Archive for the ‘Cinema’ Category

A Prophet

April 5, 2010

A Prophet is a French language film directed by Jacques Audiard. It tells the story of Malik (Tahar Rahim) a young man of Arab descent who is given a long prison sentence for assaulting a police officer. The prison he is sent to is dominated by a Corsican criminal gang, led by Luciani (Niels Arestrup). The Corsicans get Malik to carry out a murder for them. When he succeeds, they place him under their protection. Luciani becomes a perverse sort of father figure, who is alternately kind and brutal towards Malik. He arranges leaves for Malik so he can carry out tasks for him. Malik takes advantage of these leaves to form his own criminal circle, dealing in drugs.

A Prophet is a study in the development of a criminal personality. When the Corsicans first approach Malik, he is revolted by the idea of killing a fellow human being. At one point, he even tries to have himself thrown into solitary confinement, just so he won’t be able to commit the murder. By the end of the movie, however, he has no compunction about killing anyone who gets in his way. Indeed, he seems to relish it. This is in keeping with the Marxist notion that consciousness is determined by material conditions. The prison in the film actually serves to create and train criminals. A Prophet calls into question our society’s whole approach to dealing with lawbreakers.

A highly recommended film.

Fish Tank

March 24, 2010

This is the second time in the past six months that I have seen a British film in which a teenage girl has an affair with a much older man. What this says about the current state of British society, I don’t know. However, the two films, An Education and Fish Tank – both of them very good – are also very different. The first difference is class: An Education is about middle class people, while in Fish Tank, the characters are working class. The second is that while A.D. ends on an upbeat, redemptive note, F.T. is darker and more disturbing. At the end, the heroine’s future seems uncertain.

Many of the scenes in Fish Tank seem to have been shot with a hand-held camera, which gives the film a loose, spontaneous feel that I rather liked. However, at first I found it hard to become emotionally involved in this movie. This was largely because I found it hard to like the characters at first, but also because I found the English vernacular hard to follow at times. (Seriously, they should start putting subtitles on British films.) Nevertheless, I ultimately found the film moving. Highly recommended.

One small criticism: the older man in this film is apparently a security guard, yet he lives in a neighborhood that looks middle class and he drives an expensive car. I don’t know about in Britain, but here in the U.S. most security guards are paid crap money and often have to work very long hours.

The White Ribbon

March 16, 2010

I recently went to see The White Ribbon, a film by the Austrian director, Michael Haneke. It is set in a small town in northern Germany, Eichwald, just before the outbreak of the First World War. The story, which is told in a series of vignettes, takes place over the course of one year. During this time, a number of violent crimes are committed. The local school teacher (Christian Friedel) gradually comes to the conclusion that a group of children are behind them.

Life in Eichwald is suffused with brutality, mostly psychological, but sometimes physical. This brutality stems from two things: the feudal social relations in the town, and the severe Lutheranism preached by the pastor (Burghart Klaußner). Most of the people in the town are peasants, and half of them work for the local baron (Ulrich Tukur). The tensions this creates are illustrated by, among other things, the fact that the residents of the town are servile towards the baron, while the baron’s pampered son, Sigi, becomes a target of violence by the local children. (The town doctor (Rainer Bock) is the only character who doesn’t seem to fit into the class dynamics of this situation. Unlike the others, he seems to be motivated by pure selfishness. Perhaps this is Haneke’s view of the middle class.) It’s not hard to see that we’re meant to view the events of this film in the context of Germany’s history in the twentieth century.

The White Ribbon is a haunting and disturbing film, all the more so because the issues are left unresolved at the end. It’s the type of movie that you keep thinking about for days after you see it.

As I was watching this film, I couldn’t help thinking of the picture books of Wilhelm Busch, which were hugely popular in Second Empire Germany. These often told stories of children who play cruel tricks. The most famous of these is Max und Moritz, which inspired the first American comic strip, The Katzenjammer Kids. The book is funny, but at the same time there is something kind of awful about it, because of the sheer nastiness of the children’s pranks. In one episode, they put gunpowder in a man’s pipe. When he smokes it, it explodes, blackening his face and burning all his hair away. (Needless to say, Busch graphically illustrates this.) Elsewhere, we see Max and Moritz laughing and cheering while a man falls into a rushing river and nearly drowns. It could be argued that that Max and Moritz are the literary forebears of Bart Simpson. I would be interested to know if Matt Groening has read Busch’s books.

The reason I bring all this up is that I suspect that Haneke may have had Busch in the back of his mind when he was writing the script. However, there is nothing humorous about the children’s crimes in this film. I must say, though, this movie might have benefited from a bit of comedy. The scenes in which the schoolteacher awkwardly tries to woo a painfully shy girl, Eva (Leonie Benesch), are vaguely humorous and provide a much needed respite from the brutality in much of the rest of this film.

As I said before, though, The White Ribbon is worth seeing. It is one of the more memorable movies that I have watched recently.

The Last Station

February 28, 2010

The other day I went to see The Last Station. It concerns the last year of Tolstoy’s life. It tells the story of Valentin (James McAvoy) who is hired by Chertkov (Paul Giamatti) to act as a personal secretary for Tolstoy (Christopher Plummer). Chertkov is the head of an organization dedicated to spreading Tolstoy’s religious and ethical ideas. He wants Tolstoy to add a clause to his will that would make his works public domain after his death, so they can be more readily available to people. Tolstoy’s wife, Sofya (Helen Mirren) is bitterly opposed to this; she is afraid that she and her children will be left without an income. Valentin gradually develops sympathy for Sofya, and he comes to regard Chertkin as a fanatic. Valentin also has an affair with one of Tolstoy’s followers, Masha (Kerry Condon).

Tolstoy is portrayed as a complex character. He disapproves of sex, but he fondly remembers the sexual adventures of his youth. He enjoys the attention of his followers, yet at moments he seems uneasy with their tendency to idolize him. He loves his wife (who bore him thirteen children!), but her rejection of his ideas deeply upsets him. (I thought Plummer was very good as Tolstoy.)

I found this film interesting to watch, but not terribly moving. It failed to make me feel that the issues involved were important. The subplot of Valentin’s romance with Masha is not entirely convincing and detracts from the main story. The film also struck me as a bit sentimental – something Tolstoy would not have approved of.

I’ve always had deeply mixed feelings about Tolstoy. He was undeniably a brilliant writer. I remember reading an early short novel of his, Family Happiness, which is told from the point-of-view of a young wife. The narrative voice was so convincing that at one point I had to stop and remind myself that the book was written by a man and not by a woman. Yet there is this moralizing tendency in his writings that I find annoying and even somewhat offensive. (A Russian aristocrat is the last sort of person who should tell other people how to behave.) This tendency became greater as he grew older, until he began to preach a sort of religion that included, among other things, vegetarianism and celibacy. What kind of fun is that?

One interesting thing about this film is that we’re shown photographers standing outside Tolstoy’s home snapping pictures at every glimpse of Tolstoy or his wife. Their marital troubles are reported on in newspapers. Our celebrity culture apparently began with Tolstoy.

A Single Man and Crazy Heart

February 13, 2010

I saw two films recently, A Single Man and Crazy Heart. I found both interesting, although for very different reasons.

A Single Man is directed by Tom Ford and based on a novel by Christopher Isherwood. It tells the story of George Falconer (Colin Firth), who teaches English at a college in Los Angeles in the early 1960’s. His partner, Jim (Matthew Goode) was earlier killed in a car crash. His only close friend is the frowzy Charly (Julianne Moore, who looks like a middle-aged Ann-Margaret in this film). The film follows George through a day in his life, interspersed by flashbacks. It gradually becomes clear that George is planning to commit suicide. He plans his own death in the same dispassionate manner that he conducts his English classes. At the same time, he suddenly finds himself being pursued by one of his students, Kenny (Nicholas Hoult)

At times this film seemed cold and over-stylized to me, yet I ultimately found it oddly moving. The film’s emotional coolness becomes a counterpoint to George’s inner turmoil. This film is also interesting in that it shows what life was like for gay men in the ’60’s, before Stonewall. In one scene, George is prohibited by Jim’s family from attending his funeral, an indignity that clearly eats at George.

I had heard good things about Crazy Heart, but I must admit I found it a little disappointing. Written and directed by Scott Cooper, it tells the story of a down-and-out country singer, Bad Blake (Jeff Bridges), who falls in love with a single mother, Jean (Maggie Gyllenhaal). The film has funny moments and the acting is pretty good, but somehow I felt as though I had been here before. The story unfolds in a way that is a little too pat and predictable for my taste. However, an early scene in which Blake performs in a dive bar is poignant. It shows the petty humiliations that a person working in show business can experience. The outdoor shots are breathtaking. God, I miss the Southwest.

Avatar

January 31, 2010

I initially did not intend to see James Cameron’s latest film. I am not a James Cameron fan; I’m still traumatized by the dialogue in Titanic. (I have occasional flashbacks, but they’re becoming less frequent.) However, this film has become a subject for debate on the left. While some, such as Louis Proyect, have praised this film for its anti-imperialist message, others have complained that it follows the “White Man Saves the Natives” formula of such movies as Dances with Wolves. I felt obligated to investigate a film that has provoked so much serious debate. (Okay, the real reason I went to see this is because I’m a sucker for anything that’s in 3-D.)

The film does follow the “White Man Saves the Natives” paradigm, and it does so in a way that’s painfully predictable. Although the dialogue is better than in Titanic, it still has some clunky moments. (When Sigourney Weaver is shot in the stomach, she jokingly says, “My whole day has been ruined.” Does Cameron really believe that if he were shot in the stomach, he would say this?) Nevertheless, the most striking thing about this movie is how anti-military it is. It’s perhaps the most anti-military film I’ve seen since Dr. Strangelove. (The scene in which the army destroys the Naa’vi’s home is horrifying.) It signals a complete rejection of the militarism that has increasingly dominated American society in recent years, a militarism that is often reflected in Hollywood blockbuster films. I sometimes felt a sense of disbelief as the audience rooted for the killing of U.S. soldiers by the denizens of Pandora.

Avatar is anti-military and anti-capitalist. The fact that this is the most popular movie in America is significant. The refusal of some ultra-left blockheads to recognize this just shows how useless they are.

Oh, and the film is visually brilliant. Pandora is depicted in a thoroughly convincing manner without being a carbon copy of Earth. As for the 3-D effect, it’s pretty good. Some of the aerial scenes gave me a slight feeling of vertigo. However, a few scenes look like pop-up greeting cards.

Now, if Cameron could just learn how to write…

Broken Embraces

January 23, 2010

One of my New Years resolutions was to spend less time in bars and more time going to the movies. So yesterday I went to see Broken Embraces, a new film by the Spanish director, Pedro Almodóvar. At the beginning of the film, we meet Mateo (Lluís Homar), a blind screenwriter who prefers to be known as “Harry Caine”. He is looked after by his agent, Judit (Blanca Portillo), and by her son, Diego (Tamar Novas). One day someone from Mateo’s past shows up at his door, and he seems deeply disturbed afterwards. Diego demands that Mateo explain why. After some initial reluctance, Mateo opens up. He tells about how back in 1994 he directed a film called Girls with Suitcases (this was before he went blind).

The film stars an actress named Lena (Penelope Cruz), who is the mistress of the film’s producer, a wealthy financier named Ernesto Martel (José Luis Gómez). Ernesto’s creepy son, Ernesto, Jr. (Rubén Ochandiano) wanders around on the set with a video camera, ostensibly doing a documentary. During the filming, Mateo and Lena fall in love with each other. Just as you expect, Ernesto learns about their affair from watching his son’s videotapes. In a jealous rage, he pushes Lena down a flight of stairs, causing her to break her leg. After the film is done, Mateo and Lena run away together. Ernesto then seeks to exact revenge on the both of them.

Throughout this film, Almodóvar maintains a careful balance between comedy and seriousness. The light-heartedness of some scenes is contrasted with the violence (both real and threatened) in others. The result is a funny, suspenseful, and ultimately moving story about a man finding peace with his past and with himself. One of the many strengths of this movie is the very good acting. (Penelope Cruz is wonderful as Lena.) I highly recommend this.

The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus

January 17, 2010

I just saw The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus. It tells the story of Dr. Parnassus (Christopher Plummer) a thousand-year old man who runs a traveling sideshow. It features a mirror through which a person can travel into another world with fantastic landscapes that reflect his or her personality. Parnassus is accompanied by his two assistants, Anton (Andrew Garfield) and Percy (Verne Troyer); and by his daughter, Valentina (Lily Cole). Parnassus has made a deal with the Devil (Tom Waits), according to which he must give the latter his daughter when she turns sixteen, which is to happen in a few days. The troupe rescue a stranger, Tony (Heath Ledger), who then tries to help them foil the Devil’s plot.

My response to this film was mixed. On the one hand, Gilliam has a brilliant visual imagination. I envy any artist who can create the kinds of scenes he can. On the other hand, I found it hard to care about the characters in this film (though Plummer does manage to evoke sympathy as Parnassus). There were too many seemingly interminable scenes of the characters arguing with one another, and it wasn’t always clear what they were arguing about. The film really only comes alive during the scenes in the Imaginarium (including a scene that pokes fun at Bono). I should mention here that Ledger died before the filming was finished. Johnny Depp, Jude Law, and Colin Farrell successively take his place during the Imaginarium scenes. (I must say, Depp does a pretty good imitation of Ledger.)

An interesting note: Gilliam has said that Tony is based on Tony Blair, who “would say the most insane things and probably he’d believe them himself”.

This film is worth seeing for the Imaginarium scenes, but be prepared to have your patience tested at times.

The Spy Who Came in from the Cold

December 14, 2009

A while ago I saw the film The Spy Who Came in from the Cold (1965). I found it sufficiently interesting that I then read the John le Carré novel on which it is based. The book was written at the height of the Cold War, which provided fertile ground for spy novels, since it was essentially a war of bluff.

Alec Leamas works for British Intelligence. He is in charge of British agents in East Germany. His plans are all foiled by the head of East German Intelligence, Hans-Dieter Mundt. When Mundt kills Leamas’s last operative, Leamas returns to London, expecting to be sacked. Instead, his boss persuades him to undertake an audacious operation. Leamas will pretend to defect to the East. He will then spread disinformation meant to make the East Germans think that Mundt is a double agent working for the British. I can’t tell much more without giving things away. Suffice it to say that, like any good spy novel, it is essentially a story of betrayal.

The British agents in this novel are shown as being no better morally than their East German and Russian counterparts. They justify their actions to themselves by saying that they must use the same tactics as their opponents. (One can perhaps detect a foreshadowing here of the arguments later used to justify torture in the “War on Terror”.) At one point, Leamas says that such methods are necessary so that “the great moronic mass… can sleep soundly in their beds at night.” He expresses contempt for the people he is supposedly serving. Indeed, a contempt for people in general seems to underlie the operation he is carrying out. Leamas says of his fellow spies: “They’re a squalid procession of vain fools, traitors too, yes; pansies, sadists and drunkards. People who play cowboys and Indians to brighten their rotten lives.” Le Carré was reportedly working for British Intelligence while he was working on this novel. One can only wonder what his colleagues thought about this book.

The communists in this book all sound like religious fanatics. (An exception is Fiedler, an East German spy who is one of the few sympathetic characters.) I read somewhere that when le Carré was working for MI5 in the 1950’s, he spied on meetings of the British Communist Party. I take it from this book that they didn’t make a very good impression on him. Also, it is implied that Mundt is actually a Nazi. I find this a bit far-fetched. It seems that le Carré wanted to make Mundt as repulsive as possible, but I think this was over-doing it somewhat.

There’s a general belief that movies are never as good as the books they’re based on, but I don’t believe that this is necessarily true. When the source is a mediocre novel, the film version can actually be better. A good example of this is The Shining. Hitchcock’s Rear Window is based on a barely competent story by Cornel Woolrich. (The Tarzan movies, as silly as they are, are actually better than the even sillier novels by Edgar Rice Burroughs.) There’s an episode in the novel in which someone tries to kill Leamas, which is never really explained. This is left out of the movie, with the result that the story hangs together better. However, in the novel there’s a wealth of detail that’s lacking in the film, and the motives of some of the characters are clearer in the former than in the latter.

I’m told that in recent years le Carré has been an outspoken critic of US foreign policy. I will have to check out some of his recent works. If they are anywhere near as good as The Spy Who Came in from the Cold, they will be well worth reading.

Battles without Honor and Humanity

December 13, 2009

I recently saw the film, Battles without Honor and Humanity (1973). It is a Japanese yakuza film directed by Kinji Fukasaku. It tells the story of Shozo Hirono (Bunta Sugawara), an ex-soldier in post-World War II Hiroshima, who joins a yakuza family. The film, which is reportedly based on real events, details the struggles between and within yakuza families. It was both a critical and a popular success when it was released in Japan, and it has been called the “Japanese Godfather.”

Throughout the film, the yakuza talk about their “honor”, though it’s clear that they have none; they are continually betraying one another. An implicit connection is made between the savagery of these gangsters and the destruction of Japan during World War II. At the beginning of the film, the title is shown over the mushroom cloud of the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima, thereby drawing an explicit connection between that event and the events in the film. In the opening scene, some US GI’s try to rape a Japanese woman in the middle of a crowded marketplace. They are attacked by a couple of men who will go on to become yakuza. The implicit message here is that the violence of the yakuza is rooted in the brutality of the US occupation. (Also, many of the yakuza are former soldiers.) Later, we’re told that the yakuza have gotten rich off the black market during the Korean War. War is shown as a corrupting influence.

The is film is shot in a lurid, semi-documentary style. Every time a gangster is killed, his name and date of death are splashed across the screen. This has two effects. First, it reminds us that the story is based on real events. Second, it tells us that ultimately the most important thing about these people is the fact that they are killed. It is a comment on the emptiness and futility of their lives.

On one level, this is a fast-paced action film, but on a deeper level, it is a thought-provoking and somewhat disturbing social commentary.