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.
Category: (by verdict)
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.
let us not go to “the village”, it is a silly place
well, actually all his movies are silly–the plots immediately disposable and not worth holding up to much scrutiny. but shyamalan usually does a very good job of keeping you going till you get to the twist ending. i don’t know if i would watch his first three movies again (not only because they might not be fun once you know the twist) but i enjoyed all of them while i was watching them. he is a master of his genre, making really expensive b-movies, and he always scares me (but i do admit i scare easily). the problem with this one is that it is more dependent on dialogue than the others and shyamalan just doesn’t write dialogue very well. however, the atmospheric stuff, the sound, the music, the lighting–all of this is exceptional.
more on the movie below but proceed only if you don’t plan to see it
Continue reading let us not go to “the village”, it is a silly place
Time of the Wolf
Saw this last night. I came to it as a general fan of the director Michael Haneke, whose “Funny Games” was a brilliant provocation (and scarily funny) and “Code Inconnu” was smart, complexly attentive to social injustices and personal desires,…. (And, no, I haven’t seen “The Piano Teacher,” about which a bunch of us would surely and with great vigor disagree.) Both films are very smart, and I walked away from ’em thinking myself very smart for having seen them and liked them. I felt nothing, beyond that intellectual engagement.
I wept–like a fucking baby–at the end of “Time of the Wolf.” The story is post-some-vague-apocalypse, and society’s broken down. We follow a few survivors–mostly one family (Isabelle Huppert and two children)–as they get by. And that’s about it; not much momentous happens. It’s beautifully shot, the acting is pitch-perfect, and the scenario seems utterly realist (carefully attentive to the small details, unconcerned with the big picture).
And the emotional wallop of the final two scenes caught me so off-guard I did, literally, break down and cry. I haven’t done that since The Butterfly Effect. Ok, I’m kidding about Butterfly. But has anyone else seen Wolf? Was this just some random emotional charge, brought on by too little sleep and underlying anxiety about my kid growing up? Or was the film as effective as it seemed?
cate blanchett–is there anyone better?
among major’ish stars, that is? i was reminded by her amazing double act in coffee and cigarettes of just how good an actress she is. only naomi watts comes close i think. laura linney is also very good but not exactly a star. kidman can turn it on when she wants to but she also does things like cold mountain. whatever happened to judy davis, by the way?
for those who haven’t seen it, i would highly recommend blanchett in the gift, which also features great performances from giovanni ribisi and yes, keanu reeves.