Oscar's Cinema Journal 2005

I seem to be doing a shitty job of expressing my thoughts on this issue. I was speaking only of myself when I wrote "it's a luxury not to have to consider anybody" (it's probably an exageration because when I write journal entries, I'm hoping to hear from you and other members with whom I've had constructive exchanges), so you couldn't be more right when you state "I can't find anything that suggests I write without an audience in mind". I was thinking in the context of what I learned from reviewers I met during press screenings, what I learned from reading Rosenbaum's "Movie Wars: How Hollywood and the Media..." and my decision not to pursue a modest opportunity that presented itself thanks to the MIFF's publicist, who's become a friend.

Wednesday August 10th

Manji (Japan, 1964) on dvd
So much talk in the West about the Nouvelle Vague and the German New Wave while something just as exciting and ground-breaking went unacknowledged in Japan. Only recently have some of the key directors of this movement got their films released in the West, thanks to the dvd format. One of "my discoveries" of 2005 is Matsumoto's amazing Funeral Parade of Roses, but it's Seijun Suzuki and Yasuzo Masumura who are getting the most attention. When it comes to Suzuki, Oshima, Matsumoto, Masumura, Mishima and their contemporaries, I am speaking from a position of ignorance. I've probably seen less Japanese New Wave film than films directed by Truffaut or any single French New Wave director. I recently watched Suzuki's Fighting Elegy, maybe his best because it transcends genre more than rest of his filmography. Suzuki is a great stylist, but perhaps I prefer Masumura (who directed Manji and, among others, the consumer satire Giants and Toys) because he seems more interested in characters than Suzuki. Masumura (1924-1986) fell in love with European Cinema as a child, earned degrees in law and philosophy in Japan, studied film in Italy from Antonioni and Visconti, and returned to Japan to become an assistant to Mizoguchi and Ichikawa. He started directing in the late 50s. Masumura was highly prolific and subversive throughout his career.
Manji is a widescreen color film about a married woman's sexual obsession with a younger one enrolled in the same art class. A feverish and stylish film in which the women have control over the men in their lives. Like most of Masumura's films (from what I've read), Manji is decidedly Japanese, particularly with regards to content (based on a novel by Junichiro Tanizaki) yet the filmmaking bears an unmistakably European sensibility. I look forward to watching more films from this generation of Japanese filmmakers.

Cabin in the Sky (USA,1941) on TCM
Vincent Minelli directed an all-black cast featuring Ethel Waters and Lena Horne (her breakthrough preformance). Angels from heaven and hell do battle for Joe's soul in this musical with a plot that recalls Heaven Can Wait. One number features the great Duke Ellington and his band. Quite entertaining.

To renew our discussion, if I may.

Quote:

---

Actually, like I wrote, I'm JUST thinking out loud and all I want is what I got: some sense as to whether you write with an audience in mind. Published crits either do or are forced to think of the readership by editors, publicists, etc. It's a luxury not to have to consider anybody.

---

Initially you addressed yourself to my review of the movie, Heights, which you thought went astray because I seemed to neglect the fact that there were worse movies being shown in theaters, such as The Longest Yard. Later you said (here) you wanted to find out who I was writing for ("whether you write with an audience in mind"). What you decided about that question -- do I write with an audience in mind, in your view? -- is still not clear to me. I became confused, understandably, I think, by the above passage because you suddenly shifted from talking about me to talking about yourself -- "It's a luxury not to have to consider anybody." Again I ask, Is it? And does it even make sense? This pleasure in not writing for a print audience as reviewers for a "daily do" appears to be because you, no doubt understandably, got a negative picture of the reviewer's job from talking to people who work for dailies and from reading Rosenbaum's "Movie Wars." But the fact reamains that if you post even on a small website, you're in that sense writing for others, and if you think you're not writing for anybody that merely means you're forgetting that you do, or, perhaps, as I was saying, because you're focusing primarily on your own requirements -- quite wisely so, if those requirements are good ones. Understandably here and elsewhere there's some confusion about whom one's wriring for. I think I try to model my movie comments on good writing about film and other subjects. That's writing that meets the requirements of critical readers. I likewise have done the best work I could as an artist, regardless of how many people saw my work or how much people paid for it. There are good movie critics. When I try to write like them (but still be original, if possible), I'm seeking to please myself. That's why I don't present my movie comments as a log, but rather as much as possible in the form of finished reviews. To some extent my aims and principles are more at odds with posting on a website like this than yours are.

But I still won't recommend Heights to "mainstream" readers or any other readers.

From where I sit, this discussion is still bearing fruit. I'll proceed
by quoting the sentence from your post that calls for clarification on my part.

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
my review of the movie, Heights, which you thought went astray because I seemed to neglect the fact that there were worse movies being shown in theaters

What I wrote about your review is: "my only disagreement therein has nothing to do with Heights_I thought Le Divorce was far from a disaster".
Of course, we can both split-hairs over each other's choice of words here and there, revealing too much or too little of the plot, etc. Any two could. As far as the three last films I watched in theatres, it seems to me our opinions are not that far apart. You disliked Heights and The Beautiful Country a bit more than I did, and liked Hustle and Flow a bit more than I did. All three had enough going to make me glad I saw them; all three have flaws and limitations I've mentioned in my reviews. These are films I can only recommend with reservations, or recommend mildly.
My main issue with Heights has more to do with lack of
originality and distinctiveness. It's not a very ambitious film by any measure. But these aspects are related to a viewer's experience with the older and better titles that came to mind while watching it. I thought that, basically and within its limitations, Heights "works" well enough. And that it would probably seem a better movie to one who hasn't seen the "older and better titles" than it seemed to me. To regard the film from the perspective of that sentence amounts to an attempt to step off my skin, so to speak.
I could also adopt another's perspective by thinking about the current crop of releases from the p.o.v. of moviegoers who live in smaller markets, say Albuquerque, NM or Jacksonville, FLA (where I traveled last spring for my daughter's choral competition). Not that Miami is a cultural mecca like Frisco or NYC, but sophisticated enough to have a German silent playing at one museum this weekend, a leftist doc from Brasil in another, and several foreigns and indies at theatres. There are millions of people in North America, who may find themselves wanting to watch a movie this friday night, and couldn't do better than to choose one of these barely recommendable (my opinion) titles.
I agree that these considerations shouldn't impinge on one's reaction to a movie and our writing about them. I am just sharing my musings with you and everybody who visits this thread, as far as they continue to ellicit fruitful discussion.

Thursday August 11th

Michelangelo Antonioni: The Eye That Changed Cinema
(Italy, 2001) dvd
Hour-long doc directed by Sandro Lai comprised mostly of excerpts from interviews of Antonioni himself conducted over a thirty year span. Additional footage of Antonioni at awards presentations at Cannes and Venice and in the set of major films are priceless to a fan of Antonioni like myself. As the title of the doc implies, Antonioni was first and foremost an innovator, a ground-breaker who kept challenging himself in myriad ways. He kept abreast of the new technologies, he went to England, America and China to films from different perspectives, he switched to color in '64 and manipulated its expressive use like no one had before. Antonioni often explored the less dynamic yet no less significant aspects of human reality, and did so suggestively, always allowing the viewer room to make his/her own discoveries.

Hustle and Flow (USA, 2005) at SoBe Regal

Don't call it Frisco (that used to be the name of a restaurant, but San Franciscans so dislike the word "Frisco" that the restaurant failed; it probably wasn't that good a restaurant anyway). You can call it a cultural mecca if you want to.

Except for Hustle and Flow, the filmgoers in what you call "smaller markets" (adopting a mercantile terminology I'm not fluent in), I would suggest they go to Wedding Crashers instead. As I think I've said recently on these insatiable pages, I don't really go in for "recommending" movies. If I were to "recommend" a movie, I have to see who in particular I'm supposed to be "recommending" to. If it's a soft hearted sucker or a patient old lady I might "recommend" The Beautiful Country if she had to spend a couple hours in a theater. If she or he was a naive pseudo-sophisticate who imagines herself or himself too delicate for the strong humor of Wedding Crashers I might give a nod to Heights. But my heart wouldn't be in it. On the other hand -- the difference in our opinions that you think are "not far apart" are enormous, as far as I'm concerned -- and Le Divorce is much closer to a disaster than you are willing to allow -- I would "recommend" Hustle and Flow to a lot of people, depending on what they were looking for in the way of entertainment. But it is hard for me to stomach the idea of telling or even suggesting to people how they should spend their time. Apropos of Hustle and Flow, you sometimes seem so concerned that a movie be properly uplifting and moral that you fail to notice that it is the only one we're talking about that has a pulse.

To all those who say they have no choice at the movie house I say one word: Netflix.

As for your question as to why I might think Netflix possibly not a good idea for me, I'll answer that at another time. But in general I can see its virtues and benefits for the vast majority of geographically disadvantaged or homebound movie fans.

^From now on it'll be: the cultural mecca of San Francisco and the Bay Area :)
^Watched the first hour of Crashers with Chelsea and her friend while waiting for the Penguins doc to start; found it uninspired, inoffensive, not very funny. Chelsea says the movie got "sweeter" and less funny after I left to watch the doc. Le Divorce was witty, sophisticated, and poked fun at the state of Franco-American relations without crassness, or condescension to either side. It's good, not great.
^I understand it's not your intention but I bet I'm not the only one influenced by your opinions. I should probably thank you for saving me from Ma Mere and the Brazilian flick you hated at the SFFF.
^I posted on the Hustle and Flow thread. I found it worth-watching and "uplifting" to an extent. It'd be a better movie if the female characters were less stereotypical, and if the script was wiser than the pimp protagonist.

What's with the little pyramids?

Now don't blatantly give away prejudging a film that way as you do on Wedding Crashers. To give the illusion of having approached a movie with an open mind, you have to watch the whole thing. It's a hilarious movie. It's good entertainment. But if you don't like it -- and you certainly don't have to -- you also certainly don't have to condemn it morally to justify your dislike. Comedy offends, and absolute comedy offends absolutely. I can't wait for Pretty Persuasion, which promises to be much more offensive and more pointed. I hope your daughter likes it. I actually found some of the early wedding mélange sequence tiresome, though most people who like the movie don't. It's really better later on, as far as I'm concerned. But to leave after a solid hour shows that the man, Oscar Jubis, was suffering.

I have read and pondered your remarks about Hustle and Flow and I continue to ponder them. Since we have constant exchanges it's my responsibility to try to understand your personality.

Have you commented on 29 Palms? I just watched it on DVD and am looking for where to post comments. You started .a thread on Bruno Dumont , but it never went on to his latest film.

This is where "The last film you watched" becomes invaluable. It seems ridiculous to me that I'm the person on this site who has most often mentioned the name of Bruno Dumont.

*I want to clarify that I didn't walk-out on Crashers and that, what I watched of it, I watched with an open mind. Chelsea and her friend needed a ride to the plex to watch it, I decided to stay and watch March of the Penguins, which showed one hour later. So I sat with them until Penguins started. I watched enough of Crashers to know I'm not interested in watching the rest, but it's neither insufferable nor condemnable. Of course, I didn't list it on my journal.
*29 Palms has risen to #8 on my Netflix queue. I will post on the Dumont thread after I watch it.

Friday August 12th

L'Eclisse (Italy, 1962) on dvd
We meet Vittoria (Monica Vitti) the morning after she decides to break her relationship with live-in boyfriend Riccardo (Francisco Rabal). She goes to the Borsa (Roma's Stock Exchange), where she knows she can find her petite-bourgeoise mother. It's a chaotic day at the Borsa, with many investors losing money. Vittoria meets Piero (Alain Delon), her mother's stockbroker. The film then alternates between their points of view: Vittoria visits a friend, a white Kenyan who has recently moved to Rome; Piero deals with despondent clients, cancels a date with a call girl. L'Eclisse then focuses on Piero's conquest of Vittoria and her ambivalent response_ a chilling poem of absence and desire.
The brilliant mise-en-scene of the Borsa sequences evidence Antonioni's background as a documentarian. The outdoors scenes_filmed in a new Roman suburb_effectively dramatize the influence of environment or milieu on characters, a specialty of Antonioni. The highly suggestive, wordless, final scene, included in Scorsese's brilliant My Voyage to Italy, represents the pinnacle of Italian cinema. It begs to be seen repeatedly. L'Eclisse is a masterpiece.

One would think it was obvious that watching a film "with an open mind" would require watching the whole thing. Oh, well, I give up.

Which Antonioni film do you think is best and how do you think L'Eclisse relates to the rest of his whole œuvre?

Saturday August 13th

Cronicas (Ecuador/Mexico, 2004) at SoBe Regal
I approached the second film written and directed by Sebastian Cordero with trepidation. Cordero's debut, Ratas, Ratones, Rateros, was yet another movie that exploits the seedy side of urban Latin America for cheap genre thrills. This time the Ecuadorian filmmaker leaves Quito for Babahoyo, a small, impoverished town where the corpses of several children have been dug out bearing signs of torture and rape. The murders have been linked to others in nearby towns. The sorrow and anxiety are palpable in Babahoyo, as police conduct a frantic search for "el monstruo". Except for the opening scene (which assertively identifies a possible suspect), these events are shown from the perspective of a three-person TV crew from Miami; most specifically, from the point of view of TV personality Manolo Bonilla (John Leguizamo).Manolo, who switches between Spanish and English like the prototypical Miamian, witnesses Vinicio (Damian Alcazar) accidentally run-over a kid and saves him from a lynching mob. Subsequently, there are several conversations between Manolo and Vinicio, set in the town's jail, which revolve around Manolo advocating for Vinicio in exchange for information that may lead to "el monstruo". These exchanges crackle with an intensity reminiscent of similar scenes from Giuseppe Tornatore's A Pure Formality.
Both Alcazar and Leguizamo give very good performances. Alcazar is becoming increasingly recognizable to American viewers, who've seen him in Herod's Law and The Crime of Padre Amaro. Mr. Alcazar has won five Mexican Academy awards and has been nominated three other times. I've enjoyed his acting in Mexican films Bajo California and Arturo Ripstein's La Mujer del Puerto and a new Spanish film titled Hector. But the protagonist here is Leguizamo's Manolo and Cronicas is less about whodunit than about his decision to withhold information from the cops and the ensuingconsequences.
Cronicas breaks no new ground artistically and thematically, and a romantic subplot involving Manolo and his producer(Leonor Watling) feels like an afterthought. But there's plenty of reasons to recommend Cronicas: the masterfully staged lynching sequence, outstanding use of location shooting, the performances of Leguizamo and Alcazar, the sustained rhythm and pacing of the plot, and the realistic consideration of journalistic ethics.

Sunday August 14th

Such a Gorgeous Kid Like Me (France, 1972) import dvd
The gorgeous kid is Camille Bliss (Bernadette Lafont), who is in jail for murder and tells her life story to Stanislas, a timid sociologist working on a thesis titled "Criminal Women". Such a Gorgeous Kid Like Me is a fast-paced farce from Francoise Truffaut, the only one of his films not available on video in the USA and the only one I hadn't seen. Roger Ebert called it "the first Truffaut film I haven't liked" when it premiered in 1973, because of it being "predictable" and its heroine "shallow". Ebert has a point, this film feels like a trifle. But seen in the context of Truffaut's filmography, Such a Gorgeous Kid Like Me acquires some resonance. This is the third of his films about a woman admired by five males. In fact, Ms. Lafont was the first of Truffaut's objects of male desire_in the short Les Mistons (1958), in which she was the subject of adoration and contempt for five prepubescent boys.Such a Gorgeous Kid Like Me is her comic revenge on five males, adults only in appearance. Camille Bliss may also be the most sexually liberated of all Truffaut's heroines, and the one most in control of her destiny and the men buzzing around her.

36 Quai des Orfevres (France, 2004) import dvd
"Policier" by cop-turned-director Olivier Marchal, inspired by real life events. The retiring police chief (Andre Dussolier) challenges the heads of two police departments to break the case of a gang that specializes in armored truck robberies. The rivalry between Vrinks (Daniel Auteil) and Klein (Gerard Depardieu), which goes beyond the professional into the personal realm, becomes the focus of the film. A plot contrivance or two fail to derail this solid genre flick. 36 Quai pays homage to the tradition of French crime movies, for instance, by naming a key character after Belmondo's protagonist in Melville's Le Doulos. Besides that, 36 Quai could've been made in Hollywood or Hong Kong which, given the genre, is a compliment.

Huge thanks for the info on "Such a Kid". I've been trying to track it down for quite a while. Curious how you found it. Import from?


Truffaut is a director who has immortal status. I discovered him in 1997 with The 400 Blows, a film that Jim Morrison worshipped. (Jim Morrison is responsible for my vast cinema knowledge. If it wasn't for my religious devotion to the Lizard King I would still be watching Rambo and Batman ad nauseum)


He's just as personal as Godard.
I love the fact that Truffaut & Godard were film critics who felt that the medium needed new voices, new directions. They realized that "doing it yourself" was the only way to ensure that quality cinema still existed. They were brave, in a way, because if you've never made a film and you proclaim to be a critic with "the right perspective", then you run a very high risk of failing miserably. Godard & Truffaut had the balls to be fearless and true to their visions. And cinema history shows how perfect that was, how the efforts were definitely needed. Without Breathless we wouldn't have the types of films we have today. Sorry but anyone who doesn't realize Godard is like Thomas Edison in terms of technique doesn't know anything about movies.

Truffaut's filmography is towering. I don't know who I love more- Him, Varda or Godard. Fahrenheit 451 is so evocative to me- like a hypnotic dream.

The Wild Child, Jules and Jim and Shoot The Piano Player are undeniable classics.

I'm waiting for the annoucement of a Truffaut retro at the PC.

Nice post! The 400 Blows and Shoot the Piano Player are universally beloved. I also happen to be a fan of The Wild Child, Story of Adele H. and the morbid The Green Room. Jules et Jim IS an undeniable classic, yet I only enjoy some of its scenes. As a whole I found it a bit repetitive. Just my subjective reaction to the film.
Here's the info on the disc: Such a Gorgeous Kid Like Me

Perhaps you are a bit too young to have appreciated the magic of Jules et Jim when it first appeared. It's whole method seemed wholly original at the time, the story was original, and Jeanne Moreau (who'd been in stodgy solemn or conventional stuff before this) suddenly burst from the screen with her embodiment of a free spirited woman. "I only enjoy some of its scenes" is sad to read. But it just shows what I think, which is that movies date rapidly. Shoot the Piano Player is, to me now years later, perhaps the more remarkable, but still Jules et Jim was more thrilling when it was new.

Only those who watched Jules et Jim and Breathless when they came out can fully experience how they changed cinema, just like none of us can fully understand how Eisenstein's Strike and Potemkin did the same thing. But I'm not convinced any of them has "dated". I would argue that none of these classics has dated any more than Joyce's "Ulysses" or a Chopin composition. Then again, at a personal, subjective level, I cannot deny that, ever since my first viewing of Jules in the late 70s, I experience a loss of interest in the characters and their game of romantic musical chairs somewhere past the one hour mark. The film's first hour is extremely "magical" and yes, thrilling. This is where you'll find the cigarrette trick performed by Jules' girlfriend filmed in a 360-degree pan, the cuts and pans that link Catherine to a statue the men love, the race sequence along a bridge; the irises and wipes Truffaut uses to recall the cinema of the period in which Jules et Jim is set, and other wonderful moments. Later the camera becomes more static, and the behaviors of the trio repeat patterns that became tiresome to me.