2010 In Review

It is that time of year when people reflect on the year that has just gone. So I thought I would reflect on the films that were released in 2010. To qualify a film must have been released theatrically in Australia in 2010. I am not the sort of person who goes out and sees every single new film and I have not seen a number of films regarded by many people as the best (or worst) of the year. Throughout this process I was tempted to expand my initial idea for a top and bottom five, so I could fit in more films. But I have stuck fast and these are my absolute favourite, and absolute least favourite for the year (with a couple of honourable mentions in each category). Would love to hear your thoughts on any of these films and especially any films from 2010 not on these two lists which you think should have been. Even you’re feeling really motivated hit me with your top and bottom 5s of the year below.

Bottom 5: These are my five least favourite films released in 2010. Some of these films were quite well reviewed and/or quite popular this year, so I will emphasise the point that these are my personal opinions. The films are rated according to how I personally reacted to them, nothing else. (Dis)honourable mentions for 2010 go to Iron Man 2, The Expendables and Jackass 3D.

#5. The Ghost Writer – But it’s a Polanski film they’ll all scream. That in itself does not make it enjoyable. Good performances from Ewan McGregor and Pierce Brosnan can’t overcome the fact that this is a tired, bland script. I think it’s meant to be a thriller but there was very little tension created. Rain and grey skies do not automatically create atmosphere, and even a nice late twist cannot elevate proceedings above the mundane.

#4. The American – When a film relies totally on its central character, that character should be interesting, and even more importantly believable. Clooney’s character in this was neither. The film is bookended by two spurts of action, in between which very little happens. I think that’s meant to be ‘arthouse’ or something. It’s not, it’s just bloody boring. I’m not the sort of viewer who generally picks the ending that often, but even I saw the conclusion to this coming a mile off.

#3. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo – This is a really nasty film. Sexual assault of and violence towards women is an unfortunate reality of our society, and I think is probably the greatest, most disgusting scourge in it. This film contains totally unnecessary depictions of both. These things should not be shown willy-nilly to show that a character has a ‘disturbed’ past. In fact this had already been established reasonably well before the gratuitous scenes depicting these things appear. Even discounting my revulsion, which some may think is misguided, this was an average thriller at best. The two lead performances were uninspired (based on this performance I struggle to see the hype regarding Noomi Rapace) and the plot held no interest for me. This is the “Da Vinci Code” all over again. Slick, pulp thrillers that for some reason become publishing phenomenon and are then turned into middle of the road films.

#2. The Prince of Persia – This was such a bad experience, it bordered on being physically painful. One of the few films I have seen with no redeeming factors. A slick, totally soulless video game inspired Indiana Jones rip-off. At times the special effects were so dominant this looked more like a game than a film. It would appear every time the director was stuck for something to show he went for a bigger, more meaningless effects shot. If all that and some inept acting from people who should know better (Jake Gyllenhaal, Gemma Arterton & Ben Kingsley) was not enough, they throw in some woeful political references to the Iraq War, Guantanamo Bay and taxation.

The First Ever Scott Pilgrim vs the World Award for Least Favourite Film of the Year:

Scott Pilgrim vs the World – Whilst some films, such as #2 on this list are open about their lowest common denominator, something for everyone approach to filmmaking; this film seemed to think it was so much more. However it wasn’t very original, all it was was self-important and oh so repetitive. The whole ok concept, our everyday hero having to defeat an evil ex-boyfriend with superpowers, was repeated over and over and over again. Some of the ideas sound cool on paper – comic book stylings on screen, novelty weapons in fights, video game health bars for characters – but there is no connection to the narrative. They are just slapped on there because they should be cool, and the audience is expected to get that. If you want to watch a cool, self-aware comic book film then watch Kick-Ass. If you want to watch a second, watch Kick-Ass again. I just hated this film, it’s attitude, the dialogue , the performances. Makes me angry thinking about it, and the fact I spent money to see it.

Top 5: There were some absolutely crackerjack films released in 2010. Contemporary film gets a lot of bagging due to the number of sequels and remakes getting released. I think this is misguided – I don’t care the source of a film, if it is a remake or the fourth sequel in a franchise, I just want something original and enjoyable. I don’t see too many film fans complaining that the Coen Brothers are remaking the John Wayne Western True Grit. I think the common factor in all these five films was that they are original, they all offer something new and surprising whether it be an exciting new actor, script or director. If you have not seen any of the films listed here, then I wholeheartedly recommend you do so. Big, big honourable mentions go to The King’s Speech, A Single Man, Toy Story 3, Brand Nue Day and The Last Station.

#5. Animal Kingdom – One hell of a crime flick, Australian or otherwise. This was gritty, violent and featured one of the scripts of the year. Also one of the ensemble casts of the year, everyone is great in it, Ben Mendelsohn, Guy Pearce, Luke Ford, Jacki Weaver (who is getting the plaudits at the moment), Joel Edgerton, Sullivan Stapleton and newcomer James Frecheville. I cannot wait to see what young director David Michod does next.

#4. The Green Zone – This was sold as ‘Bourne in Iraq’ but is much more than that. Greengrass and Damon delivered what I think is the best film on the Iraq conflict yet made. It doesn’t dodge the politics, the plot is concerned with the intelligence re WMDs in Iraq. Whilst all this is nothing new, it feels fresh because it has rarely if ever been presented in an entertaining way on screen. Don’t like politics in your films? Never fear because this stands up as a crackerjack war thriller aside from all of that. Damon’s character starts out as a man totally committed to the cause he has been sold and gradually begins to question all of that as the narrative unfolds. As good as mainstream ‘Hollywood’ filmmaking gets.

#3. Monsters – Probably the big surprise for me this year. A low budget sci-fi flick that is actually a reserved, wonderful romance film. The two leads are good, and the direction is interesting without being intrusive. The couple of big, monster-driven special effects sequences are also awesome and the fact they manage not to jar with the low-key romance narrative is a testament to the quality of the script. If you were put off by the woeful (and misleading) title of this film then I urge you to give it a look. The whole, really enjoyable experience is topped off by a great central premise (Mexico is off limits because of an alien contamination) and some beautiful Central American scenery.

#2. The Town – From the low of ‘Bennifer’, Ben Affleck has made quite the comeback in recent years, Which is good because he has always come across as one of the system’s more interesting and thoughtful actors (and now director). Judging by this film he could be set for a long Clint Eastwood style career as a director. This Boston set flick is the most authentic feeling film of the year, perhaps stemming from the fact it is Affleck’s home town. It creates a real sense of place, and conveys perfectly what it is to be stuck in a situation that you desperately do not want to be in. Reminds me of Animal Kingdom in terms of violence and grit. But this is filmmaking on a grander stage than the Australian effort and the budget and star power make it a slightly more enjoyable film for me (both are incredible, and could be viewed as companion pieces).

The First Ever Kick-Ass Award for Favourite Film of the Year:

Kick-Ass – Another film with one of the standout scripts of the year. Much is made of the violence and profanity in this film, but I think that both are used well. Has three or four of the best performances of the year as well. This film packs a hell of a punch. Manages somehow to be one of the funniest films of the year whilst also packing in some incredible over the top action sequences. I really think that both this film and Scott Pilgrim were aiming to achieve the same things and please the same core audience. Pilgrim got it wrong by trying to be too clever and witty. This film is both clever and witty, but it does not force it. The result is laid-back hilarity, winking nods to comic book convention and in my opinion the most enjoyable film of the year.

Worth Watching December 2010

Worth Watching:

  • Zoolander (2001), Ben Stiller – Takes the scattershot approach to comedic filmmaking, throw as many jokes as possible in and hope enough come off. They do, this film is both clever and hilarious. Probably the best thing Stiller has ever done, definitely the best thing Billy Zane has ever done.
  • Anchorman (2004), Adam McKay – Maybe the most quotable film ever. Still makes me piss myself even though I have watched it countless times. Ferrell and Rudd in particular deliver comedic caricatures that will remain amongst the most memorable of my generation.
  • Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: The Movie (1990), Steven Barron – This is the live action classic that is still worth a look. Even on my battered Konka 51cm tube telly, on my old VHS copy. Has a really excellent and nuanced plot to build the ‘hero in a half shell’ action on. And a fantastic Casey Jones played by Elias Koteas who would end up impressing much later on in the great Terrence Malick’s The Thin Red Line (1998).
  • Police Squad! (1982), Jim Abrahams, Jerry Zucker & David Zucker – My my this is a silly show. The precursor to the Naked Gun films rocks a hilariously stupid formula with some great wordplay. The running jokes throughout the series get funnier and funnier. And of course it has the late great Leslie Nielson who is in fantastic form. Also worth watching for Johnny the shoe-shine guy who makes a hilarious appearance in each episode including this one featuring Dick Clark:

  • Monsters (2010), Gareth Edwards – Despite the title, this is actually more of a character study. Driven by a fine script, and two really good performances especially from Whitney Able in the female lead. And there are a couple of cool monster set pieces as well if you’re into that kind of thing (isn’t everyone?) with the special effects enhancing, not detracting from a film for once. I loved pretty much everything about this film.
  • Megamind (2010), Tom McGrath – The family animated film market is so saturated these days that I rarely bother unless there’s a big fat Pixar stamp on it. Glad I did on this one. Stellar voice work by Ferrell & Pitt, fantastic soundtrack featuring AC/DC & the gunners compliment a witty, somewhat original superhero storyline.
  • The King’s Speech (2010), Tom Hooper – Grand tale exceedingly well told through a script bursting with humour and pathos. Firth, Rush & Bonham Carter (freed from her husband’s shtick) all deliver exceptional performances amongst the year’s best.
  • Attack of the Giant Leeches (1959), Bernard Kowalski – Sometimes it’s not the film, but the circumstances you watch it in. This is a pretty cool, passable 50s creature flick. But I watched it, talking crap with my Mum and Dad over the remnants of Christmas wine which was a pretty fantastic way to spend an evening.

Not Worth Watching:

  • The Tempest (1979), John Gorrie – Bashing these BBC productions is seen as a prerequisite for many a wanky undergrad. However, unless you are going to innovate (well) performances are the key to any Shakespeare film. But here they range from the so-so, Michael Horden’s Prospero, to the laughable – David Dixon’s distracting, Bowie inspired Ariel. I really had to force myself to sit through all of this.
  • 2010-11 Ashes Series (2010) – Utter junk.

If you only have time to watch one Monsters

Avoid at all costs 2010-11 Ashes Series

A Tribute to Dennis Hopper: David Lynch’s Blue Velvet

The great Dennis Hopper passed away on May 29 of this year, so I thought it was time for a small, very belated tribute. Hopper’s first notable film role was way back alongside James Dean in Rebel Without a Cause (1955). Through Easy Rider (1969) Hopper not only directed and acted in an absolutely fantastic road movie, he also helped bring about a fundamental change in the way Hollywood chose to make movies. More than just being a great actor, Hopper was also a brilliant photographer and artist, known for being willing to try most things. It is reputed that in his later years that Hopper never turned down a job offer. This resulted in his appearance in such questionable films such as Hell Ride (2008), Choke (2000) and the telemovie Firestarter 2: Rekindled (2002). But this period also resulted in a couple of my all time favourite Hopper performances. He played the main bad guy Victor Drazen in the first series of 24 (2001) which I think is a fantastic bit of television filmmaking. Seeing a renowned Hollywood actor pop up unexpectedly in a TV show blew my mind a little. If you are into big action stories with lots of intrigue and double crosses than this series of 24 is about as good as it gets, and that extends to anything made for the big screen. But probably my favourite performance of Hopper’s is his turn on the Gorillaz song “Fire Coming out of the Monkey’s Head”. On Youtube you can find some really cool film clips for the song, but check out this live rendition which I love:

After the monumental failure of Hopper’s directorial follow up to Easy Rider, The Last Movie (1971), personal issues and poor film choices saw his film career really decline. Today I will be checking out the film which began to rehabilitate his acting career – Hopper’s villainous turn in the somewhat eccentric David Lynch’s Blue Velvet (1986). Lynch’s films could be labelled ‘cult’ and are quite divisive. Some think they are masterpieces, whilst others acknowledge his brilliance as a visual stylist, whilst deriding the finished products as nonsensical, and at times exploitative.

Narratively Blue Velvet is a detective story, albeit a very strange one. After his father suffers a stroke Jeffrey, played by Kyle McLachlan returns home from college to aid his recovery. Whilst walking home one day he comes across a severed ear and turns into an amateur sleuth, along the way recruiting a police detective’s daughter Sandy, played by Laura Dern. The villain of the piece is Hopper’s Frank Booth who has kidnapped the family of Isabella Rossellini’s Dorothy to force her to perform sexual favours for him. On the most basic level the film follows Jeffrey’s attempts to solve the mystery of the ear, and Booth’s hold over Rossellini’s character. But that is putting it simplistically. At times the film entrances with truly sublime sequences, whilst at many other times it stutters on. One major issue is that there seems to be a lack of explanation throughout. Apparently Lynch’s first cut of the film ran about 4 hours, whilst the finished film is just under 2. It shows. There are so many gaps, so many unexplained jumps in narrative. Yet despite Lynch needing to edit heavily he includes strange, long interludes such as a creepy, unexplained cabaret performance at a house party by Dean Stockwell’s Ben which added nothing to the film for me. The gaps were so monumental that I actually considered that the narrative was all in Jeffery’s head for a little while. Much of the narrative is driven by him making leaps of logic rather than it actually being explained onscreen so I thought the big twist might be that, ta-da, he was just dreaming. Or that he was just an unreliable narrator, embellishing the mundaneness of his life and this was his resultant daydream.

For me, there was a paradox about the place of Hopper’s performance in this film. I enjoyed it most before Hopper’s character appeared, yet I think his performance is by far the best in the film. I think the film almost does not know what to do with such a fantastically evil villain. Hopper’s performance has become one of the iconic psychopath roles in cinematic history, joining the likes of Anthony Perkins’ Norman Bates and Jack Nicholson’s Joker in Burton’s Batman (1989), which I think his performance is reminiscent of. But it is notable how little time he spends on screen. He explodes on screen, wreaks havoc for 5-10 minutes, a wonderful caricature spitting f-bombs left, right and centre, then leaves. Repeat this 3 or 4 times, and that’s it. Hopper plays evil well. And Lynch generally achieves the balance of having the character be over the top, whilst still maintaining a semblance of believability to him. The two central performances in the film are nice. McLachlan does quirky well, he went on to pretty much make a career out of it, while Dern is very good as the typical girl next door character (she is a very good actress who has proven adept in a range of genres). But the performance remembered from this film, for good reason, is Hopper’s. It is easy to see that this film has been influential. The dead-pan dialogue regarding the merits of Heineken beer could have been written by Tarantino himself. Lynch proves himself adept at creating interest through the use of music. However some of it suffers from a lack of subtlety, although this may be magnified because it has been replicated by other works that followed. An example of this are scenes of violence being accompanied by upbeat, popular music. Something which doesn’t work in this film (and I think rarely works at all). A nice stylistic touch though, at least early in the film is Lynch’s engagement with melodramatic conventions such as emotive music, and the use of slow-motion in emotional moments.

Two themes stood out for me in this film. It does examine the seedy underbelly of society’s clean-cut facade. The film is bookended by sequences of hyper-suburbia – white picket fences, perfectly manicured lawns and flower gardens, all with saturated bright colour. This is stereotypical, perfect American suburbia. At the end of the opening sequence of the film featuring these images, the camera zooms under the lawn, to an extreme close-up of a confined space teeming with cockroaches. The suggestion is clearly that what looks perfect on the surface, has some measure of rottenness underneath. This is a truism really. As Jeffery explains “It’s a strange world isn’t it.” Every night in a given place, even a quiet suburban one, terrible things happen. People are raped, murdered and physically assaulted and so on. Blue Velvet depicts all of these things but in reality I’m not sure how deep this theme is explored really. The point is made, but it is not really examined or illuminated as it could be. For me, the second theme that was predominant was the power of sex. Sex is a wonderful thing, but it can also drive people to do hideous things. A majority of people have probably at some time in their life placed a disproportionate amount of importance on the place of sex in their lives. Lynch extends this to extreme ends. There are strange scenes of sexuality – Dorothy forces Jeffery to get naked at knifepoint and gives him a blowjob because she is equally fearful and aroused when she catches him hiding in her apartment. Soon after Jeffery returns to his hiding place and witnesses Frank sexually assault Dorothy. Inexplicably, once Frank goes, Jeffery and her resume their sexual contact. This is an example of McLachlan’s character not being able to overcome the power of sex. He knows this woman is in no position to be seduced. She has just been assaulted in the most hideous way, and even though she initiates the contact there is no way that he can believe she is in a position to engage on a sexual level. The lure of her body is too much and supersedes all other concerns. Dorothy seemingly utilises sex as a form of punishment. She seems to blame herself for the kidnapping of her family and seeks out sadomasochistic contact with Jeffery as punishment. She continually begs her to hit him in erotic trysts. He resists, but eventually gives in, an act he regrets for the rest of the narrative. The suggestion is that she does not enjoy these things in a physical or psychological manner, but rather they serve as an emotional release for what she is going through. Not a comforting release, but a reaffirmation of her (misguided) belief that she is to blame for Frank’s heinous behaviour.

Maybe some fans of David Lynch films would surmise from this review that I just don’t ‘get’ this film. That’s possible. But for me lack of coherence was the killer for this film, and all Lynch’s style and the terrific performances were unable to overcome this flaw. There is an obvious issue with attempting to write a tribute piece such as this. How honest can you be – What if the film sucks, or the actor I am supposed to me saluting is rubbish in it? In some ways this issue reared its head for me with this blog. This film was so underwhelming for me. There are flashes of excellence, but the second half is such a slog, with little reward (and more than a few brutalities to sit through – Rossellini’s infamous appearance on the lawn, naked & battered). As a calling card for Hopper’s talents though it is not such a bad thing. I don’t know that he has ever given a better performance, on a pure acting level (I don’t claim to have seen anywhere near all his films). But if I want to really enjoy something he has done, I’ll whip out Easy Rider, 24 or my Gorillaz CD, rather than watch this film again.

Verdict: Schooner of Carlton Draught

Progress: 19/1001

Now on Facebook

Hope the festive season is treating everyone well. At least here in Aus it is bringing a raft of really interesting (and hyped) films that are opening over the Christmas break which I will be keen to check out. Working in retail at the moment meant the season has also brought me very little free time to write.

However I have managed to get the time to set up a fan page on facebook for this site. So ‘like’ the page so you can keep up to date with new blogs, as well as the occasional thought in between. I will also be sharing interesting links etc there that don’t really warrant a whole article, but I think are worth checking out nonetheless. I am hoping the page will also help me engage with those of you reading out there a little better and on a more regular basis. Follow the link below to get involved:

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/pages/Not-now-Im-Drinking-a-Beer-and-Watching-a-Movie/129686773759767

 

Worth Watching November 2010

Worth Watching:

  •  The Karate Kid (1984), John G. Avildsen – Now this is a family movie, not the tripe that passes for one these days. Pat Morita has created one of cinema’s most beloved iconic characters in Mr Miyagi & his central relationship with Ralph Macchio’s Daniel is genuinely affecting.
  • Niagara Falls (1897), The Lumiere Brothers – Yep, made 113 years ago. I found it on youtube and was transfixed, watching it over and over again. The Lumiere’s were two of cinemas founding fathers and it is fantastic that these wonderful images are so readily available online. Check it out here friends, pretty incredible stuff:

  • Knockin’ on Heaven’s Door (1997), Thomas Jahn – This life affirming German road flick about two terminally ill men is imbued with more spirit than just about any film I’ve seen. Concerns the fact we are all going to die and the way we should live in the face of that.
  • The Town (2010), Ben Affleck – Really authentic crime flick taking place in Affleck’s Boston. Well made, violent and gritty film about a life of crime, and how hard it is to escape alive.
  • Lucky Country (2009), Kriv Stenders – Interesting early Australia set gothic tale. Wonderful scenery provides the backdrop for a tale that whilst not always completely satisfying still packs enough of a punch to make it worth your while.
  • The Frozen North (1922), Edward F. Cline & Buster Keaton – Hilarious North Pole set short sees Keaton playing against type as a bit of a cad. Really nice Western/pioneer spirit to the film. And typical Keaton hilarity of course. Here it is:

  • Love You Too (2010), Daina Reid – I am a fan of both Brendan Cowell & Peter Helier so had hopes for this gentle comedy. The inclusion of the fantastic Peter Dinklage really makes this worth a look. Plenty of spirit, quite a few laughs, and an emotional kick at the end to the sounds of what is probably my favourite song of all time all impress.

Not Worth Watching:

  • Jackass 3D (2010), Jeff Tremaine – These guys are at their best when they are good-naturedly hurting the shit outta each other. Unfortunately they’ve moved towards stunts featuring bodily fluids and more concerningly animals. I can’t, even in my own small way, endorse a film whose credits state the American Humane Society monitored some scenes & no animals were hurt in those scenes.
  • The Last Sunset (1961), Robert Aldrich – In which Kirk Douglas and his hair venture to the ol’ West. Not even his supreme talents coupled with Joseph Cotten’s can elevate this abysmal clichéd Western with unpalatable themes of incest. Cotten, brilliant as always is on screen far too little. He and Douglas only share one scene – the film’s best.
  • The Tailor of Panama (2001), John Boorman – Cerebral tale featuring Geoffrey Rush on fine form. Let down by a bland and at times nonsensical narrative and the attempts to make Pierce Brosnan’s character look sleazy, which simply serve to portray all women as utterly stupid.
  • The American (2010), Anton Corbijn – Stupid name for a movie really, and for me it was a bit of a nothing film. Confuses nothing really happening for arthouse chops. Entire movie hinged on Clooney’s main character, but I just did not buy him.

If you only have time to watch one Knockin’ on Heaven’s Door

Avoid at all costs The Tailor of Panama

Auster’s Inspiration

Paul Auster is (along with Dennis Lehane) my favourite living author. I am tempted to say he’s the greatest author still writing, but really who reads enough to be able to make such a sweeping statement. Just as since the start of the film industry literature has inspired film, the opposite is also true. Film has inspired some fantastic works of writing. Auster’s The Book of Illusions (2002) is one of these, and it features some spectacular and detailed descriptions of made up silent films and a storyline with a lot of similarities to the life of Fatty Arbuckle. The book, whilst I don’t think it is Auster’s best, is well worth a read, especially for film buffs. But now to the reason for this piece. As a reward for finishing the uni year, I splurged and bought myself a hardcover copy of Auster’s latest book Sunset Park (2010). According to the dust jacket, one of the focuses of the book is William Wyler’s film The Best Years of Our Lives (1946), a film I had only vaguely heard of and discovered was on the 1001 list. Later, reading a review of Auster’s book it mentioned that a couple of characters in it go and see Robert Bresson’s film A Man Escaped (1956), a film I had not heard of but that is also on the list. So, before I get cracking on my favourite author’s new one, I thought I would take a look at these two films which clearly inspired him. I’m not sure how widely available they are at the moment. I managed to hire both of them from Electric Shadows here in Canberra, only on VHS though.

The Best Years of Our Lives was released in the year after the end of World War II and deals explicitly with the plight of returning servicemen attempting to reintegrate into a society they’d been outside of for a number of years. The three servicemen are Fred (air force), Al (army) and Homer (navy). They meet up whilst trying to find a flight back to their fictional all-American hometown of Boone City. The characterisation is extraordinary, with so much delightful detail in the individuals and their interplay. Fred was the highest ranking at War, but class-wise back in civilian life is the bottom of the three. Al, a rank and file soldier in the War is a white collar banker back at home. Their personal situations likewise add interest. Fred had only been married 20 odd days before shipping out, so barely knows his wife. Al has been married twenty years and has missed very important years in his teenage children’s lives. Homer had a sweetheart called Wilma before he left, but having lost both his hands in the war, he is frightened at how she will react to his newfound appearance. Just as he is about to leave the other two to see his family and Wilma, Homer basically begs that they all go back to his Uncle’s bar and have a beer. It is a wonderful scene, and the loving forcefulness with which Al and Fred force him out the door firmly establishes their mateship. All three of these romantic relationships evolve over the course of the film wonderfully. The most nuanced of these involves Al and the love of his life, as he attempts to feel at home in his own home again and she struggles to deal with the man who has returned. The man she loves but one who has clearly picked up some demons at the front. This may all sound a bit forced, but believe me it is not. It also may sound like a lot of detail to provide the necessary elaboration for. And you would be right on that one. But the film runs a whopping two hours and fifty minutes, and it is because it tells all three of these men’s stories in great (but not unnecessary) detail. It is nice also that the interactions between the three do not seem forced or just thrown together for the sake of it. They feel natural, and as a viewer I found my interest piqued when they got together after time apart. I don’t really feel more elaboration on the narrative is particularly necessary. Like I have said this is a film about servicemen reintegrating into society, about the worries that face them upon their return – jobs, women and people trying to “rehabilitate” them.

If you consider melodrama to be synonymous with bad, then sit down and watch the three scenes where these soldiers return to their families and eat your words. Yes they are over the top emotionally and in the acting delivery, but they pack a hell of a punch. You can almost feel the joy of Al’s children when he surprises them, or the awkwardness of Homer’s families when faced with the claws that have replaced his hands (should I stare at them? should I not look at them at all?). This is a war film, but there is not one battle scene in the almost three hours of the film. But the phenomenal script is able to evoke war brilliantly without them, see Homer recounting the sinking of his ship for example. Why show something with a tame re-enactment when you can have it related to you by a character who was there? For a film released in 1946 The Best Years of our Lives pulls no punches. There are frank depictions of drunkenness (not in a merry way, more a pissing away all of life’s problems way) and likewise a rather frank, although brief, exposition of the adultery servicemen resorted to ease the pain of overseas service. Add to this the obvious sexual tension between the married Fred and Al’s daughter Peggy and you have morally a pretty forward film. The film is also rich in social commentary. One of the earliest scenes sees Fred trying desperately to find a commercial flight, a returned hero in full uniform trying to get home to see his wife after years away. A rich fat-cat saunters up to the desk, rudely pushes in front of Fred and talks rudely to the lady on the counter. He then pays for the 16 pounds of excess baggage he feels the need to carry with him. Surely we would prefer Fred get the flight than this rich wanker. Fred can’t get a flight home under any circumstances, but this guy can afford the massive excess baggage as well as his ticket. Also an issue is the lack of respect shown by the businessman toward Fred the returned serviceman. This is echoed throughout the film with the disgruntlement shown towards war returnees as they seek to re-enter the labour market. Fred eventually has to take a job as an assistant to the guy who used to be his assistant, one of those who resents the returning soldiers. As someone (possibly Fred) remarks, “last year it was kill Japs, this year it’s make money.” This readjustment is hellishly hard for the three protagonists. Just as they need to reintegrate into society and the job market, these men also have to reintegrate in the same way into their home situations. Their situation is incomprehensible to me, the world has gone on without them, now need to find their way back into it. This is brilliantly evoked by Wyler and the script through Al’s situation. Not only has he missed the formative teenage years of his kids, he has even forgotten that his wife of 20 years does not smoke. These difficulties rear their head on their first night back home in Boone City. A night that began with so much promise concludes with them all ending up pissed in the same bar, Fred and Homer sans their lady friends. At least the bar owner (and Homer’s Uncle) Butch reassures them it will all be ok “unless there’s another war and we’ll all be blown to bits on the first day”.

Acting wise this is a great ensemble piece. No one really stands out, but by the same token you don’t really notice anyone’s shortcomings. People have bagged the acting abilities of the Peter Lorre-esque (in looks rather than acting), real-life amputee Harold Russell in the role of Homer, but I think he does an excellent job. I certainly found him believable, and more importantly natural. He expertly conveys the plight of a man who has withdrawn into his shell, intent on proving to the world that he is still an able man. The performance does not have the staidness that often afflicts those put in films for reasons other then their pure acting ability. Any shortcomings he does have as an actor are drowned out by the incredible dexterity he shows with the hooks that have replaced his hands throughout the film, such as being able to light and smoke a cigarette with ease. And to this day, Russell remains the only person to receive two Oscars for the same performance. He was nominated for best supporting actor in 1947, but was considered such an outsider to win the Academy awarded him a special Oscar for “bringing hope and courage to his fellow veterans”, before he went on to win the other gong as well. Although the film is centred around the three male protagonists, the women give able support. Teresa Wright plays Al’s daughter Peggy and is excellent, just as she is in Hitchcock’s Shadow of a Doubt (1943). Her character goes on a wonderful emotional and romantic journey that matches those of any of the male characters on the film. She switches from determined home wrecker, to a woman refusing to allow her heartbreak to manifest externally with aplomb and believability. Her mother in the film played by Myrna Loy is similarly fantastic in a more traditional support role (with Wright’s Peggy at times borders on being a lead character). The sound design and music on the film also really stood out for me, which is strange because it is the kind of element that I do not generally notice in a film. It really accentuates the action, and not just in bombastic moments. It is fantastic in the scene where Al wakes up with a brutal hangover after the first night back home for example.

I have mentioned a couple of times throughout this piece just how long this film is. Don’t let that put you off the film is measured, taking its necessary time to get where it is going but does not drag. I always thought that the soldiers attempting to reintegrate into society subgenre was borne out of the Vietnam conflict, but this film and Key Largo (1948) have convinced me that this is far from the case, and it was clearly a major issue far earlier. This film is an all-time classic. The script is beyond belief, and surely has very few peers in film history. It is a tale of friendship that that manages to be both serious and uplifting, combining a whole bunch of characters and storylines into borderline perfection.

Verdict: Longneck of Melbourne Bitter

Robert Bresson’s A Man Escaped is renowned as a minimalist, realist masterpiece. This actually made me a bit wary in approaching this film as I often find films that aim for stringent realism to feel forced, confusing boredom with realism. Our real lives are a little mundane which is why we attempt to lose ourselves in the fantasy world of cinema, no need to recreate it on screen. Early on A Man Escaped threatens to fall victim to this with a scene in a car with extremely shaky camerawork, and silence the belies the fact that cars generally make some noise. Thankfully though the realism throughout the film became more subtle as it went on.

Based on a true story, the film chronicles the attempts of Lieutenant Fontaine to escape Nazi custody. When he is imprisoned at the start of the film Fontaine is shocked and confused as to why his life was spared after he attempted to escape whilst being transported. Soon after incarceration he begins plotting his next escape by digging at his wooden door using a spoon. Bresson, through the early part of the film establishes a neat dichotomy, the men are kept in solitary cells so are essentially on their own, yet a camaraderie springs up between them. This is achieved through communication by tapping on cell walls and over the sink as they clean themselves. The body of the film comes in the form of Fontaine’s small victories in his quest. Managing to pick the lock on his handcuffs, getting out his door, to the hallway, the skylight – a gradual progression that is really well paced. Knowing that the only way to escape his fate is to escape the prison, Fontaine’s determination never wavers. It is given impetus when he is advised that he will soon face execution as the investigation (definitely not trial) into his circumstance has been completed. When he returns to his cell after hearing the news, Fontaine has a cellmate for the first time in the film. At this stage he is very suspicious of the new arrival, believing he may be a spy. The conundrum of whether to take the newcomer with him on his escape is expertly built up. Take him or kill him is the question Fontaine agonises over. Actually the overall tension builds up very slowly throughout the whole film, culminating in the lengthy final escape sequence.

Sound is employed incredibly well by Bresson throughout the film. Generally there is no music. Just silence overlaid with the sounds of Fontaine working – chiselling at the door or manipulating cloth into rope. With many realist features there is not much to talk about regarding technique. And for the most part A Man Escaped fits this mould. It is generally pretty simply shot. The film does make fantastic use of close-ups though. Much of the film consists of close-ups of Fontaine at work, especially when he is digging away at the door to his cell with a spoon. For a POW film there is remarkably little violence, and what there is is generally shown off-screen, with the bloody aftermath shown. However not even this is seen after the film’s most harrowing violent outbursts. These come when bursts of machine gun fire signal that yet another execution has taken place. The effect of this is quite startling, with the loud cacophony exploding against the preceding silence for maximum effect. Thematically the film has a real existential bent to it. The notions of solitude and community are contrasted with one another. One of the prisoners is a priest who copies out bible versus for Fontaine. Fontaine himself appears to have a quiet faith but is more than willing to take things into his own hands, remarking that “it would be too easy if God did it all.”

The great triumph of the film for me was its handling of realism. It brings authenticity to the film rather than boredom. The film is something of a restrained masterpiece. Contrasts between silence and sound are used for emphasis, and Bresson appears to be in total control of his art form. This is a wonderfully textured film and in many ways has restored my faith in the value of realism on screen.

Verdict: Pint of Kilkenny

Progress: 18/1001

The Phantom of the Opera

Andrew Lloyd Webber’s version is probably the best known version these days, but the Carl Laemmle directed film version of The Phantom of the Opera (1925) was an early classic that has stood the test of time reasonably well. It is most notable now because it features ‘the man of 1000 faces’ Lon Chaney in the titular role. I will soon be putting up a review of The Wolfman (1941) which stars his son Lon Chaney Jr who delivers what I think is one of the top 5-10 performances of all time in that film. The attraction of seeing his dad in this film was one of the main reasons I chose to check it out.

The story concerns the Phantom who lurks deep below the opera house in Paris, and Christine, the woman he has fallen for. This film has a lot of bland, flat narrative bits. Nothing is really happening, the direction is uninspiring and the acting outside of Chaney (who is excellent) is serviceable but nothing to write home at. Running 93 minutes, the film feels far too long. A prevalence of shadows, black cats and spiderwebs mean it opens quite atmospherically but this for some reason is lost quite early on in and is not regained. But interspersed throughout this flatness are some absolutely stunning moments. The Phantom causing a massive chandelier to fall to the ground during a performance causing widespread panic, the first time we see his masked face, and the film’s surprising shift into Technicolour where the Phantom appears at a masquerade ball as death dressed in stark red. Without a doubt though the film’s high point is the stunning first unmasking of the Phantom. After warning his muse Christine never to remove his mask, she cannot control her curiosity. She pulls off his mask, with Chaney sitting front on to the camera as the Phantom’s hideous facial features are revealed for the first time. The shock on his face is mirrored by the audiences. The makeup (apparently done by Chaney himself) still looks spectacular even by today’s standards.

In fact a lot of the design elements of this film are top-notch, helping to compensate for the narrative shortcomings. The costumes are opulent and excellent. The Phantom’s aforementioned facial appearance is incredible, as are the two masks he wears throughout the film. When dressed as red death in the ballroom sequence the skull mask he wears is chilling. Likewise the mask he wears for a lot of the film is creepy even today, much more so than the style popularised by Lloyd Webber’s Phantom. Stark white, almost skinlike, with it just hanging off the bottom of his face. Don’t know if it was because I watched this alone after midnight the other night, but I was well and truly creeped out by it. The main opera house set is also incredible. It is massive and ornate, the scale of set is something that you would not really expect from a mid 1920s film and having it bustling with extras adds to a wonderful sense of Parisian excess. The sewer-like underground lair of the Phantom is also monumentally constructed, including vast water sources which need to be crossed in a boat.

This film is worth a watch, just to see such an early rendering of this story. And the high points are really really high. But the flatness of much of the storyline mean it is not the wholly enchanting experience it threatened to be. Check it our here, and let me know if you agree:

Verdict: Stubby of Reschs

Progress: 16/1001

Stop Your Rambling #2

My earlier blog titled Stop Your Rambling proved relatively popular. So I thought I would make it a semi-regular feature. Three films from the 1001 list, one thousand words. Here we go.

Goodfellas (1990) – The film that sends Scorsese fanboys all around the world into fits of delirium. Don’t even get them started on the Coco Cabana tracking shot please.

Based on a true story the film charts the rise of young Henry Hill, played by Ray Liotta, through the ranks of the mob. Especially it focuses on his relationship with the utterly psycho Tommy, played by Joe Pesci who is very good, and Robert De Niro’s James Conway. Strangely when Henry and Tommy are meant to be young, early twenties up and comers they are played by actors who are, and look somewhere between 40-50. Usually I let these things slide in a film, but it jars for me in this. Especially because the film covers a lot of time (20-30 years) and there are really no signs of ageing, except De Niro whacking some more grey in his hair. Initially there is great camaraderie between these characters and their mob brethren. It is amazing how quickly though loyalty goes out the window though when someone ends up in jail or there is more money to be made from disloyalty. Money is king to these men, and they’ll forsake anyone to get a little more. They also enjoy killing people for very little reason and treating women (generally their wives) like utter shit. Eventually, like any golden-age gangster flick, these guys all get what’s coming to them.

This is a film clearly made by an expert, its very pretty to look at. Scorsese is extremely proficient, mixing up the straightforward shooting with point of view and tracking shots. And as far as late gangster flicks go it’s generally regarded as the pick of the pack. It’s just not a real personal favourite of mine and for me never reaches the heights of a great film. I don’t find it particularly exciting and I don’t relate to these characters at all.

Verdict: Stubby of Reschs

Thelma and Louise (1991) directed by Ridley Scott before he felt the need to make every film with Russel Crowe, in many ways turned the road film on its head. Geena Davis’ Thelma and Susan Sarandon’s Louise are two Arkansas ladies looking to escape the shitty men in their lives for a few days. After Louise shoots a would-be rapist they end up on the run, with Thelma dabbling in armed robbery to finance proceedings.

I am a massive fan of Geena Davis, she is an outstanding actress. And the journey of her character carries this film, ably supported by Sarandon in a less flashy role. Actually the acting in this film in general is superb. Harvey Keitel is wonderful as a caring cop as is Michael Madsen as Louise’s man, gradually managing to be less of an asshole. Their brief onscreen relationship is really nicely done. Finishing second only to Davis in the acting stakes is Christopher McDonald as her hilariously deadbeat husband. Shooter McGavin from the classic Happy Gilmore (1996) is so smarmy I lost count of the times I wanted to smack that moustache right off his face.

The fleeing of the women across the states allows Scott to pile on the gorgeous widescreen shots of the American countryside, always under impossibly blue skies. The confronting attempted rape of Thelma triggers an increasingly out of control chain of events including numerous crimes perpetrated by the two ladies. Witnessing Davis’ Thelma grow from timid housewife to an utter badass who doesn’t take shit from anyone is terrific fun. And the ending. Wow. I won’t give it away, but if you have seen in let me know what you think of it. I’m a little torn by it, but I do appreciate the fact that Scott avoids any level of tweeness in his conclusion, which is where I thought the film was heading.

Verdict: Pint of Kilkenny

Dersu Uzala (1974) is the first Kurosawa film I’ve seen. Best known for The Seven Samurai (1954) Kurosawa is probably the most famous ‘world’ cinema director in history. Set in the early 1900s this is possibly the strangest ‘buddy’ film I’ve ever seen. It chronicles the relationship between the leader of a Russian military surveying team and an elderly woodsman. The woodsman, named Dersu and played by Maksim Mumzuk is one of the great characters of cinema. This compact man is at first mocked by the soldiers for his strange, in their eyes primitive ways. However gradually all the soldiers learn to love and respect Dersu, which sounds a bit lacklustre in theory, but the delivery is anything but. The Captain, played by Yuri Solomin who is incredible, recognises the wisdom of Dersu very early on and rightfully places a great deal of trust in his elderly colleague. These two are backed by a support cast of really interesting characters.

A number of set-pieces including Dersu saving the captain’s life by building a makeshift shelter as the night closes in and one involving a raft took my breath away. In some ways this film is reminiscent of Herzog’s Aguirre, the Wrath of God (1972) but I personally think it is superior. It is shot in a very naturalistic style which reflects the themes of civilisation vs wilderness perfectly. The film was shot over two years in Siberia, and the result is one of the most scenic films I have ever witnessed. The shots of a wilderness probably none of us will ever witness in person are a gift. The sound effects of nature are turned right up, so bird calls, wind and rustling of leaves punctuate the action.

A lot of the notes I took while watching this film were just single words – philosophical, beguiling, metaphorical. This is one of those films that cannot be adequately described by words. It has immediately become one of my absolute favourite films and I would encourage you all to check it out. But make sure you watch it with subtitles, not the infernal dubbing.

Verdict: Longneck of Melbourne Bitter

Progress: 15/1001

Worth Watching October 2010

Worth Watching:

  • Number Seventeen (1932), Alfred Hitchcock – Fantastic early Hitchcock mystery yarn with gothic overtones. Exhibits much of the maestro’s professed adoration of early German directors such as Murnau.
  • The Other Guys (2010), Adam McKay – Pretty standard Will Ferrell fare. You either love or loathe his work and I belong to the former camp. Marky Mark is superb.
  • Pumping Iron (1976), George Butler – Really well made bodybuilding doco featuring a relatively young Arnie. Notable for him saying how working out is like “caahmming” for him, and also the fact he’s a bit of an ass.
  • Black Books Season 2 (2002) – Possibly even funnier than season 1.
  • My Mother India (2001), Safina Uberoi – Simply shot but interesting Aussie doco which brings an alternate view of life in the diaspora. Aussie mother living in India is profiled by her Indian daughter living in Australia.
  • Kick Ass (2010), Matthew Vaughan – Everything Scott Pilgrim coulda, shoulda, woulda been. Emotionally punchy, violent, utterly hilarious. Doesn’t take itself too seriously and features some rockin action sequences to boot. My favourite 2010 release thus far.
  • Justice League – The New Frontier (2008), Dave Bullock – Cold War set animated feature clearly influenced by Alan Moore’s “The Watchmen”. Builds interesting, wonderfully ambiguous characters that overcome the OTT American patriotism, & the league’s triumph disappointingly being totally down to one character.
  • Edge of Heaven (2007), Fatih Akin – I bagged Akin’s tepid In July last month but this film knocked me out. A gloriously shot chronicle of the gaps between generations, ideologies, families, ethnicities, borders, languages & classes. Powerful and crushing.
  • Shakespeare in Love (1998), John Madden – I hated this when forced to watch it years ago. It’s actually piss-funny and even the slightest Shakespearean knowledge lets you in on a bevy of in jokes. Elevates in the second half into something quite special. A ‘romantic comedy’ actually worth seeing.

Not Worth Watching:

  •  The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo (2009), Niels Arden Oplev – Picturesque but overrated thriller featuring unnecessary depictions of violence & sexual assault against women. Two average lead performances anchor what is a pretty reprehensible film. Avoid.
  • Bagdad Cafe (1987), Percy Adlon – Starts off very interesting. But the introduction of the usually intriguing Jack Palance in a posturing and annoying performance and a supremely unlikeable main character makes this easy to pass on. Equal parts boredom & overt sentimentality.
  • Two Minute Warning (1976), Larry Peerce – A fantastic premise for an action flick – a sniper loose in a packed footy stadium. Most of it is executed well, especially the cool first person view shots from the killers perspective. But the ending is so horrible & incomprehensible that this definitely can’t be recommended.
  • Henry V (1989), Kenneth Branagh – Branagh is an excellent director, but this film is riddled with miscasting – the director in the title role most of all, he makes an effeminate king. What’s with the Obi Wan Kenobi cloak? And most puzzling of all, why no explanation of the king’s lack of lips? Olivier told this tale on film much better.
  • Absolute Power (1997), Clint Eastwood – This thriller is a pretty abysmal film. Eastwood, Gene Hackman, Ed Harris, Laura Linney, David Palmer, David Palmer’s wife and Richard Jenkins all feature. They shouldn’t have bothered.

If you only have time to watch one Kick Ass

Avoid at all costs The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo

Worth Watching September 2010

Obviously I watch a lot of things that are not on the 1001 list, and that I don’t write detailed blogs on. So I thought each month I would write a quick summary at the end of each month about what I have seen. The onus here is keeping it really short and simple. I even decided against the witty names I came up with for these categories, in favour of simply telling you if its worth your time or not. And right at the end I’ll select the one you really must see, and the one I suggest you avoid at all costs. Enjoy. Also please feel free to share your thoughts about these films in the comments section of this post.

Worth Watching:

  • Milk (2008), Gus Van Sant – Flawed but still exceedingly interesting biopic, carried by a trio of terrific performances by Penn, Franco & especially Brolin.
  • Lessons of Darkness (1992), Werner Herzog – Beguiling ‘documentary’ by the German maestro on the first Gulf War. Like nothing you have ever seen before – slow paced with astounding visuals. Check it out.
  • La Soufriere (1977), Werner Herzog – More straightforward doco effort from Herzog, still worth a look. He ventures to an almost abandoned island where a catastrophic volcano eruption is imminent. He seems disappointed when it doesn’t come about.
  • Black Books Season 1 (2000) – I’m looking at implementing much of what I’ve seen here into my day job. Hilarious.
  • Titus (1999), Julie Taymor – A notable failure. Not everything in this adaption of Shakespeare’s most violent play works. But worth watching for its visual style and a sequence involving cannibalism, Anthony Hopkins in a chef’s uniform and a dude getting stabbed with a candlestick holder.
  • Them! (1954), Gordon M. Douglas – Fantastic classic sci-fi film which sees the American countryside threatened by giant ants. Say no more.
  • Chicago Cubs Highlights on http://www.cubs.com (2010) – The cubs are winning the occasional game, always a nice change. And the MLB has excellent highlights on the club websites.
  • The Human Body (1998), BBC – Typically assured doco from the BBC tracking the physical form’s journey from birth to death.
  • Tomorrow When the War Began (2010), Stuart Beattie- Initially I had this film in the other section, cause its definitely flawed, especially script wise. But I really hope that the second film gets greenlit, cause Australia needs to produce a wide variety of films including big budget, slick ones featuring young Aussie actors directed by an Australian featuring a wonderful soundtrack of Aussie artists. This is also relatively enjoyable, with a solid young cast and a couple of good set-pieces. So go, see and support this film, so we can see others like it, that improve on its flaws somewhat.

Not Worth Watching:

  • Winter Sleepers (1997), Tom Tykwer – I’m doing a German film course at uni this semester which has introduced me to some astounding films, but this is not one of them. Crap.
  • Scott Pilgrim vs the World (2010), Edgar Wright – Tries way too hard to be cool and gets ultra repetitive very quickly. Even manages to make a cute girl wielding a novelty sized hammer in a fight seem bland.
  • In July (2000), Fatih Akin – Turkish-German romantic comedy which is not bad, just extremely mediocre and not worth your time. Just cause a Turkish-German director makes a bad Hollywood style rom-com, doesn’t make it any good or interesting.
  • NRL Finals Series (2010) – Stupid Panthers.

If you only have time to watch one Lessons of Darkness.

Avoid at all costs Scott Pilgrim vs the World.