Los Muertos (2004)

A strange, strange and hypnotically beautiful film, which isn't, as it usually is, euphemistic description of a poorly shot, slow-moving "art film". Los Muertos is the real deal, and its deft balance of startlingly beautiful natural imagery and creeping menace is masterful. Yes, it is slow moving, but that's the whole point - it's not your movie, after all. It seems as if the director is calling out all the viewers who want to be cultured and sophisticated, but secretly wish they were watching Norbit; which isn't to say that Los Muertos is a pretentious, alienating art film - it is anything but, and at its core, it touches the most base and primal emotions and actions of man. This is what Into the Wild should have been, if Sean Penn had any balls. If this all seems rather cryptic, that's because it's supposed to be - in the way of plot, Los Muertos has Vargas, recently released from a lengthy prison term for a vague, foggy memory of a brutal crime - hinted at in the prodigious, searingly beautiful, and terrifying opening sequence, which, thinking back now, is the film in a microcosm - and on a mission to reconnect with his daughter. And that's it. No twists, no explosions, no car chases, just a lazy trip up the winding river, and a few seemingly meaningless encounters with various people. If this sounds boring, skip it - you don't deserve it anyway. But if you can get beneath the surface (which is quite stunning), then you'll find a whole nest of subtlety teeming therein. Remember the opening scene in Blue Velvet? Well, this movie is the realization of that - everything calm and perfect on the surface, but a dark, unmentionable horror lurks just below; a rot, a decay; not a decay of anything corporeal, but of that most intangible of intangibles, the soul. And that, precisely, is what makes Los Muertos so haunting, so ambiguous, so menacing, so essential - it is a film that dares the viewer to declare that they are bored and to move on, leaving some scrap to be picked up in media res by a curious soul who will have their view slightly skewed throughout the journey of a life. One of the more terrifying - or gorgeous (I'm still not sure, and I'm not sure if there is an "answer") - and ambiguous endings in film I can remember. Stick around for the credits - that music is da bomb, and only serves to ratchet up the tension. This film is the closest adaptation to Conrad's Heart of Darkness that I can think of, and there is no indication that the former is based on, or influenced by, the latter. There are some familiar tropes in this one - the fallen angel, forgiveness, the need for redemption, and man's inborn desire to dominate, possess - none spelled out explicitly, but all certainly there. I could be reading this one completely wrong (which is highly likely, given the openness to interpretation that the director has built into the film), but I felt afraid. Pretty impressive, and the work of someone who I would consider a major new voice in Argentinian/world cinema.

ps: vegans, animal lovers, and anyone else with a similar character flaw take heed - there is an extremely graphic (i.e. real) goat butchering that may upset more delicate sensibilities.
pps: f paragraphs

World for Ransom - Don't pay

I’ve had a good run… the last dozen or so movies I’ve watched have held some real gems. Tonight, that ended. Robert Aldrich directed one of my favourite Film Noirs – actually favourite films for that matter – Kiss Me Deadly in 1955. KMD has everything – thrills, chills, tough guy humour and a truly apocalyptic ending. Aldrich pulled out all the stops on this one and it remains one of the most vibrant, exciting and claustrophobic thrillers to ever come out of Hollywood.

The year before, he produced and (although uncredited) directed another noir starring Dan Duryea called World For Ransom. I’d heard and read about it but it’s tough to find.

Don’t bother. It is an atrocious Monogram quickie, reportedly made on a budget of $90K and you’ll wonder what they spent the extra 80G’s on. Part crime drama, part detective noir and all shite. Dangerous Dan is fine as always and there are a couple of decent turns by the likes of Nigel Bruce (Dr Watson to Rathbone’s Holmes) and Key Luke (Number One Son in the Oland Charlie Chan series). Everything else about World for Ransom blows.

I guess the lesson learned here is that not all films done by normally solid directors work. Some suck… like say, World for Ransom. The only interesting thing I could find about the film is that Aldrich didn’t have his name removed from the director’s credit because the movie is a complete hunk of trash, but rather because he wanted Duyrea’s love interest to dust him off in the end because she was a dyke and hated men. The studio said no and the only thing worth watching this movie for ended up on the cutting room floor.

Hey Ralphie-Boy!

I don’t know what it is about some movies from the 1970’s that I like so much but I’ve found another great one. The plot behind The Late Show is simple enough - A private detective (Art Carney) is hired by a woman (Lily Tomlin) to find her cat, and stumbles onto several murders. The film, directed by Robert Benton and produced by Robert Altman, works as a late entry noir, a dark comedy, and a gentle human drama. Carney, Tomlin and the rest of the cast are terrific and the dialogue is as good as it gets. Our only copy currently sits in the FBE, but I’ve ordered one with the FBW too.

While on the topic of ‘70s films you might not have seen, here are a few great ones;

Charley Varrick - Walter Matthau's laconic, resourceful bank robber in an outstanding one-man-alone-against-the-mob thriller from director Don Siegel. If you like this one check out Matthau’s The Laughing Policeman and The Taking of Pelham One, Two Three.

The Seven Ups – One of the great car chases in history and a terrific cop procedural starring Roy Scheider and Tony Lo Bianco.

Serpico - Directed by Sidney Lumet and featuring Al Pacino in another brilliant ‘70s role, Serpico is about police corruption and remains as valid today as it was 30 years ago.

Cockfighter - Director Monte Hellman and actor Warren Oates who delivers one of his best performances in a film partially written by Charles Willeford and based on his book.

You could do worse than any of these.

S

It's gonna be a long summer - a look at some 2008 summer blockbusters thus far

I don’t need to go on about the state of mainstream film today, I think everyone gets it. The industry is a cash cow, pumping out sequel after sequel, adaptation after adaptation. 2006 saw the highest number of films based on continuing moneymaking franchises ever and every year since things have been on about par with that. It has gotten to a point where even if the first film is a failure, as long as it made cash that’s reason enough to make two more of them (like tomb raider, Blood Rayne, Fantastic Four, arguably the Blade trilogy though that second flick was freaking awesome). Since public interest wanes when more films go on in a series because they become less entertaining (think Spiderman 3, Batman & Robin eww) a new trend in Hollywood has emerged where film studios make sequels (or prequels) based on old popular properties. These trends in themselves are distressing; are we getting to a point as a society and more so, as a species where we are running low on ideas? Or are we more than ever just trying to make the quickest buck possible? But that’s fodder for another post. Anyways…

The 2008 summer blockbuster season was officially kicked off pretty well with Iron Man. It’s another comic book adaptation but it’s my favourite kind: the origin story. Origin stories are usually the first in a series of comic book films though that’s not always the case i.e. Batman Begins.

Iron Man isn’t anything new or groundbreaking, in fact it’s a pretty basic first of a series comic book movie. What’s different here is that the titular hero is so much fun to watch that it overshadows all the other action or non-action around him. Robert Downey Jr. carries the film completely by his wittiness and his charm. The film plays just like the first Spiderman, but take out the geekiness and weakness of Toby Maguire and substitute that with the charisma and sex appeal of Robert Downey. This is the same Downey we’ve seen in Kiss Kiss Bang Bang and Zodiac but as a superhero, it’s a bloody brilliant casting call. Besides him, yeah there are explosions and some baddies but it’s still an origin story so a lot of time is spent on becoming Iron Man rather than just being Iron Man but I dig that.

Then the behemoth arrived last week to theatres, the crown jewel of this years summer blockbusters. A new Indiana Jones flick! Hey, it’s only been 19 years why not dust off the old fedora and pump out another Indy adventure. Not like they could have waited another year and called it an anniversary go for the fans. No it’s just the natural and proper time to bring the old hero out of retirement.

I wasn’t expecting much of a new Indiana Jones film. I thought that as long as Harrison Ford was there then it would genuinely work. No matter what the subject matter I could watch one of my favourite heroes that i watched to no end of as a kid and just dull everything else around him out. Then the lights dimmed and the opening frames rolled and I was greeted by a CGI groundhog. Now I remember reading how Spielberg said this wasn’t a cash-in film. They made it because they always wanted to do it, and always planned on another adventure and they would do their best to not use CGI and have stuntmen and shoot this baby just like the old ones. So, something cold happened in my stomach when the first thing I see is a CGI groundhog, I mean maybe they couldn’t find a real groundhog to poke it’s head out of a hole and look around on such a tight budget. Yeah, that’s probably it. So the film went on and here it comes our first lead up shot of Indiana and the camera is panning up to his face and now we see… an old Indy. Hmm, don’t know what I was expecting. So there’s Indy and some stuff is going on and it’s feeling… cold and off for some reason. And they have references to the old films and he’s teaching at the same school and they mention Brody and his father and yeah. Something just isn’t clicking. Nothing clicked even after the credits rolled. I watched an Indiana Jones film and felt not the least bit excited, not the least amount of tension, not the least bit entertained. It felt like two things to me. It felt like visiting some old friends you haven’t seen in awhile and you’re excited because of how fun they were and your history together but when you do see them they’ve changed. They’re older and less witty, and make you feel like an idiot. It also felt like one of the Star Wars prequels. Completely devoid of any magic of the originals and there’s a lot of colours and wow does this ever feel complicated and silly for Star Wars.

So for me it became apparent that George Lucas will continue to ruin my childhood by banking on my love for his old properties. He knows I’ll be there opening night 15 dollars in hand regardless of substance. Hell, that’s capitalism baby. Where’s the 2^nd Willow? I’ll be lining up for that no problem.

The rest of the blockbuster season is coming up and nothing has got my blood pumping more than the one film that is already on my short list for best film of 2008 The Dark Knight. This Batman sequel based on director Christopher Nolan’s dark and fantastic Batman Begins is guaranteed not to stink. In an age where trailers tell us everything you already know that this one is gonna take the cake. Alright nerf herders Dropkick is outtie 5000

Road to Awe - The Fountain as a matchmaker

Enjoying my Thursday evening listening to Clint Mansells film score for The Fountain. It's funny how the score evokes many of the same emotions felt every time i watch the film.

I've seen The Fountain roughly about 5 times now. Twice in theaters and 3 times in the comfort of my own home. Last time i watched it was this past Valentines day for a little film fest i set up with films all very mushy and love oriented. Only, it blew away all other films i watched that day. Eat your heart out John Cusack.

There's 3 kinds of people who dislike this film, these people unfortunately also make up most of the people who have seen the film. There are those who've seen it and hate it because it makes completely no sense to them and trying in any way to understand it is out of the question. Others find the film to be one big arty pretentious metaphor that is way too obvious to be taken seriously. And lastly the worse of the bunch are those who claim there's an obvious message that makes the film itself completely too "obvious" yet they can't for the life of them explain what that message is.

The rest of those who have seen the film are like me. They are completely in love with every frame of it. It's overflowing with life, emotion, and meaning. I have yet to meet someone who has said The Fountain was "just Ok". It strikes a chord with some but far from all. For those it does resonate with i can't help but feel somewhat of a connection with these people, i know how weird that sounds. but it's true, the first question i have on a date is "how do you feel about The Fountain?" and if they say something along the lines of "ah, it's alright. Blood Diamond was much better." or "It's way too pretentious. It cons people into thinking they're watching something artful or with meaning, but all it evokes in me is a sense that the film thinks i'm stupid." yeah, goodbye dolly.

It is very much one of the best films of the past decade and for me it's one of the best films i've ever seen. It's a film that sums up many things i love about cinema.

All that can really be said about it is that it's an epic love story that transcends time, reality, and space. The focus of which is mans inability to conquer death and being able to accept not just death, but the thought of death. The idea of it, what it actually means.

Shit if this one isn't a beauty. A permanent resident of the recommended and staff picks wall. I could go on. and i probably will. but i have a headache so there, maybe i'll do another post about the specifics. About the shots, the effects, the casting and all other things that i feel culminated to make a masterpiece. but for now, for today i'm hitting the showers.

Crunchy Snog?

Overheard on this fine evening within the classy confines of the Film Buff East:
"If you don't buy me an ice cream, I'm not gonna let you sleep with me tonight."
No joke. East end don't play.

Lucio Fulci's ZOMBIE, uncut 35mm print

Without any hint of either sarcasm or hyperbole, I declare this to be the cinematic event of the year. Click on the pic below to see it in all its glory - love the subtle changes Vagrancy made to the New York skyline, perfectly tailoring the poster for this very special Toronto screening. See you there.....

on the nature of "blogs"...

Right now, our computers are touching, kind of. I typed into my computer and then sent the information through the telephone wires above the street, presumably to some box, owned by the company that hosts "blogger" and no doubt many others, where it was stored to be accessed by anyone who happen to type in the appropriate code to view this particular blog, which means that as you read this now, you too are (or were) connected to that storage box. What are these boxes, how many of them are there? Will there one day be fields of them, filled with the written history of people's opinions of the 21st century? Or maybe we'll store them vertically, underground. An elevator shaft of hard-drives, storing meticulously every word written by anyone with the most basic computer skills, in perpetuity. Or maybe we'll erase some, save space, after a time limit. Keep us relevent. Every hundred years, maybe less. Or maybe someone will decide, maybe it'll cost money to store information, or maybe, just maybe, everything and more, at the break neck speed of 6 billion people typing away at keyboards, all of it, stored in some new smaller hard-drive. Catalouged by date, place, and genre. Millions of opinions. Millions of individual opinions. And so, looking at one of these boxes, hundreds of years from now, having known nothing of the time before your own life, what could be learned?

Roger that....

I read an article in the NY Times recently about Roger Ebert retiring from TV to concentrate exclusively on writing. Ebert was a pioneer in bringing film criticism to the wider audience television provided. Some argue that this stripped the “art” of criticism of any nuance and subtlety the Pauline Kaels and A.O. Scotts of the world brought to it. According a film one of two thumb directions does seem a little simplistic but perhaps that was the point. It brought discussion about film to the masses, which begs the further question, "Who gives a shit what the masses think?" after all, that’s why they’re called “the masses”. Well, the short answer is film studios do.

Enter Juno. Far and away the most sought after rental at the Film Buff these days, Juno is the perfect Ebert movie, one he described as “just about the best movie of the year”. You can read the whole gushing review here -

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071213/REVIEWS/712130303/1023

Juno is a sweet little movie, undeniably populist and brimming over with a kind of cutesy teen bravado that draws you in and makes you think about puppies. Ebert’s glowing review hides the fact however, that it’s really just a well-done teen comedy, like Meatballs was. Juno isn’t a masterpiece and screenwriter Diablo Cody will not be the next U.S. Poet Laureate. The film’s greatest strength remains its immense marketability, an asset that elevates its stock well out of proportion from its merits as a film. This is what counts in an industry striving for that rare combination of apparent smarts and broad demographic appeal (pun intended). Juno cost just $6.5M to make and made $143M at the box office, nearly twice that of No Country for Old Men, which cost $30M. This is the longer answer to my earlier, slightly rhetorical question, “Who gives a shit what the masses think? You think Ebert gets a taste?

Most of what I write (and much of what I read) comes under the general heading of “film”. I religiously pour over a few periodicals (“Film Comment” and “Cinemascope” being the best of them) and invariably learn something new in almost every issue. I regularly read books on film history, actor and director biographies, books about specific genres and about the business itself. I tend to write about films that I either liked or intensely disliked, but rarely about anything in between. In essence - and unintentionally - I seem to have adopted the very same “thumbs up” or “thumbs down” approach Ebert and the dead guy championed. I also find myself writing about popular film more than I’d like to. Does anyone really need to hear yet another opinion about Juno? Probably not.

It’s tricky to navigate the fundamentally different worlds of popular film and artistic film (in fact so hard that I can’t quite find the right word for the latter – “artistic” not being quite right, but better than any others I can think of) The additional range of genres, periods, origin and topicality adds to the confusion. The CornChowder's reviews of the Albert Lamorisse films were a real breath of fresh air and a reminder to me that these are the kind of films that need championing (as opposed to those releases 10,000 other armchair critics have already spilled ink over). I think I’m going to concentrate on those from now on. Ebert’s got the rest covered, even if he isn’t on the tube anymore.

2 from Lamorisse

Criterion usually releases all the Janus stuff, but for some reason (perhaps because they are shorts?) these two superb films from Albert Lamorisse have been released under the Janus imprint (along with Bill Mason's fantastic Paddle to the Sea), with nary a Criterion logo in sight. Similar to Criterion's Eclipse label, these releases are strictly bare-bones - no special features, making-of mini-docs, director commentaries, lead actor's third cousin's detailed itemization of yesterday's brunch menu - in short, the films are left to stand on their own, and what a duo to pick to do so. And while they are both ostensibly "children's films", they are much greater than that tag often implies - they are universal, and they are essential. Let's begin:

Crin-Blanc (White Mane)
dir: Albert Lamorisse, 1953
The story is simple - a wild horse in an arid region of France is sought by herdsmen, for seemingly no other reason than to show man's power over beast. A young fisherman Folco (Rock Me Amadeus?) also covets the horse, who has been dubbed White Mane, and who is also the alpha-horse of the pack. But Folco's motives are more innocent than that of the herdsmen - he sees the horse as a companion rather than a trophy. There are some pretty heavy themes in this deceptively simple film - issues of desire, greed, jealousy, trust, and above all, love, are all in there, which is precisely why this is the perfect "children's fim" - the antidote to the Wiggles. Instead of treating your little precious like the simpleton that they probably are, speak up to them for once and show them White Mane.

There are some terrific scenes of pure primal beauty - the face off between White Mane and the horse who has usurped the throne in his absence is awesome for its sheer sinew-gnawing ferocity; when White Mane is initially captured by the herdsmen and corralled, the frenzied whipping about of the stallion truly leads you to believe that this is indeed a wild thing, something that cannot be tamed, but that, as we learn later, can indeed be trusted and loved, and that, at the risk of anthropomorphizing, can love in return. We see more of this when Folco is dragged through the marsh and the mud by White Mane who finally slows then stops and stares back at his half-dead would be captor with almost sympathetic eyes; and when, in the simultaneously chilling and heart-rending finale, White Mane and Folco, clinging to each other, disappear into the waves, free at last, forever and ever. There are some truly eternal themes in White Mane, as well as in Lamorisse's next film...

Le Ballon Rouge (The Red Balloon)
dir: Albert Lamorisse, 1956
Lamorisse got his start (much like Kubrick) as a photographer, and this film (and White Mane) really shows off his talent for creating startlingly beautiful, almost painterly, compositions. The Red Balloon is another simple story - a small boy finds a balloon one morning that begins to follow him, or sometimes mischievously desert him - only to return seconds later. That is the catalyst of the movie, which sees the boy on his daily journeys through Paris(?).

Again, as in White Mane, Lamorisse seems to take great joy in taking a simple story and very deliberately keeping it simple - on the surface at least. We run into very similar territory in The Red Balloon as we did in White Mane, thematically at least. In fact, one could be seen as a urbanized remake of a rural classic. In The Red Balloon, we have the boy (see: Folco), the greedy and desirous schoolchildren (see: the herdsmen), and the object of desire, the titular red balloon (see: White Mane). Along the way we also have some lightly comedic digressions into family life (both films), fear, disappointment, and finally, ecstasy.

Interestingly, both films end with the protagonist attaining true happiness through death in the Romeo and Juliet fashion - the choice to die by the side of a true love rather than to live alone in despair. This is less explicit in The Red Balloon than it is in White Mane, but the idea is there - the protagonist carried away in elemental fashion, beyond his control, and clinging with the most innocent, pure and sweet of loves to the one thing that truly makes his heart sing.

Both films come highly, highly recommended - the transfers on the Janus DVDs are pristine. These are films for everyone, for they both are beautiful, sad, and ultimately rapturous. Time well spent.

Interesting fact about Lamorisse - he is the creator of the boardgame Risk. Nerds bow down. Now, back to my fantasy baseball stats....