Papers

My research paper ended up being about 1940's "women's films". I found it interesting that the most radical film I saw was I Remember Mama, which lacks a romantic interest for Katrin and never once is such a thing even mentioned. Perhaps at the time it was assumed that Katrin would eventually give up her writing to get married and raise a family, but it is never even alluded to within the narrative itself. Thus, the most domestic of the five films turned out the most radical.

Even in Gaslight, which, it could be argued, presents a powerful critique of the traditional institution of marriage, ends with the expectation that Paula will end up married to the "good" detective who saved her from her evil, European husband. The socialization techniques are quite apparent.

Mrs. Miniver was an interesting film on a number of levels. I found difficulty in reconciling the inherent contradiction in this woman becoming strong and self-sufficient in the fight for a society which derides such personality traits in women. Despite this, however, some of the scenes, particularly of the bombings and attacks, and most especially the scene with the family holed up in the bomb shelter, were very powerful, effective pieces of filmmaking. Overall, it's an extremely well-made film, despite the oddities and contradictions in its portrayal of "idealized" femininity.

In non-paper-writing news, I find myself enamored of L'Homme du Train. One of my colleagues described it as being in the same vein as a "geriatric western" - he was certainly being facetious, but there is something to the phrase, I think. Much of the film deals with regret, in all its forms: the fond sort of regret one feels at having made certain choices but not others, wondering how one's life may have been different; the regret one feels at having made a patently bad choice and being forced to live with the consequences of that choice, etc. I think, though, that it's not often easy to tell which kind of regret the characters are feeling at any given moment. It really adds something to the film as a whole, that wondering and regret.

Weeks of disappointment

Went to the movies three times weekend before last - saw Borat, which was no more or less than I expected. Visually uninteresting, but a(n offensive) snapshot of America right now, and especially the way many Americans view people who "look Muslim". Not as funny as I was hoping, but I was definitely laughing a few times.

(As a side note, I'm a liberal, too, but crap, some of the people on my side need to get their senses of humor fixed. I realize Borat isn't going to be for everyone, or even many, but at some point you have to register that it is satire.)

Next on the list was Shortbus, a film I had high hopes for but which ended up falling flat for me. Visually boring, though I did find it, in the end, to be far more straightforward and truthful about sexuality than a film like Closer, with all its literary pretentions (and Colin Clive, who never seems to make a misstep even when he ends up in less-than-stellar films). Where Closer attempted to be cynically hip, Shortbus attempts to wrap everything up with a pretty bow, gives all the characters what they want, and that became the most disappointing thing about it. It started to go in some interesting directions, but all of those directions ended in cliche.

The third movie that weekend was Marie Antoinette, which I was actually impressed with on a couple of different levels. I think Sofia Coppola is one of the most interesting directors working today. Sure, she's not perfect, but she has an interesting vision and her films always give me something to chew on. Marie Antoinette was gaudy and gilded, which worked perfectly. I think it is a very feminist film on one level, showing how this woman used what she had available to her in order to gain a form of autonomy in this world that she was tossed into without her consent. This could be problematic, especially with the class element, and the backdrop of the French Revolution (I heard French audiences were offended and angered by the film -- why, because it portrays a historical figure they like to deride and scapegoat as more of a victim than a victimizer? Or because it pays short shrift to the plight of the working poor? I think both reasons are kind of silly).

This weekend it was Fast Food Nation. I think the New York Times reviewer must be a Richard Linklater fan, because I thought the film ended up proselytizing to me. I think some things worked - the immigrants' story was affecting, but several of the scenes involving the Marketing VP and the teenage girl were extremely preachy and propagandistic. There are better ways to get a point across, Mr. Linklater.

Last week one of my teachers screened 13 (Tzameti) in class. I found it very affecting, and effective. There is something I love about directors who are willing to forego music and use pared-down editing techniques to create tension. I have nothing against music as a tool in filmmaking - on the contrary, I love a good film score, and I think it can add a lot to a movie. But it's so refreshing to just hear...silence. And then a gunshot, or the click of an empty barrel, the two sounds that reverberate through the entirety of 13, giving it a wonderful, gritty, yet stylized sort of neo-noir feel. The film provides a scathing social critique, and it's chilling.

How many again?

I'm experiencing something of a glut of great films lately.

Le Bonheur, by Agnes Varda, is one such. In the hands of nearly any other filmmaker, this film would have been pure fluff. In Varda's hands, it is a scathing criticism of middle class mores. I was very impressed. When I get some time, I'll be looking into more of Varda's work.

Jean Renoir is quickly becoming a personal favorite. I've now seen four of his films, and written a paper on it. Boudu Saved From Drowning, Grand Illusion, La Bête Humaine, and The Rules of the Game. His style, and the ideas he is concerned with fasinate me. Even when criticising, he is always sympathetic, and essentially a humanist.

In more domestic news, I've acquainted myself with some of James Whale's work, and I find his sense of humor highly appealing to my morbid side. The camera angles he uses, particularly in Bride of Frankenstein, is jarring and highly effective. The Old Dark House may be my favorite of the three: Bride, House, and, of course, Frankenstein. The performances are very good, and the mixture of macabre humor, the gothic atmosphere and sensibility, plus the feeling of "drawing room" comedy makes it... a little off-putting at first, but really fun. There's a lot there to chew on and have fun with.

Halloween Treats

Psycho is always fun to watch at this time of year. I discovered some interesting new things about it while examining selections in my Music for Film class. For instance, one of Herrmann's themes, a little three-note motive usually called "Madness", is associated in the first part of the film with Marion and her obsession with the money she has stolen. But once she is at the motel, the focus of the film shifts and so does this motive. In fact, as Norman utters the famous line, "everyone goes a little mad sometimes", the motive is given to him, and from that point on it, and the film, belong to him.

Last week Professor D. screened House on Haunted Hill in class. I had never seen this film before, and I found it highly enjoyable. Gimmicky, yes, like all of Castle's films, really, but my main observation is that the more I see digital effects in film, the more I appreciate older films which make use of practical effects, and this film really brought that to the forefront. Nearly all of the special effects in this film were practical, and they were all very effective, especially considering that within the context of the plot most of the effects are, in fact, man-made. It often irritates me to see directors today relying so heavily on digital effects. I have nothing against them, in theory or in practice, really, I just don't understand the mindset which leads many directors into feeling they must use digital no matter what, even if the film would be better served with a practical effect. Just because it "looks better". I think Gilliam's The Brothers Grimm suffered from this acutely. The "fake" witch at the beginning was so obviously digital that it threw me entirely out of the film when they tried to make me believe it was an elaborate set-up with strings. It should've really been an elaborate set-up with strings.

This past weekend I was able to catch Nolan's The Prestige. I rather like Nolan's style as a storyteller, and it gives me warm fuzzies to see that having a big budget only means the film looks better without weakening it. In essence, Nolan is still Nolan, even with a big budget, something which I see very seldom when independent directors get pushed into the mainstream. Nolan still has an edginess to him, and his obsessions are still very evident.

If I am productive enough on Saturday, I may treat myself either to Marie Antoinette or one of the Viva Pedro! films on Sunday. Something to work for, anyway.

Intro

The idea came to me on a whim: I ought to have a place to talk about films. Just films. We'll see how well it goes, since I'm very absentminded about things like this. Hopefully, however, I'll post reviews of films I see, old and new, possibly papers I have written, ramble on about movies I want/don't want to see, that kind of thing.

On reading/comments: I don't see how anything I write would be of much interest to anyone else, but if it does happen to get read, and if anyone wants to comment, feel free. I like intelligent discussion.