It's always refreshing to see the marvelously formulaic film noir genre try a few new tricks. By now we all know the hallmarks: urban setting, femmes fatales, expressionistic lighting, world-weary protagonist, etc. Here is a film, directed by the masterful Nicholas Ray, that tries a few refreshing twists on the old formulas.
At first it seems as though we are in for the same old, same old. Robert Ryan plays a cynical, washed-up cop with no hope or ethics left. He works the dirty city streets and has let them soil his soul. But just when we think we know where this is going, the story opens up. Ryan is assigned to a case in the country in the winter, and suddenly the film noir has gone blanc, with a setting of a countryside full of snow and a bucolic mountain cabin. Ida Lupino is no femme fatale, either; instead she is a gentle blind woman who is trying to protect her murderous but uncomprehending brother. And instead of seducing or destroying Ryan, she sets out to open his heart and make him forget the cynicism he embraced in the city.
Openness is a theme that resounds through "On Dangerous Ground". While its script and performances are fine if not outstanding, it deserves credit for attempting to toy with some very familiar conventions. The ideas of taking the police chase off the city streets and setting it in a snow-covered field or making the lone female a character of sympathy instead of disdain show a willingness to experiment with form that was all too infrequently attempted by noir directors. Ray, of course, would go on to prove himself a master at transcending genre, and "On Dangerous Ground" shows this tendency of his just beginning to take form.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
N is a Number, 3 stars
Any comments I have on this film must be prefaced by the fact that I am not the target market for this film. It is a modest, charming documentary about the mathematician Paul Erdos, of whom I was vaguely aware before seeing this film. I suppose I know more about him after seeing it, though it would have been difficult for me to know less.
I will give the film credit for being as layperson-friendly as possible in the segments where Erdos himself is not speaking. The filmmakers try to drum up interest in Erdos' love life and curiously vagrant lifestyle, which are indeed charming peculiarities of the man himself. Erdos, when he speaks, is witty, expansive, and curious. However, he simply does not make for a compelling screen presence. Those viewers who tune out at the more technical segments will not find much between those segments to hold their interest. As someone with a passing and general interest in mathematics, I found this to be a serviceable documentary that is unlikely to convert anyone to a life in math. However, if you too have a general interest in getting to know more about one of the leading figures of modern mathematics, this is a perfectly fine place to start.
I will give the film credit for being as layperson-friendly as possible in the segments where Erdos himself is not speaking. The filmmakers try to drum up interest in Erdos' love life and curiously vagrant lifestyle, which are indeed charming peculiarities of the man himself. Erdos, when he speaks, is witty, expansive, and curious. However, he simply does not make for a compelling screen presence. Those viewers who tune out at the more technical segments will not find much between those segments to hold their interest. As someone with a passing and general interest in mathematics, I found this to be a serviceable documentary that is unlikely to convert anyone to a life in math. However, if you too have a general interest in getting to know more about one of the leading figures of modern mathematics, this is a perfectly fine place to start.
12 Angry Men, 4 stars
Well, don't I feel sheepish. Here I was, paying most of my attention to this movie and finding a well-acted but psychologically trite drama that, for its time period, I found to be well above average. Then I went to read the secondary literature on it and found that the director, Sidney Lumet, had subtly changed the focal length of his lenses to pull us more into the action and flatten out the frame as the film progressed to create a sense of claustrophobia. I had one of those forehead-slapping moments where I thought I should just be sent back to film analysis 101 until I learn to notice these things myself.
After forgiving myself, however, I did not alter my rating of the film. Its flaws are unimproved by this new knowledge about the lenses. While it is a taut drama that was probably quite daring formally for its time, the fact remains that the psychology of the film is suspect. It is unlikely that men with such strong personalities would change their minds in the course of an afternoon, and that they would reveal their psychological failings so quickly to a roomful of other men that they barely know. The film's strengths are many, however: the aforementioned "lens plot", the performances (Henry Fonda is rightly praised but the entire cast is deserving), and the formal daring required to set a film essentially in one room, in near-real time, and trust the script and performers to draw the audience into such a closed setting.
This is a classic film for those interested in the law, and I read with interest that a remake has been made in Russia which addresses the Chechen conflict there. I also note that this remake is nearly twice as long as the original. It will be interesting to see what "12" (the remake) does with such a tight, flawless conceit as the one found in the classic "12 Angry Men".
After forgiving myself, however, I did not alter my rating of the film. Its flaws are unimproved by this new knowledge about the lenses. While it is a taut drama that was probably quite daring formally for its time, the fact remains that the psychology of the film is suspect. It is unlikely that men with such strong personalities would change their minds in the course of an afternoon, and that they would reveal their psychological failings so quickly to a roomful of other men that they barely know. The film's strengths are many, however: the aforementioned "lens plot", the performances (Henry Fonda is rightly praised but the entire cast is deserving), and the formal daring required to set a film essentially in one room, in near-real time, and trust the script and performers to draw the audience into such a closed setting.
This is a classic film for those interested in the law, and I read with interest that a remake has been made in Russia which addresses the Chechen conflict there. I also note that this remake is nearly twice as long as the original. It will be interesting to see what "12" (the remake) does with such a tight, flawless conceit as the one found in the classic "12 Angry Men".
Monday, October 5, 2009
The Racket, 3 stars
Now here is the perfect definition of a formulaic film noir. The formula goes something like this:
((Robert Mitchum + Robert Ryan) x (gangsters + cops)) + shadows + women= "The Racket".
A perfectly serviceable film, but for excitement or technique it's best to look elsewhere.
((Robert Mitchum + Robert Ryan) x (gangsters + cops)) + shadows + women= "The Racket".
A perfectly serviceable film, but for excitement or technique it's best to look elsewhere.
Inglourious Basterds, 4.5 stars
Well, it's obviously been quite a while since I saw this film, and in the meantime I have been pleased to see an entire eloquent and vital web discussion spring up around the film. Strong arguments have been made on all sides, and while I happen to think the film is a masterpiece I can definitely see the points of view of those who disagree in whole or in part with that opinion.
The film itself is almost secondary to the controversies at this point, but this is not a "controversist" blog, so I will attempt to confine myself to the strengths of the film as I see them and only bring in other sources when necessary. The film is a revisionist World War II fantasy filtered through the lens of spaghetti westerns, Nazi exploitation films, and (of all things) The Wizard of Oz. The titular Basterds are a group of American soldiers who make a point of scalping and defacing Nazis wherever they may find them. In a parallel storyline, Shoshanna Dreyfus, the lone survivor of a Nazi massacre of her family, plans to murder all of the top Nazi officials during a premiere of a Nazi film in her theatre in occupied France.
I didn't realize until seeing "Basterds" how much Tarantino influenced the way I read films. I take his manner of reference as a default. When watching something by, for example, the Dardenne brothers, it is much harder for me to spot references because I am so accustomed to the way they are made in Tarantino. But the "Sunset Boulevard" and "Wizard of Oz" references in the theater inferno scene stood out to me instantly. Perhaps this is because Tarantino possesses all the subtlety of a sledgehammer. But I like to think that it is because seeing "Pulp Fiction" at a pivotal and formative age prepared me to read his films naturally and that I have to work harder to understand a style too different from his.
But the question remains: Will you like this film as much as I did? Bizarrely, I believe the best litmus test for this would be your feelings about Bertolucci's "The Dreamers" (not coincidentally my second-favorite film of all time). If you feel that subjugating plot to a general atmosphere of love for the cinema is unfair and boring, perhaps you should skip it. If on the other hand you enjoy the feeling that you are catching Emil Jannings references before the rest of the crowd, and that the filmmaker has secretly planted these Easter eggs for you, the true cinephile, then you will be just as rapt as I was for the movie's perfectly paced running time. If the general idea of the film's alternate history offends you (this has been one of the main "controversies" to which I referred), obviously your time would be better spent elsewhere. For my money, this is one of the best films of the year, even including that Eli Roth..."performance". See it, love it, hate it, but I guarantee you'll have something to talk to your companions about afterward.
The film itself is almost secondary to the controversies at this point, but this is not a "controversist" blog, so I will attempt to confine myself to the strengths of the film as I see them and only bring in other sources when necessary. The film is a revisionist World War II fantasy filtered through the lens of spaghetti westerns, Nazi exploitation films, and (of all things) The Wizard of Oz. The titular Basterds are a group of American soldiers who make a point of scalping and defacing Nazis wherever they may find them. In a parallel storyline, Shoshanna Dreyfus, the lone survivor of a Nazi massacre of her family, plans to murder all of the top Nazi officials during a premiere of a Nazi film in her theatre in occupied France.
I didn't realize until seeing "Basterds" how much Tarantino influenced the way I read films. I take his manner of reference as a default. When watching something by, for example, the Dardenne brothers, it is much harder for me to spot references because I am so accustomed to the way they are made in Tarantino. But the "Sunset Boulevard" and "Wizard of Oz" references in the theater inferno scene stood out to me instantly. Perhaps this is because Tarantino possesses all the subtlety of a sledgehammer. But I like to think that it is because seeing "Pulp Fiction" at a pivotal and formative age prepared me to read his films naturally and that I have to work harder to understand a style too different from his.
But the question remains: Will you like this film as much as I did? Bizarrely, I believe the best litmus test for this would be your feelings about Bertolucci's "The Dreamers" (not coincidentally my second-favorite film of all time). If you feel that subjugating plot to a general atmosphere of love for the cinema is unfair and boring, perhaps you should skip it. If on the other hand you enjoy the feeling that you are catching Emil Jannings references before the rest of the crowd, and that the filmmaker has secretly planted these Easter eggs for you, the true cinephile, then you will be just as rapt as I was for the movie's perfectly paced running time. If the general idea of the film's alternate history offends you (this has been one of the main "controversies" to which I referred), obviously your time would be better spent elsewhere. For my money, this is one of the best films of the year, even including that Eli Roth..."performance". See it, love it, hate it, but I guarantee you'll have something to talk to your companions about afterward.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Satantango, 4.5 stars
When reading others' thoughts on this amazing and completely unique film, I came across the notion (I fear I have forgotten where) that this film was a slap in the face to the "easy" art-house movies that were coming to America in droves in the late 1980's and early 1990's. Loads of family-friendly or unchallenging dramas and comedies were released and were essentially interchangeable at art-house cinemas.
Bela Tarr threw down an unmistakable gauntlet with this 7.5-hour, black-and-white long-take masterpiece. It is a very nearly perfect film, suffering only from some very minor problems with pacing. Honestly, when pacing something this long, it would be a miracle for a director and editor to have absolutely no moments which lag, no moments which make the viewer consult his watch. But for the most part it is madly successful, telling a deceptively simple story of a con man who comes to a collapsing communal farm in an attempt to con the residents out of their savings. Essentially this describes the plot. But the map is not the territory.
The story is told in fragments, dancing around the story like the tango for which the the movie is named. Various perspectives and time changes occur between the movie's 12 portions. 8 and 9 minute unbroken takes are commonplace. This is truly a film which redefines what it means to watch a movie. During some of these takes we at first grow impatient. Then we begin to search the scene for additional points of interest. At some point after that we are simply in the room, drinking and dancing or arguing with the characters. The transition is so subtle that we only realize it when the scene changes and we have the sense of having just left a room ourselves.
This is probably the most humanist film I have ever seen, in a pure and simple interpretation of the word. Tarr clearly knows and loves humanity, and has tried to recreate it as closely as possible while telling a story that is so bleak that it barely allows for love at all. These marvelous contradictions are given room to breathe and develop within Tarr's expansive canvas, and the result is a gift we can only humbly accept and offer murmured thanks.
Bela Tarr threw down an unmistakable gauntlet with this 7.5-hour, black-and-white long-take masterpiece. It is a very nearly perfect film, suffering only from some very minor problems with pacing. Honestly, when pacing something this long, it would be a miracle for a director and editor to have absolutely no moments which lag, no moments which make the viewer consult his watch. But for the most part it is madly successful, telling a deceptively simple story of a con man who comes to a collapsing communal farm in an attempt to con the residents out of their savings. Essentially this describes the plot. But the map is not the territory.
The story is told in fragments, dancing around the story like the tango for which the the movie is named. Various perspectives and time changes occur between the movie's 12 portions. 8 and 9 minute unbroken takes are commonplace. This is truly a film which redefines what it means to watch a movie. During some of these takes we at first grow impatient. Then we begin to search the scene for additional points of interest. At some point after that we are simply in the room, drinking and dancing or arguing with the characters. The transition is so subtle that we only realize it when the scene changes and we have the sense of having just left a room ourselves.
This is probably the most humanist film I have ever seen, in a pure and simple interpretation of the word. Tarr clearly knows and loves humanity, and has tried to recreate it as closely as possible while telling a story that is so bleak that it barely allows for love at all. These marvelous contradictions are given room to breathe and develop within Tarr's expansive canvas, and the result is a gift we can only humbly accept and offer murmured thanks.
Friday, September 4, 2009
Julie & Julia, 3.5 stars
A bland crab cake of a movie like this is disappointing on many levels, because it has such potential. The plot follows Julie Powell, who in a year cooked all 500+ recipes in Julia Child's French cookbook, and Julia Child herself, who is shown discovering her passion for food in postwar France. The movie clearly should have been a conventional biopic of Child, whose life is rich enough for two movies and doesn't need the sagging support of the underdeveloped and somnolent Julie Powell chapters. It seems simply unfair to throw Meryl Streep and Amy Adams together as the protagonists of parallel stories and expect the stories to stand up as equals. The effect the movie leaves is of having been in a room papered half in red leather and half in garish children's wallpaper, and being flung between the halves regularly for two hours.
You can't really blame Amy Adams too much for doing her best with what is clearly an underwritten afterthought to the Julia Child story. Adams makes Julie as appealing as possible (the facts we are given through the screenplay make it impossible to see her as much more than a spoiled child out of her league). The Paris scenes with Child, however, sparkle with a wit and sense of place that the movie's other half lacks. It is encouraging to see Julia and her husband living with gusto and verve and remaining sexually active for their entire lives together, a portrait of marriage not often seen in a conventional Hollywood film. If this had been Julia's movie, it would have been encouraging, new and fresh. However, much like Julie's versions of Julia's food, I can't help feeling that her chapters are a lame and uninspired rehash.
You can't really blame Amy Adams too much for doing her best with what is clearly an underwritten afterthought to the Julia Child story. Adams makes Julie as appealing as possible (the facts we are given through the screenplay make it impossible to see her as much more than a spoiled child out of her league). The Paris scenes with Child, however, sparkle with a wit and sense of place that the movie's other half lacks. It is encouraging to see Julia and her husband living with gusto and verve and remaining sexually active for their entire lives together, a portrait of marriage not often seen in a conventional Hollywood film. If this had been Julia's movie, it would have been encouraging, new and fresh. However, much like Julie's versions of Julia's food, I can't help feeling that her chapters are a lame and uninspired rehash.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
