Change Your Image
zhoyt
Reviews
The Royal Tenenbaums (2001)
not for everyone
The devil is in the details, or so goes the cliché, but it really does hold true in film making. Wes Anderson is the first director to really open my eyes to this. Film is an art form that can be broken down to a synthesis of photography and literature. When the narrative of a film started to become the most important aspect however, the emphasis on composition was lessened. Composition is a broad subject, but it is part of the composition specifically that I want to discuss, the mis en scene. Wes Anderson uses the mis en scene in a way that really catches my eye. Sometimes it seems like films don't spend too much time thinking about mis en scene, how many times have we seen the same locations used over and over again? Wes Anderson manages to create his own worlds in film without being fantastical or clichéd. Every scene is so rich with detail that it is impossible to absorb it all in one viewing. Each room in the Tenenbaum house is so full of life and memories. One of my favorites is the game closet. All of the dusty board games hold so many memories. Also all of the paintings done by Ritchie in the film (actually done by Wes Anderson's brother) are the perfect fit for the film; sweet, innocent at first glance, but holding so much more. The films of Wes Anderson are exactly the same way. The soft colors, fun tunes, and quirky humor really bring you in to the movie, and when you are drawn in the characters begin to open up and you begin to see the dark side of things. In Rushmore Max's puppy love crush on his teacher seems sweet and funny, but when it turns into obsession filled with lies and attempts on his friend Bill Murray's life you aren't sure whether to laugh or not anymore. A similar situation happens with Ben Stiller in Tenenbaums. We all laugh at his jump suits and crazy mannerisms, but once the first giggles wear off we see through these quirks to the cause, his wife's untimely death, and see a sad neurotic individual who isn't so funny anymore. It this constant up and down between comedy and tragedy that really makes Tenenbaums special; we get both a hilarious family comedy and a serious epic chronicling the history of a family. Anderson is obviously referencing The Magnificent Ambersons and he succeeds in capturing the scope and feel of this classic, at the same time the movie manages to be one of the funniest I've ever seen. It's amazing that he can fit that much into a movie. Of course some may argue that he tries to fit too much into the movie. And to a point I agree. There is so much backstory and so many characters in Tenenbaums that it is easy to get lost as all of them attempt to have their own stories. There is a focal point though, and it is easily Gene Hackman. His portrayal of Royal is easily my favorite part of the movie. He is just a really loveable son of a bitch of a character, and Hackman plays him perfectly. I really like how the movie is presented as a novel. I found myself wanting to go out and buy this book. It was a nice way to segment the story and remind us of its literary lineage. My favorite is the reference to From the Mixed Up Files of Mrs. Basil E. Frankweiler. All in all, I really love this film. It may be a little too ambitious, but it has so many things going for it. This is the only movie I've paid to see in the theaters more than three times. Every time I watch it I get something new out of it and spot another great little detail that makes the movie so much funnier or deeper.
Monsoon Wedding (2001)
The definition of a feel good picture
`Just because a romantic comedy is Indian doesn't make it any better', I thought to myself. And as I came in to the movie, I was very stubborn about liking it, but eventually it won me over. But for the last minutes of the movie I couldn't help but smiling. Monsoon Wedding did so many things right I don't know where to begin. First, the characters; there are so many characters in this movie that it seems impossible to make them work without being contrived stereotypes. Maybe some people saw them like this, but I really felt like they were fleshed out well. We don't need an hour of screen time to develop a character when you can learn so much from a glance or a single line. For example when the pedophile uncle first makes an appearance, the look on both his and Ria's faces let you know exactly what is going on. This could go either way of course, it could be that we know what's going on because we have seen the same thing countless times on Lifetime, but I give the benefit of the doubt to MW and say that it is just superbly done acting and editing. We get the same feeling with the initial meetings of Dubey and Alice. The painful awkwardness and obvious tension between them feels excruciatingly authentic. Throughout the film we see very small scenes and pieces of dialogue that tell so much. We spend very little time with many of the characters but we feel like we know their whole lives. The relationship between the bride and her ex lover when they meet in the car, the friendship between the mother and her sister as they remember their honeymoons, the background of the Australian, the obnoxious uncle, etc. There are so many people in this film, but they all come together and we get a feel for all of the characters which is very hard to pull together when there are so many people. The same technique that we familiarize ourselves with the characters is used to tell other details. The direct conflict between old/new and east/west in India is very prominent, but it is entirely understated. The scene on the golf course, the argument over the wedding tent, the music, the mobile phones, the drinks, the clothes, it all blends together to make one interesting cocktail. I think one reason the film endeared itself to me was its shear beauty. The colors are so vibrant and lively, and the shots are composed so artfully. Some of my favorites were when Dubey is working in the yard lovesick. Also of special note were a few shots that were completely out of the narrative. Especially while traveling. There was a shot from the back of a bus (I think) that just caught the rain and the distortion so nicely, the distortion and the camera movement worked together so well to convey a mood of confusion and sadness. It almost looked like a bit out of an art film. Another thing I liked about the film was the way song worked into it. In most American films I see the musical numbers are entirely forced and out of place in the film. In contrast, the song and dance numbers in Monsoon Wedding flow completely with the story. You don't even notice it's a musical sequence, it just seems like part of the natural flow of the movie, and it doesn't hurt having such catchy tunes. The last thing I will rave about is the camera work. The many instances of the handheld camera and the in your face style brought a real nice verite style to everything, adding to the realism of everything. Also nice was the breaking of the frame, as you mentioned in class. The camera in many instances seemed less like an omnipotent eye, and more like a POV shot of an unmentioned character, you. There are probably problems in Monsoon Wedding, but I didn't notice any in my one viewing. I came out of the theater in a daze of happiness, a true feel good movie, not dwelling on any mistakes that may have been made, but remembering all the subtle touches, the rare spices added in such small amounts to be hardly noticeable, but without them this stew wouldn't be as unforgettable as it is.
Los amantes del Círculo Polar (1998)
a tremendous accomplishment in editing and story telling
Contains Spoilers Lovers of the Arctic Circle is a film about cycles. To drive this point home, the narrative is edited together in interconnecting circles. The story is told from two perspectives, Ana and Otto. The stories go off in each perspective, focusing on one or the others point of view (occasionally both at the same time) and eventually coming back together. A good way that I understand it is like a chain link fence. Each circle makes its own rotation, but the links all meet at common points and you can continue on to the next link, circling around and around. Or it could also be looked at like an infinity knot. Maybe you think your getting somewhere but really you just keep circling around in an endless figure eight. Lovers of the Arctic Circle tries to convince us that this is what life, and endless circle of coincidences. As philosophy I find it less than convincing, but as a film it comes off great. There are rare films that can't simply be viewed by a passive audience. There are films that strive to be much more engaging than popcorn for the mind. This is one of those films. From the opening we know that this movie is going to be a challenge to the viewer. We see a crashed plane, we see brief images flashed before us, and then it jumps to a little boy. We expect to have the opening imagery explained to us, but it isn't. Instead we begin the narrative of Otto as a child, and how he first meets Ana. It is easy to forget the image of the crashed plane. Even when the imagery of pilots is brought back up in the narrative, you don't think back to the opening, only in the end when we see the same image in a newspaper do we realize we've come full circle, or at least that we're on a circular trip from the beginning. Pardon me if I ramble, but this movie leaves so many things to be discussed that it's hard for me to organize my thoughts. Of course I ramble anyways, wait, there I go again. So anyways. Lovers of the Arctic Circle definitely pulls off cyclical editing extremely well, it is the highlight of the film for most viewers (especially the first viewing when it is such a shock to the system). On subsequent viewings, it is much easier to analyze other parts of the movie, things that you don't think about at first because you are so caught up in figuring out if Ana is dead or connecting the dots between things or finding small details to theorize the meaning of (for example: as time moves on, Otto's hair is always getting longer, while Ana's gets shorter). But there is a lot of other things to think about that aren't cyclical, things you think about most `normal' movies. For example the characters; how well were they put together/pulled off? I think in this film the answer to both questions is excellent. The actors all do very good jobs (especially the two leads) at conveying the reality of emotions displayed. The ferocity of Otto's anger when his mother dies is intense (this is helped out by the shaky handheld camera, bringing us closer to the explosion) and the close ups of Ana after Otto leaves really show you the depth of her pain, blaming herself. Other good moments are the expressions on the faces of Otto and Ana while sledding towards the cliff, and the look in Ana's eyes after she is hit by the bus. It is very hard to express emotion through the eyes alone, but the actress definitely pulls it off in this important shot that gets repeatedly shown. The music was outstanding. The low deep tones played throughout the film give it a morose tone. Not to say the music is morose, it ranges in feeling, but there is always a subtle moroseness to it. Even the overtly happy tune played in the beginning and in the final scene from Otto's POV (yet another circle) has a somber undertone, even before we think everything is going to work out, there is a sinking suspicion that we are in for sadness, and I attribute that feeling to the music. My only gripe with the movie was the pacing. Maybe I should complain about the scope of the picture being too broad, but I thought towards the middle of the picture (after Otto runs away) the story dragged. The director did his best to show as much as possible of the main characters lives and keep it moving, my favorite example of this is the scene where Otto tells his various meaningless girlfriends about how his mother died in one continuous story that spans girlfriends, apartments, and years. But unfortunately, I think it still drags at points. It could be argued convincingly either way as to whether we needed to see as much of the in-between being together lives of Otto and Ana to get the right emotions when they finally see each other again. I personally think it was probably necessary to show everything, there is no bad scenes that seem forced or of place in the narrative, I just found myself losing interest at that point in the movie. I think it would have been better with fewer scenes and more montages. Beyond this point, I find Lovers of the Arctic Circle to be an extremely fine film.
Frida (2002)
Great art direction, boring script
I just got back from seeing Frida at the Bijou and I must say I was impressed. Maybe it is because I've been working on my own short film and seeing such terrible results that I truly appreciate the good things in this movie. Frida is the biopic of artist Frida Kahlo. It begins in 1953 (I think) the year Frida finally gets a one woman show in Mexico. Her doctor has ordered her to stay in bed, so she has her bed loaded in a flat bed truck and driven to the show. With this extravagant act the movie begins, giving us an insight into the eccentricities that is Frida. The movie then shifts to the 20's, where Frida is a school girl. Here we are introduced to the famous painter and womanizer Diego Rivera; it is obvious from this brief introduction how much Frida admires him. She tries to get her uninterested school chums to come see him work, but can only get their attention when she says there is a naked women modeling. In the next scene Frida is on a trolley that crashes. This is the scene that first caught my attention in the film. We go into slow motion, and Frida is isolated in blackness. Her mangled, bloody body laying in the crashed trolley, covered in gold dust that was carried by a man on the trolley is truly a beautiful shot. Next we see stop motion animation with Day of the Dead figures to show her surgery after the accident. I really loved this sequence. It is a really original take on how to portray a scene. That is something that this movie did really well, integrate art into the movie. The animated sequences are the best in the movie in my opinion because of their originality. Frida is paralyzed for a long time (it isn't specified exactly how long) and most people think she will never walk again, but she says she will, and eventually she does. While bedridden in a full body cast, she develops as an artist, using the art as a means to channel her pain. The story moves along and Frida and Diego become partners. Diego introduces Frida to the hip and happening Communist party. The radicals have the best parties according to Diego. Blah blah blah the story goes on, Frida is constantly in pain since her injury, and she is constantly emotionally hurt by Diego's continuous infidelities (going so far as to sleep with Frida's sister while she is staying with them). Not that Frida is a saint, they both have affairs, but Diego is by far the worse of the two. Frida continues to use her painting as a way to escape and release pain. And then the movie comes back and she goes to the show. I was never overly interested in the story. The script seemed pretty flat, the dialogue was generally boring. I think there were jokes, because a couple people laughed, but I never found anything funny. Maybe I'm not hip enough or something. I can't be too hard on the script though, it is a difficult thing to condense a life (even a relatively short one like Frida's) into two hours. What the script leaves lacking however is more than made up for in other areas. I wasn't expecting too much from Salma Hayak but she really impressed me in this movie. I will never say that she can't act again. Even better was Alfred Molina who did an excellent job making Diego a likeable character despite his flaws. Being that this movie was Salma Hayak's pet project, it's interesting to note the cameos from Antonio Bandaras, Ashley Judd, and her boyfriend Edward Norton. It was also nice seeing Valeria Golino finally get Hollywood work after Hot Shots. The only real bad acting in the movie was Geoffrey Rush who played Leon Trotsky with an appallingly fake Russian accent. I think the best thing the movie did was combine the art of Frida into the movie. There were wonderful special effects that let paintings blend in and out of real life (Frida painted herself into her paintings). My favorite scene in the whole film is when Frida and Diego go to New York. The actors travel through a series of cutouts representing their trip to the map. This sequence is a million times better than any travel montage I've ever seen. My second favorite scene would have to be when Frida's death is shown through a painting she did burning. It probably sounds stupid just like that, but in the context of the movie it was a great way to show her death, really connecting her life and her art, which are inseparable because her art is so personal.
Daughters of the Dust (1991)
How Stella Got Her Groove Back for art houses
Daughters of the Dust is considered to be an artistic masterpiece. It's supposed to be the ideal feminist movie. After watching it, I am not sure why. I came into this movie with an open mind, even though all of my classmates had expressed distaste for the movie, but a lot of the things they talked about didn't bother me. For instance the significance of the bottle tree, and smashing it, the only really confusing part of the film for me was the fight. It wasn't clear to me if it was serious or not. The way I see it, there are two main problems in the movie. The first is the script. It is rambling, and incoherent. There is no plot structure. It just meanders around a large ensemble of characters, never really giving you a chance to know anyone well, with the possible exception of Nana. Not only does the screenplay ramble, but it is extremely preachy. This is a movie, not a sermon. If you want to get your point across, do it subtly, don't shove it down our throats repeatedly. The worst part of the script is the end. Everything just falls apart. People scream wildly in acting reminiscent of the over exaggerating silent era. The final speech on the beach, good lord; I couldn't understand the actress, but what I could understand was terrible. Way to work in that title in the script. Talk about a lame cliché! This film is reminiscent of an extremely over indulgent film students work that magically got funding for saying the magic words 'African' and 'Feminist' that managed to get into the purses of wealthy backers. The bottom line is, it doesn't matter how culturally or politically valid a movie may be, it can still be a terrible movie, and this is indeed a bore.
However I want to take some time here to talk about the argument that this movie is bad because it is afro-centric. That because of its many obscure references to thing that the vast majority of white (and probably a large percentage of black) viewers don't understand. This does not condemn the movie in my opinion. Don't get me wrong, the movie is still bad, but not for these reasons. I think part of the reason the afro-centrism of this movie is targeted is because it's a bad movie overall and people blame this for it. But really, it would be a bad movie with or without the afro-centric elements. There are parts in every movie that people won't understand. A lot of times they are more subtle than in this movie. I think it is wrong to damn a movie for it's obscure references. Even if you don't have any background on this, the movie gives you enough and gets its points across well enough that you don't need one; you can understand the movie and its references. This is a double edged sword however. It may not damn the movie, but it doesn't canonize it either. I've read lots of reviews focusing on how important the movie is because it focuses on an almost forgotten part of African heritage or because of it's feminist views. I found this piece of culture and history extremely interesting, it reminded me of Last of the Mohicans. But no matter how interesting a subject matter, it can still be turned to crap, and Julie Dash has really ruined a good subject matter here.
Just a thought as I reflect on the movie, but maybe the biggest problem is that there is just too much? Too many characters, too many plot points, etc etc etc. It might have worked in another medium that wasn't constrained to this length. It's just too rushed and compact and every which way but loose the way it is. Never settling on anything.
Before I end this, I want to make my case for this movie. The case of how it is nothing but an art house version of How Stella Got Her Groove Back. Both film have their main characters as strong black mothers or grandmothers. Both films focus on black family dynamics. Both films focus on the differences between northern life in America and southern life on the islands. Both films focus on black culture and the many different facets of it. Both films have the exact same scene of a woman running on a beach. Both films are about maintaining a black (or African) identity in a white European world. Both films have dance scenes with large groups of blacks dancing to African/African-American music. Both films have a black relative abandoning her black relatives to be with a white (or Native American) man. Both films have almost entirely black casts. I could probably come up with more, but I think I made my point. To sum it up, I proclaim How Stella Got Her Groove Back to be `a film of visionary power, an unprecedented achievement in terms of world cinema and African aesthetics'. I also think that How Stella Got Her Groove Back is a much more feminist leaning film. The only focus on feminism I saw in Daughters of the Dust was the final breakdown speech on the beach where all of the sudden the men are completely ignored and it's all about the daughters. If you ever teach a class like this again, I would suggest screening these two films back to back as a lesson of how to understand hype and pretentious critics.
Rad (1986)
Not just nostalgia
Before the huge X-Games explosion of the late 90s, there was another place where extreme sports thrived; The 80s. Like any fad, there were numerous exploitation movies based on it. Thrashin was the cream of the crop to focus on skateboarding, but when it came to BMX there was a real debate. Was it BMX Bandits or Rad? In my mind, there has never been a doubt. While BMX Bandits is pretty good, it can't even come close to Rad. Likely both films spawned hardcore punk bands named after the movies, and Rad the band is far superior to BMX Bandits. (Although really neither are that great) So what makes Rad so good? To start, the star power: a pre-Full House Lori Laughlin is the love interest of our hero Cru, Talia `stop calling me Adrian' Shire has a great turn as Cru's mom, and veteran character actor Ray Walston is hilarious as a crankity old bike shop owner (`The world would be a lot better off without kids'). The movie also has one of my favorite scummy villains of the 80s, Jack Weston of Dirty Dancing, Short Circuit 2, and Can't Stop the Music (the fictionalized Village People biopic). With a cast this great you know you're in for a treat. The next key ingredient of Rad is the stunts. Instead of hiring BMX stuntmen and only using them for stunts, Rad gives them roles, playing themselves. It is set around a fictional BMX race called `Hell Track' and it draws some of the best riders from around the world. It is always a special treat seeing some of my favorite riders of yore on the screen along with Cru. It gives the movie an authentic feeling. It also has spectacular stunt scenes in the opening credits where they just let the riders do there thing and they really show off their skills which are highlighted by interesting angles and slow motion. Another great thing about Rad is the soundtrack. It's the typical eighties teen targeting soundtrack full of various genres aimed to get kids attention; rock, dance, new wave, even some ballads. They all work though and you'll be humming the tunes long after the movie has stopped. The hit `Send Me An Angel' (which was later used to great effect in the Fred Savage vehicle / Nintendo commercial The Wizard) is especially great and has found its way onto mix tapes of mine ever since the I first bought the soundtrack in 87 with it's catchy, haunting synth line. All in all, Rad is more than just a fun trip down nostalgia lane. Even if you haven't grown up in the 80's or gotten caught up in the BMX craze, it is still a lot of fun. And besides, what other movie do you get to see Ray Walston give the middle finger with such conviction?
Annie Hall (1977)
One of film's greatest romances
You know, it's like that old joke, a midget, a nun, a whore, and Elvis walk into a bar and the bartender says `have you guys ever seen that movie Annie Hall? It rules!' Or something like that. That can probably sum up any review of this movie, but I suppose I should do a little more. At its simplest, Annie Hall is a movie about an off and on romance between Woody Allen and Dianne Keeton. Allen is a neurotic comedian and Keeton is a small town girl from Wisconsin living in New York City. The romance is great; the tension is real from the first awkward conversation after their tennis match to their final fight at the health food restaurant. It's hard for me to write about this film, there are so many things done so well that I get lost. That is how the movie leaves you at times too, it is told in an almost rambling way. The chronological order of it makes very little sense. We go back and forth in time constantly in the film and flashbacks are so long we forget they are flashbacks. Allen may have been talking to audience qualms about this in a scene where he and Annie are in line to see a movie and a pompous intellectual behind them pontificates about Fellini's latest film and complains how it is too `indulgent', a claim that could be made about Annie Hall as well. The movie is almost an interactive experience. You are brought into the movie. The very first thing you see is Woody Allen (or is it Alvy Singer?) talking directly to you. It's like if your friend was a standup comedian and he tried to tell you a serious story. It is a serious story, but it comes from a comedian, so it is full of jokes. This breaking of the fourth wall is just one of the many innovative techniques that this movie used. To list a few: transformations, subtitles with what a character is really thinking, animation, breaking the fourth wall (and NOT just by one main character), adult time travel back to childhood (interjecting adult selves into flashbacks, AND interacting with the flashback), dialogue between two voiceovers, and conversation between split screens. Just to name a few. The biggest innovation for me however is the successful intermingling of drama and comedy. There are times in the movie when you don't know whether to laugh or cry. Maybe that is just a more accurate view of real life than most films will give you, or maybe it's just Woody Allen's own experience. There is no doubt that the film is at least semi-autobiographical, Diane Keeton and Woody Allen dated before the making of this film, her real name was Diane Hall, and she did have a Grammy Hall, and Woody Allen did play somewhat of a mentor role to Keeton. Speaking of the mentor role, that is another major part of the movie. When Alvy meets Annie, she is a ditsy Midwestern girl, but by the end of the film Alvy has helped her mature and sophisticate. So much so, that she eventually can't deal with his refusing to grow out of his insecure shell. In the end, the movie is just a look back at why a relationship didn't work out, but it is not only applicable to Allen/Singer's own relationships, but it is indeed a problem relevant to modern urban society as a whole and it is a revealing look into the psyche of not only one man, but of people in general through this `indulgent' and self reflexive movie.
Ladri di biciclette (1948)
way over rated
Roger Ebert says, `The Bicycle Thief is so well-entrenched as an official masterpiece that it is a little startling to visit it again'. The label classic is often prejudicing to the first time viewer, I know it used to be for me, but as I've seen more and more films the label loses some of its appeal. If I had first seen The Bicycle Thief a few years ago, I bet I would have loved it. But this Tuesday it didn't hold much appeal to me. The story is good, a man and his son hopelessly looking for a stolen bicycle in Rome. The bike is an icon of money and food and the good life, but this was made in the post war depression and is fittingly depressing. There is never really a chance to find the bike; it is all a false hope. I'm sure this is how many Italian's felt who spent their days like our protagonist Antonio does at the beginning of the film, loitering around in an unemployment line hoping for the remote possibility of work. I can see beauty in the work. Some of the photography is very beautiful, especially the landscapes of Rome during the thefts and by the bridge, but still it does nothing for me. The little boy who plays Bruno does a excellent job acting and is the cutest child actor I've ever seen, but still it does nothing for me. I think my biggest problem with the film is with the story. The basic concept appeals to me. A man hopelessly lost in a city of despair. But the execution is a little off. I don't care about the characters. I don't care if Antonio starves or eats, lives or dies, works or commits crime. I don't care if Maria has sheets. I don't care if Bruno wants spaghetti but only gets mozzarella bread. Maybe there is nothing wrong with the movie and I'm just callous, but for arguments sake I'm going to blame the movie for not getting me involved. It seems like there is no tension. We know the bicycle is going to be stolen because of the title, the whole film is mired in depression so we just naturally assume things aren't going to work out, and at the first glance of the bicycle in the alley, we know that Antonio is going to steal it. It just seems predictable. Maybe that is a fault of its age and its conventions being used once too often, but I just couldn't get myself to care about the characters or even the film. I'm guessing it was a lot easier at the time to get people to understand the characters because they were living it and it was every day to them, but for me as a college student in Iowa it has nothing. It doesn't engage me, it doesn't entertain me, it doesn't make me care, it doesn't do anything but bore me.