1968 - A Random Cinematic Year In Review

Preface: I have decided to write this series at least in part because I don't make it out to see new films very often and I've found that I spent too much time at the end of the year attempting to see all the big releases (many of which I'm not even interested in) for no other reason than to make an obligatory 'year end list'... This is a way that I can continue writing about films without feeling the pressure to see a bunch of stuff that I wouldn't otherwise take the time to. I'll still see most of them eventually, just on my own time. I use a random number generator to pick a year and I use letterboxd.com to determine the actual release year.

1968 was a very eventful year in the news. The United State's involvement in The Vietnam War was facing the its worst problems both at home and abroad.The Tet Offensive was North Vietnamese's most successful campaign and amid mounting public outcry and protests, President Johnson's approval rating plummeted.

This year also saw two of the most historically significant political assassinations. Dr Martin Luther King Jr. and Senator Robert F Kennedy were both shot within months of each other.

"Peace is not merely a distant goal that we seek, but a means by which we arrive at that goal." - MLK

Not all the news of the year was bad however. On Christmas Eve, the crew of NASA's Apollo 8 became the first humans to orbit the Moon.

The year in cinema was rather eventful as well. Two of the most famous films of all time actually opened on the same day. Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, and Franklin Schaffner's PLANET OF THE APES both opened on April 3rd. 2001 ended up winning at the box office but lost the Oscar to Carol Reed's OLIVER!.

The Festival at Cannes took place during massive general strikes and anti-capitalism and anti-consumerism demonstrations. As a form of acknowledgement, the festival decided not to hand out any awards. Films were screened from some of the best of the Japanese, French and Czech New Waves....

And meanwhile, back in the states,.. A young and ambitious filmmaker from The Bronx, was running around a small town in Pennsylvania inventing a subgenre of horror that is today worth more than the GDP of some countries... 

My Top 5

5) CAPRICIOUS SUMMER - Directed by Jiří Menzel

When I think of the late 60's, I think of Japanese, French and Czech films. This film isn't quite the masterpiece as Jiří Menzel's previous effort, CLOSELY WATCHED TRAINS but its more than entirely watchable. Just imagine how light and airy a Czech film could be when it's not taking place during the Nazi occupation... 

4) 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY - Directed by Stanley Kubrick

Kubrick didn't make any imperfect films and this one is no exception. It is not meant to be merely watched, but consumed, over and over in the decades following its release. I really don't know what else to say about this one. It's comforting like a warm blanket. At any time, I can watch any part of it in passing or enjoy it all the way through. It never disappoints.

3) SHAME - Directed by Ingmar Bergman

There are plenty of dark Bergman films to choose from but this highly underrated gem might take the cake. It is essentially about all of humanity's worst traits and how tight of a grasp they have during wartime. Stress, anxiety, impotence, cruelty and betrayal all take their turns on the center stage here. Liv Ulman and Max Von Sydow make for brilliant puppets to these aforementioned human conditions.

2) NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD - Directed by George A. Romero

It's really impossible to understate this film's significance. The importance of what Romero did for horror and its zombie subgenre is eclipsed only by what he did for American independent DIY filmmaking. In 1968, the auteuristic attitude hadn't quite infiltrated the American studio system yet. And this film's success (10th at the box office) surely led to some of this nation's culture towards artistic freedom.

1) ROSEMARY'S BABY - Directed by Roman Polanski

Every Roman Polanski film feels as though it is the exact film he was trying to make. Every technical aspect is meticulously planned. Simultaneously disarming and disturbing , its easy to forget that this is Polanski's first American film and he was only 35 when he made it. I'll never get tired of watching this one... 

1987 - A Random Cinematic Year In Review

Preface: I have decided to write this series at least in part because I don't make it out to see new films very often and I've found that I spent too much time at the end of the year attempting to see all the big releases (many of which I'm not even interested in) for no other reason than to make an obligatory 'year end list'... This is a way that I can continue writing about films without feeling the pressure to see a bunch of stuff that I wouldn't otherwise take the time to. I'll still see most of them eventually, just on my own time. I use a random number generator to pick a year and I use letterboxd.com to determine the actual release year.

1987 - The aftermath of the Iran-Contra affair found us all in a country that was becoming more and more comfortable with trusting the government less and less. 

"I tried to stand up and fly straight, but it wasn't easy with that sumbitch Reagan in the White House, I dunno. They say he's a descent man, so maybe his advisors are confused..."

The previous year’s Oscar Winner for Best Picture was Oliver Stone’s anti-war Vietnam drama, PLATOON. 1987 followed suit with a couple of its own noteworthy films about the same subject: Stanley Kubrick’s masterpiece, FULL METAL JACKET and John Irvin's underrated HAMBURGER HILL.... Both of which, I think are far better than PLATOON...

Maybe my favorite monologue ever...

Bernardo Bertolucci's beautiful epic, THE LAST EMPEROR won Best Picture and Best Director at the Oscars. Maurice Pialat's UNDER THE SUN OF SATAN took the Palm D'Or at Cannes while The Golden Lion at Venice was won by fellow Frenchman Louis Malle for his AU REVOIR LES ENFANTS.

The top grossing film of the year was Leonard Nimoy's 3 MEN AND A BABY. Wait... what?.. I had no idea that Spock was directing feel good family comedies in the late 80's. I don't really remember this film but take that in for a minute... PREDATOR, THE LOST BOYS, DIRTY DANCING, and HELLRAISER all came out in the same year. These films spawned a countless number of sequels and remakes... and 3 MEN AND A BABY beat them all at the box office...

This is NOT Antonio Banderas

My Top 5

5) WALKER - Directed by Alex Cox (US) 

Speaking of anti-war, anti-Americanism...anti-everything.... As much as I love Cox's earlier releases REPO MAN and SID & NANCY, I think this is his masterpiece. Ed Harris plays William Walker, the American mercenary that took over the country of Nicaragua in the mid 19th century as part of America's 'Manifest Destiny' bullshit. This film is full of expressionistic and surreal anachronisms used to tie the past to the events taking place at the time the film was released. "Before Rambo... Before Oliver North..." may be the best tagline ever...

4) EVIL DEAD 2 - Directed by Sam Raimi (US) 

This is my favorite of the Ash trilogy... which makes it also my favorite Raimi film. I think the climate of horror films that we find ourselves in today is largely influenced by this film.... and for good reason. This film strikes the perfect balance between the earnestness of its predecessor and the overtly silliness of its sequel.

3) RAISING ARIZONA - Directed by The Coen Brothers (US) 

Looking back at their filmography, it could be easy to overlook this one as a fun excursion that doesn't quite fit into their overall repertoire. This would be a mistake. This is one of their absolute best films. I would also add that although I'm a huge fan of the Coen's more recent work with cinematographer Roger Deakins, I honestly don't think that Barry Sonnenfeld gets enough credit for his work in their first three films. The shot composition is beautiful.

2) WINGS OF DESIRE - Directed by Wim Wenders (Germany) 

This is such an amazingly poignant and poetic film about the gift that is humanity.When I think of 80's Arthouse films, I think of Wim Wenders; primarily because of this film and his 1984 American masterpiece PARIS, TEXAS. Its beauty has stood the test of time and I feel that it is influence is still echoed by today's artists. One of my favorite films of the past few years, Jonathan Glazer's UNDER THE SKIN owes a lot of inspiration to this piece. I've never seen its American remake... I'm not sure why I would...

1) THE PRINCESS BRIDE - Directed by Rob Reiner (US) 

This is my favorite film of 1987. It's also the film that I've seen more than all of the others combined. I grew up with this film and thankfully, I never grew out of it. I still watch it pretty often. I'm not saying it's the most important film of this year and I'm definitely not saying it's the best film of the year... All I'm saying is that if I have to choose which of these films to pop in the Blu-Ray player right now... The story is a lot of fun, the framing device is done well, the acting is great all around (especially by Mandy Patinkin and Wallace Shawn) and the dialogue is endlessly quotable... Also, I just noticed that my top two films on this list have amazingly charming performances by Peter Falk... As you wish...

The Postmodernism and Pastiche of Army of Darkness

The term, postmodern can mean a whole host of things in relationship to art. It's exact definition is and will continue to be the topic of debate. It will be described by its critics as a cynical and nihilistic mash-up of the previous ideas of creative people. While proponents see it as intellectual deconstruction and homage of the artistic stepping stones that paved the road to the modern age.

There are many ways in which cinema can be postmodern. One theme is common however for the piece to be considered in this category. We are talking about films that are evidently aware of the films that came before them. Sometimes this comes out as a critique of the reality in which we live by warping that world with drug induced hazes, time travel, or other types of alternate or hyper realities that are all consuming to the characters. Other times, we 'flatten the affect' of the world around us by showing an emotional detachment of the characters to each other and their surroundings. Examples range from Ridley Scott's "Blade Runner" ('82) to Sofia Coppola's "Lost in Translation" (03) to pretty much everything Quentin Tarantino has ever done.

I think Sam Raimi's 1992 film fits best in the pastiche category. Pastiche is a term that refers to a piece of visual art that pays tribute and homage to pieces that came before it. Unlike parody, pastiche is a celebration of the works that came before. Like most filmmakers, Raimi was inspired by the other artists in many different genres. He shows that inspiration in his films, especially "Army of Darkness."

There are a lot of smaller, almost throw away instances in this film that reference other films. For example, when all of the mini Ashes tie Ash up to the floor is very reminiscent to a scene in Disney's "Gulliver's Travels" (39). Also, the words Ash is supposed to speak when he retrieves the book: "Klattu, Barada Nikto" are the same words used to control the robot in Robert Wise's 1951 film, "The Day The Earth Stood Still." There are other lines as well that are lifted from other films.

One of the most obvious examples of pastiche and homage in "AoD" is in its special effects and makeup work, much of which was meant to pay tribute to visual effects mastermind Ray Harryhausen.

You can see here, the similarities between Raimi's witch from "AoD" (top) and Harryhausen's Medusa in "Clash of the Titans" (bottom). The facial makeup is very similar.

Now take a look at some of the stop motion skeleton designs. On the top, you see 2 of Harryhausen's from the 1963 film, "Jason and the Argonauts." Then below is one from "AoD". Both are very similar even down to the expressions on their faces.... which skeletons are not supposed to have. Even the shooting process for the interior shots was done on an introvision or front projection stage as a tribute to the way Harryhausen's films were shot.

Part horror, part comedy, "Army of Darkness" at its core, is also very much an epic film. It is a story of a hero's quest. Not unlike Homer's Odyssey or Beowulf, it follows the typical twelve stages of the hero's journey beginning and ending in the ordinary world of S-mart.

It is this reason that I began thinking about it in reference to another epic film that I happened to watch recently. "Army of Darkness" tells the story of a man from a time of enlightenment who finds himself among a more primitive culture. He mentors them, introduces them to gunpowder and eventually trains and leads their army into battle to defeat a common enemy. All the while, struggling with the morality of his own ulterior motives.... This is also the basic plot line of a film that is ranked #80 on "IMDB's Top 250 List", #5 on AFI's "100 Greatest American Movies Of All Time" and #1 on Empire's "100 Best British Films Ever"... This film is so good, AFI and Empire are apparently arguing over which side of the pond it is from...(spoiler alert: it's British) I am referring of course to David Lean's 1962 masterpiece "Lawrence of Arabia".

I can hardly tell the difference

There are more similarities between these two films than the plot however. It was actually a few very specific shots in the opening scene of "AoD" that reminded me of "LoA". The film opens with a shot of feet drudging through the desert sands as Ash is being lead in chains to Arthur's castle. The vast majority of "LoA" takes place in the desert sands and is full of shots like this one. Then, as Ash's chainsaw is being held by Arthur's perplexed wise man, the blade reflects the bright sunlight directly into the camera, we quickly dissolve into a shot of the sun. This immediately reminded me of the sharp cut in "LoA" when Lawrence blows out the match into the beautiful wide sunset shot. Also, both films have the word 'of' right in the middle of the title...

When its all said and done, you would be pretty hard pressed to find a film that isn't a result of the inspirations borrowed from generations past. Postmodernism's greatest achievement is in blurring the lines between what was previously considered "high" & "low" art. Film is as progressive as it is expressive. It constantly changes and evolves. Filmmakers will never stop learning from each other and cinema will never stop serving as the best education for the next filmmakers. 

Come get some...

The Criterion Chronicles - The Killing of a Chinese Bookie

This is an ongoing series in which I chronicle the films of the Criterion Collection that I watch. I will include a brief synopsis and my thoughts. I usually watch these films on Hulu Plus' Criterion Channel..... I am currently paid by neither...

Cosmo Vitelli is a very confident and well liked strip club owner who just doesn't know when to fold a bad hand. He gets in over his head in a poker game and ends up owing the local crime syndicate $23,000. When he is unable to pay, they offer him an alternative solution. His task is to murder a book keeper that is being protected by his Chinatown neighborhood. Cosmo knows the score. If he refuses, it will only be a matter of time before they come for him.

This is a film from the movement sometimes referred to as "New American Cinema" or "American New Wave" that started in the late 60's. It is a movement that you can tell had trickled down from the French New Wave movement putting pressure on studios to give more artistic freedom to the directors. This is when auteur style film making began to flourish. Artists were allowed much more freedom to make films with less than traditional narratives. This lead to films like Francis Francis Ford Coppola's "The Conversation", Arthur Penn's "Bonnie and Clyde" and Dennis Hopper's "Easy Rider". It is also no coincidence that this explosion of creativity here in the states coincided with the end of the Hays Code in 1968.

John Cassavetes was a very successful television and movie actor in the 50's who began directing his own films in the 60's. Many of his films were slice-of-life melodramas featuring great performances from the likes of Peter Falk, Ben Gazzara, Seymour Cassel, and Cassavetes' own wife, Gena Rowlands. I would easily put Rowlands' performance in 1974's "A Woman Under the Influence" as one of the greatest on screen performances of all time.

This film however, at least begins with a more traditional narrative. It almost takes place in a noirish world of moral tales we found a to be so popular in the cinema of 50's. Ben Gazzara plays the lead as Cosmo.  He is the quintessential lady's man, well liked, confident and charismatic. He is so calm and collected that when he gets himself into trouble, its hard to really tell the full weight of the situation. This turns the plot of the film into a very good slow burn. By the end of the film, its hard to fathom exactly how we've found ourselves in this position. This is what made me think of the moral tales of the noir films from years past. I would almost consider this to be Neo-Noir but the plot doesn't crescendo in a true noir fashion. It's actually more of a underworld melodrama. Even after the film climaxes, it slows down back down and ends with an existential monologue.

All of the performances were great in this film, especially Gazzara's. I think it was the acting combined with the semi-realism style of camera work that gave this film its uniqueness. The wide aspect ration of 1.85:1 captures the Los Angeles area and all of its bright sunlight as well as its dark corners very well. It is reminiscent of Roman Polanski's 1974 masterpiece "Chinatown" in more ways than one.

This isn't my favorite Cassavetes film but I would highly suggest it as a piece of American cinematic history. Its important to take note of the major changes this country's cinema experienced at the end of the Hays Code era. Although I think "A Woman Under the Influence" is his best film, this one has a very different edge to it and is absolutely worth a watch.

Enjoy.

Revisitation Rights - Only the Strong

This will be a semi-ongoing blog series in which I revisit films from my past. These are the flicks that I watched over and over far before I became the film snob I am today. I'm curious whether these films will stand not only the test of time but my own personal scrutiny.Or if the magic of them resides only in my own nostalgia.

Today's secret ingredient is................

MARK DACASCOS!!!!!!!!!

That's right, I rewatched 1993's Mark Dacascos vehicle called "Only the Strong" about a young Green Beret named Louis Stevens that returns home to Miami after a four year long tour in Latin America. He heads back to his old high school to find that it's been taken over by street gangs. Fortunately, Louis has mad Capoeira skills... Capoeira is a Brazilian style of martial arts/dance and its also some sort of a game.... It's most similar American counterparts are known as B-Boying or Stompin' da Yard... only sometimes you kick people in the face... And I think you're supposed to be really really extra sweaty while you do it. I guess it's also very fortunate for Louis that all of the street gangs seem to use this style of dance party to settle all of their disputes as well.... You know, instead of guns and stuff.

So in case you didn't know, Mark Dacascos made a career as actor in many martial arts films before he was known as the crazy eyed host of "Iron Chef" or the twinkle toed beefcake of "Dancing with the Stars." He's worked on many films but this one is one of his very few starring roles. And, as far as I'm aware, this is the only role that he does any Capoeira.

I could probably make fun of this movie and just tell that it was a 'so bad its good' fun fighting flick. The plot is completely ridiculous. It's sort of a lovechild of "Dangerous Minds" and "Gymkata". And just look at
the tagline on the poster... "The strength ultimate power martial rhythm art."... Huh??? Did I mention the sweat... There's a lot of it...

But I digress, I actually really enjoyed it this time around. The stuff that's bad is pretty bad, but there is still quite a bit that you can take away on a positive note. The fighting style is a real joy to watch and this is only film that uses it to my knowledge. It seems like a highly inefficient style that lends itself much more to flair than self defence. But, I guess that would make it the perfect candidate for cinema. I also took special note of the stunt work in this film. This picked up a lot of the pieces where some of the fight choreography lacked. You could feel the weight of the slams and falls the various henchmen

I watched this movie on Netflix Watch Instantly with my 12 year old in "Super HD". He dug it in the same way that I did when I was around his age. I'm glad to have had the opportunity to introduce it to him. This film had a profound influence on my upbringing as a young man... After all, its the reason that I used Eddy Gordo every time I played Tekken Tag Tournament... and I kicked ass at that game...

Enjoy.

The Criterion Chronicles - Eraserhead

This is an ongoing series in which I chronicle the films of the Criterion Collection that I watch. I will include a brief synopsis and my thoughts. I usually watch these films on Hulu Plus' Criterion Channel..... I am currently paid by neither..

Eraserhead (1977) is auteur, David Lynch's first feature length film about industrial printer Henry Spencer and his dismal existence. The world around him is loud and filthy, his apartment is tiny and run down, his only entertainment is a singing woman living in his radiator and his girlfriend is completely nuts. To make matters worse, she gives birth to a premature mutant child that cries all night. After all that, the movie start to get a bit weird...

This is not my first experience with this film. I watched it for the first time around ten years ago as a fan of David Lynch's other work. I really didn't like it at the time. For whatever reason, I just couldn't get into the story. But alas, I'm older and more patient now so I thought I should give it another chance. This film is very well respected by many of my peers and the cinematic community in general. Maybe my first viewing of it was skewed by my mood or something I ate. Maybe I just wasn't mature enough to appreciate it as the cinematic masterpiece it is. So, I gave it another shot....

Well Eraserhead, ummmm... have a seat.... can I get you anything?... Maybe a glass of water...? This is never easy... I'll just come out and say it... It's not you, it's me... No, really... There's actually a lot of things I really like about you. The practical effects used are well....... effecting to say the least, the cinematography is stark and at times very beautiful and the characters are very well written and fleshed out. I loved Allen

Joseph's "Mr X" as he is describing the "man made" chickens they are about to eat for dinner... "Little damn things, smaller than my fist.."

As far as I'm concerned, nobody should talk about this film without mentioning what I feel is by far it greatest attribute. Like many of his other films, Lynch does his own sound design. And this film is an amazing example of his genius at work in that particular department. The entirety of the picture is full not only of great sound effects but a constant ambient noise of the pulsating and whirring industrial machinery that absolutely fills the air. It's this attention to detail that I think led to Lynch's ability to achieve masterpiece status just three years later with 1980's "The Elephant Man".

So in summation, this may have not been my first experience with this film, it will be my last. I do admit however, that it is a far better movie than I had previously realized. And on some levels, it could probably be considered a masterpiece in its own right. Unfortunately, after watching it for the second time, I'm simply having too hard of a time not stabbing my eyeballs with my car keys.... Eraserhead, you're gross...

Enjoy.

Bellflower Review

I can’t really say that I loved this film… or that it’s a great movie. Actually, I barely even liked it. The acting was pretty sub-par and the characters were almost impossible to relate to. A lot of the story was hard to follow and the rest was hard to care about following……. What I’m trying to say, is that I highly recommend this film… Are you rushing out to buy it yet? I wonder what part of this review will be quoted on the poster……. Maybe I should just end this review here. I mean… are you even still reading this???? No, I wasn’t talking to you. I know you’re cool. Anyway, where was I? Oh yeah, I was telling all of you to go watch this mediocre movie.

The truth is that for all of its faults, there is something so right about this film. Digital filmmaking, for me has always been something that I’ve considered to be somewhat of a necessary evil for independent cinema. The cameras are lighter, cheaper and easier to use and the video is simpler to edit. The digital age helps keep the overhead of a film manageable; allowing many more artists the opportunity for their voices to be heard. All of this being said: I still prefer the look of film. Film looks cinematic. So, in spite of all of its advantages, digital is still just a great way for an artist on a budget to be able to feasibly capture the images he wants.

Evan Glodell’s film flies in the face of this sentiment. He is not just using the format on a technical level as a more practical means to an end. Bellflower is actually the best example I’ve seen of a filmmaker embracing the format on an artistic level. The gadgetry involved in the plot of the film stems from the handmade tinkering Glodell did on the cameras he made for the film. He actually fabricated two cameras including his Coatwolf Model II. This is a camera he created using the image capturing from Silicone Imaging SI-2K digital camera and adding a bunch of fitting and homemade lens adapters to it.

The film also includes a flamethrower that Glodell says he built for about $60 worth of Home Depot stuff and a Buick Skylark named Medusa (which also throws fire). This film is one crying Sandra Bullock short of being Jesse James’ wet dream (and possibly an Oscar contender). Unfortunately, this film’s problems are much less complicated than the mechanics involved in making it. This film, quite simply has no likeable characters to speak of. They’re not even all that interesting. And when your characters are not interesting or likeable, there is no empathy. And when the audience lacks empathy, the plot has no weight. And blah, blah, blah… I’m not going into Storytelling 101 for everyone here. I think you get the point.

In summary, this film works on a very specific level. And its that level that inspires people like me want to make films not so much like this one; even if the making of this film is better than the actual film. Hell, I’d even watch the making of the making of this film.

The Cry Review

Directed by: Bernadine Santistevan
Starring: Christian Camargo, Adriana Dominguez and Carlos Leon
Running Time: 80 minutes
Rated: R
Released: 2007
Language: English

The Cry is a modern telling of an old Hispanic folk legend. La Llorana (the crying woman) is somewhat of a ghost in Mexico, Central and South America. In some versions of the story, she was a woman scorned, who got her revenge by drowning her children in the local river.

This movie takes La Llorana to New York City's Central Park, where an epidemic of missing children is putting the city into a frantic state. We follow a pair of detectives (Camargo and Leon) as they investigate the disappearances and a young mother (Dominguez) who has visions that drive her to investigate the legend and the abductions herself.

I don't watch a lot of horror movies and this one illustrates why. It seems to me that the line between cliché and parody keeps getting thinner and thinner. To clarify for any aspiring horror director reading this: Parody is an over-exaggeration of an idea or technique that is a serious attempt to be funny. Cliché is an over-exaggeration of an idea or technique that is a funny attempt to be serious. This film was full of the latter.

Any movie that has the typical (see cliché above), person drawing scary pictures while in a trance scene, is going to have to work pretty hard to regain my interest. I can't recall how many times I've seen this done and it is just getting sad.

The second cliché I saw was the ever-so-popular super scary whispering voices heard in the heads of the main characters. This too is neither original nor frightening. It has been done more times than the previously mentioned scary picture drawing scene and with less of an affect.

The third and most egregious stereotypical, low-rate horror tactic used in this film was the quick flash of scary images on the screen while no one is expecting it technique. This serves the film two purposes; it saves the budget when longer shots of quality gore special effects cannot be afforded and it also allows the editing to create the startling scene as a substitute for real suspense and horror.

When I received this screener, I was a bit intrigued by the folk lore of La Llorana so I decided to do some research on it before I watched it. There was nothing extraordinarily interesting about the legend but I did take note in the fact that throughout different parts of the Hispanic world, there are vast differences in the original story of La Llorana. I was very interested in seeing which of the several versions of the story this film decided to adapt. Unfortunately, I was very disappointed when, rather than picking one, it simply garbled all of the versions together. This really ate into the entire concept of the legend. The film makers even went a step further and added their own aspects to the legend. In one part, the detectives are explained, "she gets her power from the water." I think they borrowed this idea from another folk legend from the East, his name was Godzilla.

I can't really say much of anything good about this flick. The acting was not horrible, but it was not very good either. The ending was both disturbing and predictable, but not satisfying. I could point out that the character of Maria (Adriana Dominguez) was nice to look at throughout the film and I enjoyed the music performed by Del Castillo. But I won't. Overall, there was no aspect of this movie that made it worth the time I spent watching it.

You're Gonna Miss Me Review

Directed by: Keven McAlester
Starring: Roky Erickson
Running Time: 94 minutes
Rated: R
Released: 2004
Language: English

You're Gonna Miss Me is a documentary that profiles the career and subsequent mental condition of Roky Erickson, lead singer for the influential sixties band, 13^th Floor Elevators. Roky started his career at the top, gaining almost instantaneous fame with his band. He had a great rock and roll voice that is said to have inspired the stage presence of Janis Joplin.

With interviews from ZZ Top's Billy Gibbons, Sonic Youth's Thurston Moore, and Angry Samoans' Metal Mike Saunders telling the professional side of the story and Roky's five brothers, mother and two ex-wives telling the about his home life. You're Gonna Miss Me is much more of a story of schizophrenia it's debilitating effects on those who suffer from it than that of the lead singer from a psychedelic rock band.

I held on to this one for a while before I actually stuck it in and watched it. For some reason, the topic at hand and what I had read about it from the back of the case and other reviewers just didn't seem to grab me. I was really expecting much more of a "Where are they now?" rock-doc, (VH1 style) than what it actually turned out to be. I was never really interested in the psychedelic rock scene and much less in the music that it produced. I would typically rather hear a hip-hop remix of Jefferson Starship than actually listen to the original track. But, I digress, it is kind of interesting to take a healthy dose of culture that my parents were into when they were my age.

Roky's life was actually quite tragic. He was the eldest of five boys born to an eccentric mother and emotionally absent father. He went from the severely broken home to the sixties music scene which was filled with booze, acid trips and heroin syringes. Roky dove in head first, slowly and steadily acquiring paranoid delusions and very unmanageable schizophrenia.

It's really hard to tell from this movie which aspect of his life contributed more to his illness. His home life was obviously a recipe for disaster, his drug abuse definitely permanently fried his brain, and his retirement was spent with the same neurotic and paranoid mother that had probably screwed him up in the first place.

All of this is staged in the background of a bitter family feud being fought in court. His mother doesn't seem to believe he should be on any medication and his brother, Sumner is petitioning for the control over his trust so he can get him back on his medicine and attempt to stabilize his ever fragile mind. It is pretty obvious in this film that his mother's methods of helping her son with yoga and "good, healthy living" are not doing the trick.

The largest obstacle this film had to overcome was in attempting to tell Roky's story through Roky's point of view. Although I don't think it completely succeeded, I am not sure how it could have been done, considering his state of mind. I will say that the film may have been better if we could have heard from Roky directly a bit more. The time he spent in front of the camera was very limited.

Ultimately, a documentary's success is based mostly on how interesting the topic is. Much like in the case of Manda Bala, this one succeeds for one major reason: It took a topic that I knew little about and made me interested in it. I think that's all I really care to ask of a doc. Give me something to think about.

Black Swan (Spoiler Filled) Review

You don’t hear a lot of in between opinions on this film. It seems that most either fully support this film as a work of cinematic genius. Or they very quickly dismiss it as unoriginal, uninspired, clumsily written and ultimately predictable. Well, I loved it. It was my favorite movie of last year and now that it’s out on DVD and Blu-ray, I can write my review. Again, I warn that this will be spoiler filled so if you have yet to see it, do so then come back.

We can start with a look at some of the more technical aspects of the film. First off, I think the acting overall was particularly good. Natalie Portman as Nina was brilliant and graceful in every part of this tale. I think the most crucial part of her performance was finding the exact level of maturity the part was calling for. She is a young woman, late 20’s, ambitious and strong willed but she still resides in an apartment with her mother. Her room still shows the décor of a 13 year old with dreams of the prima ballerina. Her mannerisms and general demeanor had to constantly reflect that of someone stuck in between childhood and adulthood. That specific level of naivety was necessary not only for her character, but it was the basis that all other characters in this story had to contrast and play against. Vincent Cassel and Barbara Hershey also stood out with their performances. Subtlety wasn’t always part of their repertoire but as we’ll see, it wasn’t asked for.

The score was also pretty impressive. This was basically Clint Mansell doing his best impression of Tchaikovsky. It was important for the music to be telling a slightly different and distorted version of the original “Swan Lake.” Again, we’ll talk about why later. The sound design and editing was incredible. It was this aspect that gave the film most of its horror feel. It seemed to be inspired by some of the best stuff from Cronenberg and Lynch, eerie and unsettling.

This was my favorite shot film of the past year. That gives a lot of reason behind why it was my favorite film outright. The verite handheld feel that we saw with Aronofsky’s last film, “The Wrestler” (also shot by Mathew Libatique) comes back but this time with much more effectiveness and beauty. The way that the actual dancing was shot, especially the final scene really sealed it for me. Typically, a stage production that is filmed will simply show a wide shot, capturing as much in the frame as possible. Then maybe a few close shots. This film actually has the camera dancing with the production. The complexity of the choreography involved in shooting that way is amazing in itself. The fact that this scene was still easy enough to follow and continuously kept it sense of space is so much more impressive. Lest we forget, it also looked flat out beautiful.

I think this is Darren Aronofsky’s best film thus far. I thought “The Wrestler” would have been a perfect film if only the script had been handled better. These films share a lot of similarities. Essentially, we are watching a story about a professional that relies on her body and her youth to succeed. And similarly, the character is aging past her prime and struggling with those challenges. There are also a lot of differences that set this film apart from the latter but I mention the similarities because it makes me curious to see what he makes next. I wouldn’t be surprised if he tackles this theme a third time. Filmmakers love loose trilogies.

So, let’s get into why this film was my favorite of the year. This was one of the best examples of art imitating life imitating art films we’ve had in a long while. The film it reminded me the most of actually was Michael Haneke’s “Funny Games.” Both films for all intents and purposes have the same character. In Haneke’s film, it is the tormenting hostage takers. In this film, it is the Tomas character. They all serve the same purpose, that of a storytelling surrogate. About 20 minutes into “Black Swan” Tomas flat out tells us everything that will happen in this film. At the time, he is speaking of the ballet he is directing, but his words are those of the screenplay, referencing the film that Aronofsky is directing. Foreshadowing is way too subtle a word to describe this and I think a lot of people were put off by this. There’s not a lot of mystery when it comes to what will actually transpire in the rest of the film. The question is how, to what degree and how much of what we are seeing can be taken at face value.

This brings up my next point. One of the more common complaints I’ve heard is in the over the top performances, especially from Cassel and Hershey. I really think this misses the point. It is true that at times Cassel is doing a Snidely Whiplash impersonation and Barbara Hershey is only a few shades away from Carrie’s mom. But, these are only critiques when you are expecting a level of realism that I never thought this film was attempting. As far as I could tell, the vast majority of this story takes place in the Nina’s mind. Either from the pressure of her job or a pre-existing condition that the film doesn’t make clear, she is very quickly digressing into some form of paranoid schizophrenia. Her mind is extremely susceptible to any suggestion and it runs away with it in the form of hallucinations. She has a rash that starts to sprout wings, her reflection in the mirror plays tricks on her and her mom is even invading her sexual fantasies. I tend to be of the impression that this is a portrait of a woman that has had mental issues for a long time. Her mom makes references to a life she gave up to take care of her daughter and as I mentioned before, her room doesn’t really look like that of a grown woman. At one point she actually grabs a handful of stuffed animals and throws them out in a fit, as if to force herself to mature outside of her mind’s own capabilities. This reading is just one of the few that I’ve heard but it seems to me to be the most plausible. It also gives an entirely new meaning to Barbara Hershey’s character. She is portrayed as a monster on the surface of this film. But if you take yourself out of the literal interpretation mindset, she may very well be anything but. This is Roman Polanski’s “Repulsion” meets Powell and Pressburger’s “Red Shoes.” And yes, I’m glad they didn’t put that on the trailer.

The Heart Is Deceitful Above All Things Review

We begin this story with a young Jeremiah being gleefully reunited with his estranged biological mother after years in foster care… Well, maybe gleefully is a bit of a strong term. How about cautiously content... No, I’m not quite there yet am I? Ok, he was terrified, and with good reason as we find out in the next 97 minutes of this feature directed by and starring Asia Argento. You see, unfortunately for Jeremiah, his mom makes Courtney Love look like mother of the year. She controls him with a cocktail of mental, sexual, physical and substance abuse. His pitiful fate is pretty much sealed.

There were a few things I liked about this movie. As disturbing and disgusting some of the scenes were, I was actually suspecting much worse having read some of the other reviews. In one scene, Asia Argento actually plays the part of her son pretending to be her. I don’t really think this was purely an artistic decision. I have a feeling that this was also serving the purpose of saving what little innocence the Sprouse twins had left. Thankfully the most graphic of scenes were simulated rather than shown. I’m not sure if I could have choked this one down if it had been much worse.

The acting by Asia Argento was pretty good here. It wasn’t great but some of the scenes that showed the desperate logic and rage that clouds the mind of a junkie were done really well. I also got a kick out of some of the cameos. Peter Fonda, Winona Rider, Michael Pitt and Jeremy Sisto are all in this film in very small portions.

Unfortunately for this film, there were just too many things I disliked and a few that I outright hated for this to get a good review from me. I will probably be the first reviewer to mention this but, I was thoroughly disgusted with that afro that Argento had in a headlock. Of all things in this film, this could have been the most unnerving and completely unnecessary. I mean, come on, I’ve been to some dive strip bars in my time, but I have never thrown down a dollar for a dancer who looked like she had just given Bigfoot a noogie.

CAUTION – SPOILER ALERT

The biggest problem this movie had was that it quite simply had no soul. It was filled with antagonists and victims. You wait through the entire 97 minutes waiting for someone with a heart to come and save this poor kid from his life. But alas, no such person exists. Even to the very end of the film you feel as though it can’t be over. There isn’t even a light at the end of the tunnel. You are left with a sense that what awaits will just be more of the same, only worse. I really just can’t get behind a movie like this. I’m really not sure even what I just watched. It was far too intense to be a melodrama. There were far too many implausible things going on to call it any sort of realism. And a tragedy will always at least give you some sort of closure in the end. This film lacks those crucial elements that allow the audience to get any sort of satisfaction.

True Grit Review

I originally gave the newest film from the Coen Brothers four out of five stars. It’s strange, but I seem to be falling more and more for this film as it ages in my mind. It’s no secret that I’m a huge fan of the two-headed director made up of the aforementioned siblings. I think that at first glance I was actually rating this film not on a scale of five normal flick stars but on more of a personal Coen stars system that exists primarily in my own head. Four out of five Coen stars is pretty damn good actually. If the film would have had any other director’s name after the ‘film by’ credit, I’m sure it would have earned a full five from me. This is a really great film and it holds up quite nicely compared especially to the rest of what’s come out this year. I can’t really help the fact that I go into every new Coen film expecting to be completely blown away. In recent years especially, I would say we now have two masterpieces out of their previous four films. “No Country For Old Men” was my favorite film of ’07 and “A Serious Man” was my second favorite film last year and my third favorite of the entire decade. These guys have set their own bar pretty high and with every new piece, they have a lot to live up to. That being said, this was a good Coen Brothers film and a great western. Well now that I’ve gotten that out of the way, let’s get into some specifics.

This film, first of all is a great performance piece. Jeff Bridges as Rooster Cogburn was just a big and brazen as you would expect. His mannerisms and gruff mumbling carry the weight of every ounce of whiskey and every roll-your-own cigarette his character has consumed throughout all his previous years. Somehow still, damaged and broken, he remains undoubtedly larger than life. His was the third best performance of this film.

At first glance, the greatness of Matt Damon’s performance could easily be overlooked. His character, La Boeuf is the perpetual odd man out. While the other two are given a constant flow of sharp dialogue, he is much more reserved. He is even somewhat goofy, in a very puritanical and honorable Boy Scout sense. Damon’s performance was pitch perfect. Its success depended on all the little things he did so well. I had heard he was good before I saw this but the more I think about, this was probably his best performance to date.

To say that thirteen-year-old Hailee Steinfeld’s Mattie Ross was the breakout performance of the year is a ridiculous understatement. She was flat-out, hands-down, end-of-discussion amazing and her performance was not only the best in the film, it was simply the best part of the film. She issued every snippy bit of wit with perfect rhythm and determined conviction. It was as if she were the long lost lovechild of a nun and a metronome. The most amazing part of this was how she was able to pull this off without ever once seeming the least bit precocious.

Roger Deakins’ cinematography was great as usual, although not as obviously great as some of his previous work. This film seemed to demand a much more subtle look than something like “Road To Perdition” or “The Man Who Wasn’t There.” That doesn’t mean this film was without technical achievement. Several scenes were shot with extremely low light and a candle projecting dancing shadows on a wall or perfectly framed wide angle scenery of the terrain and the subjects contained in it.

I must say that I would have liked the subtlety applied to the camera work to have been equally applied to the score. Carter Burwell’s music was not bad at all, just too baroque and grandiose than I thought the mood of the film asked for. I guess that was the idea though. This film was essentially the telling of an almost mythical story from the memory of fourteen year old girl. Damn it, I think I’m already talking myself out of that critique too.

I think it’s worth noting that this was the Coen’s first Spielberg produced film. I’m also a fan of Spielberg and I’m not exactly sure if he influenced anything particular on this movie but there were a few things that I don’t think I’ve ever seen in a Coen film. I don’t recall ever seeing the use of a blue screen or CGI in any of their previous work, and I can’t say I was a big fan of its use in this film. In the case of the CGI, I’m not really sure how they could have gotten away with doing it any other way but it still seemed to be a bit distracting to me. I think the blue screen sequence was meant to induce some sort of dream like visual but again, it didn’t really work that well for me. This film also contained a very non-Coenesque epilogue. It worked out pretty well; it just wasn’t how I am accustomed to seeing a Coen Brothers film end.

I should also mention how darkly humorous this film was. This, most definitely was something I’ve grown to expect from these film makers. Goofy character quirks and generally weird happenings along with matter-of-fact violence are the typical garnishes that always seem to accompany the main course of Coen plot. So with that, I will conclude that this may be one of the, if not the most crowd pleasing films in the entirety of the Coen Brother’s repertoire. It seems to be closest thing to a strait genre film that they have done since “Intolerable Cruelty”…… and most of us have long since forgiven them for that one.