Next Set

The next set of films we will be viewing are really only connected via title. But, both are a commentary of the extremes at the ends of the spectrum. It also reflects humanity in bold and artistic ways. We will be viewing Hunger by Peter Foldes and Hunger by Steve McQueen. Join me, won't you?

Darkness Light Darkness/ Pee-Wee's Big Adventure

I am a fan of the quirky. I am a fan of the weird. I am a fan of the outsider, with a brilliant mind, and a creative product. That is why I love this pairing. Not only was the genius of Jan Svankmajer so envied by Tim Burton, but Timmy, even emulated several aspects of Svankmajer's film making. And it's very apparent in the feature presentation. Sure, both Svankmajer and Burton border on the weird, almost insane, but each film is embued, at the very least with creativity. Not to mention joy. The two I have chosen are the most creative, and most joyous, that I have seen of their respective oeuvres.

We start with the satisfying short Darkness/Light/Darkness. A Czech short by Jan Svankmajer made in 1989 (although it seems older), whose 7-minute running time, makes you crave more. It's a simple story of body parts entering a room and being molded to create one man. Jan's take on the creation myth, I suppose. It is filled with humor and nuanced with incredible detail. Jan, who was completely hands on (pun intended) with every aspect of the production, could have gone cartoon-y, but decided on anatomically realistic animation. His bizarre surreal sense of humor plays nicely in this short. His use of bland clay, combined with actual organs and glass teeth/eyes create stunning contrast. The reason the film seems older, is not because the film has an almost classic feel, but because the cameras at Jan's disposal were outdated and worn. I found this short particularly satisfying. Most people that view it/ I've shown it to, have been entertained, if not pleased at having watched it. There is not a short from Svankmajer that I don't like. And this one is truly a testament to his unique style and vision, as well as his surreal sensibilities.

****

Before I saw Pee-Wee's Big Adventure for the first time, I remember going to my cousin Paige's house and playing with a Pee-Wee Herman doll (think Howdy Doody doll in the likeness of Pee-Wee) This was around the time of the unfortunate Florida adult theatre fiasco of 1991. I was oblivious to the whisperings of his sordid run-in with the law, as I was oblivious to the awesomeness that is Pee-Wee's Big Adventure. When I first saw it, I fancied it. But, as it is with most things I enjoyed as a kid that has any clout or lasting power, I grew fonder of the intricacies, humor, depth, and intelligence that this film provides. It's not really a kids movie. It's deeper, darker, and more intelligent than most people give it credit. Certainly as a 6 year old, I couldn't have imagined its true brilliance. The more I watched it, the more I picked up. The more I read on the subject, the more the film endeared itself to me. The more people I found out that were involved in it, the bigger fan I became. It is a good film. Critics and friends have all generally agreed that it's a good film, but few would say its one of the greatest films ever made. Who would have the gall to say that?! Well, I certainly wouldn't say that, but I have said on numerous occasions that this film is one of the two greatest films to come out of the 80s. It's my opinion, but I feel justified in that opinion (the other, in case you were wondering, is the previous film we viewed, the awesome Brazil). I won't list the reasons why, and honestly, I don't think I have the capacity to convince anyone on my side. It's just a feeling; it's the intense pleasure that I get from watching it time and time again. It certainly is an 80s film. The stop-motion animation, the song and dance number, the kitchiness of it, the references. It's an iconic film set in a unique time in the history of cinema. We leave the grittiness of the 70s and the American new wave, as well as the advent of the blockbuster, and we transition into an era of...well...80s films.

There are so many things, lines, dances, scenarios that have become a part of the zeitgeist of 80s culture and has become part of popular culture today. Many stemming from this film. In its basest form, Big Adventure is Ladri di Biciclette, in its purest form it's sheer joyous entertainment surrounded in trying to recover something so precious that was lost. Perhaps it's the innocence of youth, the Rosebud of the 80s. This is a first for just about everyone involved. This is Tim Burton's first full-length film, Danny Elman's first attempt at scoring a film, and Paul Reubens first time headlining a film. A bunch of novices attempting to make a successful film, and to be honest, they were successful. It allowed Warner Bros. to remember Burton when they were looking for a director for the soon-to-be super successful Batman franchise. Paul Reubens created the Pee-Wee character while killing it in the late 70s and early 80s at the Groundlings, where he and close friend Phil Hartmann (yes, that Phil Hartmann) penned the script. At times, the script reads like a Groundlings sketch, but all in all it's a decent script, certainly acceptable in the decade it came out in. The artistic vision of the film was, undoubtedly, overseen by Reubens, who didn't want to give up his vision, but you can see Burton's influence seep through. Many touches and flourishes scream Burton. The film is episodic in nature, vignettes that would play when given the scenario and/or setting, which would guarantee to please the audience, if not bowl them over with laughter. There are cheeky bits sprinkled throughout that a more mature person would cringe at (Micky looking Pee-Wee up and down after their run-in with law enforcement's blockage to name only one). The mixture of day scenes, night scenes, dream sequences, animation sequences add to the surreality of the film. We journey with our man of constant sorrow, his adventures entertain us, worry us, at time scare us. What we truly want is a good outcome of our hero. We hope he gets what he so earnestly searches for, because we, as humans, hope we get what we so earnestly search for. Of course the film is silly. It's not suppose to be real, or eventful, or dramatic. It's supposed to entertain us. There is no pretense. It makes no grand statements of being a masterpiece. It know what it is, and knows what it isn't. It isn't Citizen Kane. Occasionally, I can see Reubens and Hartmann sitting down writing lines that they think will work, that will make the audience laugh. And they do, but the awkwardness, silliness, and surreal aspects of the mise-en-scene make those solid laughs secondary. It's place in cinema history, particularly of 80s cinema history is solid. Nothing pleases me more than just being lost in the moment, and enjoying dumb, but enjoyable lunacy. It takes me out of my mundane life, and allows me to laugh at Pee-Wee's (mis)adventures. The end wraps up the stories nicely, and the cameo in his own biopic is the icing on the deliciously satisfying cake. If you ask me if I recommend this film, it's a resounding yes! You may not think it's a masterpiece, you may not consider it the top two best films of the eighties, you may feel dumber from having watched it, but you can't deny that you start to, at least, think it's somewhat enjoyable, and you may even find yourself laughing. To those who don't, I recommend re-watching with an open heart and "tell 'em Large Marge sentcha!"

****

Next Set

Now is the time. It is stop-motion animation, and wackiness and hilarity. Now is the time for Darkness Light Darkness by Czech filmmaker Jan Svankmajer, and Pee-Wee's Big Adventure by Tim Burton. So, away...we...go!

La Jetee/Brazil

I will try to be brief, because there are a lot of film pairings I still need to get through. This does not mean that these aren't great films, or worth my time for lengthy analysis, quite the opposite, in fact. Brazil, for example, has been a favorite of mine for nearly a decade. The correlation between La Jetee and Brazil may not be too apparent, but it's the former that influenced the director of Brazil to make a full-length film of La Jetee under the name Twelve Monkeys.

La Jetee is unique in that it hearkens back to the zoetrophe days of film making. It's rudimentary, but compelling. It's the frames cut and strung together that make the story of a man from the future underground after the devastation of world war three being sent to the past before the outbreak of the war, where he falls in love with a woman, and through several jumps back to the future, and the even further future, he finally goes back to the past where he searches for the woman, and ends up being killed before his own (as a young boy) eyes. The black and white photography is nice, and the photos of the injections nauseating. It is a slow paced movie, and almost runs like a documentary. The plot is refreshing, and unique, but the film itself is forgettable. The literal moving pictures don't make it a lasting picture. The power of Twelve Monkeys, coupled with the pandemic make it a more commercial, and better film, but even it bows down to the inspiration. There's no question La Jetee is influencial, but it is equally obscure.

*1/2

I first watched Brazil a little less than a decade ago, because a good friend of mine loved it from his childhood, and convinced me to watch it. It is directed by Terry Gilliam the unique glue and only American Python. It was co-written by Gilliam and Tom Stoppard, whose unique, often twisted humor coupled with satirical and surreal elements offer up a unique screenplay that was nominated for best original screenplay at the Oscars. It's a dystopia of hilarious proportions, whose alternate title was 1984 1/2, if that does tell you what this film could be, then, 1) you're an idiot, but really 2) watching the film will.

Actually, this film doesn't make too much sense to the casual movie-goer, or one not typically aware of dystopian films, but it is truly a complex and rich film. It is filled with little nuggets, Easter eggs, little visual gags, cunning word play. It runs the gamut of human emotion. In short, this film has everything. You don't go five minutes without something unexpected and wonderful happening. The dream sequences are surreal, the real life sequences are equally surreal. Gilliam does what he does best: makes an enjoyable film with surprises at every corner. This film has very little symbolism, yet its themes are very relatable even today. The themes of bureaucracy, terrorism, and love transcend eras in time. Gilliam's use of dutch angles, low angles, and overhead shots, make the viewer a little disoriented, as if they are watching their own fever dream. The music sticks with you, as does the imagery of the film. It really is one of the best films of the 80s, and has stuck with me. I find new things every time I watch it. It still remains one of my favorite movies. And the ending, one of the greatest ending in all of cinema. It is a real treat. It's all genre encompassing, including film noir, screwball comedy, drama, action, and comedy. What it is above all is satisfying. I can't recommend this movie enough to people that want to watch a good and quirky film. But Brazil is more than quirky, or weird, or surreal, or bizarre. It is a 143-minute trip of futuristic fun. Play it again, Sam!


****1/2

Next Set

We will be watching the short that is the inspiration for Twelve Monkeys, La Jetee, and Terry Gilliam's beautiful Brazil.

Vincent/Edward Scissorhands

Growing up as a child I was influenced heavily by two directors, whose work I would watch over and over again, The first was Steven Speilberg, and the other was Tim Burton. Tim Burton's bursting onto the scene in the mid-eighties left an indelible impression on my as a young child. His unique, often macabre vision of the work, his ingenuity, and his creativity seeps through with all his films. He deals with clashings of society vs. technology vs. outcast. Rube Goldberg machines, stop-motion, and fun scores define his earlier films. His presence among other directors was a breath of fresh air in the late eighties and early nineties. People saw his films as a reflection of a unique genius. Completely different ways of viewing the world were put up on screen to the delight of the audience. While still at Disney as an animator, Burton worked on a short that shows that spark of creative that would define his illustrious career. It was Vincent. Six years later, he would work with his idol, and the muse to his first professional short, Vincent Price in the imperfectly perfect Edward Scissorhands.

Vincent was created at Disney by Tim Burton and a small crew. A brave undertaking allowed by Disney and given to the somewhat proven Tim Burton. It used stop-motion animation, a form in which appears in the next three Burton films, and is scattered throughout the 80's, It was filmed in 1982, and is a mere 6 minutes long. Narrated by the minister of macabre Vincent Price. It tells the story of Vincent Malloy, who is obsessed with Vincent Price. It reads as a children's book, with its rhyming verses that play out in action for the audience. The fact that it's in black and white plays much better than if it were in color. It's simple and short, and touches on a lot of images that Burton has included in later films. It's as if the poem that comprises the dialogue in the film plays on the childhood of Tim Burton, who was into the dark and ghoulish. He was also into all things Vincent Price. This was a good hommage to the late, great Vincent Price, who said of this film, "it's the most gratifying thing that has happened. It was immortality--better than a star on Hollywood Boulevard." I tend to agree.

* 1/2

Our second film in this viewing pair is the magnificent Edward Scissorhands. There are very few films that have kept me in awe and wonder after every viewing. And still, I manage to tear up every time I watch it. It was also my introduction to Johnny Depp. I know so much about this movie that it will be hard for me to not write every little detail and trivia for this film critique. The title sequence with its accompanying music, is both haunting and fairy tale-ish, as we fade to an old woman starting the fairy tale that she was apart of to her granddaughter. It is Frankenstein story, but with a much more human and sympathetic main character. A man with hands that are scissors...No, scissorhands. It blends the lines of reality and fiction in a way that allows the audience to believe what they are watching. In fact, Tim Burton has said on fairy tales, "I've always loved the idea of fairy tales, but somehow I never managed to completely connect with them. What interest me is taking those classic images and themes and trying to contemporize them a bit. I believe folk takes and fairy tales have some sort of psychological foundation that makes it possible." It is set in a time in the past, perhaps the sixties or seventies, but we aren't sure. A gleaming, atomic family suburb, where the men go to work at the same time, and the women stay and cook, and where the colors are vibrant. The story is simple, but that's to be expected from a contemporized fairy tale. It tells the story of a man (whether he's human or machine we don't know...we know the characters don't want to label him a human), Edward Scissorhands, and his attempt through an adoptive family, to integrate himself into society, despite his social ineptitude and his scissors for hands. When things start to appear to gel, it decoagulates. Edward falls in love with a woman that he feels he can't have, and right when she starts to feel the same, he is forced out by the neighboring townspeople into his mansion on the hill. It truly is the story of outcast vs. society. When a society feels something is perverse or a stranger is encroaching, society rejects it. I often wonder if this is how Burton felt growing up in a colorful suburb of L.A. Edward is Burton.

The dialogue is trite and corny, and has very little depth. The performances, too, are one-dimensional and corny. Almost cringe-worthy. Depp, with his 169 words of dialogue manages to bring a warm performance. It's littered with discomfort, jealousy, estrangement, fear, and even joy. It's nuanced, and it's wonderful. Same goes for the very talented Dianne Wiest and Alan Arkin. Arkin should be singled out because of his very mannered performance as a suburban father. He blends in, and disappears. He manages to do his bits, without being distracting. The same cannot be said for the rest of the cast which borders on amateurish acting, and that includes Winona Ryder's stale and unbelievable performance. There are a lot of bits of humor, and sincerity throughout the film. However, the film plays as a series of vignettes, strung together loosely by the story. If it seems like I'm being overly critical, rest assured, what it lacks in script and acting, it makes up for in heart and humanity. The reasons why the film is so beloved is that it allows you to get in the mind of a person that is trying to fit in. A true misfit, misunderstood and hoping for something better. He's hoping to feel completed both physically with his hands, and emotionally with companionship. The scenes in the snow, and the scenes with Kim and Edward ("Hold me" "I can't"/"I love you") kill me. Just gut-wrenching. The scenes were well choreographed and shot. The art direction and make-up are both stellar in this film. And the thing that really puts a bow on the entire package is the score. Danny Elfman (surprisingly Tim's second choice) delivers an incredible and iconic score. When the movements crescendo, so do our emotions. The entire film is the most original, heartwarming, depressing, and sweetest of Tim Burton's films. It is the one that stands out in his oeuvre. And it is my personal favorite of his films. Burton is creative and original, just like Edward Scissorhands. This film will stand the test of time.

****1/2

Next set

We'll be taking on two of Tim Burton's original and creative projects. Vincent, and Edward Scissorhands. Enjoy!

The Old Man and the Sea/Jaws

The original post for these two films was both well written and insightful. However, my computer did not save it, and so, I am obligated to attempt to re-write it. It will lack the appeal and magic of the original article*, but should have some of the same details. I will be writing about two films, one of which I have seen multiple times (Jaws), the other, the first time for this blog (The Old Man and the Sea).

The Old Man and the Sea by Aleksandr Petrov was a delicate and beautifully crafted piece of cinema. It was created on glass using paints and the directors own hands. The sheer scope of the short, coupled with the medium shows bravery and sheer lunacy. How could the Petrov have decided on this way of retelling Hemingway's story, and who would've funded such a unique and audacious film? Whoever greenlit and funded the piece should be patting themselves on the back, because it's clear we are watching a piece of art. The colors used are light and airy. The action on screen comes alive, and we almost forget we are watching animation. It tells a simple story, but a relatable one, as each one of use struggle to do what we were born to do.

****1/2

I'd first like to say that growing up my older brother was obsessed with Jaws. He had all the posters, some memorabilia. He loved them. I saw Jaws for the first time in my adolescence, and it's hard not to like it. It was one of the films that created what we call a 'blockbuster' Watching Jaws, I am reminded of summer. The sun through the hair, the gritty sand between the toes, the ocean breeze with its salty taste. I see why Spielberg is so revered as he is as I watch this film. It must have been a disaster filming. And he encountered problems after problems. He would come home, I'm sure, exhausted, terrified, worried, and struggling to understand how he could make this picture work. How he could overcome the obstacles, and put his vision on the celluloid despite the constant problems with the production. The actors, not arriving literally and creatively. Sometimes drunk. Sometimes being forced to leave set. Animatronic malfunctions, and weather mishaps. It must have been a nightmare. But Spielberg rose above it all. He overcame the obstacles and used his creative mind to think of better ways to get the shot, to improve the actors' acting, to develop a more compelling and complex story. Jaws was one of the highest grossing films of the 70's and with good reason. Loosely based on Peter Benchley's best-selling novels, it captivated an entire nation. They were afraid to go into the water. This was the summer hit that took a page from Friedkin's The Exorcist. The build-up of suspense, and the eventual release is a rarity these days, and Spielberg uses it to good effect, accompanied brilliantly by the simple, yet haunting score from frequent collaborator John Williams. The highlight of the entire film is the calm before the storm where three known actors are letting loose and talking like chums amongst the chummed waters. They tell their sea-tales, share their scars, and sing a diddy. A downside to the film is the overuse of dialogue overlap, especially when the townspeople talk at the same time the main actors talk. It's talking for the sake of talking, and doesn't flow as it would in an Altman film. The special effects are wonderful, a page Spielberg would bookmark and come back to with Jurassic Park. Though, sometimes impractical, sometimes contrived, the story lends itself to going all in and enjoying the ride (sidenote: Universal Studios closed down the Jaws ride, a ride in which I have fond memories). I enjoy just about everything about this movie. It's a revenge film in its most unexpected form. Like the townspeople, torches/pitchforks in hand to kill Frankenstein's monster, it is a simple retribution for the panic stricken people of Amity, and the grief and bereavement that they have suffered. The viewer doesn't suffer, but one thing: enjoyment overload.

****



*Boy, ain't that the truth.

Next Set

Our next set is the Oscar winning short The Old Man and the Sea, coupled with the wonderful Jaws.

Street of Crocodiles/ Seven

Now we get into the nitty gritty of film. Stomach churning, and unsettling cinema. I present to you two interesting works. The first, Street of Crocodiles by visionary film brothers Quay. Followed by the great Seven by David Fincher. Both films seem to mesh well in terms of tone and stark and dreary imagery/setting.

Street of Crocodiles is a film that came out in the eighties that brought a great deal of attention to the works of the brothers Quay. These American brothers felt more suited in Europe with their unique style and stop-motion techniques. Street of Crocodiles is the most popular and more beloved work in their oeuvre, and rightly so. It's dark and brooding, sinister and dusty. With sound effects and music utilized to great effect. The two songs featured in the film seem to come straight from frequent Burton collaborator Danny Elfman. And indeed, this is Burtonesque before Burton was Burton. No doubt, Burton, a fellow stop motion Beetlejuice. The mind wanders. It is stunningly remarkable how they shot this film. It is done with precision. The camera movements along with the stop-motion animation are so smooth, you would think it's live action. It's brooding subject matter, and macabre and Gothic mise-en-scene make it less than inviting, but the sheer curiosity of the main character exploring a world that is not his own, invites us to explore with him. The Svankmajer elements (i.e. smooth animation, and utilization of real life body parts) show the audience the reverence that the Quay brothers had for the genius Czech filmmaker. It is a film, not for everyone. There is something unsettling about the passage of time visually presented, and the usage of screws and needles, and animal flesh. It leaves one wanting a happier, lighter affair. A musical perhaps. But, the time, effort, and attention to detail for this twenty minute short, should leave the viewer highly impressed. It's the type of work, so imaginative and so much a project of passion that you can't help but leave unsettled, but satisfied.

animator, admires the Quay brothers' work. I wonder if he was even directly influenced by this particular short, while he was filming

***

Moving along to a film, not lighter, but all the more unsettling. The great film Seven by acclaimed filmmaker David Fincher. Fincher’s sophomore film takes a look at a subject that would essentially define his later films, and cement him as one of the most unique, creative, and gritty filmmakers of our generation. The film’s intro sequence, one that only Fincher could put together (save for Brakhage), sets the tone for the collage-esque scenes strung together; scenes that have meaning when you line them up together, just as the random images collaged together have meaning, at least to the onlooker. There are seven days left before Det. Sommerset, who teams up with Det. Mill’s an eager detective who’s green around the collar. They embark on a case that involves the deaths and potential deaths of seven people based on the seven deadly sins. They search for the killer before he completes his life's work.

The problem with this film is that the film’s characters seem to always ask the right questions, and look in the right places. Although it’s extraordinarily incredulous, we suspend disbelief to see the next tragic and gruesome depiction of a sinful death. We take a journey with Milton, Alighieri, and the mind of a serial killer, and piece together cryptic clues, and sinister scenarios to nab a man who had been planning these atrocious murders for years. In typical Fincher fashion, the actual film is developed darkly to add to the dark subject matter. The presence of rain in almost every shot allows the heightened tension for the audience, like the rain used in Psycho or Identity. When rain falls, something bad is gonna happen. Brad Pitt's portrayal of Mills is scattered, and amateur, the only scene that reflects Pitt now is the dinner scene with his wife, and Sommerset. It's fantastic to see how much he's grown as a performer in twenty years. Freeman's acting is monotonous and tiresome. It's a role that could be played by just about anyone. The sole hint of levity is the very same dinner scene where he laughs at the misfortune of the newly moved couple and the trains that shake the apartment as it passes. Kevin Spacey is dynamite as John Doe. It's no wonder Fincher wanted to keep his involvement in the film a secret, going to great lengths to not having his name be on any of the advertising for the film. It's mannered, stale, indignant, angry, and psychotic. He adds flairs of just about every one of the the seven deadly sins facially or otherwise, and it's refreshing to watch. The sets are awfully full of detail, and it makes you glad that smell-o-vision doesn't exist. Because my nose would be assaulted at the human spectrum of bodily secretions, let alone the dust, and dank hellholes we see throughout the entire production. There are several visually appealing shots, that contrast to the abhorent scenes of violence. The film's use of quick cuts, a technique used a lot by Fincher, especially in Fight Club, make an appearance. The use of the number seven throughout the film is almost like an Easter egg. Seven sins, seven days, seven shots in the last scene, many more that I don't care to name. The film is set up so brilliantly, that it makes you wonder if Sommerset is in on the murders. I've often wondered what a great sequel it would be to see that Sommerset had orchestrated the entire thing, that he was the mastermind, and John Doe was merely a puppet. Or, at the very least, Sommerset being an accomplice. It was a treat to watch this film the first time many years ago, and allows me to get into a sinister and sickening mindset for a couple of hours. This film is also not for everyone, especially the faint of heart or the easily woozy. But, in its grotesque sequence of events, there's beauty there. The underlying message is that the world is a mess, but the ability to rise above the horror of an imperfect world, there's an ability to change it into, at the very least, a better world. A world worth living in. And what would the world be like if it didn't have inventive directors telling their stories about serial killers in a beautiful and brilliant way? 

***1/2

We'll be postponing Pee-Wee's Big Adventure. In lieu, we'll be watching Street of Crocodiles by the brothers Quay, and Seven by the brooding Fincher.

Next Set

We will be viewing Darkness Light Darkness by the brilliantly creative, and creatively brilliant Jan Svankmajer, followed by the wildly pleasing Pee-Wee's Big Adventure by Tim Burton. Join me, won't you?

Un Chien Andalou/Eraserhead

I've been in an interesting mood these days, and as I was in my room doing nothing, I decided to get the ball rolling on these movie nights. After all, I still am behind. So, I was scrolling down the list, and I decided to re-watch two movies that have a special place in my heart. Two wonderful surreal works, by two surrealist masters. The first is Un Chien Andalou by Luis Bunuel, and the second is Eraserhead by David Lynch. Let our minds be blown (off and sold to make erasers!).

I first watched Un Chien Andalou nearly a decade ago and it awakened something in me. The bizarre, the surreal, the sometimes morbid. I had a love affair with the movies of Tim Burton then so, this wonderful short just amplified what was already there. It was co-written by Salvador Dali, who also appears as a priest. It's fanciful, ethereal, and dream-like. The quintessential surreal film. It includes frightening imagery that has become iconic: the cloud slicing through the moon as the woman's eyeball gets sliced by a razor, the boy prodding a severed hand on the road, and the man's hand that has a hole in it with ants spilling over. All of these have been talked about, emulated, and have entered the cinematic universe. This black and white spills over from our dreams and permeates our desires in a technicolor world. Its jump cuts remind my of At Land and Entre'Acte, which we have previously viewed. This short glimmers with hints of genius that would absolutely govern Bunuel's latter work. This, coupled with its high place in iconic films, has cemented this film as one of the greatest and most inventive, not to mention bizarre and irreverent in the history of cinema.

****

The feature presentation is Eraserhead by David Lynch. Lynch, a student at the AFI conservatory at the time, tried to attain funding for this film, but AFI was reluctant after seeing Lynch's paltry 30 page screenplay, they gave him a small amount ($30,000) and sent him out to make his vision a reality. One thing I can say about David Lynch is that his vision is unlike anyone else's vision. His attitude and desire to accomplish what he envisions engulfs all that is shown on screen. Apparently, this film took, on and off, five year to make, and Lynch participated in many roles on set. He wasn't just the writer and the director. He maintained much creative and artistic control as he was hands on with sets, with lighting, camera placement, and even prop making and manipulation. He was said to not let his cinematographer watch as he puppeted a real embalmed calf fetus. The lighting is striking, the close-ups with all of their mind-blowing details are complex and perplexing. The baby effects leave you wondering how it was all done. There is very little narrative in this film. It's more of a visual and auditory poem of bizarre images, and mesmerizing sound effects and white noise. David Lynch is said to have kept the meaning to himself, preferring the individual viewer to determine the meaning. I enjoy that. Each person brings their own experience and history and bias to the viewing and each interpretation will be different. When I viewed this for the second time, I saw desire and sex vs. responsibility and correct behavior given the circumstances. You either forget your responsibilities and delve into your desires, or you shun your desires and dive into your responsibilities as an adult, a spouse, and a father. Whether this film was a reaction on David Lynch's recent experiences as a first time father is up in the air. Maybe it plays into the scenes with the baby. But the worry about the baby, about his wife, about his neighbor, about the spinal cords (or whatever it is) that enter the scene, about his nightmares, and the chipmunky women in the heater really comes through in the enigmatic performance by Jack Nance. The confidence despite the lack of plot is remarkable considering this is David Lynch's first film. The way he tells a story, in whatever genre, with whatever quirkiness makes Lynch a beloved director, who held the interest and admiration of Kubrick, Brooks, Waters, and Spielberg. With the film noiresque lighting, the beautiful camera movements, and the textures of the set, this makes Eraserhead a must watch, even if it's your only viewing. I recommend multiple viewings, personally.

***1/2

Next Set

We'll be watching two surrealist works. The first one: Un Chien Andalou by Luis Bunuel, and we will follow it up with Eraserhead by David Lynch.

The Big Shave/ Raging Bull

It has been a few weeks since the last film night. I was off exploring the great west. And it was beautiful. It made me appreciate the great outdoors again, the beauty that surrounds us, and the miracle that is the human body. It was strenuous, it was taxing, and it was tiring...for me. But I made it out alive. Bruised, sure. Battered, a little bit. Bleeding, of course. My muscles ached, my tired feet continued to press on step after step. I kept speaking to myself to continue. Counted the steps. Repeated left foot, right foot, left foot, right foot. The fatigue that set in with this hiking excursion, made me come to the realization that these feelings of fatigue, and the goal of making it just a little bit further, fit like puzzle pieces with our films for this evening.

Our first movie, a short film by Martin Scorsese, was shot in 1967, in color, and was an NYU student film. It is The Big Shave. Essentially the plot is a this: a young man wakes up and begins shaving. Everything starts out normally, but then you start to see the cuts and the blood. Unfazed, the young man continues to shave his face. The alternate title to the film is Viet '67, and the film could be interpreted, with a big clue from the alternate title, as a metaphor for the United State's involvement in the Vietnam conflict, and even though it was a bad idea, an indifferent US (the man), continues to pursue the conflict, inflicting, stroke after stroke, more harm to itself, than the enemy (stubble). There are some early characteristics that are quintessentially Scorsese even from this early short of his. A quick introduction to a man who would be a leading voice in the American New Wave, and a champion of cinematic arts, and film preservation. A man who's films are synonymous with a striking voice of violence, and struggle, guilt and pursuing the individual's American dream. The quick cuts, and the close-up of the action are an indelible mark, a watermark, a signature of Marty's. The film is simple and straight forward, and yet it has humor, and grittiness. I felt that the use of blood in this film, along with its iconic director tied nicely in with our feature presentation.

*

Of all the pictures that Martin Scorsese has created, of all the cinematic moments, of all the iconic scenes and lines, none are talked about with more adoration, more sincerity, and more lovingly than Raging Bull. Thus far, it's Scorsese's Schindler's List. And he's still got a few years left. There is, on the radar, another collaboration with Pesci and DeNiro along with Pacino in the works. Scorsese has made film after film of solid work. Even when he experiments with uncharacteristic subject matter, like a strong woman driven narrative, or a gaudy musical, or Victorian era period piece, his work is interesting. But more importantly, his work is consistent. I am one who can appreciate performances in a shitty film, and I can appreciate great direction and cinematography in a shitty film (i.e. Dark Shadows). I have viewed almost the the entire oeuvre of Scorsese and have appreciated his films, and have been blown away on more than one occasion. Raging Bull is one of those films. It has appeared time and time again on top ten films lists, and appears on AFI's list of 100 greatest American films in the number four spot. In 1990, the first year it was eligible, it was chosen to be included in the National Film Registry as a film that is aesthetically and culturally significant.

DeNiro read the book that the film is loosely based on when he was on the set of The Godfather Part II, and immediately consulted Marty that this is a film they should make together. Marty went on to make a few more films, a couple with DeNiro. DeNiro, I'm sure, pestered him every now and then about the potential of this film. Scorsese was not a sports guy, he didn't feel like it was a project that suited him. He has said, "A boxer? I don't like boxing...Even as a kid, I always thought that boxing was boring...It was something I couldn't, wouldn't grasp." So, he pushed it aside. When Scorsese, addicted to cocaine, almost died of an overdose, he was approached again by a supportive DeNiro. DeNiro brought up Raging Bull again. Scorsese dove into the project, not necessarily for his sake, but for DeNiro's. After a decent and straightforward draft of the script was written, they brought in Paul Schrader, who wrote Taxi Driver, to rewrite it. He included, through his research, the large brother arch that was absent in the book. Scorsese had problems getting funding, and wanted to cast lesser known actors in roles. Enter Joe Pesci, a guy who had done one other movie before, and had retired from acting and was running a restaurant in Jersey. When Scorsese and DeNiro saw the film and were impressed, they approached him for the role. He relented. Pesci was instrumental in suggesting his longtime comedy partner and friend Frank Vincent for a role, as well as unknown Cathy Moriarty for the female lead. They had their players, they had a script, and they finally got funding. Scorsese and DeNiro went to St. Maarten and did extensive re-writes on the script that suited their tastes, their sensibilities, and the penchant for improvisation. When they began filming, they consulted, movie greats like Michael Powell, who helped Martin make the decision to shoot the film in black and white, to distinguish it from other boxing films being produced, such as Rocky. Scorsese also brought in choreographers to help with the boxing scenes. Marty made a conscious decision to film inside the ring, and not outside, like other boxing films of the day. This lead to innovation in camera placement and movements. Both DeNiro and Scorsese did a lot of research by going to and participating in boxing matches. DeNiro, with the real LaMotta as his trainer, competed in three boxing matches winning two of the three. Scorsese attended several matches and noted the blood soaked sponge and the ropes dripping with blood as particularly eye catching. He went on the include these images in the film.

There is so much preparation that went into this film, and it shows. Not to mention the years of preparation from DeNiro as he thought about this project. From the opening scene you're hooked. The malaise of the slowly dancing boxer in black and white with light bulbs flashing occasionally. The sentimental music playing as if to warn the audience, "this is not movie with a happy ending" The film is book ended by Jake LaMotta soliloquizing. The rest of the narrative is linear as we go through aspects of his life and his desires to not just be a contender, but be a champion. We see him box in few scenes. Altogether, the boxing scenes, though beautifully choreographed, make up less than thirteen minutes of the film, this is classified as a sports movie.
The film itself is beautiful. It is poetry. Because of the way it is shot we have this subtle voyeuristic approach to the events depicted. The cinematography is breathtaking. Besides the stark images of the blood soaked sponge and dripping ropes as previously noted, the last fight with Robinson with the Jaws shot, and Robinson bringing his fists down to pummel LaMotta again is so beautiful it should be on the cover of a magazine. The acting is incredible, and at times, very off-putting. It makes you wince. DeNiro's stare at the dance is solid. He somehow manages to convey everything he is thinking, despite the blankness of his stare. It makes no sense to me. The interaction with Vikki at the fence, a metaphor for the barriers that LaMotta was going to have to break, but also the obstacles in his and Vikki relationship throughout the film, is astonishing. Even more astonishing that interaction was improvised. Joey punching his brother in the face is also a hard scene to watch as you realize that those are actual punches. Or the scene near the end of the movie when DeNiro is punch the jail cell walls and headbutting it. So much pain and aggression and loss is conveyed in near wordless scenes. There's this golden age of cinema, and French New Wave way that many of the scenes were shot, and you can't help but appreciate the camera movements. They're so subtle, but so effective. The dialogue is crude, the characters are crude, even the act of punching someone so much their feet give way is crude, but the mise-en-scene, the framing, the cinematography, the direction, is refined and lovely. There are scenes of humor throughout that buoy up the denser scenes, and I appreciate the inclusion.

After the bulk of the film was completed, Scorsese shut down production, so that DeNiro could put on 60 pounds to play the older, fatter LaMotta. Those scenes are lethargic, and husky. We see the decline of a once great boxer, reduced to managing a squalid nightclub, which gets him into trouble. A parallel decline also happened when studios failed to pick up Raging Bull. Scorsese felt that this would be the last film he would ever make, and was meticulous in the cutting of the film. If this was to be his last film, he want complete control of the final product. The post-production to a little longer than anticipated, and, ultimately the film was completed. It's run at the box office was sub par, and made a paltry amount. However, the rave critical downpour elevated it into a cult classic after it left theatres, and garnered many nominations and two academy awards one for editing, and one for DeNiro's intense, almost psychotic and definitely mesmeric performance. This film goes down in film history as a classic. It melds many styles and and much input by many individuals, and this most assuredly stands out as Scorsese's choicest film. A highly recommended film if you haven't seen it.

****

Next up

We will be watching The Big Shave and Raging Bull both by Martin Scorsese.

Fireworks/ A Clockwork Orange

It seems to be a very hectic weekend for me. A lot of things that were beyond my control happened that caused me to act. Many people needed my help and I heeded their beck and call. I have chosen two very controversial films for this weekend's film night. Fireworks by Kenneth Anger, and A Clockwork Orange by Stanley Kubrick.

First up, Fireworks a significant film from 1947. This was directed by Kenneth Anger at the age of 20 during a weekend when his parents were out of town. It is silent save for a spoken prologue. According to sources, this film was inspired by the Zoot Suit Riots of 1944, in which flamboyantly dressed Mexicans were beaten by sailors. It plays as a reactionary dream to those events. Anger plays the dreamer, the main character in the film. He discovered his homosexuality early in life and explored in through film, what very few film makers at that time were doing. He studied film at USC, and made an indelible mark with this short. He waited a year before he made public showings of it, and it garnered much praise and support from acclaimed men of the film and stage: most notably, Jean Cocteau and Tennessee Williams. Due to this films images and subject matter, Anger was hit with obscenity charges two decades before Lenny Bruce, and it was later dropped as not obscene, but a work of art.

When I watched this for the first time, I wrote my friend and simply said, "I'm blown away!" To think that a 20 year old could make something so bold, so brave, so emotive, so impactful, so visionary, and reactionary, and with something to say boggles the mind. I even watched it again. It begins with a the prologue, and an image of a sailor holding an incapacitated dreamer. It cuts to the dreamer waking up naked to a series of photos of the sailor holding the dreamer. He gets dressed, puts the photos in the fireplace, and enters a bathroom labelled 'Gents' inside, in an almost dream-like world, the dreamer encounters a sailor at the bar, who shows off for the dreamer by flexing his muscles. The dreamer takes out a cigarette and asks for a light, at which point the sailor slaps him and beats him. It cuts to a sailor picking up a flaming bundle of sticks to help light the dreamer's cigarette. After smoking for a bit, the dreamer is confronted by a group on sailors with chains to jump the dreamer. The dreamer's chest is ripped open showing a compass inside his heart. Milk is poured on him, and suddenly he comes out of the bathroom. The sailor lights a phallic firework and it goes off like sparkling jism, as a Christmas tree is lit and is is thrown in the fireplace burning the photos and the tree. It jumps to the dreamer in bed with a sailor, and the film ends.

There is so much going on in this film. Sure there may be so framing issues, lighting issues, and maybe a few scenes should have been cut down a few seconds, but come on! Twenty years old. I've dabbled in short films and nothing even compares to this. I am very fond of many of the images contained in the film. I love the firework crotch. The witty gayisms interspersed throughout. How the sailor lights the fag (cigarette) with a fagot (bundle of sticks). The symbolism of the cigarette representing homosexuality is fantastic and the heart representing the moral compass for each individual and not for society to decide was also head of its time.. I enjoyed the placement of the camera as the sailors walked past showing only their crotches as they approached the dream to jump him. I apologize that this is disjointed, I am just speaking with bits that popped out at me. I found this film to be a revelation. It was way ahead of its time, and beautifully shot. To think, also, that this was filmed in just one weekend is baffling. A wonderful and lasting image is hand motive throughout the film. In the beginning is a broken hand, and is shown in a couple of more shots, when it is revealed that the dreamer is in bed with a sailor it shows the hand, complete and whole. The film was inspiring, saddening, even maddening. Maddening because I have not made such an impact to the world of cinema, and this film definitely make an explosion.

**** 1/2

A Clockwork Orange became the second X-rated film to be nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars, and has become a cult classic since its release in 1971. This was Kubrick's follow-up to 2001, and proved that Kubrick can keep up with his own aesthetic and grandiose film making style. A lot has been written about this film, and it goes without saying that it is one of the best films of the seventies, a decade filled with momentous hits. I remember I started to watch this film for the first time with my best friend ten years ago. My best friends father was my pastor at the time, and we put it on when his parents were away. As we were watching it, we were piqued, but at the same time very nervous. The shit hit the fan, when my best friend's father came home and we stopped the film, ejected the VHS and slid the movie under his couches, and pretended to be doing something else. At the time, we thought it was just taboo to watch the film. We had heard it was a good film, after all, it's been on IMDB's list of 250 best films forever, but we were ignorant of the true aesthetic realities, and brilliant film making contained in the film.

I finally finished the movie a year later, and felt it was worth the watch. Since then, I have seen it at least a half a dozen times, and I have been remarked how good this film really is. Upon this viewing, I have come to the conclusion that 2001 is definitely better than A Clockwork Orange, but, nevertheless, has an enormous amount to say about the government, politics, religion, free will, and violence. In juxtaposition the our short film of the evening, the themes work well together. Where in Fireworks it is a man exploring his possibilities and trying to free himself, and is put down by society, A Clockwork Orange, is about a man who is exploring excess, while snuffing out life, and being controlled by society. It's interesting to note that the Orange in the title could be a reference to a synonym for orangutan, man. So, its about a man, who is predictable in his actions (under certain circumstances), choice is extinguished, and he'll not do certain things like clockwork. Of course, this is just my take.

Speaking of takes, with all Kubrick films, no doubt this film had many sequences with multiple takes. Most notably, the exhaustive takes of the "Singin' in the Rain" rape sequence was too much for the original actress and she had to be replaced, also the shot with the bodybuilder bringing the writer down the steps was shot so many times the bodybuilder, nearly passed out. The film is beautifully shot. Kubrick knew how to frame a shot, knew when to cut, knew when to utilize new and inventive camera techniques and angles. When Alex jumps through the window, Stanley Kubrick decided to drop a camera out of the window and use that footage. His use of angles is effective throughout the film. And, of course, Kubrick's use of music! The decor an art deco, mixed with a retro feel, coupled with interesting and erotic art pieces throughout. The thing that strikes me throughout the film is how frenetic everything is. The pace of the film is calm, but the performances, the furnishings and scene design, even the Beethoven songs are frenetic and add to the heightened fear and frenzy of Alex DeLarge. He starts out the film as a free hedonist, doing what he wanted to do, but became a cog in the government. A wild 180 caused by the Ludovic treatment allowed for fanciful and frenzy deco and performances. This is a outstanding piece of cinema, and stands out from other films by Kubrick. Some of the themes continued to be explored in Kubrick's latter films, most notably Eyes Wide Shut. I enjoy this film, like I enjoy most all of Kubrick's films. This stands as a testament to his genius and his sense of style.

****

Next Set

The next two films we will be watching is Fireworks by Kenneth Anger, and A Clockwork Orange by the late great Stanley Kubrick. So, join me won't you?

Gertie the Dinosaur/ Jurassic Park

Another weekend, another movie night. Tonight's pairings are brought together by a character, if you will. That character is the extinct dinosaur. Both pieces we have for our viewing pleasure are fun and adventurous romps into the adventure/science fiction genre. However, the lightheartedness does dissipate with Jurassic Park. Let us explore both pieces.

Gertie the Dinosaur was released over one hundred years ago in 1914. It was animated by the great American animator Winsor McCay. This was a momentous milestone, and an animated benchmark for future animators including Walt Disney himself. It was also included in the US film registry for preservation. Buster Keaton was inspired by this film, as well as countless other animators and film makers. To me, this film is more of an exercise in the capabilities in animation, than a tremendous work of art. It is not without its merits, though. McCay works with humor with every frame. He apparently brought the exoskeletal imagery to mainstream America; that is to say, he allowed America to see what a dinosaur might look like with its flesh. The animation is rudimentary, save for the last scene where the narrator gets on the back of Gertie and rides her away. It is the best sequence of the movie, and is astonishingly great animation. The five minute plus running time is a tease, but the entire film is, essentially, a teaser to what great animation would become. I fancied this little short, and as we will see, makes an cheeky appearance in our full length feature presentation.

** (two stars strictly because of its pioneering position within animation)

Jurassic Park, upon its release in 1993, was a highlight of 90's cinema. It stands as a right sentinel to the left sentinel of Schindler's List in the pathway of Spielberg's oeuvre. The urban myth was that Crichton, the author of the same titled book this film is based on, was touring a film studio with Spielberg, when he talked about his possible screenplay of a man cloning a dinosaur, at which point Spielberg optioned the rights to the literature to make it into a film. In reality, Spielberg and Crichton were already working together on developing what would later become "E.R." when Crichton told Spielberg about his dinostory*. The events about the studio tour may very well have happened, but the author and director already had an existing working relationship. Needless to say, Crichton turned it into a book which was published in 1990, and Spielberg was able to acquired the rights to the material. The plot simply is this: a group of scientists including: paleontologists, paleobotonists, chaoticians, lawyers, and children get invited to an island off the coast of Costa Rica with hazy explanations as to their respective invitations. It is soon revealed that the owner of the island, eccentric billionaire Richard Hammond, had developed the technology to clone various species of dinosaurs and was going to use them as the piece de resistance for a dinosaur theme park. When, a deus ex machina causes entire species of all female dinosaurs to breed, all hell breaks loose and the amusement park of all amusement parks comes crumbling down. After many near misses, and scrapes with Cretaceous critters, as well as many deaths, and corporate espionage, the survivors flee the island thankful for their lives and with grander respect to the creatures that they have loved, respected, and studied all their lives.

Jurassic Park is one of those films that was fanciful, remarkable, gut-wrenching, and adventurous that caused moviegoers to go back again and again. It was a favorite movie of my childhood, and I adored it. It went on to becoming the highest grossing film of that year, and, ultimately, became the highest grossing film of all-time (excluding inflation) beating out Spielberg's own E.T., but was overcome by James Cameron's Titanic four and a half years later. The film is one, in which, I notice more things and come to better realizations and conclusions. Leaving aside the excised portions of the novel that would have made great scenes in the film, Jurassic Park is still an amazing film. This film, coupled with Schindler's List, are the final chapter in Spielberg's great film making days. He has since gone on to make some duds and few films that shimmer and glint like his great films Schindler's List, E.T., and Jaws. Spielberg, himself, agrees that his two best films are Schindler's List and E.T. Although, I admit, the book is better than the film, but not by much. Upon thumbing through the book, I was transported back to 1999 when I read this book for the first time. Sitting in my bathroom turning page after page, devouring the novel as a raptor would a character in the book. This is why I love this movie, and why my eyes are so bad now.

This film stands as an amazing early rendering of the capabilities of CGI. What Spielberg was soon to remark to his animatronicist while watching a scene of CGI dinosaurs running, was that with the advancements in technology that would allow this look, he was out of a job. He spoke too soon. What relying solely on the merits of CGI would do, would cause a legion of action/adventure/fantasy fans to turn their noses on CGI scenes found in late 90's and early 00's films like Star Wars and the Matrix trilogies. Spielberg was smart enough to properly meld animatronics (autoerotica) with CGI animation. Even traditional animation and a nod to Gertie the Dinosaur makes its way into the milieu of the film. With state of the art CGI and state of the art animatronics, the audience completely believes it. For example, the breathing triceratops is so detailed and life-like, it's amazing to think it was done in 1993. Even spoiled audiences of today regard this film as ahead of its time, and still really good CGI. The live action and CGI blends so well together, and we are able to relax and enjoy the ride. We are able to take in the story and actually feel shocked and even scared.

I love the subtle metaphoric image near the beginning of the film that most moviegoers miss: Dr. Grant, unable to find the male part of his seat belt in the helicopter, makes due with two female ends. This metaphor serves as a theme of the entire film, "life finds a way". Sure, we all laugh at the Nedry squeal at the Costa Rican restaurant with Dodson, or the coy sound effects such as the banana peel slip and fall sfx sprinkled throughout the film. We love Dr. Grant's reluctance with children, and his change throughout the events of the film. We become endeared to annoying characters, and we laugh when Samuel L. Jackson says "hold on to your butts." Fun drinking game: take a shot when Jackson says that line, when someone is killed, when Jurassic or park are used, and when Hammond says "spared no expense" This is a fun movie. It's quotable. It's well shot. Spielberg knows where to put the camera, even if child actresses don't know where to put the flashlight. There's humor sprinkled throughout, and good plot development. What I learned this viewing is how we don't have to wait to get an answer. Almost every time a question is raised we are immediately shown the answer in the next shot or in the next scene. The director wants us to enjoy the film so he doesn't let the questions pile up with no release. He gives us the answers, uncluttered, and unadorned, so that we can get back to watching the events unfold. There's some hacky acting in the film, and sometimes the dialogue leaves something to be desired, but it's totally made up with a cohesive whole. It's a solid movie. The quintessential popcorn flick, and prime example of a summer blockbuster. This film has taken on a life of its own. Spielberg knew this was going to be a big hit, and he capitalized on the merchandising of this film and the subsequent re-release of the film for new audiences to grow to love this film. It has spawned a swarm of inside jokes for me and my friends. And I can't even give a hundreth part of the realizations or the jokes on the details that I have noticed over the years. The scope and the the detail and the logistics that went behind just about every shot of this film is overwhelming for me to even begin to comprehend. I just--I love this movie. Spielberg has stated that he was "just trying to make Jaws on land." I think he definitely made a cup full of water on the dashboard of a modified '93 Explorer splash.

****

*word play fail

Next Set

We'll be watching Gertie the Dinosaur coupled with the very popular Jurassic Park. What a great treat!

The Immigrant/ The Godfather Part II

I am playing catch-up with the film series, as I haven't been in the right frame of mind as of late. These days I feel like a stranger in a familiar land. An outcast. An alien. I want to rise above this and become something great. Someone respected and powerful. Someone loved and beloved. Someone comical. How I am feeling, and my obvious love for great films have led me to these two great movies we will be viewing tonight. The Immigrant by Charles Chaplin (my idol) and The Godfather Part II by Francis Ford Coppola.

First up, The Immigrant. I admit, I am a huge Chaplin fan. His physical humor and his non-verbal wit leaves my sides aching. I have seen all of his full length films, save his final film. And I have seen almost all of his shorts. So, to my surprise, I had never seen The Immigrant. The Immigrant is a 20-minute film about an immigrant's voyage to America. The rocking boat and struggling to maintain equilibrium is an often used image toward the beginning of the film in the first reel. Later, the immigrant cons a conman and has a couple of run-ins with a drunkard. When happening upon a poor woman consoling another destitute femme, the immigrant decides to be a Samaritan and secretly gives her some of the few dollars he owns. A boat guard sees this and assumes the immigrant is pick-pocketing. Upon entering America, the tramp is nearly penniless and hungry. He decides to go into a restaurant for a bite to eat uncaring of how he will pay for the meal. He sees the same dame in the same restaurant that he was accused of pick-pocketing. They strike up an accord. He offers her of his sop, and orders more beans for her. When seeing the maltreatment of a patron who was 10 cents short of his bill, he becomes worried. He prepares for the worst and tries to quickly hone his boxing skills for the inevitable toe to toe. Upon finding that the waiter's trousers had a hole in the pocket allowing change to sluice through, the immigrant goes through several attempts to discreetly pick up the coin. When an artist sits with him and his date, the immigrant takes advantage of the artist's payment of meal and is able to pay for his meal. He leaves with the woman, and they immediately go to get a marriage license to be married.

This is a cute little short. With some good gags. And an interesting commentary on the poverty of the immigrants that are trying to assimilate themselves into American society. Although not expressly shown in the film, it appears that the immigrant adopts well to swindling and stealing to sustain a life in his new environment. The film was written, directed, and starred Charlie Chaplin. Already a famous star, he was given freedom to make this picture. This film was conceived while on set, and was going to be a completely different film with a different plot. Chaplin's first day of filming was a scene where he loses a quarter from his pocket unbeknownst to him, but picks it up from the ground thinking he found more money. Chaplin thought of his destitute situation, and devised the idea that he was an immigrant, penniless, and hungry. The scene where the immigrant kicks the immigration officer in the butt was later used as evidence of Chaplin's "anti-American" attitude which led to his deportation. The events leading to his deportation left a bad taste in his mouth for America. The film is a quick little plot with a little imagination and little social commentary. Needless to say, this is merely a dime in a pocket full of silver dollars in Chaplin's oeuvre.

* 1/2

The Godfather Part II. I won't go into much detail about the plot of the film, except that this is a sequel that won Best Picture, Best Director, Best Screenplay, and Best Supporting Actor at the Academy Awards. Coppola was granted much more freedom from the studios to make this film because of the enormous success of Part I. Many critics argue that the sequel is slightly superior to the first film, but I am not one of those critics. This film tells the parallel stories of Don Vito Corleone's rise to power, and his son Don Michael Corleone's continued seedy practices and descent into corruption, greed, power, and wealth.

What makes this film great, along with its predecessor, is the acting. Such exceptional acting. One of Pacino's best performances. His collected demeanor in contrast with his explosive anger captivate. From the first film as an innocent, willing, and conflicted member of a mob family, to this volatile, power hungry, corrupt mob boss. It's amazing to watch this transformation. It's a testament to the pedigree of acting phenoms that grace the celluloid in this picture. Lee Strasberg, the acting teacher of Al Pacino and a slew of other notable actors, was coaxed to "come out of retirement" to make this picture. It's one of the few films he ever did, but his performance is up in the pantheon of great performances. John Cazale also makes an indelible mark in the film. His weakness, his insecurities, his vulnerability, his anger. Cazale, himself, did very few films before he was taken too soon, and yet again, his performance just blindsides the audience. It blindsided me, for sure. And let's not forget Robert DeNiro, who won an Oscar for his calculated and brave performance. He studied Brando's performance, and incorporated the mannerisms of the boy who played young Vito. Stellar is all I can say. So many great performances, so little time.

One thing that I am not too fond of in this film is the film stock and the development processes of the film. It's too dark throughout the movie. Or it's too yellow. I watched Apocalypse Now yesterday and compared to this film (both were Blu-ray) Apocalypse Now is so crisp, so clean, so visually appealing. Part II is grainy and 70's. The graininess would be more appropriate in keeping with the tone of early Scorsese like Mean Streets or Taxi Driver, but not this film. The film is well shot. Shooting on film has its advantages and disadvantages. For one, I noticed that the turning of the film within the camera makes the frame shake ever so slightly. An advantage, so I'm told, is that film looks a lot better when shooting night scenes than digital photography. Of course, digital photography was an impossibility in shooting this film, so me bringing it up is an exempli gratia and inconsequential.

The Tramps coming to America, penniless and clueless, really corresponds to the great privilege and strata rising ascent of the penniless and clueless Vito. His meteoric rise to the ranks of one of the most prominent Cosa Nostra leaders,and his influence on his children. Although Vito wanted a different path for Michael, Michael took the good ideals with the bad mentality. His drive and desire for power and destroying the competition ultimately costs him his family. Famiglia being the most important to any Italian patriarch, causes Michael to rethink his path, his life, and priorities in the next installment of the Godfather trilogy. It goes without saying that a theme of this film is power and as the saying goes "absolute power corrupts absolutely." Nothing is more true than Michael's behavior, his hybris, his hunger for power. This film is more an allegory; a cautionary tale for the consequences of pride, greed, and power. With the cinematography, the direction, the writing, the innovative parallel story telling, and the music, this film made its way to the forefront of the American New Wave cinema, and has become an endearing piece of art that lead to the many accolades, awards, and its inclusion in the Library of Congress film registry in 1993. One of a kind, unique, masterful, intense, wonderful, gut-wrenching, educational, and entertaining. The Godfather Part II is next to Part I on a towering pedestal, but just an inch shorter. Bellissima!

****1/2

Next Set

We'll be viewing the ever charming The Immigrant by Charles Chaplin coupled with the fantastic The Godfather Part II. These two are paired by an obvious theme, and I will be reviewing and critiquing both later this evening. I hope you will join me.

Entre'Acte/ Forbidden Zone

The viewership of this movie night was nearly double than any previous movie night. What a delightful gathering of old high school chums. After nice pleasantries, I introduced the first film we were to view. The dada film Entre'Acte by Rene Clair.

Rene Clair was a man of his environment. He surrounded himself with members of the dada salon, and when he was hired to create an entre'acte between the acts of a ballet in 1924, he jumped at the chance. This is Rene Clair's first film, but definitely not his last. A famous poet and writer, whose literary achievements along with his film credits landed him a seat in the very exclusive Academie Francaise. The film is completely dada. No meaning. Anti-art. But there are great shots, and innovative film techniques; particularly the roller coaster shots toward the end of the film. It often feels more like experimenting with film techniques and attempting to innovate than a true dada piece (whatever that means). It is evident from his future oeuvre that he enjoyed the filming process and pursued it further to much success. Understanding the large number of heavy hitters that participated in this project, one could come to the conclusion that this was truly a collaborative process. Erik Satie, one of my favorite 19th/20th century composers created a multi-piece score for the the film, although, I'm uncertain that the film we viewed on YouTube had the original score as accompaniment.

The film itself tells no particular story. I jokingly said after the film that is was a metaphor for "the diaspora of the Jewish people." There is a pseudo-story involved where a group of people are prancing around in a processional behind a coffin, as the pacing increases and there are jump cuts and chaos, a chase ensues and the speed of the chariot chase ends with the coffin in a field, the coffin opening up, a magician coming out and vanishing the crowd that comes to the coffin. I admit, I didn't know what to expect  from this film. I knew it was going to be a bit perplexing, but I ended up enjoying some parts and feeling my heart race as the pace of the film increased. It was very much what the kids on the Wonkaboat must've felt as the acid trip of a ride continued. Needless to say, watching something that was at the end of the dada movement, and one of the most inventive, odd, creative pieces of cinema history was insightful and educational. I am glad I got to view it with some great people.

* 1/2

And, Forbidden Zone. Well, well, well. What can I say about this film. I remember my friends Ryan showing me a two minute piece of the film, effectively introducing me to this bizarre film. It was an alphabet song number, and I was transfixed. One could say I was giddy. It made an impression on me, and when I found a bluray copy on Amazon, I decided to buy it solely on the merit of those two minutes. When I received the film, it was a U.K. disc, and I started the film to make sure it worked. The titles sequence of the film was wonderful. It was quirky, it was b-movie-esque. I thought it was great. I decided to pick this film, and knowing that it was quirky and weird, I paired it with Entre'acte.

Though the beginning starts out fun enough, it soon crumbles. We watched in black and white, which was how it was originally shown in the few art house theatres that was brave enough to show it. It was directed by Richard Elfman, older brother of famed musician and composer Danny Elfman. Richard, created the original incarnation of Oingo Boingo, but grew tired of the band and decided to make a transition to film making, handing the reins of the band over to Danny (who appears in this film as the Devil). The story goes as such: the Hercules family (comprised of Ma and Pa, Frenchy, Flash, and Grandpa) moves into an old house, whose basement is home to an entryway into the 6th dimension, where bizarre half naked, chained up concubines, queens and former queens and future queens roam. A frog headed servant, a couple of Tweedle-dee and Tweedle-dum characters, lines of prison cells, and the Devil and the Mystic Knights of Oingo Boingo live and roam free. When Frenchy, goes into the 6th dimension and gets kidnapped by the king for his sexual amusement, members of Frenchy's family come in one by one to find her and bring her back. The family each one more bizarre than the next. You have Frenchy: weird in her French eccentricities, she effectively became French from her trip abroad in France. Ma: A simpleton who sustains a brain injury relatively early in the film and remains catatonic throughout the film, Pa: a man who works in a tar factory between Pico and Sepulveda, who hates his circumstances, and may be mentally retarded, Grandpa: a Bluto-type character with serious rage problems as well as a penchant for sex, Flash: who appears older than Grandpa. He's a overly Jewish man with a copter cap yarmulke. He is amoral, and will give up his plan for sex. The family members are accompanied by Squeezit: (whose sister was already lost in the 6th dimension and a concubine to the midget king, played by Herve Villechaize). Squeezit is loud, a mamma's boy, acts like a chicken, and is afraid of taking a chance. He gets his courage and sacrifices himself for the good of the Hercules family. There are many musical and dance numbers. There is chaos. There are strange characters. There is anarchy.

The saving grace for this film are some of the musical numbers, and you can really hear Danny Elfman's influence on the music. The music numbers are oddly catchy, and in the vein of Broadway numbers, but in juxtaposition to the events of the film confuse the audience. It appears that the gifts of the composer and what he is capable of does not match the bizarre mise-en-scene shown to the audience. I have been known to champion the 'weird' but this doesn't seem to serve a point. It is weird for weird's sake, and not weird to prove a point or weird to expose something deep within ourselves or society. There are bits like the boxing scene that made me chuckle, and the nudity (specifically the princess) made me raise my eyebrows among other things, that I enjoyed, but, overall this movie is like the subconscious gone awry. I must say, I appreciated the film more than the rest of the viewing party, who wish that I wouldn't have subjected them to it, but I would stray away from calling this film brilliant or even good. It's a film, perhaps, that aspired to be the next Rocky Horror Picture Show or Pink Flamingos, much like Repo! The Genetic Opera* attempted to do in the 2000s, but it failed in that regard. I am glad I saw it. It was enlightening and parts were enjoyable, but overall it was, for lack of a better work, claptrap. It is full of cool trivia bits, like the actors who played the king and queen were literally former lovers, but had broken up prior to this film. Another bit, all the actors did the film without being paid. One of the two "Kipper Kids" is married to Bette Midler. This was one of the last movies of Godfather actor Joe Spinell. And this was the first film scored by future, brilliant composer and frequent Tim Burton collaborator, Danny Elfman. Many critics felt that this film was racist, anti-Semitic, and sexist, but I disagree to two of the three. I found myself cringing with a few of the sexist lines or scenes where women were hit or harassed. The blatant nudity was also ever-present and was distracting for me. Of course, many people can argue all three points from both sides quite effectively, but for brevity's sake, I will stop here. If you are feeling bold and are in a weird place, or you're on drugs are are looking for a trippy film, Forbidden Zone is for you. Enjoy!

*





*Repo! was a far worse movie than Forbidden Zone...for the record.

Entre'Acte/ Forbidden Zone

Sorry this is short notice, but the next film night will be this evening. We'll be watching two bizarre films one from the 20s called Entre'Acte by René Clair and the other Forbidden Zone by Richard Elfman. I know Entre'Acte is available online. I invite you to watch along. If not tonight, then sometime soon, because these two will be a wonderful and delightful pairing. Embrace the weird!

Shaking Tokyo/Groundhog Day

The list of films that I have compiled for my short film/feature film pairings are very scant when it comes to the Asian continent. This changes tonight. Although the short film Shaking Tokyo is the only Asian film out of the fifty-two chosen, it is still a good one. Due to my temporary agoraphobia and the fact that each day has seemed to meld together in a blur of the same thing over and over again, I bring you Shaking Tokyo by acclaimed director Bong Joon Ho and Groundhog Day by the late great Harold Ramis.

Boon Joon Ho was asked to be a part of a film tryptic about a subject, much like Allen, Copolla, and Scorsese did in 1990. The subject, one could argue the star, is Tokyo. The star is a peripheral character as the desert was for westerns. The film starts out with a roll of toilet paper being finished and the introduction of a hikikomori, a shut in. He has been living on his own stacking his refuse and supplies in his cramped apartment. Only getting the necessities of life through delivery, never looking people in the eyes, he leads a depressing life; a life full of routine. He receives pizza once a week. Every Saturday.  He receives the money he needs via the post, and lives his life in a box, much like the pizza boxes he stacks along a bare wall. When he notices that the pizza delivery man is a woman, he looks up. They make a connection. The ground starts to shake. An earthquake. Immediately the woman collapses and remains motionless. The hikikomori tries to revive her comically. He notices a series of tattoo buttons on the woman with accompanying English explanations, and upon looking up the Japanese translation of the explanations, he is able to the revive the girl. And as quickly as she came, she disappears. He tries to order pizza in hopes to be delivered to by the intriguing pizza delivery woman, but to no avail. The pizza delivery man explains to the hikikomori that the woman had quit the day before. She, becoming a hikikomori. How is an agoraphobic man supposed to go and reach out to an agoraphobic woman he has become attracted to? After a brief questioning, the man decides to leave his apartment. Once out of his element and into the elements of outside, the man starts to doubt his decision, but decides to press on. His positive self-talk allows his to follow the directives he is telling himself to do in his head. As he explores the city he has cut himself off from ten years prior, we find that the entire city has become agoraphobic. Now the streets are barren. Now robots deliver pizza. The man finally finds the woman who has just applied a new button tattoo. The man tries to coax the woman out of her apartment exclaiming, "If you don't come out now, you never will." She shuts him out and another earthquake hits the town. People come out of their house, out of their apartments only to slowly creep back into their lodgings after the earthquake has ceased. The man finds the woman has left and tries to keep the girl from re-entering her apartment like the others had. He presses the new tattoo button: Love. They stare at each other as the scene shakes to a black screen.

**

I decided on Groundhog Day in January about a month before the great Harold Ramis passed away. His movies have been a big inspiration on me, and I have come to cherish him as time has gone by. For my tribute to him, I give you Groundhog Day. Now I am not going to bore you with the plot of the film, because we know it. We love the film, right? What's not to love. This is what one would classify as an existential comedy. And by one, I mean me. I would consider it as such. This is a story of a man being forced to live the same day over and over again. The thematic elements between this film and Shaking Tokyo are frequent. Desire for finding love. Alienation either voluntary or involuntary. Repetition of routine.

The great work of Bill Murray is undeniable in this film. He starts on a journey and ends in a completely different place. Growth takes place. He starts out with his iconic snark that oozes throughout the first few scenes. As his situation starts to mount in from of him, his snark turns to panic and denial. And, in fact, the Kubler-Ross model of grief could be applied to Phil Conner's transition throughout the film. The loss he is experiencing is the normalcy of life. Phil has an existential crisis. "What would you do if you were stuck in one place and everything was exactly the same and nothing you did ever mattered?" The Sisyphean circumstances causes Phil to reflect on life, existence, and the universe. It causes him to self-reflect on himself, what's really important, love, and improving oneself. Time is relative and infinity is a long time. One of the most poignant scenes for me is when Phil suggests that he is a god. He theorizes that maybe god is god because he's been around long enough to know everything. He goes on to explain in detail each patron of the cafe, and goes on to "predict the future." The end of the scene is very touching as he talks about Rita with such sincerity, warmth, and love. It usually makes my misty. Though he contemplates his potential divinity or approval of deity to allow him to relive the same day over and over, he is confronted with mortality with the death of the beggar. No matter how hard he tries, the old man dies. Upon giving the old man CPR in the alley, the man breathes his last breath and we see it. Phil then looks heavenward, as if to say "Why?" After Rita stays the night, Phil enters the acceptance phase of the stages of grief. He develops an insatiable appetite to improve himself and to accrue skills not just for the betterment of himself, but for the woman he woos each day. He also embarks on the assistance and service to others. One comes to two realizations of Ramis' intended message for the audience. The first is that we all have those spans of time where routine seems to suck the fun out of life and living. Where it seems like we are reliving the same cycle over and over again, but it will benefit us if we allow ourselves the ability to go about the natural course of events through the day with happiness, acceptance, and love. As well, we should strive to improve ourselves. To increase in knowledge. To increase our skills, because we are full of potential. The second is to share with others. To help other people and give service. To a person with a religious background, this film can have theological implications, but things can be gained from any viewer, regardless of religious background (if any).

There are some amazing bits of comedy that, after over a dozen views, continue to make me laugh. The montage of suicides is hilarious, particularly Bill Murray's choice to open and close his hands before he gets run over. His imitation of Larry's eating habits was chortlingly funny. Phil trying to re-position himself in the exact spot that almost got Rita and him to kiss the previous Groundhog Day was so funny. A special shout out to Stephen Tobolowsky and his Needlenose Ned character. Plus dozens and dozens more little bits that were just outlandishly funny.

I love that a young Michael Shannon is in this film. I love the existential tones of the film. I don't like the horribly stained teeth of the two leads, but I love this movie. There's comedy, warmth, confusion, sweetness, sadness. It's a fantastically made film. Bill carries this movie. He is a joy to watch. The movie is a joy to watch. This film was added in 2006 to the U.S. Film Registry for its impact to society and its artistic relevancy and it's so clear to see why. This film remains one of my favorite films of all time and one of the few movies I watch every year. At the end of the day, I got you Groundhog Day, I got you Groundhog Day, and baby, you got me.

****1/2

Next Set

Due, in part, to my own agoraphobia recently and to Groundhog Day, I've chosen two films for us all to enjoy. Shaking Tokyo by Bong Joon-Ho and Groundhog Day by Harold Ramis. So, join me won't you?

At Land/ Inception

So, here where go. Second movie night. More people this time. Here we go. This time we are watching two standout films that, I feel, compliment each other like lamb and tuna fish... maybe you like spaghetti and meatball, you more comfortable with that analogy? It is the 1944 avant-garde film At Land, and Christopher Nolan's creative popcorn flick Inception. The pairing of these films is my personal favorite of the 52 films that I have picked to watch in 2014. I had only watched the first two minutes of At Land before I chose it for the Inception movie night (Thank you, Duncan). And when I watched it for the first time, I realized that these two have a lot of the same imagery. By far the most complimentary of the list. So, here it is.

At Land is a film by Maya Deren. A seminal work from a woman who worked against the grain. It appears so, at least, because of her attitudes toward American cinema at the time. The two-hour running time, the big budget, the narrative. All of these she rejected in her films. She is truly a prize in the cinema world and a beauty to behold. Maya employed the help of her then husband and friends in the making of her second most known film. An interdisciplinarian in her own right, she also works here as a fantastic poet on par with her contemporary and colleague Breton. 

What I found interesting when watching the film was how ethereal and surreal it is. And how poetic. The images and the editing seem aleatoric, but the composition is beautiful. This is a film where the captain is fully aware of where they want to take us. The problem is with the audience. We have no idea where we are once we arrive at our destination. I'm sure Maya was purposeful as she was setting up the shots, but we as the audience don't know what the film's intent is. We don't know what it means. We can guess. We can use her history to infer, but, ultimately, we don't know. My friend suggested that is was her reflecting on her past. The four men in the film are her past lovers. I postulate that it is how she feels about her place in art; about the struggles she has to face. She is a woman with such contemporaries as John Cage and Marcel Duchamp to name just two; an avant-garde boys club. This film may show how she is struggling in that world. It may also be a film about finding oneself. Deren had said on one occasion that this film "is about the struggle to maintain one's personal identity." Perhaps it is her resisting the urge to become what her friends became, and find her own place in art regardless of the praise or the backlash. Staying to true to herself.

This is ridiculous of me to say because the nature of this film, but the film, for me, starts to fall apart toward the end as the scenes become more erratic, and less poetic. I am struck by her beauty and her bravery to embark on this film. It is complex. It is beautiful. It is bizarre. But it is not mundane. And it should be shared and experienced, and appreciated for what it is, and what you interpret it to mean. What it says about you, the viewer, and how it can change your perspective for the future. Stay true to yourself. That's what is important. That is what I took away from At Land.

***

After the success of the rebooted Batman franchise, Christopher Nolan began what would be a very creative and ambitious project. A film that would please most film goers and critics alike. This is true, given that it was nominated for best picture, and given that it neared one billion dollars at the box office worldwide. By no means was it groundbreaking in terms of plot, or in terms of film technique, but is, nonetheless, very entertaining and enjoyable.

Scratch it. Scratch it. Scratch. it. Scratch it.

Sorry. Got a bit distracted there. Back to it, yeah?

You can see the influence of past films in Inception. There are hints of Indiana Jones as in the beginning of the film (choose your team more wisely next time), 2001: A Space Odyssey toward the end (the dying old man in the sterile and ultra modern room and the rotating sets), and even At Land. I truly believe that Nolan was directly inspired to add props and scenes in his film because of At Land. The opening shots are both the same, both films have a girl carrying around a chess piece. And both have dream-like tones and themes. There is also another film that I feel I should mention. In 2010 after I watched Inception in theatres, I caught a film on t.v. called Dreamscape, and I noticed several similarities between it and Inception. I do not insinuate that Nolan stole ideas, but I do find it interesting that implanting ideas in one's head to change the course of history (whether geopolitical or financial) through dreams was explored over 25 years earlier in Dreamscape. And there are countless more films that Nolan has cited as influential in the making of this film.

Now, I do not want to go into what the film means, because there have been a slew of articles and even philosophical books written about the film. I also do not want to go into the many plot holes that scatter the film, and there are many. Some of it is the fault of the writing, but other holes were the result of specific departments of the film such as the make-up department*. This was a very talked about movie when getting out of the theatre. What does it mean? What about the ending? The ambiguous ending has been talked about and was even talked about after we watched it. Was Cobb still dreaming or not? My ultimate answer: I don't think Cobb cares at that point. The people that matter in his life up to that point, his children, had been estranged from him for at least a year, and he hadn't gotten to know them as well as his wife, and would have no idea if they were "just a shade" of his own children. He wanted to be with his children. If it was still in a dream or in real life, he could care less. That's why he doesn't wait for the top to topple over. This truly was an exciting, adventurous, entertaining, and fun movie. And it truly was talked about and talked up. People had qualms with it (I admit, I did too). But, the fact is, it is just a movie. Suspension of disbelief is key to accepting and enjoying the movie. The majority of the film, one could argue the entire film, is set in dreams and in built dream mazes where logic and physics shouldn't be brought into question. It should be enjoyed like a good dream. A dream that you don't want to wake up from because it's better, more fantastical and less mundane than your life. 

***1/2

So, to recap: Dreams are dreamed by dreamers who long for something different, unique, artistic, and enjoyable. Deren and Nolan are two dreamers and two artists in their own right. One is definitely more mainstream than the other, but both filmakers' filmographies should definitely be sampled, if not devoured.

Bon appetit!

*If you want me to go into those, let me know.

Next Set

This week's delightful pairing will be At Land by Maya Deren. You can find it online. And Christopher Nolan's Inception. Join me won't you?

Voyage dans la lune and 2001: A Space Odyssey

After futile attempts to gather a small group of people to embark on what will be the first of many movie nights, and availing in not one seized invitation, I began the first movie night alone at 10:30. Tonight’s short film and feature length film are two iconic and fantastic films. The first is George Méliès’ most recognizable Voyage dans la lune. Coupled, en suite, with another pioneering sci-fi masterpiece: 2001: A Space Odyssey by Stanley Kubrick.

Trip to the Moon

I took it upon myself to find Trip to the Moon on the internet, and stumbled upon the colorized version of the film found in 1993 and was promptly restored. A new score was added and, amazingly, was put on YouTube for people; that both film aficionados and Joe Schmos could watch and enjoy. And so, falling squarely in both those two camps, I watched and I enjoyed.

What I admired about this small 15 minutes 37 second film is how ahead of its time it really was. Perhaps not Méliès best, but certainly his most recognizable and iconic film, most people recognize the striking man in the moon, having his eye missiled in by the rocket.  This two-reeler is not without its charms. Combining Carollesque fantasy with surrealistic and dreamlike imagery, 20 years before it was mode. It tells the story of a group of aristocrats going to the moon, and upon encountering, and consequently battling Selenites (Moon people), they return to Earth with one of the Selenites in tow. The backdrops of the film blend in with the forefront topiary and scenery perfectly, and the costumes for the film are extravagant, and I assume colorful, because Méliès oversaw the hand painted colorization of some of the prints of the film. And I’m sure he wanted them to match the actual costumes used on set during filming. George was, no doubt, inspired by the two great 19^th century sci-fi writers H.G. Wells and Jules Verne, and even used Verne’s “From the Earth to the Moon” as direct inspiration. He used many effects and spectacle in the film: fire, and smoke, and feu d’artifice are used to great effect. He also used fades, and innovated showing the same shot, but interpreting it two different ways, as with the rocket landing. First, in the moon’s eye, and secondly on the lunar surface. The climax of the film shows a striking similarity to what eventually would happen with lunar missions once they re-entered the atmosphere. Crash landing in water, being brought to land via boat, and having fanfare and fêtes with the adoring public. This is a fun, fanciful, iconic, and classic piece of cinema that, in 2002 became the first work designated as a UNESCO World Heritage film. This film has been studied and admired ever since its release in France in 1902, and remains a dear gem in the firmament of cinematic history.

***1/2

2001: A Space Odyssey

A black screen and the chilling music begin to crescendo, and then fades, starts back up again, and so on.  Then, the Zarathustra music chimes in. This is a musical odyssey the just beckons us to jump in and experience the visual imagery and complexity between man and machine that is soon to follow. 2001 is a compelling and adored piece of cinema. Many interviews with filmmakers will point to this film as one of their favorites; one of the first movies that made them want to make film. Many of the New Hollywood directors will agree that this is a masterpiece and was a direct influence on them and the work that followed. Take George Lucas, for instance. One can only imagine how many times he watched this movie as the germs of his Star Wars were growing to ideas and scenes. What strikes me about this film is how the present is in the background. The scenes represent the past (as with the dawn of man scenes), and the future, but it doesn’t delve into what would be the present for the movie going audience. Yet, the present permeates the celluloid. The tone (i.e. the sentiments of a world embarking on new technologies, and exploring to yet unexplored places) is consistent with the feelings of the world at that time. The women in the film are also familiar and placed in the present, as opposed to the outlandish interpretations of fashion and technology that other futuristic films would latch on to.

2001 certainly coincided with many events that, I’m sure, helped propel itself into the pantheon of great cinema. The way Citizen Kane with its film techniques and historicity did for it. The United States and Soviet Union were in a Cold War battle to put the first man on the moon, and the Apollo Missions were in full swing when this film made its way to theatres in 1968. In addition, Von Däniken’s “Chariots of the Gods?” explored controversial subject matter that is also touched on in 2001, namely aliens interaction with our progenitors that served as a catalyst in our development into the intelligent, cultural, and undisputed superior species on the planet.  The same audience that saw 2001, made Von Däniken’s book a best seller.

The use of advertisement for Pan Am, Southwestern Bell and even Hilton Hotels, although noticeable, is not as in your face as modern product placement is today. Too bad no one then would have known that PanAm would have folded as a company a decade before 2001, and Southwestern Bell now looking much different as a company. But as much of a genius as Kubrick was, I think we can forgive him of his lack of prophetic vision in that regard. But other designs and props made for this film did seem to be almost prophetic. The use of robotics, drinkable meals, a talking personal assistance within an operating system, the iPad, and video phones are all shown in this film.

The film is symmetric and beautiful. There are hints of humor, and heaps of awe-inspiring cinema. There are a wide range of static shots or panning shots that align with simplistic and symmetric composition. The use of film and the times of the day in which Kubrick shot at, coupled with the exposure time during post production make this a beautiful and rich looking film. Add high definition to the mix and it is a luscious sight. The object of our focus is always brilliantly placed, most often in the center of the shot (hence the symmetry), the music is haunting and poetic. The use of the fish eye lens is refreshing, and not overly or annoyingly used. The minimalistic dialogue coupled with ominous sound effects of screaming, breathing, sharp and high-pitched noises makes this film extra nuanced. The special effects were ahead of its time and were put to good use in the film. Many of the colors schemes within the sets, reflected lighting on helmets, and toward the end, with its use of slit-scan photography, give this film a very “out of this world” feel. Kubrick’s use of large rotating rigs with stationary cameras would be used and copied years later in the blockbuster Inception. Kubrick’s innovative use of the bone and satellite match-cut is undeniably iconic. The main character Dave’s kaleidoscopic voyage we take prior to the climax of the film is both strange and inviting. Causing the viewer to want to see what’s beyond the oozing abyss, or what’s behind the colorful plateaus and peaks. As we approach the end, the film leaves us on stage in a fever dream ballet.  Then into the metaphysical nightmare as we voyeuristically view Dave getting older, only to be reborn and looking on at the orb we presently live; he, now, voyeuristically looking at us. What does this film really mean? Who really knows? What is it trying to say? I’m not sure. This does deal with some very important issues including: intelligence, exploration, extraterrestrial intelligence, artificial intelligence, reliance on technology, philosophical identity of self, and much more. What can be said about this film is that nothing like this had ever been seen before, and much of the art we have, and many of the films we now enjoy have either been directly or indirectly influenced by Kubrick and his masterpiece 2001: A Space Odyssey. Many people get bored when they watch this, but I have seen it now a half dozen times, and, though it’s bizarre and perplexing, it is also beautiful and thought-provoking. A true and rare piece of art; an inspiration. A great film. Thus spake the great Kubrick!

          ****1/2