Printable View
I stand by my remarks on the Piano Teacher, haven't seen Motorcycle Diaries, but will soon enough.
I watched Safe (1995), which may or may not be Todd Haynes first feature film. Either way, Julianne Moore was in it, and she may have given the best performance of her career (lead performance anyway). The film itself was decent, nothing great, but worth it for any Moore fan.
No reason why you shouldn't stand by your remarks on La Pianiste; that's your honest reaction. I think there was some discussion of it earlier here. and Howard and I debated the merits of Safe earlier here. He dislikes the film, I think it Haynes's best. It seems odd you find the 'best perfornmance' of a highly regarded actress in an only 'decent' movie. How does that work?
I went to see Eytan Fox's Walk on Water at the Landmark Shattuck Cinemas. I was touched by his sweet little movie about gays in the Israeli army, Yossi and Jagger. This one, about the gay grandson of a Nazi war criminal who tries to lure his sister back from a Kubbutz for their industrialist father's birthday party and who becomes involved with a borderline-homophobic Mossad hit man along the way, tries to do too much and to resolve everything too easily, but it deserves credit for at least attempting to bring together disparate but related topics. Not recommended unless you have a special interest in gay and/or Israeli and/or Holocaust themes.
Sundays in the Sun (Los Lunes al Sol) and Japón were both recommended by regulars on FilmWurld, I think Oscar primarily, and I got them indirectly through Netflix and watched them at home, with mixed results.
Fernando León de Aranoa's 2002 Sundays in the Sun, which deals with the issue of unemployment in the shipping industry in Spain, is a well acted, if fairly conventional movie, with Javier Bardem strong as the lead in an ensemble production focusing on a group of friends who gather at a pub started by one of their number with his severence pay. The movie is of conisiderable social and political significance and hence is well coverred on the World Socialist Web Site and was the Spanish candidate for the Best Picture Oscar a couple years ago. Don't look for much action; don't look for good outcomes; don't look for feel-good elements. This is a rather depressing piece and was something of a chore to watch at home with the fast-forward and eject buttons near at hand. I didn't use them though, and I acknowledge that Sundays in the Sun is a powerful evocation of how it feels to be pretty hopelessly out of work in a western European country.
Japón by first-time Mexican director Carlos Reygados and starring two non-actors is quite another story. It may not have been much seen in the US but RottenTomatoes indicates a hugely positive critical reaction for obvious reasons. In a glowing review in April 2003 Manohla Dargis (then still writing for the LA TImes) described Japón's subject matter as "love, death, sex, faith, redemption and mankind's domination over nature..." Shot in 16 mm. CinemaScope, it loses in a small viewing format but still soars and amazes with its originality and poetic vision from the first few frames. Like Kiarostami's A Taste of Cherry, Japón focuses on a man going off to commit suicide, only this one goes to a remote part of the province of Hidalgo in Mexico among country people. The protagonist, a lean, Christ-like, craggy-faced middle-aged man with a limp, gets permission from a stone-faced old lady called Ascen to stay in her barn far above the town. He goes on long walks (tireless, with a cane), stands in the hot sun, sips tea, listens to Bach cantatas on a portable CD player, masturbates, gets badly drunk in the town bar on mescal, privately contemplates shooting himself in the chest with an old pistol he has brought. The old lady serves him refreshments, does hand laundry, and plays the role of polite and modest hostess. These old fashioned courtesies bring the man closer to her and to life. All around are sounds of animals and other creatures, some of which we see or hear brutally dispatched; we also see a group of laughing little boys watch two horses copulate. It rains. The skies are filled with beautiful light. The man forgets his plan for self-slaughter and becomes concerned for the old lady and her barn, which a mean nephew comes to destroy for the stones. The last half hour is surprising and apocalyptic.
Even on DVD Japón leaves a strong impression. Reygadas shows great pure cinematic talent here. With limited means he has produced something strong and beautiful and fresh. I'm obliged to my FilmWurld friends for leading me to this memorable cinematic experience.
Well some mediocre films merit extraordinary performances. I always loved Moore, but although plot and story wise I wasn't too thrilled with Safe, I did think that her work was top notch.
Speaking of mediocre films with great acting, I watched Dominick and Eugene, based solely on positive reviews of Thomas Hulce's performance. He did a damn good job, but I'm always a little judgemental when people play mentally retarded characters (because I am one, lol). I just think that its a crutch for many actors and it's almost too easy to get a good performance. Still, the boy was good, as was Liotta who played the rather intelligent brother.
With respect, I think what you mean is that mediocre films sometimes contain performances they don't merit.Quote:
(Originally posted by wpqx)
Well some mediocre films merit extraordinary performances.
I'm not sure where you get the idea Dominick and Eugene's positive reviews (100 on the rottentomatoes scale) were based solely on Hulce's performance. Such a high critical evaluation would be unlikely if the critics had really serious reservations about the film. LIkewise going by both my own and others' reactions to Safe, and to Haynes' other films, they're not the kind of stuff you have a ho-hum reaction to, so it's hard to see how they can be considered "mediocre" either. Most people either love them (as I do Safe) or hate them (as I do Far from Heaven, which however got a 90 on rottentomatoes and had stronger boxoffice appeal than Safe). This said, I'll readily grant you that actors can turn in good work on a poor film. That's certainly more likely than the reverse.
Well I only heard of Dominick and Eugene through an alternate Oscar book that listed Hulce's performance as the best of the year.
As for Haynes, I thought Safe was tree hugging hippie crap. I did enjoy Far From Heaven quite a bit, although not necessarily a masterpiece. As for the rest of his work, I'm ignorant.
Anyways today I watched two Carl Theodor Dreyer films made 30 years apart. The first was his second of two comedies Master of the House (1925). Uncharacteristic of Dreyer, but not necessarily a bad film, although not exactly a hilarious picture either.
The second was Ordet (1955), which may be the best of his sound films. Perhaps I'm now accostomed to his "signature" style at this point, or maybe it really was the most moving and powerful of his sound features. I would sincerely recommend this film for those questioning what good Dreyer films there are.
On this basis I think I'll drop the topic.Quote:
Originally posted by wpqx
As for Haynes, I thought Safe was tree hugging hippie crap. I did enjoy Far From Heaven quite a bit, although not necessarily a masterpiece. As for the rest of his work, I'm ignorant.
Agreed
The Lost Honor of Katharina Blum (1975)
One of the first "hits" of the New German Cinema, this one got some added attention recently as reduction of civil liberties to combat terrorism became a contemporary issue. Aside from its current relevance, I didn't find it too engaging. Perhaps I'm still a little numb to films in general, or perhaps the film isn't too great. Certainly worth a look, especially as a key film from the movement, but again not the best film of the bunch. I am however looking to see more filsms from Von Trotta (and female directors in general), so perhaps with a better understanding of her work, this film will gain in stature.
Quote:
Perhaps I'm still a little numb to films in general...
Why so? Since I'm following this thread closely, I'd like to know your mental state.
Ashes and Diamonds (1958) Theatrical Screening
Ashes was the last film in Wajda's trilogy at the starts of his career. The others include A Generation (1954) and Kanal (1956). Much like those films the strong anti-war sentiment continues as we find Maciek (Zbigniew Cybulski - Wajda's frequent collaborator) given the orders to kill a communist party official on the last day of WWII. As he's about to perform his duties the man gets distracted by a beautiful barmaid and then starts to question his mission. This emotionally powerful film is strikingly shot and it remains one of the best films to have come out of Eastern Europe.
Well Chris, I watch perhaps too many movies. When I get in these fanatical states, I sometimes don't get a proper reaction. I don't allow a film to really sink in, I just go on to the next. Personally I didn't feel much towards Katharina Blum, I mean not really great, but not bad. Perhaps I'm expecting a reaction out of every film, but some films really aren't memorable. I'm sorry I upset you so much about my Todd Haynes comments, but Safe really didn't do much for me. Perhaps I'm an anti-environmentalist, and I viewed the film as pro-environment. As for my mental state, well let's just say pretty indifferent to everything, and numb to the world (which doesn't mean I'm heavily sedated).
Now, Arsaib, just watched a movie that actually did move me. Wajda's WWII trilogy is one of the greatest achievements in all of film history, perhaps the second best trilogy of all time (behind only the original Star Wars ). Although Ashes and Diamonds gets the most praise, I honestly felt Kanal was the best of the series. I found it the most powerful of the films, and one of those truly great, remarkable cinematic experiences.
I'm pretty sure that I would've shared your sentiments if I had also seen the other two on the big screen. Facets DVD, or any other DVD for that matter, doesn't do enough justice to Wajda's visuals. Ashes of Diamonds simply astonished me this time around. Criterion's box-set is coming up (as you know) but I hope to see the other two on the big screen.
Damn thought I responded here. Watched Fighting Elegy (1966), my fourth Suzuki film. Pretty good, but I'm yet to really be amazed by him. Perhaps I'll get a better reaction if I ever have the chance to watch one a second time.
42 Up
The last (for now) film in the Up series. Hard to say which of the lot is best, but I really did enjoy this particular episode. Brings you up to date with these people, and it shows that quite frequently people eventually do find their nitch. Even with 35 Up there were still aimless wanderers. So perhaps I shouldn't be too surprised if I'm in my mid-thirties wandering without a purpose in life.
Watch on the Rhine (1943) - another in a string of films I'm watching for Oscar reasons. This one brought Paul Lukas a best actor Oscar, and the film itself was also nominated for best picture (in the last year where 10 separate films were nominated).
My diagnosis is garbage. This film was lousy in nearly every aspect. Bad acting from everyone (including the "who the hell is Paul Lukas" lead). The worst of the acting came from the three children who all seemed to be worse than the other. I blame the director, who was massively insignificant to the point that I don't even remember who did direct the film. Certainly not one of the "pros" of Warner Bros. in the 40's.
The story itself was still flag waving propoganda designed to make the nazis and any sympathizers evil. Understandable because well the nazis were a bit on the evil side, and it was made in the thick of WWII, but this shameless flag waving propoganda gets old even when taken in context. It is also a film that doesn't seem to have any historical context. I mean the nazis are evil seems based more on general perception than any historical facts.
Novelist Dashiell Hammett wrote the screenplay (best known for writing the book of Maltese Falcon) allong with Lillian Hellmann, who wrote the play on which the film was based. Perhaps with some skillfull direction, ala Michael Curtiz this might have been an engaging film. But it was pointless, derivative, and shamless. I can't figure out why of all people Lukas won an Oscar for this considering Humphrey Bogart was also nominated for Casablanca (which may also be shameless propoganda, but certainly of a more entertaining type).