what i watched

African-American Directors Series: Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (Bob Persichetti, Peter Ramsey, and Rodney Rothman, 2018). I waited too long to watch this movie. It got critical raves, and won the Oscar for Best Animated Feature, but I'm not a huge Marvel fan, not a huge Spider-Man fan, not a huge fan of animated features that don't come from Miyazaki. Plus, my wife, who is a fan of the Marvel movies, is the one who usually takes me to see them, and this one didn't interest her.

Well, I've finally seen it, and it is every bit as good as people said. Endlessly inventive and full of surprises. I guess fans of the comics weren't as surprised as I, who hadn't read any of the related versions. They knew that the Spider-Verse featured multiple versions of Spider-Man ... I was unspoiled and thus amazed.

Into the Spider-Verse is a bit like if Philip K. Dick had written a Marvel book. We get at least two Spider-Mans, a Spider-Woman, a Spider-Man Noir, even Spider-Ham ("Peter Porker"). Each has distinguishing characteristics, and not just visually ... time is taken to give depth to each character. It's an ambitious movie, but those ambitions are extended beyond the usual spectacle to include a human element.

I've often wondered if the use of big name stars is a good thing for animation. There are so many great voice actors out there that deserve the work. Nonetheless, there are some excellent voices here, a tribute to the actors and/or the person in charge of casting the film (Mary Hidalgo is her name). Not all of them were megastars ... Nicolas Cage plays Spider-Man Noir, and Mahershala Ali and his two Oscars have an important role, but they are outliers in cast with folks like Brian Tyree Henry, Kimiko Glenn, and Kathryn Hahn. (Stan Lee even manages to work in his last cameo.) 

Champions of Into the Spider-Verse were right. To use a cliché, it's not just a good animated film, it's a very good film, period. Fans of Marvel will like it. People who don't often take in superhero movies will like it. I liked it.

Mystery Train (Jim Jarmusch, 1989). Slowly but surely, I am working my way through the films of Jim Jarmusch. One thing I've noticed is how consistent he is ... I've given the same rating to every one I've seen (Down by Law, Broken Flowers, Only Lovers Left Alive). Mystery Train is no different. Jarmusch has a style, one that is recognizable and influential. Jarmusch is not intimidated by a low budget (under $3 million for Mystery Train). He doesn't rush things, and cinematographer Robby Müller, a frequent Jarmusch collaborator, ensures that Mystery Train looks wonderful, even when showing us the scuzzier sides of Memphis. There is nothing accidental here.

There are a lot of characters in Mystery Train, and Jarmusch and the actors make those characters memorable. The main narrative is broken into three segments that are marginally connected in terms of plot, but perhaps more connected by theme. Of course, Elvis is the key connector. Two young Japanese tourists come to Memphis to see Graceland. An Italian woman has a vision of The King in her cheap motel room. Joe Strummer's character is nicknamed "Elvis" for his sideburns, if nothing else. And Memphis is a character, as well.

The cast seems like a gimmick, until you realize that Screamin' Jay Hawkins gives arguably the best performance in the film (certainly the most enjoyable), that Joe Strummer makes a fine tortured man dumped by his woman, that many in the cast are connected to others we know (Cinqué Lee is Spike's brother, Nicoletta Braschi is married to Roberto Benigni, who appeared in Down by Law, Elizabeth Bracco is Lorraine's sister) and all are good.


shoplifters (hirokazu kore-eda, 2018)

This terrific movie was recommended by Bright Wall/Dark Room. They provide recommendations for people who support their site, and they claim those recommendations are personalized ... plus they come from real people, not algorithms. Weird thing is, outside of telling them when I joined that I'd like to know more about 21st century movies and listing five favorites, I've told them nothing. I assume the subsequent recommendations are rather random. Thing is, they are always good ... Shoplifters might be the best, but none are less than good. And when they recommend something I've already seen, it's invariably something I like.

For some reason, the name Hirokazu Kore-eda didn't ring a bell, so I thought I was discovering this great unknown-to-me talent when I watched and loved Shoplifters. Turns out I've seen two others of his films and liked them a lot, as well (Still Walking and Nobody Knows). At this point, I'm ready to say that Kore-eda is a name I will no longer forget.

In earlier comments, I'd written that Kore-eda "rejects melodrama". About Nobody Knows, I said that he "offers up a melodramatic setting and then refuses to sensationalize the material. There are scenes here to match any weeper, but the tugs at our heartstrings never bludgeon us. Kore-eda allows us to come to the melodrama on our own terms." This is true once again in Shoplifters, which could easily fall off the edge into cheap sentimentality. It never happens. It's a film that I think benefits from being spoiler-free, so I'll be vague here, but Shoplifters is about family, in this case a specific family that is unique. Without turning it into a lecture, Kore-eda invites us to consider what makes a family into a family. This particular family, who among other things shoplift (OK, that's a spoiler I guess), don't always walk on the "right" side of the law, but it's all in the name of closeness.

With about half an hour to go, though, the plot, which has taken a backseat to characterization until then, takes over. We learn more about the family as the outside world sees them, and it's quite a contrast with how we've come to know them. It is here that Kore-eda's refusal to get sentimental works best ... the harsh realities that ensue lead to well-earned emotions for the audience. Since I hate cheap sentiment, I am impressed that Kore-eda has now made three melodramatic movies that avoid being cheap.

The three female leads, Sakura Andô, Kirin Kiki, and Mayu Matsuoka, are particular standouts, but all of the acting is good, including that of the children. #444 on the They Shoot Pictures, Don't They list of the top 1000 films of the 21st century.

Here is a spoiler-ific trailer:


film fatales #55: la ciénaga (lucrecia martel, 2001)

La Ciénaga is a damp movie. You get sweaty just watching it. It represents Lucrecia Martel's artistic rendition of her childhood. Wikipedia offers this description of the film's background:

Lucrecia Martel's screenplay for the film won the Sundance Institute/NHK Award in 1999; this award honors and supports emerging independent filmmakers. The jury suggested she re-write the script to follow a more traditional structure around one or two protagonists, but she chose instead to retain the script's diffuse nature.

Martel has said in media interviews that the story is based on "memories of her own family." She has also said, "I know what kind of film I've made. Not a very easy one! For me, it's not a realistic film. It's something strange, a little weird. It's the kind of film where you can't tell what's going to happen, and I wanted the audience to be very uncomfortable from the beginning."

La Ciénaga is believable in a way that might suggest realism, or at least a form of magic realism (Martel and her film are from Argentina). But it is neither. It's realism with a twist ... the situations are recognizable and seemingly mundane, but Martel presents them in an off-center way. That awards jury knew what they were talking about. They were wrong about what La Ciénaga needed, and Martel didn't fall for their suggestions. But if she wanted to make a more straightforward movie, a traditional structure would have helped. It's just that she wasn't interested in that structure.

You can overstate the oddness of La Ciénaga. I expected something like Un Chien Andalou, but it's not nearly as obscure. You need to settle into its rhythms, you need to accept that Martel isn't going to hold your hand, but there's a difference between wanting the audience to be uncomfortable and making a movie that did not connect with an audience. Scenes begin and end in the middle, you aren't always immediately sure where you are, but you aren't lost.

And the lack of audience comfort mirrors the discomfort of the characters. The adults drink to escape their boredom, the kids run around trying to make something out of their boredom, and the Amerindian servants are looked down on by the grown-ups and loved by the kids. No one is happy, although most of them aren't exactly sad, either.

Martel makes great use of sound. At times, La Ciénaga plays like a horror movie ... sounds, many of them from nature, constantly lead us to expect something ominous is about to happen.

"La Ciénaga" means "The Swamp", and that accurately identifies the milieu in which these characters exist. There is a filthy swimming pool that serves a reminder of this, although the metaphor is perhaps a bit too on target. But overall, Martel's first feature is confident and promising.

La Ciénaga is #107 on the They Shoot Pictures, Don't They list of the top 1000 films of the 21st century.

(Explanation of the Film Fatales Series.)


what i watched

Kiki's Delivery Service (Hayao Miyazaki, 1989). You might say this was recommended by my grandson. His parents are pretty strict about what he is allowed to watch, and Kiki is on that list. So he has seen it several times, as kids often do. It might not make my Top 5 Miyazakis (Princess MononokeNausicaä/Totoro/Spirited Away in any order, and pick-'em at #5 ... sure, make it Kiki), but since I've never seen one I didn't like, that's not exactly a thumbs down. (His mom said he was too young for Mononoke, and I suppose she's right.) We watched the American dub with Kirsten Dunst (whose nickname in real life is apparently "Kiki") and Phil Hartman ... Pamela Adlon was apparently in there, too, but I wasn't listening for her. I'm on record as being fine with dubbing in animated films if it's done well, and it's just fine in this case, plus the six-year-old understood what people were saying. (On the other hand, we watched it with him once in Japanese with English subtitles ... he couldn't read the subtitles, but he had already seen the movie enough times that he knew what was going on.) Miyazaki movies are real problems for me and artificial intelligence recommendation engines, since those systems assume I love animation because I give Miyazaki such high ratings. The machine can't tell the difference between Spirited Away and Shark Tale.

The Ice Storm (Ang Lee, 1997). This was recommended by Bright Wall/Dark Room. I had seen it long ago, but only remembered the keys scene. I don't know why, but I also thought I remembered being unimpressed, so I'm glad I watched again after all these years, because it is very good indeed. The casting director was Avy Kaufman, who has a ton of credits to her name ... she did a great job here. Kevin Kline, Joan Allen, and Sigourney Weaver were the biggest stars, but everyone was good. And the kids, many of whom are stars now, were also brilliantly cast: Tobey Maguire, Christina Ricci, Elijah Wood, Katie Holmes. Also worth mentioning is Adam Hann-Byrd, very unsettling in his part ... he has gone on to be a writer. The kids aren't just well-cast. Lee draws realistic portrayals from them all (writer James Schamus, or even Rick Moody, who wrote the original novel, surely deserve some of the credit, as well). #972 on the They Shoot Pictures, Don't They list of the top 1000 films of all time. The actors weren't the only ones who were cast, as this short clip demonstates (I believe the narrator is production designer Mark Friedberg):

I've only seen a few Ang Lee films, but this ranks with Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon at the top.


what i watched last week

I rarely write about a movie directly after having seen it. Seems like it should marinate a bit before I expound. This practice caught up to me this week, as I watched four movies and, so far, only wrote about one (Purple Noon). So now I have to think back on two I watched early in the week, and do a rush job on one I saw this afternoon. Truth is, what I really want to write about is the season finale of Outlander, but that most definitely cannot be a rush job. So ...

Force Majeure (Ruben Östlund, 2014). I might have anticipated a disaster movie, since all I knew going in was that there would be an avalanche in the French Alps. So I was pleasantly surprised to find a film that examined expectations around masculinity and family dynamics, something of a chamber piece that was a bit reminiscent of some of the work of Östlund’s countryman Ingmar Bergman. The whiteness of the snow engulfs the screen ... it feels like we are always in a fog. Some have found a bit of humor in the film, but I must have missed it. And some have seen it as exposing the pretenses of the bourgeoisie, but I preferred to think it exposed all of us. The ending ironically brings things full circle. #273 on the They Shoot Pictures, Don’t They list of the top 1000 films of the 21st century. Watch it with Scenes from a Marriage.

Ikiru (Akira Kurosawa, 1952). Takashi Shimura plays a long-time bureaucrat who finds he has cancer and begins to reevaluate his life. Shimura does such a great job of portraying a man beaten down into nothingness that you eventually want to slap him around and tell him to quit being so pathetic. Eventually, he does something with his life, and dies ... at which point there’s still half an hour to go. By the end, even the most hardened viewer (i.e., me) will have felt a case of allergies in the eyes, and it won’t even feel cheap. Not a masterpiece, but very good. Two years later, Shimura starred in Kurosawa’s Seven Samurai, which is certainly a change of pace from what he gives us here. American fans of a certain age will recognize him for some of his later roles in movies like Godzilla, Gigantis: The Fire Monster, Mothra, Ghidorah, the Three-Headed Monster, and Frankenstein Conquers the World. #114 on the TSPDT list of the top 1000 films of all time. Go ahead, watch it alongside Mothra.

San Andreas (Brad Peyton, 2015). If The Rock hadn’t been in it, I probably would have skipped it. I’m glad I didn’t. It’s a winner in the Truth in Advertising contest: it promises earthquakes, and it delivers them. There is no use expecting anything more. It hits all the standard moments (scientist trying to warn everyone, hero trying to re-connect with ex-wife who has a lame boyfriend, nubile daughter with potential suitor), which fill the space between disasters. We’re not exactly talking Mad Max: Fury Road here ... I don’t feel the need to see it again any time soon. But it’s never so stupid you want to give up, the cast is appealing (lots of eye candy between The Rock, Carla Gugino, and Alexandra Daddario, all of whom do good work), and the special effects are worth the money. I got some comments about the movie on Facebook. One friend said she was eager to hear what I thought, since she loved earthquake movies. Another friend said the idea of watching San Andreas was disturbing to her ... she spoke of people she knew who were still dealing with the devastation in Nepal, and then recommended a book, “for reality, not Hollywood bullshit”. Your own opinion of the movie probably depends on where you lie between those two responses.


what i watched last week

An Autumn Afternoon (Yasujirô Ozu, 1962). Ozu's last film, like so many during his career, is instantly recognizable ... the low-level camera and the lack of camera movement take care of that, even before we get to the plot and realize that once again, Ozu has returned to a story about a family with a daughter at the age to be married. Although the idiosyncratic nature of his style by definition draws attention to itself, Ozu always manages to give a feeling of "real life", as if a static camera suggests a documentary. Throughout, I felt like I was missing something because I wasn't a Japanese viewer in 1962, but rather an American in 2015. The class structure that affects relationships among the characters isn't always clear to me, but it seems to be very clear indeed to the characters. The struggle to be true to that structure means people rarely speak their minds without resorting to allusion. Drinking loosens tongues, though. Some lovely acting here, and this is another must-see for fans of Ozu, even if it isn't quite the masterpiece that is Tokyo Story. #252 on the They Shoot Pictures, Don't They list of the top 1000 films of all time. A companion film would be Ozu's Late Spring.

My Summer of Love (Pawel Pawlikowski, 2004). Nicely drawn tale of two teenage girls from different backgrounds who come together one summer. Emily Blunt (Tamsin) is properly beautiful as the rich one; Natalie Press (Mona) dresses in a thrown-together manner that befits her casual, working-class status. It's easy to see why Mona is taken with Tamsin, but it doesn't initially play as you might expect. Tamsin seems to have real feelings for Mona, which Mona matches, but Mona is never condescended to. Or so it seems. A series of revelations at the end of the movie show that more was going on with Tamsin than Mona realized. That realization makes the movie a bit more generic, but the buildup, and the interaction between the two actresses, makes their summer of love believable, and thus makes the end of summer surprising. #463 on the TSPDT list of the top 1000 films of the 21st century ... it benefits greatly from the new format that expands the list from 250 to 1000 films. If you'd like to create a double-bill, go with Heavenly Creatures.


what i watched last week

Through a Glass Darkly (Ingmar Bergman, 1961). Back in the late 60s, when UHF channels were making their first appearances on our TVs, a San Francisco station on channel 20, KEMO, had a weekly series called The Adults Only Movie. These were usually “art films”, and I don’t remember that there was ever any nudity. They showed a lot of Bergman, Repulsion, Brigitte Bardot. This was not the ideal way to watch these films: TV in the pre-cable era, with a roof antenna, dubbed, the movies disrupted by commercials (and edited to remove the nudity). The only movie that sticks with me from that time (I was in my teens) was Through a Glass Darkly. I didn’t understand it, but Harriet Andersson was amazing as the schizophrenic daughter, and I tended to romanticize mental illness at that age. The famous “God is a spider” scene was as intense as anything I watched in any medium at the time. Many decades later, I gave it another look, and for the most part, my memories were validated. Andersson is indeed remarkable, and if I’m less inclined to romanticize her illness now, I’m also more understanding and sympathetic to her. I don’t think the film reaches the heights of the best Bergman (for me, The Seventh Seal and Smiles of a Summer Night), and 40 years ago I really disliked the other films in the trilogy, Winter Light and especially The Silence. But Andersson still resonates for me. I didn’t like them, but the obvious movies to see alongside this are the other trilogy films.

The Fountainhead (King Vidor, 1949).  I tried very hard in 2014 to avoid movies that I knew in advance wouldn’t be my cup of tea. I watched many movies I knew nothing about, and once in a while, one of them would turn out to be bad, but for the most part, I succeeded. But for a variety of reasons, I decided to re-watch The Fountainhead, and it was the worst movie I saw all year. Imagine an Aaron Sorkin script, if Sorkin couldn’t write dialogue. You’d be left with something like this, full of speechifying, with no one sounding the least bit human. I’m using Sorkin as a comparison because it’s not the content of the politics that I’m talking about, it’s the awful, didactic crap coming out of people’s mouths. Having said that, The Fountainhead is a wet dream for followers of Ayn Rand, I suppose, but pretty much a mess for the rest of us. Patricia Neal almost survives, and there is a camp value to the (over)use of phallic symbolism.  In one of the more remarkable bits of movie trivia, this film ranks #984 on the They Shoot Pictures, Don’t They list of the top 1000 movies of all time. Through a Glass Darkly is nowhere to be found. I wouldn’t recommend anything as a double-bill partner to The Fountainhead, but a post-movie shower might be in order.

Battle Royale (Kinji Fukasaku, 2000). Hunger Games clone, except it’s not. For one thing, it came a few years earlier … Hunger Games author Suzanne Collins claims that she had never heard of either book or movie of Battle Royale prior to writing her novels, and I’m inclined to believe her, but the similarities are interesting enough that you can’t discuss Battle Royale without reference to Collins’ work. Both deal with teenagers left on an island in a battle to the death, but the Hunger Games films are all rated PG-13, one of the reasons the films have grossed so much money. Battle Royale? The IMDB Parents Guide rates the violence and gore in the movie 10/10, and lists 36 separate instances of violent events of note (“This is a very violent and disturbing movie. It's frequent and always bloody when it occurs.”). In Japan, it received an R15 rating (no one under 15 allowed admission), and the film was condemned in the Japanese Parliament. This is not the same kind of movie as Hunger Games. Is it good? Yep. Care is taken to make several of the teenagers into interesting characters … it’s not just Katniss and her two boyfriends. The actions of the kids is more varied than in Hunger Games, as well. Still, Battle Royale could have used a little Jennifer Lawrence for my tastes … its concept of heroism is perhaps more complex, but being an American, I like the badass hero. Also, oddly enough, the action scenes are good, and they are violent, but they aren’t as violent as I expected (which may just be my tolerance level). Battle Royale is very good, but it’s not The Raid. Obviously, The Hunger Games series make good companions. There is a sequel to Battle Royale that I haven’t seen. Or switch things around a bit and watch Lord of the Flies.

Arlington Road (Mark Pellington, 1999). Paranoid thriller that plays much differently in the post-9/11 world. In 1999, you could play against American fears by positing a secret underground of right-wing extremists out to overthrow the government. Such a scenario is just as likely in the real life of 2015 as it was in 1999, but the stock villains have changed to secret underground Arab terrorists out to destroy America. So Arlington Road seems dated, even quaint. There are other problems with the film. As Megan Prelinger pointed out at the time, the blandly middle-class white terrorists are just like anyone else, which implies “that anyone with a particular ire at the government could be the kind of bomb-blaster that the Langs portray.” This separates the movie from any ideological underpinnings … despite hints at something bigger, Arlington Road is ultimately just another thriller with nothing to say. It works on an immediate level … as you watch, you are taken in by the increasing paranoia. But nothing holds up after the fact … think about the events of the last action sequence too hard and you’ll realize it was all nonsense. For a better Jeff Bridges movie, catch him early in his career in The Last Picture Show. For a different look entirely, binge-watch the TV series The Americans.

 


sansho the bailiff (kenji mizoguchi, 1954)

Does it mean something that it’s 24 hours since I watched this, and I’ve had plenty of time to write about it, but I keep putting it off? I liked the only other Mizoguchi I’ve seen (Ugetsu), but to be honest, I can’t remember the damn thing. I remember Sansho because I’ve only had one day to forget it. I can’t think of anything bad to say about it, and there are some scenes that are quite memorable. I knew while I was watching that I was seeing a very good movie. But here I am, 24 hours later, and I don’t have anything to say about it. I guess I’ll resort to spoilers … hey, the movie’s almost sixty years old, I think it’s OK to talk plot points. The family at the center of Sansho the Bailiff is filled with good people (none of whom are Sansho … I’m not sure why he gets to be the title character). They suffer, oh do they suffer, like Job, or like Björk in Dancer in the Dark. As the film begins, the father, a governor, pisses off his Lord (I think for being too nice to his peasants) and gets sent off to a distant province. The wife, son, and daughter do not accompany him. Later, those three are tricked and captured, with the mother sold into prostitution and the kids being sold into slavery. Many years later, the son escapes thanks to the sacrifice of his sister, who commits suicide before she can be tortured into telling of her brother’s whereabouts. What follows approaches a happy conclusion, but what sticks in your mind is the child slavery. #82 on the They Shoot Pictures, Don’t They list of the top 1000 films of all time.


13 assassins (takashi miike, 2010)

Lives up to its hype. I think this is the first Takaski Miike film I’ve ever seen, and it’s funny … I really liked this one and thought the direction was exemplary, but I don’t feel like rushing out and watching others of his movies. The structure of 13 Assassins works primarily because Miike knows what he is doing. The first 2/3 establishes the characters of the various assassins (along with the villain, and holy moly, is he a villain). It’s a slower, even reflective beginning to an action film, but by letting us know the characters as separate entities, Miike allows for a more emotional finale. That finale, a 40+ minute battle scene, is as good as it gets. You always know what is happening (it’s not just a bunch of camera movement and explosions), you care about what is happening (because of the first 80 minutes), and the entire affair is choreographed with detailed excellence. 13 Assassins is also one of the more gory movies you’ll see, if that bothers you (you don’t always see everything, but you know it’s happening, which can be just as bad). Reminiscent of The Seven Samurai, of course, but also of The Wild Bunch, another movie about outsiders watching the world change.