Not rated, mainly because it actually probably shouldn't be watched. It's more chaos than anything inappropriate. For the sake of being really technical, there are assassination plots throughout the movie. You know, nothing offensive. Just an attempt to murder this woman, who gets shot in a completely nonfatal way. Not rated.
DIRECTOR: Ishiro Honda Whut? Like, seriously. What happened? Most of us are aware of the idea that there is a steep decline in quality when it comes to the OG Godzilla franchise. The '90s teased these movies mercilessly. But I seriously thought that I was still in the Golden Age of Godzilla. Like, this is Ghidorah! This is one of the big bads. This is a movie that even me, a novice, knows about. This is supposed to be one of the good ones and it is an incoherent mess. Honestly, I'm a little flummoxed how I'm going to make it through the rest of this box set if this is the movie that already breaks me. The frustration is that a Godzilla movie should be incredibly easy to make. Honest to Pete, there is a low-bar to what would make an incredible Godzilla movie. Again, I'm writing this from a place of comfort. I have a cup of tea. I have a blog. I'm sitting with the windows open. The sun is shining. My stress level is low. Of course I can give you the formula of what makes an interesting Godzilla movie. If you actually asked me to make the movie, then I would turn in a turd and blame it on society, Jerry-Seinfeld-style. You want to know what makes a functional Godzilla movie. You tell a grounded story about people. To them, their real-world problems seem like the end of the world. Godzilla and crew show up, wrecking the place. It doesn't matter if Godzilla is a good guy or a bad guy. His fighting is going to throw everything into chaos. The real world, grounded-folk, because of this shared trauma and displacement, realize that their problems, while valid, are ultimately moot given the sense of community that has been built around surviving a kaiju attack. The end. What did Ghidorah, the Three-Headed Monster give us? Besides telling us that he's the most rad monster of all time, nothing that was salvagable. I'm going to try my best and piece this apart. There's very little that can be analyzed besides some broad strokes at environmentalism, so please be patient at my criminal amount of summary. There's a million plots all attempting to gain footholds, so I'm not sure what to start with. The protagonists are a brother-sister team. He's a cop who has just gotten word that there's going to be an attempt on a princess's life. I don't know why he's ground zero for this news, but he is. She is studying the supernatural beat for a news agency. She's also got a so-so crush in a college professor who is interested in UFOs, even though all of his collegues treat her as subhuman. That's not a plot point. They just do. Anyway, cut to the princess. Sure enough, there's an attempt on her life, but right before she's killed by explosion, a Venusian kidnaps her and takes over her body. She tries warning civilization of the coming of Ghidorah. That should be enough to get the film going, right? Nope. The assassins, seeing that she's alive, keep trying to murder the Venusian. In the meantime, brother and sister fight over whether she's from Venus or a royal dignitary. Also, the Infant Island Mothra girls somehow interject themselves into the story to warn of the coming of Ghidorah. That's the movie. It's weird that when four giant kaiju are all duking it out, that's the most sane thing that happens in the movie. You realize, there have been so many movies in the Godzilla spinoff series that people are just finding monsters wrecking Japan commonplace? It's a weird take. Also, as I've written with previous Godzilla movies, the franchise has already lost its thesis statement about nuclear war. Honestly, Gojira was a story deeply critical about man's folly when it came to the use of nuclear weapons. It was a punishment for what we had unleashed on this planet. But Ghidorah tries passing the buck to the monsters. For absolutely no reason, Godzilla and Rodan fight. It's not like Godzilla is protecting Japan from the Rodan attack. Also, I didn't know who Rodan was. (I mean, I know from cultural knowledge. But in-universe, Rodan had yet to show up. Apparently, he had his own movie somewhere else that I would have to watch to be completely caught up on the franchise.) But at one point, King Ghidorah shows up and Mothra the slug (who gets wrecked in this movie, which is extra funny because we're reminded that Mothra isn't the Mothra we know; this one's a baby) tries to get the other two monsters to put away their vague emnity for the sake of the planet. Now, the humans comment that the monsters are just as fickle and pig-headed as humanity is. The bigger takeaway is that the kaiju are 100% sentient characters capable of complex morality and language. That seems like a huge step backwards for what the series is trying to say. Again, the theme for Godzilla is that if we keep destroying nature, nature is going to defend itself violently. But then when we have to start talking to these characters with a mediator kaiju and translator tiny women, I think we missed the point. That whole scenario and outline for a good Godzilla movie above? It's supposed to somehow emotionally tie into the destruction happening all around them. Man alive, there was no characterization in this movie. There wasn't a human, non-plot element to be found in this movie. The protagonists didn't have to move into some uncomfortable zone where they learned to see the humanity in each other balances against the backdrop of nature. Nope. Instead, we had goofy assassins trying silly ways to kill this princess who had been possessed by a lady from Venus. It's a lot of that. By the grace of God(zilla), she keeps ducking these hairbrained schemes, like electrocution or sniper attack. Do you understand? I have nothing to write about this movie. The movie is so vapid and devoid of soul that anything I write from here is something I fundamentally don't believe. Here. Here's something I don't actually believe about the film, but it gives me something to write about. I suppose that I could write about how the entire film is an allegory for the complexity of faith. Again, I don't believe this. I think this is just a dumb movies about monsters punching each other. But it's kind of amazing, in this world at least, how quick this Venusian is instantly raised up as some kind of prophet or Christ figure. Listen, sometimes, this is the best I can do. Sure, the Christ figure is killed by a bullet from her own people. Sure, there's almost a stigmata element to her wound. But that's a read that I'm really forcing. Round hole; square peg. Anyway, this is...a fundamentally dumb film. I mean, if you enjoy it, continue doing so. I just was amazed by how seemingly little effort went into making a coherent plot.
0 Comments
Not rated, but this movie has some content that needs to be addressed. The movie, especially for 1947, is incredibly colored by sexuality. Most of that sexuality is incredibly unhealthy, including an attempted rape sequence that is woefully ignored and swept under the rug. There's also an attempted murder and an attempted suicide. Every horrible thing that can be attempted, they attempt.
DIRECTOR: Ingmar Bergman Okay, two movies that have relationships that the kid tries to steal the parent's relationships is a coincidence. Three involves me really questioning what's going on with Ingmar Bergman. I know that all 39 movies in the box set can't be about can't be about falling in love with your parent's boyfriend or girlfriend. They just can't. I refuse to believe it. I'm actually running out of things to talk about with this very specific trope that seems to be pervading Ingmar Bergman movies. This is barely a trope in anything else and this is in three Bergman movies out of my marathon of three-so-far? Nope. Nothing doing. But we hit a sweet spot with Bergman for me. This is exactly what I want out of Ingmar Bergman. (Okay, not exactly. I'll touch on that later.) I knew from watching the Early Bergman Eclipse series that I liked a lot of Bergman's early work. I wrote about this in my Crisis blog. But I also knew that Crisis, while not a dumb movie by any means, was a little bit dumb compared to Bergman's other work. I kind of expected that, when I revisited this era of Bergman, that many of his movies would be slightly dumber than his lofty classics. It's not like A Ship to India is his most brilliant work. I have to admit that there are things that could be elevated. But A Ship to India is leaps and bounds more intellectually stimulating than Crisis was. Only made a year apart, Bergman seems to be developing into the director that has placed him in the annals of cinematic history. There's complexity and a richness to his shots. The story is deep and challenging. But what I really like about A Ship to India is the idea that it both emotionally rich while being kind of a heady film. I know that I'm fighting the clock. I fell down a YouTube hole, so there's a good chance that I'm not going to finish this blog in time for my next class. It's not really my fault that Seth Meyers interviewed Ncuti Gatwa on his show and that there was a clip on my front page. That needed to get watched. Anyway, I do want to talk about one thing that really bothers me about this movie before I talk about the complexity of the film. At one point, Johannes, the deformed protagonist, after being dressed down by his father for no healthy reason, decides to attempt to rape Sally, the love interest of the movie. Not that this really changes anything, but Sally and Johannes have no real prior relationship. Sally is Johannes's father's mistress. But he actively tries to rape her. She screams and claws and tries to get out of there. Johannes is only stopped by his mother, who points out that Johannes is drunk and that he would regret his actions. Now, the purpose of this scene is not to generate sympathy for Sally, who was almost raped. The purpose of this scene is to generate empathy for Johannes, who is so deformed that he's reached the end of his rope. The gross part of me wants to say "It was 1947. It's not like he's a bad guy." That scene colors the rest of the movie for me. This is a movie I like that has layers of complexity. I wish I could say that this moment was part of that complexity, but the movie really just gives Johannes a free pass after this moment because he didn't actually succeed in the rape. They have a straight up conversation where Johannes asks Sally not to hold his previous night's behavior against him. She smiles, thinking he's just a sad charming little lad. It's a weird take. It does defintely put a dent in this movie, which I'm already rating pretty high on Letterboxd. If it was part of the story and something that defined Johannes and Sally's relationship for the rest of the film, I'd be way less taken aback by this scene. Nope. Let's ignore it. It was just a beat of characterization that was meant to elicit empathy for this hunchbacked kid who has a hard life. Also, for a movie that really stresses how ugly Johannes is, he's the most handsome ugly dude you've ever seen. He's got a hunch, but it's pretty mild. That's about it. Anyway, back to the story. What makes me excited to unpack this movie is Sally. Johnannes reads exactly what you'd expect him to be. He's the most archetypal protagonist, shy of the sexual assault. He's downtrodden and (again, that scene removed) morally upright for most of the film. He hates his own appearance and we instantly have a Beauty and the Beast dynamic between Johannes and Sally. But what I really like about the movie is that Sally isn't hard to pin down. She initially leaves her own life behind as a cabaret dancer to join Blom, Johannes's father. (I know Blom is their last name, but he's referred to as "Blom" a lot in the movie.) She clearly doesn't love him. He's an old man losing his vision. That's sad, but Blom is also a terrible human being. When Johannes starts directing attention to Sally, she reprioritizes her life. She only left the cabaret with Blom because he was going to take her away from her terrible life. She was, in all essence, prostituting herself for the sake of a life somewhere else. But Johannes seemed like more of a mark than Blom, who was too volitile to predict (again, Johannes did try to rape her, which is a weird call on her part, but it's the logic of the film). She confesses to Alice that she does not love Johannes. This is a woman who has a husband cheating on her and having his mistress live with them. She has defended the value of a child born with a physical deformity who hates himself. She thought that she might have had this win and Sally just straight up says that she doesn't love Johannes. I mean, that's fair. But there's the "I don't love him yet" of reality and the "I don't love him" of "I'm just using him to escape." She took his virginity so he would stay devoted to her. It should make her unredeemable, but it absolutely doesn't in a weird way. Part of that comes from the structure of the piece. The movie is bookended in the present day and the middle of the film is a flashback to the meat of the relationship stuff. We know that Sally goes off the deep end in the present. Something is truly off with her and that's why we have so much flashback. This scene does the best kind of muddying that I've ever seen in what could be considered a romance story. Sally is upfront with her intentions. She's been dealt a bad hand and she'll do anything to escape it. But Sally and Johannes, for the rest of the film in the flashback, hit it off. Lots of stuff happens. Heck, Blom tries to kill his kid and then he tries to commit suicide as the cops catch up to him. That's a lot to take in. Sally and Johannes continue to foster their relationship. When Johannes leaves to secure his fortune, she seems to hate him for it, even though he promises to return as soon as he can to take care of her. Now where this movie gets gloriously messy is her rationale. I think it more say more about the viewer than it does about the movie to break this section down. (Note: I 1000% didn't finish during my time to write. This is where I picked up.) A romantic has to believe that when Sally claims that she didn't love Johannes, she was lying to herself. For them, the course of the story is the discovery that Johannes was always her true love. Just because he can offer her freedom from this life of misery doesn't mean that the feelings that she harbors (pun intended) can't be love. Myself? I'm romantic, but not when it comes to movies. This is a story about people using people. When I see Sally curled up on the floor screaming at Johannes, it's because he left her behind to deal with poverty in her own way. When she refuses to go with him, despite the overly cheerful ending where she turns her frown upside-down, it's because there's spite to her. It's not that she's had her heart broken. It's because she lost out on all she invested with him to get out of there. It's bleak to me. If anything, the happy ending is just there to put a bow on a complex situation. But I believe her when she says that she doesn't love Johannes. It makes the story so much more interesting. There is also a beat that almost shocks me about the message of the film. In the last few minutes of the movie, in the present timeline, Johannes tells Sally that she needs to get out of this place before she becomes so angry and spiteful like Johannes's father. Now, Blom is pretty unlikable. He's so unlikable that you take no pity for his future blindness. But I always saw Blom's real cruelty in the fact that he openly states that his family is not enough for him. Yet, the message is that wanderlust needs to be satiated. That's a weird take from the movie. Sure, if I'm trying to meet Bergman where he's at, I can see that Blom became so bitter and spiteful because he felt trapped in his life. But to have a message to Sally that she should go before she becomes like Blom almost takes the onus off of Blom to begin with. Part of the odd logic is that Blom's family caused Blom to be the monster that he became. That's screwed up, right? But see, this is all analysis stuff. I love that I had a narrative that I could get behind and still question choices that go into those moments. A Ship to India might not be the most complex thing in the world, but it also offers something different than a standard melodramatic narrative. It gives me stories while still begging me to be engaged. I love that. Not rated, mainly because it was 1946 and NOT AMERICA. While being tonally very mild, the actual content is actually quite upsetting. A father figure manipulates the protagonist into a sexual situation (left vague...but not that vague). There is also a suicide in this sequence. Like many of Bergman's movies, one of the motifs is humanity's cruelty to one another. Still, not rated.
DIRECTOR: Ingmar Bergman Why is melodrama so comfortable to watch? I mean, I know the answer. Like with Crisis, straight-up melodrama deals with archetypes and tropes. I really don't have to think too much to understand a character. In those scenarios, like with Crisis, we can hit emotion far better. There's something absolutely blasphemous about my artsy-fartsiness. I hate that I say this, but I actually tend to like early Bergman more than later Bergman. (I also kind of like pre-cubism Picasso quite a bit too, but that's almost me being a contrarian). I've actually seen Crisis before. I own a lot of the early Criterion Eclipse box sets. I shotgunned that entire box set remarkably quickly back in the day. I'll tell you what. If Crisis is a reminder of what I liked back then, I bet you that I still like Bergman's early stuff better. Now, before I go too deep, I have to wonder what the logic of connecting Smiles of a Summer Night to Crisis. The most obvious answer is that they wanted to start off the Bergman set with a hit that wasn't it's #1 movie, but also was enough to get you excited to watch the box set and then transition into the older stuff. But what accidentally happened is that these movies became an odd double feature about how Bergman is mildly obsessed with parental figures having sexual attractions to their non-biologically related children. To paraphrase Dr. Doofenshmirtz, "it's just odd that it happened twice." What is that? It's a very specific taboo that not a lot of people talk about. I mean, I'm sure they do. I just tend to stick my head in the sand. But both of these stories normalize having crushes on your age appropriate stepparent. I don't like it. I'll tell you that. Part of what makes Bergman tick, even in these early days, is a sense of discomfort. It's not like Bergman is a guy who lives off of shock value. Honestly, as bleak as these movies get and even as controversial as these movies get, there's nothing all that graphic in the movie. If Bergman is a thinking-man's director, he makes you invest in what ultimately should be a taboo. But while Smiles of a Summer Night encouraged that taboo relationship, Nelly's relationship with Jack (who is dealing with the taboo of parental relationships twice) is meant to be abhorrent. But it's through the use of archetypes that we can shortcut our way into an understanding of the greater message of the film. Even though I've expressed my love for archetypes, they don't offer the intellectual challenge of Bergman's other works. (Again, my brain gets tired.) Jack hits all of the beats of the sleezy guy. He wears a pinstripe suit. He smokes excessively. There are moments that require him to act human that he absolutely refuses to answer that call. He's scum. Now, here's where the problems of melodrama come in. As much as I like this stuff, because characters are archetypes, they don't really reflect the real world. We can recognize Jack coming a mile away. Jack's going to do anything he can to get ahead. He even states (and then that quote is replayed in a nightmare) that Jack only loves himself. There's no doubt that when Jack swears that he loves Nelly, it's all for show. It's nice as an audience member to point fingers and say, "Boy, isn't that guy just awful!" But it also is incredibly jarring for what happens to Jack. Because Jack is almost entirely characterized by what we expect him to be, Jack's suicide almost doesn't feel appropriate for the film. (Again, this is a movie that I like.) The other characters even establish this idea. They straight up say that Jack loves himself too much to commit suicide. In terms of servng the melodrama that the movie is milking pretty hard in Crisis, it does give the movie a bombastic emotional ending that kind of works with the tone of the film. But it also doesn't make sense. Bergman almost has characters lie to us throughout so we don't see that ending coming. In terms of a message, it might almost accidentally deliver a message about the multifaceted elements of characters and people. I have no doubt that Bergman is one of the greatest cinematic geniuses of all time. He's a smarter dude than I am. I could keep writing about this, but I can't harp on that concept enough. I get that there's a very real chance that Bergman did this intentionally. But Jack stepping out of his caricature is almost a fascinating concept in itself. It both supports the whole expectations of a subgenre coupled with the chaos that real life offers. The canonical world of Nelly in Crisis would have us believe that Jack, for all of his bluster and bravado, was actually truly moved by what might have been a real love for Nelly. His shameful tricks to seduce Nelly, telling the story of being a criminal so that he could come across as the bad boy, is an embarassment to him. Compound all of that with the accusations that Jenny hurls at him, maybe it is possible that Jack would commit suicide. Sure, she claims that the gun that he owns is a cap gun, but that's immediately undone by a successful (the worst word I can pick!) suicide. But I also love the idea that people are masks. Maybe there's a narrative where Bergman is saying that we all put on masks. Jack, when he is talking to Nelly's Mutti, claims that he's going to put that old pinstripe suit away. He's aware that the suit is almost part of his character. That entire conversation with Mutti reads more like a chance to sew discord. That's Jack's entire motivation for most of the movie, by the way. He's this little evil imp who just loves to bring a bit more chaos to the people he meets. But if we read that scene differently (which I am actually hesitant to do), it could be that Jack is honestly coming to grips with his own place in this world. It's oddly romantic thinking that Jack finds value in himself because he sees Nelly as someone who is objectively good. (I'm still not loving this read, mainly because I don't think that Nelly gets enough screentime to really support that interpretation.) But in terms of the end of the movie, it could be read as that this is the door that opens a bit for Jack to become the character that ends the movie. It's unfortunate because we don't get much of a sliding gradual shift. Instead, we have a lot going on really quickly and we're left to pick up some pieces. I can't help but equate Crisis to what America was doing with the women's pictures in the '40s and '50s. Part of what defines Nelly is not what she does. Nelly, for being the anchor of the film (and I'm now sorry that I don't have more to say about Mutti), is incredibly reactionary. Often, she's defined by what is expected of by society. It's odd that the man that is rooted for by the town (but not necessarily by the audience) is Ulf. Ulf is significantly older than Nelly, but has harbored a crush for a really long time. I mean, let's unpack that for a second. If he's been crushing on her for that long, we have to look at inappropriate ages. Sometimes it's cool to take cultural factors into account. Sometimes, you can be really judgy and look down on the implication made. Right here? I'm looking down on the implication made. But there's the bigger red flag. Nelly is kind of treated poorly because she's not madly in love with Ulf, who seems fine at best. There's almost an expectation put on her to marry this dude who is not at all attractive to her. Similarly, hasn't Nelly really done enough by just being friendly to him? There's that whole misunderstanding that starts and ends with "If a woman is nice to a man, there is must be romantic feelings." But Ulf...sucks? Like, he's boring and gross. Great, he's nice to her. That doesn't mean that he owns her. I know. I'm White Knighting again pretty hard. It's just that I'm glad that the end isn't expressly pointing out that the two of them get together. There's no happy wedding and I like that a lot. (I did have some stuff on my mind while watching this. I actively watched it, but my mind drifted a bit. If they got married, I have a drastically different vibe about the end of the movie.) But I like melodrama! I like this Bergman because I can write about it with a degree of confidence. Sure, it's the bumper bowling of Bergman, but sometimes I do like to watch movies and kind of get them. Not rated, but this is pretty R-rated, especially for 1962. There's some mild language, but the big thing is that there's just nudity. It's for a second and it's just a sexual image, but it's also a picture from a book. Still, Welles isn't exactly hiding from questionable content in this. Josef K is often seduced by women he's never met. There's implication of an incestuous relationship. But again, 1962. By today's standards, the movie's pretty tame.
DIRECTOR: Orson Welles I was listening to a podcast today where the guest was comedian Larry Charles. Charles used to hang out with Bob Dylan, so he's telling all these Bob Dylan stories. And at one point he goes, "Bob, you gotta change this. No one is going to understand it." And Dylan replies, "What's so bad about not understanding?" I need to start employing that attitude when watching avant-garde stuff. Unlike some of the more intense avant-garde film, The Trial actually presents some logical stuff that isn't insanely challenging. Looking at the film, the time period, Welles himself, and the back of the box (what! It's using what resources you have!), you can piece together a lot of the allegory going on here. That doesn't mean that I'm not inserting some of my own argumentation here. The Trial really runs that fine line between stuff I really really love and stuff I absolutely can't stand. I like certain brands of weird. Can I tell you the thing that made this movie so much better for me? It's a gutsy move and there are times in my life when I would have hated this, but I love that Welles just establishes early on that the events of the story follow the logic of a dream. Now, part of me wants to write off the events of a movie as "just a dream." I'm confident that Welles doesn't mean that. But dream logic is its own special thing and a lot of The Trial, being written by Franz Kafka, it excuses logic for the sake of emotion and imagery. I forget how much of a cinematography and mise en scene guy that Orson Welles is. People always reference Citizen Kane --as they absolutely should! --for its visuals. But the thing about Kane is that it is partially grounded in reality. To a certain extent, I like that about Citizen Kane. True artists really shine when they have restrictions on themselves, when they aren't allowed to go too far. But The Trial is an interesting experiment in terms of what Welles probably wanted to do. It's kid-in-a-candy-store stuff. Sometimes, that's exactly what an auteur deserves. Welles isn't exactly one who shies away from experimentation and The Trial is kind of him getting free reign. It's so weird that this is a collaboration between Welles and Alexander Salkind, a guy who I associate with being the almost stereotypical film producer. He's the guy who drove almost every Superman property into the ground. But hey, he gave Welles carte blanche and it shows in this movie. Part of that doesn't surprise me. Salkind was a guy who saw stars around famous names. There's a reason that Marlon Brando plays Jor-El and gets larger billing over Christopher Reeve. But for what really has the vibe of an avant-garde indie film, there's some money being thrown at this movie. Part of what makes The Trial so effective isn't necessarily the message or the performances (which are in no way under criticism), but rather the imagery of tight choreography and visuals. When we are at Josef K's office, there's that imagery of an ant farm. The noise is deafening and then the day ends. Everyone gets up and leaves in almost absolute silence and it is haunting. Like Welles stated with the logic of a dream, it does add to the chaotic world where the legal system doesn't matter. And that's what it's all about. The legal system, for all of its caveats and nobility about justice being blind, is the painting at the end. It is justice and victory. She is flying with wings on her feet, showing the facade of fairness when really being off-balance with the scales. We're about to get into my bread and butter here, guys. With a history minor, I have the thing that I can't stop thinking about. Most men apparently are thinking about the Roman Empire. I can't help thinking about Blacklisting, the Hollywood Ten, and Joseph McCarthy. The back of the disc gave me the heads up about Blacklisting and the timeline fits. As much as Josef K's story was written by Kafka in 1924, this film is a comment on the moment. As chaotic and unbalanced as this dream world movie is, one of the consistent elements of the film is that Josef never really knows what he's accused of. He should be more indignant about the whole thing, but again, we follow the logic of a dream. Josef's constant frustration is that the legal system wants to see him fail. It gives him perks and ways to bury himself, but the movie never really lets us forget that Josef K is actually innocent of any crime because no crime has been attached to him. But we see that the way that people treat him is a story of escalation. He starts the movie almost immediately on the defense. The cops enter his room from a place that they should not have access to, the neighbor's loft. Initially, if this was a story about treating him with an air of innocence, that is immediately removed when we find Josef's employers searching through personal belongings. Already, Josef's life is upended. While he's given the benefit of the doubt from his landlady, she doesn't take his advice once he demonstrates his frustration with her close-minded attitude. He's defensive of other people who have not committed crimes, but have been judged by a de facto class system that looks down on lesser professions. Honestly, Josef K's crime is liberalism. He doesn't look down on his neighbor for having a career that has a tangential relationship to sex work. She's not a prostitute, but she's treated as such. It's when he comes to the defense of this woman that those around him start turning on him. The rest of the film is almost looking at the different facets of the legal system, stressing the bias against the defendant regardless of actual crime. Josef goes to court. Everyone in the room isn't a peer; they are a judge. They all laugh and he picks up that there's coaching going on as he stands up there fighting for his life. Then there's the acknowledgment that money buys freedom. Orson Welles's advocate character is housed in a grandiose mix between luxury and Victor Frankenstein's gothic home. Welles as advocate cares little for Josef K.'s predicament so much as he is itching to show how much weight he can push around. He's both put out by the scrawny Josef K and eager to impress. At no point does it become about the trial. It's instead a bunch of swagger. He feeds his girlfriend to Josef K because he enjoys that she is disposable and that his life is so rich that he doesn't need this whelp of a man. The same holds true for the artist. The artist sees Josef K as a means to show his insight into a world stacked against him. These are almost elements of theater. Everything is a production and Josef K is the form of entertainment to the masses. Let's talk about Anthony Perkins, a man whom I cannot separate from Psycho. Perkins is perfect casting here, but as much as I adore Anthony Perkins, the man has shades of Norman Bates all over him. I've now seen him in a few things. Not everything, mind you. But Anthony Perkins plays the put upon nice guy. Often, like with Norman Bates, there is a real darkness to him. To analyze Josef K. isn't a question of whether he did something or not, but more about the fact that the legal system doesn't respond to reasonable requests. (There's something very Alice in Wonderland about the whole thing too.) Knowing that Perkins was gay and that his character is also trying to adapt to constantly shifting expectations of him is also almost a character beat. Attractive women in this movie don't necessarily throw themselves at him, but find his entire situation sexual. It's actually pointed out by the advocate. Perkins had that same energy with Psycho. This nice guy gets a little bit more attractive because there might be something insidious about him. I'm not saying that Marion Crane found him attractive. It's just that Norman found himself more attractive because of his relationship to Mother. I can see Perkins loving this. But I also feel bad that it's almost too in his wheelhouse. He's got that stuttering nice guy with a secret thing down. I could play two-second clips of this and Psycho and unless you had memorized both films, you could probably mistake one scene for another. That's good casting, but I also want to see Perkins do something else. It's my same feeling with Anthony Hopkins. Both actors have absolutely nailed what they do in their craft, but often tend to do variations of the same thing, regardless for what the role is. The movie is good. It's interesting. I just don't know how watchable the movie is. I didn't lie. I would come home and know that I still had a chunk of The Trial left. That's probably not the best sign. I enjoy this kind of stuff. But I already have Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead. (I'm ending this one the worst take.) Rated R for violence, I guess. There's some blood. People die. I do find it odd that a James Bond movie can have the same amount of violence (maybe a little less blood) and get a PG rating and Game of Death gets an R. There is some language in it, tame by almost any other generation. But it was 1978. Probably the most upsetting part is that you see Bruce Lee's real corpse in the movie. Yeah, that can mess you up.
DIRECTORS: Robert Clouse and Bruce Lee "Wait...that's this movie?" I wasn't prepped guys. I mean, I knew that Bruce Lee died young. I knew that. I never really went into the details about how Bruce Lee died. I never watched Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story. None of that. I knew that he died young. I knew that there were a lot of people who tried to copy his entire persona. What I didn't really realize was that the final Bruce Lee movie was cobbled together from scraps of early footage coupled with scenes from other movies. I mean, I'm late coming to the party for this one (and I'm really trying not to be disrespectful!), but the whole connection between Bruce Lee's death and Brandon Lee's death? Listen, I hate conspiracy theories, but goodness me. They even talk about the thing that would kill Brandon Lee in Game of Death. It's very upsetting. But to finsh both movies using doubles mired in shadow? Come on. That's a bit on the nose, isn't it? I wonder what the original Game of Death looked like. Honestly, I could probably find out pretty darned easily. The Criterion box has two supplemental discs on it where I'm sure it's discussed in depth. I could do a quick Google search. I just know that it couldn't have been the movie I watched. First of all, the whole thing is just morbid. That was his real funeral footage, guys. There's a line between honoring Bruce Lee, the legend and getting the coverage you want using his actual, real-life corpse. Also, what's with the gravedigging scene? He really died. I don't get the vibe that "this is what Bruce would have wanted." Knowing that the film industry would try to capitalize on the hole left behind by Bruce Lee's passing, none of this comes across as the tribute that elements of this movie are pushing for. Like, the end is nice, having Bruce Lee's greatest moments. Putting a little bit more money into the movie by hiring John Barry to do the soundtrack, that's pretty nice. But everything else seems to be marketing this movie as "The Last Chance to See Bruce Lee." It's all a bit much. It's almost hard talking about this movie because it almost has that kind of improvised quality to the film. It reads like everyone's just agreeing to a communal lie about what this movie was about. Everything is built around existing footage. Honestly, there's some Plan 9 from Outer Space stuff happening around Bela Lugosi with this movie. Admittedly, Lee filmed a lot more and he filmed some pivotal sequences in this movie. It's just that the stuff that they chose to work around reads as...kind of gross? Game of Death plays with the idea that Bruce Lee fakes his own death after his face is destroyed by a bullet. They use the Fist of Fury ending (you know, the really memorable one?) and shoot him in the face. This leads to an interesting plot device. Like, what if Bruce Lee had to conceal his identity to get revenge on the people who tried to kill him? It's not a bad plot. There's almost an element of You Only Live Twice to the movie, which is kind of cool. But the movie A) doesn't have a convincing Bruce Lee body double and B) abandons the conceit of the film when they actually have Bruce Lee-filmed scenes. What we kind of get at the end is "Why did we spend so much time talking about being disguised and having Ann go through hell if we were just going to abandon the whole disguise thing?" I know. I'm being unfair. All of these choices exist because we need to cover up the fact that Bruce Lee didn't film a lot of the movie. But that's all you really have to criticize. The movie is about the disguises. And we only really get two disguises. We get bearded Bruce Lee (which is just straight up silly the fact that Dr. Land doesn't figure out that someone with very specific Kung Fu moves and noises isn't the guy who just did that in movies forever and he just killed that dude) and full old-man makeup. That's it. The central point of the movie was this guy who could be anyone and we get two characters? It's funny. Dr. Land didn't figure out that Billy Lo was after him until the old man sequence happened. When Billy Lo literally attacked him with a beard, it was "Who is that bearded man and what does he want with me?" But Carl is beaten in isolation and he's like, "Billy Lo!" The funny thing is, there was a time in my life that I would have lost it over this movie. It would have been my movie. I'm currently listening to the John Barry soundtrack and it is very that era of James Bond that is so good. But the movie opens borderline as a James Bond movie. That opening sequence is stealing from Maurice Binder pretty hard. The opening of the movie mind has well been The Man with the Golden Gun. I'm not saying that it is a bad thing. If you were trying to sell me on a movie that absolutely should not exist, gussying it up like a '70s James Bond movie is the smartest move that you could make. Because elements of this movie are sick. For all of the triage surgery that this movie is doing to cobble it together, it's pretty amazingly filmed. Sure, every time Billy Lo is in a sequence, it's shot from a wide angle with something obscuring the double's face. The dub? Oh my, the dub does a bigger job of highlighting the fact that Bruce Lee isn't talking. Like, Bruce Lee movies have always been criticized for their dubs of Lee. Am I crazy for thinking that Enter the Dragon had Lee do his own voice, but just minimal dialogue? Also, I know it was 1978. Standards were different. But would it have been such a crime to find someone who could sound like Bruce Lee? Soundalikes exist for everything nowadays. Yeah, they aren't perfect. But going that hard in to midwestern for Bruce Lee was silly. It's just absurd. The biggest question: Is Game of Death watchable? Yeah. I'll even go as far as to say that it's kind of fun. Here's the thing. Bruce Lee movies are excuses to watch Bruce Lee do some rad kung fu. The stories are borderline always the same. This one feels a bit more tasteless than I thought it was going to be. I think that the filmmakers probably lied to themselves and said that they were making something that was going to be a lasting tribute to this great martial artist. But it's just a Bruce Lee movie that you still have to wait through a weak plot to get to Bruce Lee beating everyone else up. (Side note: Billy Lo gets hilariously better at kung fu as the movie progresses. I know he held back for Ann in the beginning, but he shouldn't be THAT much better by the end of the movie. Also, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar was hilariously massive and it's worth the watch just to have the Jaws comparison that this James Bond send up needed.) It's fun. I can't deny that it's fun. But also, man, should this movie have been made? No. This is just capitalizing on death. Not rated, but the movie does get pretty bleak. I mean, it's a Bergman movie. The movie embraces the concept of adultery and runs with it. Some of the fallout involves suicide attempts and a game of Russian Roulette. And this is in a comedy. It's all very dour and bleak. It's a dark comedy, emphasis on "dark".
DIRECTOR: Ingmar Bergman I've officially started my 39 film Bergman run. Again, there are so many feelings about owning the Bergman box set. A guy I worked with at the video store loved Ozu, but admitted that he'd never have a handle on Ozu. There was a tinge of mournfulness and shame with that comment because he felt like he was undeserving of watching Ozu. I'm kind of the same way about Bergman. For the most part, I enjoy Bergman movies. But I also don't understand them at all. There's also an irresponsibility on my part assuming that I can understand them or feel like I have the right to critique them, even if I acknowledge that I'm writing exclusively about my feelings in regards to the movie. Still, this box set is one of the most beautiful things that I own. I'm paradoxically enthusiastic and overwhelmed by this endeavor. I'm kind of glad that they gave us Smiles of a Summer Night to start the whole Bergman fiasco. Criterion gives a non-chronological look at his entire ouevre, which is kind of fun. Smiles of a Summer Night is a good start to Bergman, especially if you don't know much about the man. Bergman can get dense. It's not that Smiles of a Summer Night is simplistic. If anything, it's potentially the most complex romantic comedy I can think of. It's just...easier? I'm still going to get it wrong. Part of it is that Ingmar Bergman, in his very criticism of the aristocracy, frustrates me with the re-definition of love. Here's all of th ways that I'm a hypocrite. A Midsummer Night's Dream, Shakespeare's treatise on the fickleness of love, is one of my favorite plays. I'm obsessed with Ernst Lubitsch, who cut his teeth on taking down the upper crust in his romantic comedies. Yet, with Bergman, I find myself depressed with his take on how fickle love is amongst the financially well-off. Part of that comes from the need to apply the story to myself. In Smiles, no one is in love with the person that they are with. Instead, true romance almost seems to stem out of the forbidden and the hunt for something greater. It's a real bummer. I mean, this is a comedy, but this is a Bergman romantic comedy. Before I go too deep into some of the takes on love, I have to voice my frustration that Bergman himself labels this movie a romantic comedy. It's not that it's not funny. (Okay, it's not all that funny.) It's just that some of Bergman's dramas are funnier than this movie. Bergman, as dour as the man gets, tells jokes. They're great jokes. Smiles of a Summer Night is a comedy in the precepts definition of comedy. It ends in weddings. Coupled with the way that the film is shot compared to a lot of the other Bergman outings, I get why it is sold as a comedy. But the jokes honestly don't really start until the final act and even then...a chuckle. Okay, back to the idea of not loving the one you are with. I don't love the assumptions that the conflict in romantic movies involves already being in a relationship with someone. I don't know why there has to be a physical external manifestation of an internal conflict when we could just point out that characters have reserves about relationships. Bergman takes it to a new level though. Every relationship in Smiles is almost a parody of what rom-com relationships come from. Egerman centers the film and he's the most unlikable character in the movie. He starts with a truly sympathetic trait. He's a widower and that's already enough to start a rom-com. But every thing that Egerman does is incredibly frustrating. (I tend to not like when people complain about none of the characters being likable and I'm doing the same thing.) Egerman has a wife far too young and innocent for him. He doesn't seem to love her so much as treats her like an acquired prize. She's the trophy wife, a younger woman for an older man. Then we find out that Egerman has been sleeping around for a significantly longer time than we've been aware of. After all, there's the implication that he has a child that he was unaware of. The oddity of Egerman's conflict doesn't come from the fact that he might lose the much more moral woman --his wife --to a woman who is also sleeping around. The issue comes from the fact that his mistress is being also treated like a possession by another, more toxic married man. Like, I get it. Bergman isn't an idiot. This is all meticulously set up to be frustrating. It doesn't change the fact that I'm incredibly frustrated with the whole thing. But the kicker comes from the fact that no one treats each other properly. First of all, Egerman doesn't sleep with his wife Anne for no reason outside of the fact that he thinks that he is preserving her innocence. Meanwhile, there's the issue with his son. Bergman isn't exactly subtle about his relationship with the religious. I would say that Henrik is pitiable and sympathetic, but that's not really true. My least favorite character in the movie is Henrik. Henrik is a seminarian, but there isn't anything fundamentally religious about him. Again, Bergman isn't an idiot. He's more commenting on the social respect that the clergy get in society. But Henrik is this Harry Osborn kind of guy. He's mad about everything, but can't vocalize his wants and desires in a reasonable way. It makes it all really frustrating that every woman is fighting for these bottom-feeding men. That might be where the movie loses me. The movie spoon-feeds the relationships that Bergman is trying to set up. Egerman is going to end up with his mistress Desiree (a name that's a bit on the nose), Malcolm (who've I've not even mentioned) ends up with his wife, Henrik ends up with Anne (his stepmother who has not consummated her relationship with her husband). But none of these men deserve anything. They're all fundamentally unlikable. The only character who is mildly likable is Anne, but that kind of stops when we find out that she's attracted to her stepson, who for the sake of legality, is an adult and probably closer in age to herself than she is to her husband. But honestly, Anne and Henrik have the most shippable relationship. AND I GET IT! This isn't about shipping people. But does Bergman need to go this hard into a story about summer romances. I honestly don't like any of them. The world is a selfish place full of selfish people. I don't necessarily need to hear that all of the time from Bergman. Can I be really honest? This all might be coming from a conflict between expectations and acceptance, but in a way, this is the bleakest Bergman story. One thing that I always like about Bergman is that he can present the most dour and upsetting stories. But there are moments where my heart is warmed. While humanity and joy are fleeting in other stories, they are present. Even in The Seventh Seal, there are a lot of tender moments. Even the actual chess game, as much as it is a potential game of fate, the joy of playing Death himself is seen in the protagonist. This story? Everything is misery. People are cruel to each other because they are selfish. I don't know if that's the world I want for an entire film. No one really cares about another person, with the exception of Anne. But even with Anne, it comes across as a little bit pathetic. And it's not that I even full on disliked Smiles of a Summer Night. It all comes back to the fact that I wanted something joyful. Not joyful throughout. But joyful regardless. My stomach can't let go of the fact that no one in this story is going to end up truly happy. The only people who will experience any kind of joy are the people who are apathetic to their relationships with others. The maid that Henrik loses his virginity to, she's so laissez-faire that it almost seems like an act. What fun is that? Nothing really has meaning? I don't know. I know that I'm begging for an Ingmar Bergman movie to be lighter. But I just want some happiness. I'm so sorry that I'm going to be writing about these movies a lot. Again, they are great films. But I would like to think that I'm more optimistic than this. PG, but that's probably for not the director's cut. There's is straight up full nudity in this movie. Also coupled with the fact that the movie is about drunkeness, debauchery, and all kinds of ill-behavior. But I do love that, technically, Amadeus has the same MPAA rating as Wonka, a movie I desperately tried to find something inappropriate to put in this section.
DIRECTOR: Milos Forman Is Milos Forman one of the greatest directors that ever lived? Honestly, how does Amadeus hit so hard? I would call Amadeus a fluke, but One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest is one of my favorite movies ever. I've seen Amadeus before and was impressed by it then. But watching it this time? Oh my goodness. I didn't remember how good this movie was. And a lot of that comes from my watching of The Prestige. The Prestige, upon second viewing, knocked my socks off. It was significantly better than I remember it being. The ending still disappointed me a bit, but I wrote it off as something that I couldn't do any better. I didn't have a better ending than what Nolan presented to me and so I made peace with the idea that The Prestige is better in existence with an imperfect ending than not existing at all. But Amadeus does The Prestige, but actually sticks every single moment in the movie on such a perfect and nuanced level that I'll probably have a hard time talking about it. If you are one to pray for something that exists outside of space and time, pray that I have the words to write about a movie that, at its core, is fundamentally about a perversion of faith. There's something really appealing about a distilled emotion put into film. Now, before people lose their minds, I understand that Amadeus is sooner historical fiction than it is "based on a true story." From what I understand, Salieri and Mozart weren't from the same era. The play / movie shoves the two into each other's atmospheres to create a sense of intense tension. But Amadeus lives and thrives on the notion that one character is constantly at war with his own vices until he actively feeds that vice. When I was looking for a picture above, I regret that I didn't have F. Murray Abraham as Salieri. Nothing had a high enough resolution to put in that thing that maintained the proper aspect ratio. I'm not saying that Tom Hulce didn't deliver. He absolutely crushed that role. But the protagonist of this story is Salieri. Again, "protagonist" doesn't mean "hero". Salieri is absolutely not heroic, nor does he pretend to be. It's clearly stated in the fact that Salieri's framing device is that of a confession that eventually gets perverted into an opportunity to brag about his sin. Forman doesn't allow the emotion conveyed to just be jealousy. When I was growing up, I remember a lot of my religion class (ahem...theology classes) mentioned that pride is the greatest sin. Intellectually, I understood what was meant by pride. "Excessive pride." It's the devil's number one sin. But part of that always rubbed me the wrong way. It seemed so Puritanical. I always thought that a fear of pride led to horrible self-esteem and suicides. But Amadeus exhibits exactly the kind of pride that would be considered sinful. Salieri's sin of pride and jealousy comes from the notion that God somehow owes Salieri. It makes sense. Salieri, for all of his religious upbringing and devotion, still has that understanding of faith as a child. It makes sense. I'm not saying I have faith figured out. If anything, my faith life is a mess and I never understand what's going on with it. But I do know that sometimes we have a very transactional relationship with faith. It's kind of why I always get a little nervous when I see people who have a strong sense of faith, but a contentious relationship with the necessary sense of reason to contrast. From Salieri's persective, he's done everything right. The moment that his father dies after his prayers is a formative moment. From that child's perspective, God had favored Salieri. He brought his wrath to an unholy situation and removed the obstacle that would have made Salieri God's instrument. That kid's entire fate was written for him in that moment. As long as Salieri pushed harder and harder, God would make him the greatest composer that ever lived. In any frame of reference, he couldn't imagine not only not being the greatest composer that ever lived, but he wasn't even the greatest composer in the room. There's something incredible depressing about being second best. I had the same conversation with God. (It's funny, because when I had that conversation in prayer, I honestly thought that I was the second best option to a lot of people. Now I'm lucky to make a leaderboard.) Golly, when I first saw this movie all those years ago, I must have raised some red flags about faith. Part of what makes Amadeus so compelling is that Salieri, while being completely in the wrong, is so sympathetic when it comes to his views on God. If anything, he's a really nuanced criticism of the relationship that people have with God. The scene where he burns the crucifix is not the loss of faith that it normally would read in most movies. If anything, it's a perverted solidification of faith because it is an open declaration of war on God. I'm sure that most people would consider atheism to be a war on God. But Salieri is something far more interesting in that moment. Salieri sees himself as Job. God has teased him and tortured him by putting Mozart in his circle of influence. Listen, I've only seen the director's cut. I imagine the scene where he manipulates Mozart's wife into offering herself to him is such a troubling scene. It's so upsetting that I can't believe that this movie could exist in a PG version. But it is in this moment, where in earnest prayer, he begs for God to write music through him. There's a poem by Edward Taylor (I think!) called "Huswifery". I just know it very well because I teach it in my American literature class. In that poem, Taylor asks God to make Taylor a vessel for God's creation. It's more in the form of a prayer, but it is this touching and earnest embracing of faith that Christians are supposed to have. Salieri's prayer is a parallel prayer to Taylor's. But the criticial difference is that Taylor claims that anything created through his art is exclusively the creation of God, Salieri can't divorce his pride from God's creation. This scene, by the way, also makes me deep dive into what talent actually is. As a guy who has basically become obsessed with the humanities, in the limited scale I've influenced anything with my creations, I have to categorize myself in an artist's community. I like it when people like what I create. It builds me up. Heck, I like it when people just read what I write, blog or other. But there's very little that I did to make me exceptional. To a certain extent, I'm working towards Malcolm Gladwell's 10,000 hour rule, but that's all based on talent in conjunction with effort. Salieri's prayer in that moment is that greedy tie to both accept that God is the author of his creations, but the pride that he cannot be the vessel that enters it into this world. Part of Salieri's complexity also comes from the fact that he knows he is both the hero and the villain of the piece. Mozart's behavior throughout the piece screams perversion. It seems like the devil is using God's notes to advance his own place in society. The offense, to a certain extent for Salieri, is that he's trying to bring back glorious music to divine origins. But so much of the film has Salieri pulling his head out of his butt and seeing Mozart for the man that he is. If sin is a choice to do the evil, Salieri continues to sin throughout. He attends all of Mozart's performances even though he is the one stymying his success. He confesses to Mozart that his music is the greatest music ever created. Often, there's a sense of love for this man. But none of that trumps his own skewed sense of morality and pride. It's a lot to take in. Honestly, Amadeus may be the greatest deep dive into characterization I've ever seen. I know, it mirrors the words that Salieri uses when describing Mozart's music. But F. Murray Abraham was given an absolute cracker of a character to unpack in this story and absolutely delivers. Today, his reputation is probably deservedly tarnished. But in this moment in time, Abraham gave us one of the greatest character studies of all time. It's honestly one of the greatest roles in history and that movie 1000% holds up. PG, but the only real reason that it isn't G is because it's live action. Like all family films, there's a little bit of peril for the protagonists. The villains, rival chocolatiers, often try to kill Willy Wonka. Also, there's just a handful of bad guys in the movie, but nothing that is honestly taken with a grain of reality. Still, live action movies tend to be PG at bare minimum.
DIRECTOR: Paul King My goodness, I wanted to like this movie. We have to establish some truths about me. While I like the original Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory because I have a soul, it's not like the character of Willy Wonka is all that precious to me. I didn't care for the Tim Burton / Johnny Depp version of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. But Wonka, somehow, has become something of a pillar of cinematic canon. Other fact about me? I like Timothee Chalamet because I think he's a talented actor, but I also think that casting tends to default to him too often. This is going to play a part in my dislike for this movie. Just know, as I stated earlier, that I really wanted to like this movie. I never thought it was going to be great. From the first images, I thought that Wonka was just going to be a movie that might have been aesthetically pleasing, but ultimately lacking any real charm of the original film. Again, I wanted to be wrong. I genuinely got excited when it hit Max because I knew that I would have a chance to watch it with the kids. I also knew that Paul King had given us some of the best family friendly films of recent history and that, at worst, I'd get a solid Paul King movie. Um...Wonka might have been worse than I thought when I started writing this. The biggest problem of Wonka is that it's just a movie. It's one of the movies of all time. This movie was hyped up for a while. Honestly, I don't know if that we ever really needed a Willy Wonka origin story. Much like the James Franco prequel to The Wizard of Oz named Oz, the Great and Powerful, we got an origin story that no one was really asking for. Origin stories are tough. Most of the time, they aren't needed. I'm not a fan of the Star Wars prequels. Solo: A Star Wars Story is fun, but completely unnecessary. Heck, even Wicked, I like the music and the spectacle...but the story? Meh. Maleficent, same deal. Honestly, Willy Wonka works better as the man behind the curtain. We discover all that we need to about the character from the original film. He's a recluse whose enigmatic lifestyle is suited only for himself. Part of the reality of the original film is that Willy Wonka is the quirky exception to a fairly mundane world. Instead, Wonka offers a Roald Dahl fever dream where everyone is just a little bit Willy Wonka and Willy Wonka is the most joyful chocolatier that ever lived. This is me saying what everyone else is saying about the movie too. Timothee Chalamet's Wonka is no Gene Wilder's Wonka. Gene Wilder's Wonka was a man who found joy in the death of spoiled children. There's an implication that the kids didn't die in his factory, but there was never the guarantee that the kids didn't die in that tour. There's a malicious glee in his eyes when terrible things happened to those children. (I'll even go as far as to say that the original ending to Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory doesn't make a lick of sense because his character just shifts to like Charlie when he returns the candy. Okay, okay, he forgives Charlie for his good deed.) The problem is...what is Wonka really saying? It's almost revisiting a feeling more than it is actually offering anything new to the conversation. I feel like I've written this phrase before and it's not a new idea, but I get that there really are no new stories. It's something that I say, but don't really believe. But Wonka, for being such a talked about movie, feels incredibly lazy as a story. Golly, this movie jumps back to archetypes so hard that I don't know what to really say surprised me. I used to write "paint-by-numbers" a lot in my blogs until I got called out on overusing it (Ironic, ain't it?). There's a weird kismet to that debacle in Ireland with Willy's Chocolate Extravaganza and Wonka kind of having the same vibe. I'm not accusing Wonka of being AI generated, but it also mind as well have been. Both of these Willy Wonka-themed moments seem so uninspired by anything new that the concept of Willy Wonka is somehow tarnished by the existence of these things. I'm being hyperbolic, but not by much. I accused Rise of Skywalker of committing the worst crime a Star Wars movie could do: be just fine. Wonka is on trial for the same crime. The thing about a boring Willy Wonka property is that Willy Wonka is supposed to be marvelous. There's always supposed to be a trick up his sleeve. He's the master magician in the form of a reclusive chocolate maker. But there's nothing all that magical about Wonka. Wonka in this movie is quirky, but he rarely feels in control of his own world. The consequence of that is that these moments where Willy Wonka pulls out some fantastical creation all feels neutered. I'm trying to compare two parallel moments from the movies. In Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, there's a candy that causes Charlie and Grandpa Joe to float to the ceiling. Through belching, they come back down. Wonka treats it as this thing that he's been honing for years and hasn't quite perfected. It all feels like the obsession of a madman. Wonka has a chocolate that, lazily, does the same thing. It's a chocolate that causes people to fly around. There's no real danger to the chocolate. It just...exists. Now, a scene where people started flying because they ate chocolate should be whimsical. It just felt boring. It felt like the easiest magic that a movie could provide. Maybe Willy Wonka doesn't need to have a whole franchise around him. This is a movie that suffers from being an origin story and a wholly unnecessary origin story. It's honestly pretty boring. The performances are fine, but that's me being generous because I think that there's more that could have been done with the eponymous character. I don't want to attack any of these people because I like all of the people involved. But this movie was just...not good. PG-13. While, by no means, is this an offensive movie, it's more offensive than the tone implies. (Again, not offensive, just not as squeaky clean as people remember.) Sexuality is a common motif throughout the story. Jenna wakes up to a naked man. While no actual nudity, Jenna is scandalized by nakedness. Also, Jenna is obsessed with her own breasts. She also gets drunk as an adult, even though she's technically only 13. But it's a pretty tame movie overall. Also, the word "suicide" is thrown around pretty casually. The movie also has a 2004 attitude towards addressing homosexuality. Still, PG-13.
DIRECTOR: Gary Winick Guys , I'm not the guy who should be writing about rom-coms. I know. Everyone loves them. For the most part, including in this case, I don't. I really don't. I don't want to be a judgmental turd about rom-coms. I don't want to be sad about what makes lots of people happy. But my snobbery has officially ruined me for bubble gum rom-coms. I also know that 13 Going on 30 is one of those universally loved rom-coms. No one is going to be a fan of this blog because I'm going to write about how my life is the hardest for having watched this movie. I will say that I watched it at the perfect time. I had just finshed Mysterious Object at Noon, a movie that moved in the complete opposite direction as 13 Going on 30. Mysterious Object is pretention weaponized. It's so indie and so anthropological that I couldn't really find much enjoyment out of it. Now, I don't really choose what movie I watch next. I have a weird algorithm that picks my next movie, but I didn't exactly mind something mindless like 13 Going on 30 showing up as the next movie. Okay, that kind of changed when I watched it. The thing about rom-coms is that I don't really find them all that funny. I also really get frustrated with the worlds that these kinds of movies build. I also have to confess something here. It's pretty bad, especially considering that I claim to have an encyclopedic knowledge of film. (I hate me too, guys. I hate me too.) I've never seen Big. I honestly should watch it right now, but I just got all of these great movies for my birthday and I need to knock them out over the course of a year (a self-imposed quest). So even though I'm going to make a natural comparison to Big, just know that I haven't really seen it. Let's talk about what I do like about this movie before I start being a bit of a bully about a lot of people's favorite film. If I am going to watch a rom-com, I don't necessarily hate the high concept element involved in something like 13 Going on 30. Both Big and 13 play on the knowledge that putting a kid in an adult body can lead into all kinds of fun hijinks while simultaneously providing commentary on the loss of innocence that comes with aging. 13 Going on 30 does this well. One thing about putting Jennifer Garner as the adult Jenna means that she's instantly worthy of our trust. Garner absolutely nails the silliness that comes with a story that pits a 13 year old in an adult body. Garner's smart enough to do something that other actors might ignore. It doesn't carry all the way throughout the film, but Garner, for the most part, plays Jenna as someone who is faking it until she makes it. Yeah, there's some yellow flags that people aren't picking up on Jenna's new reality, but that can be written off by the rules of rom-coms. But the coolest part about a story involving the loss of childhood joy is the idea that Jenna is the most evil character in the story. One of the key plots in the story is that Poise magazine, a publication that Jenna has idolized since she was a child, has a mole inside the organization. Mentally 13 Jenna is mortified that anyone could possibly do something so diabolical that she steps up to the plate to save the publication. Narratively, the film sets up Judy Greer's Lucy as the spy. After all, she's the antagonist of the film. She is as shady as can be in the film. Yeah, for anyone invested in the plot, we are all aware that Jenna is the criminal. The character has to come to grips that it takes a villain to get as much as she does in 17 years and Jenna is too successful to be a good person. But the movie, for all of its criticisms of the adult Jenna, intentionally tries to divert the gaze away from Jenna's greater crimes. Jenna goes from icky to villainous with that revelation and I really like that. I like that we have to question how to succeed in America and it's 13 Going on 30 that doesn't shy away from that question. But that's all that I really like about the movie. Okay, Mark Ruffalo and Jennifer Garner have good chemistry. But also, Matty is getting married? I know. The rom-com has normalized the notion of the romantic obstacle. In real life, Matty and Jenna are terrible people. Like, we would hate them in real life for doing what they did to Matty's fiancee. I don't know why rom-coms do this. I don't necessarily creating an obstacle to a story through character. After all, things can't be easy. An to give 13 some credit, Matty doesn't leave his fiancee. Instead, Jenna rewrites history, which is far more drastic, yet somehow morally better for me. But let's criticize Matty for a while. Matty is aware that he doesn't love his fiancee. He knows that he loves Jenna. Fine. But Matty chooses to lead this woman along in a life of misery because he's ultimately too cowardly to make a change. I would say that's not morally wrong, but he does kiss Jenna. He continually puts himself into situations where he's going to feed his attraction to his childhood best friend. There's really no excuse when that kiss happens. He also decides to keep that moment to himself. It's all kinds of gross. Also, I've never really seen a movie that ignored its central conceit. Jenna, in an understandable moment of panic, flees to find Matty, the one person that she knows exists in both time periods. It's Marty McFly looking for Doc in 1955. These are people of trust. Now, Jenna infodumps on Matty about her reality. She's holds nothing back. She confesses that she is a 13-year-old girl in a 30-year-old body. She even goes down the exact minute that she leaves her old body and travels to the future. It's not hidden. Now, the onus on Matty isn't to believe her. I mean, it's an option. It's actually an option that would make for a far more interesting, but less romantic movie. But the alternative is that Jenna has had a mental break, forcing her to believe that she is a 13-year-old girl. I get the vibe that his is the thing that Matty believes. That's a red flag, right? Okay, he thinks that Jenna is a 30-year-old woman who believes that she's 13. Yet, he keeps putting himself in scenarios where he's going to indulge whatever feelings he has for this woman. Is he okay with falling in love with a woman who believes that she is 13? I mean, she flirts with middle school boys as a 30-year-old. Everyone oddly seems like "That's so Jenna", which doesn't seem like that's at all Jenna. Sure, Matty doesn't see that, but he's also in on the secret. It doesn't matter how attractive she is. She continually tells Matt that she cannot remember anything beyond the closet when their friendship fell apart. Are we supposed to be rooting for those two? I mean, I kind of was because they're both so charming. But that's also the biproduct of a movie that ignores the key idea behind the movie. The bigger problem in terms of enjoyment is the fact that a movie that is fundamentally about what it means to be a child has never met a thirteen-year-old. Those bookended sequences in 1987? Especially the first one? Good golly, no kid acts that way. They got every childhood behavior from Disney Channel original programming. I'm not saying that kids don't model archetypal behavior. But there's nothign realistic about the script for young Jenna and young Matty. These characters are silly. Don't blame the '80s, by the way. That is too much. None of these moments read as authentic. Oddly enough, Jennifer Garner portrays a 13 year old better than the preteen that probably plays her. And none of that is really that kid's fault. The script is just so awful and such shorthand for what kids really go for. And a lot of that comes from the fact that no one really puts investment in making rom-coms somehow grounded. Rom-coms tend to be about establishing a tone. After all, I did watch the "Fun & Flirty" edition of the movie (BTW, making custom special editions based on lines of the movie was one of the worst DVD trends). The movie was so focused on lightheartedness that we sacrifice any real character for the sake of a good time. Again, I shouldn't be writing about these movies. I don't like them. There are rom-coms that I like, but I like the stuff that takes itself a little more seriously. I like when these film deviate from the formula. Golly, I'm so sorry everyone, but 13 Going on 30 does almost nothing for me. I enjoyed having something light to watch as a palatte cleanser to Mysterious Object at Noon. But the movie itself isn't...good? Again, continue liking what you like. This movie doesn't do anything for me though. Not rated, and I don't even know what you could rate this movie. It's almost stream of consciousness. There really isn't anything all that offensive. At one point, the narrative shifts to the teacher being a dancer, with the implication that she might be a stripper. But nothing is ever shown that might be even slightly offensive.
DIRECTOR: Apichatpong Weerasethakul Ask me if I want to write even a few words about this movie. The answer is a resounding, "No!" I have no desire to write right now, but I really don't want to write about this movie. I know I have nothing of substance to contribute to the discussion about this movie and that makes me a bad blogger. Honestly, I ran into a unique set of circumstances while trying to watch this movie that makes me completely underqualified to write about this movie. I watched the first hour on a treadmill, not understanding a bunch of it. I then Wikipedia'ed it, understood something absolutely crucial to watching this film and finished the movie. What I should do is rewatch the film with the important piece of knowledge that I should have gotten and then write about it. But the problem was...I really wasn't having a good time with this movie. I can't imagine sitting through it again, especially after just powering through it the first time. The funny thing is, I thought, "A Thai movie from 2000? How exciting." But then I found out that it was filmed in 16mm black-and-white and then blown up to 32? Come on. It's almost like the director desperately wanted to look like a movie from a bygone era. It's like the movie was trying to spend all of my goodwill. It's an obtuse film that doesn't look very pretty and really asks you to invest in that premise. I tried, guys. I was excited. With a movie named Mysterious Object at Noon that was made in 2000? That should have been completely up my alley and it did borderline nothing for me. It's not even a one-star movie. I can at least have a strong opinion about a one-star film. This is 2 out of 5 (something that I never mention in my film blog. That's usually reserved for Letterboxd). It just is nearly impossible to write about this without having an insane level of investment that I just didn't have. If this movie is great to people, good. Continue it being great. This hit none of my buttons, mainly because I refuse to watch it again so soon with the knowledge I now have. The knowledge I gained, by the way, was that this movie is done in the "exquisite corpse" fashion. I've learned this term before, but I rarely run into actual examples of it in practice. An exquisite corpse is a type of art that starts with one person coming up with a premise that people continually contribute to and add to the original piece. The goal of the exquisite corpse is that we should have something very different than what we started with at the beginning. It is a communal experience that is more about the relationships between artists than the final product that is actually made. Here's the problem. I walked into this movie wondering if it was a documentary or a fictional narrative (or a weird hybrid of both.) From my perspective, there were moments that felt really grounded and real. People seemed to be talking about real problems and real issues and I thought the movie was a study of life in Thailand in 2000. But then we'd have a scene that was acted out. Then it got bizarre and borderline silly with some of the choices. What started as a story between a teacher and a student became an alien doppleganger story that had almost no consistency between the other scenes. Now, what I assume was supposed to be the takeaway in this film was the myriad of personalities in this village in Thailand. The things that was a unifying force was the story that was being grown between the many many people involved in telling the story. The moments where we got to see people just exist in Thailand was interesting in the same way that the Maysleses had with cinema verite documentaries. I actually really like those documentaries a lot and there are elements of that inside Mysterious Object at Noon. But every time I would get invested in something real, we were thrown back into the exquisite corpse. And I'll tell you what? I don't care about that story. Storytelling is a specific thing. Maybe this is me gatekeeping more than I should, but the practice of the exquisite corpse, from my limited snobby perspective, should be a showcase of talent. What we get with the exquisite corpse is a reminder of why improv and understanding of structure really matter. There was a comic book and an adapted cartoon of something called Axe Cop a while ago. I never got into it. I read a little bit of it and it wasn't for me. The conceit of Axe Cop was that a comic book writer / artist took an improvised story by his son or nephew and adapted the story quite seriously. The joke was that the narrative was absolute chaos. Kids aren't really all that interesting storytellers. The main reason that kids aren't all that interesting storytellers is that everything is about escalation. Everything has to be more interesting than the previous scenes. I'm not saying that I'm perfect at that. Everyone struggles with storytelling. But that's why authors plan. Some authors can even pull off the exquisite corpse model. There was a run of comic books (I think about Ka-Zar and the Savage Land and another with Spider-Man...) that used the exquisite corpse conceit to tell the story. The point was that one author would write a story about the protagonist, putting him in a seemingly unfathomable cliffhanger. There seemed to be no way out. The goal of the author was to dig a really deep grave and see if another author could dig his or her way out. It was a fun game. But those were authors who knew structures and could plan before improving the whole thing. Listen, I'm spiraling. I don't mind spiraling in a blog like this because I don't have a lot to contribute. For all of my textual vomit that I'm offering here, I understand it isn't about the quality of the exquisite corpse in Mysterious Object at Noon. The point is that we get this insight into Thai culture and the people who contributed to this story over a dedicated amount of time. I get that. We all acknowledge that the story that was created is probably a bit of crap. They didn't even film the last sequence with the boys and the tiger, mainly because you couldn't have multiple tigers and aliens fighting on this kind of budget. The movie even reminds me in what seems to be an after-credits sequence that the story doesn't matter. We see footage of people playing soccer and having a good time in this village. Heck, we almost get ten whole minutes of just coverage of people doing innocuous things because the director is reminding us that his is about the people, not the story. But then why invest so much time in the adaptation of the exquisite corpse? Honestly, that was the stuff that drove me more crazy. It seems like there needed to separate this documentary from others which are just analyses of the human person. Part of the exquisite corpse is a question asking "What is art?" I don't know if the Mysterious Object story really at all tries to answer that question. If anything, it is an attempt to rein in chaos. Again, if it is just about the people, then we get to see people having a good time contributing to a greater tapestry. But the actual art itself is honestly pretty darned terrible and inconsequential. (See? I'm back to griping about this.) What's worse is that the Mysterious Object story is just distracting from me getting to know these interesting people. There's a couple arguing on a train. I want to know all about them. Instead, we're desperate to get back to this story that's just unintelligible. I know that I'm going to login to Letterboxd and it's going to be a 4.0 or something. I'm just going to be sad because my dumbness didn't really give me a good insight into what this movie could be. If I write any more, you know I'm just trying to pad out a bad film blog. Maybe there's something good that I should have picked out, but I almost just left frustrated with this movie. Meh. |
Film is great. It can challenge us. It can entertain us. It can puzzle us. It can awaken us.
AuthorMr. H has watched an upsetting amount of movies. They bring him a level of joy that few things have achieved. Archives
May 2024
Categories |