a second layer to contrast with it.

I do like that the bluray moves away from the exploitation angle a bit, since the DVD cover helped mislead my expectations.

I haven't seen any of the Jimi Monterey performances beyond what's available online. They're entertainingly over-the-top. I'd probably be sniggering just a little more than the utter dismay that the women especially seem to have on their faces. It's the perfect display of showmanship that Jimi provides.

Looking forward to your thoughts on Fassbinder's Bitter Tears. Starting it in the next day...

[DSNT]

LES BLANK, ALWAYS FOR PLEASURE. PART 2.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/criterion-production/release_boxshots/4303-e8334fc711d041e0f684e8cb875caa 82/737_BD_box_348x490_original.jp g

This next trio of Les Blank documentaries fit together well. They are all about Cajun culture, with the first two about the rural and backwoods Creole population, with the boxset’s namesake documentary, Always for Pleasure, a narrative of the types of celebration that can only take place in New Orleans.

DRY WOOD, LES BLANK, 1973

Dry Wood features the Zydeco music of Clifton Chenier, although he is directly profiled in the sister film, Hot Pepper. Like with the prior documentaries, this is a meditative illustration of a mostly ignored yet fascinating culture.

Set in Mamou, Louisiana, Mardi Gras 1972, Dry Wood begins with a group of people in various, outlandish costumes, singing along to Zydeco music in Creole language. It is fitting for this trio of films, as they begin and end with celebration, albeit the latter is on a far grander scale.

In this picture, Les Blank does what he does best. He captures the character moments. The day after Mardi Gras, he shows the Catholic ceremony of people getting ash placed on their heads for Ash Wednesday. From there he shows people living their lives, whether that is a man digging ditches, catching frogs, or kids playing their own version of baseball with a cylindrically squared stick as a bat (not too dissimilar to the type of play that Mance Lipscomb reminisced about in A Well Spent Life.

Like with many Blank films, there is not too much dialog, and there does not need to be. The first person that speaks directly to the camera and seems aware of being photographed is a gentleman talking about making his first violin, and how he used various natural items that could be found anywhere, either in the house or outside, and it worked.

The latter portion is about food and entertainment, another reoccurring Blank theme. My favorite scene is an outdoor gathering at night, where a number of locals talk about the type of meat they prefer to eat, and what sort they absolutely will not eat. Their opinions are mixed on deer, armadillo and possum, but they ate whatever was being served on that evening heartily. They drank too, and that’s when the fun begins. As the night progresses, the men start dancing and then play fighting, falling down all alongside each other. These are grown men, but this is the type of roughhouse play behavior expected of most kids. It is the booze that binds them together, and they are absolutely plastered in this scene. It speaks to Blank’s talents as a filmmaker that he was able to capture them so relaxed and in their element.

Some of Dry Wood is not for the faint of heart. After the men have played, they kill and butcher a hog, while the women prepare it. At one point they saw the snout off of the hog, and later it goes into a meat grinder to later become headcheese. A baffled youngster wonders, “is this what is in headcheese?” He doesn’t like the response, and won’t admit whether he liked it or not.

Film Rating: 8

Supplements:

A Cultural Celebration – Taylor Hackford gives another interview and talks about how culture is cuisine. It is first infused into food, and then into music. His piece is about both sister films, with Dry Wood being about the cuisine and Hot Pepper about the subsequent music. Hackford talks about how Blank was looking for the so called “golden moments” where people are captured with their guard down. One such example is the scene where the grown men are dancing around drunk, and there are many others

HOT PEPPER, LES BLANK, 1973

Blank goes back to the well with this follow-up documentary, which is a profile of Zydeco accordion musician and “King,” Clifton Chenier. It begins with him playing a concert in Lafayette, Louisiana, and this is the music that scores the film. They cut back and forth between the concert and Louisiana life, like they do in Dry Wood. The great scenes are again when people are unaware or apathetic about the camera, and do their own thing. One cute scene has a girl playing by hanging around a street sign. There are other people that just walk by, minding their own business, some working on the railroad.

The best scenes are the landscapes captured with the Chenier music in the background. There is one sequence that shows a beautiful country sunset, followed by a dark night with the only visible object a pair of dim headlights. This is what Blank excels at, making the mundane appear magical.

Much of Chenier’s music is upbeat, but the most beautiful song, “Coming Home,” is peaceful and serene. It is a scene that Clifton wrote for his mother before she died, but she never was able to hear it. You can hear the emotion in his voice as the accordion slowly and poetically follows along. Blank focuses on landscape scenes for much of this scene and it becomes a meditation. We see sky scenes, birds flying, and a number of landscapes to get lost in. He follows it up with “Life is a Companion,” which has more sunsets and gorgeous landscapes.

While Hot Pepper has its moments, it is uneven and occasionally jarring, For example, it has a lady speaking frankly and randomly above her vagina parts. The major failing is with Chenier, who is not as captivating a subject as Lipscomb or Hopkins. The only time we see him away from the stage is when he is playing on the doorstep of a house, sitting with some friends, but he does not reveal much about himself or his world view. He just plays.

ALWAYS FOR PLEASURE, LES BLANK, 1978

As one subject says midway through this celebratory documentary, New Orleans is the “city that care forgot.” By that he means that is the last place in America where someone can truly be themselves be free. They are free to dance around in public, drink, sing, shake their body, chant, or do whatever they desire.

The film begins with a slow funeral march through the street. As Allen Toussaint puts it, the march to the funeral is slow and that’s when the mourning takes place. The way back is when people cut up. Life goes on, so people enjoy themselves. The band members are the main line, and they perform the somber music on the way up, and the upbeat, party music on the way back. The second line are the dancers and singers, who give the lost one a send off with spirit and revelry.

The majority of this documentary shows people partying in various ways. There are people drinking up a storm on St. Patrick’s Day, with overhead shots showing a sea of green. People laugh and sing along Bourbon Street, hooting and hollering, meandering through the street moving to the rhythm of the music.

A Les Blank documentary would not be complete without food, so he takes a break from the partying to show the staple meals of New Orleans, red beans and rice being made. One expert talks about the proper way to eat a crawfish. You shouldn’t break open the shell, but just bite off the head and squeeze the meat into your mouth.

The title cards share a bit of history. Many of these traditions originated with slaves. Initially the owners would let them have Sundays off of work to celebrate. Eventually that permission was curbed, but slaves would find ways to get outside and enjoy themselves. Mardi Gras was a free-for-all, and that was when all slaves were allowed to celebrate. Thus begun the tradition that continues today of yearlong merriment with the party of the year every May.

Always With Pleasure ends on a high point, with the wild, rousing traditions of Mardi Grah. People march in the street. He shows people with percussion instruments, singing and dancing. Some people are dressed up for the occasion, while others are dressed in regular clothes, having fun just being there and singing along. “Ooh-na-nay!” they chant as part of a call-and-response mantra as they march along.

The main attractions are the Big Chiefs, some in pink feathers, some in white, some in blue. They even show a young kid wearing an elaborate costume in white, probably having more fun than he’d ever have in his life. These are the Indians and they are serious about their Mardi Gras presentations. They make their own costumes anew every year, and destroy them afterward. They are also always trying to outdo the other tribes. In doing so, they entertain themselves and everyone around them. New Orleans, at least some of the time, is where “care truly forgot.”

Film Rating 9/10

Supplements:

Lagniappe – This is a short film of 25-minutes with additional footage that was cut out of Always for Pleasure. It begins with a street band marching through Bourbon Street to a predominately white crowd, which is contrasted with much of the main feature that showcased African-Americans. We see more of musicians, like Professor Longhair, who also appeared in the main feature, who plays the shit out of some piano. A singer and guitarist do a duet together, with racy lyrics like, “if you want to feel my thigh, you gotta go up high.” Finally, there are more shots of the Indians singing. There are never enough shots of the Indians.

Celebrating a City – Interview with Maureen Gosling, who did just about everything else on this project. During the shooting, they stayed with Michael P. Smith, who was a famous New Orleans photographer. He gave Blank a lot of ideas on where to shoot. Blank was more interested in the celebrations off the beaten path, which is probably why much of the Bourbon Street parties were cut out of the main film in favor of more time with the Indians. New Orleans has parades everywhere, and they only captured a small portion of them. On the day of Mardi Gras, they spent an exhausting 10-12 hours walking down the street with heavy equipment, getting as much coverage as possible, and practically collapsed afterward.

My favorite story was how they cooked red beans and rice for people involved with the film. They even did this for special screenings. They would cook the meal and fan the scent towards the filmgoers as they watched. Their reward was they got to eat it afterwards. Now that would be the ultimate way to experience New Orleans without actually being there.

[Russ]

Man, I really, REALLY want that Les Blank collection. Have you seen Gap-Toothed Women yet? It's a charming film and, like most all his films, I'm a big fan.

[DSNT]

Not yet, but I'm pretty sure that's in the next batch, as is the garlic documentary. This is a great set!

Next up is L'Avventura and then finishing Les Blank.

[MadMan]

I really want to see the Jimi Hendrix Criterion. The man was truly an artist and the finest guitarist IMO.

[DSNT]

Hey guys, with the forum changes and all, I just went ahead and posted L'Avventura over at the blog. And yes, I've been blogging this alongside Match Cut, but I still like posting them here first because it's easier to edit.

L'Avventura (http://criterionblues.com/2015/01/28/criterion-lavventura-michelangelo-antonioni-1960/)

I'll resume posting them here soon.

[DSNT]

THE SWORD OF DOOM, KIHACHI OKAMOTO, 1966

http://s3.amazonaws.com/criterion-production/release_boxshots/4324-17c5368e12d3597225c95b52a8b3d6 cd/280_BD_box_348x490_original.jp g

By 1966, the samurai film had gone from being extraordinary to ordinary. That’s not to say that good samurai films were being made, or would be made in the future, but most of the creative impressions had been made. Japan was in the midst of a transformation, such as the gangster films and the Japanese New Wave. Meanwhile, the Zatoichi trilogy was cranking out two-three of decent quality, yet formulaic Samurai films. The genre had not quite run its course, but was a shell of what it had been during the 1950s when Kurosawa, Mizoguchi and others were in their prime. Perhaps in reaction to the fading genre came The Sword of Doom, which is in essence a deconstruction and distortion of the genre. It is refreshing to discover something fresh and innovative from the period in which the samurai film was meandering.

The soul is the sword.
Study the soul to know the sword.
Evil mind, Evil sword

The above words are spoken by Toranosuke Shimada (Toshirô Mifune), an elder, wise samurai instructor. He speaks this after annihilating a horde of opponents, although his actions were heroic and not villainous. He was the “good guy,” had a benevolent mind and hence a benevolent sword. As he is speaking these words, an evil sword lurks in the background, that of Ryunosuke Tsukue, who unquestionably has the evil mind, yet is incapable of acting against Shimada at that very moment.

While I’ve seen quite a few Japanese films, I cannot think of many protagonists that approach the level of pure villainy as Ryunosuke. Iwao from Vengeance is Mine is close, but he is humanized to a certain degree. The best example from the samurai era is Taketoki from Throne of Blood, also played by Mifune in Kurosawa’s loose adaptation of Macbeth. Like in Shakespeare’s play, he plays a flawed and ambitious character who makes mistakes with dire consequences. I cannot think of any characters that reach the malevolence of Ryunosuke. From the first scene in which he is introduced, he kills an elderly man at a religious site on the top of a mountain pass. No reason is given for this assassination, or for any of his later actions. He is the anti-hero in the purest sense. While the audience cannot root for him, we are amazed by his skill with the sword and his moral ambivalence.

While this is a samurai picture, it brings in many elements from other genres. The more notable is from the supernatural horror film, which in some ways is reminiscent of the recent Onibaba and Kwaidan. The first major battle scene has Ryunosuke walking slowly through a mist-ridden forest. He walks as if he is a spirit through the shadows, dispatching ambushers one by one as the camera tracks slowly with his steps. The final sequence, which I will not go into too much detail about, also has a level of spirituality, yet in many ways is Ryunosuke coming to terms with his own immorality in a fit of rage.

The narrative is completely disjointed for a samurai film, especially contrasted with the Zatoichi films. They had quite a bit of reach, and many who worked on Sword of Doom had worked on the popular series. Zatoichi had established a great many expectations. If an accomplished swordsman is introduced in the first act as being part of an opposing faction, it is almost guaranteed that Zatoichi will face him in the third act. In Sword of Doom, Ryunosuke does away with an opponent during a match. That victim’s brother, who studies under Mifune, becomes his enemy. The narrative leads them closer together, and you expect that Ryunosuke will eventually face the brother, Mifune, or both. That does not happen. The ending is extremely satisfying for people who appreciate savagery and experimentation, but probably not for someone who expects another Zatoichi film.

Nearly half of the film takes place in a domestic setting. There is a major subplot about a youngster who is to marry a local noble, but she is smitten by Ryunosuke’s foe. Ryunosuke ends up with the former wife of the man he slew in battle, who gave herself to him on the eve of the battle in the hopes that he’ll let her husband win. Her husband discovers her transgression, and that is what gives him the bloodlust that Ryunosuke reacts to with quick, deathly force. Ryunosuke blames the woman for
the misfortune in his life, forgetting that it was his insistence of sexual favors in order for him to consider her request. He practically raped her. While the action sequences are a combination of Kurosawa, Mizoguchi and Zatoichi, these domestic scenes are filmed in the fashion of Ozu from various camera angles that reveal plenty about the characters.

A key reason this has reached cult status is for the battle sequences. By this point the industry, especially the Zatoichi series, was still producing some fantastically choreographed battle scenes. There are three such scenes in Sword of Doom, and they are all innovative and engrossing. As already discussed, the first tracking sequence was short in a single tracking shot. The choreography was impeccable given that it was one, moving take. The second scene involving Mifune was far more violent, and took place in the midst of a heavy snowstorm that enhanced its aesthetic value. It has many more cuts. The action is fragmented and moves quicker. The final scene is by comparison a frantic and frenzied bit of action, with quick and jarring cuts that capture the insane and guttural nature of the fight. The intensity of these scenes stand up against the best samurai battle scenes, before or since.

Film Rating: 9/10

Supplements:

Commentary: New to the Blu-Ray is a commentary with Stephen Prince, author of Classical Film Violence. This is a partial commentary as he focuses on the key plot and battle sequences and ignores the domestic scenes.

The historical title cards are red herrings of sorts. They refer to incidences that do not happen on screen. One thing that Prince does not touch on is that these represent historical events that the Japanese viewer might be familiar with, so they give a sense of historical context to the events. For example, an American western might have a title card of “During the Civil War,” yet the events that take place have little to do with the war itself. Much of the elaborate historical context is not mentioned in the film, and some critics have complained about that. Most Japanese probably were already familiar with the context.

The movie was adapted from a lengthy saga with many character connections. Some of these connections are muddled in the movie. We also assume that since this was a popular saga, that viewers would be familiar with the character connections, which makes for a more oblique and challenging viewing today.

Serizawa, who oversees the pivotal match near the beginning of the movie, was a real historical figure who appears nonthreatening in the film. The real person was actually a ruthless and nihilistic character. Ryunosuke could be seen as a fictional representation of the real Serizawa.

The movie was not well received in Japan. This is partly because of the disjointed narrative. They promise duels that never happen. Nevertheless, it became a hit in the west for the same reasons it failed in Japan. The disjointed narrative helped, as did the evil protagonist and the well-choreographed swordfights.

One interesting observation that Prince makes is about Ryunosuke’s inability to act during the second battle sequence. He hints at a sort of latent sexual overtone, which could be impotence or even an erotic love for his opponent. Yes, he hints at homosexuality. It seems to be a bit of a reach to me, yet the film language can support that reading.

I compared it to Zatoichi a great deal, and the similarities shouldn’t be surprising. Zatoichi actually owes something to the original saga. The character of Ryunosuke is blinded and continues his swordsmanship, so in many ways this was a forerunner to the Zatoichi series.

The commentary is excellent even if it does not encompass the entire film. He gives a lot of information and historical context, some of which is so detailed that it is hard to follow.

The commentary is the only other supplement, which is why as a Criterion this does not get as high a grade as it could have.

Criterion Rating: 8/10

[DSNT]

I posted a version of the same post with pictures over at the blog (http://criterionblues.com/2015/02/04/the-sword-of-doom-kihachi-okamoto-1966/).

Also posted Part 3 of Les Blank (http://criterionblues.com/2015/01/31/les-blank-always-for-pleasure-part-3/) during the maintenance here.

I'm trying to figure out a way to post easily in both places and use all the images and everything. Does anyone if there's a way I can just cut and paste the HTML and have it work? Translating from VB code to HTML and vice versa is time consuming. So if I cannot find a workaround, this might have to stop here.

[MadMan]

Sword of Doom is great and powerful. I think I found a copy of it on Criterion at either my local library or I rented it from Netflix by mail. The film has a strong visual poetry and never wavers from covering a man devouted to using the sword as an instrument of savergery.

[DSNT]

THE BITTER TEARS OF PETRA VON KANT, RAINER WERNER FASSBINDER, 1972

http://s3.amazonaws.com/criterion-production/release_boxshots/4322-d00d9c347b085fd7220bbf208e8996 8f/740_BD_box_348x490_original.jp g

Like many of Fassbinder’s films, he features strong, female characters in the leads and supporting parts. In this film, the cast is predominately female, and is among the most feminine of his works. That does not mean that it is feminist. One could argue that it has some feminist attributes, and it can also be seen as anti-feminist since the portrayals of women are mostly negative. It can also be seen as a class contrast, with Petra (Margit Carstensen) representing the bourgeois, Karin (Hanna Schygulla) representing the poor and uncultured, and Marlene (Irm Hermann) representing the working class.

The entire movie takes place in Petra’s apartment. Often films that are shot in a single location can be drab and tiresome, but there is enough visual ingenuity, both with the camerawork and the mise-en-scene, to keep every scene fresh. The performances are all tremendous, particularly Carstensen who was working with a great deal of dialog.

Petra represents the horror that success can have on a person. She is conceited, brazen, thin-skinned, and she asserts her power over defenseless people. Marlene, her assistant, is the object of many cruel and disdainful eruptions. Petra thinks of her as less of a person. At one point she tells Karin that “Marlene has been with me for three years. She sees everything, hears everything. Pay no attention to her.” Petra does not bother to hide her secrets from the help, but we will find out later that this person is not the invisible bystander as Petra considers her.

Petra’s cousin (Sidonie von Grasenabb) introduces Karin as a young model. Petra takes to her, seeing someone a beauty that she can possibly mentor and control. Petra’s riches come from a life of fashion, and she could make a person’s career. She asks Karin to visit her later, and the girl timidly agrees, knowing that this could lead to a brighter future. When she shows up later, she is dressed to the nines, with a gold outfit and a wide collar around her neck. Petra is dressed in an ostentatious and grossly flamboyant outfit with circular beads decorating her breasts. The outrageous wardrobes are contrasted with the Classical European paintings on the walls. Some of these include nakedness, male and female, and they are prominently placed within the frame. Fassbinder was not bashful with nudity, whether his own or others, and he clearly used these paintings as a way of injecting an uncomfortable sexuality into the mise-en-scene.

Petra is intrigued by the young lady, although seems more interested in bragging about her own experiences. There are mirrors everywhere, and as she talks, she narcissistically watches herself. A key topic is her marriages, the first of which ended in the death of her husband, and the latter she proudly broke off herself for no reason. She was just finished with the relationship and got out, showcasing that she holds the power in relationships. It is when Karin reveals a horrible tragedy that happened to her parents that Petra really takes to her. It is at this vulnerable moment that Petra sees Karin as someone fragile that she can control, who can fill the void of loneliness that is obviously consuming her. Karin becomes a kept woman and a relationship begins between the two.

In the second act, the tables have turned. Karin is the one who has the power. Petra is helpless to get her affection, much less her attention. Karin cannot be bothered, reads a magazine on the bed and demands that Petra get her a drink. She is playing the role of the spoiled child, and Petra is trapped as her enabler. Earlier she had bragged that “everyone is replaceable,” referring to Karin and Marlene, but to her, that is a flat out lie. She is psychologically tethered to the two of them.

Marlene is the anchor for this movie, beautifully played by Irm Hermann in a mostly silent role. She doesn’t need to speak to convey her thoughts. She says plenty with her face, as she reacts to what is happening in Petra’s life, which often does not have anything to do with her. Some of the best shots in the film are when Petra and Karin or whomever are talking about some nonsense, and the camera pans over to Marlene and zooms in for a close-up, showing her utter and absolute disdain for her employer. Her hatred is obvious to the audience, but Petra is oblivious. She is just another plaything, like the dolls and mannequins that she collects. Only this one does her bidding without ever questioning her authority.

When she is left. Petra is completely isolated and in despair. She sits on a white carpet that looks like a cloud. The European, nude painting is still behind her in the frame, fully exposed just like her heartbreak. She feels completely abandoned, but there are still some people remaining in her life. Her daughter Gabby appears with family, and Petra’s behavior is similar to what we’ve seen with Karin and Marlene. She is out of control, lashes out at one moment and tries to apologize the next. She calls them fake, “dishonest little rats.” After her fury passes, she is told twice that she will pay for her actions, that there will be consequences. There are. I will not reveal them in this write-up, but I will say that this is very much a Fassbinder type of ending.

Film Rating: 8.5/10

Supplements:

Outsiders: – These are four interviews with actresses from the film: Margit Carstensen (Petra), Hanna Schygulla (Karin), Eva Mattes (Gabby), and Katrin Schaake (cousin Sidonie). This 2014 segment edits their answers together so that they stay within the topic of the film. Most of them felt like outsiders to Fassbinder’s stable of actors, which is strange because they were all cast in many of his films, especially Carstensen, who played many lead roles. Most talked about how they were treated on the set by Fassbinder, and how he would play games to create conflict amongst each other. Some were reluctant to reveal much, while others are more forthcoming. The overall sentiment was that Fassbinder was difficult to work with. The only exception was Eva. He was gentle with her and did not play the same sort of games as with the other actors.

What is surprising is the production time. The filming was lightning fast, 10 days. Carsternsen had an easier time because she had played the same role in the theater and knew the lines, but the other actresses had difficulties. As they put it, Margit was perfect everytime.

The story was autobiographical based on a relationship of Fassbinder’s. It is interesting that he chose women to play the roles, but he often did portray his own life through women, which may have been an element of his homosexuality. Fassbinder felt that whoever had the strength in the relationship loved the person less, and that was what he was trying to convey with this film.

Michael Ballhaus – Ballhause was the Director of Photography. This was his third film with Fassbinder, who had dismissed him as a TV DP. In the other segment, the other ladies had very kind things to say about Ballhause, although those were probably contrasted with Fassbinder. He said that this project was challenging because they shot quickly and he had one room to work with. He had to figure out good angles to keep it interesting, which I would say he accomplished. Fassbinder told him that he was a big fan of Douglas Sirk and wanted this to look as visually rich as a Hollywood film. They would argue and at one point there was a blow-up. At one time Ballhause said “I am not a machine. If you don’t like it, then hire someone else.” They eventually made up, and worked on many other projects together. Ballhause liked working with Fassbinder because he was a good visual director.

Beautiful Destruction – This is a feature from Jane Shattuc, author of Television, Tabloids, and Tears: Fassbinder and Popular Culture.. She talks about how dark his work was, although it was beautiful visually. He had a bleak portrait of humanity, and that was reflected in his work.

Fassbinder started with a theatre troupe, and as we know, he maintained that collective for much of his film career. Many of the issues playing out in film were also part of their personal lives.

She says that the mise-en-scene was very important in this movie. The changing in appearances of Petra reflects how she feels about herself. She starts in the operatic dress, then to red hair, and finally in a white nightgown, showing her true humanity. The set, clothing and shooting change as the character changes.

Role Play: Women on Fassbinder – This was 1992 German TV documentary with many of the women who worked on his films. This was quite a bleak documentary. It was far from a puff piece. The actresses were frank about how far on the edge they were during the Fassbinder age, and how cruel he was to them. Yet he was also successful and gave them continual work if they could endure it. For the most part, he was not friendly with actors save for rare occasions. When Margit Carstensen speaks of her history with Fassbinder, her tone and look are as if she is revealing a traumatic and monumental time of her life. This is not the type of remembrance you’ll see of many directors.

The people that worked for Werner often thought about leaving and starting fresh somewhere. Margit attempted this and distanced herself from his inner circle, which made him angry. She tried to leave one time during the filming of Chinese Roulette and said: “You leave and you’re out of the film.”

Even though he was difficult, he portrayed women beautifully, and most of the women conclude that it was due to his effeminate nature and homosexuality, although none of them really understood it or him. We know that he was bi-sexual and would engage in relationships with actresses, such as Irm, but even she was confused during the relationship.

They all say he was a brilliant filmmaker. He had the capacity to love, but his addiction and dependence got in his way. He had a series of disappointing relationships. Often he would test his lovers and be disappointed. His standard of love was too high for anyone to really achieve. In many ways this tale is a tragedy because Fassbinder, however brilliant, was tortured, never found love, and died due to indulging too much.

Criterion Rating: 9/10

[dreamdead]

Halfway through Fassbinder's film right now, with Petra's intent on making Marlene suffer coming through vividly. What's been most impressive so far is the way in which Fassbinder's camera constantly roves, shifts focus, and pulls back to reshape our expectations of characters. Significant is the way in which Petra's discussion of the break-up of her marriage reframes itself by suggesting it's all empty rhetoric when the camera retreats to Marlene's actions, to how focused on duplicity Petra is with the use of masquerades and costuming, suggesting that this is all, as you state, one big performance for those upper class removed from the daily tedium of living.

Didn't read too far down since I want to return to this page once I finish the film...

[DSNT]

I absolutely loved the way they frame Marlene, and they use her reaction to react and sometimes BS detect a lot of Petra's ramblings. Marlene is really the key figure in the film and you'll figure out why when it is all over.

I'm about to post another one, but I hope you'll return here once you've finished the film and share some thoughts.

[DSNT]

THE PALM BEACH STORY, PRESTON STURGES, 1942

http://s3.amazonaws.com/criterion-production/release_boxshots/4318-1a6aba79c88e32576cda594072feae 9d/742_BD_box_348x490_original.jp g

One of the many things I like about Preston Sturges is that he’s all over the place. It is not that he completely defies the Classic Hollywood conventional formula, but that is not confined to it, and he plays with expectations. Even in the screwball comedy genre, he’s a bit of a loose cannon and less predictable. The Palm Beach Story is even more out there than others, like the soon to be upgraded Sullivan’s Travels (which, to be fair, is not exactly conventional either).

While the overall journey is does not sound too far fetched – that start in New York, take a train to Jacksonville, and then boat to Palm Beach – it is the detours along the way that make this truly a Sturges picture. Tom (Joel McRea) and Gerry (Claudette Colbert) are the true leads and get the most screen time, but they share it with plenty other colorful characters. It is not the Capraesque manner of portraying two primary characters with some dimension and flattening all the others around him, such as in It Happened One Night, also with Colbert. He uses the supporting characters to give texture and flair.

All of the characters are a lot of fun, whether they are major or minor, but I am going to touch on the most impactful.

My favorite batch of supporting characters is the band of drunken hunters that take Gerry under their wing and give her access to their train car. They are introduced one-by-one, all with ridiculous names, but not to the extent that they could all be totally made up, just far from the norm. When they get on the train and start drinking, they are a delight. Two fellows start a competition where they will shoot crackers in the cabin, which a racially insensitive stereotypical African-American porter would reluctantly throw the crackers up in the air. At first one drunken gentleman seems to think they are merely miming the shot, which itself is a little silly, since there could be no way to prove which is a hit. The reality is even more outrageous. The man loads a live round into the chamber, and succeeds, shooting out the train window in the process. They do it again, and eventually the entire Ale & Quail Hunting Club are shooting toward the train window, destroying the entire cabin. Rather than deal with drunks with guns, the conductor simply detaches their car and goes on without them.

The next two characters are the ultra-rich descendants of the Hackensacker family (an obvious mockery of the Rockenfellers). John D enjoys the idea of paying for whatever Gerry needs along the way, which includes a wardrobe since hers was on the Ale & Quail car. He even meticulously writes down each amount, although we learn later that the total bill means next to nothing to him. He could own the store without blinking. His sister, Prince Centimilla (Mary Astor) is later introduced, and they are both humorous in their pursuit of married couple that are playing as brother and sister. The best comic relief is Toto, who bears more than a passing resemblance to Carlo from My Man Godfrey as the jilted sponge who passive aggressively allows himself to be cuckolded for a free meal ticket.

The most outlandish part of the feature is the ending. I won’t reveal the specifics, but it is a form of a deus ex machine (sort of), which comes completely out of left field. There are some films that I see this type of ending as sloppy and lazy, but here it is completely appropriate with the zaniness that has taken place during this romp to South Florida.

Film Rating: 8/10

Supplements:

James Harvey – This is a critical analysis from Harvey, a film scholar. He talks about Sturges origins with screenplays and B movies, and how he made his way up the ladder with Paramount.

Sturges came from a rich upbringing, which explains why he captures the upper classes and lampoons with such precision. His adopted and closer father was Solomon Sturges, who had acquired a great deal of wealth in the stock market.

As I noted above, Struges’ comedy was too far out to be appreciated by the mainstream. The Lady Eve was a big hit, but Palm Beach and Sullivan were failures. Despite another big hit with The Miracle of Morgan’s Creek (which I would LOVE to see on Criterion someday), Paramount let him go and aside from a couple successes, his career mostly went on the downturn. He became a favorite of French critics like Andre Bazin, who liked him and hated Capra.

Bill Hader – This is an odd choice for an interview since Hader is not necessarily a film scholar, but he clearly has an appreciation for classic comedy and he is unquestionably an authority on modern comedy. He spends most of his interview with a Sturges script book, just reading some of the dialog and cracking up at it. The words read as funny as they sound spoken, and sometimes even funnier. He remarks that a number of comics and filmmakers were inspired by Sturges.

Safeguarding Military Information, 1941 – This is a short propaganda film made during the war to prevent people from unwittingly spilling military secrets in public and possibly compromising the safety of our military. It plays out as one would expect from a propaganda film, whether American, German or Russian. One segment had Eddie Bracken, who would star in two major 1944 features for Sturges, the aforementioned Morgan’s Creek and Hail the Conquering Hero.

Criterion Rating: 7.5/10

[DSNT]

SOMETHING WILD, JONATHAN DEMME, 1986

http://s3.amazonaws.com/criterion-production/release_boxshots/3229-f7b558337b801e230f9955a9f2030c 3c/563_BD_box_348x490_original.jp g

“It’s better to be a live dog than a dead lion.”

What does that mean? To Charlie Driggs (Jeff Daniels), it means quite a lot. He is a NYC corporate VP, living the high life with a nice house in the suburbs, a cheerful wife, two kids, and doggone it, he’s just a swell guy. Enter Lulu.

Lulu, real name Audrey (Melanie Griffith) lives on the wild side, and somehow catches Driggs in the act of rebellion. He leaves a restaurant without paying. It could have been a simple mistake, or it could have been his own way of non-conformity, of living wildly despite his privileged status. From there the fun ensues. Lulu and Charlie take off on an adventure of their own. He blows off his professional responsibilities, and they find a unique bond in their opposing values and lifestyles. Lulu wears a short, dark wig, somewhere in between Madonna without the bleach blonde and 80s goth, while Charlie wears a blue business suit with a yellow tie.

The first third is part romp and part road movie. This contrast of cultures is partly unsettling and partly welcoming, as Charlie and Lulu see how the other half lives. They may joke and criticize each other’s worldviews and clothing choice, but they make for an odd, yet somewhat refreshing match. Meanwhile, the film is shot with attention to color and detail, a lot of greens, background graffiti art, and popular radio songs

After using Charlie to masquerade as her fake husband to impress her mother, Audrey takes him to her high school graduation to impress her old friends. Here is the tonal shift in the movie. She changes her appearance to look a little more like somewhere between traditional, classy Madonna and Grace Kelly. At the party, they meet one man from Charlie’s world and one from Audrey’s, while The Feelies (a somewhat known post-punk group) plays covers for the dance. Charlie meets Larry from his office accounting, and Audrey embarrasses him during the exchange, while Audrey meets Ray, who turns out to be a former flame with more of a wild streak.

This is where it’s worth exploring what the movie is saying about corporate culture. Remember, this fresh in the middle of the Reaganomic 1980s, where youngsters were expressing themselves in colorful, cheerful ways, and the status quo of the suburban and corporate lifestyle was seen as square. This defines the two main characters to a tee. Lulu is beyond hip, the kind of girl that 1980s girls adored and wanted to emulate, while Charlie was the schmuck whose life was seen as mundane and boring. Real life and culture was passing him by.

When Larry the Accountant learns that Charlie is having an affair with Audrey, who even in her prom getup, is far hipper than his pregnant wife Peggy. He smiles at Charlie and says, “I didn’t think you had it in you.” In a look, you can tell he idolizes his office VP and in part envies him. The wife, she is not of the same mind and wants to get away.

Audrey is a tough nut to crack. At times she seems endearing and playful with Charlie, while other times she is malicious and humiliating. When she tells Larry about their tryst, that is a breach of trust and also a lie. She says they are expecting a baby. In this way she is trying to shatter the image of the corporate schmuck, and she succeeds in the eyes of Larry, if not to herself.

Despite the earlier moment of rebellion at the restaurant, Charlie comes off as an upstanding and moralistic guy. He does not want to get in trouble with his expense accounts, which Lulu takes advantage of, and he even condemns foul language in a later scene. He is even monogamous to his fake marriage with Audrey, when his “real” marriage has been over for next to a year. He is an ambiguous figure, ultimately good, but with a little wickedness that probably fills an emotional hole within him. With Audrey he can let himself go and even dance like a dork, without caring how he appears.

Ray (Ray Liotta) is a different breed entirely. He is unquestionably part of the criminal element, and the audience sees through his charade even if Charlie buys right in. He manipulates Charlie into participating in a store robbery, and that’s where the road trip becomes something more dire and serious. Maybe Charlie could have fit into Lulu’s world, but Ray’s world is somewhere he could never live. He would get eaten alive, and in a sense, he does. However tonally different, the last chapter is engaging in a different way, mostly thanks to Liotta’s performance, and it unwinds toward its inevitable conclusion.

Something Wild has some elements of an art film and some as a genre film, but it is unmistakably an 80s film. The soundtrack ranges from New Wave, poppy one-hit wonders, dark goth, and just to put the cherry on top, even includes some old school rap outside of a gas station. While some of the 80s nostalgia is fun to experience (or re-experience for someone who lived through the generation), it’s almost trapped by the time period, and that leaves it dated. In addition, while the finale is thrilling, the actual ending seems unrealistic and tacked on, almost something to appease a movie executive (however unlikely given Demme’s later comments). Instead it is a mixed bag, all over the place tonally with some highs, lows, and like a lot of the 80s culture, something to be consumed and left behind.

Film Rating: 5.5/10

Supplements:

Jonathan Demme Interview – He had worked on Swing Shift, which he felt was destroyed by studio and he wanted to get out. Even though he had directed other projects before, as an auteur, he considers Something Wild to be his debut. He made it with Orion who was one of the few studios to give creative freedom in that period.

His comments on casting were particularly interesting. He had Melanie Griffith in mind because of Body Double and Night Moves. His first choice for Charlie was Kevin Kline, and then someone recommended Jeff Daniels after his performance in The Purple Rose of Cairo. The extreme “nice guy” element was not as highlighted in the script. Jeff brought a lot of that. Ray Liotta had not acted in a film before and was recommended by a troupe performer. Demme was “scared” of Ray during the audition, and found him to be the perfect fit for his character. He wishes he could take credit, but pretty much everything in the movie was all Ray. I will hand it to him that the casting was the strongest aspect of the movie, and Ray Liotta gave the best performance.

He talks a lot about the soundtrack, including The Feelies (who he loves, proving again is eclectic and good taste in music). They did a lot of big covers, like David Bowie’s Fame, which would be expensive today, but not back then. He used the music to match the tone, with the fun, outrageous poppy stuff in the beginning with Charlie and Lulu, and darker music during the Ray sequences. The finale reverts back to the lighter fare.

E Max Frye Interview – Frye was the screenwriter and this was first studio film. The idea came from him just seeing someone looking wild with piercings sitting at a bar, who later meets someone with a suitcase. He lived in the East Village where there was a lot of graffiti art, colors, and that helped with the template. Spoiler alert: it looks a lot different now. He was going for contrast between a hipster girl, businessman, and criminal.

He had re-written the ending a number of times and didn’t find much that worked. That’s understandable as that is one of the weaker areas of the film.

Criterion Rating: 5/10

[dreamdead]

I absolutely loved the way they frame Marlene, and they use her reaction to react and sometimes BS detect a lot of Petra's ramblings. Marlene is really the key figure in the film and you'll figure out why when it is all over.

I'm about to post another one, but I hope you'll return here once you've finished the film and share some thoughts.

So Fassbinder definitely doubles down on the class angle when Petra experiences encounters with her daughter, Gaby. The incessant indifference that Petra wields at her, remaining willing to toss glasses at all the women regardless of the endangerment to her child. Some of the pillowy aspects came through, and I love that reading, but it's equally instructive how petty Petra becomes at the end, flailing about like a mere child.

In that sense, Marlene's abandonment of Petra situates her as the force of vitality, able to strike down Petra after she's waited through each of her transgressions for Petra to come back to her. When it's clear that she's not going to, Marlene finally extricates herself, and inflicts punishment on her own. I'm interested in how Hermann wasn't an actress before Fassbinder forced her into acting; she's got a vibrant understated quality here that marvelously balances out the hyperbolic Petra reactions. This film reminds me how little of Fassbinder's work I've seen (the trilogy sooooo many years ago and Ali: Fear Eats the Soul) and how much I should remedy that.

It's also interesting how the sapphic Greek painting operates explicitly as a surface without roughness, whereas the reality of Petra's experiences are all about identifying how the roughness continually impacts the real trauma of deceit and duplicity.

[MadMan]

I rather enjoyed Something Wild. I own the Criterion copy and I enjoyed it a lot more viewing the film for a second time. Jeff Daniels and Melanie Griffith have natural chemistry together and Ray Liotta made such an impression that he was cast in Goodfellas later on. And I love the 80s soundtrack. While Demme has made far better films Something Wild is one of my favorites of his.

[DSNT]

In that sense, Marlene's abandonment of Petra situates her as the force of vitality, able to strike down Petra after she's waited through each of her transgressions for Petra to come back to her. When it's clear that she's not going to, Marlene finally extricates herself, and inflicts punishment on her own. I'm interested in how Hermann wasn't an actress before Fassbinder forced her into acting; she's got a vibrant understated quality here that marvelously balances out the hyperbolic Petra reactions. This film reminds me how little of Fassbinder's work I've seen (the trilogy sooooo many years ago and Ali: Fear Eats the Soul) and how much I should remedy that.

You nailed it. For 1/2 the film, Petra thinks she has the power, but it is gradually taken away by her paramour, and then finally and with a fury, by Marlene. Agreed about Hermann, who I've seen in a number of Fassbinders and she is always strong. In the supplements of the disc, they talked somewhere about how she was resentful that she was playing such a quiet role, but she said plenty with her expressions and mannerisms. This is one of my favorite performances of hers.

I have not seen the BRD trilogy, believe it or not. I am holding out hoping for an upgrade someday. I've seen a number of the early-to-mid 70s Fassbinders and they vary in quality, but this and Ali are firmly at the top.


It's also interesting how the sapphic Greek painting operates explicitly as a surface without roughness, whereas the reality of Petra's experiences are all about identifying how the roughness continually impacts the real trauma of deceit and duplicity.

Good observation. When I rewatched key scenes, I noticed how and where he would place the nudity of the painting, which is very much in his style.

[DSNT]

I rather enjoyed Something Wild. I own the Criterion copy and I enjoyed it a lot more viewing the film for a second time. Jeff Daniels and Melanie Griffith have natural chemistry together and Ray Liotta made such an impression that he was cast in Goodfellas later on. And I love the 80s soundtrack. While Demme has made far better films Something Wild is one of my favorites of his.

Even though I'm just barely above mixed for Something Wild, I completely understand why people love it and has become a cult classic. I'll agree to disagree about the chemistry between Daniels and Griffith, but I think that's more because I don't think highly of Griffith as an actress. Daniels' infatuation was played well, and I agree that Liotta was fantastic. My problems with the film are more the tonal shifts and the tacked on ending.

[DSNT]

I've already watched La Cienaga and the final disc of Les Blank, so will post those over the next couple days, although I don't expect many (or any??) have seen them. After that I'll be tackling new releases like My Winnipeg, Don't Look Back, A Day in the Country, and some older ones like In the Realm of the Senses, Bigger than Life, Tokyo Drifter, Beauty and the Beast. What's cool is that all of these except for the latter will be first time viewings.

[DSNT]

LA CIÉNAGA, LUCRECIA MARTEL, 2001

http://s3.amazonaws.com/criterion-production/release_boxshots/4316-aacf95685c90649bd04221f25601f3 84/743_BD_box_348x490_original.jp g

La Ciénaga is a bleak and perplexing piece of filmmaking about two sets of adults, two sets of kids, and a lot of laziness, racism, alcoholism and backstabbing in between. The upper class adults have few redeeming qualities and rely on their children and maid for menial tasks, yet they treat the children with suspicion and the maids with outright scorn and accusations of theft.

The movie begins with a number of adults on the upper end of middle age, all lounging near a filthy pool, drinking a stark red concoction that makes them more expressionless as they get more inebriated. The scrape of their pool chairs is grating, as they move the metal into a position that makes them more comfortable, but they are immune to the jarring sound. They are virtually zombies, just letting the day pass by them. A thunderstorm is on the horizon, yet they still remain motionless. Suddenly, Mecha, the matriarch of the host family, stumbles with a glass in her hand, and lacerates her chest and breasts. The underage children are responsible for transporting Mecha to the doctor because nobody else is sober enough to drive.

Meanwhile, the children explore the tropical areas with gun in hand, looking to have a little fun. They encounter a cow that is stuck in the mud, obviously suffering. At first pass, they consider killing it to put it out of its mercy. They decide against it the first time, and on a later visitation when the cow has not improved, they end his existence. Animals and references to animals are constants in the film. One child relates a story that was told to her about dogs that ate cats, but when the dog was cut apart to see if the cats were inside, they discovered an African rat. Even in ordinary scenes around the house, the sight of wildlife is constant, from having a dog in the frame to backing it bark in the background. We even see a random turtle crawl across the frame in a later, brief scene. The point is clear, that we are supposed to compare these miserable individuals who merely exist, behavior and sometimes the misfortune of animals.

Meanwhile, someone in the city has witnessed an image of the Virgin Mary on a water tower. There is continual news coverage about this wonder, with people describing what she saw or what friends of theirs had seen, but few people on camera having actually seen the Virgin. One of those interviewed on camera says that the Virgin’s appearance implies that hard times are coming, foreshadowing some events that will transpire to the family later. These sequences recall another famous cinematic Virgin Mary appearance in Fellini’s La Dolce Vita, which is ultimately dismissed as little more than media frenzy. The same is true here, but it is a mechanism to advance and close the story.

The only real energy comes from the children. They are the only ones that have normal human urges. For example, there is one scene where the two young women ask a boy to try on a shirt so they can see how it would look on someone else. It is obvious from their expressions and how they watch him change clothes that they simply want to see his bare chest. They participate in dance outings, and even if one of these results in a fight between two boys, including the one who changed in the store, they are an active and agile bunch. Towards the end, the children play collectively in the water amid an explosion of water probably from some broken water source. It violently sprays water into the stream, and they emerge from it with smiles on their faces. When the children are out, they are the opposite of stagnation. When they are at home, they are mostly bored, pensive, and tired, not so different than their parents who never leave the house.

With Mecha recovering from her lacerations, she is bed-ridden and miserable. She sees an advertisement for a mini-fridge, and later we see that she has the fridge, which allows for easier consumption of her mind-numbing drinks. At one point she sees her husband sleeping and mutters, “what a pig you turned out to be” with complete disdain. He has no real defense, as he is as helpless and lifeless as her, and is in a constant trance-like state. She later asks him to move into another room and leave her alone. By this point, they are a marriage of convenience, with only their laziness and alcoholism in common. What she despises in him, she could easily despise in herself.

Given their lack of admirable qualities, they project the worst habits on the Indians who serve them. These people, including the maid, are of a lower class, but they are portrayed as having a better work ethic and a stronger sense of self. Yet the upper class Argentines call them idiots, rag on them for eating bad fish and for treating animals poorly. The daughter is caught between her flawed mother and the Indians. When her friends discard some muddy fish saying that only Indians will eat it, she reclaims it and assumedly eats it later. She also tries to comfort the housekeeper after being lambasted for her race. She represents progression and compassion, given the circumstances she’ll encounter, could later turn into her mother.

A tragedy occurs at the very end, one that probably could have been avoided and I will not go into it here. Punctuating the bleakness of the film and combining the primary and subplot is another visitation to the Virgin Mary site, hoping to see something or get a message. She sees nothing and questions its validity. Even though the movie starts on a pessimistic note, it ends much darker.

Film Rating: 7/10

Supplements:

Lucrecia Martel, Seven Notes on Cinema – This feature gets us inside the creative mind of Martel and uses La Ciénaga and some of her other work in order to show her methods and philosophy towards film. She shares seven aspects of cinema that she employs in order to contrast a realistic and unrealistic vision. For La Ciénaga, the keys are sound and immersion. She uses grating sounds, like the animals and the pool chairs for instance. As for immersion, she uses steadicam and shoots close to the actor’s perspectives. Sometimes the camera is in so close that it feels like it is within another character. She also shares that she is not Catholic, whereas many in her town are, and that is probably why the Virgin Mary was used as a plot device.

Andres de Tellas – Tellas is a Writer, Director, and Buenos Aires International Festival of Cinema Co-Founder. He has a wealth of knowledge about Argentinian cinema, and I found his insights into their cinematic culture fascinating since I know virtually nothing about their cinema. The films are often based on politics due to the series of 20th century dictatorships. A notable film after they had freedom of expression was The Official Story (1985), which gained some world renown. What followed was mostly message movies, and the following generation (including Martel) went against that type and created a New Wave of Argentinian cinema. While the cinema is not as overtly political, it has to be read with the political backgrounds in mind. After all, the elder actors of La Ciénaga were repressed under the dictatorships. Some, like Graciela Borges, participated in the prior Argentinian New Wave before the political turmoil. La Ciénagac can be read as a straight family drama, or as the actions of people who have been repressed.

Martel works in the spirit of Jorge Luis Borges, who says that nationality comes naturally and exists in your expression. However she may try to avoid it, her Argentinian upbringing is ever present in her cinema. She is aware of filmmaking history, especially Argentine, and possibly she was making a reference to Fellini, or maybe just using Catholicism as a theme of false hope for people who had been repressed.

Criterion Rating: 7/10

[DSNT]

LES BLANK: ALWAYS FOR PLEASURE. PART FOUR.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/criterion-production/release_boxshots/4303-e8334fc711d041e0f684e8cb875caa 82/737_BD_box_348x490_original.jp g

GAP-TOOTHED WOMEN, LES BLANK, 1987

Again, we have a Les Blank topic that comes completely out of left field. Who would dream of filming a movie about something as minute as a slight wedge in between someone’s mouth? Les Blank was that man, and based on what other topics he approached, he must have been unusually attracted to women with the dental distinction.

The big question is whether there is some mystique to gap-teethed women. Are they sexier than girls with a block of bright and shiny whites? That’s probably in the eye of the beholder, just like some people with find various imperfections attractive.

Blank takes the topic further and uses it explore the concept of beauty and self-image. He opens with a girl who bites into an apple with her gap-teeth, and proudly leaves her ‘signature’ in the piece of fruit. Chaucer is referenced aplenty, and sometimes in the manner that he adored gap-toothed women. The Wife of Bath had gapped teeth, and she also had five husbands and countless other lovers. Her affliction did not leave her for wanting. Others have studied the term and traced “gap” back to the word “gat,” which meant lecherous, casting not the most favorable shadow on Mrs. Bath.

Some women are self conscious about their gaps. A lot of dentists consider it a flaw and aggressively will try to convince women to close them (or maybe they just want the business). They are more common in other words, such as Indian, where one lady says “half of India has gap teeth.” That could be due to a lack of dentistry as well as any cultural preference.

To balance out those with image problems, there are plenty of famous individuals that are considered beautiful. Lauren Hutton made a living out of her gap-tooth, and appeared in the movie doing street interviews. Madonna, also gap-toothed, is likely also proud. At last check, she still had the gap, but she did not choose to appear in the movie. Hutton’s message is to accept one’s own imperfections and turn them into your own uniqueness. Others take it further, such as one lady who screams for “Gap Pride!”

Blank gets some points for pursuing a topic that most could not even conceive of, and using it to explore the incomprehensible topic of women’s self-image and male attraction. Well done, Les.

Film Rating: – 8/10

Supplements:

Mind the Gap – This piece shows his office, cluttered with stuff he loves. Includes gap-toothed women, garlic, and red headed women and was going to make a movie about the latter. Susan Kell talks about his fascination of Chaucer, and the wife of Bath.

They had a Casting call advertisement and had the phone ringing non-stop. Who knew there were so many people with gap-teeth and eager to show the word? Te gist was that most women were excited about celebrating what had been seen as a flaw. They unsuccessfully tried to get Madonna. They also tried for Whoopi Goldberg, who was local to Berkeley and not as famous. She probably would have done the film, but her career blew up during the filming and she was no longer available.

YUM, YUM YUM! A TASTE OF CAJUN AND CREOLE COOKING, LES BLANK, 1990

Les Blank has some great titles, and this one fits the subject the best. I would say the vast majority of his documentaries have some element of food, even if it is not the primary topic. He just loves food.

This time he returns to Cajun country to focus exclusively on the cuisine. We meet up again with an older Marc Savoy, who we first met on Spend it All. He throws a bunch of ingredients in a pot that are then cooked over a country wooden fire. It is called “Goo Courtboullion,” which means absolutely nothing to me, but looks like the most delicious thing anyone could taste.

The guys out in the wilderness haven’t heard of Paul Prudhomme, which turns out to be a good time for a transition, and they then show him signing books in New Orleans in the next scene. He is the owner and celebrity chef of K-Paul’s Louisiana Kitchen. What’s interesting about Prudhomme is that this is ages before the Food Network, Top Chef, The Cooking Channel, and the concept of celebrity chefs. Prudhomme was one of the originals, and he along with others (Justin Wilson, Emeril Lagassee) popularized Cajun cuisine in the kitchen. When one watches this documentary -- and perhaps many TV executives had -- it is easy to understand why.

They cook a variety of dishes, with a focus on whole foods and nothing manufactured. One lady dismisses garlic powder, saying, “that’s the new stuff they got. No good.” Blank, ever the garlic aficionado, would most definitely agree.

Many more dishes are made, including a variety of Etoufees, each looking more delicious than the last. I seriously challenge anyone to watch this 30-minute documentary and not eat something during or immediately after.

Marc Savoy reappears to presciently comment on Louisiana cooking from outsiders. He ordered Cajun fish at Disneyland. The fish itself was fine, but they covered it in a black pepper that made it inedible. He actually took the fish to go, removed the pepper and ate it. I wonder what he would make of all the Cajun restaurants that have sprouted up all over the country? Would he take their finest dishes, eat a bite and then customize the rest later in his hotel room? My guess is yes.

The best quote is:
“What’s better than a bowl of gumbo?”
“Two bowls.”

Film Rating: 8.5/10

Supplements:

Marc and Les – When recruiting Savoy’s participation, they called him up and said “come on over, making gumbo.” Marc credits Les for meeting his wife Anne, which was sort of a half-truth because he met her at a festival that he wouldn’t had attended if not for Les. Les would remain friends with a lot of his subjects. Savoy was no exception.

THE MAESTRO: KING OF THE COWBOY ARTISTS, LES BLANK, 1994

The Maestro: King of the Cowboy Artists, 1995

The overall theme of “Cowboy Artist” Gerry Gaxiola is that he does not paint for money. Like with Anton Newcombe, made famous by Ondi Timoner’s Dig!, he is not for sale. The continual reminder for Gaxiola in the film and the features is that for him, art is a religion and not a business.

What’s odd about Gaxiola is that the grew up in San Luis Obispo. Even though he grew up in a ranch, southern California does not exactly scream cowboy country. He speaks without a southern accent and his values are more common in Berkeley, where we resides, than say, Texas or anywhere else in the deep south. Yet he travels with a Cowboy getup, complete with the hat, boots, and even utility belts that he creates himself to holster his “guns,” which would be paintbrushes. Is he an artist or a gimmick? If you ask him, the answer would indubitably be artist, but Les Blank’s portrayal leaves the question on the fence.

He began having a Maestro Day, which would be a daily celebration where he would invite crowds to see him perform. He would do some artistic endeavors, like a “Quick Draw” where he would paint at warp speed. The rest was more performance, including singing and dancing. He would get the crowd involved, awarding best-dressed cowboy. There would be treats, and it sounds like a fun day for the family. Despite the success of Maestro Day, he quit it after 13 years because he was moving more in the direction of entertainer than artist and that is not how he wanted to be seen.

The man was not without talents. I’m not art expert, but I could tell that he was well versed in painting a picture, constructing buildings (like his own art studio), clothing (all of his boots), and various other items that could be used in art. He could paint, use ceramics, and sculpt.

The problem was that he never got the respect of the art community. He thinks that is because he chose not to sell his paintings, and the community respects economy over talent. Whether that is true is not clear. Perhaps they saw him as a gimmick just like many would at Maestro Day. He challenges successfully recognized artists such as Andy Warhol and the Christos, all to no avail. Warhol passed away, and the Maestro thinks that given time, he would have given in. From what I know of Warhol, I sincerely doubt the Maestro would have been paid any mind.

He appears to be able to live thanks to an inheritance of some sort, and so he self-importantly lives the Van Gogh life, constantly reminding us of that. Even though Van Gogh had a benefactor in Theo, he lived in misery and desperation. The Maestro, with his massive arsenal, choice studio, and slick Cadillac lives with a smile on his face.

Film Rating: 6.5/10

The Maestro Rides Again, 2005

In this follow-up work, the Maestro shows more of his work, including his first set of boots, a piece of luggage that has the state of California and all its counties. He paints a series of famous landmarks, which for the documentary his subject is the Mission of San Gabriel. He wanted to paint the first McDonalds in Downey, but does a “drive by” painting because it is too dangerous a neighborhood for him to stand all day.

This time his inspiration is Howard Finster, famous artist who rendered many REM covers and was proficient with folk art cutouts. The Maestro makes his own version of cut outs, with popular figures like Chet Baker, Miles Davis, Howard Finster and unpopular figures like George W Bush, who the Maestro dubs “Inferior Man.” He is not a conservative cowboy. That much is clear.

Cinephiles should appreciate his artistic series on a number of films, such as a painting about Fitzcarraldo, although the painting makes it look to be more about Blank’s documentary about the project, Burden of Dreams since both Kinski and Herzog are in the frame. He also painted other Les Blank images, such as the polka film with Blank in the audience. He was clearly a Blank fan, but was that because of his respect for the man’s craft or to serve his own ego since he was a Blank subject.

Film Rating: 5/10

The Maestro – Interview with Gaxiola in 2014. He thinks Blank hit the ‘high spots’ and the cowboy stuff and not as much the artist. He thinks the film portrayed him without any depth, and again laments that he thought of himself as a Van Gogh, but the art establishment did not want that. He said the process was frustrating because the filming took 10 years and Les Blank was not a guy with a plan. He just filmed. Blank pretends he’s not interested until you start doing something, and then he would turn on cameras.

He seems to regret the Cowboy caricature, and he especially complains when people call him out for “dressing” as a Cowboy, because it makes him feel like a phony. My question is, does he rustle cows?

He is not altogether proud of the film and complains some, but then catches himself and tries to sound grateful. He is happy that the “Art is a religion and not a business” was the principle theme and has on.

Art for Art’s Sake – This is a brief feature about the process of putting the film together. Chris Simon saw an ad about Maestro Day, decided to go and had a great time. During the show, Maestro mentions Burden of Dreams. Wow! He and Les were like two peas in a pod. Lots of films took five or more years, mostly to let the material develop, but also editing. Maestro is an example of one that took a long time.

They discuss the Christos incident, which I found very interesting. Blank was not happy with this situation because he thought Gaxiola wanted to deface Christo’s art by spraying paint on it with his gun as part of his challenge. They argued about it, and compromised by having Blank shoot the challenge as if Maestro is shooting the umbrellas, but he does not. There is even a disclaimer that “No Umbrellas Were Harmed in This Film.”

SWORN TO THE DRUM: A TRIBUTE TO FRANCISCO AGUABELLA, LES BLANK, 1995

It is fitting that the final documentary on the box set is of a musician, and more fitting that it’s of a fringe, obscure and culturally immigrated genre. Francisco Aguabella is a Cuban percussionist who plays Latin Jazz and Santeria music. He emigrated Cuba in 1957. Even though he never made his way back to the homeland, he has stuck to his roots and helped bring his culture and Afro-Cuban to the states.

This is not the type of drumming that people would think of after seeing Whiplash. It is almost in a different universe. When you see it being played onstage, it is doesn’t appear to be as impressive. Aguabella is one of many percussionists, and he seems to be doing less actual drumming, but he is actually the mastermind that determines the beat. He translates via his big drum to the other drummers and creates a conversation with the other drummers. The sum of the entire process is magic, and nobody would argue that drums are not an important, if not the most important, factor in Afro-Cuban music.

There is plenty of exposition about the music origins, Francisco’s personal history, and the way the music works. The cultural history is fascinating even if they race through it, but it is the images that are the most powerful. There are certain key images that are unforgettable, like when Aguabella is playing at a religious ceremony and the camera freezes at the moment when someone becomes “possessed” by the music.

The colors that are painted on his face represent different Gods. He us a devout Religious person, and that can be seen through his playing. Carlos Santana says that when they are playing, the walls begin to sweat. People are always dancing, sometimes energetically, sometimes hypnotically. Like a lot of the music that Blank portrays, it inspires people to move.

Film Rating: 9/10

A Master Percussionist – This feature has more background info on Aguabella. He was a master Jazz drummer, but could also play Santeria. Back then he was one of few that could play in the states, although now many can play due to the popularization here. Latin Jazz was his love, but he was at his most powerful during the Santeria ceremony. It was just powerful.

They didn’t film him talking about his origins in Cuba before the revolution, where he would carry huge bags of sugar. After revolution, he was afraid if he left he couldn’t come back. He was a remarkable man.

[DSNT]

http://s3.amazonaws.com/criterion-production/release_boxshots/4303-e8334fc711d041e0f684e8cb875caa 82/737_BD_box_348x490_original.jp g

Over the last month or so, I have tackled the terrific Criterion box set, Les Blank: Always for Pleasure. It consists of fourteen main features, countless supplements, and various other short films. It was a treasure of riches, as Blank took me through Cajun country, to Northern California, across the country to the Blue Ridge Mountains, up north to the New England area, back to California and Louisiana, and ended up with a spiritual celebration in New York City. In the process I experienced various different cultures, foods, music, and vibrant characters that I couldn’t even dream up. Les Blank’s world is about as far from the mainstream as one can get, but it is about living life to the fullest, enjoying the simple things, and respecting your traditions.

How can I summarize such a journey? I really cannot, as I’ve already written nearly 10,000 words as I rode along. You can read them here:

As a recap, I’ll look at the different types of topics that Les Blank explored, and how his vision was unique compared to so many others.

Music

Today it seems like most musicians and bands with a fan base have their own documentary. They are relatively easy to put together thanks to DIY independent film avenues and crowdfunding like Kickstarter. The larger the band, the larger the production, and the sales are nearly guaranteed. Most of these documentaries fall into one of two categories: the career narrative and the concert film. While some can be extremely good, such as somewhat recent documentaries on Rush, Metallica and Big Star, but they follow the same formula. They talk about the band’s origins, their success, breakup, and aftermath. They show concert footage and talking head interviews with anyone and everyone they can find. Many of these are inspired by VH1’s Behind the Music more than filmmakers like Les Blank or D.A. Pennebaker, and that’s a shame.

In many ways, Les Blank was a pioneer of the music documentary, and in other ways he was completely isolated from the genre, on his own island. He started with Dizzy Gillespie (which is not on the disc), and from there, he found some blues artists in Texas and Louisiana. He ventured further away from the Deep South, and covered artists that would not be found at the top of a music chart or featured on MTV. He wasn’t just interested in the musician, but also the way that they lived, the place and culture that molded them, and, perhaps most importantly, the affect they had on others. The one common thread among all of his musical documentaries is people could dance to the music. The people who experienced and enjoyed the music were just as essential to the documentary as the musician and the music.

Les Blank’s music work predated MTV, VH1, and Kickstarter, although it eventually caught up and he worked concurrently with the transformation of audio to video. He undoubtedly saw the musical documentaries from Pennebaker, Scorsese, Demme, and others, and you would think those would influence his style. Nope. From the first documentary on the disc, The Blues According to Lightnin’ Hopkins in 1968 to the final documentary, Sworn to the Drum, very little had changed. He had as much interest in how and where Hopkins grew up as he did Francisco Aguabella. He could not travel to Cuba to understand Aguabella, but if it were politically possible, he unquestionably would have. It is no coincidence that both of these documentaries are just about a half an hour long, feature the artist’s music as the soundtrack, shows people dancing to the music, and explores the roots and ideologies that make them express themselves through sound.

Food

Again, Les Blank was a pioneer when it came to documentaries about food. Unlike with music documentaries, food via the mass media found a home almost exclusively on television. Blank probably had more influence than he gets credit for, since it was the Cajun cuisine that became a large part of the cooking television. One of his subjects, Paul Prudhomme, even made cooking television during the nineties. Other personalities like Emeril Lagasse and Justin Wilson also became Cajun celebrity chefs. As Blank demonstrated, Cajun cuisine is delectable, and until the 1990s, was virtually unexplored as a mass consumer cuisine. Today you can get Cajun food everywhere, but not the type of food that Les Blank’s subjects cooked.

Food was such a central subject with his documentaries, that it comes as a surprise that only two of the films on the disc were specifically about cuisine. He explored garlic with Garlic Is as Good as Ten Mothers and Cajun in Yum, Yum, Yum! A Taste of Cajun and Creole Cooking. Despite it not being the sole subject, food is a large part of most of his documentaries. For musicians, he wants to know what they eat in addition to where they live. When he looks at cultures, such as New Orleans and Polish-American, he spends a lot of time with their foods of choice. Even with Tommy Jarrell in Sprout Wings and Fly, he has a scene at the dinner table where they serve traditional southern food.

Les Blank loved food and it showed. In the supplements, we learned that he would run around movie theaters with aromatic dishes prior to a screening so that viewers could feel even more immersed in that culture. Can you imagine watching a movie about New Orleans while smelling red beans and rice? What about garlic with it’s strong scent? Even though I watched all of these movies without the hint of an aroma, I felt like I could smell garlic and Cajun food.

Life

Even though each documentary had a subject, Les Blank’s films were just about the way people lived. Whether they were laborers in the middle of Texas, hippies in California, or country folk living in the mountains, we got to see what they did, how they behaved, and we heard their thoughts and ideas. As I reflect on this boxset, I think back to the early documentaries where he shows gorgeous landscapes, stunning sunsets, or just people wandering to and fro. People fascinated Blank, and that fascination was not restricted with his subject. He was enthralled by people running in a field just as much as he was a crazy actor arguing with a director (from Burden of Dreams about Herzog and Kinski, which was not on the set).

Food and music was just one example of the many outlets people found to enjoy life. The Maestro dedicated his life to painting hundreds or perhaps thousands of pieces, not for economic benefit, but for his own passion. He loved to show people that were proud of something, whether it was a distinctive physical imperfection like a gap between two front teeth, or people who tried to compete with each other by wearing the best costumes at Mardi Gras. He showed people having a good time however they could. It doesn’t matter whether people were poor and lived in small Texan towns, or if they were doctors and lawyers that wanted to dance polka for a week, there was a smile on their face. If a nagging tooth gets in the way, then just pull it out and enjoy life.

Thanks Les Blank for showing us your world.

Box Set Rating: 9/10

[Russ]

Thanks so much for giving this artist the respect and cred he deserves. I bought the blu box not just on the strength of your superlative reviews, but on my experiences with some of his short films, pre-Criterion. Les Blank is my kind of guy.

Aaron, once again the Criterion guru. You, my friend, rock.

(Sorry, no rep for you; apparently I must first "spread it around". Lame.)

[DSNT]

Kind words, Russ. Appreciate that, and no worries about rep. I don't really understand how it works under the new forum anyway.

I really had no idea what to expect going into the Les Blank set. I'd only seen Burden of Dreams, and only knew of his style in broad strokes. I was caught off guard by how refreshing and different his work was, which I hope came across in the reviews. Criterion put together a fantastic set. I'd recommend you take your time and savor each film and make sure you watch all the features, which are usually about 5-10 minutes each.

I watched In the Realm of the Senses this week and am tackling My Winnipeg next. Have not been much of a Guy Maddin fan, so not sure how I'll respond.

[Russ]

My Winnipeg is Maddin's best and most accessible work. Since he is very much an acquired taste, take that with a big grain'o salt.

Suffice to say i'm a huge fan of his body of work, although I really hated his last feature, Keyhole.

[DSNT]

I've only seen The Saddest Music in the World. Been awhile, but I remember being very impressed with the filmmaking and how he paid homage to classic film with a modern artistic sensibility, but felt it dragged and was not very engaging.

[DSNT]

I had forgotten about The Heart of the World when I posted above and was down with it. I'm not sure if I'd call My Winnipeg accessible, but it was one of the strangest and most creative "documentaries" that I've seen.

[Russ]

When I called My Winnipeg Maddin's most accessible film, that was in reference to his own body of work. Did you infer that I meant it as being accessible in a mainstream cinema sense? Oh lordy, no!

[DSNT]

Yeah I misread that. Definitely not accessible, but I thought it was a riot.

[Russ]

Appreciate that, and no worries about rep. I don't really understand how it works under the new forum anyway.
REPPED. (I found a way around that ridiculous rule)

[DSNT]

IN THE REALM OF THE SENSES, NAGISA OSHIMA, 1976

http://s3.amazonaws.com/criterion-production/release_boxshots/2074-5f02ecb0903e99e1c80463f3c02a25 6b/20006_box_348x490_original.jpg

In the Realm of the Senses is shocking, vile, gruesome and absurd, all of which were intentional. It meant to provoke us (and Japan) away from our mundane social norms, like a lot of 1970s filmmakers were doing across the globe. With the Japanese fierce censorship code, this film is even more shocking, and it reveals something about their moral code given that it still has not been shown in it’s uncut entirety today.

However disturbing, it is essentially a film about love. To most people, including myself, this type of love would be revolting and unfathomable. The woman has an unquenchable sexual thirst, while the man serves as a vehicle for her insatiable desire. As their relationship progresses, the ordinary becomes boring and she continues to ratchet up their activities. This makes for a more controversial and shocking film as it goes along, but it is fitting in how the plot develops and resolves.

When I first watched it, I found it shocking and amusing. That was also intended. Scenes such as when children throw snowballs at an older man’s genitalia add very little to the plot, and serve only to further provoke. The older man in question is only pertinent because he recognizes Sada, the lead character, as a former prostitute, although that could have been handled differently.

The sexual acts get more amusing, whereas the climax (no pun intended) and resolution are outlandish and way over the top. I was surprised to learn later that this was a true story. This one needed some time to settle and appreciate, and thanks to a good number of Criterion supplements, I received plenty of context and analysis.

Even though the description of the film would sound like pornography (and in a way, it is), the difference is that this was created and produced by professionals and has an artistry that lessens the stimulation. The set designs and photography are gorgeous, and even though the characters are doing unsettling things with their bodies, they are framed by an auteur. One such example is during the wedding scene. The man who had previously conducted the ceremony is doing some sort of celebratory dance. The camera pans upward so that he and his dance are the focus of the shot. It settles there for a time as he continues dancing, and then pans down to his feet where an orgy is taking place among the entire wedding party. Again, it is meant to shock and not titillate.

From here on out, I have to discuss the ending. Please stop reading here if you are spoiler averse.

As domestic, routine sexual activity becomes boring, Sada veers into sado-masochism territory. This is introduced through her earning her living as a prostitute, and encouraging her client to slap her repeatedly. She enjoys this so much that she brings it into her own bedroom. This leads even further, and she eventually gets fixated on choking. She likes the sensation when he is being choked during the sexual act. Even this eventually becomes mundane, and they have to go even further.

To understand Kichi’s behavior and final sacrifice, you have to understand a little bit about Japanese culture. They have a certain fascination with it, and they think of it as courageous to sacrifice one’s life for another. The most obvious examples of this ideology are the kamikazes in World War II. We also decorate our heroes, but in Japan it is different. It is truly honorable to die by one’s own desire.

When Kichi tells Sada that next time she should not stop with the choking, he is committing his final sacrifice. This is him letting go, giving everything he has in order to please who he loves, because there is nothing else within him that can satisfy her any longer. From a Japanese perspective, it is honorable, if unconventional, way to die.

The ending is foreshadowed throughout the film. She has been characterized to have a violent streak, and had even threatened to cut off his manhood earlier in the film. There are scenes where she uses sharp objects, such as the time she holds a knife in her mouth, or the fantasy she has of cutting up Kichi’s ex-wife. Once she realizes that Kichi is gone, she simply takes what she feels belongs to her, his manhood. Again, this is shocking and grotesque, but in the context of their relationship, it is another act of love. She is taking her favorite part of his, and what’s left is her brutal loneliness.

Film Rating: 7/10

Supplements:

Commentary: – This was a fantastic commentary from film scholar Tony Rayns, which was not expected. He begins by disclaiming that he will not be commenting on the sexual acts themselves, and he takes an academic approach to the film that was enlightening and refreshing.

He reveals that the popularity of artistic sex films in America prompted the project to start. Japanese had many sex films, but that’s not what they were going for. This was a true story, and the filmed version a lot more similar to the reveal events. Not every scene was true, of course, but the broad strokes of the plot were real.

They were a working class couple, not very educated, and they continue an erotic tradition that goes back centuries until Edo period. It stopped around Meiji period, where outside morals infringed on them. Because of this, In the Realm is in part a political film, but that is difficult for Americans to tell unless they have a good sense of Japanese history.

Oshima drew on the trial transcript and the Sada story that was told after she was released from jail and published later. Oshima had made other provocative films, but this was his first from the female perspective. Of course it would not have made much sense to tell this story from a male point of view..

The sexual pleasure on film is all from Sada, and not from Kichi. He is never shown or heard actually in an orgasmic state. Even in the scene where his pleasure is shown in physical form, he does not moan or shudder. It is shown from her perspective and she takes the pleasure in his discharge, not him.

The true story is that after Kichi dies, the story becomes popular and people side with Sada. That is strange given what we’ve seen on film, but it is not too abnormal given Japanese culture. He gave his life for her.

Interviews:

Oshima and His Actors – This was a 1976 interview with the lead actors and Oshima for Belgian TV in 1976. Fuji does not actually speak in this interview, and Oshima does the majority of the talking, He says this was the first hard-core pornographic film in Japan. The other ‘pink’ films, as he calls them, were tame in comparison.

Eiko Matsuda, who plays Sada, speaks briefly and seems uncomfortable. She had an inferiority complex when she heard about the film. It helped her work through it, and so she feels it was her destiny.

Tatsuya Fuji – The lead actor was interviewed for Criterion in 2008.

French title was “Empire of the Senses” which is a better fit. He felt that his relationship was very much a dual, two-person empire, and their desires are their own. They should not be judged.

He said not many actresses could have taken such a role, not just because of the ability, but also the courage. Eiko had worked in underground theater and had a different perspective than most actresses.

Oshima created a relaxed and gentle atmosphere on set. He was very polite and let the actors be. Usually the set would be cleared for the sex scenes with just the actors and Oshima present.

He talks about how the sense of dying in Japan is different. They see life as a “a fleeting dream.”

Recalling the Dream – Even though this segment is under the Interview category, it is more of a documentary. It is a 40-minute segment that talks with a number of people who were involved with the film from behind the camera.

French distributor Dauman had imported Oshima’s Death by Hanging. He then moved from distribution to production, and it was Dauman that wanted an erotic film. Oshima was a leftist and it was thought that he would use sexual imagery as a political statement, but it turned out to be a conventional love story, albeit with political overtones.

They got around French legalities because they were technically French sets. All the film and negatives went to France. It was not developed in Japan during or after filming. It had been developed in Japan, the lab would be charged with indecency. It was unusual for the crew to not see dailies or any footage during the shoot. They just had to trust that Oshima was getting what he needed.

When the filmmakers and crew returned from France after the initial release, customs and police waiting for them. They had to screen the print to customs because it was a customs bond, which was the only time the film was ever screened uncensored in Japan. It was an audience of 50 people. For the Japanese release, they put a black bar on the entire lower part of the frame to censor the sexual activities.

Police wanted to go after Oshima for something and couldn’t. Instead they went after the script. The result was that Oshima apologized for stimulating the judge, police and authorities in the hearing. It sounds today like he was being sarcastic, but that was actually part of the deal.

Censorship is more liberal in Japan now, but they still cannot show film. The biggest victory was being able to show the castrated penis uncensored.

Deleted Footage – Most of the scenes were simply extensions of existing scenes and were not too necessary. For instance, they extend a scene with her playing music at the inn to hide that they are having sex. The most notable deleted footage was that of the non-fatal choking scene and just after Kichi’s death. That scene is extended with Sada acting frantically and looking around, presumably to make sure nobody was around. They probably shortened that scene to make it seem more like love and less like a crime.

Criterion Rating: 8.5/10

[DSNT]

MY WINNIPEG, GUY MADDIN, 2007

http://s3.amazonaws.com/criterion-production/release_boxshots/4320-44e136dce745ab81a3db3f2edb0f71 5b/741_BD_box_348x490_original.jp g

People can be extremely protective about the definition of a documentary. There are some purist that insist that the only real documentaries are cinema vérité, where the camera is a mere fly on the wall and the directors do absolutely nothing to obstruct real life from happening. Of course people have been testing that definition for nearly 100 years. Robert Flaherty is famous for casting actors and staging the action, yet his documentaries like Nanook of the North and Man of Aran are seen as revolutionary.

While many have stayed true to the essence of the documentary, the envelope has continually been pushed ever since. Errol Morris broke a major rule by actually reconstructing real events for The Thin Blue Line. Today the definition of a documentary has been stretched even further. With My Winnipeg, Guy Maddin did not so much as push the envelope, but tore it up into little pieces, ate it up, and regurgitated it. And it is magnificent.

First, let me get a disclaimer out of the way. Guy Maddin is not for everyone. I had seen two of his films previously, The Heart of the World and The Saddest Music in the World. In both I recognized the talented craft of a filmmaker who had studies his film history, especially black and white silent film. These films were a mixture of silent film with David Lynch. I preferred “Heart” over “Saddest”, respect both and loved neither. They were intriguing experiments and not much more. Despite the accolades, I skipped My Winnipeg until now.

Another disclaimer, I love documentary and could care less about the purity. I love Flaherty, especially Morris, Steve James, Berlinger & Sinofsky (R.I.P.), and everyone in between. If someone wants to experiment with form in order to make a point, whether for the purpose of art or revealing a truth, then I say go for it. One of my favorite documentaries of the last several years is Exit Through the Gift Shop, which may be a complete farce. It has some truths, because it talks about graffiti artists whose work exists, but we ultimately do not know what is truthful. We may be the subjects just as much as those on screen. The same could be said with Guy Maddin’s documentary.

My Winnipeg is both a love letter and hate letter to Maddin’s home town. Ultimately it is a little bit of both. He loves the uniqueness, the absurdity, yet hates the cold, the monotony, and how it reminds him of the symbolism of his childhood, such as the furs, the forks, and the lap. Don’t worry if that last sentence doesn’t make sense. It doesn’t make too much sense in the film either.

The film is rooted in Maddin’s own life. He recreates his childhood using actors to play his mother, his dead brother. They stage much of it at his re-created childhood home at 800 Ellis. Since his father died, they pretend that his body was exhumed and buried in the living room.

Maddin provides the narration, which begins with him riding a train through Winnipeg, and the voice is his own reflections of the city. As he narrates in his monotone voice, interspersing archival footage with scenes of him trying to stay awake on the train. In this manner, the style is similar to the other Maddin films, with nods to silent films (weird title cards), quick dissolves between different types of footage, grainy film, shaky camera work, and the scenes cut back and forth from the train to his home, to the stories of his childhood and of the city. This is not like any other documentary.

It is immediately apparent that Maddin is playing with the truth, not just of his own life, but the entire city. He states some facts, one of which is that Winnipeg has 10x the sleepwalking rate of any other city. Of course that cannot be true. How is it even measurable? Yet it plays with his train-riding reflections of the city that in many respects resembles a dream world. He also claims that Winnipeg is the coldest city in North America. This is partially true depending on how you measure. It is the coldest large city. There are a few towns in Nunavut that would blow Winnipeg doors off. Maddin’s intention, however, it is not presenting an absolutely factual representation of the city. How much fun would that be anyway?

As he ventures away from his own history, he looks deeper into the city. “Winnipeg!” he says, as he introduces another absurdity, like not being allowed to keep any old signage. All the old signage is kept in the signage graveyard. He talks about a TV show called Ledgeman, where every episode has someone standing at the edge of a ledge, and every show ends with a suicide. Is that real? You can easily Google it to find out. If not real, then what is Maddin trying to say about his city? The TV show is not real, and I think this is part of the hate letter to his city, the fact that people would be entertained by people leaving their city in one of the most gruesome ways imaginable.

There are other tidbits of “facts,” some more absurd than the last. He talks about the MTS Centre, or the MT Centre (empty center) with the S flickering. This was the hockey arena, but has become a betrayal because Winnipeg’s market could not sustain an NHL hockey team, so it was demolished yet stilled fielded a team called The Black Tuesdays that consisted of former players aged 70 or older, who played hockey amid the wreckage, sometimes with the wrecking ball actively destroying the arena. Maddin also claims that he was born and raised in the Centre. He was nursed in the wives room, and loaned out to visiting teams as a stick boy.

Some of the above paragraph is true, some embellished, and some outright lies.

Finally we get to the horses, the lovely and beautiful horses. I am not going to delve into this story because it is such a terrific scene to behold. This also has a little bit of truth, a little bit of embellishment, and yes, even some lies.

Some events seem to be absurdist revisionist history, but are absolutely true. That’s part of what is gorgeous about this documentary. Not only is it engaging and fascinating, but it is a mystery. One could spend hours trying to fact check the documentary, and some probably have, and still could not tell the truth from the lies.

There is one telling line near the beginning of the film. “Everything that happens in Winnipeg is a euphemism.” Of course this is not literally true. Plenty of true things happen every day. Perhaps everything that happens in My Winnipeg is a euphemism.

Sometimes strange is truthier than fiction. I loved this movie.

Film Rating: 9/10

Supplements:

Cine-Essays: These are a series of short essays that Maddin refers to as little “points” that when finished point by point, will encompass Winnipeg. The topics are puberty, colours, elms, and cold. They are, very much like the film, indescribable and inexplicable, but just as much fun.

Guy Maddin and Robert Enright – This is a 52 minute conversation from 2014. He talks about the evolution of the project, and of course, about the factuality of the piece.

The documentary was commissions by Michael Burns for the Documentary Channel. Maddin was fascinated by trains and wanted to use this as the basis to show that Winnipeg is the “frozen hellhole” that we know it is.

He describes the mythologizing as “embedding the stories in emulsion.” It has been called Auto-Fantasia. The debate whether something is really documentary was mostly settled. He cites Herzog who presented “ecstatic truth.” Truth uninhibited is different than truth exaggerated, and that’s how he feels about My Winnipeg.
Even history is flawed because it is the victor’s viewpoint. If they look at the other side, it gets romanticized.

He cites influences, notably Chris Marker, although he does not want to compare himself to Marker. He was also inspired by Fellini’s I Vitelloni. He also references Detour because he cast leading lady Ann Savage as his mother. He does not make the connection, but one could connect the unreliable narrator of Detour with Maddin himself in My Winnipeg. He may be the least reliable narrator in any film.

Of course he does talk about which parts are real and fake, yet in a playful manner. He jokes that he would always get asked the same questions at festivals and screenings, so he challenged himself to always give a different answer. He does tell of some things that were real and embellished, but you can tell that he is answering carefully and could be giving different answers. Even as an interview subject, he is not the most reliable narrator.

”My Winnipeg:” Live in Toronto – This bit shows a screening at the Royal Cinema in Toronto with Maddin providing live narration. He felt nervous. He was told it is normal to feel terrible before and great during. He was surprised how he got big laughter during certain scenes.

Short Films:

Spanky: To the Pier and Back (2008)
This is a film about his dog Spanky, the same one he used as a replacement in the film for his childhood dog. Sadly, this turned out to be his last walk with the dog, as he died shortly afterword. What’s odd is that Maddin calls it an artless film, but I have to call him out on that statement. This is the most interesting dog walk to a pier and back that I’ve seen. Like his feature films, he uses a lot of quick cuts, and frenetic, sweeping camera motions. 8/10

Sinclair, 2010
This is a film that would be incomprehensible without the intro. Maddin was angry about some political, racist issues in Canada. Bryan Sinclair was an Indian, but had a treatable condition and was in the hospital, only to be found dead later. This film is the perspective of Sinclair in the waiting room. 5/10

Only Dream Things
This was developed for the Winnipeg Art Creative. He recreated the bedroom where he lived and used sounds that he remembers. The movie was dreamlike, with the typical Maddin style, only in color. The dreams themselves are more vivid, alternates between foggy dream state. In a way this film reminded me of someone who goes crazy with Photoshop filters or Instagram. 3/10

The Hall Runner, 2014 – This was one he was hoping to make into a feature but he did not get it off the ground. The film follows hall runner rugs with Maddin narrating. 5/10

Louis Riel for Dinner, 2014
Riel was a politician, and one of the founders of Manitoba. This was an animated short in which Louis Riel was a duck that could not be eaten. This one cannot be described and must be seen, and is probably my favorite short on the disc. 8/10

This was a treasure trove of riches and a nice, recent discovery for me. I expect this will be one of my favorite releases by the end of the year.

Criterion Rating: 9.5/10

[DSNT]

TOKYO DRIFTER, SEIJUN SUZUKI, 1966

http://s3.amazonaws.com/criterion-production/release_boxshots/3602-af9b4ccbbe920bccbbfff54e012c25 62/39_BD_box_348x490_original.jpg

Of the films that Seijun Suzuki would make for the Nikkatsu studio, Tokyo Drifter was one of the wildest, audacious, and visually stunning, yet it was also one of the most incongruous for both Suzuki and Nikkatsu. It was a bold visual statement that happened to also be a complicated yet predictable action film.

The opening is in black and white, with thugs beating up Tetsu, the hero, who is trying to make a clean break from the Yakuza. They leave him bloody and beaten in this depressing, black and white wasteland. Tetsu picks himself up, finds a toy gun between two rail cars that happens to be in color, and calmly says “Don’t get me mad.” From here we leave the old world, the black and white world, for a world that is full of vivid and at times overwhelming color.

The plot is almost unnecessary and at times it is nearly incomprehensible. Rather than bog us down in details, the plot is basically a way to transition from one action sequence to another. They skip ahead in time rather than wade in exposition. We know that there are rival gangs that are trying to get over on another, and Tetsu is caught between them. He becomes such a fearsome enemy that all the gangs target him, yet he is able to elude them. Always. He is the Tokyo Drifter, the ultimate badass, a killing machine that cannot be caught, contained, and of course, cannot be killed no matter how hard they try.

What separates Tokyo Drifter from all the other Nikkatsu teen films that were coming out during this period is the vivid visual style. Suzuki uses flamboyant colors whenever he can, usually loud and bright colors, the types that were being used in pop art – purples, pinks, yellows, blood reds. Even though the sets are just as unrealistic as the plot, they make this for an aesthetically pleasing and thrilling ride. You can turn your mind off, get lost in the eye candy, and root for the hero to triumph over his enemies.

The rival gangs and their real estate shenanigans are the embodiment of evil. They claim that “money and power rule now. Honor means nothing.” They have no redeeming qualities whatsoever, and exist completely as flattened villains. This works as a way of hero worship. As bad and bumbling as his enemies look, Tetsu just looks cool and calm. In one scene he takes on multiple opponents, which is odd given that this is a yakuza and not a samurai film, but the choreography film is reminiscent of how Zatoichi dispatches several enemies at once. You have to suspend enough disbelief that these people wouldn’t be wise enough to just take a few steps back and fire their guns at Tetsu. This is not a realistic world.

In several instances the style resembles that of a Spaghetti Western. There are long shots showing Tetsu drifting at some location, and his coolness is shown in close-up wearing his sunglasses and dripping in sweat, just like Sergio Leone was shooting Clint Eastwood around the same time.

Another similarity with the spaghetti western is that the hero has a theme song, but rather than it being scored by Morricone and played as background music when the hero enters the frame, it is actually sung or performed several times in the film. He is introduced as the Tokyo Drifter by an adoring female singer, and the song takes on several other forms throughout the running time. At one time he sings it himself, and another time he whistles what is by that time a familiar refrain.

Much of what takes place in Tokyo Drifter can be dismissed as style over substance with a brainless heroic plot, but there is a message to be had. It is no coincidence that American GIs are at the center of a bar fight near the end of the film. They are abused in this fight, and they react with a silliness that was probably stereotyped for Americans at the time. It may not be as explicit as other films, especially Gate of Flesh, but Suzuki appears to be lamenting the modern world that the Americans have created since the war, with their values of money over honor.

This is one movie that cannot be spoiled because it is completely predictable. It is difficult to criticize it for being ridiculous and over-the-top. Is that okay? Can we excuse this one for being silly, while we condemn other poorly written films? Yes, I think so, because this one has no intention of being anything other than pure fun. It is not aiming at literary high art. It attempts only to be escapist and bedazzling, and on that level it succeeds.

Film Rating: 7/10

Supplements:

Seijun Suzuki and Masami Kuzuu – This is a 2011 interview with the director and Assistant director. Suzuki saw this as a pop song movie, which it was. In some ways it could be considered a forebear to the music video. He said that they did not put as much thought into it as we might expect today. They were on a quick production schedule, so they discussed shot selections the night before. Their intent was to take the script and make the mundane seem interesting. Suzuki focused exclusively on style, and did not get much funding because his movies were not expected to be hits. He thinks that because they did not have money, they were able to get more creative. The vibrant colors were intended to highlight the pop song.

He denies being influenced by westerns, even though he did watch and admire them. This is one area where I think you have to take his denials with a grain of salt If he grew up watching westerns and this film ends up being full of similarities to the genre, then he was undeniably influenced by them, whether he realized it or not.

The film production revolved around star system. The studio intended to make Tetsuya Watari a star, and that is another reason why he was portrayed as heroically as possible and received flattering shots and poses. They even reshot scenes to heighten his presence.

The studio was against his films, especially this one because they too weird and surreal. The first version had a green moon in the final scene, which the studio made him reshoot, again making Watari more prominent, which he obliged. ‘What else could he do?’ he asks, laughing.

Seijun Suzuki – Here is was interviewed as part of a career retrospective in 1997. He started as a contract director doing B movies before being given the opportunity to make features, which is when he started making innovative genre films. He could not refuse too many scripts, and really why would he since they were all pulpy entertain films anyway? There were no perfect scripts, so he simply changed them as needed.

He tells some funny stories about Watari. He had orders to make him a star, but the actor was not experienced on the set. Many times he had trouble remembering his lines, and sometimes an AD would have to sit outside of the frame with a broom anf hit Watari in order to make him remember his lines.

Criterion Rating: 5.5/10

[Russ]

Oh my!


Valerie and Her Week of Wonders (http://www.criterion.com/films/27860-valerie-and-her-week-of-wonders)
http://s3.amazonaws.com/criterion-production/release_boxshots/4370-66e6216e9fec6cc0fb7d89c246dfdb 8f/761_BD_box_348x490_original.jp g

[DSNT]

I've heard great things about that one. Looking forward to it, The Bridge, and Fisher King. Not quite as excited about the box set, but I'll still watch.

Also I took a writing gig and sorta forgot to continue posting my Criterions here. I have a write-up of Don't Look Now and probably more at the blog.

[DSNT]

In addition to the Roeg, I've also done a Criterions of the 2014 Best, A Day in the Country, Violence at Noon, and a couple more.

Not many responses here and people read the blog quite a bit, so I may be done with the thread except for occasional updates.

http://criterionblues.com

[MadMan]

I love Tokyo Drifter. My Criterion DVD copy had this cover:

http://www.customaniacs.org/forum/attachments/criterion-collection-scanned-covers/50357d1185740349-039-tokyo-drifter-039-pre.jpg

[Gittes]

FYI: The out-of-print Criterion Blu-ray of The Third Man recently had its status changed on Amazon.com (http://www.amazon.com/The-Third-Man-Criterion-Collection/dp/B001EP8EKS). It's now "temporarily out of stock." According to the discussion (http://www.criterionforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1446&sid=27c1f3375552f0404e0a621986 5df2d2&start=175) happening at criterionforum.org, it actually might be worthwhile to try ordering it (as someone from over there puts it, "While I wouldn't hold my breath, there is some precedent for this: a couple years back, Amazon suddenly had some unsold stock of the Saura Eclipse, at that time going for a hundred bucks on the used market. I know that order got filled because my copy arrived, so I guess it's worth a shot, seeing as how there's literally nothing to lose").

I hope this pans out. After checking out the screen captures on DVDBeaver.com's page (http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDReviews8/thirdman.htm) for the movie, I prefer Criterion's transfer to the Studio Canal version that is currently available.

I actually just finished revisiting the Criterion DVD, and I realized this movie is even more sublime than I recalled (it had been a few years since my last viewing, but it's always been a favourite). So, yeah, here's hoping.

Also, a new restoration is in the works (http://variety.com/2014/film/news/classics-and-cult-movies-restored-reliance-mediaworks-1201257457/).

[MadMan]

My copy is only on DVD. For now it's the second best film I've ever seen.

[DSNT]

I love Tokyo Drifter. My Criterion DVD copy had this cover:

http://www.customaniacs.org/forum/attachments/criterion-collection-scanned-covers/50357d1185740349-039-tokyo-drifter-039-pre.jpg

That's the one I had before I upgraded to the Blu-Ray and traded it to the library. Tokyo Drifter is one that benefits from the Blu-Ray format.

I also put my pre-order in for The Third Man and am not getting my hopes up. I've noticed that it is no longer temporarily out of stock.

http://www.amazon.com/Third-Man-Criterion-Collection-Blu-ray/dp/B001EP8EKS/ref=sr_1_1?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1427403783&sr=1-1

A friend told me that it's possible Amazon somehow got a hold of some discs and will fill the orders placed. The same thing happened a couple years ago with an OOP title and that friend's order was fulfilled.

[MadMan]

I heard that Le samourai was out of print and I found it on DVD during the last sale at Barnes and Noble. Maybe its just OOP on blu.

[Gittes]

A friend told me that it's possible Amazon somehow got a hold of some discs and will fill the orders placed. The same thing happened a couple years ago with an OOP title and that friend's order was fulfilled.

That's heartening. Even so, I'm prepared for the likely possibility that I'll get an e-mail from Amazon indicating that they will not be able to ship the item. We'll see.


I heard that Le samourai was out of print and I found it on DVD during the last sale at Barnes and Noble. Maybe its just OOP on blu.

I don't think that one is OOP. Criterion never released it on Blu-ray, either.

[MadMan]

For some reason I thought it was.

[Pop Trash]

Seems like a good thread to remind ya'll that the B&N 50% off Criterion sale is ON.

[MadMan]

Already bought three Criterions. Might get more next week.