German Expressionism: Vol.1

The German Expression movement began before WWI and gained momentum in the 20’s and 30’s. It influenced architecture, painting and cinema. This movement gave surrealistic shape and structure to forms that reflect psychological states. This is evident in the extreme contrast of light and dark, the use of reflective surfaces and abstract optical tricks and even anthropomorphism.

Vol. 1 – Metropolis (1927) – This story takes place in a futuristic city in which the divide between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have nots’ could not be more stark. The working class is completely subservient to the city planners. Freder, the son of the city’s highest ranking planner falls in love with a Maria, a prophet from the underground workers. Maria strives to join the “hands” – the workers with the “head” – those who have the power. All she and the city needs is a mediator between the two, someone to act as a heart.

There is a reason that I wanted to start this new series after I finished with my last Neo-Noir of the 90’s series. And more specifically, I wanted to talk about this film after “Dark City”, my last entry into that series. As I mentioned, “Dark City” is very highly influenced by this film. In truth, the entire Noir movement as we know it from the American films of the 40’s and 50’s are highly influenced by the German Expressionism films from earlier in the century. In fact, some of the most highly respected filmmakers of the American Noir films were German directors that fled here when Hitler took control of the cinematic industry such as Robert Siodmak (“The Killers”), Billy Wilder (“Double Indemnity”) and the director of this film, Fritz Lang.

 This is definitely considered one of the quintessential films of the German Expressionism movement… and for good reason. The art direction and set design is a whole lot of things. Subtle is not one of them. In this story, Lang has constructed a future that is as oppressive aesthetically as it is thematically. The buildings and roads of the upper city stare down dauntingly with sharp corners and sharp eyes at the lower subjects. The cogs and wheels of the machinery in the lower depths do even more to oppress its inhabitants like an insolent child constantly demanding attention. The cinematography uses abstract angles accenting the structural weight of the set and the editing style bring a chaotic feel to some of the more surreal dreamlike scenes.

This has been one of my favorite films for a long time. A few years ago, a more complete version of the film was found in Buenos Aires with an additional 25 minutes of footage thought to have been lost forever. Kino released this version in 2010 as “The Complete Metropolis”. If you’ve never seen it, I suggest you watch this one. It’s currently available on NetflixWatch Instantly. Restorations like this make me very thankful to live in a time that an 85 year old piece of art can be preserved forever and is so easily accessible. This is a landmark film, not only for its movement but for the entirety of cinematic history and it’s a must watch for those who are interested in learning the complete back story of the films that move them today.

Enjoy.

Neo-Noir of the 90’s: Vol. 4

From the Greek “neo” for new and the French “noir” for black, Neo Noir is a term used in film and literature. It refers to a genre that primarily uses elements of the film noir movement of the 40’s and 50’s with modern spin on style, themes and sometimes content.

Vol. 4 – Dark City (1998) – John Murdoch (Rufus Sewell) wakes up in a bathtub in a hotel room with a dead hooker in the other room and no recollection of what happened or even his own identity. We follow his investigation into his own past as well as Detective Bumstead’s (William Hurt) investigation into the murders of six women. We very quickly learn that there is more under the surface of this strange city. Mysterious figures in long trench coats and fedoras lurk around in the dark performing strange experiments on the residents with the help of Dr. Schreber (Kiefer Sutherland). 

This is not the only or even the first time that a sci-fi story has been told in a noir world. Ridley Scott adapted Philip K. Dick’s novel, “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep” in 1982 as “Blade Runner”. Even French New Wave has taken a crack at this in 1965 with Jean-Luc Goddard’s “Alphaville”. “Dark City” however is probably my favorite blend of the two. It’s not the perfect film. Some of the film’s logic is a bit flawed but you probably won’t notice them until multiple viewings.

The reason I love this film has a lot to do with how derivative it is. The classic noir style is seen in the costumes and lighting; the plot unfolds in the shadows and faces are often hidden behind the brim of a fedora. William Hurt’s performance is also very inspired by the detectives of the 40’s and 50’s films. No matter how hectic or bizarre the case gets, he always has time to give the appearance of the jaded and tired detective. He exclaims “Give the man an A for effort” as his colleague counts the dead hookers. Later he will sigh “No one ever listens to me” as Murdoch leaps down a flight of stairs to escape. This type of character has been around for a long time. It’s used to overstate the seediness and darkness of the setting. Then later, as the case unfolds the detective’s inability to keep his cool will help to illustrate the magnitude of the situation.

“Dark City” does much more than just homage the American noir movement of the past. It also clearly pays its respects to the German Expressionism films from the 20’s and 30’s that the American Noir was created from. This movement used large domineering sets to represent the feelings of the subjects in the story. I won’t reveal the twist but this theme fits perfectly into the plot of the film. This was not Director Alex Proyas’ first attempt at this theme. His earlier film “The Crow” is also very expressionistic the character (and all of Goth culture) is really inspired earlier films like “The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari” (1920). “Dark City” however is much more inspired by Fritz Lang’s 1927 masterpiece “Metropolis”, not only in visual style but in plot as well.

I highly suggest at least 2 viewing of this film. First, watch it straight through. Then, watch it again with the Roger Ebert commentary. It’s on both the older DVD and the newest director’s cut DVD and Blu-Ray releases.  This was Ebert’s favorite film of ’98 and he provides one of the best and most informative commentaries I’ve ever listened to. I dare you not to be inspired.

Enjoy.

Why Staying True to the Source Material Usually Amounts in Betrayal

I’m a cinafile. Anyone that’s kept up with this blog or knows me personally could probably tell you as much but leave it to me to think that it needs more of an explanation. It means more than just being a “movie nerd” or a “film buff”. I’m those things as well but it’s more than that. You see, I don’t read much, I don’t take in plays and I don’t follow television shows or go to art exhibits. I love music but although my collection is somewhat obscure, it’s not what you would call eclectic. I love cinema. It is the artistic expression that speaks to me the most and it is the medium that I would prefer you tell me a story through.

Film is its own art form. It utilizes actors, typically reading from a script but is not a video recorded version of a play. Nor is it a visual telling of a piece of literature although writing is usually a big part of a film. It is an abstract art that is used to express ideas, philosophies and feelings and it is often, but not always used to tell a story. There are many aspects of cinema that make it its own art form but the two that stand out most prominently are cinematography and editing. These are the two pillars of artistic expression that have always assured cinema’s uniqueness. Cinematography and editing are both technical skills and artistic crafts at the same time. The cinematographer is charged with knowing the equipment used in shooting a scene and properly conveying the tone and feel of that scene. The editor deals with the technical aspects of post production and is also very influential in the overall artistic tone, feel and pace of the film. It is their job to use their skills and artistic input to properly convey the vision of the director to the final piece of art.

All of this being said, a very large number of films are based on previously created properties; much of this is literature. Just in the past few years we’ve seen some very popular lit adapted to the big screen including:” Harry Potter”,” Twilight”, “The Girl with a Dragon Tattoo”,” The Watchmen” and now “Hunger Games”. Inevitably, when a new film is coming out that’s based on works as popular as these; you will hear the same questions and concerns arise from the fan base of these books. Among these questions seems to always be: “Is the film going to stay true to the book?” This is a question that the fans of literature absolutely have the right to ask and their concerns are usually pretty understandable. The problem is that what we sometimes end up with is the literary community dictating a piece of cinema. And no matter what anybody tells you, words on a page are never cinematic. They may have the potential to be so someday. But until the scenes are shot and cut, the cinematic telling of that story doesn’t exist.

Peter Benchley wrote a book inspired by a rash of shark attacks on the New Jersey shoreline. Later, Steven Spielberg would direct a cinematic adaptation of this book and effectively change the film industry forever. He created the first summer blockbuster but he most certainly didn’t do it by staying true to Benchley’s book. “Jaws” is one of the finest, most groundbreaking and exciting films ever made and it left a permanent watermark on cinematic history. It happens to be based on a very long book about a shark that eventually dies from exhaustion or something. It’s very anticlimactic.

David Fincher’s “The Social Network” is another great example. I’m not sure (nor do I care) how good the book is but what Fincher and screenwriter Aaron Sorkin created is pretty amazing. Fincher’s editing style is always noteworthy but especially in this film. This story contains two separate timelines telling the entirety of the back-story through flashbacks…. That’s three timelines. The only reason that this is not the most confusing film ever made is because of how smooth and coherent the editing is. Trent Reznor’s score is just the icing on the cake.

In contrast, Stephen Daldry made an Oscar nominated film a few years ago based on “The Reader”. The story is compelling and the acting was great but I still left the film with the feeling that I would have gotten much more from the book. Ultimately, the film was pretty good but with that story, it probably could and should have been great. Unfortunately, the film was just not very cinematic. A lot of the scenery was very beautiful but there is so much more to cinematography than shooting a picturesque scene. And the scenes were cut together in a very straightforward way. In short, no risks were taken to insure the film could be seen as its own piece of art.

What’s that you say?... You want me to write more about Zack Snyder and why he’s my least favorite filmmaker?... Well… Ok… Just for you… “300” and “The Watchmen” are my two favorite examples of what a filmmaker shouldn’t do. These movies are the perfect examples of the difference between a cinematic adaptation of source material and a movie version of a book. These films steal their aesthetic from the novels to the point that you never really see Snyder’s vision on screen. He has no artistic input and the films feel as though they are not connected to him. I’ve heard “300” called visionary. This may be true; it’s just Frank Miller’s vision, not Zack Snyder’s.  I always chuckle to myself when I think about him in preproduction, thinking he’s being very clever. “Storyboarding? We don’t need to storyboard; I just cut out the pages from the novel and pasted them to this poster board…”

Sometimes, as is in the case of period pieces and biopics, the source material is historical fact. It is just unnecessary in these cases to stay true to historical accuracy. Quintin Tarantino made a masterpiece in 2009 called “Inglourious Basterds” without any regard for historical accuracy. He didn’t even find it necessary to spell it correctly. This film took liberties with a subject matter that many think was off limits. He chose rather to rewrite history and give us the prequel to the Tarantino world that many of us cinefiles have been living in since the early 90’s. The end result was a 160 minute love letter to cinema and my favorite film from the past decade.   

Filmmaking is not an easy profession to get into. If it was, I would be too busy making a film to write this blog. Just like any other art, those who can do it professionally have an enormous amount of passion for their medium. These people have typically grown up with the art form and developed a love for it largely because of those who have come before them. They are all fellow cinefiles. And excuse me if I sound a bit entitled but, I (we) should be your target audience. Why not make films for film lovers? Although the filmmaker will many times feel that it is his job to do the source material justice; after all, it is the piece of art that inspired the film in the first place. That source material will always be justified by a great piece of inspired cinema…. and never by a bad movie…. No matter what Stephen King thinks. 

Neo-Noir of the 90’s: Vol. 3

From the Greek “neo” for new and the French “noir” for black, Neo Noir is a term used in film and literature. It refers to a genre that primarily uses elements of the film noir movement of the 40’s and 50’s with modern spin on style, themes and sometimes content.

Vol. 3 – Miller’s Crossing (1990) – Anti-hero Tom Regan (Gabriel Byrne) is the right hand man to Irish crime boss, Leo (Albert Finney) in this prohibition era gangster tale of a series of crosses and double crosses. Control of the city is being fought over between Leo’s gang and Johnny Caspar’s (Jon Polito) Italian family. The police are pawns in the game and gambling and alcohol are the king and queen in this world. We follow our hero getting himself in and out of certain peril. The skin of his teeth seems to constantly fit into his plan… if he actually has one.

This is my favorite film by the Coen Brothers which puts it in the running for my favorite film period. I’ve certainly watched it more times than anything else. And I’ve never tired of it. I mentioned in my post about Se7en that I think that that films possibly suffers a little from overexposure. This is another film that is commonly seen on Saturday afternoons on basic cable. In contrast however, this is the type of film that can be enjoyed on many more levels. On one hand, the finely crafted dialogue of the Coens combined with great performances by Byrne, Finney, Marcia Gay Harden, John Turturro and Jon Polito photographed magnificently by Barry Sonnenfeld makes for a great art flick… On the other hand, this film blends matter of fact violence with dark humor so well that you can separate the entire film into a whole bunch of really cool parts. I can watch this film alone in the dark analyzing every frame as though it was my favorite homework assignment. Or, I can zone in and out of it some lazy afternoon in my living room while I’m checking my fantasy team and helping the kids with their homework.

This film takes much of its noir queues from the setting that the story takes place. Prohibition era gangster stories have been the backdrop for pulp novels and films since they were told in the present tense and you find all of the classic tropes in this film. Double crosses, gambling, drinking, fighting, hats and of course the femme fatale all play a major role in this intricately woven tale. And less we forget the scheming anti-hero. Tom Regan is the perfectly unreliable narrator. We’re never quite sure who’s interest he truly has at heart or even if he has one. 

This film also contains what is probably my favorite frame in any film ever. I flat out love this shot. It’s simple enough. An old man with a crooked toupee is leaning against a wall in an alley while a young boy and his dog stare perplexed at him. Out of context, we see what looks like a photographed version of a Norman Rockwell Americana. The underlying darkness only comes from the knowledge that this is actually a depiction of the corpse of a murdered gangster being discovered by an innocent child. This is the type of contrast and matter-of-factness of their scene construction is what the Coen Brothers have been making masterpieces out of for the past 28 years.

Enjoy.