What a double bill.
Solaris – reams have been written about it, and I don’t need to add more really, but it was an interesting reaction to 2001, which Tarkovsky apparently thought was “cold and impersonal.”
I had trouble with the reactions of the characters to the events taking place – they just didn’t seem to be plausible. Especially since the pilot who had originally seen the manifestations years earlier, and tries to tell Kelvin about them on earth, seemed very believable in his reactions, both in the archive footage of his report and his meeting with Kelvin.
I was amazed how good the film looked – Criterion edition – but I shouldn’t let the print quality of the NuBeverly Theater lead me to think that all films are faded to reds with long scratches down them and more pops on the soundtrack than my 99 cent LP of Who’s Next.
It was interesting in that it pushes the edge of what a SF film might be. Barely a space ship is ever seen. If anything, SF films have devolved greatly since then. Gattaca comes to mind as a more recent example of ignoring SF film (as opposed to book) conventions. And nice roles in that for Gore Vidal and Jude Law too. (Donnie Darko, Pi, Primer, sure – but none did boffo b.o. Where are the imaginative big budget SF flicks?)
If only all our govt. had to worry about was whether to fund the space station that was hovering above the giant alien ocean/brain. Alas, they also have to bomb Cambodia, accidentally shoot Chilean generals (when they were only trying to kidnap him), and make deals with foreign governments to prolong wars for years.
Trials of Henry Kissinger is not very cinematic, and not nearly as engaging as, say Fog of War or Frontline’s many excellent recent pieces ( Gunner Palace). And I was a little disappointed by the lack of Christopher Hitchens bombast and bile.(Hitchens wrote a book with a very similar title that provides much of the base of this film). But it seems that while Hitchens’ book could be used as the prosecution’s arguement in a trial, the film is more of an arguement that there SHOULD be a trial.
There’s little doubt that what Kissinger did would qualify as war crimes if US officials were held to standards that we hold others to. The disturbing thing I find is this: His defenders fall into two camps – one says what he did does not qualify as a crime – it’s been blown out of proportion, etc. the other camp says of course this stuff happened, and everyone knows it and bascially accepts it. The end justifies the means, and damn the rest.
It bothers me b/c this continues to happen today, and on a grander / more blatant scale. In any scandal involving the Bush Admin (take your pick), you get these two arguments: Half the admin. doggedly keeps up the party line of the original rationale: That Hussein might have had WMD, that there might have been a connection between Iraq / Terrorism, that the war has weakened global terrorism, etc. Other people in the admin. (Feith, Wolfowitz, Powell) say, “Well, of course there were no WMD, but everyone knows that. that’s common knowledge now; move on.” Or the generals say (and even Rumsfled has said), we may well be creating many more terrorists than we are killing.
Anyway, Trials is worth seeing. It illuminated the context of Vietnam for me, and provided a lot more info of U.S. actions in Chile way before the killing of Allende.
Al Haig is remarkable. He should be in a prison cell right next to Kissinger. I don’t know if I’ll read Hitchens’ book on the topic – I’m reading his book on Orwell right now. I admire Hitchens’ greatly, his views on the Iraq war not withstanding, and he’s a fine political writer.
It’s incredible that Nixon era villians such as Rumsefled and Cheney continue to run the country. And even Kissinger (Remember, he was Bush’s first pick to head the 9-11 Commission.) Meanwhile, a guy like Robert McNamara is questioning his role in events that were only a couple of years earlier, and providing much needed context for the events we live through today. Our short-sightedness of cause and effect as a nation is continually bewildering to me.
just a brief rant: The New Beverly is a disgrace. Imagine Los Angeles having that kind of a revival theater? As a place to see movies, LA isn’t even in the same universe as New York (or even San Francisco)–though it makes films it seems pretty contemptuous of showing anything but the latest blockbuster (The Cinematheque excepted). I can’t believe the New Beverly sustains itself on its poor quality prints and unimaginative choices (wow, a double bill of The Godfather and Serpico!). but you haven’t really seen a movie there unless somebody right behind you is eating a large salami and burping repeatedly. by the way, Al Haig always seemed like a dangerous dimwit–the 1970s answer to Jack D. Ripper–but, man, the guy used to have some beautiful suits!
It would be nice to have a theater that had more imaginative double bills and better quality prints.
However, in the age of home-delivered DVDs, I don’t think that there’s anything that will revive the revival theater. Even the Egyptian (Cinemateque) is having a hard time keeping going, and they openly admit it’s b/c the movies can be seen at home.
I remember in the first few months of having come to LA I went to see some Maya Deren films at the MOCA. I was by myself. Not another soul was there. Now, having lived here for 10 years, I’m not as surprised. Meanwhile though, 400+ people come out to see a barely advertised talk by French novelist Michel Houellebecq. LA Public Library talks sell out their tickets frequently before I even know who’s coming. My point is, there’s culture in LA, it’s just not focused where I’d expect to see it. And any specialized single-screen movie theater – be it crappy like the Beverly, amazing like the Egyptian, or in-between like the NuArt, is not going to thrive here, now.
We have the Oak Street, which makes a living doing nice revivals, odd indies, foreign stuff that isn’t mainstream–but it’s perched right on the edge of the U of M, and otherwise would probably fade away.
Big-budget brainy sci-fi–well, Aronofsky is finally doing his big Fountain picture. Who knows? And Linklater has A Scanner Darkly coming–not really big-$ but A-list in look and cast…
I kind of liked the New Beverly. ‘Though, if I remember some evenings there correctly, I would have loved if burping was all I had to worry about behind me….
Yeah, but Houellebecq is a cynical provocatuer–he’s right up LA’s alley. His French neo-hipster nihilism is well suited to the City of Angels bad-kids crowd. Can’t get that on DVD.
hmmm, I haven’t read any of Houellebecq’s novels but I did just read his brief study of H.P. Lovecraft and it was pretty good–provocative in many ways, but also a bit old-fashioned. Mark–did you see him? In any case, LA seems to have something of a literary culture–though the interests of this group don’t extend to film/popular culture for some reason. LA is an industry town without a film culture; its interests are limited to the practical/financial except for the faithful who support the Egyptian and the Nuart.
I think I attacked before the idea of watching movies at home at the expense of going out to see them at a regular theater; of course I appreciate the availability of many movies on DVD, especially in good copies with extra features like the Criterion Collection, but I can’t believe that people interested in film wouldn’t make the effort to get outside of their damn houses. I certainly wish I had that option around here–and I pray I don’t end up in a place that has one theater which plays Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith for six months of the year. I have the feeling it’s less a matter of personal inclination than the killing off of revival theaters and the like by a corporate culture that values the volume provided by video/DVD rental.
I did see Houellebecq. Sam Lipsyte was not a very good interviewer, but H. didn’t want to answer any questions except about the Lovecraft book. The whole scenario (set up by McSweeney’s and LA Weekly) was fairly awful due mostly to an ill-advised opening act of a freakish burlesque show, a late start, and more people than anyone thought would attend.
But I’ve liked all of Houellebcq’s novels. I discovered him a couple of years ago (through McSweeney’s Believer mag, which also got me into Brian Evenson and several other interesting writers), and I dig his books. He does seem to have rather broken out of what I thought should be a cultish following. His new novel is tipped as easily being his best. Start anywhere with the novels: There are three and are all worth reading.