Steven Rubio's Online Life

i'm not there (todd haynes, 2007)

This is the twentieth film I have watched in "My Letterboxd Season Challenge 2024-25", a "33-week-long community challenge" where "you must watch one previously unseen film that fits the criteria of the theme for the week." This is the 10th annual challenge, and my sixth time participating (previous years can be found at "2019-20", "2020-21", "2021-22", "2022-23", and 2023-24). Week 20 is called "Different Strokes Week":

The biopic is a more-or-less tried-and-true staple of the movies. The desire to tell the story of intriguing, remarkable, or talented people is understandable. Yet, often, the creativity or uniqueness of these subjects is lazily stretched over the unimaginative framework of The Standard Biopic: birth, struggle, success, downfall, redemption, and death. But extraordinary skill and intriguing lives deserve more than a paint-by-numbers approach. After all, these are people who, for one reason or another, stand out from the crowd, and drafting their stories with a humdrum blueprint is almost insulting. Luckily, not every biopic is so generic.

This week's challenge is to watch a film found on Darren Carver-Balsiger's Unconventional Biopics list. Like most things, some work better than others, but at least the filmmakers thought it worthwhile to honor their chosen subject's real-life story with a deservedly uncommon approach, and that, at least, is worth a couple of hours of our attention.

Now this is my kind of category: a biopic that trashes the idea of biopics. Todd Haynes doesn't make it all up, but he does make it unimportant whether this or that scene "really happened". He doesn't think you explain Bob Dylan that way ... well, I doubt he thinks you can explain Bob Dylan, but you can sniff around the edges, get a deeper feel for the artist than you might have before you saw the film. If there's a flaw in I'm Not There (and I don't know if it should even qualify as a flaw), it's that I imagine it's unintelligible to people who aren't fairly involved in thinking about the Legend of Dylan. The film references many famous moments, but it doesn't often put them into any specific context, and the movie is useless if you are looking for a Wikipedia-style summary of Dylan's career. No, Haynes evokes some of the feelings Dylan inhabits in our collective imagination.

To take the most obvious starting point, there is no character named "Bob Dylan" in this biopic of Bob Dylan. Instead, six very different actors portray Dylan-type characters that roughly correspond to various moments in Dylan's life and career. It's not all that helpful to list them, but here goes. There's Ben Whishaw as "Arthur Rimbaud", a poetically-minded teenager; Marcus Carl Franklin as "Woody Guthrie", an 11-year-old black kid who carries a guitar with a case that reads "this machine kills fascists"; Christian Bale as "Jack Rollins", a folk singer with a career reminiscent of early Dylan; Heath Ledger as "Robbie Clark", an actor who plays Jack Rollins in a biopic; Richard Gere as "Billy the Kid"; and best of all, Cate Blanchett as "Jude Quinn", who is clearly modeled on the Dylan that went electric. Does it "make sense"? I doubt it, if you don't already have this stuff in your head. But if Dylan's career is part of your own history, then I'm Not There is magical, delightfully so.

And this is best exemplified by Blanchett's performance. She was nominated for a Supporting Actress Oscar, and all of her fellow nominees are excellent actors, including eventual winner Tilda Swinton, and it's not like the Academy ignores Blanchett, who already had a Supporting Actress Oscar at the time and who later won a Best Actress award as well, but geez. I don't know that there is a better portrayal of Bob Dylan on film than Cate Blanchett as "Jude Quinn". She is remarkable.

So yes, I think the audience for this movie is fairly narrow. But within those confines, it hits the spot. It exposes A Complete Unknown for the merely good movie it is. #352 on the They Shoot Pictures, Don't They list of the top 1000 films of all time.

geezer cinema: september 5 (tim fehlbaum, 2024)

September 5 is a tense, compact thriller based on fact, when ABC, who were broadcasting the Olympics from Germany in 1972, was stuck into the middle of the ultimate in breaking news, as Palestinian militants entered the Olympic Village and took Israeli athletes hostage. This basic story would seem to be impossible to screw up ... the real-life tension can't be avoided. And Tim Fehlbaum doesn't screw up.

But the premise of the movie strikes me as a bit off. The film makers aren't trying to hide anything, and while my misgivings remained at the end of the movie, they were the same misgivings I might have had before I'd even seen it. Because the focus isn't on the hostages. It's on the ABC people sending the news across the globe. The central issue has nothing to do with Middle East politics, but instead with journalistic ethics (and some professional turf fighting tossed in). We admire the ABC crew as they work in real time to tell the story unfolding before them, and we feel for them when in the heat of the moment they get something wrong (reporting, along with most of the media, that the hostages were safe when in fact they were all eventually killed). The crew is doing their best under trying circumstances, and it is there Fehlbaum identifies the tension.

My complaints about all of this don't feel right, but those misgivings won't go away. The film sticks largely with the facts ... there is a German woman who works as a translator who is an invention, but for the most part, we see actors portraying real individuals, and of course, it's all supported by existing footage, most powerfully of Jim McKay, whose online presence is part of American news history. You could show this to a journalism class that wondered how it used to be. No actor could convey the immediacy of McKay's now-famous lines:

When I was a kid, my father used to say "Our greatest hopes and our worst fears are seldom realized." Our worst fears have been realized tonight. They've now said that there were eleven hostages. Two were killed in their rooms yesterday morning, nine were killed at the airport tonight. They're all gone.

geezer cinema/film fatales #218: the outrun (nora fingscheidt, 2024)

It's easier to list the things that are good about The Outrun than it is to explain why it didn't quite make it for me, so I'll start there. And there really is nowhere to start other than with Saoirse Ronan. She's been nominated for four Oscars, and this should be her fifth, although I suspect she will fall short of winning once again. She has matched well in the past with Greta Gerwig, but she shines with other directors as well. She tends to be the best thing in any movie in which she appears, which is to say, she is better than her films (at least the ones not directed by Gerwig). Here she plays an alcoholic, Rona, which is always good for Oscar attention, and she finds interesting ways to make the character different from all the other alkies we've seen. She is convincingly an individual, not just a stereotype.

The setting is crucial and impressive ... director Nora Fingscheidt and cinematographer Yunus Roy Imer make great use of the Orkney Islands, an imposing location both inspiring and frightening (and thus a perfect place to work out one's alcoholism). The film is based on a memoir by Amy Liptrot, who worked on the picture and who knows the Islands well.

There is a bit of an inevitability to the narrative ... woman is an addict, she falls, she gets sober, she falls again. Fingscheidt addresses this with a non-chronological approach that simulates forward movement, but I found it more jarring than anything. It wasn't confusing, but neither did it seem necessary.

Having just seen Blitz, where Ronan's blonde hair stood out among a fairly drab-looking setting, it was interesting to see how in The Outrun, Ronan is often stripped of makeup, as if to emphasize how her drinking brings down whatever natural effervescence she might have. Rona frequently changes her hair color, and each time it marks her attempt to rescue that effervescence.

I can't find much in what I have written to explain why I wasn't overwhelmed by The Outrun. It's a worthy picture, about as good as the much different Blitz, but unlike her movies with Gerwig, I don't imagine returning to The Outrun for a taste of Saoirse Ronan. Don't get me wrong, though, she'll deserve that Oscar nomination.

the dead (john huston, 1987)

This is the second bonus film I have watched in "My Letterboxd Season Challenge 2024-25", a "33-week-long community challenge" where "you must watch one previously unseen film that fits the criteria of the theme for the week." This is the 10th annual challenge, and my sixth time participating (previous years can be found at "2019-20", "2020-21", "2021-22", "2022-23", and 2023-24). Bonus Week 2 is called "Cahiers du cinéma Week":

Appearing on three previous LSCs, this theme was an early favorite. In 2007 the French Cahiers du cinéma magazine published a list of the best films in the world according to the 78 film critics and historians they asked. The results of the top 100 movies became their official list.

This bonus challenge is to watch a movie from Cahiers du cinéma's 100 Films to an Ideal Film Library list.

John Huston was dying, but he wanted to finish a last film. His son Tony wrote the script. His daughter Anjelica had the female lead. Interiors were filmed in California, as Huston was too sick to go to Ireland. They gathered an impressive cast of Irish actors to fill the screen. Huston directed from a separate room, giving instructions via loud speaker. If these seem like impossible conditions under which to make a movie, note also that the source material was a short story by James Joyce that, if not unfilmable, was at least hard to imagine in movie form: Joyce's story was renowned for his great use of language, and while there were deep themes, the "plot" seemed minimal, a social party among friends. It's worth noting that John Huston's first film as director, The Maltese Falcon, was also based on a book. Huston's screenplay is extremely close to the Hammett novel, which wasn't too difficult as Hammett was a concise writer with plenty of dialogue. You'd think that Huston's son Tony would struggle to provide the same kind of connection to Joyce's story.

Yet, the story is there on the screen. It's an impressive achievement. If you go back and read the story, you will find its scenes replicated in the film. The differences are instructive ... the Hustons can't simply rely on Joyce's language, but Joyce didn't have a company of Irish actors to demonstrate the particulars. The Dead is a fine example of how books and movies offer distinct pleasures. The short story is a classic; the film is an honorable sign off from a veteran director who died before it was released. #480 on the They Shoot Pictures, Don't They list of the top 1000 films of all time.

undine (christian petzold, 2020)

A friend recommended this, and I came to it cold ... knew nothing about it, never seen any movies from director Christian Petzold, knew none of the actors. It's one of my favorite ways to watch a new-to-me film, but I think I might have needed some context.

Undines are water nymphs ... the little mermaid is an example ... and I'm not sure if Petzold embellished the legend or not, but the titular Undine in his movie (played by Paula Beer) has some specifics related to love with a human. None of it was very clear to me, which is where context might have helped. At the beginning of the movie, when a man is breaking off a relationship with Undine, she says that means she must kill him, as if that's something everyone knows. I just went with it, knowing from the start that I'd be in the dark about the fantasy elements.

And it was an intriguing watch, no matter what I was missing. Beer is excellent, and Petzold creates an atmosphere that is a good blend of reality and mythology. Undine's relationships with men are both romantic and mysterious, thanks to the underlying myth, and if I never quite got the idea, I was able to go with it anyway. Undine is the kind of movie that often bothers me, yet for some reason this time I bought into what I was watching.

for a few dollars more (sergio leone, 1965)

The middle film in Sergio Leone's trilogy is a bit of an improvement over A Fistful of Dollars, but I wouldn't overstate the difference. Lee Van Cleef is good as Clint Eastwood's co-star, and Gian Maria Volonté once again adds a villainous touch. For a Few Dollars More is too long, although The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly is longer than all of them and is still the best of the three by quite a margin. All three are of the style-over-substance school, but that style is still impressive after all these years.

 

the conformist (bernardo bertolucci, 1970)

I re-watched The Conformist for the first time in 50 or so years. I've often listed it as my favorite Bertolucci film (and I like a lot of them), even though my memories of it were pretty vague compared to others I'd seen over the years (I have a special fondness for The Dreamers, even though I've never thought of it as his best). There are subtleties in the film that perhaps contributed to the vagueness of my memories ... I never forgot how much I liked it, but never could pinpoint exactly why.

This is an interesting time to be watching The Conformist, which draws a picture of fascism (or, perhaps better, a run-of-the-mill fascist) that resonates in 2024. Jean-Louis Trintignant's Marcello wants to be a fascist because he wants to go unnoticed, to be "normal". The subtextual connection between fascism and sexual "deviance" is as silly now as it was in 1970, but in Marcello's case, it's not clear that sex interests him. The most sexually charged scene comes when Stefania Sandrelli and Dominique Sanda dance together ... it's a scene you remember 50 years later.

I don't know where I got this idea, but I always thought the actor who played Fanucci in The Godfather: Part II was a non-actor cast because he looked the part. So imagine my surprise when Gastone Moschin turned up in a key role in The Conformist. (He's very good, too.) The Conformist looks gorgeous, as most Bertolucci films do. Shoutouts to cinematographer Vittorio Storaro and art directors Ferdinando Scarfiotti and Nedo Azzini. After all these years, I may still believe that this is Bertolucci's best film. #83 on the They Shoot Pictures, Don't They list of the top 1000 films of all time.

a fistful of dollars (sergio leone, 1964)

The first of the so-called Dollars Trilogy ... Sergio Leone didn't intend them to be a trilogy, and perhaps nowadays we'd call it a franchise, with Leone directing Clint Eastwood as the Man with No Name. Many of the trademarks of Leone's style are here ... it's hard to miss the close-ups. It's easily the shortest ... the films got progressively longer, and A Fistful of Dollars is more than half-an-hour shorter than the next in the series, For a Few Dollars More. It's a decent movie, if not up to the standards of the real classic of the three, The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.

The plot of A Fistful of Dollars is reminiscent of that for Kurosawa's Yojimbo, and Kurosawa successfully sued Leone's company. (The irony is that Yojimbo's plot is very similar to Dashiell Hammett's novel Red Harvest.) A settlement was eventually achieved, but the release of A Fistful of Dollars in the United States was delayed for three years. Perhaps this is one reason a trilogy is assumed, for by the time the dust cleared in the lawsuit, Leone had finished the other two films, which were all released in the States in the same year (1967).

While Leone had an interesting career, more than anything, this film began the establishment of Clint Eastwood as an iconic actor in film history. Of course, he later became an Oscar-winning director, using much the same style of directing that he did in his acting: minimalist.

film fatales #202: trouble every day (claire denis, 2001)

Claire Denis (Beau Travail, 35 Shots of Rum) is a favorite director of mine, and I looked forward to Trouble Every Day, but I was aware that it is not as acclaimed as her other movies (it has the lowest Metascore, 40, of any film she has directed). I think that low Metascore is understandable, and Trouble Every Day isn't up to her best. But it's an interesting attempt to make an arty erotic horror movie ... I'm thinking of Park Chan-wook's Thirst, which is a better movie than Trouble Every Day but has a similar blend of sex and gore shown with arty excellence.

Trouble Every Day seems like it is going to be a vampire movie, but it turns into something different, which allows for subtexts that don't necessarily match those of vampire pictures. Denis shows a connection between erotic attraction and cannibalism that is unexpected. It's thought-provoking, but I'm not convinced it goes deeper than the basic connection. Once you get what Denis is doing, there's not much else to say about that connection, leaving an arty horror movie that isn't all that great.

The acting is variable. Béatrice Dalle (Betty Blue) brings her idiosyncratic presence to her scenes, but Vincent Gallo is too low-key ... he struggles with what he has become, but his struggle isn't moving because Gallo is inert. There is also a big plot hole at the beginning (not that horror doesn't often have plot holes): Gallo plays a recently-married man who, we assume, has become intimate with his new wife, but given what we learn of him in the movie, it's impossible for his wife not to have noticed long before. It's hard to suspend disbelief in this case.

Despite that Metascore, the film is #793 on the They Shoot Pictures, Don't They list of the top 1000 films of all time, #103 on the 21st century list.

geezer cinema: the good, the bad and the ugly (sergio leone, 1966)

Watched this one for the billionth time. You run out of things to say. My opinion of this movie has risen over the years, and it might be favorite by Leone. But this viewing was remarkably like one I wrote about in 2009. Then, I talked about the new "Blu-ray" technology and high-definition TV. Substitute "4k Blu-ray" for "Blu-ray" and you'd have pretty much what I was thinking as I watched this new disc:

It’s a sign that a particular technology has become established when you notice its absence more than its presence. When Blu-ray first came along, I marveled at the look of every movie I watched … it was new and beautiful. The same was true for Hi-Def TV, which doesn’t quite match the exquisiteness of Blu-ray, but is enough of an improvement over standard definition that every show was a joy. As some point, though, that look became ordinary in a good way. Good, because I take it for granted. The only time I notice the picture now is when it’s not in HD. The Blu-ray of The Good, the Bad and the Ugly looks great. The movie itself is also quite something.

One other change from 2009: back then, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly was #187 on the They Shoot Pictures, Don't They list of the top 1000 films of all time. As I write this, it's up to #156.

My wife, who can at times be a bit of a spoilsport (a crime I am guilty of far more often than she is) said that the climactic shootout between the titular trio is lacking logic. Clint Eastwood is the one of the three who already knows where the money is, and he has already emptied Eli Wallach's gun without Tuco knowing about it. When the men finally shoot, Clint goes straight to Lee Van Cleef. My wife pointed out that Blondie could have shot Angel Eyes at any point. I said we were talking about one of the most iconic scenes in movie history, and when that's the topic, logic isn't the first thing that should come to mind.

One final thought. Clint Eastwood has developed a recognizable style as a director over the years, and when he makes westerns, someone will always say the Leone influence is clear. But you can't find two less similar directors. Eastwood is a minimalist, Leone is extravagant.