The Iceman Cometh - 1973

Ultimately, this movie is a melodramatic exercise which does not make good use of cinematic tricks and turns(and, God, it's way too long). The characters work too often in flourishes, spouting off lines between silence that speaks to profundity--rather, it allows for little development. Melodrama exists with types, and there is nothing necessarily wrong with that, but long speeches debase characters and excoriate viewers. After a certain point, staging becomes painful and one cannot help but be bored. Get something interesting to say, or shut up.

Rumble Fish - 1983

This is 50's melodrama, Rebel Without a Cause and other quasi-beatnik films, told with expressionistic gait. The soul of the country has been ripped out and spat on, then shot a few times for good measure. Mists creep down the streets until they're replaced by dust storms; there are stark shadows at all times of the day. Dennis Hopper is sensible, articulate and controlled: need I say more? This is a movie from a different stream. All rivers flow out to the sea, but some take confused paths filled with unusual fish.

People are trapped in their respective roles: notice how people have titles they cannot deviate from. Rusty James(Matt Dillon) is that for the whole movie, the Motorcycle Kid(Mickey Rourke) is that. They cannot deviate from that. The streets are the same, the mist and fog wrap them in a cruel shroud. Between flashes down blind alleys you get the impression they've done this before, seen all of this before. Coppola might intend for them to be in High School, but their age wrinkles through their skin. These are people who have seen all this town had at least fifteen years ago. Like The Last Picture Show, this is about the quiet curdling of desire into acceptance of what you around yourself. They might not be happy--and they cannot have Camus-esque existentialism--but they can manage wry jokes and more belts of whiskey then the guy in the next town.

The imagery is, indeed, perhaps too strong: there is almost something absurd about them rescuing all the animals in the end. The cop finally shooting the Motorcycle Kid--are we to suppose him Jesus? This is movie that throws quite a bit at the screen and hopes some of it sticks. There are splendid images, one is reminded of Welles' visual creativity, and the movie manages to never be dull(in this sense). However, movies of this kind are perhaps too heavy with their allegorical import. Although there are advantages to this, and Rumble Fish manages to get a great deal out of its latent images(and visual cues to old films), the focus on existentialism might undercut the film too much. It makes too easy of a 'this=this' sort of framework, which seems at times contrarian to expressionistic film-making.

And, of course, Tom Waits plays Benny from 'Benny's Billiards'. This makes me happy: how often can you have Waits, Nicholas Cage, Matt Dillon and Lawrence Fishburne in one scene?

Casino - 1995

Although structurally sound--the narrator losing control as 'the bosses' take power away from him--the end result is somehow tame, beneath other Scorsese efforts. De Niro is quiet and serious; Pesci is violent and a man almost nihilistically bent. Goodfellas does this better. At the risk of simplification, this movie re-hashes ideas. Perhaps it has a more serious tone, but that does not alter the fundamental likeness it shares with his previous works. It is difficult to say much beyond that: the movie is quietly akin and, really, a worse version.

With one important difference. The inclusion of a female lead is somewhat atypical for later Scorsese films. Earlier, with movies like Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore, there was a conscious effort for more than 'tough guys'; over time, it seems, the emphasis switched to these tropes he has become so famous for. Even if Stone does not play a particularly powerful female character, it is worth considering that she maneuvers in her own way. The main difference, explicitly stated here while assumed in other Scorsese films, is that people are inherently verminous; they do what they have to do and, really, that's their nature. So, structurally, the character is like others Scorsese has shown before, she attracts special attention by virtue of her gender.

La Cité des enfants perdus(The City of Lost Children) - 1995

One(Ron Perlman) is latter day Zampano, from La Strada. The difference in character is striking enough: whereas Zampano had much, still, to learn about humanity, One realized that other individuals are what matters. The director--who also helmed the perhaps too famous Amélie--places importance on reality at hand rather than supposed reality(of dreams). Keep close those that are close and, even if it seems worth going as the Cyclops(bravado courtesy of Polyphemus), only sacrifice yourself for those you can see with your own two eyes.

Now, that said(and it's all well and good), there is a certain air to this film which seem unnecessarily distant: despite arguing for humanity, the focus, to excess, of special effects shots overloads the actors. There is a great deal of flash, and I can respect the dystopian feel of the whole film, but it seems overwrought--as if these glares and billowing smokescreens might obscure something at the heart of the film. If I'm looking for deep characters, someone to care about(as the film seems focused on), then I doubt I'll find them here. Despite invoking Fellini--and, understandably, his contentions of characters is sometimes absurd--there is very little of the caring that so often filled those movies. Perhaps this is aimed for children and I am being too harsh: still, it would be nice to suppose that the effects and fantastic characters amount for more than just set-pieces, that we can give a damn about them.

Splendor in the Grass - 1961

The movie opens in a wet dream: Natalie Wood and Warren Beatty are in his car necking and he makes his move. Upset by this, she declines and the dream is split open while he stares out over the (cold) rocks. Both have been told what is the proper way to be a (fe)male and, given the times, premarital sex is simply off the table. Angst from sex deferred underlines and defines the film, perhaps too well.

Splendor in the Grass fits nicely into psycho-sexual films from the 60's. Rather than limiting problems simply to the individual, there was a push to include their parents and other Freudian tropes into the equation(this was, in addition to, psychology more so entering the public arena). Characters were more 'robust'--they responded the way textbooks would describe, they cringed from the sadness that a good lay should provide. The critique, since it is fairly straight out there, is of conformity of the 'olden days' prior to WW2. The audience should be past that, it seems.

Natalie Wood is proto-Marnie: the female, in apparently these sexually repressive times, needs the restorative powers of orgasm. The movie makes a painful attempt at keeping certain words from the audience--sex is spoken like a bad word, curious that the film decided to take a peak at it for so long. She has been assigned a cultural role which she does not want; the seeds of rebellion are planted, and this film speaks to that given culture(consider, too, that Elia Kazan directed the oft-praised East of Eden which, ultimately, is akin to this in many ways).

Curiously, the movie takes little interest in the fact that it values psychiatry over parents. I am not necessarily saying one must be better than the other, but there is still a distinct appeal to authority outside the individual who knows better than they do about themselves(love, in this case). These appeals to authority are later dropped in psycho-sexual films of the era--the end result, being, that nobody gets a good lay but, hell, there's not anyone who cares. Appealing to the demographic of the times(I might be reaching), this seems apt.

The Big Lebowski - 1998

This movie is birthed from stoned visits to late night film houses, discussions soaked in gin with a slight hint of irony shot at the viewer. Here's the deal: how about instead of someone competent investigating, like Humphrey Bogart, we have "The Dude"(Jeff Bridges) find out who kidnapped the rich man's wife? It's a joke, extended over a long time, that lovingly reclines its desires into the past(No Country For Old Men, additionally, is a sentimental film in this way). However, the fundamental difference in posturing is thus: The Big Lebowski admires those old films and places "modern" characters within them to raise respect--think Tarantino--but No Country For Old Men argues against modernism. In the end, I believe admiration for the past while positing new roles, new functions, within society is more important than blind allegiance to once past moral codes.

But, that tangent ended, I find this film a refreshing combination of clichés and tongue-in-cheek. Like After Hours but played for laughs rather than the occasional serious nod. "The Dude" is the guy who is mired in culture, appreciative of movies gone by but wishing, perhaps, for a role within them. In the end, as a tribute to films, this is a fine movie with many great gags along the way. Should be fun to revisit in a few years.

Paul Newman: 1925-2008

Standing for integrity, Paul Newman's famous characters(The Sting, Cool Hand Luke, The Verdict, Cat on a Hot Tin Roof) fought against injustice, no matter their side of the law(considering Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid). Obstinate, he would drag himself from the dredges of hell to stand steadfast against the strongest of adversaries. Now, after these many years and great roles, he dies--and so, too, a reunion project he was going to make with Robert Redford.

I remember, in the remarkably well done The Verdict, when he picks himself up and realizes what it means to be good, to do the right thing in face of adversity. Newman was an actor nearly unparalleled; a literal great, and I am hardly light in saying so. His muscles had contorted, and even fighting the Church(de-facto God in the town) had to be done because it was right.

He will be missed.

Killer of Sheep - 1977

The film begins with a father scolding his son to be a real man, to grow up and accept the problems that life throws at him. Don't get too angry, don't get too sad--stay strong, stay a man. A killer of sheep is the result: someone who goes through life, a somewhat depressing life full of no excitement, without standing too firmly in any given situation. The camera and script drift lazily, finding new scenes to try and understand this man. He will not make a show of himself in any one instance; the whole of this existence must be consumed, digested before we can have an accurate picture of him. Reality washes over him because he must be strong and vaguely indifferent--moments of life pass over his face, but the continuous struggles of life have clearly taken their toll.

Continuously we are taken back to the slaughterhouse, the kids making a fort and certain set events in the life of the community. These never, qualitatively, change throughout the progression of the film. We are to understand that his life will not ever progress beyond here: there will always be new engines to fall off cars, always be the white woman flirting with him behind the counter. These are part of the life, part of the territory. They define the neighborhood, for good or for ill.

Curiously, the title(while perhaps an allusion to Chicago), is perhaps a direct comparison with Abraham's killing of the ram(male sheep) after being ordered by God to do so(in lieu of Isaac). Functionally, if one accepts this, the film would be positioning the critique of the conditions on the older generation, teaching inconsistent values. One cannot be strong and silent--it mocks reason when living in these conditions. Although, overall, this is not an attack on religion, there might be a critique of unnecessary, and illogical, patriarchal tendencies in communities.

Spike Lee, in his excellent film Do The Right Thing, takes these tropes and turns them on their heads. Killer of Sheep, for all its strengths, does not consider the racism, arguably inherent, in the life the characters lead. It focuses, unlike most films, squarely on events rather than their implications. In this sense, it is a very atypical film. One to be admired for its interesting look at life and, more importantly, the style it uses to argue its point: the lazy look of the protagonist, dissatisfied with creativity(or fecundity) has given up on his life. The movie seems to as well.

The Postman Always Rings Twice - 1946

An exceptional piece of genre cinema. It is ensnared too much by its placement in time--a femme fatale, while being a trope of a character, still should never say "ha!". Something is amiss when that occurs. This is, however, the main weakness of the film: how it excessively overstates a point to the point of irrelevance. Consider the ending: the scene might have played out with his foot itching for a new place to go, new faces. Rather, we are stuck with a priest and a lawyer on death row while our hero spouts on about melodramatic points. The movie has a very, very sinister streak in that either end of the product seems destined to ignore. It wants too hard to explain a point, wants too much to present things flat out without letting us delve into the characters. While, perhaps, indicative of an era, it is important to note here due to the advent of the noir-type. Turning, later, as showing(obtusely) a disillusionment with America, here it seems far too willing to remind the viewer what is right and what is acceptable. We're being led like children around. So, while perhaps the movie is compelling for some reasons--it manages to have bastards as the main characters and it has multiple arcs--its unwillingness to delve deeper without exposition forces it into a kitschy position. Which is unfortunate.

Winter Light - 1962

Ostensibly a dialogue on faith, there does not seem to be a particular amount of depth to this film. There is the obligatory dialogue on the "silence of God" and, of course, we see how this makes belief difficult, but this does not shed any light, particularly, on why people do have faith. The unbeliever is shown as going through the motions of existence, stoically assisting in life and death scenarios simply out of an abstract notion of duty(an additional critique of Deontological systems?--perhaps). Without a guiding influence there is no purpose for their movement, for their actions(this is what the characters think, anyways).

I did not think, though, that there was an attempt at understanding the inherent irony of film-making: even if you don't believe in God, the world of art(cinema, perhaps most of all) enjoys a creator who fashions situations for life to play out in. Does art, then provide purpose for existence?--it provides a framework for existence, giving life to other "meaningless" actions(writing, or reciting, would be conveyed meaning by the act of the individual living through it).

This film, arguably, is part of Bergman's earlier tradition: later, in more expressive and mature pieces such as Persona he argues against this line of thinking. Art as mockery, art as something which exists foreign to reality. However, as it stands here, Winter Light is an interesting look at the loss of faith one might suffer from the "silence of God". It is not a persuasive film for its specific point but it manages to create scenes which memorably depict its points: if nothing else, it is a success in regards to the mise-en-scene.

Criticizng the Critics

http://movies.msn.com/movies/moviesfeature/dvd/critics/?GT1=28101

Despite the title, I think this this more of a direct--and fairly well intentioned--attack against bloggers. There is something to be said about the myriad opinions out there(irrespective of your own views, The Dark Knight was considerably better received at IMDB than by professional critics: A.O. Scott and the like). The rampant nature of the Internet allows individuals to choose where they get their 'real' opinions from: they are not held sway by magazines or newspapers. If nothing else, it was an interesting read.

If, however, one wishes an informed view of cinema(with some Village Voice flair along the way) then this is worth reading: http://www.villagevoice.com/2008-09-17/news/what-we-learned-about-the-election-at-the-movies-this-summer/

Real criticism does not view the film in a vacuum.

Taxi Driver - Followup

Taxi Driver ends curiously: Travis(Robert DeNiro) stares into the rear view mirror while the music screeches awkwardly and then he adjusts it. His descent into hell might have saved Iris(Jodie Foster) but he died in the process(I'd argue, anyways). He has "become his job" of the cinematic hero, Ethan from The Searchers or Shane from Shane. This has not necessarily forgiven what he has done, but it has provided meaning to his life--the reflection in the mirror beckons, knowing what he could have been without changing. Cinema, despite Travis not watching movies, has given some purpose, desire to his life beyond absurd notions like romancing a woman outside his reach.

Scorsese, while recognizing the absurd notions within films like The Searchers(this is also explored in earlier Scorsese projects such as Who's That Knocking at My Door), points out their ability to influence and mold people. Media, even casually for individuals such as Travis, changes their life and makes them into other people. "Changes their life" makes it seem so romantic--as discussed before, this mostly pertains to how media shapes people and defines them. The ending of this movie reinforces this--Travis glances back oddly, the quasi-diegetic music rolls off-kilter and then we are left with the taxis stretching for miles. There are many people that movies fill their lives(perhaps even me?). Scorsese points out and considers their effects: the conclusion is mixed and curious at times, but Travis could have done differently. There is someone else through the looking glass.

Ju Dou - 1991

Sinister La Strada: the old man(Li Wei) buys himself a wife(Gong Li) so he can have a male child, 'to continue the bloodline for all time'. The banning of this movie seems self-evident enough(the Chinese government is wise to note the overt critique of Confucianism and patriarchy). However, what is curious is that Zhang Yimou(the director) would make these critiques here, alongside his another film Raise the Red Lantern yet still direct the opening and closing ceremonies of the 2008 Olympics. Did his critiques exist in a vacuum? He is quoted as saying, roughly, about the Olympics that he he is proud of China and everything it has achieved through the ages--at what point is he distanced from his own works which seem so foreign to that mindset. The old man might have passed on in a vat of red dye, but it seems past has colored itself differently with this film(and others like it). It is worth considering, then, that this film and Raise the Red Lantern might not be as 'serious' as critiques as once thought(authorial intent is beside the point here--there is room for both, I think, and I'm taking one approach at the moment).

The films are akin to one another in the vein of Ozu's season films: the old man and the young peasant bride are constants while other circumstances change. The old man, in Ju Dou might be overtly sinister--almost comically villainous at times--he has a more rational outlook towards the future, making plans while the lovers(perhaps rightly) relish their time together. He has been raised this way, it is all he has. This is not to excuse his behavior but, rather, to contextualize it: there is a reason his son comes to him in the beginning. History and custom march over people and it is not necessarily evil for that to be the case even if that leads towards ironically dumb scenes(such as the funeral procession--it seems absurd). Ju Dou might have an evil man in it, but it might be said that it's because he doesn't know better. Given tim, cultural changes will slightly alter his disregard for individual life(consider China now). This seems more reasonable given the director's statements and the over the top nature of the old man's character.

Raise the Red Lantern, while still possessing evil tendencies, managed to make their old man more palatable--he only lashed out at women for supposed adultery. They must stay true to the guiding principle of monogamy, on their part, which he wishes. Now, it is perfectly understandable to view him as having a double standard--and the movie certainly wants one to--but it's arguable that, despite this, he has still managed to help the people. Consider: if he is the state of China, then he has brought people out of poverty and cared for them. Perhaps his methods are oppressive at times, archaic and cruel, but they managed to do this despite that. It's a measure of taking the bad with the good. In the early 90's, before China had the absurd growth that it does today, the notion was that the bad clearly outweighed the good. Social pressures, internal and external, have morphed these "old men" from what they once were, clear authoritarians, into something else. Amorphously, they accept and reject the individuality their subjects hold so dear.

Ju Dou and Raise the Red Lantern perhaps are not so harsh of critiques: they acknowledge the sins of the past while setting forth somewhat odd, and often dubious, courses for the future. Individuality is coming and the old men are dying off--China changes in spurts and snorts. The death of the donkey(peasantry) underlines the point: the dynasties that rule will fall apart but the history will not.

The Deer Hunter - 1978

War as a game, a random game with logic for who lives and who dies: plainly stated, this is the 'purpose' of the film(we, those that would fight, are just deer, to be chewed and spit out for amusement alone). This seems clear. It's arguably too explicitly stated, to the point where the film becomes as a preacher. The reason this is a good movie, despite its curious appeals to reality(archival footage) coupled with un-reality(Russian roulette games), is that it gives particular attention to life outside Vietnam.

Often, a film will showcase life inside a situation(war, what have you) and ask the audience to construct their own ideal life outside of that. The characters, then, are somehow estranged from this goodness, or life, that is beyond them. The Deer Hunter does not show a perfect life, and hell if I know whether it reflects Russian immigrants life by a steel mill, but it cares to show that the characters are not 'Buzz' or 'Reef' who only live and die in a steamy hell away from those they care about. The structure of the movie, showing before, during and after the war, manages to show rounder individuals, people that might exist in reality rather than the abstracted(though still powerful) types one sees in films like Apocalypse Now. Individuals change due to the war, rather than the film needing alterations as it progresses. In this sense, The Deer Hunter is a good movie which is, oddly, somehow unique alongside other Vietnam war movies.

There is, in addition, an implicit attack on the economic side of war, it is wrong that Nick(Christopher Walken) can make more money than his steel mill workers doing something like Russian Roulette. They are providing a serious function to the country, war or simply construction, and it begs at what point their sacrifice will be taken seriously. A soldier puts their life on the line, whether through the draft or not, and they don't get paid nearly enough for that--their life or death is beyond their control, in "God's" hands, one might say, like Russian Roulette. There is no compensation, theoretical or practical, that could possibly pay for that sacrifice(even if you want to claim Vietnam was an unjust war, what the soldiers went through was certainly not easy, or fair). The Deer Hunter is a movie, ostensibly, about a disregard for working class sacrifice: they, despite being claimed to be the 'silent majority', never got a voice during, or after, the war.

The Godfather Part 3 - 1990

This is an interesting film in one sense: to see how the same themes and ideas can be corrupted and made inane simply by telling them differently. Rather than with some degree of subtlety and sophistication, they are explicitly stated in monologues with dire, and dull, platitudes. The movie insults you for being a fan, for caring about consistent characters. Why the hell should you bother that Michael(Al Pacino) always drew in his anger about being forced into the family?--the movie has him yell lines at the camera as if you're a dumb viewer. I cannot believe the level of stupidity in this movie. One of the worst I've seen, outside of films known to be bad(Slither, etc), in quite some time. Shame on the legacy and cinematic practices in general.