Scene from Jane Campion’s Bright Star
Poster from documentary In Search of Beethoven
by Sam Juliano
New York sports fans are on cloud nine this weekend and in baseball the Yankees completed a sweep of the Boston Red Sox to clinch the eastern division crown, while both the football Jets and the football Giants have begun their seasons with 3-0 records, the first time such a feat has occured in many years. However as part of our staff here is a Beantown rooter and Boston-based, particularly the Patriots, we will hold our tongue.
Roman Polanski in captivity?!? Well, everyone is welcome to discuss that here or wait for Joel Bocko’s lead-in essay next week. Whew, that’s a stunner!
Wonders in the Dark regular Bob Clark of The Aspect Ratio made his writing debut here with a thesis-level 12,000 word review of Michael Cimino’s Heaven’s Gate, which frankly to these eyes is one of the greatest of all on-line reviews. We are thrilled to have Bob on board. As always, Joel Bocko of The Dancing Image and The Boston Examiner continues to raise the bar with his incomparable and lengthy comments, which take analytical discussion to the highest level. Bocko’s newest essay, posted today on film criticism titled “For the Love of Movies” seems like a perfect conversation starter. As a stand-alone it’s typically for its author a brilliant essay. Site regular Kaleem Hasan had a torrid week at the site with astounding submissions under many threads, but as always there are so many others to thank including the indominable Dee Dee, John Greco, Jamie Uhler, Daniel Getahun, Dave Hicks, Jon Lanthier, Ed Howard, Dennis, Judy, Margaret, Anu, Bobby J., Troy Olson, Kevin Olson, David Schleicher, Pat, Frank Gallo, Alexander, Peter, Joe, David Noack and many others.
Of course it goes without saying that Alan Fish’s continuing countdown remains the centerpiece of the site, and the main reason why so many come here in the first place. Anyone who can pump out review after review for every placement on a personal list deserves the highest praise, and typically his pieces get many comments including mega-action under both his The Asthenic Syndrome and The Shining essays.
I had one of the best movie weeks quality-wise of the year, with both a rare five-star film and a four-and-a-half star documentary in the mix. I saw:
Bright Star ***** (Sunday afternoon; Tenafly Multiplex)
Coco Avant Chanel *** 1/2 (Saturday night; Chelsea Cinemas)
In Search of Beethoven **** 1/2 (Friday night; Cinema Village)
On Wednesday I escorted the entire family to see the beloved classic The Wizard of Oz (1939) at a local multiplex, and while we were all thrilled to see the film on a big screen we were less than satisfied with the pedestrian HD presentation. I wrote a short post on the experience on Thursday morning.
Jane Campion’s Bright Star was a sumptuous, intelligently written and acted period piece about a brief love affair between John Keats and Fanny Brawne, before his untimely death at the extremely young age of 25 of tuberculosis. The film is passionate, sensory and poetic, the latter quality befitting the life of the English language’s second-greatest poet ever behind Shakespeare.
The team that made the very fine In Search of Mozart in 2007, have made an even better film on Beethoven, with th esimilarly titled In Search of Beethoven. Piecing together talking heads, paintings, re-enactments, letters, diaries, and most of all a generous sampling of some of Western music’s most sublime musical compositions, this is a Beethoven lover’s dream, but even for the novice an educational and engrossing doc that neither insults it’s viewers nor bogs them down in off-putting musical technicalities.
Ace film composer Alexander Desplat had a field day once again with his ravishing score for Coco Avant Chanel, a film that could have been deeper, but is still a reasonably solid piece of entertainment thanks to Desplat, Audrey Tautou and some lovely costumes and cinematography. Some of the material here seems rather simplified. Get that Desplat score CD!
Some of the excellent work around the blogosphere includes:
John Greco once again digs deep into the cinematic landscape with a superlative review of Frank Perry’s little-seen Last Summer, at Twenty-Four Frames, a 1969 film that won Cathy Burns an Oscar nod. The film is unavailable on DVD:
http://twentyfourframes.wordpress.com/2009/09/26/last-summer-1969-frank-perry/
Jenny Bee Boulden has written one of the greatest reviews ever posted on-line (I kid you not!) of That Evening Sun at “Awards Daily.” This review is priceless:
http://www.awardsdaily.com/?p=13375
Dee Dee is headlining a very fine noir review from her affiliate Australian Andrew Katsis, on Frank Tuttle’s This Gun For Hire at Darkness to Light:
http://noirishcity.blogspot.com/2009/09/writer-andrew-katsisfrom-over-there-at.html
The great Jon Lanthier, who is busy with a project at the current time, has an essential review up at The Powerstrip of Von Trier’s Anti-Christ:
http://blog.aspiringsellout.com/2009/09/2000s-antichrist.html
Before his wedding sabatical (and WitD wishes him a great week and married life!) Ed Howard posted another brilliant piece on Patrice Chereau’s Those Who Love Me Can Take the Train:
http://seul-le-cinema.blogspot.com/2009/09/those-who-love-me-can-take-train.html
Ever on top of breaking news, Kaleem Hasan has the scoop here on Roman Polanski’s Swiss arrest at Satyamshot:
http://satyamshot.wordpress.com/2009/09/27/polanskis-swiss-arrest/l
After a brief sabbatical, T.S. of Screen Savour has returned with a vengeanace, continuing his Keaton series with a stellar piece on The General:
http://www.screensavour.net/2009/09/general-1927.html
The action is torrid at Movie Zeal, where newcomer Kevyn Know has joined both good friends Phillip Johnston and Luke Harrington, in reviewing Adventureland, while Phillip has The Horse Boy up, and Luke has The Informant:
http://www.moviezeal.com/the-horse-boy/
Good friend, college student Joey Demme is still headlining Inglourius Basterds at Cinexcellence:
http://cinexcellence.com/2009/09/10/inglorious-basterds/
Marilyn Ferdinand, writer extraordinaire, has a new post up reviewing The Burning Red at Ferdy-on-Films:
Scholar and good guy “Film Dr.” has his latest installemt of “Notable Film and Media Links” up at his place:
http://filmdr.blogspot.com/2009/09/notable-media-and-film-links-special.html
Lovely Dorothy Porker has a timely piece up right now at Inside the Gold on Polanski’s arrest:
http://www.insidethegold.com/2009/09/polanski-under-arrest.html
“Pat” Perry, a Chicago-area based blogger with a great blogsite named Doodad Kind of Town reflects on her trip last week to Manhattan, a trip where we met after her theatre play. She did so much in such a short time:
http://doodadkindoftown.blogspot.com/2009/09/wher-ive-been-what-i.html
Our great friend Dave at “Goodfellas Film Blog” will soon be moving ahead with his annual countdown. His tremendous Raging Bull essay is still headlining though:
http://goodfellamovies.blogspot.com/2009/09/1980-raging-bull-martin-scorsese.html
Dan Getahun truly had a fantastic weekend in Minneapolis speaking with critic Elvis Mitchell and meeting none other than Joel and Ethan Coen in a discussion after a showing of several of their films:
http://getafilm.blogspot.com/2009/09/conversation-with-coens-look-at-their.html
Our friend and neighbor David Schleicher is still headling a great review of Silent Light:
http://getafilm.blogspot.com/2009/09/conversation-with-coens-look-at-their.html
Kevin J. Olson has an excellent review of Francis Ford Coppola’s Youth After Youth up at Hugo Stiglitz Makes Movies with some stunning screen caps on display:
http://kolson-kevinsblog.blogspot.com/2009/09/francis-coppolas-youth-without-youth.html
If you didn’t yet get around to our dear British friend Judy’s review of Jean Negulesco’s Under My Skin, I advise clicking th elink to her review at Movie Classics, which is still headlining:
http://movieclassics.wordpress.com/2009/09/19/under-my-skin-1950/
Satyajit Ray fans have reason to rejoice, as two of the iconic director’s little-known films are being considered by film by that jack-of-all-trades scholar, Qalandar at this site. This is a must:
http://qalandari.blogspot.com/2009/09/note-on-two-satyajit-ray-charmers.html
Samuel Wilson has a great review up at Mondo 70 on Honour Before Thieves:
http://mondo70.blogspot.com/2009/09/honor-among-thieves-adieu-lami-1968.html
Troy Olson is talking television, and some of the shows his wife and I have been seeing recently. here’s his wonderful round-up:
http://troyolson.blogspot.com/2009/09/what-troys-watching-television.html
Neighbor, and gifted your cineaste and theatre fan Ryan Kelly’s newest post is “Goodbye, Moon:
http://medflyquarantine.blogspot.com/2009/09/goodnight-moon.html
The great film fan and reviewer R. D. Finch has a great essay up on Ray’s On Dangerous Ground at The Movie Projector:
http://movieprojector.blogspot.com/2009/09/on-dangerous-ground-neglected.html
Tony Dayoub will be covering the New York Film Festival!!! read all about it here at Cinema Viewfinder:
http://www.cinemaviewfinder.com/2009/09/47th-new-york-film-festival-nyff-09.html
Of course our own alumni have work up at their own places too!
Tony d’Ambra’s excellent capsule on Caged is up at FilmsNoir.net:
http://filmsnoir.net/film_noir/caged-1950-the-plot-of-our-life-sweats-in-the-dark-like-a-face.html
Everything has been quiet at Ric Burke’s “Films For the Soul” but after a year of tireless work and enthusiasm on the suspended Zeroes Project, it’s time to honor this man in a big way! I will soon be running a post for Ric here. Here’s his site:
God, when will you learn, you can’t call Keats the second best English poet ever after the Bard. Firstly, what about Milton, Chaucer, Bunyan, Wordsworth, Byron, Tennyson, Shelley, Kipling, et al?
Secondly, it reminds me of that tale Peter Ustinov once told in his audience show of how a kid was asked in primary school who the greatest ever composer was and the kid replied “Mozart”, only to get a shake of the head as the teacher replied “wrong, the correct answer is Beethoven!”
Nice to see some appreciation for Last Summer. Not a great movie, but a sadly unheralded one.
Allan, both my bachelor’s and master’s degrees are in English literature. My thesis was on the Romantic poets. I would say that gives me fair enough opinion to make that statement. Why list all those others? I knowe them all well, and still placed Keats above every one. In addition the prevailing literary opinion here in the states is that Keats is second behind Shakespeare. It’s a position I happen to concur with. Thanks for kicking off the thread.
You knowe them all well. How very old-English of you. Oh, sorry, that was a typo…
OK, so let’s rank everyone, shall we? Mr, everything must be listed (before you accuse me re countdowns, I’ll admit to anyone that they are worthless and purely arbitrary, you can’t pick one artistic work against another). Best composers? Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, any room for Tchaikovsky, or is he strictly second rate? And authors – does Cervantes count for one book? Hugo, Melville, Dickens, Richardson? Where does Homer fit in, or does he count at all as he dictated it all to a scribe? Painters? Roll up roll up, who is for Caravaggio, who’s for Raphael, who’s for Picasso, who’s for Poussin? There is no first, second and third for artists.
You may have an degree and bachelor’s in English literature, doesn’t mean you’ve learned to speak it yet. You teach the maximum of 5th grade and call some comments on this site spectacular when they’re merely comments, nothing more (including some of my own). That shows your judgement is Polanski (new slang for suspect). You can’t even spell disciples and your pieces have so many typos that Dan Brown is at this minute going through them to see if the typo patterns constute a Juliano Code.
God I love it when you get pompous, your natural instinct for showing off takes over.
Anyway, re Polanski, here’s David Thomson’s piece in the Guardian.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog/2009/sep/28/roman-polanski
He’s right, it’s all Chinatown by now.
That was not a “typo.” It was a deliberate Old English spelling. Ha! I was not trying to be a show-off, I was just trying to exercise literary license, and I had a fair enough background to do so. I believe Keats to be second behind Shakespeare, with all those others you name falling next in line. My teaching career began with a four year stint teaching English/literature to 10th and 11th graders in a high school. I eventually decided to teach in myhome town, which does not have a high school, only an elementary-Jr. high that goes to the 8th grade. As I reach the latter stages of my career, I desired to have an easy job with gifted kids at the mid-range level, rather than full classrooms, which I paid my dues with long enough.
Yes, I have made my own lists of both writers and composers, which I don’t need to repeat here, simply because I consider Keats next up behind Shakespeare.
Some statements do not need defending. Would it be unreasonable in fact to that Shakespeare is the greatest poet and literary figure in world history?
That reminds me more more of “Tanner ’88″ and the questionable claim to generational authority knowing who your favorite Beatle is, when it comes to Baby Boomer politics in America. As for poets, my vote for second-best after the Bard would probably go to Eliot, but that’s just a personal preference. Quite right, in any case, true artists deserve better than to be ranked.
Oh, and in case any of you young people are wondering, the right answer is John Lennon!
The answer is Lennon indeed Bob! I consider him the greatest song writer in the history of rock, ahead of Dylan, Simon and some others.
Needless to say when I declared that Keats was the second-greatest poet, I was basically saying he was my “second favorite.” Though Shakespeare is irrefutably #1, the Keats placement is far from factual.
Sam,
Thanks again for the mention. I am looking forward to seeing both “Bright Star” and “Coco Avant Chanel.” I’m fairly sure the Campion film will open here (her films usually do) while Coco…. may have to wait for a DVD release. As for “In Search of Beethoven” that definitely will only be seen here on DVD.
My own week focused on home video. Rewatched two early Kubrick films, “Killer’s Kiss” and “The Killing” that I will be writing about on 24frames. Also, “The Brothers Rico”, a film I have wanted to see for years. Richard Conte is always a pleasure to watch though I mixed feelings about the film. I enjoyed it but there are elements in the film that are somewhat dated. Also, saw “Flaxy Martin”, a Warner Brother’s crime film from 1949, directed by Richard Bare. Bare wrote one of the first books I ever read on film directing called “The Film Director,” which I believe is still in print after all these years. The highlight of the film is Virginia Mayo who plays the tile role of a tough double crossing showgirl. (she smacks Helen Wescott around pretty good in one scene). Finally, I watched for the third or fourth time Woody Allen’s love poem to radio “Radio Days.”
John:
I think COCO will come down by you as well, but I can’t be certain. BEETHOVEN won’t make it there, as it was only given scant theatrical attention. Allan has informed me that the DVD will be out in the U.K. in a week or two. But I must say that BRIGHT STAR is contending for my #1 spot for 2009.
I’ve seen both Kubricks and FLAXY MARTIN, but not THE BROTHERS RICO. I do consider THE KILLING a great crime film, and it’s one that can be re-visited often. Sterling Hayden was excellent there. That’s interesting that Bare wrote one of the first directing books, you’ve read!
Ah, another RADIO DAYS fan. It’s a deliriously entertaining film for sure. Thanks as always for the comprehensive round-up John.
I’ll be watching for these reviews at Twenty-Four Frames!
My life has begun to calm down and now I finally have some time to return to watching movies, blogging, etc. It wasn’t until Saturday that I finally was done with the testing and whatnot, so I haven’t been able to watch any films recently.
I have, however, been watching some TV stuff. I watched the entire 5-episodes of the Sundance Channel’s BRICK CITY, which is a documentary following the lives of various people in Newark, NJ. Anybody else watch the show? I found it very interesting… it was one of those that had the effect of not necessarily blowing me away, but it kept me intrigued enough to keep coming back and watching each episode.
And then on Saturday I bought the first season of MAD MEN. I’m about midway through the season and am really enjoying it. This is probably the best looking television show that I’ve seen — it looks spectacular, with photography on par with many major motion pictures.
Dave:
This is great news that all the pressure has abated, and I am looking to Thursday for the planned resumption of your great annual coundown, which I know is now ready to consider 1981.
The city of Newark is no more than 30 minutes south from my home, and I know it well. I would love to see this, and will check out the Sundance Channel line-up! Jen Boulden, Bobby J. and Tony d’Ambra issued extravagent praise for MAD MAX in the past months, but I still have yet to set eyes on any of these episodes. What you say here is further impetus if I manage the time. But I really do need to investigate BRICK CITY!
Just saw the Baader-Meinhoff Complex last night. A review will be up at Examiner in the next few days. If you like this sort of thing then, well, you’ll like this sort of thing. I do, so I enjoyed the movie. But it’s rather incoherent in many ways – and not just because Americans will have a hard time following at the RAF action. The filmmakers can’t decide if the terrorists are hypocritical examples of radical chic, cool badass icons, pathetic wannabe middle-class guerrillas, or ideological dead-enders trapped in their paranoia and hysteria. Bruno Ganz is inserted as the film’s moral conscience, and he’s a wonderful actor so he almost pulls it off. But some of the scenes with him lecturing cops on how we must “understand the terrorist mentality” remind one of the inserted scenes in the 1932 Scarface with a generic Italian wagging his fingers and saying, “He disgrace-a his people!” Ganz seems to be in the film only so the filmmaker can stick in some liberal talking points about the Bush war on terror and it feels forced.
The film gets better as all the terrorists are behind bars and their comrades become more violent on the outside. By this point it’s an effective thriller, but it has never really settled the question of how to take the terrorists’ actions. In the hands of a great director, this moral and political confusion could become quite powerful – after all the real-life situation was knotty, while the terrorists may have been unsympathetic, the causes which motivated them often were not (and it’s worth remembering, as the film unfortunately barely bothers to remind us, that many of the officials in the democratic government they were resisting had served Hitler – some in the SS). Unfortunately, in the present BMC film, it’s just confused. Still, well worth seeing for anyone with even a passing interest in the history of the era.
Some excellent German actors on display – Ganz does what he can with his part and it’s a kick to see him so kindly in demeanor (if still violent) after playing Hitler in the Downfall (which I watched on Friday) – and a million and one You Tube spin-offs thereof. Martina Gedeck has a strong screen presence as Ulrike Meinhof, though she feels under-used. Meinhof was a very left-wing but solidly mainstream journalist in the sixties who went off the deep end and led this terrorist cell into many violent actions. Gedeck was sexy and subtle in Summer ’04 which I also saw this weekend (God, what a weekend for contemporary German cinema!). Here she’s too withdrawn – it would be nice to have more of an idea what motivated her. Moritz Bleibtreu and Johanna Wokalek were charismatic and exasperating as the Red Army Faction’s Bonnie and Clyde and some other actors from Downfall (written by BMC’s writer) pop up here and there – indeed, the film has hundreds of roles and was apparently one of the most ambitious productions in German history.
God, I’d better stop before I write my whole review over here! As I said, a more in-depth analysis will be appearing on Examiner later this week, so I hope you all check it out.
Thanks for the super-kind plug, Sam dear. I of course can’t agree with your finest-review-ever-written-online praise, but it does make me feel good to be assured I’m not utterly embarrassing myself.
I do encourage you fellas to check it out–not because I want to promote my writing, but because I want the film on more people’s radars. It’s really good and is being quite underestimated in the Oscar race, methinks, particularly in regards to Best Actor and Best Supporting Actor. Perhaps other categories, too. That Evening Sun is slated for a small U.S. release in November, but needs buzz and more people clamoring to see it to get a wider release.
Jennie:
You are a lovely person, but also very modest. This review is seriously tremendous, as many here will find out when they head over to AD. But I agree this film looks like its headed for some Oscar nods, and it needs a proper lead-in!
Also, I’m running late, so forgive me for cutting and pasting my weekend movie report from my Watercooler comment at Living in Cinema:
Thanks to being laid up with the flu this weekend—so passé, I know—I managed to see six films that were new to me, five of which were good enough to compensate for how bad the sixth one was, if it even counts as a film (it doesn’t).
First, watched My Winnipeg. I’d never seen a Guy Madden film. Now I have. It takes a while to get into his weird rhythms and what he’s doing, but ultimately the poetry of the language drew me in. That and the sporadic bits of humor and sometimes profound insight. It’s not a film that 95% of people would appreciate, and yet I can see why it has a 95% rating at RottenTomatoes. It certainly was interesting, and did what the best art does, made me think about life askew for a while, from a new direction. It isn’t the direction I would have chosen for my own work, but that’s a good thing. It’s a richer life when we experience such diversity of artistic vision. If everyone interpreted life the same way, there’d be no reason for to create art.
The next morning started off with Mildred Pierce. Had never seen it or read the book. It was great. My husband hadn’t wanted to watch it with me because he thought it was a melodramatic feminine weepie, and thus made other plans. He regretted it when he saw it was a Curtiz film and got a gander at the production values. Anyway, Crawford was great in it. I can’t begrudge her the win. And I certainly understand why Kate Winslet would want the part. There were a few parts in it that really didn’t hold up well—SPOILER—the death of a child gets glossed over like a fender bender??—END SPOILER. Overall, though? Great stuff.
Next was Joan Crawford in the mode I was more used to her in, as the scrupleless other woman in The Women. This one was a teeny bit disappointing to me. Much to admire about it. I suspect it was partly my mood and reasons unrelated to the film’s actual merits. It was pretty enteraining. A little shrill with all the women and by the end of it I would have given up seeing chick flicks for a year if I could have seen just one glimpse of a man. It was interesting seeing Rosalind Russell in her first comedic role and Norma Shearer’s line about growing nails—Jungle Red—got a big laugh from me.
Saturday night we watched The Limey. I’ve never seen a Soderbergh I didn’t like, and this one pleased me as much as I expected. Lots of great lines.
Looking on the DVR for something genre, I ended up appeasing the husband by agreeing to give the SciFi Channel Original Movie (first red flag) Riverworld a try. He’d enjoyed the books, was curious about the adaptation. We had low expectations, and the film succeeded in failing to achieve them in almost any respect. Kinda fun to watch something so sucky.
Sunday morning we tried to watch Pather Panchali, but our DVD wouldn’t play, so we ended up watching When a Woman Ascends the Stairs. Terrific Japanese film, stunning. As far as great stories about women trapped in prostitution-related professions go, it’s probably my favorite. Engaging, emotionally true, and socially astute. Really awesome. I think it was my favorite of the bunch.
Jenny:
Naruse’s WHEN A WOMAN ASCENDS THE STAIRS is also my own favorite of the half-dozen you saw here. Yes it does have much to say about social class in Japan, and it’s one of the director’s more emotional films, certainly among his best. LATE CHRYSANTHEMUMS, FLOATING CLOUDS and REPAST are also in the masterpiece category.
I kinds agree with you that THE WOMEN somewhat diasppoints, but MILDRED PIERCE is a classic. Both Crawford and Blythe (who challenges Patty McCormack as the most evil of offspring, excluding over-the-top horror symbols) are perfection, but its an unfailingly engrossing drama directed by Michael Curtiz.
PATHER PANCHALI is one of the truly great Asian films by one of its two or three greatest figures, S. Ray. I’m sure you’ll get another crack at it. Two Soderbergh films impress me more than any others: KING OF THE HILL and THE LIMEY. So I can appreciate exactly where you are coming from here. Terrence Stamp was fabulous. LOL on RIVERWORLD!!!! There’s always one stinker in the batch!
Go Bombers! With the best overall record in the majors, they are the odds-on favorites. But we all know too well of past first-round exits. They’ll have to stay hot to get by that. At least they will get the Tigers first, allowing Boston and California to kill each other. I really can’t believe we have 3-0 records for both football teams. This may be an all-New York year. I spent Sunday watching the NFL.
My better half insisted on “Fame” but predictably this was a travesty. Everything was sugar-coated, no darkness, little character development, all playing safe. They should have just left well enough alone.
I watched a few episodes of the Lawrence Olivier-narrated “The World at War’. Now here is something that deserves to be called ‘great’.
Joe: This site is no longer an exclusive Yankees stronghold. Joel Bocko is all Boston, and we have a Mariner fan in Troy! Let’s contain our enthusiasm! LOL!!!
THE WORLD AT WAR is positively GREAT STUFF!!!!!
Joe, don’t count Brady out yet – though I was only able to catch the second quarter yesterday, they looked better than last week (still having trouble in the red zone, unfortunately) and they did win by a hefty margin on Sunday.
I’m strangely intrigued by Fame, but only because it’s directed by a 25-year-old; one of the first instances of a contemporary of mine behind a feature film, let alone a major release. (Actually, another peer directed a film which caused some controvesy at the New York Film Festival last year – Afterschool, by Antonio Campos, whom I actually knew, albeit very, very casually in the past. He was extraordinarily talented back then and I had heard some good things about this movie, but I don’t think it ever found distribution…) As for Fame, I read a review which took an absolutely abyssmal view of the movie – not that I expected anything good, but it sounded historically awful.
I would never make the mistake MovieMan0283 of counting out the Pats. We have learned our lesson the hard away over the past years. They’ve come back in games and in the standings more times than I wish to remember, and Brady is a major force.
The problem with “Fame” wasn’t the concept (after all I did like the original a lot) but the phoney way it came off. I’m sure your friend Mr. Campos did far better with “After School” which I haven’t seen.
Joe, the director’s background was directing concerts and concert videos for Britney Spears and the Pussycat Dolls which is possibly not the best preparation for turning out a coherent narrative film.
You know I’m really a Mets fan Sam, so stop pushing that skanks in my face!
Sue saw “Bright Star” with her girlfriend and she can’t stop talking about it. I wish I was able to attend, but was tied-up. I think the John Keats argument is intriguing. I have read where some have likened him to the best behind Shakespeare, but the ones Mr. Fish mentions can’t be ignored either. I like Wordsworth best of all. Keats wasn’t the only one who died young. Shelley died at age 30 in a boating accident as I recall.
Ihave started watching some Keaton films, and thought “Sherlock Jr.” one of the greats. Did you say that someone was reviewing his stuff, I forget who it was.
My sympathies Peter with the Metropolitans. I’ll bite my tongue. Fair enough with Wordsworth, he’s one of my favorites too. Yes, Shelley only outlived Keats by a few years, sadly.
SHERLOCK JR. is a masterpiece for sure. Only THE GENERAL ranks with it among Keaton’s works. T. S. of “Screen Savour” is reviewing Keaston’s films at present. He’s done some terrific work there! I advise checking it out.
Sadly I couldn’t get to the theatre at all this week, but I salute you on the outstanding ones you saw yourself. I doubt we’ll get Beethoven over here, but I know ‘Bright Star’ is in a number of theatres. ‘Coco’ is only in the city. Is this now your new Number 1 film of the year?
I’m hearing that Michael Jackson film about his final preparations is already selling out in theatres!
Frank:
To be honest I would have to say that it’s either BRIGHT STAR or the early-season French drama SUMMER HOURS for #1.
Lucille mentioned that Michael Jackson situation to me just yesterday! Unbelievable.
Thanks for the plug on my half-written “AntiChrist” piece, Sam. Even more impressive, thanks to Bob for bringing up “Tanner ’88″ — which, were I submitting a list in this decade, would probably arrive very near to the top, if for no other reason than the fact that the series irritates my wife. It’s probably all that dated political humor.
Also, as far as the romantics go I was always a fan of Thomas Gray, who wrote quite a bit more than his celebrated elegy (and while he was technically on the early cusp of the era I still consider his writing to be “romantic”-minded, even if it departs from, and in my opinion bests, a good many of the period’s exemplars). I also had a rather sick and indefensible obsession with William Blake for a while, which I thankfully grew out of. He’s still inimitable, though.
And, to Mr. Joel — you might be interested in my Slant review of “Baader Meinhof,” which agrees with your comment in many ways.
http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/film_review.asp?ID=4454
Woah — there look to be some shenanigans going on here Sam. You wrote:
Troy Olson is talking television, and some of the shows his wife and I have been seeing recently.
Seems I better talk to my wife about heading to the East coast to watch TV with you
It’s good to see that some more interesting movies are coming out, as is typical when we get nearer to the end of the year. Bright Star, even if it sounds like obvious OscarBait, still looks to be a beautiful film.
For me, personal viewing was a little less than it has been in recent weeks. I found time to watch The Ascent, which I had never heard of until Allan and Sam mentioned it in the 70′s poll, which much to my surprise had a showing on TCM. I left it on the DVR in hopes of rewatching and having a chance to write something on it, as it was a great film — stunning B&W photography that perfectly captured the desolation, isolation, and somber tenor of the situation. The last 20 minutes is incredibly moving.
Also had a chance to watch Trouble in Paradise for the first time, which I found very good, but not as great as its reputation allows. I was expecting more of a zany, screwball comedy or for it to have more of the fast-paced banter which was a hallmark of early comedies. From a technical standpoint, I liked a lot of what Lubitsch does in the movie and there was plenty of the refined innuendo that I love from early Hollywood, but I just didn’t find it as funny as I was hoping it to be. I’m going to try to watch a couple more Lubitsch comedies to see if it’s more of a style issue that I’m missing and then revisit this before closing the book.
I won’t comment on the Yankees, except to state that I have no choice but to always root against them, being a Mariner fan and having had them ruin two of the very few good years the team had. It still hurts.
If you expected a screwball comedy, Troy, then you needed to read up more about the film. It’s a sophisticated comedy and is the par excellence of its type. Lubitsch NEVER did screwball.
Fair enough. Looking at it from the standpoint of a smart comedy instead of a madcap one does change the perspective a bit.
I see that R.D. Finch has a post on Lubitsch today…
I somewhat agree with Allan on Lubitsch… the first of his films that I ever watched was Trouble in Paradise, and I went into it as someone who absolutely loathed screwball comedies (which I have since come around on quite a bit). “Witty” is just the perfect term to describe it, I think. Anyway, at times I’m inclined to call it the best comedy ever made.
For other Lubitsch, I also LOVE To Be or Not to Be.
I watched an early Lubitsch, The Love Parade (1929) a few weeks ago and found it a bit of a struggle to get through, though there are some good songs… but I love ‘The Shop Around the Corner’ (1940).
LOL Troy!!!!!!!!! Allan isn’t entirely wrong when he says my typos and errant words will be the death of me yet! God, that one was too much!!!! Geez. Sorry about that.
Troy: TROUBLE IN PARADISE is one film that grows on you with repeated viewings. I agree with Judy on SHOP AROUND THE CORNER, which may be my favorite Lubitsch, but I also recognize that TROUBLE is widely considered to be his masterpiece, and Dave Hicks placed it #1 of his year on his running annual countdown. Troy, I predict that subsequent viewings will enamour you of his sophisticated humor.
I am absolutely THRILLED to hear you watched THE ASCENT!!!!! Originally, Allan turned me on to this by sending on a videotape a few years ago, and when the Eclipse DVD was announced it was reason for celebration. Everything you say there is right-on!
“…..as it was a great film — stunning B&W photography that perfectly captured the desolation, isolation, and somber tenor of the situation. The last 20 minutes is incredibly moving.”
It certainly is a film where weather and setting are as pivotal as they are (in a visual sense) as any other film!
By rights you should hate the Yankees!!! I remember those play-off wins over Seattle well. But the Bronz Bombers got their come-uppance with first-round exits in recent years, so you can at least smile at that. LOL!!!
Thanks Troy for this great report!
I believe where I went wrong with Trouble In Paradise is that I initially judged it by how many laughs it provided and completely ignored it’s wittiness. That’s bullheaded on my part
I’m going to rewatch it tonight. The timing and movement within the film, along with Lubitsch’s camera work (not something you come in expecting in a 1932 comedy) were what stood out for me.
Troy, I was “bull-headed” as well on my first viewing of the film. Lubitsch is not easily digestible on first view, so I know exactly where you are coming from.
Thanks again for the plug, Sam – I must do better and actually have a new posting up one of these Mondays! Just got back from a trip to London where I saw Joe Wright’s new film, ‘The Soloist’ – from the trailer it looked as if it would be hopelessly sentimental, but, in fact, I thought it was a good film if flawed in parts – a devastating portrayal of homelessness and mental illness, weakened only by the suggestion in places that it is somehow worse for a talented musician to be sleeping rough than for an “ordinary” person. I thought both Downey and Foxx gave fine performances.
Apart from that I’ve just seen William Wyler’s ‘The Best Years of Our Lives’ (1947) which I think is brilliant, one of the best films I’ve seen about the aftermath of war – a great thing about it is how it’s never possible to predict what will happen, and people often seem to behave erratically, as they might in real life. John Greco talked about seeing Virginia Mayo in one of her “bad girl” roles in another movie, and I think she is great in that type of role here too. Disabled actor Harold Russell is also great as wounded veteran Homer, trying to get used to people’s unwanted sympathy. But maybe the scene which will stick in my mind the most is a shot of a tired, middle-aged Fredric March with an old photo of himself, mocking his own younger face.
Hey Judy!
Hope you had an enjoyable trip to London! Perhaps you may decide to review or talk about THE SOLOIST. I think your take is fair enough. Downey, I thought was exceptional, Foxx seemed to try too hard. The reviews were split here almost right down the middle, but I’d agree the good outweighs the bad, even if it was no ATONEMENT.
Russell was indeed memorable in BEST YEARS, but Claude Rains (NOTORIOUS) should have won the Oscar that year, instead of Russell. But many critics agree with you on the film’s greatness, so I’ll hold my tongue. LOL!!!! Seriously, I know the film has affected many people deeply, and in a subtle way.
Thanks as always Judy, for sharing.
Jon, that’s an excellent and thorough analysis, and I agree with almost of all it. I do think the link between adolescent rebellion/tension (especially sexual) and left-wing radicalism has been explored, albeit perhaps not as much on screen as in print, because dealing with the sixties you can’t help but notice the connection. That connection, plus the comfortable background of most radicals, is what makes the militancy of the era so fascinating, so distinct from past militancy, and such a horrible model for future groups. This youth culture – leftist ideology link up embues its practioners with a playful narcissism, and a sense that they’re play-acting at revolution while simultaneously standing in awe of just how close they can come to bringing their fantasies to life.
All of this can be both intoxicating and exasperating (even the most ardent Zionist in the audience will feel sorry for the Jordanian guerrilla forced to babysit these spoiled brats; they show up drunk at his training camp and start whining because they can’t fuck while training for war). This paradigm is reflected perfectly across the western world as the sixties turn into the seventies, most famously in these parts with the Weather Underground – though the RAF went further and are more interesting.
I didn’t like how the film had the radicals opposing the usual suspects (Vietnam, bourgeois conformity, police brutality) but hardly mentioned the dark history of the Reich and how it lingered in sixties West Germany – it made their leftism seem rather generic, whereas the Nazi angle gives it more bite: almost the sense that they are revolting, 30 years too late, against their own heritage, as if (Inglourious Basterd-style) they could rewrite history and kill Hitler by copping the right attitude. And where was East Germany in all of this? Turns out (in a revelation too late to be included in the film) that the guy who shoots the protestor in the first scene was actually a Stasi agent. I suspect a stronger filmmaker would have contextualized the Nazi and Iron Curtain aspects far more, as the very real-world political context against which these are-they-serious-or-not? radicals were lashing out…then again, perhaps only a non-German filmmaker would want to do this.
By the way, “the gorgeously plaintive Martina Gedeck” = nail on the head.
Man, I saw the film and felt mostly the same way, but I think I enjoyed the movie a whole lot more. Compared to the usual generic 60′s nostalgia-crap we get here in the states, this movie was pretty pumped up and hard-edged, even if it couldn’t exactly make up its mind on which side of the fence it was on. It seems to aim for the same kind of solidarity that “Battle of Algiers” had, but without the same easy-villain of European Colonialism (and so many living victims and survivors) it’s difficult to make the same near-zealous arguments. I did dig how the movie didn’t shy away from the uglier, more immature aspects of the group. Mao once said that the revolution is not a dinner party, yet the RAF kids only seem to have paid attention to the part about “dinner”.
I’d argue that it would’ve been difficult to make a movie that captured the right balance the subject matter requires thanks to the imbalance of the times, but I had a blast with it. Johanna Wokalek can wash my brain in that bathtub of hers any day.
No, don’t get me wrong, I enjoyed it a great deal even as my back-seat driver intellect was criticizing. Like I said, if you like this sort of thing, you’ll like this sort of thing, and God knows I do. Heck, I’ll probably watch it again on DVD.
“Mao once said that the revolution is not a dinner party, yet the RAF kids only seem to have paid attention to the part about “dinner”.”
Zing! And another good reason why the filmmakers couldn’t turn it into The Battle of Algiers (the Algerian terrorists may be mass-murderers, but even if we don’t like them we respect them; their hard-minded revolutionaries not spoiled brat wannabe outlaws). Also, Pontecorvo utilized a shocking, bold, original style which Uli Edel, while capable and sometimes stylish, does not have.
And even if Uwe Boll rather than Uli Edel had directed, Wokalek and Gedeck would have made the whole shabang worth the price of admission.
Now, now, don’t let’s go bringing in Dr. Boll just because their names sound the same. We can all agree that Edel is better than THAT, yes?
Anyway, I think that the film he pulled off was absolutely as good as you could do with this subject matter in two and a half hour’s time. The problem is he should’ve made something longer out of it to do real justice to the material. Read my comment below.
But yes, Wokalek and Gedeck are like a modern-day German film fan’s dream come true in this movie. And for those who don’t like the ladies, there’s Moritz Bleibtreu! Perfect for fans of “Run Lola Run” and “Speed Racer”. Who know the Gray Ghost could be such a bloodthirsty, arrogant sociopath?
“I think that the film he pulled off was absolutely as good as you could do with this subject matter in two and a half hour’s time.”
Well, I definitely disagree with that. A masterpiece could be made from the material, but it would require far more focus and a stronger directorial vision. The filmmakers did not have to document the whole span of the RAF’s career, including every little incident. They could have provided far more background. They didn’t have to be so ideologically confused. All of these pitfalls are avoidable, though they usually aren’t avoided in mainstream biopics or historical recreations. Mind you, I still enjoy these movies but they are not inevitably handicapped by their subjects – decisions are made which effect the general outcome.
At any rate, apparently Fassbinder made a film in the late 70s called The Third Generation, a fictionalized account of the RAF. I haven’t seen it, but it’s in my queue. If anyone here has, what did you think?
By the way, lest the above seem contradictory, by “The filmmakers did not have to document the whole span of the RAF’s career, including every little incident” I mean that they could have picked up the group’s activities at a certain point or focused on one period of their development – or else chosen a few key moments (the genesis, the emergence, the imprisonment). By “They could have provided far more background” I mean psychological and historical background – the details about Nazism, primarily, but also why exactly Meinhof jumped out the window. The decision was too interior; we never got a sense of why this essentially passive intellectual would actually embrace action as wholeheartedly as she did instead of just flirting with it.
I am really am not sure what to say here. But I am always afraid to say anything in response to Joel, as he’s really an impossible act to follow. Of course I say this in a positive sense–the man is unfailingly brilliant. Your final paragraph poses some interesting facts of omission. But I felt the film tried to cram in too many events, too many characters (without much depth) over too great a period of time. The writer Bernd Eichinger does better when his subject matter is acutely focused on a shorter time frame as was the case in DOWNFALL, and the director Uri Edel is more compelling when the social concern isn’t convoluted by too many sub-plots as was the case in the striking LAST EXIT TO BROOKLYN. I watched this film months ago on a Region 2 DVD. Oddly enough I believe Allan feels the same was as I do on this, although maybe for njot exactly the same reasons.
Yes, that’s right, the film covers far too broad a time-period to really do it justice in the familiar beginning-middle-ending three-act formula. It’s a brave attempt, a very ambitious work, and I hope that we get to see more movies cover this time period in the future. Edel could’ve made a fantastic mini-series with this team of writers and actors, but perhaps they felt they had a better chance of doing justice to the material and not having to censor themselves in cinemas, instead of on television?
Who knows. Part of the reason I say this is because Edel has spent the last god-knows-how-many years doing stuff for TNT like the pretty-darn-big and pretty-darn-decent “Mists of Avalon” (Don’t believe me? You try doing Ursula K. Le Guin better), and it feels as though he’s still somewhat in mini-series mode, rather than the feature-film mindset. Maybe all the movie needs is a 3 hour director’s cut, should such a thing exist. Probably not, but one can dream.
Bob, above I point out that with focus, a great feature could be made about the RAF. But I think you’re right as well that a miniseries could have been crafted from the film’s material: and indeed, this movie seems to be more in miniseries mode. I still think it would need more of a vision to achieve greatness.
Heck, among other things, I don’t think there’s any point in the movie where we actually see the characters dub their group “the Red Army Faction.” Granted, this is preferable to a brainstorming session in which the characters sit around and throw out names, like the Oneders in That Thing You Do. But biopic cliches aside, it does seem kind of silly when halfway through the movie, cops start referring to the “RAF” and we have to remind ourselves who they’re speaking about. Granted, this is presumably not a problem for German audiences, but it’s still kind of indicative of the at once too-thorough-yet-too-sloppy approach the movie takes.
And why did we not (or barely) see the secretary from Downfall until her death scene, which is played as a big deal?
Bob, I think that 3-hour cut you speak of is not merely theoretical; there must be a lot of extra footage floating around out there. It could hardly have a negative impact on the film’s narrative structure, which is almost non-existent (there is an arc, of course, which extra footage would only strengthen) so unless the scenes are terrible, a longer cut would probably be superior.
Thanks for the link! I’m looking forward to the Coco Chanel movie. Too busy to think much, I still wonder if anyone has seen Coward-influenced Easy Virtue on DVD? It seems weirdly neglected in the film blogosphere.
Hey Film Dr.!
I haven’t seen that DVD, but I have a sneaking suspicion that maybe Joel (Movie Man) has. It does have quite a cast. I missed this in the theatre, so I’m assuming it released straight to DVD.
No, until the last couple months I had not seen ANY movies in theaters…and I haven’t been catching up with them on DVD either (too many old movies to watch). But now that the Examiner thing is getting me into some theaters (at least art ones) for free, I’m broadening my contemporary horizons a bit.
Hi! Sam Juliano, Allan, and WitD readers,
Sam Juliano, I hope that you are on the road to…recovery and as usual thank for plugging writer Andrew Katsis’ review on my blog.
Here goes a recap of my Weekly roundup… as usual…
Films That I Watched (for the first time) or Rewatched…This Week: …
1.Two Short Films by François Truffaut (Les Mistons / Antoine et Colette) (1963) (The former Thanks, to writer R.L.Bourges, and the latter for the first time.)
2.Shoot the Piano Player
3.The Ghost and Mrs.Muir and
4.King Lear starring Lawrence Olivier…
Films That I Purchased or Plan to Purchase later This Week:
Five hard to find classic films that a film noir aficionado…pointed out to me…and they are:
I Love a Mystery, (I just received this title today.)
The Unknown,
The Devil’s Masque (Mask)
Hunted, and Suspense.
Literature: That I Added To The Bookshelf:
) all kidding aside, author D.H. Schleicher’s “The Thief Maker is a very interesting book.
Oh! Yes, I have added two additional books to my (book) shelf (on my blog) and they are:
The Noir Thriller (Crime Files) by Lee Horsley (Available in Paperback tomorrow.)
The Man Who Loved Books Too Much: The True Story of a Thief, a Detective, and a World of Literary Obsession by Allison Hoover Bartlett.
I ‘am still reading author D.H. Schleicher’s book entitled “The Thief Maker” and all I can say about DHS’ book is that it’s still very…“intriguing.” (D.H., My check is in the mail right…Hmmm
…and I added author(s) Dan Brown’s “The Lost Symbol,” Jane Mayer’s very interesting book “The Dark Side,”
and author James Ellroy’s new book… “Blood’s a Rover’ to my bookshelf too!
Theatre, No comment…
Music…No Comment
Food … Hmmm…a very light touch…translation: I ‘am a semi-vegetarian…because I do eat fish…on Friday(s) Oh! Yes, I did eat fish on Friday.
Sports… No Comment…
Politics…No Comment…
I guess that about wrap up my week in review…for this week.
DeeDee
———————————————————————————————–
Yet another epic MMD submission by Dee Dee that again showcases what one can really do over a week!
I do think the Olivier LEAR is a masterpiece, and one of the greatest on record. I believe Allan feels the same way too. Truffaut’s SHOOT THE PIANO PLAYER has enjoyed a critical upsurge in recent years (Sarris now calls its a masterwork) but I always thought it was a riveting thriller with equal does of humor and tragedy, and an extension of the French New Wave. I am sorry to say I have not watched the shorts yet, but will add them to my netflix queue. THE GHOST AND MRS. MUIR of course is delightful.
Thanks for mentioning those other titles too, and good luck in the acquisition of them. I know of the middle two.
The books that are heading to your bookshelf all sound excellent, with the film noir title an essential addition to your favored genre library.
You have been astoundingly faithful to David’s book. But I bet it’s great stuff!
Thanks for this fabulous weekly run-down, Dee Dee!
By the way, Sam Juliano,
I’am also looking forward to watching “Coco Avant Chanel,” “Jane Campion’s Bright Star” and “In Search of Beethoven” too!…
…Merci, de parteger!
…(Thanks, for sharing!)
DeeDee
Ah Dee Dee, I am absolutely, 100% certain you will love both BRIGHT STAR and COCO, and BEETHOVEN in all probability, though it’s a long documentary that won’t please everybody.
I just enjoyed the Fairie Tale Theatre Video Joel!
Here was my brief response at The Dancing Image:
Yes, at that impressionable age, some would be terrifying. My favorite of this batch is definitely HANSEL AND GRETEL, which remains the crowning jewel from the Brothers Grimn. But so many others here do bring back fond memories. You remind me of a child prodigy, relating your interaction with your parents and aunts and joyously involving them in the viewing experiences.
Anyone have any thoughts on Revolutionary Road? I haven’t seen it, but in my recent Mad Men fixation, for whatever reason, it compelled me to get the Mendes film with a gift card I had.
Dave–
Allan likes this film more than I do, but I am not sure where Joel, Bob and others here stand on it. I don’t think Kaleem cared for it.
In any case, Kate Winslet was excellent, there was an absolutely stunning scene with Michael Shannon, and we have some excellent use of light in the cinematography that informs the bleakness in the theme, but there’s something too pat and formulated in this view of suburbian angst.
Let’s see what you come up with Dave.
I’ll likely be getting to it later in the week… I’ll just use this thread to post thoughts on it — even though by that time, it’ll be nearing time for next week’s Monday Morning Diary!
This is a weird film, review-wise, because there is such a wide spectrum of feelings toward it, ranging from masterpiece to complete garbage.
Still… looking forward to it based just on the two leads, Mendes in the director chair, and of course Roger Deakins is always brilliant with the cinematography.
Aye Dave. Deakins’s work here is extraordinary, and even the naysayers have acknowledged this. Th ereviews were mostly favorable but like you say there were some that really came down on it. Many peopel were surprised when Winslet won her nomination for THE READER, rather than this, although as we know Kate did go on to win the Oscar. (like that means anything! Ha!)
Dave — from one Dave to another, I highly recommend the Mendes film, and it, too, had so many shades of MAD MEN for me. If you’ve read Yates before, there will be even more to “enjoy.”
http://davethenovelist.wordpress.com/2009/01/03/a-review-of-sam-mendes-adaptation-of-richard-yates-revolutionary-road/
David – Thanks for the link… I’ll be posting thoughts at your blog as well once I watch the film, so be on the look out. I have not read Yates, but I’m definitely intrigued.
I’m also glad to hear, based on your comments in this thread, that I have more great things to look forward to with Mad Men… I finished the first season tonight.
Interesting — I thought that Revolutionary Road had the period look of Mad Men (as was mentioned, thanks to Deakins), but without any of the subtlety or nuance that the television show brings to the table.
The movie seems to have forgot the rule of “show, don’t tell,” and thus comes across heavy handed, as we get two hours of Leo and Kate (who are both very good, btw) yelling at each other over how dissatisfied they are with their lives, whereas on Mad Men those feelings always seem to be lying just below the surface and come out in more clever, non-expository ways. Thus, I’ve personally found Mad Men to be the much more satisfying and interesting reflection on that era.
Troy: I am unfamiliar with MAD MAX to this point, but I couldn’t agree more as per your summary observations of REVOLUTIONARY ROAD, which I appreciate you sharing here. I suspected you might be feeling precisely this way.
Sam — so “Bright Star” is a five-star stud, huh? Do you admit a Keats-ian bias? I’m weary of this one a bit, usually not my type of film….but Campion is such an odd bird and once in a blue moon she pulls out something impossible to ignore. Based on your reaction, I take it this could be that blue moon for her. I’d love to see a full write up.
As for me, it was a mixed bag in film, though luckily MAD MEN has been gangbusters the last two weeks after a dull period —
In film:
Quai des Orfevres — ****1/2 — Clouzout is 4/4 with me…loved the atmosphere and humor in this one…and that line the cop gives Dora in the end…man! KILLER! Now if I could just get my hands on “L’assassin habite…au 21″.
Lymelife — *** — Very derivate of “The Ice Storm” and “American Beauty” but still interesting thanks to the engaging performances.
The Horsemen — * — Despicable and needlessly disgusting serial killer thriller staring Dennis Quaid and Ziyi Zhang (WTF?)
Ran — *** — Too drawn out and melodramatic for my tastes (so shoot me, okay), but an easy film to respect and admire. I just can’t say I enjoyed it all that much. Appallingly, this is the only Kurosawa film other than “Dreams” that I have seen now in entirety. Next up is “Throne of Blood” though it’s way down in my queue right now.
Thanks very much for this comprehensive report David!
Well, it’s true that I am partial to Keats, as I did my master’s thesis on him, but I’ve still revered him above all literary figures with the exception of Shakespeare for years before that. But to be honest Campion’s new film doesn’t need that adoration, it’s a work of sweeping romanticism that fully conveys the passions that preceed tragedy. Campion knows how to use expressionistic devices, and doesn’t need to rely on a cogent narrative to achieve success. I guess I do like her more than you do, but I know she’s definitely not everyone’s cup of tea. For the record I adored THE PIANO and ANGEL too.
Of the films you saw, I loved QUAI DES ORFEVRES and RAN the most, and agree with your rating on the Cluzot, but would rate RAN higher. THRONE OF BLOOD and particularly IKIRU, David, are Kurosawa essentials, methinks. I am certain you will be ravished by IKIRU. i do respect your position on RAN as some others have stated they were less than enthralled, but even if not I ALWAYS respect your take. THE HORSEMEN deserves exactly what you gave it here (LOL!!!) and I haven’t yet seen LYMELIFE.
Bonjour! Sam Juliano,
It is good to know that you are not along in your praising of the film
“Coco Avant Chanel.”
When you get time check out fellow blogger and Parisian Carol Gillott’s blog and her quite…imaginative review of the film “Coco Avant Chanel.”
Merci, DeeDee
Todd Gitlin has a very interesting response to the film, along with musings on the Baader-Meinhof folks themselves. I’ve read his book on the Sixties numerous times (most recently, several weeks ago) and find his position interesting. A former 60s radical, he is mostly unapologetic about his politics while also a very harsh critic of leftists who turned to violence – some of his attacks on the Weather Underground are brutally memorable (”the best that can be said for them is that, in ten years underground, they killed nobody but themselves”). His notes on the fact that the RAF was almost incidentally leftist are a welcome reminder, as well.
I agree with most of his statements about Ganz – that he’s underused, that at times his talks become self-parodies of liberal hand-wringing, and that there’s an obvious contradiction when he moves from listing all the objective causes for the terrorists’ actions to simply responding “myth” when asked why they continue to lash out in increasingly destructive actions. However, unlike Gitlin, I think the character is aware of this contradiction (though it tends to render the filmmakers’ focus on his early, presently resonant warnings somewhat irrelevant).
Oops, here’s the article:
http://www.tabletmag.com/arts-and-culture/14812/mindless-violence/