Directed and written by Lars Von Trier.
With Barbara Sukowa, Jean-Marc Barr, Udo Kier and Max Von Sydow.
Released 1991.
Seen on DVD.
This is a difficult film. I'll start with a summary. An idealistic young man, played by Barr, from New York decides to come to Germany after the war had just ended to help out in the post war reconstruction. He gets a job as a sleeping car conductor. He meets a German girl (Sukowa) who is daughter of the train company and they fall in love. Meanwhile there is resistance againts the American occupation and these resisters are called Werewolves. It seems that everyone wants something from the young man. The Americans want him to"keep his eyes open" about Nazi resistance. The werewolves want him to do terrorist work for them. The werewolves force him to do a job and the movie becomes a bit of a thriller.
The director's previous films were very arty but clearly also very visually dynamic. I could see that from some of the extras that came on the DVD. He says that this movie is more accessible, (though it's still clearly an art house film). It is because he uses a lot of classic movie motifs. When the protagonist is about to bed the girl, he shoots her face in a hazy profile that looks like it came from a film in the 40's. There are a couple of scenes in which their are large letters, "werewolf" in the background of the lone anguished figure. The film has a lot of clasic film elements embedded in it's arthouse modernism.
The film is mostly in black and white, but the director uses some color in certain important places. He actually mixes the black and white with the color on the same screen. It makes for some beautiful effects. He does this by filming the background and foreground seperately. He then superimposes the foreground onto the background. Frequently there were several layers of background. This means that actors had to be in very specific and exact places. There is not a whole lot of room for organic change and discovery in the acting. The whole film is very precise. For that reason, the film lacks a bit of an emotional appeal. It's a little difficult for the viewer to get emotionally involved with the characters.
But it is a very beautiful film and very well worth seeing if it comes to the theaters, though enjoyable on DVD too.
Note: The director has a spanking brand new film out called "Antichrist", which is supposed to be brutal, but beautifully shot also.
Friday, August 7, 2009
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Man on a Wire **
Directed by James Marsh.
Main protagonist - Phillippe Petit.
Released 2008.
Seen on DVD
I've been accused of only liking movies that the critics like, and for the most part, that's true. Though I trust some critics or publications more than others. Well this is a film that got critical acclaim (it even won an Oscar for best documentary), and I would have to disagree with the critics, though not entirely.
Basically it's about an infamous stunt Phillippe Petit pulled back in August of 1974. He broke into the fledgling World Trade Center, set up his equipment and walked a tight rope between the two towers. Some of us older people might actually remember the event.
I'll start with what I liked. The whole concept and the actual performance are quite intriguing - there's no denying that. It's set up like a caper movie. After all, they are trespassing on property and breaking the law. Everything has to be planned, practiced, organized and studied, before performing the stunt.
Another little subplot which becomes relevant for a small portion of the film is that after the big successful event, the small crew that were also close friend and lovers (they did bring on a couple of guys just for this caper to help out) become estranged from Petit. Apparently he gets a bit too big for his britches. He even sleeps with a woman while still being in a relationship with his girlfriend who was there through out the whole process. The celebrity had gotten to him. This is not explored very much which leaves the actual events of the estranging and feelings of the friends a bit ambiguous or unclear. Though I kind of like that because it makes the viewer have to contemplate what happened and why. There are some clues that something went wrong even before we learn about the affair. In a handful of interviews, his best friend breaks down and I'm thinking what in the world is wrong. Nobody dies or gets hurt (at least physically) so whats the big deal. Something for us to think about... or maybe the film makers needed to explore this idea more. Could go either way.
And some of the images of him were beautiful, like he was floating in air.
Now as for my complaints of the film, it was way too slow. I tried showing this film to my eight year old daughter and she had trouble staying focused on the film. Not that the attention span of an 8 year old girl is a proper test for determining what a good pace for a film should be, but I found myself restless, and I consider myself a very patient film watcher. Even the "caper" part of the film though it was interesting, was just too slow. In a fiction caper or heist film, they don't seem to drag on for so long. There's more dramatic urgency and tension. This film seemed to lack that urgency and tension, though they tried. I think that they were simply unsuccessful at creating it.
I also found Petit to be kind of grating. I mean it's logical since he is basically a street performer who specializes in high wire walking. Think of the old saying or idea that when people see a mime, they want want to slug them because they are so annoying. Petit certainly is smug and cocky. He's arrogant. He really thinks way too much of himself, even before he did the World Trade Center.
I'd be curious to see the documentaries that this film beat at the Oscars.
Here's a trailer.
And here's an interview with the man.
Main protagonist - Phillippe Petit.
Released 2008.
Seen on DVD
I've been accused of only liking movies that the critics like, and for the most part, that's true. Though I trust some critics or publications more than others. Well this is a film that got critical acclaim (it even won an Oscar for best documentary), and I would have to disagree with the critics, though not entirely.
Basically it's about an infamous stunt Phillippe Petit pulled back in August of 1974. He broke into the fledgling World Trade Center, set up his equipment and walked a tight rope between the two towers. Some of us older people might actually remember the event.
I'll start with what I liked. The whole concept and the actual performance are quite intriguing - there's no denying that. It's set up like a caper movie. After all, they are trespassing on property and breaking the law. Everything has to be planned, practiced, organized and studied, before performing the stunt.
Another little subplot which becomes relevant for a small portion of the film is that after the big successful event, the small crew that were also close friend and lovers (they did bring on a couple of guys just for this caper to help out) become estranged from Petit. Apparently he gets a bit too big for his britches. He even sleeps with a woman while still being in a relationship with his girlfriend who was there through out the whole process. The celebrity had gotten to him. This is not explored very much which leaves the actual events of the estranging and feelings of the friends a bit ambiguous or unclear. Though I kind of like that because it makes the viewer have to contemplate what happened and why. There are some clues that something went wrong even before we learn about the affair. In a handful of interviews, his best friend breaks down and I'm thinking what in the world is wrong. Nobody dies or gets hurt (at least physically) so whats the big deal. Something for us to think about... or maybe the film makers needed to explore this idea more. Could go either way.
And some of the images of him were beautiful, like he was floating in air.
Now as for my complaints of the film, it was way too slow. I tried showing this film to my eight year old daughter and she had trouble staying focused on the film. Not that the attention span of an 8 year old girl is a proper test for determining what a good pace for a film should be, but I found myself restless, and I consider myself a very patient film watcher. Even the "caper" part of the film though it was interesting, was just too slow. In a fiction caper or heist film, they don't seem to drag on for so long. There's more dramatic urgency and tension. This film seemed to lack that urgency and tension, though they tried. I think that they were simply unsuccessful at creating it.
I also found Petit to be kind of grating. I mean it's logical since he is basically a street performer who specializes in high wire walking. Think of the old saying or idea that when people see a mime, they want want to slug them because they are so annoying. Petit certainly is smug and cocky. He's arrogant. He really thinks way too much of himself, even before he did the World Trade Center.
I'd be curious to see the documentaries that this film beat at the Oscars.
Here's a trailer.
And here's an interview with the man.
Monday, August 3, 2009
Mr. Lincoln's Wars - A Novel in Thirteen Stories **1/2
Written by Adam Braver.
Copyright 2003.
Published by Harper Collins Publishers.
Pages 303.
The title is deceiving because I really would not call this book a novel. Like the subtitle says, its a book of stories, that happened to be themed around Lincoln and the Civil War.
The stories are not typical fictional war stories about bravery and such. They are not typical fictional stories about politicians. The stories are gritty, as a Civil War story should be, but in a more modernist kind of way. The stories get into the feelings of the characters. Such as when Lincoln visited the aftermath of a battle fields or when his wife Mary Todd, visited a soldiers hospital.
In some way the stories are almost so real and yet at the same time they seem so fantastical. I mean here's a Civil War book with actual sex scenes. True, one is about a woman raped by her no-account husband. She then gets off when she has sex with the soldier who delivers the news of her husband's death. She pleads with the young soldier to give details about his death, and the gorier the details, the more aroused she becomes. This is certainly not typical of 19th century sensuality. There's a another sex scene, much more tender and conventional in some ways except for the fact that it happens to be with Lincoln's assassin John Wilkes Boothe.
On the more fantastical side, in one story, an elderly father who is partially senile, tries to find Lincoln ,because Lincoln wrote him a letter explaining the death of the father's son. Of course it was a form letter, so when he presents the actual letter to Lincoln (who happens to be sitting alone on a park bench after one of his speeches - weird right? What president would be left on his own, even in those days), Lincoln feels sorry for not actually being the author of the letter. Lincoln tells the father about the death of his own son and the two men bond as they share the common loss of losing beloved sons.
I liked this book. The author gives some twists on what we know about history and makes it more personal as well as more poetic and mysterious. Lincoln's sadness, in contrast to his accomplishments and legend, is a mysterious thing in itself.
Copyright 2003.
Published by Harper Collins Publishers.
Pages 303.
The title is deceiving because I really would not call this book a novel. Like the subtitle says, its a book of stories, that happened to be themed around Lincoln and the Civil War.
The stories are not typical fictional war stories about bravery and such. They are not typical fictional stories about politicians. The stories are gritty, as a Civil War story should be, but in a more modernist kind of way. The stories get into the feelings of the characters. Such as when Lincoln visited the aftermath of a battle fields or when his wife Mary Todd, visited a soldiers hospital.
In some way the stories are almost so real and yet at the same time they seem so fantastical. I mean here's a Civil War book with actual sex scenes. True, one is about a woman raped by her no-account husband. She then gets off when she has sex with the soldier who delivers the news of her husband's death. She pleads with the young soldier to give details about his death, and the gorier the details, the more aroused she becomes. This is certainly not typical of 19th century sensuality. There's a another sex scene, much more tender and conventional in some ways except for the fact that it happens to be with Lincoln's assassin John Wilkes Boothe.
On the more fantastical side, in one story, an elderly father who is partially senile, tries to find Lincoln ,because Lincoln wrote him a letter explaining the death of the father's son. Of course it was a form letter, so when he presents the actual letter to Lincoln (who happens to be sitting alone on a park bench after one of his speeches - weird right? What president would be left on his own, even in those days), Lincoln feels sorry for not actually being the author of the letter. Lincoln tells the father about the death of his own son and the two men bond as they share the common loss of losing beloved sons.
I liked this book. The author gives some twists on what we know about history and makes it more personal as well as more poetic and mysterious. Lincoln's sadness, in contrast to his accomplishments and legend, is a mysterious thing in itself.
Sunday, August 2, 2009
A Face in the Crowd ***
Directed by Elia Kazan.
Story and screenplay written by Budd Schulberg.
Released 1957.
Seen on DVD.
With Andy Griffith, Patricia Neal, Anthony Franciosa, Walter Matthau, Lee Remick
I think the thing that sticks out to me are the over the top performances of Andy Griffith. and in contrast, the much more real-like performance of Patricia Neal. I am very impressed with Neal's performance. In fact I have to say, I have now fallen in love with the second woman who is more than twice my age (Gene Teirny was the first woman from another era that I had fallen in love with). Her smile and twinkle of her eyes just warm my heart. But isn't that what acting is in a way? At least the more realistic acting. An actor plays a character that says and does certain actions. The actor becomes the character, but I also believe the character becomes the actor. In other words, the actor says and does things that the character does, but with the actor's personality intertwined. Patricia Neal played Marcia Jeffries, but Marcia Jeffries was Patricia Neal.
Evidently Neal is a little older in this film. I saw some shots of her when she was younger, like in her early twenties, but that would have been in the decades of the late forties or early fifties. I guess the makers of the movies needed a slightly older actress, since the action covers a decade or two.
Here's a nice tribute. As beautiful as she is, I think that she was actually prettier in her 30's and 40's. Though no one under the age of 50 knows who she was, you can see that worked with some pretty big names.
So a young radio programmer (Neal) from a local Arkansas radio station goes to a jail to record some stories for her show, "A Face in the Crowd". Hence the title of the film. She discovers Larry "Lonesome" Rhodes, a unemployed hobo with violent and lecherous tendencies (Andy Griffith). But he can sing and tell stories and jokes, and Neal's character (Marcia Jeffries) is completely charmed . So she convinces him to do a local show on a regular basis. And he does great with his down home country charm. Basically from here it becomes a rags to riches story with "Lonesome" becoming a nation wide craze. But there's a dark side to this story, and I believe the film fore shadows it a bit.
Earlier I said that his performance was over the top a bit. And in these contemporary times, that, I think is the reason many people don't watch old fashioned, classic films. The films don't seem real to them, especially the acting. The acting can seem artificial and melodramatic. Now in Griffith's case, I think that this is a plus. It makes him a scarier character. He seems even more manic. His wild, yet lovable charm is intrinsically tied in with this dark mania he possesses.
The film ends when "Lonesome" gets too big for his britches. He thinks he is so powerful that he can control events including politics and governmental policy. He gets involved with a right wing senator and tries to get him elected using his popularity. And this is where everything comes tumbling down.
Here's a trailer from the film.
Story and screenplay written by Budd Schulberg.
Released 1957.
Seen on DVD.
With Andy Griffith, Patricia Neal, Anthony Franciosa, Walter Matthau, Lee Remick
I think the thing that sticks out to me are the over the top performances of Andy Griffith. and in contrast, the much more real-like performance of Patricia Neal. I am very impressed with Neal's performance. In fact I have to say, I have now fallen in love with the second woman who is more than twice my age (Gene Teirny was the first woman from another era that I had fallen in love with). Her smile and twinkle of her eyes just warm my heart. But isn't that what acting is in a way? At least the more realistic acting. An actor plays a character that says and does certain actions. The actor becomes the character, but I also believe the character becomes the actor. In other words, the actor says and does things that the character does, but with the actor's personality intertwined. Patricia Neal played Marcia Jeffries, but Marcia Jeffries was Patricia Neal.
Evidently Neal is a little older in this film. I saw some shots of her when she was younger, like in her early twenties, but that would have been in the decades of the late forties or early fifties. I guess the makers of the movies needed a slightly older actress, since the action covers a decade or two.
Here's a nice tribute. As beautiful as she is, I think that she was actually prettier in her 30's and 40's. Though no one under the age of 50 knows who she was, you can see that worked with some pretty big names.
So a young radio programmer (Neal) from a local Arkansas radio station goes to a jail to record some stories for her show, "A Face in the Crowd". Hence the title of the film. She discovers Larry "Lonesome" Rhodes, a unemployed hobo with violent and lecherous tendencies (Andy Griffith). But he can sing and tell stories and jokes, and Neal's character (Marcia Jeffries) is completely charmed . So she convinces him to do a local show on a regular basis. And he does great with his down home country charm. Basically from here it becomes a rags to riches story with "Lonesome" becoming a nation wide craze. But there's a dark side to this story, and I believe the film fore shadows it a bit.
Earlier I said that his performance was over the top a bit. And in these contemporary times, that, I think is the reason many people don't watch old fashioned, classic films. The films don't seem real to them, especially the acting. The acting can seem artificial and melodramatic. Now in Griffith's case, I think that this is a plus. It makes him a scarier character. He seems even more manic. His wild, yet lovable charm is intrinsically tied in with this dark mania he possesses.
The film ends when "Lonesome" gets too big for his britches. He thinks he is so powerful that he can control events including politics and governmental policy. He gets involved with a right wing senator and tries to get him elected using his popularity. And this is where everything comes tumbling down.
Here's a trailer from the film.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
