House of Flying Cliches, laboriously presented. Only a self-consciously retro and “pretty” chinese film could get away with some of this creaky stuff. a couple of exciting sequences, especially a fight and chase in a bamboo forest. but perhaps it’s time to ask the same question of Chinese filmmakers like Yimou that the popularity of Kurosawa in the 1970s/80s raised: How much do these costume dramas, calculated to wow western audiences with their scenery, scope, art direction, etc., prevent other more daring and significant films from receiving distribution and reaching larger audiences. I remember the first time I saw the Japanese film “Pigs and Battleships” about Japan immediately after the war—I was amazed because I thought Japanese film was all samourai’s and emperors. Of course, very few people have seen films by either Imamura or Kurosawa, but is it entirely cynical to wonder why Kurosawa in particular was chosen as a “global” film darling?
Shaun of the Dead
This movie is one of my favorite attempts to render Englishness. The heroes of The Full Monty come through despair and learn how to pull themselves up by their bootstraps through cheek and pluckiness. The heroes of Shaun of the Dead go to the pub, when they manage to get off the sofa. Their mothers don’t want to cause a fuss even when gnawed on. I love how everyone’s a zombie before they become zombies.
Also, it was cool when that irritating guy got pulled apart.
Barbarian Invasions
I expected great things from this (watched it the other night), as normally I like movies in which people talk at length in French and not much really happens. I think this movie attempts to address big questions about life–how to live it to its fullest (be a professorial old bore and have lots of mistresses, or be a professorial old bore’s mistress), and how to deal with approaching death (heroin’s your best option) and other invading barbarians (such as terrorists and people who prefer video games to books). But I couldn’t entirely get past the sense that it was really about how crap a national health service is, and how great it is to have lots of money (or a son with lots of money).
On the other hand I still mildly enjoyed it, for its, erm, unhurried pace, and its various small deceptions and complexities, such as the students being paid to tell the teacher they missed him, and the attraction between the risk management professional and the heroin addict. But is this like admitting to having enjoyed The Big Chill?
Ben Stiller
This is really just a test, but I thought I’d try to say something interesting along the way. New Yorker critic David Denby doesn’t like Ben Stiller: “He’s never done much for me.” “He’s not effortlessly funny.” “He looks like a mildly paranoid gibbon.” By the time I read the last comment, I had already dismissed Denby for making, earlier in the piece, the ridiculous error of describing Eugene Levy’s career as “fizzled out” (commercially-speaking, Levy seems to be doing more than all right. He’s in no danger of not finding work. Besides, unlike Martin Short, Levy was never a bona fide star to begin with. So how can his movie career, like Short’s, “fizzle out”? And did Denby not see Levy’s amazing performance in “A Mighty Wind”? The fact is, Levy is talented and we’re seeing him more and more. Isn’t that good? Presumably, if you are funny, talented, prolific, and hairy, Denby will hate you). I know mildly paranoid gibbons, Mr. Denby, and Stiller is no mildly paranoid gibbon.
strayed
we actually watched this a few nights ago. an andre techine film–the only other things i’ve seen by him are “wild reeds” and “my favorite season”, both of which i liked a lot, and possibly more than this. but this is quite good too. france, ww-2 right before the armistice with germany. a young mother and her children are escaping from paris when their refugee convoy is bombed (a truly horrific scene but not quite as traumatic as the black and white footage of real carnage that opens the film). they fall in with a strange young man and proceed to sit out the war for a little while. not a whole lot happens but you stay tense throughout. people connect, don’t connect and there’s no real resolution.
emanuelle beart plays the mother and the makeup people fail gallantly at trying to make her seem plain.
equilibrium
why the hell did i watch this?
apparently in the future high and low emotions will be outlawed and chemically prevented so as to prevent war and crime. that’s all well and good but why must the new cops who enforce this have to be named grammaton clerics? and why is everybody in resistance movements in these movies always so morose? whatever happened to the jolly french resistance with their jaunty berets and their devil-may-care attitude?
whatever happened to john sayles?
we watched silver city some nights ago. it was interesting enough but pitched almost entirely like a lecture meets low-key agit-prop. sayles still writes interesting dialog but his films are growing increasingly tedious. it is almost like he doesn’t trust his audience to connect the dots anymore. and the principal casting is seriously off in this film. whatever happened to the man who wrote and directed passion fish, matewan, lone star and men with guns? even the flawed limbo was much better than this–actually i quite liked that movie.
does anyone know how he finances his films? i think it might have been the much maligned roger ebert who once noted that sayles’ career, quietly, regularly making interesting movies for 20 years now, makes you look askance at scorcese and lee’s complaints about hollywood not allowing room for interesting films.
american cinema in the 70s
michael mentioned 70s cinema in connection with “the osterman weekend”. a couple of years ago sunhee and i had quite the 70s festival via netflix: we watched “the parallax view”, “the conversation”, “dog day afternoon”, “network” etc. in quick succession. was this truly the last great decade of american film or are we remembering only the good stuff and glossing over all the dreck? after all, this is also the decade of the “airport” films. but it does seem like films were being made in the 70s within the studio system that were more thoughtful and which sidestepped the high/low art schema.
speaking of “dog day afternoon”: whatever happened to that al pacino?
So Bad, etc.
I saw a bit of The Osterman Weekend on TV the other day. It got me thinking–Are there other movies that are really quite bad as conventional movies but that are nevertheless great. The Osterman Weekend, taken as a conventional thriller is really ridiculous–it makes next to no sense and it includes an extended slow motion sequence involving crossbows. However, as a document of decline , corruption and paranoia it’s unbelievably right on. everyone in the movie seems to be a victim of coke addiction and gin sweats. I feel edgy and upset watching it. John Hurt and Dennis Hopper in particular look like they might die onscreen. If I were to teach a course on movies of the 1970s I would use this film to catch its “mood” rather than something “well-made” but hardly as compelling like “All the President’s Men.” Something about Peckinpah that allows him to take a piece of Robert Ludlum nonsense, hardly direct it at all and yet still make a very personal movie?
Horror films
Great horror films, of late? Anyone? Suggestions for late-night viewing? John’s teaching this, so I’m assuming he’ll pipe up.
The original “Ringu” films make no sense but are very scary.
“Audition” (Takashi Miike) is unnerving.
“The Others” was very good.
“Open Water” was dull. I wish the yuppies had gotten eaten quicker; even at 80 minutes the film dragged.