Read + Write + Report
Home | Start a blog | About Orble | FAQ | Blogs | Writers | Paid | My Orble | Login

Cinema Enthusiast - by Catherine Stebbins

 

The Kids Are All Right (2010)



The Kids Are All Right (2010)
8.8/10

As the mostly justified discussion of Inception continues, there is another film out right now that demands just as much attention for its complex adult depiction of a marriage. Lisa Cholodenko, writer/director of the independent films High Art and Laurel Canyon (neither of which, sad to say, I have seen) is telling a story of two people who are meant to be together. On the other hand, marriage takes hard work no matter how strong the couple is. This film is about the complications that arise when a marriage clashes with time and how even the strongest couple can make bad decisions when trying to work through the inevitabilities of marriage. The Kids Are All Right offers hope through its resolution and consistently light tone but at the same time uses that inevitability as a reality that must be faced by all.


Annette Bening and Julianne Moore play Nic and Jules, a couple who have been together for over twenty years. They have two children from the same anonymous sperm donor. Their names are Joni and Laser (Mia Wasikowska and Josh Hutcherson), ages 15 and 18. This is Joni’s last summer before she goes off to college. Since she is eighteen, Laser wants her to find their sperm donor so they can meet. She finally agrees and they secretly meet up with their biological father Paul (Mark Ruffalo). He quickly becomes a part of the family’s lives and upsets the healthy order that had been established by the two mothers and their perfected upper-middle class life.


There is a lot going on in this film and there are many ways Cholodenko makes this stand out. One is that she is not afraid of letting ‘subplots’ go unresolved because her priority is for the audience to get a full sense of this family and these characters. Joni and Laser are struggling with their identities’ in different ways. Paul is struggling with quickly oncoming maturity. Nic is struggling with her wine drinking. Jules is struggling with not feeling appreciated. Each struggles with much more than this but many of these character struggles are identified and somewhat dealt with but are not treated as problems to be solved but rather as indicators of where these people are at in their lives and what kind of people they are.

The exception comes with Jules and her struggle which is the main focus of the film as her decisions have the most hurtful impact on the family. Moore, in one of her best performances without a hint of the overacting she can sometimes slip into, plays Jules as a carefree but very awkward and insecure woman. She needs to feel appreciated and Nic, in the midst of being a doctor and making sure everything else is being done just so, loses track of Jules in the process. Instead of dealing with this issue, Jules concocts a truly selfish and specific rebellion which shows not only her lack of confidence but also her inability to face a problem head on. Moore plays Jules as someone uncomfortable in her own skin; she almost comes off as a nervous high school student giving a speech when she is tense. It is very subtle work by Moore. Jules is someone who does not even understand why she does what she does.

Bening gives another winning performance as Nic (she is always excelled at playing A-type personalities). She is very protective of her family and hyperaware of any outside element that threatens to come between them. Alternatively, the scenes in which she processes Jules’ betrayal are uncommonly touching. Moore and Bening together feel lived in. The length and depth of their relationship is fully felt and it is effortless believing that they have been together for over twenty years. Cholodenko gives us many different scenes that establish what family life is like and what their relationship is like. They are clearly still in love with each other and are not bored in their relationship. We see their sexual activities, the way they discuss problems, how they deal with Joni and Laser and much more.

Mark Ruffalo’s performance impressed me the most. He has a tough role as Paul, the hippie slacker with a heart and terrible decision making skills. It can be easily argued that he has the most progressive arc of any character. He uses and is used. From the start he cares deeply about Joni and Laser but is immature and unable to grasp the consequences of his decisions. He has drifted through life and continues to do so but he realizes too late that applying his lifestyle to an established family and marriage has more of an impact than he is capable of understanding from the beginning. There are many moments with Paul and other characters that end with us focusing on Paul, alone by the end of the scene. His reactions to certain exchanges are very different by the end than they are at the beginning which contributes to the audience witnessing his growth. My one complaint about the film is that it seems to let one character off the hook while placing a bit too much blame on Paul. Paul is certainly partly to blame and a willing participant in what takes place but there are many details of the situation that leads me to my complaint which I will not get into here.

Jules has a speech at the end of the film which is filled with desperation and sad truth. Juxtaposed with moments like Jules speech is the strength of Nic and Jules as a couple after all these years and the note of hope in the film’s resolution makes for a film that is a revealing portrait of marriage without being tragic or depressing. It is the perfect summer film to see from America this year.
Comments (3)Comments (3) Add CommentsAdd Comments
71
Vote
[ Link ]
July 26th 2010 @ 00:31

Posted By: Catherine Stebbins - Category: No Category
   


Top 35 Talented Actors 35 and Under: 35-31

The idea of this list was to objectively attempt to list the 35 most talented actors and actresses working today who are 35 or under. To make an objective list is impossible; I know this. Saying that one person is more talented than another is a possible opinion to have but to try picking the 35 most talented? And then ordering them? Impossible; I know. The point of it is a fun experiment; a broad ordering that I tried as hard as I could to get into any sort of functioning order. Every day my opinion changes and arguments could be made for taking people off and putting others on. Not having seen every performance these actors and actresses have given makes it additionally difficult to judge their careers'. Also, some of these people have not gotten the chances others have had to show what they can do in the work they are given. Also, there is almost certainly a level of subjectivity going on. Unfortunately, this list will not feature many international actors. Typically, actors become famous at an older age than actresses and thus most of my favorite international actors are all older than 35. Keeping that in mind, anyone who actually takes the time to read this; just have fun with it because I certainly did. I plan on slowly posting this list in five spot increments.



35. Zachary Quinto
Age: 33
Seen Him In: 1 episode of "Six Feet Under", 23 episodes of "24", 10 episodes of "So NoTORIous", 2 seasons of "Heroes" (I quit after that; man, what an awful show), Star Trek
Best Performance from What I've Seen: Star Trek

Quinto has an elusive face; his performances as Spock and Sylar are both about controlling emotions and maintaining an air of mystery. For Spock it is because the Vulcan does not emote and is all about reason and learning. For Sylar it is because he is a killer whose goal is to attain power. Before his signature roles in film and television, he was on a show called "So NoTORIous", a vehicle which allowed Tori Spelling to satirize herself. The show was better than it would seem but still not good. However, he was the best thing on it, playing her gay friend with a sense of humor and comedic ability that seems out of left field in comparison with his other work. Between this, his portrayal of an iconic television character in the Star Trek reboot and add to these his work on "Heroes" (a show that needed him to be even passable entertainment more than he needed it) and we have an actor who brings something special to his roles. He can do a lot in the future and is extremely talented with a considerable range.



34. Seth Rogen
Age: 28
Seen Him In: "Freaks and Geeks", Donnie Darko, "Undeclared", Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy, The 40 Year Old Virgin, Shrek the Third (voice), Knocked Up, Superbad, Horton Hears a Who! (voice), Kung Fu Panda (voice), Pineapple Express, Zack and Miri Make a Porno, Observe and Report, Funny People
Best Performance from What I've Seen: Funny People

I have several of comedians on the bottom half of this list. A lot of people might say these actors do the same thing in every role. I say differently. First of all; comedy is different than drama in the casting sense. Where certain actors known for their work in serious roles are known for their ‘powerhouse’ performances, comedic actors become known for a very specific kind of character. It has been done since the silent era. Chaplin had one character he repeatedly played. Bill Murray became known for his dry wit and played the same type of character in his early career. Others from different eras include Jacques Tati, Jerry Lewis, W.C Fields and Will Ferrell. All very different comedians but they all sold an individualistic brand of humor. It does not mean these actors cannot do more. However, when creating a persona for oneself in comedy, people come to expect something; it ensures a film with them makes money and that is what the studios want. So all this is to say that while people like Seth Rogen and others may seem an odd choice to populate this list, what they do is hard and to carve out a character type seems quite difficult in and of itself, let alone discovering new ways to keep it fresh.

Seth Rogen also has a very dry wit about him. His driest character was his first, as Ken on the now legendary “Freaks and Geeks”. Since then, he has carved out a character type who is always aware he is telling a joke and is especially aware of how dirty he can be. His work has evolved though and he is able to play an eccentric sidekick, as in The 40 Year Old Virgin and easily become the straight man to James Franco’s eternally stoned Saul in Pineapple Express. With The Green Hornet and his recent casting in Sarah Polley’s new directorial effort Take This Waltz, we will continue to see just how much Seth Rogen is capable of.




33. Jonah Hill
Age: 26
Seen Him In: I Heart Huckabees, The 40 Year Old Virgin, Knocked Up, Superbad, Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story, Forgetting Sarah Marshall, Funny People, The Invention of Lying, How to Train Your Dragon (voice), Get Him to the Greek
Best Performance from What I've Seen: Get Him to the Greek

Another comedic actor on this list; lo and behold! Hill is very young and has already carved out a specific character type; that of the anxious and overly enthusiastic man-child. He is good at it; frighteningly good. He makes me laugh more than most comedic actors today mainly because of his pitch-perfect line delivery. Often times, the line does not have to be funny but it can still make me laugh coming from him. He is working with a group of comedians who are much older and much more experienced but he has moved up the ranks incredibly quickly. Only 5 years ago he had been delegated to bit parts in films such as I Heart Huckabees and The 40 Year Old Virgin. Two years later came Superbad. He adds a little spice to his character type from time to time by adding a level of creepiness which he does wonderfully in Forgetting Sarah Marshall and clearly will in Cyrus (which I have not seen but it is hard not to deny the creepiness exuded from the trailer). Additionally, he has handled the ‘dramatic’ material from his films (Get Him to the Greek is a surprisingly sad affair) with success. It is hard to be funny; very hard. Many of out A-list stars who try it out fail. Jonah Hill, at least for me, is a talented young comedian who will hopefully have enough interesting roles in the future; the upcoming Moneyball is certainly proof enough for that.




32. Michael Cera
Age: 22
Seen Him In: "Arrested Development", 1 episode of "Veronica Mars", Juno, Superbad, Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist
Best Performance: "Arrested Development"

Another person I feel the immediate need to defend since so many people are 'over him'. I agree to a point with most of the complaints surrounding him. However, anyone who watched "Arrested Development" cannot deny that Cera is downright hilarious. The way he played off the material he was given on that show is a large part of what made it the funniest American made show of the past ten years. George Michael Bluth; there are so many priceless moments from Cera’s work on "Arrested Development". He gets more flack than most for always playing the same character just because he sticks out like a sore thumb. I agree that I am hoping to see something different from him soon.

However I DO think he brought something different to Juno and made Bleeker a specific character; it is easily the most underrated performance in that film. The less can be said about his characters Superbad and Nick and Norah’s Infinite Playlist. I think he was great in the former and decent in the latter but I agree those characters did not have enough variety. I think a lot of this can be blamed on the roles he might be getting offered. He is low on this list because I do see a lot of the same from him in each role. We have to keep in mind though that he is only 22! People are already waiting for something new from him when he is still establishing an adult career.

He IS on the list because at 14 he was stealing scenes on a regular basis from everyone on "Arrested Development". To have that kind of comedic timing and delivery at such a young age and on such a wonderfully bizarre show is a gift; and he gets to be on the list for that.




31. Daniel Radcliffe
Age: 21
Seen Him In: Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, 1 episode of "Extras", "Equus" on Broadway
Best Performance: "Equus"

The main achievement of Daniel Radcliffe is how much he has grown as an actor. In the first few Harry Potter films he did his job well but clearly had a long way to go; the more dramatic scenes were a rough spot. One of the joys of seeing the Harry Potter films is to see the actor who plays the title character grow into a gifted performer who has a huge future ahead of him. He can handle those scenes that he could not before, which is a good thing, considering the rapidly increasing emotional load for the series and character. I have also had the good fortune to see him perform on stage in "Equus" which he did with great courage and energy. He also had one of the best guest spots on Ricky Gervais' "Extras" which showcased his comedic skills. Acting is everything to Radcliffe. He has gone to great lengths to assure himself a career following the end of the series and already has three big projects in the works post-Potter in addition to an upcoming stint on Broadway with a musical. His drive to become better is palpable. He has made great strides within the series and will continue to do so outside of it. His determination and abilities are an exciting thing to witness and I cannot wait to see what lies ahead for him.
Add CommentsAdd Comments
18
Vote
[ Link ]
July 25th 2010 @ 03:17

Posted By: Catherine Stebbins - Category: No Category
   


Top 35 Talented Actresses 35 and Under: 35-31

The idea of this list was to objectively attempt to list the 35 most talented actors and actresses working today who are 35 or under. To make an objective list is impossible; I know this. Saying that one person is more talented than another is a possible opinion to have but to try picking the 35 most talented? And then ordering them? Impossible; I know. The point of it is a fun experiment; a broad ordering that I tried as hard as I could to get into any sort of functioning order. Every day my opinion changes and arguments could be made for taking people off and putting others on. Not having seen every performance these actors and actresses have given makes it additionally difficult to judge their careers'. Also, some of these people have not gotten the chances others have had to show what they can do in the work they are given. Also, there is almost certainly a level of subjectivity going on. If this were preferential however, several other actresses, such as Christina Ricci and Thora Birch to name a couple, would be on here. The ordering would be very different and of course some of these women would not be on here. It just so happens though that many of the young actresses who happen to be my favorites are also extremely talented; otherwise they would not be on here. Keeping that in mind, anyone who actually takes the time to read this; just have fun with it because I certainly did. I plan on slowly posting this list in five spot increments.



35. Sarah Polley
Age: 31
Seen her in: "Ramona", The Adventures of Baron Munchausen, The Sweet Hereafter, eXistenZ, Go, Dawn of the Dead, Splice
Best Performance from What I've Seen: The Sweet Hereafter

Sarah Polley has had a lucky career. Starting out as a child actress, she has never pigeon-holed herself into any specific type of role. Her choice of characters has been diverse which has allowed her to explore many different types of characters. She has the ability to express a lot with her face and works best with little dialogue. She has shown herself to be a part of many solid Canadian productions and has become a refreshing change of pace with what she brings to the horror films’ female protagonist as opposed to the talentless pretty faces the genre usually brings. Her ability to bring fully fledged characters to life with apparent ease makes me excited or what more she will bring to an already diverse and long-lasting career.




34. Amy Adams
Age: 35
Seen her in: Drop Dead Gorgeous, Psycho Beach Party, 1 episode of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer", Catch Me if you Can, Junebug, 3 episodes of "The Office", Enchanted, Charlie Wilson's War, Doubt, Julie and Julia
Best Performance from What I've Seen: Junebug

We have come to expect a certain type of character from Amy Adams; the bubbling optimist or the hopeful and naïve idealist. Either way, Amy Adams has a knack for playing positive characters. She certainly has the range in her to play another type of role. The fact that most of her characters have been this type is what gets her a low spot on this list. I believe she can play other characters because the diversity she has brought to similar roles has been no less than impressive. Her performance in Junebug is an astounding achievement and if I had not seen her work in said film, she might not have made the list. In conclusion, Adams is great at what she does and brings more to her roles than most would but she has yet to make a break from her character type which signifies her place on this list.



33. Greta Gerwig
Age: 26
Seen her in: House and the Devil, Greenberg
Best Performance from What I've Seen: Greenberg

I have not seen any of Greta Gerwig’s mumblecore roles but I have seen her in two films which have made me place great confidence in not only her talent but her future career in film. She brings a heightened natural quality to her acting and a type of offbeat presence that is hard to ignore. She is the type of actress who gives performances that require repeat viewings to catch all of the subtleties. She had a supporting role in last years’ impressive horror film House of the Devil which alluded to her immense presence but her work in Greenberg is what establishes her as a true find.



32. Rebecca Hall
Age: 28
Seen her in: The Prestige, Vicky Cristina Barcelona, Frost/Nixon, Red Riding Trilogy
Best Performance from What I've Seen: Red Riding Trilogy

Rebecca Hall has many great performances ahead of her. Her potential is endless. I have been following her career since seeing her in The Prestige which she gave emotional weight to. She also stole scenes in Vicky Cristina Barcelona and expressed a state of desperate sadness in Red Riding Trilogy. With a main role in Ben Affleck’s upcoming The Town, she is sure to continue her streak of noteworthy work.



31. Scarlett Johansson
Age: 25
Seen her in: The Man Who Wasn't There, Ghost World, Lost in Translation, Girl with a Pearl Earring, Spongebob Squarepants Movie (voice), In Good Company, Match Point, The Black Dahlia, The Prestige, The Other Boleyn Girl, Vicky Cristina Barcelona, The Spirit, Iron Man 2, "A View from the Bridge" (on Broadway)
Best Performance from What I've Seen: "A View from the Bridge"

Scarlett Johansson is capable of great things but needs a great film to funnel her talent into. She has given bad performances most noticeably in The Black Dahlia, Iron Man 2 and especially a ghastly performance in The Spirit that needs to be seen to be believed (along with every other performance in that abysmal film). Despite all of this, she is a good actress and is capable of being a great one. I had the opportunity to see her on stage in her Tony Award winning performance in "A View from the Bridge". It was the best performance I have seen her give. It proves her talent. She has also given diverse and impressive performances in Ghost World, Lost in Translation, Girl with a Pearl Earring and Match Point which I believe pushed her farther than she has gone on film before. She needs more roles that push her forward as an actress. If she can do that and succeed, then she will one day move higher up on this list. She certainly has the potential to.

Comments (6)Comments (6) Add CommentsAdd Comments
71
Vote
[ Link ]
July 23rd 2010 @ 01:41

Posted By: Catherine Stebbins - Category: No Category
   


5 Reviews: Husbands, The Mirror and more!



sex, lies and videotape (1989)
9.2/10

Steven Soderbergh’s debut feature from 1989 revolutionized the independent film movement making way for 1990's low-budget American film to flourish. It also won the Palme D’Or at the Cannes film festival. Perhaps the most impressive aspect of the film is that it still feels as fresh today as it must have over 20 years ago. All of the performances feature actors at the top of their game with Andie McDowell and especially James Spader (who also took home the Best Actor Cannes prize playing against type) giving their best performances. The editing is incredible, condensing the different information we learn visually and audibly in a more effective manner. The characters are all really well fleshed out as well as their relationships. It manages to be about sex without showing any yet still maintaining the frankness any graphic sex would have achieved through its dialogue. The film uses a style that is more on the minimalist side of things with little music and a slow steady flow with only four major characters. It delves into the relationships between husband and wife, men and women, sisters’ and more. While Steven Soderbergh has always stuck to his avant-garde tendencies with low-key projects in between the big budget ones, he should be writing a lot more than he does and experimenting with character driven material from his own hand more often. The interactions between everyone are carefully observed. The way he handles the climax of the film is ingenious. Traffic may be the more impressive achievement but this is easily my favorite Soderbergh film.



The Hour of the Wolf (1968)
7.4/10

Not in the top tier of Bergman’s works but still effectively unsettling, The Hour of the Wolf tells the story of an artist whose mind is haunted by figures and his wife who tries to pull him back into sanity. Are the figures real or not? It does not matter. These kinds of questions are not relevant while watching a Bergman film especially his only horror one. What is relevant is the world he creates with these figures. It is one of overwhelming paranoia and discomfort; he conveys the feeling of going insane. This is most successfully done during a sequence when Johan (Max von Sydow) and Alma (Liv Ullman) go to their neighbors for dinner. Another is near the end when Johan is having relations with Veronica Vogler (Ingrid Thulin) and sees that all of the figures in his head are watching him. These are just two incidents of many that exhibit that Johan’s deepest fears. The surrealism he employs here has an effect which predates the achievements of many other filmmakers such as Lynch and Kubrick in their surrealistic exploits. While ultimately a little too distant as it attempts to be deeply personal, The Hour of the Wolf is still a key work within psychological horror.



In the Heat of the Night (1967):
7/10

The central mystery in Norman Jewison’s exploration of racial tension is irrelevant to the importance of this film. While most of its other elements I could take or leave, the central relationship between Virgil Tibbs (Sidney Poitier) and Gillespie (Rod Steiger) is still riveting and manages to not be heavy-handed but subtle in its development and progress. Seeing Tibbs push down his anger whilst everyone in the town treats him with anger and violence is wonderfully portrayed by Poitier. On the other hand, seeing Steiger grapple with his morals with Poitier’s arrival is a treat as well. Each has their own complexities to deal with and when they are together, it adds an additional dynamic to the proceedings. Not only does the film hold important historic relevance but the racial issues still hold meaning today. The two lead performances are electric and are the main reason for seeing the film although all of it is well done.



Husbands (1970):
3.5/10

Cassavettes has a lot to say about men, the way they cling to standard forms of masculinity as a rebellion of their voluntary marriage and the various ways they connect with each other and with women, usually through extended humiliation and embarrassment. Unfortunately, while the director has many intriguing things to say about manhood, they are buried within a two and a half hour film that is intent on being redundant, repetitive, lost and obnoxious. Peter Falk, John Cassavettes and Ben Gazzara star as three friends whose common friend has just died. This throws them into an existential funk consisting of drinking, humiliating women and laughing with one another. All three of them are varying degrees of asshole. Even trying to pick one who has any redeeming qualities is a waste of time.

There is a lot to admire here which makes its failure al the more unfortunate. An extended scene near the beginning which lasts about 20 minutes involving a singing contest and the last part of the film which examines each man’s interaction with a women they pick up. Most of the material in between fails to say anything substantial about their plight outside of the fact that they are each desperately lonely and use their lack of identity as an excuse to treat others terribly. This could have been conveyed in half the time. The three actors fill two and a half hours with constant laughter. Husbands tramples on its own potential through its own redundancy and inability to say anything substantial about its three protagonists. Perhaps this was the point but it was not working for me.



The Mirror (1975):
8/10

In The Mirror, Andrei Tarkovsky takes his intimate personal experiences and blends them into a mixer. Out comes his semi autobiographical work which blends times and dreams to create a film filled with moments as one man looks back on his life with regret and almost always with his mother in mind. The film has no plot to speak of and it would take several viewing to even come up with a personal meaning. This is not a film like Inception, in which one tries to figure out what went on during it. Anyone doing this is missing the point. The point is how the individual reacts to it. It brings together human experience in its simplest form devoid of time or place but is made deeply personal. Add to all of this archival footage of important world events to connect the deeply personal to the universal and you have one complicated work. People not used to art-house films of this nature are likely to not get much from this. Opening up to it though is a rewarding experience. The beautiful black and white imagery in addition to the powerful presence of Margarita Terakhova adds up to a hypnotic experience that will take several viewing to truly get a handle on.
Comments (9)Comments (9) Add CommentsAdd Comments
93
Vote
[ Link ]
July 21st 2010 @ 20:47

Posted By: Catherine Stebbins - Category: No Category
   


4 Reviews: Doctor Zhivago, The Virgin Spring and more!



Doctor Zhivago (1965):
6.2/10

In David Lean’s romantic epic based on the novel by Boris Pasternak, the romance is the weakest element. The lush visuals which could entrance on dozens of viewings alone is where the film’s strength lies. The way Lean uses color and mise-en-scene to show the revolution and winters among countless other things is truly an achievement and helps to keep the film interesting amongst some pretty dull segments. The films main characters, Zhivago and Lara are ultimately not very engaging due to a dull performance by Omar Sharif and a lack of character development with Lara. The supporting characters however aptly pick up the slack. Alec Guinness, Rod Steiger, a welcomed short appearance by Klaus Kinski and particularly Tom Courtenay as Pasha all help to alleviate the film from its boring central characters and their uninvolving romance. The second half in particular is rather disjointed with a lot happening and little time being spent attempting to hook the audience. The visuals though are so remarkable with Maurice Jaffe’s famous score enhancing all, making the film worth repeated viewings despite its uninvolving story.



Rome Open City (1945):
7.7/10

Rome, Open City works both as an engaging and hopeless piece of storytelling and as a piece of film history on multiple levels. Not only did it jumpstart the Italian Neorealism movement but it depicted the German occupation of Italy in an unflinching manner which still holds impact. Its timeliness adds a still remaining sense of danger and extreme anxiety. The content and handheld camera work give the authentic feel synonymous with Neorealism, turning the conventions of the Hollywood WWII drama’s on their heads’. Anna Magnani carries the film and its emotional core long after she is gone from the film. Despite being a classic, the film does have a few flaws. Rossellini’s attempts to combine Neorealism and melodrama fall flat. In particular, the use of a score takes away from much of the realism at work. The Gestapo villain and the female agent are nearly cartoonish in their caricatures’. Other than these elements, the film stands up as an important piece of filmmaking that remains moving and effective.



The Virgin Spring (1960):
9/10

Based on a 23th century ballad and later remade by Wes Craven as The Last House on the Left, Bergman’s The Virgin Spring is one of his best, questioning and exploring religion, morality and justice through a ponderous tone and stunning lasting visuals by Sven Nykvist. The controversial scene certainly remains disturbing due to the matter-of-fact way it is shot, making it un-sensational but powerful. The entire film is nakedly told and balanced out by the cinematography which is rich and empty, visceral and concentrated. The film carries a lasting effect; I cannot stop thinking about it. I would rank this with the very best of Bergman’s work which I have seen along with The Seventh Seal, Persona and Cries and Whispers.



A Woman Under the Influence (1974):
8.4/10

An absolutely rewarding, disturbing and exhausting experience, John Cassavettes’ creates an endlessly frustrating but carefully examined look at addressed and disturbed female mentality juxtaposed with unaddressed, seemingly normal male authoritative insanity. Gena Rowlands is a powerhouse as Mabel whose odd ticks, speech patterns and outlandish freak-outs are becoming more and more of a problem for husband Nick played by Peter Falk in a performance just as impressive as Rowland’s. The film does something very interesting by addressing Mabel’s very real mental issues but slowly revealing Nick’s as well. Particularly relevant when it was made it delves into the falsely perceived normality of Nick’s behavior and the added detrimental presence of Mabel and Nick’s family. It also adds another emotional layer by paying special attention to the children who are clearly growing up in an unhealthy environment. Cassavettes has always favored lengthy extended scenes that painfully represent the discomfort and awkwardness of a situation. There are several of those scenes here including Nick and his work buddies’ having lunch with Mabel at their house, Mabel being sent to the institution and more. The most painful of them all though comes with Mabel’s homecoming in one of the most difficult to watch scenes one is ever likely to see. This is uncompromising, in true Cassavettes’ style, in its look into gender relations.

Comments (2)Comments (2) Add CommentsAdd Comments
49
Vote
[ Link ]
July 19th 2010 @ 19:14

Posted By: Catherine Stebbins - Category: No Category
   


Inception (2010)



Inception (2010)
8.8/10

Inception is a considerable achievement in storytelling. Writer and director Christopher Nolan has become a filmmaker whose strength is structure. Whether it is by tinkering with the very format of screenwriting, manipulating the audience by withholding key information or exploring a concept that allows for an unconventionally complex execution, Nolan is first and foremost a storyteller. He is a master at well-timed reveals and navigating through the purposeful deception of his writing. Through excruciatingly careful construction, Inception functions to satisfy casual filmgoers and cinephiles’ alike.

However, the film has a major flaw; it is populated with almost non-characters who either serve as literal storytelling devices and/or necessary functions towards the plot. Even the core emotional arc of Cobb is a bit flimsy. Inception is so ambitious with Nolan set on his logical ideas and conceptual rules that he seems unable to allow this world to be populated by actual characters for fear they might complicate the story and disrupt his lofty goal. Cobb’s (Leonardo DiCaprio) issues and Fischer’s (Cillian Murphy) relationship with his father are the sole allowances’ for actual characterization. These allowances clearly fill all the status quo Nolan desires. There will be more on this later. This sounds like a major flaw and it is. However, Inception is brilliant at what it is doing as a piece of purely plot-driven and conceptual storytelling. To make me forget I exist outside of the film, to be solely consuming the art in front of me, unaware of time or anything else for two and a half hours (at midnight no less) is a rare feat. It is so self-assured, well thought out and confident at what it has set out to be; relentlessly and aggressively entertaining. Its success almost fully compensates for its lack of characterization as it manages to present us with an all encompassing film going experience that is not often found.

The basic set-up of the plot is this; set in an unspecified time, spies now have the ability to infiltrate dreams in order to extract ideas from a ‘mark’ for various reasons. Cobb is working in order to get back home to his children. He cannot go back to the States for reasons we later learn. A client Saito (Ken Watanabe) wants to perform inception rather than extraction. Inception involves the unpracticed task of implanting an idea into the mark’s head. Saito explains that if he manages to perform this job successfully he will make sure he is allowed back into the States. The mark is Robert Fischer (Cillian Murphy) whose father recently passed away, making him the heir of a major corporation. Saito wants Cobb to perform inception in order to convince Fischer to dismantle the empire saving Saito's corporation. Cobb has a team of experts including his right hand man Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), forger Eames (Bronson’s Tom Hardy), architect Ariadne (Ellen Page) and chemist Yusuf (Dileep Rao). However, there is a dangerous wrench being thrown into Cobb and his team’s work. Cobb’s subconscious guilt keeps presenting itself during his jobs’ in the form of his deceased wife Mal (Marion Cotillard). As Mal continuously shows up to destroy Cobb, he increasingly puts himself and his coworkers in danger, making it difficult to get the job done.

Christopher Nolan has made a film that functions simultaneously on two levels making it accessible for everyone while at the same time making it a necessarily active viewing experience. The ingenious aspect of the film is that at its core, the concept is very simple. On the other hand, the logic and rules behind it make everything very complicated. This makes the film easy to follow in the general sense and difficult to follow in the more complex sense, making it accessible to everyone on whichever level they choose to comprehend the story. The success is that it works both ways.

Some people are complaining that the film is incoherent. This is utter nonsense and these people are missing the point. This film is not going to be fully understood by anybody on a first viewing. This is not because the film is ambiguous but rather because the film is loaded with exposition and explanation so much so that it will take more than one viewing to fully comprehend and keep track of the world we are shown. Nolan has painstakingly made sure that every single possible problem or plot hole is addressed. With the knowledge that this was written over the course of ten years in addition to the assumed concern this was being made for a summer blockbuster audience, one can only imagine how many rewrites and changes were made to this screenplay so that it does make sense. Since the film is so carefully thought out but hard to entirely keep track of seeing it the first time, Inception is abundantly re-watchable.

The film is perfectly designed to reel the audience in from the first minutes and its overall structure is quite brilliant and is Inception’s primary achievement. The film’s first sequence throws us head-first into an extraction. Here, we get a vague sense of how extraction and dream infiltration works. Everything will be outright explained for us later but smartly, we are shown rather than told first as the audience watches with wonder as a new world is introduced to us with reveals populating every minute. The film’s beginning and end are the only points where it becomes vague, making effective bookends for the enormity of logic, clarity and exposition to be found in the middle.

The film can be divided into four sections. The vague and riveting introduction makes up the first. The second section is entirely exposition. Ellen Page's Ariadne is brought in as a new recruit to replace former architect Nash (Lukas Haas). She is the audience’s surrogate as her introduction into the world mirrors our own. The introduction and the preparation for the job make up the remainder of the second part. Both are exposition with the first being necessary explanation and the second simultaneously functioning as preparation for the third section. The second section is longer than the first, and the third is longer than the second and it depicts the actual job of infiltrating Fischer’s dreams. It is then comprised of a dream within a dream within a dream; three layers each with a different purpose furthering Cobb and his team towards their goal of inception. What Nolan has done is to take the time to explain everything so that by the time the third section arrives, we are ready to follow what he presents to us. The structure is a precise and significant achievement in screenwriting. The film’s fourth section is the ambiguous final five minutes.

Dreams are inherently character driven, to link it to film terminology. They are directly linked with the psychology of people. Through them, our subconscious emerges, meaningless details shine through and our mind combines our individual desires, fears, deep-seeded issues and random details to create a truly “character-driven” nightly experience whether we remember it or not. Dreams being so essentially linked to psychology would lead to the assumption that Inception is somewhat character driven at least in the sense that the psychological aspect would be used to some degree to really explore the mind in a way that develops character. Nolan goes the complete opposite route and uses dreams to construct a complex world with an extraction and inception process favoring in every way plot over character. Inception did not need to be a character study as it is a film with a 200 million dollar budget but it is disappointing that there was little effort or success at finding a semblance of balance. The film is such exceptionally entertaining storytelling that it largely makes up for it. Still; it is worth going further into.

As was said before, Nolan has consciously allotted a specific and limited devotion to character development. Cobb’s back story and subsequent guilt over the death of Mal are the main services to this function. Learning the full explanation of Cobb’s guilt is admittedly emotionally satisfying if not truly moving. The reason for this is because Nolan has defined Cobb through his issues without giving him anything in addition to them. As a character outside of his guilt over Mal, he barely has any discernable traits. He is determined and that is about it. DiCaprio has a very basic trajectory to work with and he certainly gets the job done even if it does not allow him to be playing a fully developed character.

The other attempt at characterization is in the form of Fischer whom, for my money, is more developed than Cobb. His dreams are being infiltrated, thus his father issues are central to the plot. While Fischer’s development, as well as Cobb’s serves the plot there are other successful elements to the portrayal of Fischer. We get a better sense of him through his dialogue within different situations. Seeing how he reacts to being kidnapped, to speaking with Eames in the guise of his Uncle Peter (Tom Berenger), being approached by Cobb posing as sub-security and more gives us a more complete sense of him easily making Fischer the best-rounded character in the film. Cillian Murphy certainly has a large contribution to this as well giving a subtly impressive performance.

The other characters serve as mere plot devices which is a shame as Inception features mostly actors whom I consider to be among my very favorites. Ariadne is given a bit too much to do making her the surrogate for the audience not only as an introduction to the world within the film but as a persistent inquirer into Cobb’s past. She immediately senses the magnitude of Cobb’s guilt and wants to fully understand how potentially dangerous she is to their mission. This job should have been given to Arthur whose only real trait is that he is by-the-book. Not only would it have made sense if Arthur, his longtime right hand man finally enquired further about this very apparent issue but it would have relieved Ellen Page of some of her expositional dialogue. It is unfortunate that she is only there to ask questions as she is obviously capable of handling a lot more. In addition to Ariadne and Arthur, Eames is wisecracking and provides the films’ only comic relief and Yusuf makes really strong sedatives.

Marion Cotillard has the toughest job and gives the best performance in the film along with Murphy. She has to both portray Mal as a representation of the actual woman and as a literal representation of Cobb’s subconscious. This is tough to pull off and Cotillard does a great job making her intriguing, dangerous and desperately sad. Again though, she is a plot device and ultimately further illustrates the films lack of actual characters’. Having said all this, Christopher Nolan made a conscious decision to sacrifice character for plot and the substitution is essentially worth it.

The film’s visuals are powerful and subtle at the same time. Nolan and cinematographer Wally Pfister are less concerned with framing and more concerned with what is within the frame. This gives us many images that stay with the viewer through the almost abstract creativity of the image and the subtle use of CGI and other modes of special effects. Visually the film is rich and consistently intriguing. The action sequences are as well done as they are correctly placed. The film is PG-13 and replaces explicit violence with the forcefully and realistically repeated image of bodies being toppled whether it be from being hit by a car or from an avalanche or from skiing into things. Through this action and sound effects, the impact is felt and will give continuous jolts to those watching. The highlight of the action sequences is easily the gravity defying showdown with Joseph Gordon-Levitt at its center. This scene is worth the price of admission alone.

Hans Zimmer, in a score tonally reminiscent to Nolan’s previous feature, The Dark Knight is pitch-perfect. It is always present and very much in-your-face but it works because it largely contributes to the film’s constant forward motion. There is little chance to take a relaxing breath while watching and the flow of the film is in large part to Zimmer’s score which makes sure intensity never lets up.

Does Inception have a lot to say? Seemingly no, although I admit to judging far too early. I am not sure I buy that Christopher Nolan has any big statement to make here outside of a broad exploration of the nature of dreams. The fact that a two and a half hour film about dreams failed to delve deep into any characters seems to represent that statement. Then again, just as seeing it more than once is necessary to catch all of the plot elements; it might take many viewing to truly understand what Nolan is doing. However, as I keep stating, Inception is a perfectly told story. As the depiction of an individual filmic world, of events taking place, and as a conceptual work perfectly executed, and once again, as a piece of storytelling through the medium of cinema (most impressively in the screenplay’s structure), Inception is a rare treat. In these aspects and others including as mentioned before, the use of the score, the subtle visuals, the relentless pacing, it is a wonder. It may not deliver in all the ways I was hoping but to view it as the true and specific achievement it is as a one of the most richly entertaining pieces of storytelling yet to be made, it ultimately holds all the satisfaction one could want.
Comments (7)Comments (7) Add CommentsAdd Comments
80
Vote
[ Link ]
July 17th 2010 @ 18:29

Posted By: Catherine Stebbins - Category: No Category
   


6 Reviews: Madeo (Mother), Go and more!



Memories of Murder (2003):
9/10

Bong Joon-ho’s breakout film based on South Korea’s first serial killer (his killings took place between 1986 and 1991) and the pursuit to hunt him down is reminiscent of, and superior to, David Fincher’s Zodiac. Or rather, Zodiac is reminiscent of Memories of Murder since this came 5 years prior. It is hard not to compare the two. Both involve an exhausting and feudal search for someone terrorizing a population and both feel equally hopeless. What makes Bong Joon-ho’s film superior, despite both being successful, are the structure and flow. Once Zodiac reaches a certain point it drags and tread, making the end almost welcome. Memories of Murder knows how to linger beautifully and its length is never felt.

One of the detectives, Park Doo-man is a local detective of the Gyeonggi Province whereas Detective Seo Tae-yoon was sent from Seoul. Each has different methods. Doo-man is not used to crimes of anywhere near this magnitude, and uses the methods he knows how which involve beatings and evidence tampering. The film shows the conflict that arises between to different people working together without pushing it to the forefront. The film wisely backs away from the clichés that could have come from this and keeps it relevant but not essential. It is the ways each of them change that matters more. Bong Joon-ho is a master first and foremost at balancing humor and drama. This is a disturbing film and the humor only arrives in the most bizarre and effect of ways which only adds to the haunting nature of the film. The primary example of this is a chase sequence that takes place about half way through. He loves filming action either in tracking long shots or stationary long shots that highlight the awkwardness of a situation.
Memories of Murder features outstanding cinematography by Kim Hyung-ku. He creates an atmosphere brooding with tension and paranoia. Bong Joon-ho has created one of the best crime dramas of all time.



Mother (2010)
7.7/10

Bong Joon-ho’s latest film is a unique mix of genres and tones ( the director’s trademark) culminating in a tale of sacrifice, denial and unyielding maternal devotion. Kim Hye-ja, giving one of the best performances of the year thus far is ruthless in her efforts to discover who framed her mentally slow son for murder. She is protective and naïve and unwilling to face the truth, making her predicament that much more conflicting. The end is heartbreaking and ironically triumphant. Bong Joon-ho creates his own distinct but easily recognizable world that is all the more impressive because it presents reality in a new and substantial way. This film continues to emphasize this aspect of the director’s viewpoint. It is not impossible to tell where the film is going but in fact it makes the film and its destination that much more successful. Part psychological thriller, part drama, part black comedy, Mother continues to establish Bong Joon-ho as one of cinemas’ leading auteurs.



Go (1999)
3/10

Go is a film populated with uninteresting characters and forced wit. It very clearly wants to be a pop-culture ridden representation of the young generation but fails to produce even one relevant moment. Directed by Doug Liman who has always tried too hard, the film depicts a single night from three different perspectives. The first, featuring Sarah Polley manages to be the most interesting if only for her presence and that of Timothy Olyphant. She plays Ronna who needs money for her rent. So she spends the night setting up a drug deal. The second story is about the adventures of four men in Las Vegas and the third concerns two gay television actors and their efforts get off of a possession charge. The second story is insufferable and actually hard to sit through. The first story manages to be mildly interesting and the third story has moments that never culminate into anything that feels like it is worth the time. The fact that Go feels the need to repeatedly represent through the medium the experience of being on ecstasy for the hell of it really shows the priorities of this overrated wannabe film far too desperate to be relevant.



The Wild Bunch (1968):
3.2/10

Reviewing a film like The Wild Bunch is difficult because it is so universally acclaimed. To start out, the reasons for its importance remain valid. The film took the glossed over violence in the Western (and film in general) and opened it up, exposing the brutality of the genre. The revolutionary frenetic editing and slow motion heightens the terror overwhelming the audience with the overarching sense of mass violence. The first 15 minutes and the last 15 minutes of The Wild Bunch are brilliant through and through. Everything in between is hogwash; a meandering mess of scenes that fail to develop any character despite hints of potential dynamics. It also fails to build on or even represent any of the themes within the Western in an interesting way outside of its relentless establishment of camaraderie.

To say that none of the characters were in any way sympathetic is redundant. Peckinpah means to challenge who we align ourselves with and who, through the script, we are forced to side with through the chosen perception. Thus, to say I care about nobody is redundant since Peckinpah seems okay with that. The more challenging aspect would be to make us care despite knowing and seeing how vile the characters are but the film fails to do that as well. It would be an understatement to describe most of this film as a chore to watch. Outside of the spurts of genius, this failed to engage in any way shape or form.



Woman of the Year (1942)
5.5/10

 This first Hepburn-Tracy effort directed by George Stevens is the most conflicting film I have seen in quite some time. It has a strong script and Stevens as director knows how to subtly extract humor using the camera. Katherine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy are on fire together in my new favorite pairing of theirs’ (Having also seen them in Without Love, Adam’s Rib, and Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner). Their chemistry in this beats Hepburn and Grant at their best and any other duo you can name. The tension, humor and energy they omit when together are just as palpable and fresh now as it was almost 70 years later. In its first hour in particular, this was on its way to being one of my new favorite films. Unfortunately the film and its dated look at gender reversal negate much of the film’s wonderful qualities.

Instead of looking at gender reversal in a relevant and exploratory fashion, the film clearly sees it as merely problematic. The marriage of Tess and Sam definitely has problems; big ones. However, Tess is simply too busy for her husband due to a very extreme schedule being a diplomat’s daughter and the most respected female reporter in the country. Hers is an extreme case that would be problematic whether Tess was male or female. The film seems to use Tess as a textbook example of what happens when a female gets any sort of power; apparently chaos. The film refuses to acknowledge the specificity of the case. Tess also does some pretty awful things in the second half which weaken the film greatly and make it hard to sympathize with her character. The original ending to the film had a compromise taking place. The housewives were so intimidated by Hepburn that they were unsatisfied with a compromise; they wanted more. The end of the film is the clincher. While the breakfast making sequence certainly displays Hepburn’s comedic abilities, it is also a sort of embarrassment. She is in the kitchen, stumbling over ingredients, begging Sam to allow her to give up her job to be with him. Everything she has worked for she will give u in a second making a complete 180 degree turn from her character in the beginning. The end is ambiguous but hints at an end to any authority Tess might have once had. As much as the film was enjoyable, I cannot get behind a message as convoluted and foolish as that.



Mystery Science Theater 3000 (1996): 6.9/10
This Island Earth (1955): 1.5/10

Mystery Science Theater 3000 is genius in concept. This was my first experience of the franchise despite knowing of it for many years. The scenes that bring the characters outside of the theater and their wisecracks are painful broad humor with no sense of itself. However, when they are in the theater watching a terrible film they make observations that put an amusing spin on relationships that heighten the enjoyment of the awful film we are seeing. Overall this was a really enjoyable romp which is unfortunately intermittent with an unfunny framing story. Favorite moments included “Normal view”, the tubes, Joe and more. Hopefully I will check out more of this show at some point.


Comments (5)Comments (5) Add CommentsAdd Comments
77
Vote
[ Link ]
July 12th 2010 @ 20:32

Posted By: Catherine Stebbins - Category: No Category
   


6 Reviews: Anatomie (Anatomy), Barton Fink and more!



Chained for Life (1951)
1/10

Chained for Life belongs to a subgenre of exploitation films from the 1950’s which focused on having the type of appeal synonymous with a sideshow circus. Exploiting the unfamiliar was essentially the draw factor. Generally these films were not good and Chained for Life provides evidence for the claim. It is loosely based on the real life conjoined twins Daisy and Violet Hilton who are the stars of the film. The real-life events use their sideshow background, publicity stunt marriage and more. The murder trial aspect? Not so much. This can barely even be called a film. The point of it is to be a novelty act and as a film it is impossible to expect any more than the worst. This outlook works out as it easily one of the worst films ever made.



That Obscure Object of Desire (1977)
6.5/10

Luis Bunuel’s last film is a bit of a mixed bag. Despite having many admirable qualities including an ultimately successful look at idea of ‘desire’ which he spent his entire career exploring, the film simply never moves past its own repetitiveness. The framing device is a delight and it places Mathieu both in and out of his own story. The casting of two different actresses as Conchita works beautifully. Her perspective comes from the knowledge that Mathieu just wants her for sex despite what he says. The longer she says no the more he is blinded by his desire. Having two different actresses emphasizes Conchita’s point throughout the film. He cannot love this person if he is blinded by his sexual desire to the point where her face is interchangeable. By forcing herself to be looked at as a person, she becomes frustrating to the viewer which is probably purposeful. Conchita’s demands are all completely valid; she plays with him the way he is subconsciously playing with her. The final scene of the film is near perfection. The problem with That Obscure Object of Desire is that it goes in circles. Those circles are likely intentional but about half way through the scenario between Mathieu and Conchita wears thin. While this is a nice send-off for Bunuel, films like Belle de Jour cover the same subject much more relevantly.



I Walked with a Zombie (1943):
4.9/10

Along with Cat People, I Walked with a Zombie is considered by many to be both Val Lewton and Jacques Tourneur’s masterpiece. The film has a surprisingly observational view of West Indies culture and voo-doo, a sinister walk through a corn field, an effectively filmed voo-doo ritual, some impressive shots and the use of the song “Shame and Sorrow for the Family”. However, I Walked with a Zombie is quite overrated. That this is consistently considered one of the greatest films of all time is shocking. As a reworking of Jane Eyre it becomes redundant and unnecessary, adding nothing to the original story. Anytime the film’s apparent genius is talked about it is always in relation to a walk through a cornfield which is admittedly great; still, Tourneur has done better. There is an actual film surrounding this sequence though that is rarely mentioned perhaps because it is covered in mediocrity. Uninteresting characters performed blandly, the film drags itself through a mere 70 minutes. Unfortunately the film struggles in addition because Tourneur and his signature style only come in spurts. It lacks the energy and innovation of some of the other Lewton produced works. There are so many lackluster scenes in this that the impressive qualities are washed over by an overall dull film.



Anatomy (2000)
5/10

Anatomy starts out with promise. With an engaging lead like Franka Potente and a subject matter exclusively dealing with the human body, what is underneath us and our impending expiration; it could have been a lot more than what it ultimately is. Instead of taking the structure of the mainstream American horror film and building on it, the film falls flat due to following the conventions and pitfalls to be found in other films of its kind. Directed by Stefan Ruzowitsky, there is definitely a sleek style to the film which brings most of its best moments. The mise-en-scene and shot composition are used to create spacial relations that build the suspense of situations. Dissecting the human body while it is still alive is a premise that proves effective in the discomfort it provides. The film continues to use misogynistic stereotypes that will probably never go away such as the death of the sexually active female character. There is a useless romantic subplot involving a character named Caspar. Soon after it starts comes the realization that it is going to hit every note you expect it to. The climax in particular is laden with cliché. This is certainly better than many horror films in this vein due to the stylish direction by Ruzowitsky and the lead performance by Potente but overall this is a cliché ridden redundancy.



Barton Fink (1991)
9/10

One of the Coen Brothers best films, Barton Fink defies genre classification with its exploration of ennui, Hollywood culture, male friendship, the common man, writer’s block and so much more. The film, in a perfect move, takes on a slightly (very much so) surrealistic vibe by the end. It rightly favors a subtle ambiguity which makes us feel inexplicably as lost and hopeless as Barton Fink himself feels at the end. Something great about the Barton character is that while he spouts on about wanting to create a new theater for the common man, he is pretty naïve about what he spends so much time talking about. Barton is quite flawed and it makes him a much more interesting character. He has a sense of superiority that likely comes with being a playwright but he secretly loves the praise heaped upon him, knows little of what he wants to write about and is pretty terrible at fitting into a different culture hen taken out of the theater world. Much of the film takes place in an odd hotel that Barton tries to write in which is fundamental to the film’s atmosphere. Here he meets Charlie Meadows played by John Goodman. Charlie Meadows is my favorite Coen Brothers character. His desire for connection and his friendship with Barton juxtaposed next to his Madman Mundt persona, Charlie becomes a heightened representation of the lost efforts of the common man. The scenes between Goodman and Turturro, both in career best performances, are some of the best stuff the Coen Brothers have ever done. The film as a whole is filled with dark humor, trademark cynicism and an honest desire for answers to big picture questions. This is one of their best films for sure.



She Done Him Wrong (1933)
3/10

Where I Walked with a Zombie is primarily famous for a 3 minute walk through a cornfield, She Done Him Wrong is famous for being the best representation of the Mae West persona. Mae West was built for Pre-Code and her Broadway work fits in perfectly with the sexual freedom and the female dominated period in American film. She saunters around and owns any room she is in. Men are mere playthings for her and that is the way Pre-Code was. Most films of the time outside of the gangster film were star vehicles for females and features characters that were not punished but celebrated for being independent. She Done Him Wrong is certainly engaging as a Mae West vehicle, but outside of her presence it would never be spoken about by anyone. The plot has a bare bones structure, built for West to do her thing. Her control over a room holds up to her reputation. As a time capsule and a mark of the importance her persona brought to the changing ideals of the time, she is rightly famous. Her material is quite dated though and every time she speaks is a punch line. The film itself is barely interesting and the end is so ludicrous and goes against anything West herself must have believed in that is ends up negating the progressive content of the film. This film has absolutely nothing to offer outside of Mae West and even she becomes redundant (she only knows one way to deliver a line) soon after she is introduced.
Comments (3)Comments (3) Add CommentsAdd Comments
81
Vote
[ Link ]
July 7th 2010 @ 19:07

Posted By: Catherine Stebbins - Category: No Category
   


6 Reviews: Bluebeard, Sisters, Scarlet Empress and more!

the lovely Bae Doona


Take Care of My Cat (2002)
6.9/10

This South Korean film about the lives of 5 women the first year after they graduate from high school is nicely observed. It may not be incredible or groundbreaking but it has a lot more tact than something than say The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants. It is mature and deals with issues that are not superficial like many coming-of-age films. Two of the five girls are twins who provide nothing more than some comic relief. They should have been left out of the film entirely and replaced with another character. The three characters who are actual characters are Tae-hie (Bae Doona), Hye-ju (Yu-won Lee) and Ji-young (Ji-young Ok). Tae-hie works for her father for no money. She wants out of her family but does not know where to go. She has a slightly rebellious streak but her main concern is keeping her group of friends together. Hye-ju has gotten a job thanks to family connections and because of it has a false sense of superiority. She treats her boyfriend like an unwanted pet and gets off on asserting her stability to her friends. In glimpses we can see that she needs to feel this way so she does not crumble but she is easily the most frustrating of the friends. Ji-young is very poor and spends most of the film trying to find a job and figure out where her life is going.

When the film starts it seems scattered but by the end it has found a nice sense of self. The use of cell phones throughout the film represents its function as merely a surface form of communication and the problems of each friend are lost on the others because of it. The cat in question is name Tee-Tee and is a stray that is found and passed amongst the girls throughout. The girls are as adrift as the animal. Take Care of My Cat is a solid examination of girls growing up in Korea and their attempts to connect in an increasingly pressurized and uncertain world.

Wendy Hiller and Roger Livesy


I Know Where I’m Going! (1945)
6/10

This Powell-Pressburger film is worth seeing mainly for the scenery of the Hebrides. The film features documentary like footage of the place combined with some effects and a lot of on location shooting. The plot concerns a woman named Joan (Wendy Hiller) who, as the film proclaims, knows where she is going. She has financial stability thanks to her father but has further ambitions when she is engaged to a rich industrialist she has never met. The film wonderfully employs narration at the beginning and has a creative credit sequence. Joan cannot reach the island of Kiloran because of the weather and is stuck with residents of the Hebrides which include a naval officer named Torquil (Roger Livesy) and others who all have a lifestyle that consists of priorities foreign to Joan.

The film does a really nice job of showing how people form a unique relationship with a place and with their culture. The culture we belong to heavily impacts us and the film displays that nicely. Hiller is great in the title role and the supporting cast delivers as well. Overall while I liked the film I cannot say I loved it. For no particular reason, my interest was only taken so far. It might be because while Joan’s ambition is misguided, by the end it is neutered and seems to say up to a point that women should not have ambition. Torquil’s way of thinking has a lot of validity to it and deals heavily with a connection to nature and a distance from the importance of money. However his morals are still a bit too old-fashioned and it being the 40’s still makes it hard to excuse. Thus, it is a little hard to entirely root for the two. Powell and Pressburger make films that have so much charm though that to a degree they are impossible to resist. While nothing I have seen from them comes even close to A Matter of Life and Death (Stairway to Heaven), this was still decent.

Peter Lorre in his first English speaking role


The Man Who Knew Too Much (1934)
6.7/10

The original telling of this story by Hitchcock is a wonderful combination of suspense set pieces and visual humor. The film blends the two very well. The beginning of the film, while entertaining, is a bit too rushed and its runtime of 75 minutes surely has something to do with it. 10 additional minutes of set-up would have been nice and it is additionally frustrating because the little we got was quite good. The end of the film is a failed attempt at prolonged intensity through the absence of visuals and the vague sense of massive gunfire. It becomes boring after a while which is a shame because the middle of the film is really impressive.

Certain scenes like the dentist’s office, the hypnosis scene, the chair throwing scene and more were suspenseful but also very funny. This was Peter Lorre’s first English speaking role and he had to perform phonetically. Soon after, he moved to America attempting to establish a career in Hollywood. I wrote a paper on Peter Lorre and analyzed his typecasting. He is one of my all time favorite actors and seeing him in anything is consistently fascinating. While I have not seen the remake, this original film has an air of whimsy and fun surrounding it that makes me wonder how much I will like the remake.

Dominique Thomas and Lola Creton


Bluebeard (2010)
8/10

Catherine Breillat is well known for her extensive exploration of female sexuality and women’s place in the world. Here she takes Perrault’s classic fairy tale Bluebeard and subverts it by focusing on the girl and by placing a framing story which highlights the violent and sexual content contained beneath the surface in fairytales which are exposed to children. Breillat uses uncharacteristic restraint to examine how women use what they have to assert themselves. Sisters Marie-Catherine (Lola Creton) and Anne (Daphne Baiwir) have no control over their lives. At the start of the film they are kicked out of their school because the death of their father makes tuition payments impossible. While Anne merely complains about their condition, Marie-Catherine is determined to change her status and she does so by becoming the bride of the notorious Bluebeard whose other wives have mysteriously vanished. Her interaction with him is brimming with tension through calmness and stationary blocking. She is honest with him and maintains control through that. The framing story involves two sisters in the 1950’s reading the story and providing a young and innocent commentary.

Breillat’s normal penchant for graphic sex is put on hold here which works well with the story. Fairy tales do not feature graphic sex but feature sexual tension and violence through subtext. Keeping everything at a distance makes the tale read as it would read to the children; except we know the feelings really being dealt with. Dominque Thomas who is massive and towers over Creton plays Bluebeard as someone with a compulsion who genuinely needs connection and forgiveness. The performances of Creton and of Marilou Lopes-Benites as the modern younger sister are both exceptional for different reasons. Creton stands outside of time or age; she is purposely wooden and filled with curiosity and control. The very young Benites is one of the most natural young actresses to be seen in a film; she is a small wonder.

The mise-en-scene is sparse and very stationary as if the fairy tale is aware it is part of an artificial story. It falters slightly in its dropping of the sisterly story within the tale. Bluebeard is a film based on restraint, minimalism and the examination of consuming fairytales and the role of women within them and it is well worth seeing.

Marlene Dietrich playing innocence


The Scarlet Empress (1934)
9.2/10

The very last Pre-Code film, The Scarlet Empress could very well be the oddest early American film in existence. It is a camp film? Are we supposed to take this seriously? Is this a satire? There are no real answers because it is a bit of everything. Like Bluebeard, The Scarlet Empress examines how women attempt to gain control in a man’s world and how they can make that world every bit their own. Marlene Dietrich playing against type in the first half of the film is the wide-eyed innocent Sophia who has been chosen to become the wife of Grand Duke Peter in Russia, making her Catherine the Great. After discovering that Peter is insane and that her life in Russia is not turning out as expected, she learns how to gain control in the empire in order to prevent her exile or death by Peter with the death of the Empress.

The film surprisingly features nudity and torture scenes in an early opening sequence which are easily the most graphic images to be found in Pre-Code. Director Josef von Sternberg and muse Dietrich pull out all of the stops. The set design is nearly Expressionistic and extreme in its scale and beauty. The costumes are a treat as usual with historical films. The one word to describe the film is extravagant; in every sense of the word.

The performance of Sam Jaffe as Peter is one big question mark. He plays Peter as if in a German Expressionist film; except he is not. It is baffling and equally so is Louise Dresser’s disastrous performance as Empress Elizabeth. Both only add to the oddities this film offers and represent that the flaws contained within the film only add to its wonder instead of detracting from it.

Sternberg’s mise-en-scene is masterful. His famous use of lighting is on full display as he constructs many images that are ahead of their time and iconic. There is also a unique use of Russian classical music in the film. This is one of those completely historically inaccurate films that get away with it. The film is not meant to be historically accurate but to be a spectacle and a showcase for Dietrich with a throw caution to the wind energy. Dietrich’s performance is sometimes a bit off (her innocence is displayed by one facial expression by her) but it is still one of her best performances. The scenes between her and Count Alexei (John Lodge) are sometimes laughable and other times sexy.

Describing this film is impossible; it needs to be seen to be believed. While the fact that it is so all over the place makes the film a bit problematic from an objective standpoint, this is an absolute one-of-a-kind treasure. Its bizarre tone and content provide a perfect send off to Pre-Code. It is easily one of my favorite films and I cannot wait to continue thinking about it.

Margot Kidder as Danielle/Dominique


Sisters (1973)
5/10

Brian De Palma’s Sisters is an exercise in Hitchcock homage that sometimes works but is ultimately all style and no substance. Personally I prefer his next film the even more cultish Phantom of the Paradise. Sisters succeeds in its innovative use of split-screen that very obviously represents more than just a stylistic device. Also, the beginning sequence is a great example of De Palma building up suspense and the pay-off is worth it. Jennifer Salt as Grace Collier comes off as a stereotypical feminist from a male’s perspective. Margot Kidder is pretty one-note despite giving a good performance. William Finley is easily the most engaging actor in the film. Just like in Phantom of the Paradise, his unique John Waters like look is hard to turn away from. The main problems lie in the inconsistent interest level and the realization towards the end that no character is worth caring about; it is hard to remain compelled in such circumstances. Sisters works as an exercise in Hitchcock homage but fails to make a mark as a film worth anything beyond its experimental stylistic devices.

Comments (6)Comments (6) Add CommentsAdd Comments
62
Vote
[ Link ]
July 4th 2010 @ 22:09

Posted By: Catherine Stebbins - Category: No Category
   


6 Reviews: Hausu, Damage, REC 2 and more!



Damage (1992):
6/10

A good but not great Louis Malle film based on a Josephine Hart book that explores sexual repression through the passionate affair between a man and his son’s fiancée. The film’s notability comes from its sex scenes which many either find laughable or uniquely primal. I fall in the latter category. This film would have been almost forgettable if not for the awkward and clumsy intimacy taking place. They can neither be categorized as art house sex scenes or mainstream ones. They are doing something different which takes repression and passion, making it so strong that when it shows itself it is at a loss for graceful expression. The result is fascinating. The rest of the film does its job well. All of the performances are good especially Miranda Richardson who really stands out in the last act. There are few complaints outside of the unnecessary narration at the end. The film and the adaptation are simply good and not great as the story eventually gets tiresome and predictable. I liked Damage, but did not love it.



Hausu (1977):
10/10

Even thinking about writing a paragraph about this is daunting. There is no way to describe it. It is an experimental horror/comedy film by Japanese director Nobuhiko Obayashi. It is unlike anything that has ever or will ever be made. The pure delight that comes from this film is the fact that anything goes and it revels in its complete lack of convention. It is not for everyone and surely there are many who will see this thinking it is the worst film they have ever seen but they are so wrong. Every minute something that happens that is hilarious, genuinely effective, absolutely insane, completely random or incredibly fun. To watch it is to become giddy with excitement. An evil cat named Snowflake? Check. A girl being eaten by a piano? Check. A decapitated head biting a girl’s ass? Check. A man being turned into a pile of bananas? Check. This checklist could go on for hundreds of items and still be relatively incomplete in regards to this film. It was so refreshing in every sense to see something so set in its own goals and style, disregarding anything that came before it. It combines absurdist humor with fun archetypal characters and a sense of the unpredictable. If you throw in a large dose of randomness, the qualities of this film start to come together. To combine experimental filmmaking, comedy and horror is exactly what Hausu does and the result is a masterpiece of its own kind. The Criterion Collection recently bought the rights to the film so here is hoping it gets an official release sometime soon.



Juliet of the Spirits (1965):
5/10

Fellini’s first foray into color is visually consistent and stunning throughout and real life wife Giulietta Masina is always a joy to watch. However, the film is problematic. It starts out strong but by the end gets too over-the-top to take seriously in the context of the world it has created. The surrealist aspects are strong throughout though and provide some of the best parts of the film. Fellini seems too caught up in making the film for his wife, which he did, to notice that he was clearly making this for himself. The ‘liberation’ of the end feels false and Juliet’s arc feels forced and of Fellini’s doing rather than the characters. He seems to be forcing the way he wants her to be onto a character and actress that does not really want it. The film may be engaging for several reasons but the sense that Fellini is the puppet master of sorts comes in a bit too strong on this one.



REC 2 (2010)
4/10

REC 2 is taken down by its own unnecessity and by a format that offers little room for new techniques or surprises in a second outing. It is certainly not bad; just instantly forgettable. It starts out very rough in its first 30 minutes with the film picking up exactly where the first one left off. It deals with the people who come in afterwards which contain one group including a priest and members of the Ministry of Health and the other being a group of kids who find their way into the apartment building. The section of the film dedicated to the kids is a bit better than the first 30 minutes while the last half hour contains the best the film has to offer. There are a few new and interesting things that are done with the format and it leaves room open for the next sequel which is being made. Overall though, it delivers exactly what it is expected to without adding much to the premise and not having the same transitional intensity of the first.



The Hunger (1983)
2.5/10

I wish I could have said I liked this. Despite a great combination of elements (the cast, vampires, the 80’s and Bauhaus in the opening credits) The Hunger is a mish-mash of pretention culminates in a finale that holds no meaning or purpose and only serves to bring the story to the end it has to have. There were certainly aspects of the film that worked. The character of Alice and her death scene, the marvelous seduction scene (obviously) between Susan Sarandon and Catherine Deneuve and John (David Bowie) dealing with his upcoming mortality were some of the highlights. Also, Miriam (Catherine Deneuve) in general felt rather sympathetic and whether or not they meant for her to be that way, the reaction felt towards her made the film more interesting.

Tony Scott is a director who largely irritates me but some of the awkward editing of the film actually works well. The problem the film had was its incessant desire to be vague in the hopes of achieving a mildly surrealist vibe that can be somewhat hip. In terms of the cult following it clearly wants, it succeeds since the film is considered a cult one, only heightened by the bad reviews it received upon release. It definitely holds some attraction but it created nothing with its vagueness and meanders from beginning to end, never allowing me to give a single care about anything going on within it outside of John’s mortality and Alice’s death. Most of all the film just bored me and failed to be creepy, engaging or meaningful in any way throughout the vast majority of its run time. While the cult following makes complete sense, it personally did not click at all and mostly felt like a pretentious drag.



The Red Shoes (1948)
5.9/10

Yet another film that disappoints, The Red Shoes has a 20 minute ballet centerpiece which represents one of the greatest sequences in film but is surrounded by such a thin and barely existent story that it ultimately fails to draw the viewer in. Moira Shearer is a delightful presence and her dancing is beautiful; if only she were given a character to work with. Anton Walbrook as Leremontov holds the story together with his endlessly engaging reaction shots. He is easily the best thing this film has to offer outside of the ballet portion. The ballet The Red Shoes is meant to parallel the story that takes place during the rest of the film. The story exists if only to remind us of these parallels and nothing more.

The film’s running time is over 2 hours. There is plenty of time to develop these characters and their relationships in order to make the ballet powerful because of the situations seen before it and afterwards because of the tragedy it mirrors. Victoria Page wants to dance badly and this is about all we learn about her. Julian Craster wants to compose music and this is about all we learn about him. These people simply remain as faces to the viewer and never truly become characters or even convincing archetypes. There is no real urge to see the faces pull through their problems and their actions in the final act are too melodramatic and extravagant. Even with the very little we know these faces; the decisions made feel false and contrived. The use of color is beautiful and innovative in the ballet sequence which is the reason this film is getting the grade it does. It has engaging enough spurts mainly due to Walbrook’s powerhouse performance. Overall though, its story is so thin, bland and undeveloped that not even the charm of Powell and Pressburger can redeem the story surrounding its masterful centerpiece.
Comments (6)Comments (6) Add CommentsAdd Comments
63
Vote
[ Link ]
June 30th 2010 @ 22:19

Posted By: Catherine Stebbins - Category: No Category
   


More Posts
July 2010
9 Posts
June 2010
10 Posts
May 2010
19 Posts
Older Posts
105 Posts dating from March 2008
Email Subscription
Receive e-mail notifications of new posts on this blog:
[ View Blog Summary ] [ Create A New Post ]

Catherine Stebbins's Blogs

48 Vote(s)
0 Comment(s)
1 Post(s)
2084 Vote(s)
28 Comment(s)
32 Post(s)
Moderated by Catherine Stebbins
Copyright © 2006 2007 2008 On Topic Media PTY LTD. All Rights Reserved. Design by Vimu.com.
On Topic Media ZPages: Sydney |  Melbourne |  Brisbane |  London |  Birmingham |  Leeds     [ Advertise ] [ Contact Us ] [ Privacy Policy ]