Palestine. Important Movie.
This is the reason to go to SIFF films. A guy has his first kid and so he buys a video camera. Just so happens he lives in the West Bank, in a village that the Government is grabbing up pieces of to build settlements, and there are a lot of street protests. Our guy ends up documenting just how this is done, the small bore daily grind of being occupied, and the protests. The title refers to the number of cameras taken out during protests. He left in a lot of the footage that every proud father in the world makes of their kids. Birthday parties, that sort of thing. Then very polite Israeli Army guys politely ordering people off their land. I have a maxim that injustice makes people crazy. Marion and I agreed to leave early, just because we could see where things were headed and could not bear to watch.
Saturday, June 2, 2012
As Luck Would Have It
Spain. Recommended
I found this to be a strange movie. I have to say, Spanish movies, especially comedies, often have this effect on me because they do not seem to follow the rules. They are too funny for a drama and too serious for a comedy. On some level, messing with preconceptions has to be a good thing, and in this case the movie is very well made and very well acted.
This is billed as a satirical black comedy . Black humor, saith Wikipedia, is sub-genre of comedy and satire in which laughter arises from cynicism and skepticism. This movie does not follow that rule. The comedy in it is not subversive or especially satirical in, say, the Daily Show manner of satire. The funny parts are conventionally funny, there is one running gag that straight up slapstick. The funny parts are, indeed, funny and there are many laughs to be had. The dramatic parts are not in the service of any comedic end, they are Drama. The great Selma Hayak has a straight up dramatic role, I do not think she has any funny lines at all, and her character is really the heart of the movie. I freely admit that I cry at movies, pretty much on cue. I cried at this one more than any film so far.
I found this to be a strange movie. I have to say, Spanish movies, especially comedies, often have this effect on me because they do not seem to follow the rules. They are too funny for a drama and too serious for a comedy. On some level, messing with preconceptions has to be a good thing, and in this case the movie is very well made and very well acted.
This is billed as a satirical black comedy . Black humor, saith Wikipedia, is sub-genre of comedy and satire in which laughter arises from cynicism and skepticism. This movie does not follow that rule. The comedy in it is not subversive or especially satirical in, say, the Daily Show manner of satire. The funny parts are conventionally funny, there is one running gag that straight up slapstick. The funny parts are, indeed, funny and there are many laughs to be had. The dramatic parts are not in the service of any comedic end, they are Drama. The great Selma Hayak has a straight up dramatic role, I do not think she has any funny lines at all, and her character is really the heart of the movie. I freely admit that I cry at movies, pretty much on cue. I cried at this one more than any film so far.
Unforgivable.
France. Meh.
I do not know what this movie is for. Really attractive people in a beautiful place with what I think is an incoherent story that takes the audience no place. The audience seemed to love it because, I guess, it is very Francais. To me its even more of a carbon copy of every other French film ever made.
I think this is a good place for me to expound on the general uselessness and specific evils of movie reviews. Lots of people loved the movie I just slammed. Why would you pay any attention at all to whether I liked it? No good reason. I know nothing about what anyone but me likes. Screw what I think! Also screw what Anthony Lane of David Denby or any other reviewer thinks. And most of all, screw Pauline Kael in her grave. Wake her up and let her die again, says I. A review rarely enhances ones appreciation of a movie one has yet to see. They mainly spoil movies, either by giving the viewer this extra 30 pounds of baggage to carry into the film or by dissuading the person from attending in the first place. I actually love reading Denby and Lane, they are very gifted writers. But my rule is that I only read beyond the first paragraph if I have seen the movie or have decided not to see the movie. Most of my best movie experiences has been watching films about which I knew nothing going in.
So this begs the question (as that phrase is used these days) why I am writing all these blurbs. First, because this time of year everyone I know asks me about the movies I’ve seen and I can never think of anything to say. Lets face it, when you are attending 3 or 4 movies a day, its hard to even remember what you have seen. No one I do not know is likely to read this blog, and to know me is to know that I am a blowhard. Cheap copout, I know. Mostly I write this stuff because I think a lot of the movies that can only be seen at festivals are Important and should be widely seen, and if I can influence a few of my friends to go, I have done good.
I do not know what this movie is for. Really attractive people in a beautiful place with what I think is an incoherent story that takes the audience no place. The audience seemed to love it because, I guess, it is very Francais. To me its even more of a carbon copy of every other French film ever made.
I think this is a good place for me to expound on the general uselessness and specific evils of movie reviews. Lots of people loved the movie I just slammed. Why would you pay any attention at all to whether I liked it? No good reason. I know nothing about what anyone but me likes. Screw what I think! Also screw what Anthony Lane of David Denby or any other reviewer thinks. And most of all, screw Pauline Kael in her grave. Wake her up and let her die again, says I. A review rarely enhances ones appreciation of a movie one has yet to see. They mainly spoil movies, either by giving the viewer this extra 30 pounds of baggage to carry into the film or by dissuading the person from attending in the first place. I actually love reading Denby and Lane, they are very gifted writers. But my rule is that I only read beyond the first paragraph if I have seen the movie or have decided not to see the movie. Most of my best movie experiences has been watching films about which I knew nothing going in.
So this begs the question (as that phrase is used these days) why I am writing all these blurbs. First, because this time of year everyone I know asks me about the movies I’ve seen and I can never think of anything to say. Lets face it, when you are attending 3 or 4 movies a day, its hard to even remember what you have seen. No one I do not know is likely to read this blog, and to know me is to know that I am a blowhard. Cheap copout, I know. Mostly I write this stuff because I think a lot of the movies that can only be seen at festivals are Important and should be widely seen, and if I can influence a few of my friends to go, I have done good.
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
Three-Quarter Moon
Germany. Highly recommended.
A movie about a grumpy, prejudiced old guy saddled with an immigrant kid. Its odd, that sounds like a total, done to death cliche of a premise. But there are a million ways to tell the same story, and some of them, like this one, just stand out.
The director was asked how he pulled such an amazing performance from his female lead, playing a 6 year old Turkish girl. When she was supposed to look thoughtful he gave her addition problems to do in her head, and when he wanted her to look confused he gave her multiplication. Anyway, she was very good. Its set in Nuremburg, and there are a lot of great shots of the old city. An audience member who was German asked about the “:dialects” that were used. I think we would say “accent”. I guess Nuremburg is in the south, and the lead actor is sort of a Tommy Lee Jones: enough of an accent to sound southern, but not hard to understand at all. If you know German. I forget that a place like Germany has regional speech differences, it all sounds like German to me.
A movie about a grumpy, prejudiced old guy saddled with an immigrant kid. Its odd, that sounds like a total, done to death cliche of a premise. But there are a million ways to tell the same story, and some of them, like this one, just stand out.
The director was asked how he pulled such an amazing performance from his female lead, playing a 6 year old Turkish girl. When she was supposed to look thoughtful he gave her addition problems to do in her head, and when he wanted her to look confused he gave her multiplication. Anyway, she was very good. Its set in Nuremburg, and there are a lot of great shots of the old city. An audience member who was German asked about the “:dialects” that were used. I think we would say “accent”. I guess Nuremburg is in the south, and the lead actor is sort of a Tommy Lee Jones: enough of an accent to sound southern, but not hard to understand at all. If you know German. I forget that a place like Germany has regional speech differences, it all sounds like German to me.
Safety Not Guaranteed
USA. Highly Recommended. Sometimes at SIFF we go to movies we don’t think we are going to like for basically logistical reasons, and end up loving the movie. The kiss of death on this one is that it is a local production which, alas, often equates to being bad film making.
I loved this movie, as did the rest of the audience, except, apparently, the grouchy looking lady next to me. (Not, I hasten to add, Marion, I went alone.) It did everything a comedy is supposed to do, which is make people laugh. The ending is perfect. As I mentioned in a post last year that both of you may remember, Scifi is a really good genre for low budget film making, because you can make up any facts you like to make the scenario work and the audience will go along. This is a romantic comedy. A big element of the story is whether the male lead is crazy, or on to something, or both, and they make this hold up really, well. They make knowing/ironic use of various movie tropes like the character who is supposed to be a plain-jane portrayed by a hot actress. Her role is really very nicely constructed, and she has all the best lines. Mary Lynn Rajskub, The actress who was Chloe O’Brien, my favorite character in “24" has a cameo.
I loved this movie, as did the rest of the audience, except, apparently, the grouchy looking lady next to me. (Not, I hasten to add, Marion, I went alone.) It did everything a comedy is supposed to do, which is make people laugh. The ending is perfect. As I mentioned in a post last year that both of you may remember, Scifi is a really good genre for low budget film making, because you can make up any facts you like to make the scenario work and the audience will go along. This is a romantic comedy. A big element of the story is whether the male lead is crazy, or on to something, or both, and they make this hold up really, well. They make knowing/ironic use of various movie tropes like the character who is supposed to be a plain-jane portrayed by a hot actress. Her role is really very nicely constructed, and she has all the best lines. Mary Lynn Rajskub, The actress who was Chloe O’Brien, my favorite character in “24" has a cameo.
Liberal Arts
USA. Recommended
This one will probably get released and do well. Very well made romantic comedy. Apparently, the cast is well known, although the only actors I recognized are the great Richard Jenkins and Allison Janney in character roles. Its basically about getting older and maturing, in one sequence or another. It is, I suspect, aimed as much at boomers as at the demographic represented by the main characters. Funny movie very effectively acted. There are lots of those lines that you know must be scripted, but seem so perfect to a moment that its hard to believe.
This one will probably get released and do well. Very well made romantic comedy. Apparently, the cast is well known, although the only actors I recognized are the great Richard Jenkins and Allison Janney in character roles. Its basically about getting older and maturing, in one sequence or another. It is, I suspect, aimed as much at boomers as at the demographic represented by the main characters. Funny movie very effectively acted. There are lots of those lines that you know must be scripted, but seem so perfect to a moment that its hard to believe.
Goodbye
Iran. Probably a very good movie.
There was a technical problem, the subtitles were about 10 minutes out of synch with the movie, or it seemed so. Lots of people left, us included. The movie centers of a woman trying to be treated decently, which differs in degree but not greatly in kind from the difficulty experienced by a lot of people who want to be treated decently in highly organized countries, ours included of course.
The director is appealing a six year jail sentence is Iran for his movies on charges of “assembly, collusion, and propagandizing against the regime.”
There was a technical problem, the subtitles were about 10 minutes out of synch with the movie, or it seemed so. Lots of people left, us included. The movie centers of a woman trying to be treated decently, which differs in degree but not greatly in kind from the difficulty experienced by a lot of people who want to be treated decently in highly organized countries, ours included of course.
The director is appealing a six year jail sentence is Iran for his movies on charges of “assembly, collusion, and propagandizing against the regime.”
Monday, May 28, 2012
Woman in the Fifth
France. Pretty Recommended.
A French movie, mostly in French with two Hollywood stars. The director is from almost everywhere in Europe except France. I’m not sure what that is about. I have a bit of an attitude toward Kristin Scott Thomas. She seems to have a taste for roles portraying people I seriously dislike, often in that genre of movie I think of as privileged-people-making-themselves-unnecessarily-miserable. Except she has been in a number of French movies and I generally like both her character and the movie. She is great in this movie. Her character is intended to be very enigmatic, the audience is not 100% sure she even exists. She does this wonderfully. She conveys the ambiguity of the character as surely as if she were winking at the camera, without being a bit obvious even about that.
There is a storyline in this movie that is always intriguing. Guy randomly walks into a café and with no particular plan becomes involved in that scene, becomes one of the people in the ecosystem of that random café. Walk down the street and a door will be open, look in and people are interacting and there is a little universe spinning on its own axis in there. Behind every door.
Its best to see some movies without knowing anything at all about the story. This is one of those. Try not to read anything. All I will say about it is that there is one element that is often used in movies that I think is kind of a cheat.
A French movie, mostly in French with two Hollywood stars. The director is from almost everywhere in Europe except France. I’m not sure what that is about. I have a bit of an attitude toward Kristin Scott Thomas. She seems to have a taste for roles portraying people I seriously dislike, often in that genre of movie I think of as privileged-people-making-themselves-unnecessarily-miserable. Except she has been in a number of French movies and I generally like both her character and the movie. She is great in this movie. Her character is intended to be very enigmatic, the audience is not 100% sure she even exists. She does this wonderfully. She conveys the ambiguity of the character as surely as if she were winking at the camera, without being a bit obvious even about that.
There is a storyline in this movie that is always intriguing. Guy randomly walks into a café and with no particular plan becomes involved in that scene, becomes one of the people in the ecosystem of that random café. Walk down the street and a door will be open, look in and people are interacting and there is a little universe spinning on its own axis in there. Behind every door.
Its best to see some movies without knowing anything at all about the story. This is one of those. Try not to read anything. All I will say about it is that there is one element that is often used in movies that I think is kind of a cheat.
Breathing
Austria. Recommended.
A young guy on work release will either find a reason to be a whole person or will remain a fuck-up. I see this as kind of a man vs. machine story. (Machines often win in these stories.) In this case Man is the guy and the Machine is our apparatus for disposing of the excess population. The audience roots for the guy, of course, and every time something even a little nice happens to him its heartening.
A young guy on work release will either find a reason to be a whole person or will remain a fuck-up. I see this as kind of a man vs. machine story. (Machines often win in these stories.) In this case Man is the guy and the Machine is our apparatus for disposing of the excess population. The audience roots for the guy, of course, and every time something even a little nice happens to him its heartening.
Rose
Poland. Recommended, with a warning.
This is set in the aftermath of WWII in a really horrible place. A part of Poland whose inhabitants, the Masurians, just to stay alive had to adjust their loyalties every 50 or 100 years or so from Poland to Prussia to Germany to Poland again then back to Germany under the Nazis, and then to the Soviet Empire. So, everyone hates everyone. The Nazis thought the Poles were defective, the Poles hated both the Germans and the Russians, The Russians were commie bastards. Pretty much everyone hated the Masurians at a time where there was no limit to the crap available to dish out to despised groups of people and in a place where the fighting had turned everyone feral.
It’s a love story between two people trying, against all odds, to get back to normal. It’s a very engaging story and the audience really roots for things to go well. Stories set in the immediate aftermath of a war always interest me. The norms have all been destroyed, people are choosing which to adopt and which to discard. There are possibilities that do not exist in normal times. There is also a bit of man-with-no-name style western in this movie. The main guy kind of shows up from no where and we get little by way of his backstory, and he is a definite good guy hero type.
It being a love story, complications ensue and some of these are pretty violent and creepy, hence the warning. The violence and creepiness took me pretty close to my personal threshold, which is not that high.
This is set in the aftermath of WWII in a really horrible place. A part of Poland whose inhabitants, the Masurians, just to stay alive had to adjust their loyalties every 50 or 100 years or so from Poland to Prussia to Germany to Poland again then back to Germany under the Nazis, and then to the Soviet Empire. So, everyone hates everyone. The Nazis thought the Poles were defective, the Poles hated both the Germans and the Russians, The Russians were commie bastards. Pretty much everyone hated the Masurians at a time where there was no limit to the crap available to dish out to despised groups of people and in a place where the fighting had turned everyone feral.
It’s a love story between two people trying, against all odds, to get back to normal. It’s a very engaging story and the audience really roots for things to go well. Stories set in the immediate aftermath of a war always interest me. The norms have all been destroyed, people are choosing which to adopt and which to discard. There are possibilities that do not exist in normal times. There is also a bit of man-with-no-name style western in this movie. The main guy kind of shows up from no where and we get little by way of his backstory, and he is a definite good guy hero type.
It being a love story, complications ensue and some of these are pretty violent and creepy, hence the warning. The violence and creepiness took me pretty close to my personal threshold, which is not that high.
Madrid, 1987
Spain. OK movie.
“My Dinner with Andre” naked and in Spanish. I’ll say I like this better than “My Dinner’, and not because of the nudity, which was pretty understated. The horror show that was the mid 20th Century started early in Spain, and lasted a lot longer there. The movie in large part is the occasion for a character who went through that crap with his dignity intact to muse coming to grips with a world where its not so challenging to live honestly. His muse is a very pretty cardboard cutout with the word “youth” written on it. Some people liked this movie a lot more than I did.
“My Dinner with Andre” naked and in Spanish. I’ll say I like this better than “My Dinner’, and not because of the nudity, which was pretty understated. The horror show that was the mid 20th Century started early in Spain, and lasted a lot longer there. The movie in large part is the occasion for a character who went through that crap with his dignity intact to muse coming to grips with a world where its not so challenging to live honestly. His muse is a very pretty cardboard cutout with the word “youth” written on it. Some people liked this movie a lot more than I did.
My Brother the Devil
United Kingdom. Recommended.
Let this be the occasion for me to bitch about the movie descriptions in the various SIFF guides. For a start they can be completely misleading. In this instance the blurb contains a spoiler, that mortal sin of movie guides, presumably in order to appeal to a niche audience. This one is especially egregious in that highlighting it shows that the blurbographer pretty much missed the main point of the movie. So do not read the blurb if you can manage it.
Set in youth gang culture in London its about what most guy movies are about: loyalty. This youth gang culture is not white soccer hooligan types but native Londoners of Arab and African descent. Interestingly, its not Arabs vs. Africans, but one group of Arabs and Africans vs. another similar group. The competition among gangs is incidental to the competition between gang life and straight (in the sense of, like, getting a job or a degree) life, which is the main conflict of the movie in various ways.
The lead actor bears a striking resemblance in both visage and manner (and accent) to the young Jude Law. The cast also includes the excellent Saïd Taghmaou, who played the torture guy in Three Kings, the guy with the deathless line "What is the problem with Michael Jackson?".
Let this be the occasion for me to bitch about the movie descriptions in the various SIFF guides. For a start they can be completely misleading. In this instance the blurb contains a spoiler, that mortal sin of movie guides, presumably in order to appeal to a niche audience. This one is especially egregious in that highlighting it shows that the blurbographer pretty much missed the main point of the movie. So do not read the blurb if you can manage it.
Set in youth gang culture in London its about what most guy movies are about: loyalty. This youth gang culture is not white soccer hooligan types but native Londoners of Arab and African descent. Interestingly, its not Arabs vs. Africans, but one group of Arabs and Africans vs. another similar group. The competition among gangs is incidental to the competition between gang life and straight (in the sense of, like, getting a job or a degree) life, which is the main conflict of the movie in various ways.
The lead actor bears a striking resemblance in both visage and manner (and accent) to the young Jude Law. The cast also includes the excellent Saïd Taghmaou, who played the torture guy in Three Kings, the guy with the deathless line "What is the problem with Michael Jackson?".
Sunday, May 27, 2012
Oslo, August 31
Norway. Total drag of a movie.
Our bias against Scandinavian movies is reinforced. Really depressing movie with no discernible point, and the most rudimentary and meaningless story telling. Movie that follows this one guy around for a day. There are movies that do this wonderfully and we love. This is not one of those. Its like watching creepy paint dry.
Our bias against Scandinavian movies is reinforced. Really depressing movie with no discernible point, and the most rudimentary and meaningless story telling. Movie that follows this one guy around for a day. There are movies that do this wonderfully and we love. This is not one of those. Its like watching creepy paint dry.
Kill Me
Germany. Recommended.
A buddy movie. An escaped convict is assisted by a depressed teenaged girl who demands only that he agree to kill her once he is clear. Pretty great premise. One of the first things I thought about in watching this was, hey, its present day Germany, where can you run to? The highly civilized world has made anonymity pretty much obsolete. Turns out you run to Africa. Of course.
There is a scene in, just coincidentally, “The Fugitive” (one of my favorite movies) where Harrison Ford is walking along a dark road at night and a woman stops her car and picks him up. No explanation and no follow-up. There just had to be more story to be told about this encounter, and presumably there just was not time to tell it. I really wonder why that one scene was left in. There is an eerily similar scene in this movie, and a couple a little less eerily similar. One of the actors was at the showing, and someone asked the excellent question, “Were there any scenes you wish had made it into the movie?” It turns out that one of the minor characters in the movie originally had a much larger role, but all of it was cut except for two or three scenes.
A buddy movie. An escaped convict is assisted by a depressed teenaged girl who demands only that he agree to kill her once he is clear. Pretty great premise. One of the first things I thought about in watching this was, hey, its present day Germany, where can you run to? The highly civilized world has made anonymity pretty much obsolete. Turns out you run to Africa. Of course.
There is a scene in, just coincidentally, “The Fugitive” (one of my favorite movies) where Harrison Ford is walking along a dark road at night and a woman stops her car and picks him up. No explanation and no follow-up. There just had to be more story to be told about this encounter, and presumably there just was not time to tell it. I really wonder why that one scene was left in. There is an eerily similar scene in this movie, and a couple a little less eerily similar. One of the actors was at the showing, and someone asked the excellent question, “Were there any scenes you wish had made it into the movie?” It turns out that one of the minor characters in the movie originally had a much larger role, but all of it was cut except for two or three scenes.
Trial on the Road
Russia. Recommended
This was filmed in 1971, and has a much older feel to it. Black and white movie. Set in the winter of 1942 among partisan fighters against the Nazis. For some reason the Soviets banned this movie. Not sure why, it makes the Russians seem pretty heroic which, indeed, they were. Pretty much a classic war movie with a nice twist. A guy in a German uniform beats a partisan into submission and then surrenders to him, saying he is a Russian soldier who was captured and impressed by the Germans. He wants back into the fight on the right side. The film has terrific portrayals of the stock characters of war movies: the grizzled field officer, the popinjay lieutenant, the willies and joes, and we get terrific performances from the character actors.
This was filmed in 1971, and has a much older feel to it. Black and white movie. Set in the winter of 1942 among partisan fighters against the Nazis. For some reason the Soviets banned this movie. Not sure why, it makes the Russians seem pretty heroic which, indeed, they were. Pretty much a classic war movie with a nice twist. A guy in a German uniform beats a partisan into submission and then surrenders to him, saying he is a Russian soldier who was captured and impressed by the Germans. He wants back into the fight on the right side. The film has terrific portrayals of the stock characters of war movies: the grizzled field officer, the popinjay lieutenant, the willies and joes, and we get terrific performances from the character actors.
L’Afrance
France. Meh.
OK, Marion liked this movie a lot. I would have left early, and compromised by taking a nap. Highly educated Senegalese in France endlessly debating whether ‘tis best to stay in Europe and have, like, a life or to go back and help fix the broken country. The leading guy keeps sweating his illegal status and also sweating that going back seems best. The French can go on and on about the philosophical and moral implications of... just about anything well past the point that I want to shout “Make-A-Damn-Decision”, and these guys are pretty French in that respect. But Marion thought it was a good movie.
OK, Marion liked this movie a lot. I would have left early, and compromised by taking a nap. Highly educated Senegalese in France endlessly debating whether ‘tis best to stay in Europe and have, like, a life or to go back and help fix the broken country. The leading guy keeps sweating his illegal status and also sweating that going back seems best. The French can go on and on about the philosophical and moral implications of... just about anything well past the point that I want to shout “Make-A-Damn-Decision”, and these guys are pretty French in that respect. But Marion thought it was a good movie.
Valley of the Saints
India. Recommended.
There are several things going on in this movie. It is set among the people who live and work on Lake Dal, which has been a resort area since the days of the Mughals in the 1600's. Of course, it is dying from all the humanity, and that is one story line. It is in Kashmir and a lot of the action of the movie is driven by civil unrest and a curfew that was actually occurring during the filming, so the scenes of soldiers and demonstrations is mostly real. (Kashmir is the largest Muslim populated area in India, so there you go. By the way, the reason we have such problems with Pakistan: Kashmir. True story, but not part of this movie.) So there is a bit of John Sayles style social commentary going on, but it interferes with the story not at all. The story is about two young guys trying to get something going for themselves. Good story, well told. There are a lot of gorgeous shots of the lake. Mostly non-professional actors including the leading man, who was terrific. So almost everyting the audience sees is the real deal. He wrote a couple of songs that are in the movie. He actually is a boatman on Lake Dal.
There are several things going on in this movie. It is set among the people who live and work on Lake Dal, which has been a resort area since the days of the Mughals in the 1600's. Of course, it is dying from all the humanity, and that is one story line. It is in Kashmir and a lot of the action of the movie is driven by civil unrest and a curfew that was actually occurring during the filming, so the scenes of soldiers and demonstrations is mostly real. (Kashmir is the largest Muslim populated area in India, so there you go. By the way, the reason we have such problems with Pakistan: Kashmir. True story, but not part of this movie.) So there is a bit of John Sayles style social commentary going on, but it interferes with the story not at all. The story is about two young guys trying to get something going for themselves. Good story, well told. There are a lot of gorgeous shots of the lake. Mostly non-professional actors including the leading man, who was terrific. So almost everyting the audience sees is the real deal. He wrote a couple of songs that are in the movie. He actually is a boatman on Lake Dal.
The Intouchables
France. Recommended.
First off, François Cluzet has quite a resemblance to Dustin Hoffman. Hoffman would probably take this role, which must be a challenge for an actor: he can’t move his body, all his acting was from the neck up. On one level this is a pretty standard heartwarming story with some standard plot elements. Rich paralyzed guy, streetwise hustler type, but with heart, conned into becoming caregiver. Complications ensue. It is really very well done, and is pretty funny. Hollywood is seldom able to do both of these things in a movie.
First off, François Cluzet has quite a resemblance to Dustin Hoffman. Hoffman would probably take this role, which must be a challenge for an actor: he can’t move his body, all his acting was from the neck up. On one level this is a pretty standard heartwarming story with some standard plot elements. Rich paralyzed guy, streetwise hustler type, but with heart, conned into becoming caregiver. Complications ensue. It is really very well done, and is pretty funny. Hollywood is seldom able to do both of these things in a movie.
Daas
Poland. Highly recommended.
I liked this more than anyone else I have talked with. I think it compares favorably to “Chinatown”, but I got a weird look when I said that. A movie about a major historical event that I never really heard of. Set in 1776, of all years, in Vienna centered on a cult led by Jacob Frank, a Polish Jew who had lived in Turkey and who had decided he was the messiah. Also he could grant immortality. At the time he was a really big deal. He encouraged his people to commit all the sins they could because conventional morality is for suckers. Good way for a cult leader to do what cult leaders do which is so very often to have sex with as many cult followers as they can manage.
Most of the action of the movie centers on a couple of guys trying to bring him down for all the bad stuff he did. Last Honest Man stuff. Its not a movie about Jacob Frank, it’s a movie about guys trying to get the right thing done with the Hapsburg version of the cops and the courts and the inside players and the dangerous thugs.
As always with period movies, I could not get enough of the great clothes these guys wore. Also, part of the storytelling includes a woman who had locked in syndrome after a stroke, and boy was she treated right. Really, normalization at its best.
I liked this more than anyone else I have talked with. I think it compares favorably to “Chinatown”, but I got a weird look when I said that. A movie about a major historical event that I never really heard of. Set in 1776, of all years, in Vienna centered on a cult led by Jacob Frank, a Polish Jew who had lived in Turkey and who had decided he was the messiah. Also he could grant immortality. At the time he was a really big deal. He encouraged his people to commit all the sins they could because conventional morality is for suckers. Good way for a cult leader to do what cult leaders do which is so very often to have sex with as many cult followers as they can manage.
Most of the action of the movie centers on a couple of guys trying to bring him down for all the bad stuff he did. Last Honest Man stuff. Its not a movie about Jacob Frank, it’s a movie about guys trying to get the right thing done with the Hapsburg version of the cops and the courts and the inside players and the dangerous thugs.
As always with period movies, I could not get enough of the great clothes these guys wore. Also, part of the storytelling includes a woman who had locked in syndrome after a stroke, and boy was she treated right. Really, normalization at its best.
Sunday, May 13, 2012
Friday, May 11, 2012
SIFF Diary
OK, so the reason I started this blog is to post commentary about every single movie I see at the Seattle International Film Festival. It starts next week. I did this last year on Facebook, and came to fundamentally dislike, as well as never quite understand, Facebook.
Just to begin, here is a re-post of the review I did of SIFF itself toward the emd of the festival last year. It is kind of mean spirited to mention flaws when SIFF fundamentally enriches the planet. But here goes.
SIFF
USA. As SIFF winds down I thought I would do a review of SIFF itself. And this one time I will do the traditional reviewers job of talking smack about the subject. So let me first say that SIFF is amazing. There are not many things for which I will give up all of my free time and most of my sanity for 3 weeks a year. SIFF manages that. Three completely non-ironic cheers for SIFF! Hurrah! Hurrah! Hurrah! Great, Great movies. I actually do not go to many non SIFF movies. Most movies do not measure up.
OK thats done.
I like to watch Mad Men and Breaking Bad and The killing on AMC. I have evil Comcast and can time shift my viewing. Watching the on demand episodes, they do have commercials (and let me here say that the remote control Comcast hands out is made of dung) and the commercials include ads for the show that is being watched. “Hey, person watching Mad Men, you should see how great Mad Men is.” What are they thinking. Really, does anyone know? Do they know? SIFF does the same thing. Before the movie begins they play 4 or five trailers for SIFF. I have seen these trailers 45 times now, and they have become torture to me, in addition to the pointlessness making me crazy.
And then before the movie one of the programmers gets up and makes a little speech. Necessary announcements. Off with cell phones and their kin, the director will/will not be here, applause for the donors (blessed be the donors, by the way). The end time for the movie. The majority of the people who do this, though, feel the need to inject a bit of personality into the proceedings, with uniformly lame results. These people know movies, they pick the movies and do it well. Like most movie lovers (me included) they are probably frustrated performers. But, it must be said, frustrated because they are not good at it. Thats fine too, but I just sat through 5 pointless trailers I’ve seen 40 times, can I please not listen to any more of you than I need to and please watch a movie? Please?
I am convinced that many of the blurbs on the SIFF website are written by people who have not seen the movie. I understand. There are so many movies, so little time. They describe a movie like the movie being blurbed, but different. The most egregious of many examples is calling “Burke and Hare” a comedy about grave robbers. Burke and Hare were real people and were not grave robbers, they murdered people and sold the bodies, and the movie shows the funny ways people can be murdered for their bodies. So, SIFF, no, it was not like “Garden State”, it was like a comedy about the Boston Strangler. (By the way, let me say here in case I forgot: Fuck you, John Landis.)
In order to do the wonderful things SIFF does they need to have a lot of volunteers. A lot of them. And they are polite and helpful and enthusiastic. Again, all non-ironic praise for the volunteers. But. They hand out ballots for the movies with the exact amount of assertiveness I would use for smallpox vaccine, its hard to get in the door. They congregate around the entrance/exits so getting out of the theater (to get to your next movie that starts in ½ hour someplace else) is like going through airport security with your shoes on. On a movie that is going to fill the theater 1/4 full, tops, they treat Back to Back passes like letters of transit on the Lisbon plane. To a line of, say, 8 series pass holders they will call out “Platinum Passholders may enter!” as if they worry maybe they should have brought their plastic shields to hold back the hoards of non-platinum pass holders who may appear from hyperspace and rush the door. One year at the now lamented Uptown, they had closed off one of the entries to the theater. I asked why and the volunteer explained that they had figured out a better way for people to enter the theater. This to people who go to movies all the time and really do know how to find a seat in a movie theater. Volunteers! This is fun! Be loose! Its going to be OK!
Just to begin, here is a re-post of the review I did of SIFF itself toward the emd of the festival last year. It is kind of mean spirited to mention flaws when SIFF fundamentally enriches the planet. But here goes.
SIFF
USA. As SIFF winds down I thought I would do a review of SIFF itself. And this one time I will do the traditional reviewers job of talking smack about the subject. So let me first say that SIFF is amazing. There are not many things for which I will give up all of my free time and most of my sanity for 3 weeks a year. SIFF manages that. Three completely non-ironic cheers for SIFF! Hurrah! Hurrah! Hurrah! Great, Great movies. I actually do not go to many non SIFF movies. Most movies do not measure up.
OK thats done.
I like to watch Mad Men and Breaking Bad and The killing on AMC. I have evil Comcast and can time shift my viewing. Watching the on demand episodes, they do have commercials (and let me here say that the remote control Comcast hands out is made of dung) and the commercials include ads for the show that is being watched. “Hey, person watching Mad Men, you should see how great Mad Men is.” What are they thinking. Really, does anyone know? Do they know? SIFF does the same thing. Before the movie begins they play 4 or five trailers for SIFF. I have seen these trailers 45 times now, and they have become torture to me, in addition to the pointlessness making me crazy.
And then before the movie one of the programmers gets up and makes a little speech. Necessary announcements. Off with cell phones and their kin, the director will/will not be here, applause for the donors (blessed be the donors, by the way). The end time for the movie. The majority of the people who do this, though, feel the need to inject a bit of personality into the proceedings, with uniformly lame results. These people know movies, they pick the movies and do it well. Like most movie lovers (me included) they are probably frustrated performers. But, it must be said, frustrated because they are not good at it. Thats fine too, but I just sat through 5 pointless trailers I’ve seen 40 times, can I please not listen to any more of you than I need to and please watch a movie? Please?
I am convinced that many of the blurbs on the SIFF website are written by people who have not seen the movie. I understand. There are so many movies, so little time. They describe a movie like the movie being blurbed, but different. The most egregious of many examples is calling “Burke and Hare” a comedy about grave robbers. Burke and Hare were real people and were not grave robbers, they murdered people and sold the bodies, and the movie shows the funny ways people can be murdered for their bodies. So, SIFF, no, it was not like “Garden State”, it was like a comedy about the Boston Strangler. (By the way, let me say here in case I forgot: Fuck you, John Landis.)
In order to do the wonderful things SIFF does they need to have a lot of volunteers. A lot of them. And they are polite and helpful and enthusiastic. Again, all non-ironic praise for the volunteers. But. They hand out ballots for the movies with the exact amount of assertiveness I would use for smallpox vaccine, its hard to get in the door. They congregate around the entrance/exits so getting out of the theater (to get to your next movie that starts in ½ hour someplace else) is like going through airport security with your shoes on. On a movie that is going to fill the theater 1/4 full, tops, they treat Back to Back passes like letters of transit on the Lisbon plane. To a line of, say, 8 series pass holders they will call out “Platinum Passholders may enter!” as if they worry maybe they should have brought their plastic shields to hold back the hoards of non-platinum pass holders who may appear from hyperspace and rush the door. One year at the now lamented Uptown, they had closed off one of the entries to the theater. I asked why and the volunteer explained that they had figured out a better way for people to enter the theater. This to people who go to movies all the time and really do know how to find a seat in a movie theater. Volunteers! This is fun! Be loose! Its going to be OK!
Thursday, April 26, 2012
Bad is Good
So, I’ve been reading the Constitution of the Confederate
States of America. I was looking for free downloads for the Kindle, and one of
them is “the Rise and Fall of the Confederate States of America” by Jefferson
Davis. The strangeness of this overwhelms. I started, as one ought, with their
Constitution. That’s as far as I have gotten.
What they did was take the US Constitution and tweak it a
bit. An appendix to Davis’s book is a side by side comparison.
They banned introduction of slaves from Africa or from the
US. These people were assholes on a par
with the Nazis, and had they had their way the world would be a place even more
nasty than ours by many degrees, so it is hard to imagine that this decision
was for other than base reasons. But it is unexpected. They had aggressive provisions
about acquiring new Territories. The Big Plan was to expand into Mexico and
points South and set up an empire with slave based economy on a massive scale.
Come to think, had they succeeded, Hitler and company could have just emigrated
and there would have been no Nazis. They all ended up in South America anyway.
Their capital was Montgomery, Alabama, which I did not know.
The true weirdness is that if the parts about slavery are
ignored, its pretty much an across the board improvement.
The President of the Confederacy had a line item veto on
appropriations bills. Both GW Bush and Obama advocated for this. It’s
a really good idea and could save a lot of stupid bridges to nowhere built with
$800 hammers. Many US States have this, Washington included. Bills allowing
line item vetos have been passed by Congress, Clinton signed one that turned
out to be unconstitutional, and one passed the House of Representatives last
February that tries by tortuous means to get around the US Constitution.
They had a single subject rule for legislation. I think this
is one of the two or three things we could do that would significantly change America for the
better. None of these omnibus bills that no one reads containing hidden changes
that give tax breaks to two or three zillionaires. No anti-gay provisions tacked on to
must pass budget bills. Here
is a spirited argument for such a rule. Most US State Constitutions provide for
this.
They provided that heads of Executive departments would have
a seat in both chambers of their congress, and be permitted to participate in
debate. I think that’s a very cool idea. Not nearly as cool as having Question
Time like the British House of Commons has, but cool.
If I am reading it right, they banned tariffs that would
protect industry, so it seems they were early advocates of free trade. Not sure
if it’s a good idea, but its an one that remains in play. They banned appropriations
to benefit any industry except for dams, lighthouses and navigation. It does
not seem that TARP would have had much chance in the CSA. Or ethanol, or Solyndra.
I'm guessing Haliburton would have done just fine. Their Post Office was to be self-supporting. No balanced budget provision,
though.
They included the Second Amendment to the US constitution,
word for word. I wonder if they knew
what it meant.
They made it easier to summon a Constitutional Convention,
and easier to have amendments ratified by the States. Probably a good idea. Hard to say.
Their president served a single six year term. Excellent idea.
the US has essentially a 2 year first term followed by a one year period where
nothing significant is possible followed by a one year campaign for
re-election, so at most a six year tenure with a lot of pointless nonsense in
the middle.This change would probably be an improvement on the cycle of partisan bickering that passes for governance in the US.
Their Vice President had no more to do than ours does. They
had an Electoral College. They allowed recess appointments to Federal office,
but not of candidates whom the senate had voted to reject. I strongly suspect
that this has been the de facto
practice in the US.
What to make of this? To me, probably not much. Most of the
changes were basically to make the trains run on time, something fascists are
known for, but that benefits everyone. They wanted a more effective government that could carry out their
creepy, horrible aims. I suspect their founders were mostly lawyers who, as
good lawyers do, took an accepted form and
tweaked it a bit. Probably if present day Americans could figure out a way to look
at changes just because they were a good idea and without stupid partisanship,
a lot of these would be no-brainers. The Confederates were all on the same
side. We don’t have that. The Civil War has really not ended.
Most interesting non-Constitutional fact I ran across is
this, from Wikipedia,
“The Choctaw and Chickasaw fought predominantly on the Confederate side. The
Creek and Seminole supported the Union, while the Cherokee fought a civil war
within their own nation between the majority Confederates and the minority,
pro-Union men.” I happen to know that the Cherokee had a long tradition of
slavery themselves.
By the way: Civil War - one of my favorite oxymorons. Also fun run and rap music.
POSTSCRIPT
Well, I read a bit of Jefferson Davis' book. So I got answers to the puzzling parts of the constitution.
The Confederates banned importing slaves because they already had enough slaves that the expected growth in slave population was adequate for what they wanted. They put out this argument that extending slavery would not increase the number of people enslaved, just where the slaves lived. This kind of argument is really no weirder - grosser by far considering what slavery is about, but no weirder - than arguments we hear nowadays relative to gay marriage, reproductive rights, and so on. Arguments that try to intellectualize irrational and dehumanizing belief systems. Think Rick Santorum, Dick Cheney, Pat Buchannan. Those guys would have favored slavery back then, I think.
They were anti-tariff because they were getting screwed by the North on tariffs. The industrialized North got tariffs to protect industries, raising the price of manufactured stuff. The South did not have industry, got no benefit from tariffs and had to pay more for everything. A legitimate beef, I'd say.
Davis reminds me a lot of Newt Gingrich. Endless self justification, kind of a crybaby, wants to come across as really smart. A good subtitle for the book: "Why Me?" Basically an asshole. I did not get very far.
POSTSCRIPT
Well, I read a bit of Jefferson Davis' book. So I got answers to the puzzling parts of the constitution.
The Confederates banned importing slaves because they already had enough slaves that the expected growth in slave population was adequate for what they wanted. They put out this argument that extending slavery would not increase the number of people enslaved, just where the slaves lived. This kind of argument is really no weirder - grosser by far considering what slavery is about, but no weirder - than arguments we hear nowadays relative to gay marriage, reproductive rights, and so on. Arguments that try to intellectualize irrational and dehumanizing belief systems. Think Rick Santorum, Dick Cheney, Pat Buchannan. Those guys would have favored slavery back then, I think.
They were anti-tariff because they were getting screwed by the North on tariffs. The industrialized North got tariffs to protect industries, raising the price of manufactured stuff. The South did not have industry, got no benefit from tariffs and had to pay more for everything. A legitimate beef, I'd say.
Davis reminds me a lot of Newt Gingrich. Endless self justification, kind of a crybaby, wants to come across as really smart. A good subtitle for the book: "Why Me?" Basically an asshole. I did not get very far.
Favorite podcasts this week
Fresh Air April 16, 2012 Sadakat Kadri is an English barrister, a Muslim by birth and a historian. His first book, The Trial, was an extensive survey of the Western criminal judicial system, detailing more than 4,000 years of courtroom antics. In his new book, Heaven on Earth, Kadri turns his sights east, to centuries of Shariah law.
The Treatment April 11, 2012 Whit Stillman joins us after a 13 year hiatus ("I'm a failure as a producer," he explains), to talk about his long-awaited return to the director's chair with Damsels in Distress
Witness Thu, 19 Apr 12 The Birth of The Simpsons. Cartoonist
Matt Groening remembers how he created The Simpsons 25 years ago. (Look for it between the ones titled "Rivers of Blood" and "Auschwitz Train Escape")
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
Monday, April 23, 2012
Here is a Planet Money podcast very much worth hearing Why People Do Bad Things I have always been fascinated by stories about people who get involved in serious wrongdoing almost by accident. This piece has psychologists explaining how, one teensy little step at a time, we go about convincing ourselves that what we are doing, while technically totally wrong, is still OK. A maxim I invented to explain some of the stuff I see at work is that humans have an almost infinite capacity to convince ourselves that what is good for us is Good.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)