Musings on Cinema

A number of made-for-television features and series over the past decades have matched the quality of the best cinema. Many filmmakers have done excellent work for the small screen, particularly in Europe and North America. It is typically, at least for me, more difficult to figure out what to seek out on TV than at the movies, perhaps because there is more interest in writing about cinema online than television. I write this tentatively since perhaps I don't know where to find good commentary about TV programs whereas I am very familiar with film criticism in all its facets and outlets. Anyway, I need to get to the point because this thread is intended to include posts that are fairly brief; random thoughts on various subjects related to cinema's past and present which I hope elicits some response, at least some of the time.

The most recent made-for-TV that made my list of favorites was Todd Haynes' awesome Mildred Pierce, the HBO mini-series starring Kate Winslet. Perhaps my highest hope of something of that level of excellence released on TV since then was Jane Campion's Top of the Lake with Elisabeth Moss, Peter Mullan, and Holly Hunt. Campion (The Piano) is responsible for one of the best made-for-TV series ever: An Angel at My Table (1990), which was released as a theatrical feature after being shown on Australian television and is now available in a great Criterion package. So I had my hopes up for Top of the Lake (set in New Zealand like "angel") and found myself engaged and entertained by this tale of evil in the countryside but ultimately underwhelmed by the results, especially in relation to the almost six hours I invested watching it. Below you'll find the more favorable capsule review from Variety's Justin Chang.

"The disappearance of a pregnant preteen exposes the raw wounds at the heart of an isolated southern New Zealand community in the absorbing and richly atmospheric “Top of the Lake.” Centered around Elisabeth Moss’ excellent performance as a detective for whom the case uncovers disturbing echoes of her own troubled history, this multistranded crime saga from writer-director Jane Campion and co-creator Gerard Lee is satisfyingly novelistic in scope and dense in detail. Yet it also boasts something more, a singular and provocative strangeness that lingers like a chill after the questions of who-dun-what have been laid to rest."

Looking forward to more "musings" Oscar!
I'm not the best judge of television like you. Nor do I like you know where to find good writing about TV series or made-for-tv movies.
The first made-for-tv movie I remember was THE BURNING BED. My mother raved about that one to everyone she knew. I still haven't seen it.
Personally, some TV shows that impressed me greatly over the years are Oz, Rome, Deadwood and Twin Peaks.

In relation: my sister and her husband are TV fans, they watched the entire Sopranos on DVD (no commercials) over a 2 month period and loved it.
They also saw every episode of Breaking Bad and my sister says it's the best show she's ever seen and that Bryan Cranston was the best actor on television. I've only seen one episode and I didn't really know what the context was. But I take her at her word.

Game of Thrones has a rabid fanbase too these days, but that doesn't mean it's good. But I haven't heard too much vile criticism of it.

Thanks, more to come.
I watched most of Twin Peaks and The Sopranos, and three seasons of Mad Men. You're so right re:Game of Thrones. Talk about a rabid fan base for this well-reviewed series! I have also heard great things about Breaking Bad, and a series titled Justified which is based on Elmore Leonard's novels.

It makes little sense to talk about THE SOPRANOS in the same breath with TWIN PEAKS or MAD MEN with BREAKING BAD. All they have in common is they're TV series. If they were movies we wouldn't do this. Everyone has their favorites and they come and go. I'm glad to see OZ mentioned but have people forgotten THE WIRE? If so, it's a relief to me. I couldn't follow it and found it depressing as hell, especially since it was set in my home town, Baltimore. (I might have chosen another home town if I could, but I did mostly grow up there.) TV shows are great. The only trouble with them, especially the American ones (I'm thinking of the US QUEER AS FOLK vs. the lighter faster shorter UK original), is that they go on and on and on and on and on. They don't know when to stop.

And that's also what is great about them, because if you like the characters and the setups you don't want them to end. Dickens was published serially, and others; it dragged out the pleasure. But TV shows become shapeless and wear out their welcome. And then there are the reruns. They become like a nightmare from which one can never escape. An unhealthy obsession. The Netlix-collection TV show orgies are a worse result. Movies end -- and therefore have a shape and a structure that is artistic. Long miniseries adaptations of novels or novel-series are, however, obviously a potentially very good thing, if they're well done, because they can present the books in more detail. The miniseries is now an essential art form. The British ones have been sometimes superb. A friend just told me a lot of Masterpiece Theatre ones are assembled together now on Netflix. A lot of them still hold up from decades ago, the old UPSTAIRS, DOWNSTAIRS perhaps. Definitely the original UK TRAFFIK and the original 11-hour 1981 BRIDESHEAD REVISITED were and remain two of the best things ever done for TV. Also, the spy trilogy written by Alan Bennett with A QUESTION OF ATTRIBUTION, directed by John Schlesinger. That ain't no made-for-TV movie: it's a classic film. Unfortunately it and some others are not readily available in this country. The John Le Carré series with Alec Guinness as Smiley is another. The Brits have provided a great wealth of mysteries made for TV. They already did, when there was only print.

I often read Emily Nussbaum's TV column in THE NEW YORKER. Well, not often; sometimes. But the number of her columns I've read is beginning to mount up. I still wonder why anyone as smart as she is would bother to write about TV (doesn't she have a better way to spend her time?) but of course NEW YORKER writers are well paid. Her pieces are well informed and informative. I'd rather read about TV shows than watch them. It's faster. Besides which, I don't have TV. I did once, but it stopped working, and I don't want to pay for cable. I only watch TV series via Netflix (there are other non-tube ways too).

As for made-for-TV movies, I don't pay much attention to them. What difference does it make for what purpose they were made? Just like any other movies, they may be lousy, but they are often quite good, especially some of the French ones. It's sometimes surprising to learn a certain French film was made for television.

But I'd rather follow the Cannes 2014 festival second hand than talk about TV.

Thanks Chris. I think the long duration, the serial nature, and the smaller size of screens on which the TV programs discussed above are intended to be watched are important considerations and the basis for comparisons despite differences in content or genre. It's sometimes difficult to gauge to what extent TV series are worth the time invested in watching them. Indeed, the fact that "they go on and on" can be a blessing or a curse. It is different than comedies, in which each episode is intended to stand alone and work well without familiarity with previous ones. I'm glad you're writing about Cannes instead of TV. Forthcoming posts on this thread will be all about cinema (unless I watch something on TV as great as Mildred Pierce and the series you mentioned.

Writing about the silent era can be difficult because of several reasons, especially the high percentage of films that have been lost forever and the variable state of prints available (it's practically impossible to say anything conclusive about Asian and Latin American cinema before sound because almost all the films are extinct). There is a great deal of misinformation about the silent era in books, essays, and DVD liner notes. There are still film studies instructors who teach, for instance, that Griffith "invented the grammar of cinema" or that Soviet directors like Pudovkin and Eisenstein came up with "rhythmic cutting" (cutting shots in a sequence according to rhythmic patterns of various kinds, especially musical ones). The history of silent cinema requires constant revision based on films (and segments of films) that are being discovered, restored, and made available for viewing. I am not keen on being critical of writings on film that become obsolete or rendered inaccurate as new "evidence" emerges. However, there is a lot of misinformation out there as a result of sheer laziness and carelessness.

Case in point: according to the liner notes of Avant-Garde 3: Experimental Cinema 1922-1954 (the third of four invaluable sets released by Kino International), Laurel and Hardy’s two-reeler Wrong Again (1929, directed by Leo McCarey) is a spoof of Luis Bunuel and Salvador Dali’s Un Chien Andalou, which actually premiered in Paris four months after the release of Wrong Again. The scribe made this flippant statement as a major example to support the claim that avant garde/experimental cinema influenced commercial/mainstream films. I get the distinct impression that he did not bother to even watch the widely available comedic short but instead simply borrowed this piece of misinformation from IMdb.

I've never seen THE WIRE. I know it was a successful show though.
Oz is a great show. I like the humour and the edginess of it. I've watched various episodes of it over the years. I should sit down sometime and watch the seasons in sequence. I still like watching old Starsky & Hutch episodes too. Some TV shows definitely wear out their welcome, and some don't know how to wrap it up or know when to stop. .

Oscar: re: silents. I've seen that Kino set for sale but I haven't bought it or seen it. I would guess that avant-garde films back then didn't get seen very much, I'm sure they didn't have wide audiences. That's why it may be suspect that they influenced mainstream films.
If you're spoofing something you're mocking something, correct? Is it really a tribute or "influence"?

The original showing of UN CHIEN ANDALU was an historic event, but probably it was not actually seen by a wide audience. Perhaps the failure to update information on silent film is something film teachers like you must remedy with lectures and books, Oscar. Unfortunately most people just don't know much about silents, or see many. Even Lincoln Center and Pacific Film Archive don't show that many. I reported on the San Francisco Silent Film Festival's showing of the BFI's reediting of all Hitchcock's silents. Th SFSFF and others like it can educate people but it's a bit of a cult thing.

Before THE WIRE there was the even grimmer THE CORNER and before that HOMICIDE: LIFE ON THE STREET, three notable and excellent TV series depicting Baltimore as a slum and den of crime. I'd prefer my home town seen as the home of John Waters' characters, the Cotillion, and crab cakes. I couldn't bear the grimness of THE CORNER and as I said couldn't follow THE WIRE and found it a bore.

I have watched all of WEEDS twice (love it), all of MAD MEN, all of DOC MARTIN twice (very relaxing), all of JERICHO (highly recommended), most of THE SOPRANOS (I got tired of it) , some of SONS OF ANARCHY (recommended), part of OZ, which I found compulsive, but dropped. You can say you should sit down and watch all of these good series, but you can also throw your life away on them. Rather than OZ I'd rather watch Jacques Audiard's THE PROPHET and I am watching it with and without the director's, writer's, and star Tahar Rahim's commentaries. I've mentioned some of the miniseries I think classic. I value them more because they END.

Thanks for your posts guys. Some thoughts:

What I've done so far in my teaching is not to assign a textbook. I find it hard to fully embrace any one textbook. I supplement the material I present directly to the class for with carefully selected readings (essays, book chapters, reviews). I always strive to illustrate everything I say with clips. It's better to show what you mean than to tell it, but I do both.

There were a few golden-age Hollywood directors, such as Nicholas Ray and King Vidor who were personally interested in avant-garde films. The Filmarte Theater in Hollywood (1228 N. Vine Street) was the best place to watch foreign films and avant-garde shorts from 1929 until 1956, when programming changed. However, NYC and San Francisco were the two cities in the US where experimental works were exhibited most frequently. Films were not only shown at their MOMAs but also in film societies, such as New York's Cinema 16, which were dedicated to showing films in 16mm gauge. Some colleges and universities also had film societies where such fare was enthusiastically received.

There were some experimental shorts, including animated ones, which were incorporated into the programming at commercial theaters, often between a newsreel and the main feature. One curious case is Schichlegruber Doing the Lambeth Walk (1941), which was widely seen in UK and North American commercial theaters during WWII. Enjoy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYdmk3GP3iM

So little chance to watch anything...

I watched "The Normal Heart" last night on HBO (Premiere). Basically a film of the autobiographical play by author Larry Kramer. The story takes place in New York between the years 1981 to 1984 when the AIDS crisis began to rear its ugly head. The film stars a strong cast - Mark Ruffalo, Matt Bomer, Taylor Kitsch, Jim Parsons, Julia Roberts and Alfred Molina. I found the performances strong and compelling. Critics - not so much. Produced by Brad Pitt, the acting is superb in my book - better than "Beyond the Candelabra" but what do I know, a nobody from nowhere. Still, if cinema means anything to us, it is the what we experience when we watch. The cry of so many anguished and forgotten victims of this terrible crime against humanity demand to be heard. This film gives them voice.

I have weekly meetings with my editor. My novel is under construction. No fluff self delivered project this time. I'm being "guided" toward a professional product. We shall see the nibblers come this fall. I think of you - especially you, Chris - often. Take care, Cinemabon.

Cinemabon, long time no see. Welcome back! Good luck with your novel and your work with the editor.

I watched the Ryan Murphy HBO version of Larry Kramer's THE NORMAL HEART today.

I cried. Over the top, more emotional and gushy than the Woolf Theater revival at the Public Theater I saw in 2004. Apparently the 2011 B'way revival was good and warmer. However, Ryan Murphy's has truly dreamy dudes. Some (one IMDb comment of only 2 so far) think this version turns it into romantic schlock, but I checked out the original play text and though Kramer tweaks things all along, basically the main scenes are very close. I think he mainly just made changes to make it clearer to a mainstream audience, took out some little details about being Jewish, for instance, nothing in particular sticks out. Of the four main actors two are straight and two are gay. Mark Ruffalo and Taylor Kitsch straight, Matt Bonner and Jim Parsons are gay. Also Jonathan Groff is gay. Emily Nussbaum (whose TV column in the NYer this week is dedicated to this, and is very well informed and heartfult) doesn't like Julia Roberts and thought she was one-note; but I saw no problem with her. In the original play a lot of it is one-note. The play I saw seemed very historical and political and about organization. It was presented that way. It has a didactic, informational, Brechtian quality about it. However whatever seems warmer, more emotional, sweeter, or sexier in this HBO version, which was, note, written by Larry Kramer, is stuff that is added -- not stuff that is taken out that softens that in the HBO version. There is a lot of disco music, not in the play production I saw; of course it adds to the period feel, and takes off some of the edge. Just opening up the play for film makes it softer and warmer. This is very interesting to see. If anything, if you pay attention, and know the play, this version is richer and fuller, and given that Larry Kramer wrote this, any condemnation of it as turning events into a mere sad, sweet love story are totally wrong. The ending is in the play, word for word. If this subject interests you I highly recommend France's documentary film HOW TO SURVIVE A PLAGUE, about ACTUP and the fight to obtain meds. It is extremely well done and informative. You can watch it on Netflix Instant. It was in the NYFF 2 years ago. GMHC Gay Men's Health Crisis is still active.

The speech about the loss of a generation of creativity in New York, a very large number of the best writers, playwrights, dancers, choreographers, actors, and artists lost, is true. Fran Lebowitz has I think this is in the PUBLIS SPEAKING Scorsese documentary, said it's all different now, that things are praised that simply wouldn't be if that generation had lived, because standards for the arts would be higher. That's something to think about. It was a plague. It wiped out the best and the brightest.

I was not aware till you mentioned it that Brad Pitt was a producer. However more important to know is that Barbra Steisand owned the rights to the play and sat on them for years. There were differences between Kramer and her. According to him, she simply found gay sex distasteful, and he wanted to show it. She differs. Anyway, Ryan Murphy cared so much about this project that he put up his own money to buy the rights from Streisand to do the HBO version.


The only time I ever went to Fire Island on that ferry was with G.J., briefly a great friend, who lost his mind and committed suicide. That opening part of Fire Island isn't in the play. I lived through this period in San Francisco, and for a while I picked up the two gay newspapers every week and perused the pages of obituaries of handsome and promising young gay men who had died. It was a terrible and a terrifying time. In the studio where I worked at least seven died of AIDS eventually.

On this day when so many are remembered for service to their country, it is important to note that many died who loved this country and would have proudly fought for it if given the chance. The sheer terror this virus brought to my life was one of dread and fear. Being a nurse and working in a hospital, I saw and cared for dozens of "gay cancer" victims in the early 1980's. I lived in Seattle and volunteered for the work that found few nurses who would. As one gay physician told me at the time from the very start, "They have more to fear from you than you do of them. Think of that every time you enter that room covered from head to toe." I never forgot that. In addition to Kaposi's Sarcoma (the brown spots that appeared on some men but not all), the biggest killer was pneumocystis pneumonia. More boys died of this killer than they did of skin lesions. It spread through the body so fast and knocked out their lungs. They had no defense. My cases lasted days instead of weeks or months as they did on the "cancer" ward where they treated patients with chemo. The special wing they created at Group Health had plastic taped floor to ceiling; we walked through basins of iodine; I had on every kind of covering possible. I held so many dying hands I lost count. I lost many friends, too.

Yes, the film moved me... again. Seems every so often another film about how it started and how so little was done comes along, to help us not forget. I will never forget and it took me a long time to forgive. When I think of the great artists I knew, I can hardly bear it. So on this Memorial Day, I do think of my brother - a marine who died in Vietnam. But I also think of my best friend in high school, David Glynn... I think of Jimmy Witko, also from high school... I think of Rick Sanford, Rock Hudson, and so many others I knew in LA. I stopped crying years ago. But I will never forget and will make certain my son never forgets, too. In that regard, we both agree. It's better to fight for a cause than to hide from one. Take care, Chris.

You are right, and I thought of that too. Indeed pneumocystis pneumonia was "the biggest killer" as you say. Kaposi's Sarcoma was an early, perhaps the key early, sign of the unusual "gay cancer" but is a bit overused in Murphy's production, doubtless because it is an easily recognized visual clue to the presence of the disease. They should have down-pedaled it a bit. A sidelight is that my dermatologist at the time, Dr. Groundwater, was mentioned in Randy Shilts' AND THE BAND PLAYED ON as one of the first doctors who noted and called attention to the sudden unusual prevalence of KS, at the time an obscure disease.

Ah cinemabon, you always have so many stories to tell. I did not know you were a nurse at this time. Though gay and even living in San Francisco I may have sidestepped the worst. No one I was very close to had it. My former Berkeley landlord M.R., a good friend, told me only later how his lover, who died of AIDS, had been rejected by Oakland hospitals, simply not allowed in. And in the Bay Area. And as you say of the cases in your care, he died very quickly, as the earliest cases did, within a month of clear infection. A doubly horrible way to die, of a terrible, unknown disease, and treated as a pariah. You were closer to AIDS in its early days than I. The difference might be that I was afraid I had it, and the AIDS test was a scary moment, and I in effect followed the advice of Dr. Brookner at which the young men surrounding Larry Kramer scoffed. I became frightened and began to avoid promiscuous sex after AIDS was identified, and stayed monogamous. Luckily, I was in love with someone, someone who did not get infected, which was even luckier, since he messed around more than I, or had done. But it hit some of the best and nicest people, didn't it? And of course still does; but for a while now the ravaging of the US white gay male communities of NYC, San Francisco, and other cities has been much reduced from what it was during the Eighties. This period covered in THE NORMAL HEART with so much passion by Larry Karmer is not just sad and angering, it's devastating and shocking and incomprehensible. On the public history of events and the struggle to get access to meds and a voice in and funding from government, again I can't recommend enough David France's HOW TO SURVIVE A PLAGUE, which focuses on the sturggle, events in NYC related to Kramer's topic, and the founding and actions of ACT-UP.

Informative and touching posts fellas. Thanks. Best wishes for your novel cinemabon. I got into substantial negotiations with the editor of a book series at a university press but it appears the project is going down the drain because it was deemed to be "not sufficiently profitable". I submitted a sample chapter. Anonymous readers liked it and praised my writing but the editor ultimately said that the potential audience for my book was too narrow. More musings forthcoming.

Thanks, Oscar. It's like trying to put out a movie by committee (now where have I heard that before???). We have to look at marketing perspectives. We have to look at demographics. We have to look at bell curves of potential buyers. And my editor keeps say things like, now make sure you put in enough in for the guys... (the protagonist is a 38 yo female CEO - who wants to read about her?). So I have to "butch" it up! We meet once a week (today) and I have 3x5 cards to fill out (for the story arc), diagrams on maps to show the emotional highs and lows, and re-writes - 46 in all (for this week alone) with over fifty revisions. That's just this week! (The sound of a whip lash here) Have a great summer. May go to see "Malificent" tomorrow because I love Jolie - a great humanitarian and good actress. Good old commercialism at work.

Thanks. Chelsea and Dylan are watching Maleficent right now. I stayed home watching the National Spelling Bee and San Antonio vs. OKC.

The Best Film of 2014 (or, my favorite 2014 release so far)

There was a time when a film’s theatrical receipts were a clear indication of how many people had seen it. Since the 80s, one had to also consider home video purchases and rentals. Nowadays, VOD and other streaming outlets make a film’s popularity even more difficult to gauge. My favorite 2014 film so far is Anthony Chen’s Ilo Ilo, which won Best First Film at Cannes (Camera d’Or) and London in 2013 and recently concluded its very limited theatrical run with a box office take of only $38,461. However, I have no idea how many members of US distributor Film Movement have purchased the DVD or watched it streaming since its release last month, and I wonder how many non-members will watch it when it becomes available for general purchase in September. Perhaps it is too soon to lament the dearth of viewers, because maybe a lot of film lovers will access the film directly through the distributor. Another indicator of popularity is the number of IMdb users that post a rating. So far, Ilo Ilo has been rated by 1210 users, but only 99 of them are from the US. The previous Camera d’Or winner, Las Acacias, was one of my very favorite films of 2012 and went virtually unseen. I plan to make sure I watch the recent Camera d'Or winner, since it seems I am guaranteed to fall in love with it. Here’s Film Movement page for Ilo Ilo. You can watch the trailer there.
http://www.filmmovement.com/filmcata...chandiseID=346

Interestingly, this English-language trailer made by the distributor begins with a text that reads "Singapore 1997" when in fact the film is set in 1998. Naturally many English-language critics have adopted the mistake in their reviews even though there is at least one very clear and specific temporal marker in the film (an insert shot of a letter typewritten by one of the principals). Cognitive psychologists use the term "inattentional blindness" to refer to the phenomena of not being conscious of seeing something that is smack in front of us, usually because we don't expect it to be there and/or because we are attending to only part of what is available for perception (coming up, more about this phenomena as it pertains our understanding of narratives in audiovisual media).

I'm confused about ILO ILO because it showed at a small cinema in NYC a month before Cannes. It was after I left following New Directors though so I missed it. It's now come to San Francisco but only at a rather remote theater the 4-Star on Clement Street (where there are a lot of Chinese people). Don't see what's so exciting about a mistake of one year in the critics' description of the time-frame, and it might have been more interesting to hear why you so much like the film, but I always appreciate your corrections of my errors in reviews. The NYTinmes has a apiece on the "burden of first-film success" felt by Anthony Chen.

Chen's minimalism seems to have appealed to most, though not all (I read all thirteen reviews at IMDB). For being a first time director and using a first time cinematographer, neither intruded into the story line according to those reviewers who felt the low-key acting style added to the film's realism. Chen appears to have captured the hearts of the Cannes jury and yours as well, Oscar. Thanks for bringing it up and I look forward to catching it later this year when it becomes available. Chris has the luxury of going to see it in a theater. Not so here.

Ilo Ilo is having in an extended but very limited distribution common to outstanding foreign-language films that don't have a recognizable actor, or director (this is Anthony Chen's debut) or a strong genre hook. Films like this one show at several regional film festivals for a few months, before playing at a couple of art cinemas in major markets, and then travel to second markets such as Honolulu and D.C., where the film is still scheduled to open at month's end. I would not be surprised if the only theater where you can watch it today is the 4-Star on Clement Street (it makes sense as CK tells us that Chinese Americans are well represented in that neighborhood (the film is mostly in Mandarin and English, with a smattering of Tagalog). I hope you fellas decide to watch it. What we have here is a family melodrama that is deeply satisfying and engaging because it creates a perfect balance between psychological characterization and the socioeconomic and cultural context of its historical moment, and because all the characters are sympathetic even when they are being petty, arrogant, or mean. It is easy to identify with flawed but well-meaning and striving characters. Also, all the principals resonate as representatives of certain types of people while achieving, mostly through performance, shadings and nuances that mark them as unique individuals. I think the film is too rich in incident to call it minimalist, but this is a relative term. I guess that nothing truly extraordinary happens in the plot, and that the acting (and other aspects) are modest enough never to detract from the task of telling a story well. I have not read many reviews of Ilo Ilo but I would immediately distrust anyone who says this movie is not recommended.

Quote:

---

Perhaps it is too soon to lament the dearth of viewers. . .

---

I'd say so. Some great foreign films are never screened in the US at all and never reviewed here and don't make it onto a US DVD. The success of an arthouse film is not to be measured in dollar returns. With this press and a DVD plenty will eventually see it and this is only Anthony Chen's first film. We should be happy that this got made, was in Directors' Fortnight at Cannes, and won the Camera d'Or, no less. Sometimes the Camera d'Or is enough. But ILIO ILO has done way better than that in winning critical accolades all over, including a Meticritic 87.

When it was in NYC in April it played at two important venues, Lincoln Center (Elinor Bunin Theater) and Cinema Village and I would have seen it at Cinema Village if I'd been in NYC two or three days more. I will not see it at the 4-Star because I'm leaving for NYC in a couple days and the 4-Star is way far from where I live here. Besides I"m out of time to see any film in a theater before I go. This happens sometimes, as I missed WE ARE THE BEST a couple times, but I might catch it in NYC this time, it's at the Angelika.

ILO ILO was seen in Paris in Sept. 2013 and got very good reviews (Allocine 3.9) though while LES INROCUPTIBLES liked it pretty well, the harder to please CAHERS DU CINEMA was unimpressed. They said its strong point was its statements about class differences but they were a bit crude. This looks true but the trailer makes me interested in seeing it. However that I'm a bit skeptical about adoring it is because of reports like the following from Cannes in HOLLYWOOD REPORTER:

Quote:

---

Finely acted and minutely observed, Ilo Ilo certainly has the texture of real life. The performances feel authentic, the emotional shadings agreeably nuanced. It may be damning Chen’s film with faint praise to observe that it also captures the bittersweet banality of middle-class family life with almost numbing accuracy. But faint praise is probably the most honest response to a low-key exercise in domestic navel-gazing that blurs the line between subtle understatement and tasteful tedium.
--Stephen Dalton, HOLLYWOOD REPORTER

---

"Tasteful tedium": ouch!

This is the kind of story Howard Schumann is particularly interested in and it'll be interesting to see what he says if he reviews it.

I admire you both for being able to get out to all of these multitudes of films. The scope needed to comment on modern cinema with teeth requires getting out the door to the cinema screenings. :)

A group of Czech and Slovakian critics and filmmakers chose Frantisek Vlacil’s MARKETA LAZAROVA (1967) as the best Czech film ever made. It is a product of the Czech New Wave we’ve discussed at filmleaf primarily in connection with Johann attending a retrospective titled Bohemian Gothic. A decade ago, I posted my selection of a dozen recommended films from this brief but productive film movement, as follows:
CLOSELY WATCHED TRAINS (Jiri Menzel)
LARKS ON A STRING (Menzel)
THE SHOP ON MAIN STREET (Jan Kadar)
DAISIES (Vera Chytilova)
ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE (Chytilova)
LOVES OF A BLONDE (Milos Forman)
FIREMAN'S BALL (Forman)
BLACK PETER (Forman)
THE REPORT ON THE PARTY AND THE GUESTS (Jan Nemec)
DIAMONDS OF THE NIGHT (Jan Nemec)
THE JOKE (Jaromil Jires)

Now almost all of these films are available on DVD for purchase or rental. (A superb box set titled "Pearls of the Czech New Wave" was released on the Eclipse Series label). I did not know of Vlacil or Marketa Lazarova until its 2013 release on the Criterion label. A significantly shorter version of the 165-minute film, based on a high-brow novel by Vladislav Vancura that combines archaic Czech and modernist techniques, was apparently released briefly in NYC in 1974 and quickly forgotten. I think it is most definitely a masterpiece, perhaps the best film of the Czech New Wave, and I plan to seek out other films by Vlacil, particularly the two that are also set in the "dark ages". Marketa Lazarova is a medieval epic, its cinematography and editing are highly stylized, called “avant garde”, but it is most definitely a narrative work that aims to recreate medieval life in Bohemia with great feeling and authenticity. The singular experience of watching it is, perhaps, comparable to watching Andrei Tarkovsky’s Andrei Rublev, a film mentioned in connection with Vlacil's, but one I have not seen in a long time.
Here is a trailer edited by a fan of the film: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEo-6NBa6Qo

"Marketa Lazarová sweeps us up in a sort of rapture before we even get our feet on the ground. František Vláčil directs with a symphonic variation of tone and pace, moving with assurance from the frenetic to the contemplative, the horrific to the erotic. This may not be a film for everyone. It calls for stamina and for surrender to the wonder of vision and hearing, even when the way remains obscure and seems a bit dangerous. It forces us to rediscover the power of image and sound—and what happens when you bring them together."
Tom Gunning (Excerpt from Criterion essay)

The "city symphony film" is a genre that produced some of the most beloved masterpieces of the late silent era: Manhatta, Berlin: Symphony of a Great City, Man with a Movie Camera, A propos de Nice, Sao Paulo: A Metropolitan Symphony, Skyscraper Symphony, etc. These films combine the desire to document or create a record of the functioning of the modern city with experimental or avant-garde techniques, with (poetic) editing based on patterns that create rhymes or correspondences between shots.

Like several of these films, Nothing but Time aims to cover a 24-hour span in the life of a big city, Paris in this case. Although most city symphony films show people from all classes, Nothing but Time is primarily concerned with the suffering of the poor masses typically ignored by romantic notions of the city. The film opens with a sunny shot of a smart quarter with the Eiffel Tower looking regal in the background, then white vertical wipes obscure the view as if it was being painted over. Cut to a title card: "this is not a depiction of the fashionable and elegant life..." Cut to a shot of elegantly attired young women walking down the ample staircase of a palazzo which comes to a freeze-frame, thus becoming a photograph tore up by a hand that enters the frame from the right. Cut to a title card: "...but of the everyday life of the humble, the downtrodden,..." A late model automobile driven by a uniformed chauffer dissolves into a ragged horse buggy, baskets full of ripe, fresh produce gives way to shots of cans overflowing with rotting trash. Perhaps the most famous scene in Nothing but Time shows a close up of a steak being sliced by a man dining at a posh restaurant, then an iris opens on the plate (a frame-within-the frame) to show slaughterhouse scenes like the ones in Franju's Blood of the Beasts but Cavalcanti is consistently innovative throughout. There are also tremendously emotional scenes that show a frail old woman struggling to walk up a slick and narrow cobblestone path, and a prostitute failing to drum up business. This magnificent 46-minute film is included in the Avant Garde 3 DVD set from Kino International.

Alberto Cavalcanti was Brazilian and made films in France, Italy, and Brazil but had his greatest success in England (Dead of Night, Went the Day Well?, They Made Me a Fugitive).

This multiple-award winning family drama from Hong Kong had a limited US release in 2012 and totally escaped my notice until a friend asked me to watch it with him. I see now that the reviews were very good, but somehow I failed to notice (Roger Ebert gave it 4 stars and called it "one of the best films of 2012"). There are so many good new films to watch every year that one just cannot keep up, especially since I dedicate a lot of time to older films (as you can figure from my posts). A Simple Life has been available on DVD and BR since 2013 (very reasonably priced). Perhaps the premise of the film makes it seem boring, or difficult to market. It is, after all, about an old woman without family of her own, who has worked as a maid for a single family for 60 years, and must retire after suffering a stroke and goes to a nursing home, and about the people she meets there, and how the family she served, especially a middle-aged filmmaker, support her and continue to care for her. The acting is magnificent (Deannie Yip won Best Actress at Venice and other places), the pace is unhurried but lively, the tone can be mournful at times, but there is always humor and good cheer lurking around.

It took Frantisek Vlacil five years to complete Marketa Lazarova, his magnum opus discussed above. He also wrote the script (with Vladimir Korner) of Valley of the Bees (1968) during this time and shot the film while Marketa was still being readied for release. Valley of the Bees is also a medieval tale in widescreen b&w that dramatizes why these are called the "dark" ages. It is set in the 1200s, centuries before the Age of Enlightment and the Protestant Reformation, and just before the Black Death, the pandemic that killed 30-60% of Europeans. Both films benefit from Vlacil's rigorous research and his expressed aim to convey, to the extent that this is possible, the authentic human experience at that moment in history. However, they differ markedly in scope. At 97 minutes, Valley of the Bees is more than one hour shorter, and lacks the novelistic sweep and level of formal experimentation of Marketa. It is, consequently, an easier film to "follow", more straightforward, and perhaps more forceful in its depiction of the struggle between religion and paganism and schisms within Christianity that would only exacerbate in the years to come. I watched Valley of the Bees in a Facets DVD that is acceptable but visibly inferior to the one released in the UK by Second Run.

Did we ever discuss Miguel Gomes' 2008 film, OUR BELOVED MONTH OF AUGUST? I rented it from Netflix and watched it. In a way I agree with Mike Hale's NY Times review, which is neutral, even critical. But I soon realized that it was unusual and adventurous and not just the documentary grabbag it looks like at first, and I liked the music and the young couple, and the final humorous dramatized credits are pretty brilliant. I still don't know why Portuguese IMDb Comment-writers call it a "master-piece" but I'd like to learn.

I don't remember if we did. Perhaps in the SFFF thread? I am a fan of this movie no doubt; I am a fan of this type of film, like Pedro Costa's, in which actual people (non-actors we may call them) play some kind of version of themselves, or dramatize their lives in ways that involve the imagination. This kind of films has a clear antecedent in Jean Rouch's Moi, un noir, in which three unemployed young men make a journey in search of work which the film documents and at times play roles they invent for themselves (I remember one calling himself Edward G. Robinson: the short, stocky Hollywood star who's most famous for his gangster characters).

I wanted to apologize for the late reply, and for not continuing this thread. I recently agreed to teach Film Criticism and Documentary Film this fall and I am having to prepare these courses on short notice. I anticipate being extremely busy until early December; won't post as often as I like, but will continue to read your criticism here on a regular basis. I haven't even have time to watch TABU, which I own on Bluray.

No this is not in the SFIFF thread; I only saw it via Netflix a week or so ago. Thanks for commenting. Sorry you can't be online more. Good luck with the new course.

I just posted a list of preferences for the US releases I've seen the first half of this year.

Thanks. I have a lot of fun teaching, from designing the course to guiding the post-screening discussions. It's tricky to choose which films to show that will bring forth the issues, artistic strategies, etc. you want to cover and emphasize. On the other hand, I don't know to what extent people outside academia know about the glut of professors in the humanities and the exploitative use of adjuncts, who are paid minimally and don't have any job security or benefits. Colleges and Universities are being run like corporations nowadays. It is very hard to make a living in the Humanities because institutions are choosing to use adjuncts rather than open tenure-track positions. No hard feelings toward any person or specific institution out there (I use my real name here after all). It is a systemic problem, an outgrowth of the current brand of capitalism.

Yes, I know about that, and there's a new documentary about it (I haven't seen it yet) called IVORY TOWER (Andres Rossi 2014).
And it's really been going on for decades.

Yes Chris, the problem is not new but the veterans I know tell me it's much worse lately, and it's never been so difficult to get work published, which is so relevant to getting tenure. I did not know of this documentary. Thanks.

Doubtless this situation is indeed worse and worse lately. I didn't know it was harder to get scholarly writing published in the humanities. The documentary IVORY TOWER brings out the corporatization of American higher education but more than the exploitation of teachers it dwells particularly on the exploitation of students, through debt. DEMOCRACY NOW! ran a story about IVORY TOWER when it debuted at Sundance.

Quote:

---

The cost of a college degree has grown by over 1,120 percent in the past three decades, far surpassing price hikes for food, medical care, housing, gasoline and other basics. Coupled with $1.2 trillion in student debt, the U.S. is facing a crisis that threatens not just the economy but the nation’s education system itself. The issue is explored in the riveting new documentary "Ivory Tower," which argues the model for higher education in the U.S. has become unsustainable. The film contrasts the struggle for quality, affordable education with a growing corporate atmosphere on college campuses, where hundreds of millions of dollars go to football stadiums, lavish salaries and high-end perks. We are joined by "Ivory Tower" director and producer Andrew Rossi. The film opens this Friday in New York City and Los Angeles.
--Summary on DEMOCRACY NOW June 10, 2014.

---

Running universities as businesses rose its head as far back as Ronald Reagan's time as governor of California, 1967-1975, when he famously objected to distinguished professors at Berkeley being paid for time not spent in the classroom. The idea of thinking, research, writing as "work" was beyond Reagon's grasp. I was at Berkeley. I remember vividly Eldridge Cleaver leading a chant of 'FUCK RONALD REAGAN' at a demonstration in Sproul Plaza. Wiseman's AT BERKELEY provides some glimpses into the bind US higher education is in.

That was a great post Chris. Very interesting and informative. Having come into teaching recently, I don't have long experience with academia from inside, so to speak. I am amazed for instance at the wide gap between the rich and the poor. I mean, Professors of Law, Science, Business, Medicine who earn six figures and all the perks for teaching 2 to 4 courses per year, and at the other end, professors in the humanities being paid as little as $2000 per course with no benefits. I have a friend who got payed $2500 to teach a course with over 100 students. It's crazy to figure out the ratio between what the school collected from students and what it cost the administration to have someone teach it.

That sounds terrible, indeed much worse, though of course science professors always got the big grant money, labs, etc. It seems the gaps that have grown in society are reflected in academe too.

Oscar, sounds like you're teaching in North Carolina. Recently, the state of Texas set up booth at the state fair grounds to draft NC teachers (secondary) fed up with $29,000 starting salaries. Texas - especially Houston - offered $49,000 starting and more for those with experience. $20,000 is difficult to refuse. I'm certain your governor, Rick Scott, will correct that soon (wink, wink).

$29,000! Where do I sign?

Sometimes I wish South Florida would split from the rest of the state, somewhere below the heavily Republican I-4 corridor (Orlando, Tampa, St. Pete) and far away from the bible-belt philistenes in the Panhandle, but things being what they are, Rick Scott is my governor.

And "Oh, boy, now what..." McCrory is mine. We're both stuck.