Saturday, February 28, 2009

Au Revoir Les Enfants

Hi Aki,

Tonight we watched Louis Malle’s Au Revoir Les Enfants a memoir of the second world war.

Julien is about 13. His mom and dad are wealthy. He goes to private catholic school. It is January 1944.

A new kid enters his class. The kids are rough to him, all the kids are little bastards. Julien is also rough on him but in time the two kids are together here and there and strike up a friendship. Julien snoops through the kid’s stuff and learns he’s really a jew the priest is hiding.

The shared secret brings the boys closer together. But then the Germans come. They get three boys, all the jews, and the priest, and arrest them. Julien waves goodbye to his friend. Later he will hear that his friend and the other two kids both died in Auschwitz; the priest died in another prison. ‘Though 40 years have passed I will never forget that day.’

Nothing remarkable about the filmmaking. The script strings together a series of scenes without too much structure. The main thing is the way the two boys are antagonists rivals and then friends. There are a couple of subplots. A portrait of France in that time.

Very good view of the school kids. No sentimentality. Solid filmmaking with nothing flashy. Decent soundwork for the scenes where the entire track is made up of foley and loops and ambience. One very expressive scene shows the kids playing war games in the woods; Julien and his friend get lost, but find the treasure. But dark comes down and there might be wolves. And the woods are quiet… that’s the scene where all the sound is done in foley and it’s very good, a bit heavy on the foley and looping, but nobody but a filmmaker would notice it.

A very human film. Even the guy who denounces them is quite well drawn and we understand very well why he betrayed them. We even sympathize with him. Like renoir said, ‘everybody has his reasons.’

(written around 28 February 2009)

PS — to read Aki’s translation of this post in Japanese, click here.

Bobby

Hi Aki,

Tonight we watched Bobby, Emilio Esteves’ movie about the day Robert F Kennedy was assassinated. Like Grand Hotel, the 1932 MGM movie somebody mentions in the film, this centers on the hotel as its own city, with soap opera tales of the hotel workers, a singer and her husband, campaign workers, and reporters as they get ready to host the campaign celebration. it’s primary day in California, and the feeling is if Kennedy wins in California, he will probably win the nomination, and go on to win the election.

Intercut with the soap opera tales is footage from Kennedy’s campaign in newsreel and archival footage. The idea is that Kennedy is like a huge presence looming over everyone and everything.

Then after declaring victory in California, Kennedy walks out through the kitchen, and is shot, fatally.

The Weinsteins in their Weinstein Company produced. Oddly enough, the company is only TWC in the logo.

This is another big money loser for TWC as well as MGM, the distributor. it’s kind of a rule with me: if MGM distributes a film, odds are it will be a financial failure, and probably a bad movie too. This was not a bad movie, I liked it.

Lots of stars in small supporting roles. Sharon Stone plays the hairdresser of the hotel, married to the hotel manager. I almost didn’t recognize her in her makeup. Demi Moore is the drunk singer, and emilio himself plays demi’s lapdog husband who finally has had enough abuse and leaves her. Ashton Kucher, Demi’s real-life boytoy, plays a drug dealer who gives LSD to a couple of campaign workers.

(written around 28 February 2009)

Friday, February 27, 2009

You Can’t Take it With You (Structural Analysis)

Hi Tim,

An odd structure. I’ve tried to figure it out according to Frank Daniel methods. But it seems to be out of the beaten path.

Based on a play, probably with 5 acts therefore 5 curtains, though I’ve only seen the movie, which is what I’m trying to figure out.

Story first:

You Can’t Take it With You script by Robert Riskin after the Pulitzer-award winning Hart & Kaufman play. Director Frank Capra, and he won his third Best Director oscar for this one – the third in 5 years! He was on top of Hollywood, that’s for sure.

The story deals with several characters. It seems the protagonist is Antony Kirby, rich wall street banker, who is on the verge of completing a world monopoly in explosives and munitions. He has only one rival to crush along the way, guy named Ramsay who has one independent munitions factory (all the others have agreed to sell out) and who won’t sell. Kirby’s plan is to buy up every single piece of property around ramsay’s factory so that ramsay will be forced to sell (this is screwy, but we are not supposed to know how business or the law work here). Kirby has deals to buy every single property except one – and that guy will not sell, no matter what the broker offers him.

Kirby, if he is the protagonist, promptly vanishes from the movie for about an hour or so. Instead we meet his son, a happy go lucky guy who doesn’t want to be vice president in daddy’s bank, but there he is. he’s madly in love with his secretary. She happens to be the grand-daughter of the guy who won’t sell, only Kirby doesn’t know that.

Kirby’s wife is stuffy, and is outraged her son might want to marry ‘a stenographer.’

Meanwhile, we meet the guy who won’t sell: he was once a business big shot himself, only one day, 35 years ago, he learned he wasn’t happy, so he quit to do only what he enjoyed doing. Since then he has raised his daughter and her husband who live in the house, along with the two granddaughters (the other is married and this couple also live in the house) and a collection of freeloaders and misfits, all of whom do whatever it is they want to do – play zylophone, print things, paint, dance, write plays, invent things, make fireworks.

Later we will learn the reason why grandpa won’t sell: he loved his wife dearly when she was alive, and is convinced that there is a strange odor in her old room – it’s her, she’s still there somehow, and he couldn’t bear to leave the house for that reason.

Granddaughter and Kirby Jr. get along well, and Kirby Jr. is enchanted and amused by the collection of oddballs in the house – he is no stuffed shirt like his parents. He says he doesn’t care what his folks think, but the girl is determined that they can’t be happy together unless she wins his parents’ approval – the mother’s approval most of all. But one thing leads to another, and it only gets worse.

Granddaughter insists that Kirby Jr bring his folks over to meet the household for dinner. She is determined to impress them and win their blessing. But Kirby Jr sees that alice (the granddaughter) is going to make the oddballs behave normally, and put on a fraud, so he double-crosses her, by bringing his parents over the night before alice expects them.

As a result (I know, there’s a lot going on in the story) the Kirbys encounter the menagerie in all its kookiness; moreover, as a result of Kirby’s real estate broker’s sneaky doings, the cops bust in and try to find incriminating evidence so as to force grandpa to sell the house. The cops corrall the Kirbys along with everybody else when the basement full of fireworks go off, and they all go to jail.

There the Kirbys are forced to encounter the lowest of society. This has no impact on Mrs Kirby, but mr Kirby is shamed when grandpa gets mad and tells him he will die friendless because he’s a failure as a man and a father, and is much worse than the ‘scum’ he finds in jail, who at least have friends.

In the court hearing, the Kirbys are ashamed to admit they were in the house because their son was romantically involved with alice; at this alice blows up, tells them all off, and tells Jr the engagement is off.

A montage of headlines details how Kirby was arrested, Jr was spurned by ‘cinderella’ and how ‘cinderella’ has fled new york and nobody can find her.

At the house some days later, things just aren’t the same without alice. Kirby Jr. comes by, begging them to tell him where she is, but they don’t know and wouldn’t tell him anyway. He goes, but grandpa comes in afterward with a letter from alice. she’s trying to get over heartbreak, and the house has bad memories, so she has decided to live in connecticut with her school friend.

At this point grandpa decides he can’t let alice live alone and miserable, and they all miss her, so he will sell the house and they will go live with alice.

As a result of grandpa’s decision, though all the real estate deals become valid, and all the neighbors will lose their homes and businesses – Kirby will own all the blocks and kick everybody out.

The result of this is another montage of headlines, as news of the big monopoly shakes wall street, stocks go up, they go down, and Kirby is about to become king of the world.

In the Kirby bank, all his allies and board members are congratulating one another on the success, but Kirby is alone in the conference room, wondering about what grandpa told him, wondering if grandpa might not be right. But he decides he’s got to grab the great deal he has engineered, and to hell with grandpa’s words! He tells the board to go up to the board room and they will sign all the papers and make the monopoly.

Just then ramsay himself comes in, tells Kirby that he is friendless and how awful it is, and forecasts the same fate for Kirby. He collapses and later dies from heart failure.

The board members go upstairs, leaving Kirby alone to contemplate this for a moment. Then his son enters. Kirby Jr tells daddy that he’s quitting. ‘but you’ll be president of the monopoly,’ dad protests, but Jr says he never wanted it, and he won’t have it. he’s going away to try to forget alice, and figure out what he does want to do in life – probably he will pursue solving solar energy (yeah, in the 1930s they were talking about this! Amazing). He goes, leaving daddy shocked.

Daddy goes up the elevator to the boardroom, and the elevator doors open, all the allies and board applaud, and Kirby tells the elevator man to take him back down again. He leaves the deal undone.

In the madhouse, they are all packing up getting ready to leave. it’s sad farewell, and the cook tells her fiance she found grandpa in grandma’s room crying in front of her portrait.

Kirby Jr comes in, and begs them to tell him where alice is, for the last time. But grandpa won’t tell. He will say, ‘upstairs is alice’s luggage, and that’s going where she is’ and Jr starts upstairs to watch the luggage and never let it out of his sight until he finds alice.

But then alice herself comes in. she has heard that grandpa will sell the house, only she knows what it really means to him, and she begs him not to. Jr wants to explain to alice, but she tells him to shove it and goes up to her room to pack, locking the door. Jr pounds on the door, begging her to open up.

At this point, Kirby Sr enters. He talks with grandpa alone. He says he wants his son back, and asks for advice. Grandpa says, they should play together on the harmonica. Real loud. So they do, and the xylophone player joins in, the dancer dances, the crazies set in again, and one lights off the last unlit firecracker.

This noise brings alice and Jr downstairs. She sees Kirby and grandpa playing together, and Jr nods to his dad, and his dad nods back, and alice kisses Kirby Sr, and Kirby Sr wrestles with the russian dance teacher, and everybody cheers.

In a final epilogue, the family – grandpa and his crazies and the Kirbys alike – are gathered for dinner, some days later. Grandpa blesses the meal, talking to God the way he does, giving god all the credit for arranging things, and nicely tells us how everything has been wrapped up, nobody lost their home or business, and everybody is happy, and even Mrs Kirby will come around eventually.

The end.

I had a bit of a hard time analyzing this one. If we look at is as the romantic comedy starring Jean Arthur and Jimmy Stewart, then the breakup scene in the courtroom is our second curtain. But this leaves 45 minutes left, a very long act 3. better for general timing is if the banker is the protagonist – he after all is the one who learns ‘you can’t take it with you,’ meaning money is worthless after You’re dead, so you should enjoy life while You’ve got it. Then the second curtain comes when he tells the elevator man to take him down: he has gotten his big deal just like he wanted – only he finds he doesn’t want it after all; it’s his son, his family, life and friendship he really needs.

Now generally the rule is to enclose lesser storylines within greater ones, so:

A Story begins … B Story begins … … B Story end … A Story end

If we follow this, we find first Kirby Sr introduced with what he wants. Kirby Jr is introduced but we have no sense of what he wants. Then vanderhof (lionel barrymore, grandpa) is introduced, and we learn what he wants.

After this we get an introduction to the menagerie, then Alice is introduced indirectly – they talk about her in the menagerie – and directly – her mother the playwright calls her, and interrupts a makeout session with james Stewart as Kirby Jr. at this point we find out what alice and Kirby Jr want – each other.

There are 2 problems with calling it a battle between Kirby Sr and vanderhof though. First, they drop out of the story; most of the screentime involves the romance and family complications to this – will the Kirbys accept alice? Will Kirby Jr be welcomed by the menagerie, and what will he think of it?

Kirby Sr does not directly work upon getting the house: he just tells his broker that there’s to be no commission unless he can get every single property in these 12 blocks, and do it anyway he can. Hangs up phone.

And grandpa doesn’t really work to secure his household. He doesn’t intend to move or do anything about the attempts to buy the house except to ignore them all.

Is it grandpa’s story? He had his happy menagerie life, second curtain is deciding to sell the house (which gives the banker his victory by implication, though it hasn’t been fully settled yet).

Both these moments – alice breaking the engagement, and grandpa saying he will sell – interestingly enough, are followed by swift recap of events in a montage of headlines.

A twist ought to follow the second curtain, about the middle of the third act. Well we have 2 twists also: when grandpa says he will sell is the twist in the romantic comedy (because when alice learns of it she comes back, and finds Jr waiting) – and when the banker says ‘take me down’ and turns his back on the monopoly (we have been prepared for this with a series of shots of the banker thinking over what grandpa tells him in jail). and if the banker saying ‘take me down’ is the second curtain, then the twist would be that playing the harmonica with grandpa brings Jr down right to him, and everything is solved.

The two storylines are wedded in that alice’s heartbreak leads to grandpa selling, and Kirby Sr’s newfound desire to get his son back depends upon Jr getting alice to wed, which also depends upon getting the house back.

So, whose story do you say it is? Where is the climax, and what is the twist (if any)? is it a good structure, one that is complicated, or does the double-storyline make it a bad model, and outside of the model Frank proposed?

(written around 27 February 2009)

You Can’t Take it With You (general thoughts)

Hi Aki,

Tonight I watched You Can’t Take it With You script by Robert Riskin after the Pulitzer-award winning Hart & Kaufman play. Director was Frank Capra, and he won his third Best Director Oscar for this one – the third in 5 years! He was on top of Hollywood, that’s for sure.

The story deals with several characters. It seems the protagonist is Antony Kirby, rich Wall Street banker, who is on the verge of completing a world monopoly in explosives and munitions. He has only one rival to crush along the way, guy named Ramsay who has one independent munitions factory (all the others have agreed to sell out) and who won’t sell. Kirby’s plan is to buy up every single piece of property around ramsay’s factory so that ramsay will be forced to sell (this is screwy, but we are not supposed to know how business or the law work here). Kirby has deals to buy every single property except one – and that guy will not sell, no matter what the broker offers him.

Kirby, if he is the protagonist, promptly vanishes from the movie for about an hour or so. Instead we meet his son, a happy go lucky guy who doesn’t want to be vice president in daddy’s bank, but there he is. he’s madly in love with his secretary. She happens to be the grand-daughter of the guy who won’t sell, only Kirby doesn’t know that.

Kirby’s wife is stuffy, and is outraged her son might want to marry ‘a stenographer.’

Meanwhile, we meet the guy who won’t sell: he was once a business big shot himself, only one day, 35 years ago, he learned he wasn’t happy, so he quit to do only what he enjoyed doing. Since then he has raised his daughter and her husband who live in the house, along with the two granddaughters (the other is married and this couple also live in the house) and a collection of freeloaders and misfits, all of whom do whatever it is they want to do – play zylophone, print things, paint, dance, write plays, invent things, make fireworks.

Later we will learn the reason why grandpa won’t sell: he loved his wife dearly when she was alive, and is convinced that there is a strange odor in her old room – it’s her, she’s still there somehow, and he couldn’t bear to leave the house for that reason.

Granddaughter and Kirby Jr. get along well, and Kirby Jr. is enchanted and amused by the collection of oddballs in the house – he is no stuffed shirt like his parents. He says he doesn’t care what his folks think, but the girl is determined that they can’t be happy together unless she wins his parents’ approval – the mother’s approval most of all. But one thing leads to another, and it only gets worse.

Granddaughter insists that Kirby Jr bring his folks over to meet the household for dinner. She is determined to impress them and win their blessing. But Kirby Jr sees that alice (the granddaughter) is going to make the oddballs behave normally, and put on a fraud, so he double-crosses her, by bringing his parents over the night before alice expects them.

As a result (I know, there’s a lot going on in the story) the Kirbys encounter the menagerie in all its kookiness; moreover, as a result of Kirby’s real estate broker’s sneaky doings, the cops bust in and try to find incriminating evidence so as to force grandpa to sell the house. The cops corrall the Kirbys along with everybody else when the basement full of fireworks go off, and they all go to jail.

There the Kirbys are forced to encounter the lowest of society. This has no impact on Mrs Kirby, but mr Kirby is shamed when grandpa gets mad and tells him he will die friendless because he’s a failure as a man and a father, and is much worse than the ‘scum’ he finds in jail, who at least have friends.

In the court hearing, the Kirbys are ashamed to admit they were in the house because their son was romantically involved with alice; at this alice blows up, tells them all off, and tells Jr the engagement is off.

A montage of headlines details how Kirby was arrested, Jr was spurned by ‘cinderella’ and how ‘cinderella’ has fled new york and nobody can find her.

At the house some days later, things just aren’t the same without alice. Kirby Jr. comes by, begging them to tell him where she is, but they don’t know and wouldn’t tell him anyway. He goes, but grandpa comes in afterward with a letter from alice. she’s trying to get over heartbreak, and the house has bad memories, so she has decided to live in connecticut with her school friend.

At this point grandpa decides he can’t let alice live alone and miserable, and they all miss her, so he will sell the house and they will go live with alice.

As a result of grandpa’s decision, though all the real estate deals become valid, and all the neighbors will lose their homes and businesses – Kirby will own all the blocks and kick everybody out.

The result of this is another montage of headlines, as news of the big monopoly shakes wall street, stocks go up, they go down, and Kirby is about to become king of the world.

In the Kirby bank, all his allies and board members are congratulating one another on the success, but Kirby is alone in the conference room, wondering about what grandpa told him, wondering if grandpa might not be right. But he decides he’s got to grab the great deal he has engineered, and to hell with grandpa’s words! He tells the board to go up to the board room and they will sign all the papers and make the monopoly.

Just then ramsay himself comes in, tells Kirby that he is friendless and how awful it is, and forecasts the same fate for Kirby. He collapses and later dies from heart failure.

The board members go upstairs, leaving Kirby alone to contemplate this for a moment. Then his son enters. Kirby Jr tells daddy that he’s quitting. ‘but you’ll be president of the monopoly,’ dad protests, but Jr says he never wanted it, and he won’t have it. he’s going away to try to forget alice, and figure out what he does want to do in life – probably he will pursue solving solar energy (yeah, in the 1930s they were talking about this! Amazing). He goes, leaving daddy shocked.

Daddy goes up the elevator to the boardroom, and the elevator doors open, all the allies and board applaud, and Kirby tells the elevator man to take him back down again. He leaves the deal undone.

In the madhouse, they are all packing up getting ready to leave. it’s sad farewell, and the cook tells her fiance she found grandpa in grandma’s room crying in front of her portrait.

Kirby Jr comes in, and begs them to tell him where alice is, for the last time. But grandpa won’t tell. He will say, ‘upstairs is alice’s luggage, and that’s going where she is’ and Jr starts upstairs to watch the luggage and never let it out of his sight until he finds alice.

But then alice herself comes in. she has heard that grandpa will sell the house, only she knows what it really means to him, and she begs him not to. Jr wants to explain to alice, but she tells him to shove it and goes up to her room to pack, locking the door. Jr pounds on the door, begging her to open up.

At this point, Kirby Sr enters. He talks with grandpa alone. He says he wants his son back, and asks for advice. Grandpa says, they should play together on the harmonica. Real loud. So they do, and the xylophone player joins in, the dancer dances, the crazies set in again, and one lights off the last unlit firecracker.

This noise brings alice and Jr downstairs. She sees Kirby and grandpa playing together, and Jr nods to his dad, and his dad nods back, and alice kisses Kirby Sr, and Kirby Sr wrestles with the russian dance teacher, and everybody cheers.

In a final epilogue, the family – grandpa and his crazies and the Kirbys alike – are gathered for dinner, some days later. Grandpa blesses the meal, talking to God the way he does, giving god all the credit for arranging things, and nicely tells us how everything has been wrapped up, nobody lost their home or business, and everybody is happy, and even Mrs Kirby will come around eventually.

The end.

I had a bit of a hard time analyzing this one. If we look at it as the romantic comedy starring Jean Arthur and Jimmy Stewart, then the breakup scene in the courtroom is our second curtain. But this leaves 45 minutes left, a very long act 3. better for general timing is if the banker is the protagonist – he after all is the one who learns ‘you can’t take it with you,’ meaning money is worthless after You’re dead, so you should enjoy life while You’ve got it. Then the second curtain comes when he tells the elevator man to take him down: he has gotten his big deal just like he wanted – only he finds he doesn’t want it after all; it’s his son, his family, life and friendship he really needs.

Or it’s grandpa’s story? He had his happy menagerie life, second curtain is deciding to sell the house (which gives the banker his victory by implication, though it hasn’t been fully settled yet).

Both these moments – alice breaking the engagement, and grandpa saying he will sell – interestingly enough, are followed by swift recap of events in a montage of headlines.

A twist ought to follow the second curtain, about the middle of the third act. Well we have 2 twists also: when grandpa says he will sell is the twist in the romantic comedy (because when alice learns of it she comes back, and finds Jr waiting) – and when the banker says ‘take me down’ and turns his back on the monopoly (we have been prepared for this with a series of shots of the banker thinking over what grandpa tells him in jail). and if the banker saying ‘take me down’ is the second curtain, then the twist would be that playing the harmonica with grandpa brings Jr down right to him, and everything is solved.

Hmm.

(written around 27 February 2009)

Thursday, February 26, 2009

Franck Spadone

Hi Aki,

Tonight we watched Franck Spadone, a truly uninvolving, abstracted, BAAAAAAAD gangster movie from France. The story is such a cliché that the director tries to slow things down, minimalize, stylize. Some of the compositions are really powerful, but he is only really good at static compositions, so the movie is almost a collection of stills. I would guess this director is a fashion photographer turned director. The casting is really good for the look of people, the faces are perfect. But the dialogue (what little there is) is banal or bad, and the structure of the story…well, it just doesn’t come to an end, it stops.

I ordered it because it features Monica Bellucci. One interesting facet of the movie is that she is a glamourous stripper/prostitute, trapped in relationship with a mean gangster, but there is a handsome young pickpocket who gets involved, kind of, with her, and she uses him to escape, kind of, only there’s no resolution so, kind of, nothing happens. Nothing really ends.

Anyway Monica is actually quite a bit older than she looks, she’s in her 40s but she is playing these ultra hot sex-girl roles. And she is good in them, with a killer body, but also a powerful face. If I were casting her in the ideal role it would be an updating of Medea, that’s the kind of face she has, a very sad face, a face for deep, high tragedy.

But what was interesting about this casting, is that the pickpocket is obviously much younger than Monica is in real life. Odd twist on the old ‘middle-aged male star teamed with cute young actress’ kind of story. Here the guy is young and the girl is older.

But as I say Monica can still get away with playing supersexy hot babes, so she doesn’t look older. She does look more experienced than the guy, though.

(written around 26 February 2009)

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Under Capricorn

Hi Aki,

Technicolor, postwar: Alfred Hitchcock directs. Historical tale set in australia in mid-1800s. Think of Gaslight meets Rebecca.

It would have been much better in black and white. Hitchcock begins in this film (which most accounts call a failure) his experiments with long takes. The camera movements are a bit unsteady; these are exactly the shots that directors would use so much later on, after the steadicam was invented. I think this is more watchable than Rope, the more famous follow-up to this movie, where the whole film is one 11-minute shot after another.

One problem with both films is how much of the script is talk. Talk, talk, talk – when the actors and the cameramen are under a great strain to get everything right for 6 or more minutes at a time, the actors aren’t at their best, and it really shows in Rope – I’ve seen interviews with the actors from Rope where they said how nervous and tight they felt toward the end of each take, dreading lest anything should go wrong and spoil it all, and not really acting, just trying their best not to fuck up.

As for Capricorn I’ve read that in some scenes, in order to move the camera from room to room (because the dolly/camera or crane was so big) they had to crane the walls of the set up out of the way. In addition, the floors of the stages creaked under the weight. So several long take scenes had to be totally dubbed over.

The story: young Charlie Adair an Irish wastrel, but of good family, goes with his uncle who is the new Governor of Australia. There Charlie wants to make his fortune, but he falls in with Sam Flusky, or Plusky, or something. Sam is a former convict who is now a rich man and invites Charlie to his house. There Charlie meets Mrs Sam, Hattie – by a coincidence Charlie knows her from their childhood. She was also from a great family, but she followed Sam, her family’s groom and stableboy, out here and married him. It was a great scandal and now, to his horror, Charlie finds Hattie is an alcoholic. There is also a devoted housekeeper who runs the estate – and she is in love with Sam though he doesn’t even see it. This is Millie, who supplies Hattie with bottles of wine.

Charlie dedicates himself to curing Hattie, and Sam, who still loves Hattie, encourages him in this. But as Charlie begins to succeed, Sam grows jealous – Millie makes him more jealous, and Sam begins to suspect that there’s more going on than just a cure. It all comes to a head one stormy night when Hattie tells Charlie she can’t go away with him, because the murder for which Sam was convicted was actually her doing – she and Sam had eloped, and the morning after their wedding night her brother came in with a gun, to kill Hattie to save the family honor. Sam got in the way and happened to have a gun, and Hattie reached around and fired the gun at her brother, killing him.

Sam finds Hattie and Charlie close together telling these tales, and suspects the worst, and in a fight there is a gun, it goes off, Charlie is wounded and almost dies.

Sam is charged with attempted murder. A second conviction here means either death or a life sentence back on hard labor. Hattie confesses to the original murder to save Sam, but this means she is charged with murder and must ship back to ireland to stand charges.

However, Millie is driven nuts when she hears Sam say that he will sell the estate and go back to ireland to help Hattie, and she tries to kill Hattie. Hattie stops her, and Sam sees the truth about Millie.

Now Sam refuses to give evidence against Hattie for the first murder, and the authorities charge him with the assault on Charlie, and take him off to prison. But Charlie leaves the hospital and makes it to the governor and is able to swear that the wound was only an accident. He, Charlie, is sent back to ireland in some disgrace for all this, but Sam is free, and Millie is gone, and Hattie is happy with Sam, the end.

The story really calls for a more bitter end. This is the sort of story where demanding a happy ending actually weakens our response. Better tears than this weak teabag of an end.

And as I say, the nightmares of drunk Hattie (which turn out to be engineered in part by Millie) are better shot in black and white with great looming shadows, and crisp deep focus photography. Shooting technicolor means lots and lots of lights, and even then the depth of field is shallow. Shadows are all washed out. But warners (who distributed for the ‘Transatlantic Pictures Company’) obviously thought that a historical epic was good escapist fare that called for beautiful gowns and color.

One interesting bit of casting, joseph cotton is the irish groom convict millionnaire Sam. there’s hardly a bit of an irish accent, most of them are british of various classes. But putting an American in there as the low-class groom was a good choice because the different accent works to American ears. We think any british accent is better, of a higher class, than an American accent. So Sam’s complaints about the upper class would have struck a chord among the American audiences.

Ingrid bergman played Hattie, with her swedish accent, but it didn’t bother me too much. She had been bedeviled and driven half-mad by charles boyer in the earlier thriller Gaslight, and Hitchcock had directed the oscar best picture rebecca, about another woman in big house driven half mad, and creepy housekeeper, so that was another natural choice in casting the crew.

I think the movie cost a lot of money and didn’t make it back, or only a little bit.

If Hitchcock called Shadow of a Doubt his favorite American picture, he probably hated the Paradine Case most – in that one producer David Selznick called the shots and Hitchcock just executed, bored and angry. But I bet Hitchcock disliked this one also. I wonder if he came up with the long take business just to amuse and interest him because he didn’t like the story much?

Hitchcock had a long history of experimentation with technique. Since he did more long-take nonsense a year or so later with Rope, either he liked it or, more likely, considered Capricorn’s techniques unsatisfactory, but worth trying again to see if he could do better. Like I say, I like the long takes in Capricorn better because

  • they take us often room to room, so there is more a sense of variety even within the one long take
  • the long takes are mixed up with scenes with cutting.

In Rope everything is a long take after the first 5 shots or so. And everything is in one room or two, side by side, rooms (it’s a party) and so it seems quite stagy, like watching a film of a play. And the performances are uneven because of the strain I mentioned all the cast felt under. There really is endless talk, talk, in Rope, and the actors had to remember and deliver all the long speeches for 11 minutes at a time, as well as hit their marks. And the camera crew had to hit all their marks, for the camera is moving, moving, and the sound crew had to get it right too – though as you know sound can always be looped in later.

I think Hattie should run away with Charlie and Sam run away with Millie!!

Two reasons why that’s not going to happen in the movie:

  1. Censors!
  2. Sam and Hattie really do love each other. Underneath it all. They can never live without each other. Well this is what they give us as an excuse to keep them together, because the censors won’t let adulterers get away with it.

The irony here is that it’s only a year or so later that Ingrid Bergman has an affair with Roberto Rossellini and gets pregnant, and lives with him, abandoning her husband. She couldn’t get another acting job after that and had to leave the country. That baby was Isabella Rossellini. And it was Jean Renoir a few years later who gave Ingrid a part in I think Elena et Ses Hommes or some such title. This was enough of a success that she was able to make a comeback, first starring with Cary Grant in Indiscreet for Stanley Donen, or some such, made I think in London, and finally Hollywood forgave her.

But…who’s the main character of the movie?

Definitely from the script, it’s Charlie’s movie. But Charlie was played by Michael Wilding, and he was not a star. Joseph Cotten and Ingrid bergman were stars, and the emotional heart of the movie lies with Ingrid, a drunk, ashamed of herself, trying to get better but despairing she ever will, too ready to give up, then managing almost to pull it off before she sinks into depression and drunkenness again – the sort of role that actors love, and that win Oscars.

(written around 25 February 2009)

Sunday, February 22, 2009

Tokyo Monogatari

Hi Aki,

I ordered Tokyo Monogatari again so my dad could see it. What a shame they don’t have a restored print. It was Criterion Collection dvd, with commentary too, so they digitized the best print available. Maybe the original negatives are gone, such a shame.

I was noticing more little things. It really is a wonderful movie. No Hollywood movie today would spend a minute as the old guy says, ‘Where’s the air cushion?’ and the old wife says, ‘I can’t find it.’ ‘Well you had it…oh here it is.’ The actual scene goes on much longer than that, and is broken when the neighbor woman comes by to wish them bon voyage to Tokyo.

Also the daughter Shige (Haruko Sugimura), I never used to like her as performer, now I like her more and more. And I hated her character in this movie, I think we are supposed to dislike her, but I saw more of her strong, good side – she’s practical after all, and takes precautions, and so on. it’s easy to side with the sentimental ones, and dislike the practical ones, but somebody has to be practical. She was kind of acting like the head of the household after mama died.

Really one of Ozu’s best, I must concur. The critique is so gentle and soft.

No, I take it back about Ozu’s critique of the new Japanese generation in the movie. It might be more pointed than I thought. After all the youngest daughter explicitly in her only big speech, complains about her big sister’s attitude. And ‘good girl’ daughter-in-law Setsuko Hara defended big sis, saying, ‘I thought like you when I was young, but the truth is, women when they get older grow apart from their parents, and even you will end up thinking like her.’ But Kyoko the youngest daughter says, ‘I will never be like her, I don’t believe it!’

And I do think we are supposed to be boiling with anger against the 2 sons and big sis for the way they treat their parents.

I still have to listen to the commentary. But I must say, I’m a bit annoyed at the Criterion company: all the commentors on the Ozu disks are American, or British. where’s the Japanese commentary? I was very interested in what the French woman had to say about the Melville movies, and she knew what was going on in France both when the movies were made, and during the period they were set. Some guy from Georgia isn’t going to know how most families were really like in Tokyo 1953, would he?

(written around 22 February 2009)

The Diving Bell and the Butterfly

Hi Aki,

This is an adaptation (directed by Julian Schnabel) of the book of the same name written by Jean Dominique Bauby, the editor of Elle magazine, after he had a catastrophic stroke. Totally paralyzed, he could only communicate by means of blinking his one good eye.

Now this is rather like My Left Foot in that the book is hailed, at least in part, simply because it was physically hard to write. I haven’t read the book and don’t know its qualities.

The movie is excellent though. Schnabel was nominated for Oscar for direction, and won it for Golden Globes. He takes us inside Bauby, which is difficult with so much of the movie POV shots. Eventually he breaks from this, but not before solidly anchoring us inside the head of the paralyzed man. Throughout, we hear the inner voice of Bauby, sarcastic, skeptical, sourly humourous. We get a feeling for the character which is very well drawn.

Structurally we are given closure by the use of an old French classic song, ‘La Mer,’ in an old recording; the film opens with Bauby’s first waking moments after 3 weeks in a coma, unable to remember ‘the accident’ which put him there. I assumed it was a car crash. Around the 2/3 mark he tells someone (by blinking his eye) that he wants to remember the accident.

He begins to make progress, moving his head a little, grunting, which raised my hopes that he might recover. Then, suddenly, pneumonia, and his final dictation for the book. The book is released to rave reviews, but he is fading as his ex-wife reads the reviews and shows him the published book.

Throughout the film we have had flashbacks and inventive dream-fantasy sequences that bring us (and him) out of the hospital. One more follows, as he remembers ‘My car…my new car’ and he drives off from his girlfriend, goes to pick up his son from his ex-wife for a day, and drives down the country roads. A feeling of apprehension rose in me, I knew this drive was leading us to the accident, and I wondered about the son…but we had seen the son visit his paralyzed father, or was that a ghost, and he was unable to accept he had killed his son in the crash?

Then right in the middle of talking to his son, Bauby begins to have a seizure. He can’t finish a sentence, trying over and over – he makes then an irrelevant remark about helicopters, and pulls over, stops the car. He has his stroke, terrifies his son, who gets out and runs to find help. The song ‘La Mer’ comes back up.

A title card tells us that Bauby died 10 days after the publication of the book.

One of the recurring images is of him in an old fashioned diving bell under the sea. This is how he sees himself in his current predicament, cut off, heavy, isolated, unable to communicate. The butterfly becomes a symbol of freedom and lightness, though I forget the specific reference which defines the butterfly. Anyway that’s where the title comes from.

Why is it moving? Well, Bauby is well characterized as I say, and the movie (and him) refuse to sentimentalize the situation – just the opposite. There are moments of humor. As we see him make little bits of progress, I gained some hope he might recover, at least part way.

There were also nice photographic techniques to indicate his waking up, blurry-eyed, not fully conscious, in the opening. These techniques were repeated at the final scene before the flashback/memory, another foreshadowing of the end.

Julian Schnabel is a name I know, but from what? Didn’t he make an art film about Basquiat? Or was that somebody else? I wasn’t expecting a French movie, but it was better not to try to americanize it. Maybe I liked it better because it was French, too. Also my experience of the movie, reading the subtitles more than hearing the inner voice and experiencing it as the movie should be experienced, put me at a little greater distance.

(written around 22 February 2009)

Tuesday, February 17, 2009

Topper Takes a Trip (Bonus: Days of Being Wild)

Hi Aki,

Tonight we watched Topper Takes a Trip and Days of Living Wild.

I thought Wild was very powerful, forceful, and had a flavor – you could tell the personality that made this film. Great portrait of the main guy. But, what was that scene at the end? Did that make sense to you? Tony Leung, who has not been in the film before, is getting ready to go out. he’s in an underground room we have never seen. He combs his hair, and he puts a big fistfull of bills in his pocket, and then a deck of cards, so we both think he must be a gambler, but still…what in the world????

Topper Takes a Trip. This movie was done for less money (and it shows) than the original Topper. I was mistaken about Topper, by the way, it’s not an MGM picture, but from Hal Roach studios. Hal Roach was an indie of those days. He made mostly Laurel and Hardy, and Little Rascals, comedy shorts. He also hit it big with 1,000,000 years B.C. Later in the 40s, a surprise caveman hit.

Anyway, they couldn’t get Cary Grant for this one, so they replace him with a wire terrier.

So that’s the big lesson of the movie, for all producers and moviemakers in the world:

Can’t get Tom Cruise? Hire a dog!

I just thought it was funny, that the producers thought they even needed the dog – why not just have one ghost? Why did they need two? I didn’t analyze the scenes carefully, but my guess is that they had a script hoping to get Cary Grant. But he wanted more money, or else he had other films to make. And in some sequences there was Cary-ghost in one location while Connie-ghost was in another location.

So, they thought about maybe giving her another ghost companion, and ended up instead of hiring another star…getting the dog!

(written around 17 February 2009)

Shadow of a Doubt

Hi Aki,

Well, You’ve seen that movie, right? All I can say is a couple things struck me as wrong notes. In general the movie is an example of prime Hitchcock in his film noir period of the late 40s.

But there are two lines offscreen in the beginning, that strike me as added by the producer, for added exposition, to make it even clearer where we are and who is who. I don’t think Hitchcock wanted them there, though it is possible.

The other thing was more fundamental. The girl Charlie has a sort of sixth sense, a premonition, a weird way of knowing what her uncle Charlie, the serial killer, is thinking. Now, this plot element is an extravagant one for a realistic filmmaker like Hitchcock. I don’t remember him ever using such a device in any other of his films. He is more likely to be debunking telepaths and psychics. This just isn’t his style.

More: he went to the real Santa Rosa California (Hitchcock loved to drive up and down the California coast on weekends or when he was in between films) and this location shooting gives the film an even firmer basis in realism, and the psychic ability stands out even more.

It would be one thing if the psychic stuff were the center of the film; it can be pretty powerful to make us believe in a realistic location, and then have a monster show up, or something alien or weird against the very-real backdrop. But that’s not how it works here. Instead the psychic angle seems to be thrown in only as a plot crutch: somehow the writers must get the girl to believe her beloved uncle is a murderer, even when the FBI are convinced another suspect, who died running away, was the real killer. And yet the girl has only circumstantial evidence, nothing that would stand up in a court of law. There are other ways they might have done it, but the psychic angle was the one they chose.

I think it could be argued against me that the point really lies in something the killer tells his neice, ‘Tear off the fronts of these houses and you find swine within, the world is ugly, monstrous.’ There is a sort of uneasy undercurrent running beneath this cheerful small town. One of Charlie’s classmates now works in a bar, and seems to be one sigh away from becoming a prostitute. Charlie’s dad and his pal like to read crime novels and invent ways to commit the perfect murder (this is played for laughs).

Young Charlie’s weird psychic attunement to her uncle indicates that perhaps she is not the sweet, bright girl she seems; that she might be just as bad as he is. In fact after he tries to kill her once, to shut her up, she tells him he better leave town, or she will kill him herself. She never does work any evil against him, but in the game of cat and mouse she plays with him, she proves as adept at lies and manipulation as he is.

There is also the image of old timers dancing a waltz, that just appears now and then, sometimes linking Charlie and her uncle. We will see her, dissolve to the image of the dancers, dissolve to uncle. I’m not entirely sure what to make of it.

It might be uncle’s memories from his youth, from the happy time he speaks of once (in the little back story we get of him, we are told he was a quiet, studious child, who crashed his bicycle and hit his head, and after this his personality changed; this also suggests that anyone can turn into a serial killer, as well as providing a very weak explanation for his crimes). it might merely represent a vertiginous state of mind, suggesting something going round and round and round, driving him to madness, to murder. I don’t know. It is another stylistic flourish quite unlike Hitchcock, and perhaps forced on him by skirball, the producer – though I think this is more likely to be from Hitchcock. He was doing some experimenting in this stage of his career – he would go on to do some experiments in extremely long takes in under capricorn and then in rope, a film constructed almost entirely out of camera-magazine-long, 11 minute takes, exhausting for crew and performers, which made for weaker performances. And just after Shadow, I think, Hitchcock did Strangers On a Train at Warner Brothers (Shadow is at Universal) which has a similar musical motif for a madman’s murders, an old music hall song that plays at a carnival while the killer strangles a girl – the killer in Shadow also strangles, and the papers refer to him as the ‘strong-handed strangler.’

Beautiful photography, fine cast, polished filmmaking. Just these things stand out. Three writers get credit, including Thornton Wilder, a famous novelist of the time who also gets a full title credit thanking him for his ‘participation’ in the film – what I guess from that is that it was his story and his idea, but Hitchcock changed the script enormously with the second screenwriter, and then patched it up with #3, Alma Reville, who was a longtime collaborator with Hitchcock (and his wife!). Whereupon mr wilder got angry, and producer skirball, not wishing the famous man to complain about the movie to the press, soothed wilder’s feathers with the big second credit.

But that’s conjecture on my part. I’m sure there are bios that tell the full story.

Oh yes: I looked up the film, and Hitchcock is said to have called this his favorite of all the movies he made in America. And another site tells me that Hitchcock acted as his own producer and got the film done the way he wanted, with no compromises. If true, I am wrong about the odd touched coming from someone else.

(written around 17 February 2009)

Sunday, February 15, 2009

Topper

Hi Aki,

I also saw Topper. Very funny, classic screwball comedy. Cary Grant and Constance Bennet play George and Marion Kerby, two fabulously wealthy young people who just play, play and play. Meanwhile Roland Young is Cosmo Topper, the wall street banker, who is middle aged and not happy about it, and his wife Clara (Billie Burke, the good witch from Wizard of Oz) is his wife, who wants them to be respectable and dictates what Cosmo eats, drinks, when he gets up in the morning and so on.

In a wild car trip, George and Marion crash and die, but they can’t go to heaven, they think, until they perform one good deed. They decide their good deed will be to loosen up Cosmo and show him how to have fun for a change.

So they can move things, and they can appear or disappear, and only Cosmo knows they are still around, and people think they are going crazy when they see cigarettes floating, or pens writing things on their own. Lots of zany dialogue and physical comedy. 1937 and from MGM when MGM meant great movies with lots of production money and beautiful sets and lighting. [Correction: made by Hal Roach Studios, not MGM.]

(written around 15 February 2009)

The Harder They Fall

Hi Aki,

Tonight I watched The Harder They Fall, a mid-50s movie exposing boxing as a crooked sport. Starring humphrey Bogart and Rod Steiger.

Story concerns a once-proud sportswriter now roped in, for the money, into promoting an incompetent boxer for a gangster. The main line concerns getting the giant, helpless Toro Moreno a fight with the champ.

Climax/crisis comes when toro refuses to go through with the big fight. Bogart, our writer/promoter, must convince toro to fight.

Seq. Seven then is the fight. Toro gets butchered and must go to the hospital, but at least he has made a deal with Bogart that after this fight they will both quit and take their money. Bogart leaves the boxer at the hospital and goes up to collect.

Bogart meets with gangster rod steiger who’s celebrating. 2 twists come in this scene: steiger has sold toro’s contract to an evey scummier manager, who intends to have toro fight in every town cross country where he won fixed fights to build him up – but now he will have to take a fall in every fight. Not only that but twist 2 comes when Bogart insists on getting toro’s share of the million-dollar gate and learns it comes to forty-nine bucks and change. All legal, with receipts.

Sequence 8 consists of two movements, unless we want to call the second an epilogue. First movement has bogie going to the hospital and collecting toro. Steiger’s goons try to stop them but bogie is too smart for them. He and toro take a taxi to the airport where toro will fly back to argentina. Toro asks to hold his money, how much was it? Bogie squirms for a little, then hands over the envelope with his share – twenty-six grand. He puts toro on a pan-am flight and waves him off.

Second movement of seq 8 has bogie back at his apartment. Things are now patched up with his wife after he’s done the right thing, but he’s broke and needs her to hold onto her job while he scrounges up something. Steiger and his goons barge in looking for toro. They don’t believe that he’s gone, at first. Then steiger insists that bogie must pay him back for the seventy-five grand he’ll lose by not being able to sell toro’s contract. ‘And we’ll start with your twenty-six grand for first payment.’

Bogie says he gave it to toro, but he’ll pay steiger back every penny by making him famous, he’ll write a series of articles all about him. Steiger threatens but it’s no good.

Steiger and his goons leave and bogie sits at the typewriter and begins his first expose article, while wifey makes him coffee.

Script by Philip Yordan, a Hollywood vet, produced by Yordan, from a book by Bud Schulman, a sportswriter who wrote what’s called the finest boxing novel ever – can’t recall the name of that one.

Anyway that’s how I see the third act. Interesting that the actual fight is not part of the climax, that they didn’t coincide toro’s crisis of conscience in the middle of the prize fight.

Mark Robson directed, not too well. The performances seem flat. Maybe the script is at fault, it’s too heavy handed and preachy.

Bogart seems tired and he spits a lot when he talks. The scenes in general seem rushed somehow, and we don’t see enough of Bogart’s unease at the sort of racket he’s in. the problem is we see, and Bogart knows, that it’s a scam from the opening. He descends into more and more corruption, but just breezes into it. So long as the money is bigger, he’ll do worse, until finally the end when he turns. I found it hard to believe him taking the money all along, and I found it impossible to believe that after doing all that, he would give the fighter his money and end up with nothing. I suppose the big fight is supposed to change our opinions, it is shot to be bloody and horrible. Nothing like raging bull or the violence that they would do today, but it must have been pretty rough back in the mid fifties.

In general I find all of Bogart’s movies from the fifties to be weak. He seemed tired in all of them, and off his game as a performer. The best ones are those like Barefoot Contessa where he plays a weary soul anyway. In Sabrina it’s such a joke that he ends up with Audrey Hepburn.

(written around 15 February 2009)

Saturday, February 14, 2009

Angel-A

Hi Aki,

Tonight I watched Luc Besson’s Angel-A. It was good, a sweet movie, maybe the Besson movie I liked the best somehow. Basically a two-character movie set in Paris. A punk, a loser, is in deep trouble. He owes several gangsters a lot of money and he can’t pay, so they will kill him tomorrow. He tries everything he can, it fails, so he decides to kill himself by jumping off a bridge. But just as he’s about to jump, he sees a girl is about to do the same thing, a little farther down the bridge.

So these two losers, the short dark fellow and the tall, leggy super-model blonde, team up to try to solve his problems, so she can get her mind off her problems.

And they have various adventures around Paris.

It’s not quite new wave, and the adventures don’t really engage the real city the way they should,instead it’s more fabricated, a fantasy after the old Hollywood movie – Besson loves old Hollywood movies.

I was thinking more about angela, and I have to add: it’s too talky. I notice it more because I had to read subtitles and could barely see what was going on! There were only a couple of moments where they weren’t talking, and those moments were such a relief.

Also the characters are only half-characters. The girl is a sort of amnesiac: she is in fact an angel, and once was human, but has no memory of when she was alive; she only knows her 300 years as an angel being sent down to help various mortals.

The guy has bits and pieces of details, but he knows nobody in Paris outside of the criminals who hate him and want to kill him. He has no place to live here, either. So it’s kind of no-character character, where the actor Besson casts, his way of speaking, his face, make it seem as though he has a character, but really it’s only casting. (good casting too: the guy is the one-armed short guy who was the helper to the greengrocer in amelie, who was always picked on. The contrast between the really-tall, impossibly-long-legged blonde girl and the short dark guy makes for great comic casting.)

Even making the girl an angel is a cheat in good writing. Ok, this loser guy teams up with a beautiful blonde and they set about fixing up his life, and along the way they fall in love. Good premise. Only … why, WHY would the blonde want to help this guy? And HOW can she help him? Who is she, anyway?

There could be a lot of answers, but ‘She’s an angel, and has magic powers’ is just about the easiest way to not answer those questions.

Frank Daniel had a name for this kind of team up, I forget the name. But the premise is that two people who want to get away from each other, are instead bound together and must learn to co-operate. The Defiant Ones has for example Sidney Poitier and Tony Curtis as convicts. They escape the police, they hate each other – but, they are chained together, so they must stay together. that’s a simple way to bond them.

The advantage of this kind of teaming is that we never know when, if, they are going to split up. They keep talking about it, and the trick for the screenwriter is to juggle this, ‘I want to get away,’ and ‘We must work together!’ back and forth, up and down, throughout the second act. Usually at the end of act 2, or early in the third act, they do part company, giving them a chance to miss each other. (in this way it’s like a romantic story where the lovers split up at the end of act 2, and only get back together at the very end.)

When Besson has the blonde be an angel (Angela, or Angel-A) who is assigned the mission of helping this guy, he loses the chance to show us the pair about to split up at various points. We lose the juggling act.

(written around 14 February 2009)

Friday, February 13, 2009

Century of the Dragon

Hi Aki,

Tonight we watched Century of the Dragon a 1999 film from Andy Lau and company. Looks like it was shot on video.

Here they take Infernal Affairs (rookie cop out of academy drops out and goes undercover a long time in triads, rising to be aide of one of the top bosses) with The Godfather (son of a triad boss who is crippled in hospital takes over for him and proves even more ruthless) and Godfather 3 (old triad boss retires, tries to go straight – but cops still consider him a gangster and triad members still try to bring him back into the underworld).

Not as good as the brilliant Infernal Affairs trilogy, but good anyway.

The deep-cover rookie becomes aide to Andy Lau, who was a top triad boss but went straight. The cops don’t believe he is clean though, so they keep the cop spying on him. The cop, sing, is like in infernal affairs unsure where his loyalties lie, although here it’s simpler: he still thinks of himself as a cop, and he knows Andy is innocent of any crimes since before the cop went undercover.

Meanwhile Andy’s partner, who remained in the triads, is gunned down by the cops and his son vows revenge. But the son turns out to be a real bastard. And the triad bosses want Andy to take over the crippled man’s place as head of the hung hing triad group.

Meanwhile the only commissioner who was sing’s boss at police dies, and sing gets a new boss, a bastard who hates Andy because Andy made a joke of him ten years before.

Oh yeah, Andy’s mom is godmother to a guy in the gangs who is a total loser andliability and will only get them all in trouble.

And Andy’s wife was a club girl and knows how to handle herself.

And Sing’s got a girlfriend who’s a club girl, another parallel between him and Andy.

Lots of twists and turns. Stunts are not so great, action is only fair, but the story is well worked out.

As I wrote, it looks like it was shot on video, I don’t know why. Don’t know why they translated the title as ‘Century of the Dragon’ either.

(written around 13 February 2009)

Thursday, February 12, 2009

Fight Club

Hi Aki,

We saw Fight Club tonight.

The first time I saw it I didn’t like it at all and didn’t even watch all the way.

Then I saw something that gave away the ending. I watched it again and really liked it.

My dad ordered it so I saw it for the third time – second time all the way. I liked it a lot still.

But you know, it’s funny – the film is really dated now. it’s basically a rejection of a world that is now passed. Such stories and ideas can’t survive the things they reject.

But positive stories and ideas that are a celebration of some ideal can live on long after the world they sprang out of has died. Even though these ideals are formed as the opposite of the world they are born in.

Fight Club is nihilistic in that all it can manage to offer malcontents is the pleasure of destroying the world that oppresses them. It doesn’t offer them any answers or any way forward past the destruction. As such maybe it actually helps the world continue: we destroy the world through the movie, through the book, so we feel better about our oppression, and we don’t move to actually destroy the world. We just watch a movie and rent the dvd and watch it again.

Now that world is destroyed, and we all have bigger and better things to think about than childish temper tantrums.

(written around 12 February 2009)

Tuesday, February 10, 2009

The Emperor And The Assassin

Hi Aki,

Tonight we watched Chen Kaige’s The Emperor and the Assassin, starring Gong Li, the most beautiful woman in movies.

Very pretty, lavish sets, great costumes. Long though, with stylized, slow acting deliveries. But the acting style I thought did a good job of raising the characters above the ordinary into legend, like classical theater.

The king of Qin wants to unify all the kingdoms under one rule. His lover Gong Li concocts a plan to go into exile to get the king of Yan to send an assassin to kill the king of Qin; when this will fail, the king of Qin will have the pretext he needs to conquer yan. None of the other kingdoms will help yan, because yan brought it on themselves with the assassination plot.

But along the way gong li becomes convinced that the king of Qin is really evil; he doesn’t want to be emperor to protect all the people, he just wants power. And the assassin she picks is a humble man who has given up killing. She falls in love with the assassin.

Of course we all know how history ends, so it amounts to, in the end of the movie, a judgment on the king of Qin and whether the end justifies the means, and an historical judgment on his rule.

And the judgment is – thumbs down! Which kind of surprised me.

I remember the Jet Li movie (Hero – was that the name?) in which a series of assassins are sent to kill the king of Qin before he can conquere all the other kingdoms. The assassins all fail, at last Jet Li almost makes it – but he has along the way become convinced that the goal of a unified country is more important than anything else, and that only Qin can do it, so he dies, but he is glad to do so.

This movie is an answer to that one, or that one was an answer to this one. I’m not sure which came first; this was made in 1998 so maybe the Jet Li film came later.

More like a play than a movie in many ways. The emphasis is on the characters and the big scenes they have with one another. There is only a pair of big action sequences, one to open, and one in which a city, the capital of Zhao, commits mass suicide rather than surrender to the hated Qin.

The colors are beautiful, especially the reds – must’ve been in technicolor – and there are masses and masses of people in battle scenes. If it was digital it was a damn good job for that time period.

Of course since I don’t know the history of this period at all, I’m left wondering whether the story is made up for the movie, or is an untrue legend, or is history.

One thing I forgot to mention about the Emperor and the Assassin is that I always think these Huang-Ti movies are really about Mao Ze Dong who unified and founded modern china. So they are criticizing him or defending him. In this movie it’s criticism, and the extended sequence of the destruction of Zhao might stand in for the cultural revolution. His statement, ‘I want to protect all the people,’ in the movie refers to all the subjects of the seven kingdoms, but in maoist context would refer to all the classes; destroying all the Zhao people would mean destroying the bourgeoisie and intellectual class. ‘when I said all the people, I didn’t mean the people of Zhao! They treated me badly when I was a kid, they didn’t give me enough food, they made me herd livestock!’

(written around 10 February 2009)

Saturday, February 7, 2009

La Vie En Rose

Hi Aki,

So I watched la vie en rose and I didn’t like it. Man, I was confused – it’s as though You’re already supposed to know everything that happened in her life. This first struck me when she walks up this long staircase, into a big room, where there’s a body on the floor. Somebody offstage says, ‘It’s all her fault’ and she leaves, and meets a guy who says, ‘Come with me,’ and he’s a cop and ask her ‘Do you know Albert? How about manny the sailor? And him, and him, and him?’

Man, who died? What happened? I guess the French know all about that. But I don’t know shit.

Then it’s jumping all over the place, New York, California, Paris, 1920, 1947, 1960…where are we? When are we?

And what happened to ‘Daddy Leelee’ Gerard Depardieu, the guy who gave her the first cabaret job?

And who was the pimp she was paying, but refusing to turn tricks for? Is she a hooker or not? If she’s not, why is she paying him?

I didn’t know though that ‘Je Ne Regrette Rien’ that song we mentioned before, came so late. it’s like the end of her career already!

And every scene was like the climax of another movie. she’s high, she’s drunk, she’s crazy in love, she’s crazy, it’s the most important night of her career, it’s the worst night of her career.

Some of it was so over the top it was like a parody.

It’s weird: some scenes required you to already know her life story, but in other scenes they tell you everything.

Basic problem of the movie is that she lived too full a life. Her life story is enough for 20, 30 movies. You can’t put it all into one like this, because you end up with ‘greatest hits’ of super-highs and super-lows just like this guy did, and she comes off as a parody of the show-business rise-and-fall story.

One other interesting thing: the movie avoids the second world war entirely. that’s one good aspect to jumping around like they did, they could just ignore those 8 years. I imagine they ignored those years because Piaf did things then that even these guys didn’t want to admit.

Another problem with the film is that it treats an artist, but you’d never know she was an artist. The guy who introduces her in his cabaret makes her practice; the guy who trains her for music halls and concerts trains and instructs her ruthlessly; but we never see her taking her art seriously. She remains the drunk, drug-addict little girl who sings on street corners for pennies, and might be turning tricks at night too.

It’s like the National Enquirer version of her biography (with the war left out)

… I checked Wikipedia: Papa Leplee, Gerard Depardieu, disappears…because he’s the body on the floor! I didn’t even recognize who it was! Amazingly bad work, although maybe in cinema I would have seen his face better.

And the war years are controversial: some called her a traitor for singing to the Germans, she claimed she was a secret member of the resistance, and maybe it was just too complicated to get into. But it remains a big gap, for that period is soooooo important to France.

Oh, here’s another thing that bugged me in the film. Marilyn Cotillard did a very good job at acting especially, teamed with the makeup people, in aging from 20 to a very-decrepit looking 44 (she looked more like 80) – but when she sang, although she matched lips perfectly, her throat didn’t move. It looks fake, and it’s worse when you have a closeup on a singer who is only known for belting out the songs with great emotion – there just isn’t the life there when you don’t see the throat muscles working and the veins bursting.

(written around 7 February 2009)

Wednesday, February 4, 2009

Le Deuxieme Soufle

Hi Aki,

Le Deuxieme Soufle (second breath, second wind) opens with two title cards. The first says basically, ‘We don’t endorse the things these gangsters do, we only make a movie based on a fiction book.’ The censors of de Gaulle must have given them a hard time. The second expresses some of melville’s philosophy: ‘the only right a man has is to choose when he will die. If he chooses to die out of weariness, then his life will have had absolutely no meaning.’

Tough guy Gu (Lino Ventura) breaks out of prison after serving 10 years. He finds his girlfriend and several buddies still loyal, still willing to help him get out of the country. But he needs money first, and gets involved in a armored car robbery of 500 kilos of platinum. They pull off the heist, as usual in heist movies, but then, also as usual, things start to go bad. Gu still has to hang around to get his piece of the platinum, then arrange a sale. But he gets caught by other gangsters who claim that Gu’s group cheated, the heist was the ‘Angel’s’ job, and they stole it from him. Gu says, ‘Paul wouldn’t do that, if he did he’s crazy, but I always follow the rules, the Angel knows that!’ – but he has been tricked: the thugs are really cops, under command of the wily Inspector Blot, and they now have Gu’s voice on tape implicating Paul.

The tape isn’t legal evidence, so the cops bring in Paul and they torture him (interestingly, they waterboard him!) and beat up Gu, trying to get them to confess and name the other two guys in on the heist. But paul won’t talk, and neither will Gu.

The cops also release to the papers that Gu has talked, named paul, and that ‘other arrests will follow.’ So the other two guys think Gu has broken the code of honor, and that he will name them too. His name is put on a hit list.

Gu breaks out of jail hospital and makes a miracle recovery from his torture. He kidnaps one of the cops and forces him to write and sign a confession that he tricked Gu, that Gu never confessed, and that the cop tortured Gu and paul. Then he murders the cop.

Gu takes the confession to show the other two guys. But paul’s brother, who’s a bit of a rat, is now pushing them to kill Gu. They don’t believe Gu, and he’s forced to kill them all – but he gets shot in the battle, and can’t walk. he’s trapped in a crummy apartment while the cops come – led by Inspector Blot. In a shootout, Gu dies in Blot’s arms, and his last breath is the name of his girlfriend.

Outside, the girlfriend asks blot if Gu had any last words. Blot says, ‘not one.’ She’s disappointed of course. He tells her to go home and forget all about it. Then he ‘accidentally’ drops the notebook with the other cop’s confession next to the reporter, and says, ‘you dropped something, I’m sure it’s yours.’ So the last two acts of blot seem to be to honor Gu’s memory, and to try to let the girlfriend move on with her life.

The stunt work is poor by Hollywood standards. Black and white photography in this print is not great, grays and washed out. But the no-nonsense gangster code is great; ventura and paul meurisse (as blot) are terrific.

This movie is good to see next to Army of Shadows – as the woman commenting on Shadows said, melville’s resistance fighters act like gangsters, and his gangsters act like resistance fighters.

I see no hint of misogyny in the way melville treats the girlfriend here. she’s never ugly, she’s always loyal, and follows the code in her own way. She is however in need of male protection, as she has a big guy as bodyguard, and inspector blot remarks that without him she would never have lasted. Again, melville shows us a man’s world, in which women are almost irrelevant. Men can love women, and they can play a part in the world, but women can’t be equal in this world.

Blot is an interesting character, the sort of cop who knows all about the underworld and its code. You get the sense that he could have been a gangster himself if he wanted to; but the other cops (mostly the guy who tortures Gu and paul) are clearly stupid, and would never last long as gangsters – they’d be third-rate thugs at best.

Blot at one point tells how Gu used the same gun to kill the armored car guards as he had used last month on other thugs. ‘it’s a gun he knows, and is comfortable with, he will use it on this important job. But he doesn’t care if we know he did it. He is doomed and he knows it.’

Other references indicate that Gu himself is in agreement with this: he knows he has almost no chance to escape the country, and he is determined not to go back to jail. He will die first. So the whole story is how he faces death.

The heist itself is almost irrelevant. The other guys involved, when they hear Gu is going to join them, wonder if he is up to it; ‘in jail I heard about him, he’s washed up, too old, he’s lost his nerve.’ The heist then becomes more a chance for Gu to prove to them and himself and us, that he does still have what it takes – to be a man, ultimately.

Then the aftermath of the heist is just a chance for Gu to live up to the code. Though he was tricked into confessing, and it can’t be used to convict him, he still risks his life to get proof that he didn’t rat out paul or anybody else, and he dies in the effort to prove it. Another man offers to take the confession to the other guys, but Gu is adamant, he will go himself. it’s his mess and he’ll clean it up.

Gu’s share of the platinum remains where he buried it, in the cellar of a house where he’s hiding. Nobody else knows it’s there. The other guys are dead, we don’t know what happens to their share. Paul might still get out, he has a wife giving him an alibi, and she and his lawyers will probably know where the platinum is that’s paul’s share, but it seems most likely that inspector Blot will get the armored car informant to confess, that paul will be guilty on the informant’s confession, and will have to bargain and lose his shre as well (but this is only my guessing at what’s probably going to happen).

Melville and ventura were well suited for this kind of story. Both were middle aged at this point, and ventura could perfectly express the notion of the strong man, not yet washed up, but definitely past his prime, with really nothing to look forward to. He is matched in the movie with a younger crook, and you get the feeling that the younger guy will end up like ventura, like Gu, if he lives that long. But he crosses Gu and he doesn’t live that long. Too bad.

It’s absurd and a little existentialist in this sense. The point is not what you do, but how well you do it, if You’re a true professional or not, if You’re in control.

But also for melville, the gangster stands in for the resistance fighter. The way he looks at gangsters is colored by his experiences as a youth living under foreign occupation and war.

The woman commentator on the disk (she French; paired with a british male commentator) said that for the French at this time, a stretch in prison was a common symbol for France during the occupation, which was interesting.

The novel this book is based on has lots of the backstories of the characters, but melville strips all that out of it. he’s only interested in the present. it’s a very abstract portrait in many ways, which gives it an added mythic quality. it’s clear in the way we see the movie, that it’s like a western, like yojimbo: not real, but symbolic. This lets us enjoy rooting for the gangster, the murderer. But also as you note re: the yakuza, the same code is mentioned here, that ‘civilians’ are not to be harmed if you can help it. He kills the motorcycle armed guards, but he wishes he didn’t have to, that there was some way to get the platinum without any killing. In another sense of course the armed guards are not civilians – they have uniforms, they carry guns, and this is their job, to guard the goods.

A grim tale, told in few words, but great tough guy actors.

(written around 4 February 2009)