Here's what I have from Netflix right now:
Haxan: Withcraft Through the Ages (1922)
Pygmalion (1938)
Les Enfants Terribles (1950)
I did, however, see a movie in the theater last weekend (in fact, I saw TWO- but I'd rather not write a review of "The Losers"). A review of "Kick-Ass" will be coming shortly.
Friday, April 30, 2010
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Lack of Interest
Nothing is out right now in the theater. In between an 11 year old causing controversy for hacking apart bad guys and a 3-D remake of Clash of the Titans, I'll be watching Netflix for a while longer. Or try "Treme" on HBO- it's fantastic.
I currently have : La Guerre est Finie, La Bataille du Rail, and Distant Journey from Netflix. Last week I watched "Angels in America" and "In Vanda's Room."
Angels in America
Directed by: Mike Nichols
Starring: Meryl Streep, Al Pacino, Emma Thompson, Patrick Wilson, Mary Louise Parker, Justin Kirk, and Jeffrey Wright
One of the most complex pieces of movie-making I have seen in a while, rife with symbolism and metaphor, it is as elegant a picture of the United States as I have ever seen. The movie is wonderfully written, although, clearly written for the stage by Tony Kushner. The writing is cerebral, witty, and just plain good. Combine the quality of writing with the actors that star in this piece and it becomes quite clear that all Nichols would have had to do is sit back and make sure everything is within the frame.
I really cannot come up with anything else to add to this. If you have six hours, watch this movie.
I currently have : La Guerre est Finie, La Bataille du Rail, and Distant Journey from Netflix. Last week I watched "Angels in America" and "In Vanda's Room."
Angels in America
Directed by: Mike Nichols
Starring: Meryl Streep, Al Pacino, Emma Thompson, Patrick Wilson, Mary Louise Parker, Justin Kirk, and Jeffrey Wright
One of the most complex pieces of movie-making I have seen in a while, rife with symbolism and metaphor, it is as elegant a picture of the United States as I have ever seen. The movie is wonderfully written, although, clearly written for the stage by Tony Kushner. The writing is cerebral, witty, and just plain good. Combine the quality of writing with the actors that star in this piece and it becomes quite clear that all Nichols would have had to do is sit back and make sure everything is within the frame.
I really cannot come up with anything else to add to this. If you have six hours, watch this movie.
Monday, April 12, 2010
Italian Urban Malaise
Dillinger is Dead (1969)
Directed by: Marco Ferreri
Starring: Michel Piccoli, Anita Pallenberg, Annie Giradot
Marco Ferreri seemed quite fascinated with the notion of the gluttony that the people in the industrialized world exhibited on a day to day basis. And displaying it as brashly as possible seems to be his goal with his two most famous works: La Grande Bouffe (1973) and its precursor, Dillinger is Dead. Both are showing the lengths that people must go to in order to rid themselves of their existence, in Bouffe this is literal, while in Dillinger is metaphorical.
The movie tells the story of Glauco, a upper middle class chemist who returns home from work to find his wife sick in bed. He proceeds to cook himself a remarkably large gourmet meal, seduce his maid, and then shoot his wife. After doing all of these things he swims to a boat headed to Tahiti and finds employment as a chef.
While the story itself seems quite ludicrous even for something that is meant to work as metaphor, Ferreri somehow manages to make the story both compelling and at the same time quite difficult to watch. He employs techniques not used very often in movies today. His camera sits for what seems like hours, watching as Piccoli cooks his meal. The characters say very little and his character does not develop to any great effect. Ferreri seems to want to show the lengths that his character must go to in order to free himself from his existence. He is trapped and these great expressions of gluttony are the only way for him to proceed onward into his next existence.
While he is successful, the movie also plays to such a pretentious level that at times it is unwatchable. There are people that will sit and expound upon the details of this movie, but the movie lacks one thing : a soul. Movies, stories in general- they are about people. Even movies that intended to break the mold- something like Breathless (1959) still was a story about people. The characters change and grow, this is important to the viewer, we need someone to identify with- or at least something. However, the movie is so void of a center that it does not allow for the viewer to identify with Glauco, or anyone else in the movie for that matter. It is an interesting exercise in the medium. However, it fails with its primary goal- gaining interest from the audience.
Directed by: Marco Ferreri
Starring: Michel Piccoli, Anita Pallenberg, Annie Giradot
Marco Ferreri seemed quite fascinated with the notion of the gluttony that the people in the industrialized world exhibited on a day to day basis. And displaying it as brashly as possible seems to be his goal with his two most famous works: La Grande Bouffe (1973) and its precursor, Dillinger is Dead. Both are showing the lengths that people must go to in order to rid themselves of their existence, in Bouffe this is literal, while in Dillinger is metaphorical.
The movie tells the story of Glauco, a upper middle class chemist who returns home from work to find his wife sick in bed. He proceeds to cook himself a remarkably large gourmet meal, seduce his maid, and then shoot his wife. After doing all of these things he swims to a boat headed to Tahiti and finds employment as a chef.
While the story itself seems quite ludicrous even for something that is meant to work as metaphor, Ferreri somehow manages to make the story both compelling and at the same time quite difficult to watch. He employs techniques not used very often in movies today. His camera sits for what seems like hours, watching as Piccoli cooks his meal. The characters say very little and his character does not develop to any great effect. Ferreri seems to want to show the lengths that his character must go to in order to free himself from his existence. He is trapped and these great expressions of gluttony are the only way for him to proceed onward into his next existence.
While he is successful, the movie also plays to such a pretentious level that at times it is unwatchable. There are people that will sit and expound upon the details of this movie, but the movie lacks one thing : a soul. Movies, stories in general- they are about people. Even movies that intended to break the mold- something like Breathless (1959) still was a story about people. The characters change and grow, this is important to the viewer, we need someone to identify with- or at least something. However, the movie is so void of a center that it does not allow for the viewer to identify with Glauco, or anyone else in the movie for that matter. It is an interesting exercise in the medium. However, it fails with its primary goal- gaining interest from the audience.
The Dead Zone
The period between late January and May is really dead when it comes to movies. While all of the art-house contenders are being premiered in Cannes, we slog through a series of poorly constructed romantic comedies that were not palatable enough to release during the fall. So, as there has been zero that has come out in the theater that has interested me, expect a number of blog postings about movies that are readily available on DVD.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
A Brief Spark
Major Dundee (1965)
Directed by: Sam Peckinpah
Starring: Charlton Heston, Richard Harris, James Coburn
There is only one instance in his entire body of work that I can think of a true hero that Peckinpah presented as the protagonist of his movie. In his movie, Straw Dogs (1974), Peckinpah establishes Dustin Hoffman’s character as a mild-mannered mathematics professor who has fled the United States. He may have spoken out against the Vietnam War, he may have said something improper within the confines of his university, we will never know. But what we do know is that he is focused on his work, a complicated man with a relatively short temper, but not a character who is dead-set on doing any kind of wrong. He is only forced to do violence when he is pushed to a breaking point. This is not the case in his other films, movies like The Wild Bunch (1969), The Ballad of Cable Hogue (1970), and The Getaway (1972) all feature protagonists who are not necessarily likeable, and in some cases are downright despicable. Peckinpah seems to play the older cinematic norms, pushing stories into other places where nothing is black and white and those that would normally be abhorred can also be loved. As opposed to a filmmaker like Sergio Leone, who did nothing but elevate the various motifs of the American western in his movies like Once Upon a Time in the West and The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, Peckinaph seeks to destroy all old motifs. This is the case with his first major film, Major Dundee.
There are no nice characters in this movie. Major Dundee (Heston) is not someone that you can identify with. Richard Harris’ character is not likeable either. In fact, the only person that seems to provide some kind of (incredibly important) moral compass is the sometime narrator, the Bugler. This character that provides commentary also provides relief and a sense of what little good is occurring in the movie.
As Major Dundee goes on his search for the Apache chief who massacred scores of Union Soldiers, he descends further and further into hell. The movie begins to recall Cormac McCarthy’s Blood Meridian as the characters become increasingly driven by the desire to kill the Apache chief.
From here, however, the movie begins to meander. The focus of the movie is lost once the characters arrive in Mexico and begin to cause trouble with French soldiers. Heston and Harris spend half of the movie battling each other and the other half getting along as good as old friends. Heston has a half-baked romance with one woman and then runs around with more Mexican women. There is a great deal of tension between the Union and Confederate soldiers who are both serving in this search party. The movie becomes a half-baked deconstructive western that never really finds its bearing. Whether this was from studio interference or just being overzealous on Peckinpah’s part, I am unsure.
Major Dundee is a movie of great potential and some bright moments that in the end falls flat. It is a large, sprawling, ambitious western that does not quite accomplish what it sets out to do. While it is by no means a masterpiece, it is a clear hint as to what Peckinpah would become and the awe-inspiring work he would do four years later in The Wild Bunch.
Directed by: Sam Peckinpah
Starring: Charlton Heston, Richard Harris, James Coburn
There is only one instance in his entire body of work that I can think of a true hero that Peckinpah presented as the protagonist of his movie. In his movie, Straw Dogs (1974), Peckinpah establishes Dustin Hoffman’s character as a mild-mannered mathematics professor who has fled the United States. He may have spoken out against the Vietnam War, he may have said something improper within the confines of his university, we will never know. But what we do know is that he is focused on his work, a complicated man with a relatively short temper, but not a character who is dead-set on doing any kind of wrong. He is only forced to do violence when he is pushed to a breaking point. This is not the case in his other films, movies like The Wild Bunch (1969), The Ballad of Cable Hogue (1970), and The Getaway (1972) all feature protagonists who are not necessarily likeable, and in some cases are downright despicable. Peckinpah seems to play the older cinematic norms, pushing stories into other places where nothing is black and white and those that would normally be abhorred can also be loved. As opposed to a filmmaker like Sergio Leone, who did nothing but elevate the various motifs of the American western in his movies like Once Upon a Time in the West and The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, Peckinaph seeks to destroy all old motifs. This is the case with his first major film, Major Dundee.
There are no nice characters in this movie. Major Dundee (Heston) is not someone that you can identify with. Richard Harris’ character is not likeable either. In fact, the only person that seems to provide some kind of (incredibly important) moral compass is the sometime narrator, the Bugler. This character that provides commentary also provides relief and a sense of what little good is occurring in the movie.
As Major Dundee goes on his search for the Apache chief who massacred scores of Union Soldiers, he descends further and further into hell. The movie begins to recall Cormac McCarthy’s Blood Meridian as the characters become increasingly driven by the desire to kill the Apache chief.
From here, however, the movie begins to meander. The focus of the movie is lost once the characters arrive in Mexico and begin to cause trouble with French soldiers. Heston and Harris spend half of the movie battling each other and the other half getting along as good as old friends. Heston has a half-baked romance with one woman and then runs around with more Mexican women. There is a great deal of tension between the Union and Confederate soldiers who are both serving in this search party. The movie becomes a half-baked deconstructive western that never really finds its bearing. Whether this was from studio interference or just being overzealous on Peckinpah’s part, I am unsure.
Major Dundee is a movie of great potential and some bright moments that in the end falls flat. It is a large, sprawling, ambitious western that does not quite accomplish what it sets out to do. While it is by no means a masterpiece, it is a clear hint as to what Peckinpah would become and the awe-inspiring work he would do four years later in The Wild Bunch.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
TV (Finally) Killed Movies
The great battle between TV and movies has finally been won and not by the side that was expected. While during the 1950’s people feared that the advent of television and its increasing popularity would give way to the death of the movie theater, it took nearly sixty more years for it to finally begin to put the nails in the movies’ coffin.
Around 1950, television became a popular form of media in the United States. People were clambering around the television to watch programs each night, all the while movie studios became worried that their viewership would drop because of this new form of presentation. What followed were a number of gimmicks in hopes of attracting people away from their TV sets- things like wide screen movies, which first started popping up around 1953 with The Robe. What followed were other gimmicks like 3-D, Smell-O-Vision, etc. However, none of these gimmicks were really able to substitute for good storytelling.
Movies were lucky enough to have a relatively good period between 1965-1981, when there were interesting, smart, and challenging movies being made on all fronts, whether they were small art-house pieces about relationships or big Hollywood blockbusters like Star Wars and Jaws. These movies were actually spurred on by the failure of those epic movies, those extremely expensive blockbusters of the late 1950’s and early 1960’s.
However, since then, the movies have lost their souls. Rather than worrying about the quality of the product, the story being told, or the message within the movie, the movies have become so expensive that there is no room for exploration or taking chances. The reason for this failure of creating intellectually vigorous movies rests in two camps, as I see it. First, starting in the early 1980’s studio heads began to see that they could control the product that was being produced. Stronger studio heads began to dictate the product and took away the creative freedom many directors had enjoyed during the 1970’s, part of this had to do with the box-office success of the movies of the late 1970’s, movies like Star Wars and Jaws had made so much money for the studios that the heads decided their best bet would be to find more big movies like this that could make a huge amount of money into.
During the late 1980s’ and early 1990’s as movies like this became increasingly prominent, movies like Die Hard and Predator and other such action movies became increasingly lucrative for the studios. However, the star power of the actors in these movies also increased their power, as actors began to receive eight, ten, and eventually twenty million dollars for each movie they did. This only served to create increasingly bloated budgets as movies began to regularly cost one hundred million dollars. These movies cost so much money that there is no room for error, no room for any semblance of chance.
So how has TV killed movies? First, one should look at the growth of popularity of DVDs and other such media sources. DVD’s, ITunes, downloadable content, have all increased the access to various sorts of media that people have. You couple that with the large number of television channels, providing increasing number of options and the high saturation of cable in the United States, it leads to increased revenue opportunities. Combine the multiple ways in which people can make money from this content with the either pay-television or commercials found on television programs, it creates both an increasing stream of revenue for television shows and increases the potential budget and production values of these television shows.
A television show can run anywhere from 20 minutes an episode to 60 minutes, while a season can run anywhere from 10 to 22 episodes a season. On the low-end, this gives the writers, directors, and actors nearly two hundred minutes in which to create and explore stories and characters. For a pay television, hour-long, thirteen episode series they will have thirteen hours, or 780 minutes. Most movies run anywhere from 80-120 minutes, on the high end they will be somewhere in the neighborhood of 180 minutes. This space that TV shows are afforded both allows for increased character development but also is divided up in such away that it makes it easier for our ADD generation to swallow. An episode of even an hour is much easier for someone to watch than two or three hours of a movie.
By its having a broader framework within which to work, and because of its increasing profitability, television shows have begun to attract grade A talent and have grown by leaps and bounds when it comes to production value. Martin Scorsese has his first television show coming out this fall, Steven Spielberg has produced two mini-series, actors like Alec Baldwin, Glenn Close, and many others have found themselves on TV series. What was formerly the refuge of lesser actors has become the place in which much of visual media’s talent has fled. The canvas upon which to paint stories that in some cases have become novel-esque is almost astounding when one looks at a series or even a series of television as a whole.
As I stated previously, the quality of television has far exceeded the quality of 99.9% of the movies that are produced each year. One need only to look at The Wire, Mad Men, The Sopranos, Curb Your Enthusiasm, 30 Rock, Southpark, or mini-series like John Adams, Band of Brothers, or The Company to see how far the quality of television has come to exceed that which is on the silver screen.
Movies have become victims of their own success. The large amount of money that they are able to make also is their great weakness, making their need for assured success turn them into bland, banal, and uninteresting special-effects fests. Television, on the other hand, has become the place in which one can watch characters grow and change, we can come to know these characters better than we know ourselves, and watch as stories expand upon themselves and become something even better.
Television has finally succeeded in killing movies. It has done exactly what movie studios feared would happen in the 1950’s, yet, they were not alone in doing it. Movies had equal part in choking themselves, by using the very techniques they hoped would separate them from television. As I sit back and watch as movies become increasingly insipid, I can only hope that this slow death will lead to a rebirth similar to that of the late 1960’s- but I would not hold my breath waiting for it.
Around 1950, television became a popular form of media in the United States. People were clambering around the television to watch programs each night, all the while movie studios became worried that their viewership would drop because of this new form of presentation. What followed were a number of gimmicks in hopes of attracting people away from their TV sets- things like wide screen movies, which first started popping up around 1953 with The Robe. What followed were other gimmicks like 3-D, Smell-O-Vision, etc. However, none of these gimmicks were really able to substitute for good storytelling.
Movies were lucky enough to have a relatively good period between 1965-1981, when there were interesting, smart, and challenging movies being made on all fronts, whether they were small art-house pieces about relationships or big Hollywood blockbusters like Star Wars and Jaws. These movies were actually spurred on by the failure of those epic movies, those extremely expensive blockbusters of the late 1950’s and early 1960’s.
However, since then, the movies have lost their souls. Rather than worrying about the quality of the product, the story being told, or the message within the movie, the movies have become so expensive that there is no room for exploration or taking chances. The reason for this failure of creating intellectually vigorous movies rests in two camps, as I see it. First, starting in the early 1980’s studio heads began to see that they could control the product that was being produced. Stronger studio heads began to dictate the product and took away the creative freedom many directors had enjoyed during the 1970’s, part of this had to do with the box-office success of the movies of the late 1970’s, movies like Star Wars and Jaws had made so much money for the studios that the heads decided their best bet would be to find more big movies like this that could make a huge amount of money into.
During the late 1980s’ and early 1990’s as movies like this became increasingly prominent, movies like Die Hard and Predator and other such action movies became increasingly lucrative for the studios. However, the star power of the actors in these movies also increased their power, as actors began to receive eight, ten, and eventually twenty million dollars for each movie they did. This only served to create increasingly bloated budgets as movies began to regularly cost one hundred million dollars. These movies cost so much money that there is no room for error, no room for any semblance of chance.
So how has TV killed movies? First, one should look at the growth of popularity of DVDs and other such media sources. DVD’s, ITunes, downloadable content, have all increased the access to various sorts of media that people have. You couple that with the large number of television channels, providing increasing number of options and the high saturation of cable in the United States, it leads to increased revenue opportunities. Combine the multiple ways in which people can make money from this content with the either pay-television or commercials found on television programs, it creates both an increasing stream of revenue for television shows and increases the potential budget and production values of these television shows.
A television show can run anywhere from 20 minutes an episode to 60 minutes, while a season can run anywhere from 10 to 22 episodes a season. On the low-end, this gives the writers, directors, and actors nearly two hundred minutes in which to create and explore stories and characters. For a pay television, hour-long, thirteen episode series they will have thirteen hours, or 780 minutes. Most movies run anywhere from 80-120 minutes, on the high end they will be somewhere in the neighborhood of 180 minutes. This space that TV shows are afforded both allows for increased character development but also is divided up in such away that it makes it easier for our ADD generation to swallow. An episode of even an hour is much easier for someone to watch than two or three hours of a movie.
By its having a broader framework within which to work, and because of its increasing profitability, television shows have begun to attract grade A talent and have grown by leaps and bounds when it comes to production value. Martin Scorsese has his first television show coming out this fall, Steven Spielberg has produced two mini-series, actors like Alec Baldwin, Glenn Close, and many others have found themselves on TV series. What was formerly the refuge of lesser actors has become the place in which much of visual media’s talent has fled. The canvas upon which to paint stories that in some cases have become novel-esque is almost astounding when one looks at a series or even a series of television as a whole.
As I stated previously, the quality of television has far exceeded the quality of 99.9% of the movies that are produced each year. One need only to look at The Wire, Mad Men, The Sopranos, Curb Your Enthusiasm, 30 Rock, Southpark, or mini-series like John Adams, Band of Brothers, or The Company to see how far the quality of television has come to exceed that which is on the silver screen.
Movies have become victims of their own success. The large amount of money that they are able to make also is their great weakness, making their need for assured success turn them into bland, banal, and uninteresting special-effects fests. Television, on the other hand, has become the place in which one can watch characters grow and change, we can come to know these characters better than we know ourselves, and watch as stories expand upon themselves and become something even better.
Television has finally succeeded in killing movies. It has done exactly what movie studios feared would happen in the 1950’s, yet, they were not alone in doing it. Movies had equal part in choking themselves, by using the very techniques they hoped would separate them from television. As I sit back and watch as movies become increasingly insipid, I can only hope that this slow death will lead to a rebirth similar to that of the late 1960’s- but I would not hold my breath waiting for it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)