Going to the Movies Alone.

Going to the Movies alone.

Film in our society is not simply projected art upon a screen, that much is obvious. Much has been said about the meaning or value of art as a social medium, the idea that film is so much more than simple entertainment. These, however interesting they are, are not what I choose to focus on. Going to the movies is a particular social ritual preformed by people in our society. You, a date, a friend, your parents, sit and look despondently at each other.
What do you want to do?
I dunno, how about you?
I don’t care, anything.
Thus, the most passive activity available to most social classes is chosen. Let’s go see a movie. So, you and company, they, whoever grabs their things and set out to watch a movie, to have something to talk about.

The key word here is “we”, the activity is a plural one. I am aware that I am speaking specifically to North American society, and about a mainstream attitude within that populace. So, if you have happened to be a french film student, this ramble may seem like a simple oddity. A poorly written one at that.

Lo to the one who goes to a movie alone. It seems to be written in blood somewhere in North America that such a thing is considered blasphemy against decency. The punishment? Surprised, almost offended looks that say either two things: What has this person done to be ostracized so? Can no know how stand his presence long enough to make it through on measly film? Or, pity that poor man has been stood up. What does this mean? And more importantly why such heavy stigma?

It’s a difficult thing to explain, like most social taboos and norms, they are so ingrained that one rarely confronts them. I am no expert, I have no degree in social control or psychology has it’s called in less honest circles. I am a humble cinenophile, who happens to enjoy watching films, and sometimes going alone is an inevitability. How to proceed then? I propose that instead of speaking in generalities, I’ll speak from a personal point of view, talk through the lead up to the first time I went to a film alone.

The year was 2010, April, the Calgary Underground FIlm Festival. For any lovers of film out there, who get terribly annoyed at the constant efforts of the more mainstream Calgary International film festival to appear like some sort of New York art gallery, Champagne commercials with Scarlet Johansen and all, the underground fest is refreshing. Anyways, I find myself with a pass with five admissions on it, I thought well this is an uneven number, I’ll only be able to “bring” someone, in the financial sense, for the first two. The last film will have to be experienced alone by me. It took all of about 30 seconds to get comfortable with the idea. No problem I thought, people do that all the time.

The first film I wanted to see approaches, the Disappearance of Alice Creed, so I ask the usual people if they wanted to go. An avalanche of No’s ensues. Desperate, I posted on my now dead Facebook page: If anyone wants to see a free movie (I linked information about the film) meet me at the theater. Nothing. No responses.

I remember approaching the plaza thinking, this is it, I’m about to watch a movie by myself. I knew it was real when I walked into the theater, and the lady at the admission box asked, with an odd kind of smile:
“Just one?”
“Just one” I repeated, with the severity of a monk completing some sort of epic pilgrimage. She nods a bit, and tears me a ticket.

And I walk into the darkness.

I am habitual early for films, I’m terrified of being late. I think somewhere in my mind there is a fear that the film maker will be in the theater, see me come in late, stand up and shout “this man has no respect for film” and challenge me to a dual. Anyways, the theater is near empty, so I pick a seat as close to the center as possible. As I take my sit, I remember thinking to myself “Well, this isn’t so bad”. As people started to fill the place, that situation changed. The most startling thing was watching people who were at one moment laughing and smiling, and the instant their gaze fell to me their faces grew concerned or almost afraid of that man sitting a theater alone.

The worst part is not the stares however, it’s what happenings as the theaters becomes more and more full. This is an aspect of watching films alone is often overlooked, which is understandable. You see, rows of seats are usually odd numbers, and most people watch movies in pairs at least. Usually, if the film being played is brand spanking new or extremely popular, people find ways to fill every seat in the house. But usually, there are a few vacant ones left as buffer zones between couples and groups. In an ideal world, people sitting by themselves like this humble writer, would be seated in these seats. However, this is hardly fair to those like me who arrive shockingly early. So what happens is, your often sitting beside one empty seat, and as the later people starting filling the space, they look at you sitting there and think, that would be a great spot, if that one guy wasn’t using it. Because, unless another loner comes in, that spot is pretty much yours.

I can think of a few different sociological, or maybe even philosophical explanations as to why this is. It could be that our society has created a stigma to people who are alone in public spaces because of a general fear of being alone, a fear of facing ourselves. Are we so unsure our own emotions, of our own thoughts that we have to verify them by bouncing them off someone else, to see if they are shared, so that they conform? Or is just so that theater companies can make more money off of admission tickets and popcorn? I don’t know, but frankly it’s fucking annoying. If I look at a painting or even go to a concert by myself one isn’t as nowhere as shunned as when you dare see a movie by yourself. Until some one comes up with a rational reason as to why one has to be with someone else to watch a film, I will continue to venture to cinema alone, regardless of the mean stares and awkward looks.

The Ghost Writer (2010)

Director: Roman Polanski

Writers: Robert Harris, Roman Polanski

Based on the novel by Robert Harris.



I have to say this right up front, I'm not a Polanski fan. Apart from a few gems, I don't get his style. It doesn't hurt that he's a jerk that sexual abuses underage women then runs to Europe to avoid what most said would be a slap on the wrist at best. And then, making a documentary about himself defending his actions, his entire case basically amounts to "I'm Roman Polanski". So, it's safe to say that I'm not a "Free Polanski" type to say the least. That being said, I do not advocate in anyway the boycott or banning of any of his films. Now that that's out of the way, let's get down to the nitty gritty.

The Ghost Writer is about a writer, who becomes the ghost writer (the character is never actually named) for the memoirs of Adam Lang ex-prime minister of England and war criminal. As the ghost does more and more research into Mr. Lang, he unveils a secret CIA plot involving Mr. Lang and the United States government. It's a political thriller, although told through the eyes of a almost annoyingly apolitical character. The film mainly takes place in Massachusetts, though in reality was filmed on a German island because Polanski can't go the states. Although some plot elements are fairly obvious, some are genuinely surprising moments, keeping it from becoming a dull experience. That being said, it plot is a bit of a fuck you to Tony Blair. It all amounts to a liberal conspiracy theory: A prime minister put in power by the CIA to serve the united states. First of all, it's debatable whether or not England has that high of a strategic value for the United States to warrant such action, secondly it's all a bit kitsch. Some bits of the plot just feel like a desperate attempt to reach the same grandeur of say JFK, but not quite getting there. The plot isn't bad, it isn't captivating either, but good compared to your averge film these days.

Taking place on an island that seems to be perpetually gray and dull, the film does have it's visual moments. The framing is warmly balanced, and the camera behaves shyly. With a clever script that actually produces some quality lines, the dialogue never feels hammy or do James Bond like. Although the actual plot is a bit over the top, the dialogue itself never reaches this state, with characters behaving realistically. One scene in particular displays how Polanski doesn't reduce Ghost Writer to a Bourne or Bond film. The car chase scene is one of the most unique car chases I've ever seen specifically because it seems plausible, meaning that it doesn't resort to cars flipping over giant cliff to explode for some reason.

The music deserves special mention here though, as it fits the creeping, mysterious ambiance of the film perfectly. Never to dramatic or subtle, the music rides the fence between campy and useless. The Ghost writer himself is legitimately a likable character, and we honestly feel sorry for him as he gets sucked more and more into the conspiracy. The ghost says at the very beginning that he is not interested in politics, and the only reason he seems to have for his investigations is to discover the true cause of his predecessor's death, which makes him a more likable rather than a spiteful character. It's worth noting that Polanski edited this film while in prison, without a delay in the post-production. Say what you will of this man, but that is dedication. Adam Lang's character is also done well. The man is supposed to be a political puppet, sort of an upper class version of George W. Bush. You know, a guy you could really just drink a Chery with. A jock who has massive appeal with the public, but seems to be a total air head when it comes to politics, the audience shares the Ghost's confusion on how this man had become so popular.

Although it isn't nearly as good as Polanski's other stuff, notably the Pianist, The Ghost Writer isn't to be written off. Despite a slightly ridiculous plot, it actually is quite entertaining. If you're in the mood for a good old fashion political thriller, give the Ghost Writer a shot.

The Ghost writer (2010)

Death Race 2000 and B-Movies.

Director: Paul Bartel

Writers: Robert Thom and Charles B. Griffith

Based on a story by Ib Melchior.

"Winning is the only standard of excellence left"




So cheesy that the cars are actually filmed uncranked to make them look like they're going faster, bordering on soft-core porn, black leather suits and campy custom cards, this is 70s drive in cinema at it's best. David Carradine's first movie role after Kung Fu, and one of Sylvester Stallone's first roles ever. Death race takes place in an authoritarian American future ruled by an ominous "President" who's palace is in a secret location outside of the United States (actually Japan). The annual trans-continental race is the highlight of this new society. Racers must not only try to get to New La first, but have to rake up points along the way first. So, the winner of the race is the car that makes it to the finish line with the most points. How do you get points you ask? Well, by killing people with your car of course! 40 points for adults, 70 points of babies, and 100 points for the elderly. Now it gets interesting. Frankenstein is the champ, and he is getting a new navigator whom he's never met before. Turns out she's part of the anti-race rebels hoping to overthrow the president. What's funny about the plot is the original script was actually quite serious and bitter. The dark parts where later adapted to be part of a dark comedy, which is in my opinion a much better fit. And damn, is it ever funny. America is portrayed as narcissistic, violent, sociopathic cesspool of advertisement, sex and paranoia. The film actually is pretty radical save the campy style. As long as you keep your expectations low, and remember that you are watching a B-Movie, I think that most people will actually enjoy this film.

Fact is, there is nothing really extraordinary about the film that makes it really awesome. The only really cool thing is it's wacky story and even funnier sets and costumes. Carradine's role was offered to Peter Fonda, and he reportedly said that the film was too ridiculous for words. That alone makes the film ten times better in my books. The major themes explored here are violence in American Society, and the role of the media in it. The last scene really pushes this point. SPOILER. Carradine, after killing the President, somehow then becomes the president. When asked about what he is going to do as president, he informs America that the death race is to be abolished. The reporter then retorts "But Mr. President, isn't your popularity as a racer based entirely on violence?" the President then avoids the question, and runs over the reporter with his really fast car. I think this touches on an interesting dualism in American culture: the idea of a peaceful society and a fanatical obsession with violence. America was founded on violence, and it's most violent men then became presidents. It then proceeded to attack both it's neighboring countries, colonized several nations and began a war against it's own people. The hypocrisy of the US when it denounces the violence of any other nation is monumental, and this irony is hinted at in the film.

This just goes to show that one should never write off B movies. Yes, it's totally ridiculous, and yes it does a lot of gratuitous nudity clearly included just to arose an audience comprised manly of adolescent males. But there is some interesting themes in this film, beneath all of it's absurdity. Remember, Star Wars was a B movie when it was being made, yet it grew to be one of the most famous franchises in cinematic history. B movies are often just films with a sub-par budget, it doesn't necessarily mean that the actual content of the film is lackluster. As for the campy ascetic, hey what can I say? It was the 70s, it was cool back then.

And now for something completely different.

This is why I love Monty Python. And consequently, when I die I want to be eaten by my partner, or next of kin and then thrown up into a pit.

Thanks for the memories Monty Python.

Greenberg and the Postmodern generation

Written by: Noah Baumbach. Jennifer Jason Leigh.

Directed by: Noah Baumbach

"Life is wasted on people."



Greenberg is a character study of 40 year old Roger Greenberg, played by Ben Stiller. Greenberg has just been released from the hospital after a mental breakdown, and his wealthy brother is giving him work around the house while he and his family are out of the country. Greenberg develops....I wouldn't call it romantic but it's definitely some sort of relationship with his brother's assistant, Florence. Greenberg has a whole host of problems: insecure, mean, cruel, insensitive, petty and narcissistic. As the story unfolds, we basically just meet more and more people who's lives have been emotionally fucked by him. The film is a rarity in that it is a comic character study. Greenberg is instantly recognizable, and I think the film was made for people for around the 40 age mark. Frankly, the film didn't really impress me much, I only actually laughed a few times, despite the clever script, and it definitely ranks high on Stiller's mangled career. What's far more interesting is how MY generation is portrayed, and how I feel like towards both the representation of me (upper-middle class white youth in 20s) and towards Greenberg.

Greenberg is already in constant revolt against the youth culture he sees around him. From his letters to starbucks to his bizarre self-loathing attraction to Florence, he feels that somehow his generation has been cheated and that the next generation is entirely unworthy of their youth. When a party of 20s somethings begins at his house (he has no control over it, it is imposed on him), he rants against my generation while sharing the one self-destructive habit that has come "back": Coke. "You young people are mean" Greenberg says, explaining that they are way too well adjusted and properly raised, which makes them means, smart and dangerous. He admits to them that he is somewhat afraid of them, and he hopes to never be at their mercy at a job interview. The best part of this whole scene is the fact that the kids surrounding at him are laughing. In fact, they seemingly enjoy being attacked, which of course defeats the entire purpose. The last generation had illusions of some sort of purpose: stop the war if you remember the 70s, survive the 80s or whatever. And when their parents attacked them, told them they are useless, told them to cut to their hair or tuck in the shirt, the answer was hostility. Fuck you! I won't cut my hair! in fact I'll never wash it, and I'll smoke pot, and I'll read Marx! This generation, my generation, in the age of constant streaming experience with no end and no beginning, make no such claim. They claim nothing, declare they're own emptiness and consume their own futility. Just as postmodernism declares the end of artistic originality and original experience, hence the postmodern generation declares the end of meaning of youth. You can't insult them, tell them their useless, tell them they are wasting their lives, because they'd simply agree with you and bike away on their fucking cruisers.

I can't deny that I am ultimately part of this generation. Yet, I feel more affinity with Greenberg's words (not the the character) then I do the nauseatingly apathetic youth on screen. It's worth noting here that Greenberg, despite a hip look and even hipper script, didn't do very well commercially. Why? Usually, my narcissistic generation loves representations of them, hostile or not. I think it's because Greenberg is an ugly reflection, not a caricature or an insult, but a true reflection of someone trying to remain young and never growing up. The last line of the film says it all "This is you". And upon hearing that, I am struck with a sad though: What legacy will my generation leave? American Apparel and starbucks? Is there anything more depressing in the world than that?

Defendor (2009)

Director/writer: Peter Stebbings

"There are at least eight ways to break out of this dump. I'm taking the front door."

Defendor is the first film in actor Peter Stebbing's directorial career, and damn what an entrance. Woody Harelson plays Arthur, A high functioning Autistic man who fights crime as Defendor (not defender). He is searching for "captain industry" who sold his mother drugs, and is ultimately responsible for her death. What makes this plot so good is not the actual events, but the fact that they take place in a brutally realistic world. Defendor fights real criminals, and the consequences are real. I'm not going to talk too much about the plot, lest I give it away. But what I will say is that the movie will bring a lump to your throat, not in a sad way but in a simple, child-like heart warming sort of way.

Woody Harelson's performance is instantly likable from the first frame. Arthur is not what North American society is, not even what it could be, but what it claims to be, what it's mythologies are. The study of heroes and superheroes in any given society reveal the kinds of values and aspirations that society holds. Superheroes offer us a vivid black and white sense of right and wrong, and this is often contrasted behind a morally gray and dubious world. But in most cases, the bad and the good are exaggerated, superman is ridiculously good and Lex Luther is just ridiculous evil. What Defendors does then, is to show how hypocritical our ideas about justice and morality are. If all are equal in front of the law, then why is this cop allowed to sexual assault people? And why is Defendor arrested for upholding this law (read morality)? This simple questions lead to complex and troubling answers, as more "mature" and "intelligent" characters struggles to explain them, and in a way keep up with Arthur/Defendor.

The direction isn't in itself, that impressive. The film is really pushed forward by the character, and for that Stebbings deserves much respect as a talented writer. The dialogue has a duality to it as Defendor supplies us with an arsenal of superhero cliches and the villains respond with some realistically confused and amused retorts. Overall, the dialogue makes the film both funny and heartfelt, as Arthur's child-like sense of morality seemingly overpowers us simply by the very simpleness of it. Overall, a very impressive script.

Van Dieman's Land (2009)

Directed by: Jonathan auf der Heide

written by: Jonathan auf der Heide, Oscar Redding

“Hunger is a strange silence.”

SPOILER ALERT (If you’re not a history buff)

Van Dieman’s land is the true story of eight convicts that escape from Macquarie Harbour in 1822 Austrilia, a work camp for re-offending convicts. The sole survivor was Alexander Pearce, who’s confession of what happened in the Australian wilderness is the only window we get to the events that happened to the eight men. His testimony was actually rejected by the courts as a simple cover up, he was later hanged. And what was this shocking confession that made the crown thin that it was more fiction than fact? Cannibalism. Pearce’s tale is one of murder and eating the dead in order to survive, and watching as slowly eight become one, as Pearce is the last one standing. This plot sounds like a bad Rodrigues film but I assure you it is not. The plot is structurally simple (man vs. themselves, man vs. elements) but the themes and the visuals make this film something over and above your average survival flick.

Before I begin, here is something that I wish I knew before I started watching the film: it’s the second in a series by the same director. The first film is called Hell’s Gate, although I’m not sure what it follows exactly, I just know that the two follow each other. Not that you need to watch the first to understanding the second per se, it’s just that there is no historical background for the film, so unless you are familiar with the story of Alexander Pearce, you might be a tad confused. I suspect that the films are thematically and visually tied more than narratively so. This film is a testament to just how versatile the film artwork can be. The plot itself is simplistic, eight men trying to survive. There are no allusions, no plot twists or shockers, the ending is well-known to an entire country (Australia) and Heide knows this. What makes this film great is how this simple plot is transformed into a dark poem, a reflection on violence, hunger and God. The various long shots of the forest accompanied by Pearce’s dark reflections really make it seem more like a poetic epic rather than a simple film. The fact that these asides are in Gaelic just heighten that sense of poetry.

The overall tone of this film is brilliant. Usually, when a film takes place in a forest or a jungle, the camera is used to exemplify greens and bright colors, to show off some of the natural beauty of the surrounding area. Heide however, opts to reduce the lush green forest into a collage of neutrals, grey, browns and tans. This is used to give a sense of slow death and rot. The grayish atmosphere mirrors the moral ambiguity of the film, “8 men enter the forest away from the eyes of God” has Pearce says in one of his asides. As the men slowly become more and more hungry and more and more tired, the bleakness of the picture seems to reflect this.

The dialogue is actually quite interesting. The banter is realistically done, with the tension between the english prisoners and the Irish/Scottish prisoners manifesting itself in insults, and sometimes in simple sly remarks. There is almost no music, and the sound is predominantly the sound of the surrounding forests, birds, animals and of course the wind. The silence of the forest becomes a force, a sort of burden. What was the most striking part of the film is the frighteningly realistic portrays of death and murder. When people are struck or get their throats cut, they do no die instantly nor is there a large fountain of blood. Rather, the victim will squirm and twitch, squeal and twist in the mud, gasp for air as death takes them.

I could write page and pages of the strange beauty of this film. But you should probably just watch it. I guarantee that you that the images, the words and the sounds of this film will haunt you for some time.

Shutter Island (2010)

Director: Martin Scorsese

Writer: Laeta Kalogridis

Based on the novel by: Dennis Lehane

"There is no moral orders as pure as this storm. There's no moral order at all. There's just this: can my violence conquer yours? "



I must admit, since the lukewarm times of the Aviator and The Departed, I felt that Scorsese might be a little over ripe so to speak. So, when I heard that his new project was being marketed as a psychological thriller with some mystery and horror sprinkled in the mix, I can tell you I wasn't exactly holding my breath. If you shared my reluctance, let me shatter it for you: Shutter Island is great. It's one hell of a ride, an intelligent, thought provoking and truly mysterious film. Something that actually engages the audience, rather than just passively throw bits of information at them. In the tradition of Citizen Kane, this film plays on things like perceptions and memories, and although the direction of the film is great, the real hero of this film is in fact the writer Laeta Kalogridis. I don't know if the source material was just so brilliant that it made it was almost impossible to screw up, but this is just one damn good story.

The fantastic story in which I'm referring to goes like this: Teddy is a federal marshal, investigating a missing patient at the center for the criminally insane on shutter island, off the coast of Boston with his new partner Chuck. A lot of bizarre and unsettling things are in the center, as details of the case simply don't match up. That's all I'm willing to say, I really don't want to spoil anything as you should really see it. What's unique about this narrative is the way in which it is told, by that I mean what perception we the audience see through the lens of the camera. We see what Teddy sees, how he sees it and when he does. We even follow him into his dreams, which play a very important part of the film, and being by far the best parts visually. This strict point of view narrative is reminiscent of the french impressionists, expect in Shutter Island it isn't achieved through strict POV shots by say but through a narrative arc that follows one person's psychological perception. There is also a lot of German expressionism here, but more about that latter. Themes of sanity/insanity, memories and perception are all pretty thick here, as well as a redemption story filled with guilt (it wouldn't be a Scorsese film if it didn't have guilt in it). This is the strongest part of the film, the story is truly engaging keeping you on your toes, guessing and trying to figure out just what the hell is going on.

Mentioned above was a strong german expressionist current running throughout the film. The sets of the film, dark hallways, in closing gates, confusing and often contradictory staircases, are used to convey a character's psychological disposition. This style fits perfectly with the films themes, and they are used to create some truly memorable moments. The use of lighting, space and shadows give the film an eerie unsettling tone that reminds me of The Shining. But where Scorsese really comes through here is the use of sound. The sound is simply eerie, certain sounds are highlighted and others are dampened at strategic points throughout the film , which really re enforces the psychological drive of the film. Although the music at times is very campy, it kinda serves a thematic purpose on it's on. Insanity, especially the paranoid kind, is full of bizarre, epic conspiracies, and although the music is over the top it fits the idea of some sort of elaborate conspiracy. I really want to write about a specific motif using the score, but I really don't want to spoil the plot.

See this movie. It is so far the best film of 2010.

The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus (2009)

Director: Terry Gilliam

Writers: Charles McKeown, Terry Gilliam.

"Please...no more choices!"

Gilliam's latest feature centers around a Dr.'s crazy machine that allows people to physically travel into their own imagination. Actually, there isn't really a machine the power comes from the good doctor's mind, the machine is just like a needle. The film grapples with a familiar themes for Gilliam: Free will. The struggle between the so called high road and so called low road, the two forces that keep the universe together, the symbiotic relationship that God and the Devil have. One cannot exist without the other. Another theme, which unfortunately wasn't played out as much, is the idea of story telling as the center of human existence. For, indeed, one can see how Gilliam has been highly influenced not only by fairy tales but religious tales and myths as well. The free will theme is carried well throughout the film. however, it fails to say anything as unique as say Time Bandits, although the ending did remind me of the ambiguous ending of Time bandits, this is a good thing.

The plot is structured as a long on going competition between the doctor (Christopher Plummer) and the devil (Tom Waits). The devil is constantly making bets with the doctor, the first being that the first to achieve 12 followers using their own methods win. The devil emphasized danger, while the doctor stuck with the power of imagination. Doctor wins bet, and gets as his prize, immortality. However, he still ages and consequently becomes alone and feeble very quickly. The doctor falls in love a few centuries later, but of course he is old and the women is young, so the devil gives him his youth back (for a time) on the condition that any children wrought from the relationship between the doctor and the women go to him when they turn 16. Lo and behold, a child! Now, the child is approaching 16 and the devil wants a new bet, first to five souls wins it all. There's also a semi-redemption plot involving Heath Ledger's character Tony, but I've already gone a little too long. The strange thing about this plot is that it takes a long time to write down, giving the illusion of complexity, but it's really not that hard to follow. It reads like some sort of fairytale, and it works well enough. Definitely not the best of Gilliam's scripts, but better than most films on average.

Tom Waits is hands down the best actor in this whole film. It's like he really is the devil, it was the role he was born to play. And yes, this is in fact Heath Ledger's last film, he actually died while it was in production. What this means is, they didn't get all the scenes. Amazingly, the re-writes and changes are so good that if I didn't know that the lead actor died, I wouldn't have guessed that the re-writes were forced. This is a testament to how good of writing and story telling Gilliam is, and should have received some sort of award just for this. Jude Law, Johnny Depp and Colin Farrel all take the place of Ledger, in different imaginations, Tony is imagined to look different. So, because all of the character establishing scenes include Ledger himself, this works very very well. The writing is a bit campy at bits, but has some very good lines as well.

Visually, as one can imagine, there is a lot going on. GIlliam's canted camera is back, although somewhat out of place in most of the film, save for the few scenes taken in some London back street. The imaginations themselves are visual very very cool in terms of kinetics, it's just great to see what worlds people dwell into. However, do not expect the best CGI on the market here, as Gilliam's ambition might have overstretched his budget. It's not even remotely on par with some of the advance stuff, but then again, who says that someone's imagination should or even can look realistic? The massive abundance of color light make it look extremely cartoonish. Personally, I liked it, even though I tell it was a green screen and sometimes the graphics weren't that impressive, I just enjoyed it from an art perspective: the images are very cool. It leaves you wanting to see more, more bizarre landscapes and fairy tale surprises. The soundtrack is a mediocre score that is pretty uninteresting, but then again Gilliam has never been known for his mind blowing soundtracks. I personally think he works better without a soundtrack, but this seems to make audience uncomfortable.

This film is almost a kid's movie, despite the few instances of foul language. It's a magical fairy-tale journey into the depths of imagination. It doesn't have the cynical absurdist edge that Brazil or Fear and Loathing did, it's more innocent than that. I enjoyed it, and I'm pretty sure that most people will if they rent it.

The Man Who Fell to Earth

Director: Nicolas Roeg

Writers: Paul Mayersberg. Walter Telvis.

"Mr. Newton, are you crazy?"


In what was possibly the easiest casting pitch in cinematic history ("Okay Mr. Bowie, you play an alien and- "I'll do it") comes The Man who fell to Earth. A story about an alien visitor on a pretty important mission, who ultimately gets distracted by love, gin and television. And yes David Bowie is the lead, and yes he still has his British accent. I should say before I begin, that this film is based on a book I did not read. So, I mean no disrespect to the author, only to the director and writers.

Watching this film is like being stuck in a room with someone of sub par intelligence, high on some drug you can't pronounce, telling you what he believes to be a very good, moving, interesting and important story when in reality it's dull, ridiculous and simply stupid. Not only that, but he's constantly getting distracted by what he sees as deep reflections, and this all goes on for a little over two hours. SPOILER ALERT. The plot follows Mr. Newton, an alien who literally falls to earth, starts a giant corporation to get billions of dollars and ends up an alcoholic mess. We later find out (way to late in the film) that it is because on his planet (never named or described. Other than a few mysterious desert sequences) there is a terrible drought and we have water here. What exactly this means is totally unexplained. What's he planning to do with this water? Steal it? Colonize our planet? Get a sample of it and somehow clone it? What? Well, it doesn't matter because he never gets to that point. Just before he is about to blast off into space, he suddenly decides he wants to stay on earth, abandoning his alien wife and kids and his entire planet. The plot is so fragmented that it's held together by a thin cord, so thin in fact that it often becomes lost. The characters are shallow, underdeveloped, so when someone is crying, getting really angry or showing any sort of emotion, it just ends up being funny because you feel no attachment to the characters at all. It doesn't help that everyone is over acting. The dialogue sometimes seems comically awkward, unnatural and quite frankly poorly written. Overall, the plot is a mess, full of useless distractions, bad dialogue and an overall boring narrative. But, if you ever wanted to see David Bowie naked (including the whole package) then you're in luck...cause he gets naked. A lot.

This is the part where I'm supposed to say, although the story was total crap the direction and cinematography make up for it. Unfortunately, they arguably worse than the story. The man who ever showed Roeg a zoom lens should be destroyed in a painful and humiliating manner. Never have I ever been subjected to so much gratuitous zoom shots. It borders on the insane, actually he waves to the border as it ZOOMS past it (get it). I can't explain why anyone would ever think these kind of shots would look good, because I don't do LSD. I know it's a cop-out but it's the only explanation I can think of. There are so many useless characters, and so much wasted time following their useless movements that it goggles the mind on how this film was able to make it past a pitch. One scene, where for some reason Mr. Newton (the alien) can see a certain spot people from the frontier area, and they (the pioneers) can see the car, but no one else in car can see the pioneers. So basically he's looking back into time, and I guess projecting an image in time as well? I dunno, cause it's never explained and it never comes up again. It just happens and forgotten, like some fucking stoner eating off your plate then forgetting it happened thirty seconds later. It's just stupid. Oh yeah, and the two point of view shots. You know just to prove that he went to film school.

The sound is equally bad. There are many times where dialogue is heard when no one is moving their mouths. I know these could be voice-overs, which appear infrequently, but they happen in the middle of a conversation. If they are voice-overs (by that I mean narration) then it's poorly done and simply confusing. The voice-overs are also bizarre. They happen so infrequently that they just confuse you: are they talking to themselves? To a journal? What? It's like Roeg thought they would be cool for a bit, then half way through said fuck it it's too hard but forgot to take out the other ones. The music is also all over the place, sometimes it's supposed to be ironic ( I think) sometimes it's spacy ( you know...cause he's an alien and all), sometimes it's so quiet you can't even hear it. Apparently David Bowie wrote a sound track for the film, but it was rejected. He used a lot of it for his album Low.

60 sci-fi at it's worst, and that's saying something. It's that bad not because in reality it has nothing to do with sci-fi, but because it takes itself so seriously. This is a really, really boring film that borders on abusive. If you want to be insulted for 133 minutes than be my guest, watch this piece of crap. If you have any self-respect, avoid it and watch silent runnings instead.

Kids in the Hall: Brain Candy (1996)

Directed: Kelly Makin

Writers: Norm Hiscock, Bruce McCulloch, Kevin Macdonald, Mark McKinney and Scott Thompson

"So I hear dad's dead. Hey, is that egg nog?"

The famous Canadian comedy troupe's film is a heavy handed critique of the pharmaceutical industry, centered around one doctor and a pill that makes you happy. The plot follows the fate of Doctor Christ Copper, inventor of the drug played by Kevin MacDonald. However, the plot also follows the path, albeit loosely, of a few other characters as well: A repressed queer, the front man of a heavy metal group etc. These character, although sometimes are quite funny (especially the repressed homosexual, played by Scott Thompson) they are simply used to show the widespread effect of the drug, a series of mediocre vignettes. The film does a surprisingly good job of staying on plot, and because it's a pretty straightforward plot, this is good. What is not good however, is just how simple the plot is. It's terribly predictable, doctor is forced to release drug, drug is immensely popular, doctor forgets who is and starts living a crazy life of excess, drug has major problem, doctor vows to take it down. It's boring, and what's worse is that they Kevin MacDonald is easily the weakest actor of the group, and yet he gets the most screen time. Although a few of the jokes and gags merit a laugh or too, the film is not nearly as funny as I expected. Anyone who has ever seen a kids in the hall episode knows how insane and absurd their sketches can be, and it seems like they were constrained by the plot rather than inspired by it.

As far as everything else goes, mise-en-scene, sound, cinematography, what can I say? There really is nothing special going here, the film is directed like any other comedy film, situations are created for jokes to exist in, people laugh. The set pieces are usually pretty ordinary (with a few notable exceptions, the funny advertisement in the board room for example), the sound is functional, and I have a hard time even remember the sound track, which I think was just mood music or maybe a score, but it's kinda of like really average wall paper, and just blends in so well you hardly notice. My only other complaint about the film is that they were constantly trying to fit in characters from the series, whether it was relevant or not. It's like they knew that they're fans would be disappointed by their lack of insanity, so they tried to put as much inside stuff as possible to balance it out. It's like someone constantly winking at you saying "remember this guy" throughout a play. It's stupid, knock it off.

Overall, this film was immensely disappointing. Although not terrible (there are certainly much worse comedies out there) this wasn't up to par to the usual kids in the hall level. If your a hardcore fan, I'm sure nothing I say here will stop you from seeing the film. If your a fan, than spare yourself the disappointment, and just rent the series instead.

3-D: Friend or Foe?

Both director James Cameron and studio Pixar have decided that from now on, every single one of their movies will be in 3-D. Meaning you can hope to see over the top, childish, hopelessly cliche things "coming out of the screen!', and a bunch of animated features. Soon, all movie goers will have to remember to bring their 3-D glasses with them every time they want to see the latest Pixar creation, lest they be left out of the experience. Most people I read/hear say that this is great, in fact they are surprised that 3-D hasn't been used as widely before. There hasn't been one actor that I can tell, or a film-maker, a producer, a writer or a critic (besides notable exception) who has said what I think a lot of people are thinking? Are you fucking serious?

The idea that 3-D is somehow new, that the technology has just been discovered in hollywood's secret labs is crazy. 3-D movies have been around since 1890 and where at their height in north American movies in the 50s, complete with nameless African "bushmen" throwing spears at the crowd, to shot outs making the spectators gasp and lean back. The first 3-D film soon to a North American audience was in 1922, called the Power of Love. The film didn't really do well, and the actual movie reel was lost (don't worry, there will still be a remake with Sandra Bullock or something). The Golden era of 3-D began in 1952, with the release of Bwana Devil, from that came a truck load of campy stuff like the Mad Magician, Son of Sinbad and Man in the Dark. Why did they die? And more importantly, why does no one remember these films? There are several reasons why the industry stopped using this techniques. At the time, although they could do it, the profit simply didn't out way the cost of making them, what's more a lot of them where using two projects shot at the same time, and even though the films were only an hour long their had to be an intermission in every single one. The invention of television as well made it so people could just watch 2-D things on their televisions for free, and there was a general drop in movie going. That didn't stop people from making 3-D softcore porn though, in 1969 the Stewardess was made and shown in adult theaters.

How come no one remembers this? Or if they do, why are they almost embarrassed to talk about it? Isn't it obvious, the films are total shit. The reason for this is simple: 3-D does not add any real thematic depth of a film. Allusions, important plot elements, thematic images etc. are not lacking or added by the presence or lack there of of 3-D. It isn't like sound or color, where if you watch a film that has sound on mute, you're probably going to lose a lot of important stuff from that film. If you watch a 3-d film like a rebel, in boring old 2-d, you lose nothing in terms of story. You might find yourself thinking: why the fuck do people like this movie so much (AVATAR!). Maybe i'm wrong, maybe someone will use 3-d and advance films to a new level of art. I mean, when sound was first introduced, Soviet director Sergei Eisenstein said that sound would reduce films to theater on film. In a way, he was right, the early sound films are just that: people singing on a camera. People were just amazed that you could hear their voices! It took years before people finally got over the novelty of sound, to actually make something worth watching. This might be the case for 3-D, although one must remember that 3-D did exist before, and then it was abandoned. I for one, simply can't see it coming back.

Max Manus (2009)

Directors: Joachim Rønning, Espen Sandberg

Writer: Thomas Nordseth-Tiller

"Who the hell stops drinking in the middle of a bloody war?"


Max Manus is the true story of one of Norway's most famous resistance fighters during the German Occupation. It is the most successful Norwegian film ever made, and I'm measuring success in this case by the number of attendance recorded. The plot follows Max through Finland, Scotland and Norway, as he becomes a sabateur for the British secret service. This film was luke warm, as there isn't anything disastrously wrong with it. It's consistently mediocre, it doesn't really wow you on any fronts.

This film simply is NOT fucking around. It jumps straight into the plot, as Max seemingly doesn't have a wife or existence before the war. The first thing he does is joins a brigade of Norwegian volunteers to help repel the Soviet invasion of Finland, and then comes back pissed off at the fact that Norway is pretty much occupied without a fight. He then hooks up with a bunch of guys (we don't know how they know each other, or how they meet) and they started getting guns and making plans. As you can probably already tell, I have a problem with the film's pace. It's so fast, skimming through major events without any sort of, at least superficial, explanation. The film focuses on what Max DOES uniquely, leaving out the why, and fails to go beyond the simple actions. We do get a reason why he becomes a guerrilla, saying that he is just a good patriot. This is such a cop-out, jerk off motivation. I love my country. It takes no effort to write, no deep character explanation. Just I love my country. No doubt that Max probably was intensely patriotic, but was that his only motivation? Did others in his group have other motivations? We don't know, because the film shrugs and says who cares? The entire "for king and country" routine gets old really really fast, as Max also bows down to lick the boots of the exiled king. Although I can understand that he likes his nation, it's hard for me to not think his pathetic when tears start rolling down his cheeks at the sight of an old man in an 1800 military uniform. Later on, a love story develops, but it's not very interesting and are easily the weakest part of the film. Max's "nerves' start going near the end, as the guilt and stress of losing friends starts to pile up. These parts are easily the strongest part of the film, and by far the most interesting. Too bad they are at the end of the film, which makes them in a sense worse because throughout the film Max is seen as a stone cold bad ass, but suddenly he turns all soft without I feel a sort of proper transition. This film felt more like a national myth making project than a work of art.

The production and direction of this film is again sort of in the same vein. It was shot on location in Norway, and marks the first time since the occupation that nazi flags have been shown in public in Norway. The film continues the 21 century tradition of way too many ineffective hand held overly shaky shots, but it's not as bad as you would think as a large part of the film is all about action. I'm not going to say much about the dialogue, as it's pretty standard because I don't speak Norwegian, I have no idea if the translation was any good. The only music in the film is standard Hollywood style epic composition, nothing out of the ordinary. The direction is so average that's actually hard for me to come up with things to say about it. It's like any other historical epic, albeit a little more biopic than usual. Overall, I really think this film was dull, un-interesting. Good or bad? It's hard to say. It's not bad as in I felt the theater angry, enraged or shaking my head. But I didn't leave the theater really thinking about the film very much. It just sort of...passes through you, without any sort of mark.

If your Norwegian and you want to get know to now one of your most bad-ass public figures, then knock yourself out, maybe you'll like it. And if you just want to see nazis getting destroyed...sorry there actually isn't much nazi killing in this film (I KNOW!). I dunno...I wouldn't recommend it, but I can see how others would find it entertaining.

The Calgary Underground Film Festival. Part 2

"Do You need to be touching my horse?"

So the festival is over. I missed a lot of films I wish I hadn't (A Gun to the Head, the Hunt) but I guess that's always going to happen. Last time, I had just seen The Disappearance of Alice Creed. Since then, I've seen three films: RoboGeisha, Machotaildrop and Harmony Korine's Trashhumpers. They were all really awesome, and thus marking my first Canadian Premiere (Robogeisha). Although I throughly enjoyed all of them, I have to say that Trash humpers stole the show. I felt like I was in a cinema in Barcelona, in the 30s, watching an enraged, insulted and disgusted crowd reel and riot after watching Salivdor Dali's Chien D'or. I'll explain what I mean a little later.

Robo-Geisha is a Japanese horror comedy from director Noboru Iguchi, and holy shit is it funny. But even if I tried to explain to you why it is funny, or told you specific parts that made me laugh, it would some trite. Japanese comedies have an odd relationship to English, as some lines are simply better read than said so to speak. The plot is so absurd and ridiculous that it works. It's about Yoshi and her older sister Kikue who were training in the Geisha house since the death of their parents. They soon have dinner with the wealthy industrialist Kageno and find out that he is building a secret army of robotic Geisha assassins. Soon they are making hits for their male bosses. But when Yoshi is given a target of nice old people, who rally against the Kageno group for stealing their daughters/sisters away, she goes rogue against Kageno. The climax of this film is more ridiculous than you can possibly fathom, and well worth it. Japanese humor around humiliation, cruelty and honorable men doing silly things translate well I think to a western audience. Rent it with some friends, share some laughs.

Machotaildrop is an independent feature from Van city, a film about a world where skaeboarding is much more than a sport, but a higher cultural calling. Directed and written by Corey Adams (co-directored and co-written by Alex Craig), it's a fantastical, surreal and colorful journey. There are at least two major plot lines in this film, one following a young skate boarding Walter's rise to fame in the Machotaildrop house, the other is the story of the Manwolfes, a rabid wild skateboarding gang that roams an abandoned amusement park. The two plots work well with each others, pushing a strong and earnest critique of the corporatism of skateboarding culture, and the insanity of professional sports. My only problem with the film is the lead actor, the kid who plays Walter. He's terrible. Everything else in this film plays this part very well, EXCEPT him. And he is probably (besides the baron) the person who we see the most. I don't know why he got the part, perhaps he's friends with one of the directors or producers, but it was a bad movie. In spite of this, I recommend this movie, it will hold your attention, make you laugh and entertain you.

This brings us to Harmony Korine's latest film, Trash Humpers, Watching this film in a theater as opposed to alone was quite the experience, and I'll tell you why. The first few frames of Trash humpers show three senior citizens, literally fucking garbage bags/bins. Weird? Of course. And the audience reacted accordingly, laughing at the silliness of the images. By the end of the film, there was no laughter. Because, after we had been exposed to some of the most strange, disturbing and confusing scenes in recent cinematic memory, the trash humping simply isn't funny anymore. The film has no plot, there is no story to be told. No character development, no actual character names. The movie is filmed entirely on a camcorder, an old school one that even has the auto-tracking flashing in some parts. The images themselves are haunting, disturbing and will follow you for a while. The dialogue comes in waves of surreal monologues, delivered by bizarre characters in even weirder places. The film is constantly walking the line between harmless vandalism and psychotic violence. The fact that the thing is shoot in video gives you the eerie feeling that this may be real, and though you try and try to convince yourself otherwise, the feeling remains. In this post-modern age Korine has managed to create something truly original. And that alone is enough.

The Calgary Underground FIlm Festival, Part One.

I obviously am not able to go to every film screened at the week long festival, because i have to work. If anyone wishes to pay to me to see all of them just so I can write about it, do it. Anyways, the film I saw was called the Disappearance of Alice Creed, a debut feature by director J Blakeson. What the J stands for remains a mystery. Despite my sarcasm I was actually really impressed by this film, and when I found out that it was his first, well that just made it all the more sweeter. Briefly, the plot is this: Two British criminals convert an apartment into a prison cell, where they hold to kidnap a women and hold her for ransom. This sounds extremely simply, but it isn't. I don't want to give anything else away, because revealing anything past that point would spoil it. The plot is an intense thriller, with a lot of Hitchcockian elements to it. The plot keeps you guessing, and will surprise you and keep you on the edge of your seat. Seriously, the film is intense, rarely does my heart started pounding faster when I see a film. The script (J Blakeson wrote the film as well) is solid, with convincing dialogue and a no nonsense approach to story. I liked it, but I don't know if I'd watch it again. Because the plot itself is based on this sort of crazy twist pattern, I don't know if seeing it twice would be as enjoyable.

I also really enjoyed how effective the film was. By that I mean, it didn't use fancy special FX (I doubt he could afford them) and there are only three actors in the whole film. I would guess the most expensive scene would be when a van is set on fire. The film also pretty much takes place in one location, though near the end there is some travel. The film is also heavily influenced by German expressionism, as the props and buildings begin to reflect the character's psychological states. The film feels very close, very tense as if it's closing in around the characters. I don't know if the room physically gets smaller (this technique is used in a lot of films) but it certainly feels like it. The music is also stellar. The entire soundtrack is made up of kind of ambient, post-rock piano, cello, and fxs. The music might actually be my favorite part of this film, as it's haunting, sorrowful yet determined notes set a beautiful tone.

I don't know where this J Blakeson is going, or if we'll ever find out what the J stands for (perhaps Jay). But if this is his first film, then I can't wait to see his next one. The next film at the festival i will be attending is not till Saturday (work and school). It's a Japanese horror film called Robo-Geisha, and it looks awesome. It's a late night screening starting at 11:45. should be fun, if you're free or an insomniac you should come down!

Mean Streets (1973)

Writer/director: Martin Scorcese

"You don't make up for your sins in church. You do it in the streets. You do it at home. The rest is bullshit and you know it."

Mean Streets was considered to be Scorceses first industry film. Meaning big film. He had made one other full length film called "Who's That Knocking at my door" (AKA I Call First), which was made while in Film school in New York. That film also stared Harvey Keitel, and is in fact very similar to Mean streets. Mean Streets follows the life of Charlie, an up and comer in his local mob and his relationship to his neighborhood. Johnny Boy (Played by Robert De Niro) is Charlie's protege, and happens to be his girlfriends cousin. Johnny Boy however, is a bit of mess. He owes everyone in the neighborhood and never pays off his debt. This time however, Johnny has borrowed from Micheal, something of a big deal. *SPOILER ALERT* Well, as hard as Charlie tries, Johnny simply does not want to repay his debt, and pays for it. The narrative itself isn't exactly original when you boil it down to the bone. It's a story about someone who owes money, but doesn't have it. Or at least, that's the main plot. Beneath the surface, Mean Streets actually weaves a complex web of different themes, relationships and plots. Hang on folks, it's gonna be a long one.

Charlie as a character himself is an interesting case. To understand Charlie, you must in a sense understand the mentality behind the script. Scorsese's first feature film (I forgot to mention this earlier) is the story of Boxcar Bertha. If your unfamiliar with this colorful character of American folklore, she was a train hobo who robbed banks and gave the money to different unions. Now, before I say this I have to explain something: I love Scorcese, he is a legend and i have the utmost respect for his craft. Boxcar Bertha sucked. I mean really, it did, even Scorsese thought so. So he got some advice: Make something more personal. Scorcese did actually grow up in inner city New York, and did hang out with what he describes as "toughs" whether or not he was in a gang or not is unknown, but it's probable that he knew of people in them. So we have two sides to Scorcese: An artistic side (if you don't think Scorceses is Artistic, watch Who's That Knocking at my Door?) and a masculine or macho side. This duality between the feminized artistic side and masculine street side is made physically by a female companion. This is true both in Mean Streets and Who's That knocking at my door. Teresa is Charlie's girlfriend. He, however, doesn't tell anyone that he has a girlfriend. He keeps her secret. In fact, you almost get the sense that he is ashamed of her. This ties into another common theme in almost of all Scorceses work: Catholic guilt. The church is seen as a place of sanctuary, a haven free from the masculine world of proving oneself, and the feminized world of sensual creativity, while remaining masculine in a puritanical sense. When this protection is seen as fake, when Charlie finds out that a story a priest once told him was simply that, a story, he cannot reconcile that. "They're not supposed to be just guys" he says about priests. They were beyond being "guys". Catholicism is about that: striving for the impossible perfectibility (imitation of Christ) and beating yourself up for never quite getting there.

The film is all about balance. Charlie balances out his feminizied world with the masculine one, and these two polarized worlds with a supposedly middle one (church). But within these relationships the lines between masculine/feminine are blurred. In, what I think is the most telling point of the film, a particular scene Charlies shows a homo-social nature. Theresa is having a seizure (she is epileptic), Johnny storm away angrily (she's your girl he says). Charlie then leaves his suffering partner in the hands of a stranger old lady who lives in his building (actually, the old lady is Martin Scorceses's real life mother) to go to comfort Johnny. A dick move? Yes, almost literally. Am I suggesting that Scorcese put this in to add a homosexual quality to his character? No. However I do think it is telling, in light of the other themes and things going on in this film.

If you've seen or are familiar with the french new wave, you've be shocked on how much this movie takes from that movement. Only in the sense that, the plot kind of weaves in and out of relevancy. Characters go off on tangents, hanging out partying that don't forward the plot in a bare bones way but look at Charlie and his world more closely. The scene with the caged lion is a great example of this. The result is fascinating: You end up with a quite artsy film that looks and feels like a typically Hollywood narrative. This is when Scorcese balances that fine line so well, you hardly even notice it. Near the end of the film, the plot straightens itself out and finishes, but without the thematic wanderings, the ending would like any artistic meaning.

You will find yourself watching this movie and saying "wow...this dialogue is so cliche". While this is undoubtedly true today it certainly wasn't the case when this film came out. It was seen as an edgy, street-wise film that actually sounded like what everyone talks like. This is because Scorcese mostly invented the modern day cliches about New York Italian gangsters. And what's a cliche other than a badly copied classic? For indeed a lot of his films are classics, and although the dialogue is corny by today's standard, this only serves as a testament on how far dialogue and verbal representation has come in film. So, expect a lot of "what sa matter with you?" and "forgot about it" s. The music is sparse with not score, but songs from Scorcese's record collection at the time, which include a lot of roiling stones and other 60s-70s bands I know nothing about. It works well, making the movie feel hip and current at the time ( I think). The only other notable sound quality in this film is the voice-over work. The voice of Charlie in his head, his thoughts is not the voice of Harvey Keitel but of Scorcese. This wasn't done due to some technical error, but purposefully. A separation is made from the thoughts in Charlie's mind, to his words and actions. A separation of the physical, real world where one can hide or at least conceal your emotions, and the meta-physical or semi-real world of emotions, of inner strife.

This film contains the predecessor, practice run if you will, of the famous tracking shot in Goodfellas. It is itself a goody, although shorter than the Goodfellas one. A lot of of the hand held shots in this film were used because the film crew ran out of money for more tracks. This, I think, is a blessing in disguise as it gives the film a much more loose, on the verge of falling over feel to it. These slow, tracking shots are juxtaposed with jump cuts of items of people, rapid fire. The two styles together are an odd mix, and in his later work he doesn't use the jump cut as frequently. What is possibly my favorite scene in the party scene (with the returning solider). In it, there is a great shot with an attached camera on Harvey's face as he drunkenly stumbles in the bar. The effect is dizzying, so disorienting and sickening that you almost feel as if you are there. The progress of his facial expressions are perfect, the I'm really sick/depressed but trying to look happy face. The whole is shot with only rolling stones as backgrounds, as a consequence actually events in this sequence are blurred, forgotten or muted. What you see if the spurting style of a future master, and it's fantastic to watch.

Watch this film, espically if you've seen Goodfellas or even Raging Bull. I think you'll be surprised at the depth of it (although you shouldn't be). It's much more different from his later and much shittier works such as the Aviator or Casino. The words and dialogue may seem simple, but beneath the superficiality is this wealth of artistic meaning and pathos. Let it sink in.

M (1931)

M (1931)
Germany.

"Just you wait, it won't be long. The man in black will soon be here. With his cleaver's blade so true. He'll make mincemeat out of YOU! "

Director: Fritz Lang


Writers: Fritz Lang Thea von Harboou



*Spoiler Alert*

Fritz Lang is possibly one of the most forgotten directors in North America. Yes, I am aware that he is in fact Germany only coming to North America after fleeing from the Nazis but that's not the point. Hitchcock owes a lot to Lang, and so do a lot of film techniques that have become a stable in thriller genres. Also, this film is a technical landmark, it is the first film to ever use voice overs, a character speaking over images of something else happening. At the time, this was seen as revolutionary (and even confusion). The story revolves around the search for a serial killer that kidnaps and murders little girls. The police are unable to dig up any leads and are completely stumped. The people are angry, scarred, mothers cling to their daughters tightly. Anyone acting the least bit suspicious, or that shows any sort of kindness to children is accused of being the killer. The fact that a considerable bounty has been set doesn't help. The city is ready to explode, the police are getting more and more desperate and launch nightly raids on the "criminal districts" of the town. The criminals aren't enjoying it either. They're clubs are being raided, there "more police out than whores" to quote one colorful character, and more importantly is the principle of the thing. People are associating this person with them, and they are not child murders. We have their own morals, limits and rules, and this man is making people doubt that. The criminals become obsessed with catching this murder, and create a Beggar's Union, an organized army of beggars and hobos to watch every square inch of the city. It's a plot that talks about justice, suspicion, law and morality and the relationship between power and mobs.

The plot is simple in it's content: Who done it? Although we the spectators already know, it's not so much a mystery as it is a tension. This tension is between the two camps, police and criminals. Who will catch him, will he indeed be caught? And how many will he kill in the meantime. The plot follows three groups: 1 the police, represented by the chief, 2. the murderer played by Peter Lorre, and the criminals represented by some sort of mafia, or gang. There is a lot of juxtaposition of conversations between the criminals and the cops, as their over lapping interests and difference weave in and out. The symbiotic yet hostile relationship between the two is intriguing. The killer is seen doing mainly bizarre things, meant to make us pity him and feel repulsed by him. His whistling tune creeps up your spine as his shadow is cast over some innocent child, which wasn't even done by Peter Lorre who could not whistle, Lang had to do it himself and overdub the sound. We get the sense from him that he is indeed possessed by something, not well and definitely not killing for any sensible reason. As the plot lines beginning to collide, the fate of the killer seems sealed. Again, it's nothing terribly original, now. But at the time, an actual movie about a child murder was unbelievable, no one thought he could do it. And when Lang did it, no one thought it would pass the nazi censors, which it did. So, if you watch it (please do) you should try to keep this in mind.

Fritz Lang's abuse of actors in legendary. He actually threw Peter Lorre down the stairs over a dozen times, just to get the shot right. Lang was also obsessed with authenticity, and claims he casts real criminals during the mock trial scene (the criminals catch the murder and try him). Criminal justice or more accurately the idea of honor amongst thieves is a major part of this film. Although the criminals are motivated by some selfish reason, they are still generally disgusted by the killings. When they finally capture the killer in an abandoned warehouse, they hold a trial. The judge is replaced by a council (headed by the gang leader). The killer even has a defense lawyer. The argument ensues over the rightness or wrongness of killing the killer. The man can't help himself says the prosecution we must kill him. The defense argues that this is the very reason why he should spared. Whenever I watch a film in a language I do not speak, I hesitate to comment on the dialogue, for two important reasons: 1. I don't know if the translations are good or not. 2. What may sound odd or un natural in English may be common in another. if I had to guess, I would say that the dialogue in this film is typical of it's genre and time. Trying to be edge, without being able to say really nasty things on screen.

There are moment of dark visual beauty in this film, or more precisely, stills that stay with you. The M placed on the back of the murder's coat to identify him, (hence the title), the wild eyed, angry furious mob. Fritz Lang is very good at composition, and I am very excited to see some of his silent films, as I think that these will be even more picturesque. This is not to say that the sound is useless. Although there is little sound in general (sound was relatively new, so some scene with no dialogue are complete silent as the habit of recording sound effect for things like walking, street noises etc. had not be common place). When there is it works. The song the murder whistles is eerie, changing in tempo faster slower. There is also no music in this movie. None. Not a note. This is odd, considering that silent films usually had a musical score to it, and since this was a relatively new talkie I assumed that it would do. it gives the film a much more serious, real atmosphere. Adding music would only take away from the seriousness of the both the themes and the actually content.

Both Fritz Lang and Peter Lorre left Germany shortly after the release of this film. Lorre because he was Jewish, Lang because he was half Jewish. Lang went on to make English films, such as Fury. This is the first film of his I've seen so, it might be the start of something beautiful. You must see this film, really. If you really want to get into cinema, you're going to have to, at some point, watch this movie.

La Haine (Hate)

Director: Mathieu Kassovitz
Good, good. Let the hate flow through you.


Writer: Mathieu Kassovitz

"Wow, what a speech! Half Moses, half Mickey Mouse."

Written shortly after the french suburbs riots of the 90s, Hate follows the story of three friends living in the projects. What's great about this film is it's honestly and authenticity. In an industry full of shams, fakes and cheap tricks to suck money from the pockets of cinema lovers like myself, this is very refreshing. Kassovitz actually grew up in the project, and this movie was inspired by the murder of one of his friends at the hands of the french police. If you've seen the film, this is not surprising and actually explains a lot. How else could he write so naturally, so effortlessly the strange dialect of the french Bon-lieus?

Said, Vinz and Hubert wake up to the destruction and bitterness of the the riots of last night. Hubert, an African immigrant who owned a gym, seems disappointed but not surprised that during these riots his gym was torched. Vinz, a young and very angry jew, can't wait to tell the stories of how he fought in the riots (he even saw a cow). And Said, a young arab kid who is trying to gain some respect in the rough projects. What these three characters give us is three important elements of French society in the suburbs. North Africans and Arabs make up a huge amount of the population in these ghettos, with the Jewish community with smaller yet still significant numbers. It is not by accident then, that these three young men represent three different cultures are at the center of this film. During the riots, the police report that one of their officers lost they're firearm. Guess who found it? Vinz is committed to seeking vengeance in case Abel (the young arab who was severely beaten by police, and as a consequence hospitalized. His attack was the cause of the riots) dies in hospital. One pig for one brother. Blood for blood. The three visit paris, wander it's streets, getting into trouble, beating up nazis you know the usual. The plot is heavily influenced by a french new wave sense of slow wandering, an emphasis not on the actual peaks and lows of the plot but of the thematic content of these plot elements. What's interesting is that, unlike a lot of other french films of this caliber, the characters are not flat representations of ideas like paragraphs of an essay. These characters breath. They are vividly real, with moments of pathos, humor, joy and sorrow all punctuating different parts of the film. And yet they DO represents sets of ideas. Vinz, the ultimate symbol of class hatred, hot-headed youth fueled by the feeling that everything and everyone is against him. Said, those who deal with what comes. Those seemingly more interested in their hair, their own life their own family than other things. And Hubert, the young brilliant man, trying desperately to escape the ghetto while keeping his dignity intact. While this three perspectives are ultimately all under an umbrella influence of liberalism (more on this later), the three ultimately balance themselves out. The high points of the plot aren't the twists, the revelations, and it's not the end (although the ending is superb). It's the journey that counts, as cheesy as that sounds.

The direction of this film is absolutely stunning. With one of the best helicopter shots I have ever seen, that sequence is quickly become one of my favorite camera sequences ever. The images are bathed in shadows, light a dusty ambiance heightened by the black and white. You can almost feel the grit of this film, the very images radiate anger, frustration and a dark humor. From the desolate landscapes of the ghettos, to the stylized time lapses, this film just shines. Like the dialogue, the images urge to deep beyond the surface, to read (or see) between the lines. This some truly epic tracking shots that rivals those of Scorcese, the feeling that you are total there is pulled off wonderfully. Although there is very little action in this film (apart from actual footage from the riots, and a few other scenes), you feel as if the words are action. The dialogue is so fierce that you feel as if their words constitute a riot on their own.

The music is a poignant, meaning that it is largely absent and only comes in a specific time. The music allows the dialogue to take precedent above all else, and never the two compete which is a good thing. Music includes bits and piece of old school and new beats. The best part musical is when "Nique La police" plays during the helicopter shot. Unbelievable.

Last, but not least some analysis. It's rare to see a film that acknowledges the existing of the social war, much less creating a narrative of those actually participating in it. This war is seen as being fueled by the intrusion of the police, and colonization of poor people's lives through work, TV and pigs. One of the most telling scenes is when a reporter is asking the three protagonists if they were in the riots, only to be chased off. "What do you think this is, a zoo?" says one of them. Their lives are a spectacle, an event to be devoured by the media as entertainment, totally devoid of any meaning or social significance. This total alienation is a recurring theme throughout the film, and although I think that Kassovitz should be applauded for this, there are some limitations. The alienation is seen as, firstly, something new that has happened only recently. Secondly, it is seen as a sorrow, and not as a revolutionary potentiality. The social war, while evident in this film is put within a purely liberal context: Disarmament, on both sides. The basic premises of the film is that if this continues, this society will collapse, we can't go on like this, meaning that he does in fact WANT to salvage this system. Same event and condition, different perspectives or interpretations. This view is a historical, romantic (because a pathetic call of social peace is just that, pathetic). It is devoid of the realities of class, race, gender and capitalistic interest in the spectacle. Oh well, one can't expect too much I suppose. I can only sit patiently and wait for "social war: the film". (Which consists of a black screen that repeatably flashes "to the streets comrades!")

One of the most intense, interesting and and engaging films I've ever seen. You seriously MUST see it, do it.

Rushmore (1998)

"yeah, I was in the shit"
A bit awkward, non?


Director: Wes Anderson

Writer(s): Wes Anderson, Owen WIlson.

This was the first time I've ever seen a Wes Anderson film, as a few friends of mine kept harassing me about seeing one. Rushmore is a love triangle between Max Fischer, a very eccentric, intelligent student of the Rushmore private academy, Hermane Blume a rich, sad and lonely industrialist, and a mentor to max Fischer. And finally completing the awkward triangle Rosemary Cross, the new first grade teacher whom the two males are enthralled with. Sounds simple right? Well its not, it's really more of a humorous character study of Max Fischer.

Wes Anderson went to a playwright school in his home town of Dallas. It shows. Not only are there plays within the film, but the film itself is portrayed some what as a play, curtains rise and fall. To my surprise, I don't actually have much to say about this Film. Surprising I know, but I think the problem is not so much with Anderson, but with me (I am aware of the cliche). The fact is, Wes Anderson appeals to middle-class (so far it's right) kids that are old enough to remember the nineties well enough to get all his allusions. I fall directly under this bracket. Or maybe I'm wrong, and that brings me to the main point: I don't get all his allusions, I don't get a lot of because I am simply not hip enough. Doing a bit for research, I find that these allusions, although not critical to understanding the film, are definitely something that enriches the experience. A lot of his shots (including the one with Max Fischer in his go kart) are homages to an early nineteenth century french photographer. Anderson is in fact a very good film maker, and an even better writer. His wit shines through with every colorful characters line. With allusions to (yes I do get some of them) to on the waterfront and many other films, it's obvious that Anderson knows his stuff.

The plot unfolds smoothly, with humor at a awkwardly slow and playful pace. With just slightly improbable situations, watching this film you get the impression that this is inspired by some true. Rushmore, the school in the film is actually Wes Anderson's old high school. The whole film radiates with a sort of shy honesty, an honesty that's rare in films this days. I think my favorite part of the film is not the main love story between Fischer and his love interest, but between him and Blume, an odd friendship that I actually found to be more heart warming than the love interest. Thematically, as far as I can tell, it's not incredible. It's a coming of age film, through and through. Although the film proves that comedies are truly be art, I don't come away from the film pondering over it's meaning, or mulling over it's various points. I do go away happier, a little lighter and definitely entertained.

The music in this film is comprised almost entirely of indie songs. Originally, Anderson wanted only songs by the Kinks, but latter changed his mind. Music is one of those things in films, when you like it you hardly notice it, it seems natural or fitting. But when you don't, you always feel as if something is a little off, and you feel consequently, a bit put off (see what I did there?) I do not like indie music. I find it pretentious and irritating, so the music really really didn't grab me, it sort of just distracted me. The most notable audio elements in this film are the non-digestic inserts. The sounds of the ocean played over someone reading a book, planes or other noises when someone is thinking of something. These technics are rarely used, and if done in the wrong way can come off as extremely corny. Anderson pulls it off wonderful, which not only gives his film a sort of child-like imagination, laced with a bit of nostalgia quality to it, but shows his prowess as a director. These sound clips definitely make his direction style noticeable and unique.

It's hard for me to recommend this film. Not because I don't think many people will enjoy it, but because I'm not sure who will love it and who won't get it. The only way to find out is to go see it. Rent it, borrow it from a friend, whatever. The reason for my hesitation is simply a personal one, a matter of taste. I have a great respect for Anderson and his craft after watching this film, but it is not a style that strikes close to home for me.

Nosforatu: Phantom Der Nacht (1979)

Director: Werner Herzog

Writer: Werner Herzog

Notable cast members: Klaus Kinski.

The name Nosforatu is probably familiar to you. The now famous shot of the vampire's eerie shadow creeping up the stairs is easily recognizable. But, have you ever seen the original silent film? It's nearly three hours long (!), and in the restored version the blackness is gone because they restored the film, making it look cleaner and in a way less creepy.

Anyways, this is not that movie. This is a remake. Now, usually I would be hard-set against this, but this time it's different. Werner Herzog is arguably one of the best German directors, if not only in this era. What I love most about his work is his distinct authorship, making him more of an artist than most north American directors. However, this can make him a bit pretentious, which is ironic seeing as Herzog never went to film school, or even took a film course, he just made films.

In the original film, Henrik Galeen wrote an adaption of the classic Dracula. But when they started the legal work, they couldn't get the rights to the novel, so they changed things slightly to avoid any copyright infringement. So dracula became Graph Orlock, it didn't take place in Transilvania etc. By the time that Herzog made his version, Dracula entered the public domain and he was able to use the original names. The story in case you don't know is briefly this: A real estate agent is called to Count dracula's castle in order to buy a large house in London (or berlin ....whatever). When he goes there, Count dracula bites him, is in love with his wife, and traps the young man in his castle. The vampire travels to London, bringing with him a plague and pursues the women. In order to save her husband and the thousands of inhabitants of London who are suffering from the plague, the wife sacrifices her self to the vampire, tricking him into being killed by the sun.

This is however, a brief sketch. The story itself isn't exactly Shakespearean, but it's a classic. In the silent original, the film plays out exactly like that, with all characters playing their obvious parts. The wife is innocent pure, and a victim. The man is worried, striving against an impossible evil to save the purity of his wife. And the vampire is evil, through and though. It becomes quite obvious rather quickly why Herzog made this movie. It wasn't so much for the story, but the characters. Specifically, Dracula himself is explored in greater depth than the original. While still evil, his evilness is seem almost as an illness, a curse. The vampire is then a split person, the mortal in him wants death, love and humanity, while his vampiric impulses drive him to kill and spread evil. This inner tension is played out quite well by Klaus Kinski, as the vampire moves back and forth, unsure, sickly even yet strong and reluctantly powerful. Dracula speaks of his eternal life as a curse, a life lived in abject pain characterized by the impossibility of love. He becomes then, a tragic figure. One who craves what he can never have. We are repulsed by him, and yet we see him as a pathetic figure, a sad figure. And, like a tragic figure, his cravings lead to his demise. When he finally bites the wife, he does so not because he only wants blood, but he wants her love. In fact, he demands that directly, asking her for just half of the love that she gives her Husband, the real estate agent (Jonathan). She gives him this, and in doing so destroys him.

Lucy (the wife) is another interesting character. Although her sexuality is still sacrificed to save a male, she is seem has doing this more out of desperation than in the original. She is more in control in this version, as Johnathan is not saving her, but the reverse. Johnathan is in fact, pretty useless in this film. Not in a filmatic sense, but more in a general way. He doesn't actually do anything to stop Dracula, and is used almost exclusively as a plot device. He seems oblivious to Dracula's obvious ill intentions, and despite several attempts on Lucy's part, he ignores all ill omens and still proceeds to the castle. Lucy then, is in reality the main character of this film.

What unique and beautiful about Herzog's style is his minimalism and his naturalism. He doesn't interfere too much with the actual camera, barely ever uses any effects. What he is good at is finding naturally fitting spots that fit both in the narrative and also the theme or essence of his films. The castle is in ruins, abandoned and more important empty, like Dracula himself. It has the appearance of being human, but in reality is not. This is probably due to a strong influence of german expressionism in Herzog's work, albeit of a more subtle variety. He uses strong animal imagery in almost all his films, and this one is no exception. The plague is brought by thousands and thousands of rats that roam the city, and act as the vampire's army. These are real rats, and he really did release thousands of them in a Bavarian city for the shot. That's why he's an artistic, everything he does is authentic, natural on the spot. This gives his films more breath, more life and in a sense they are more real. A very impressive slow motion shot of a bat is used repetitively (though, Herzog's crew did not film this. It was borrowed from a scientific doc). Shadows, night and empty desolate landscapes sprinkle this movie creating an near perfect ambiance. The desolate plague shots will remain one of the most memorable ones for me.

The dialogue in this film is again quite to a minimal. If you don't think that the dialogue seems entirely natural you are right. Although not completely allegorical, the film does walk a fine line between the symbolic and the literal. This is why Herzog's craft is so impressive, because he is able to walk this line with relative ease, making it look natural. Characters speak from a thematic view point, dracula talks about death, love, evil and pain, while lucy talks about her husband, sacrifice and the limits of rational science. If you have been fed a steady diet of North american films, this may seem odd and you might try to blame it on the translations. But, lo and behold, watch it in English (they shot every scene twice, once in english another time in German to avoid voice overs) and you'll see that it's the same. It may take some time getting used to. The music too, is uniquely Herzog. Instead of Grandiose orchestras, he uses soft, mysterious ambient music, making the mood feel ancient, cold and eerie.

Herzog is one of the most haunting directors I've ever seen. Even when I think that the images are not that impressive at the time, specific scenes, images and lines will haunt me for days and days. Even if you don't like his movies, I promise you that his visions will be present in your mind for a long period of time after seeing them. Give it a chance.