Archive for July, 2010

Film Diary: Metropolis (The Complete Version)

Thursday, July 29th, 2010

1927 (Germany)
Director: Fritz Lang
Viewed: July 26, 2010
Format: Theatrical Print (Landmark Tivoli Theater)

My first experience with Metropolis was, unfortunately, a relatively cheap DVD that was apparently released after the film’s American copyright had lapsed.  You can imagine the quality.  I have never seen the 2002 Murnau Foundation / Kino International restoration, so the new “Complete” Metropolis now enjoying a limited theatrical release in the U.S. was akin to a brand spanking new film to my eyes.  This iteration of the film seemed almost twice as long as the version I had recalled.  Certainly, the narrative is more coherent, although still not without its plot holes.  (As Glenn Kenny wonders, where exactly is the army that Joh Fredersen was presumably going to use to crush the workers’ rebellion?)  The “Argentinean footage” that was the impetus for this version of the film is in rough shape and not especially revelatory, but it does provide more connective tissue, so to speak, rounding out aspects of the story that might otherwise have seemed even more perplexing.

To contemporary sensibilities, the film’s treacly message of cooperation and moderation seems like naive, feel-good moralizing, a ridiculously flimsy attempt to resolve the fundamental conflict between capitalism’s grinding indifference and socialism’s revolutionary flame. However, the visual achievements on display here are undeniable.  And yet, for all of Metropolis’ seminal design and stunning ambition—and those crowd shots do look remarkable on the big screen—the most fascinating aspect of the film for this viewer remains its curious (and under-developed) attitude towards robotics and artificial intelligence.  Here we have one of the first cinematic depictions of a machine crafted to resemble a person, and yet such a marvel becomes secondary to the film’s enthusiasm for sheer spectacle and its half-baked portrayal of the antagonism between management and labor.

Nonetheless, I think that the way that the Robot Maria is portrayed in the film is quite revealing.  Our contemporary conception of artificial intelligence is tightly entwined with the notion of cold rationality, where even the most fearsome mechanical being (a Terminator, say), is assumed to simply be following its programming with ruthless efficiency.   From the moment she attains consciousness, however, the Robot Maria displays an almost comically malevolent lust for chaos and destruction.  Brigitte Helm’s astonishing performance—which is grotesque even for a silent film portrayal—shrieks one message loud and clear: this woman-thing is bad, bad news.  Helm conveys an automaton that visibly revels in its role as an instigator and idolatrous object.  Heck, she’s laughing with satanic glee even as they lash her to the stake for an old-fashioned witch-burning.  The portentous use of biblical imagery simply bolds and underlines the current of moral terror that Helm establishes with her performance.  One wonders whether Lang and writer Thea von Harbou thought that all artificial beings would necessarily turn out to be wicked monsters.  Or perhaps Rotwang’s own ambitions were so tainted by sorrow and vengeance that his creation was inevitably corrupted?  Who can say?  The film doesn’t, so we’re left to speculate.  Nonetheless, the Robot Maria’s almost manic need to destroy strongly suggests a deeply skeptical view of humankind’s capacity for creation, well before words like “android” even existed.

Dream a Little Dream a Little Dream a Little Dream

Friday, July 23rd, 2010

Inception
2010 (USA)
Director: Christopher Nolan
Viewed: July 22, 2010
Format: Theatrical Print (St. Louis Cinemas Moolah Theater)

“Ambitious” is a term frequently affixed to films solely due to the scale or complexity of their production, whether the work in question is one of the opulent, magisterial epics of old or a contemporary blockbuster that recruits battalions of computer wizards for its virtual world-building.  One could say that Christopher Nolan’s Batman films warrant the label, if only because of their fulsome design and dizzying scope.  However, Nolan’s taste for the ambitious is focused foremost on narrative, as epitomized in the disorienting, reversed chronology of his breakout art-house noir, Memento.  Two years after The Dark Knight trampled everything in its path, that film’s sprawling, relentless, and often preposterous plot nonetheless endures as a grueling feat of sustained anxiety and twenty-first century terror.  Now we come to Inception, the first feature written solely by Nolan since his 1998 debut Following, and it is, if anything, a doubling down on the director’s fascination with convoluted storytelling.  Who else but Nolan could weave a tale that unfolds simultaneously in four linked dream worlds, where time dilates to varying degrees but always ticks inexorably forward?  Who else would have the heedless ambition to even attempt such a thing, to convey such an elaborate scenario through the language of film? Who else but Christopher Nolan would even want to try?

(more…)

A Study in Scarlet (and Other Hues)

Tuesday, July 20th, 2010

Blogger and prolific commenter MovieMan0283 has proposed an intriguing meme at his place, The Dancing Image.  Taking a cue from the open gallery of reader-submitted film stills hosted by Stephen at Checking on My Sausages, MovieMan has proposed a bit of a free-form exercise, wherein participants assemble a collection of screen captures that follow a theme of their choice.  MovieMan got the ball rolling with a stellar series of stills from opening shots.  My own submission is below.  I think the theme is self-evident, although in a couple of instances it is realized in an unconventional way.  The films are identified at the bottom.

Throne of Blood (Kumonosu-jô) (Akira Kurosawa, 1957)
Don’t Look Now (Nicolas Roeg, 1973)
Deep Red (Profundo Rosso) (Dario Argento, 1975)
Jaws (Steven Spielberg, 1975)
Predator (John McTiernan, 1987)
Wild at Heart (David Lynch, 1990)
Fight Club (David Fincher, 1999)
Kill Bill: Vol. 1 (Quentin Tarantino, 2003)
Hellboy (Guillermo del Toro, 2004)
Caché (Michael Haneke, 2005)
Sin City (Robert Rodriguez and Frank Miller, 2005)
No Country for Old Men (Ethan and Joel Coen, 2007)
Let the Right One In (Låt den rätte komma in) (Tomas Alfredson, 2008)

They may not even notice (or they may already have participated), but I’m tagging Tim at Antagony and Ecstasy, Troy at Elusive as Robert Denby, The Film Doctor, Bill at The Kind of Face You Hate, and Jason at The Cooler.

Film Diary: Throne of Blood (Kumonosu-jô)

Tuesday, July 20th, 2010

1957 (Japan)
Director: Akira Kurosawa
Viewed: July 18, 2010
Format: Theatrical Print (Webster University Moore Auditorium)

[Throne of Blood was screened on July 18, 2010 as a part of the Webster University Film Series' retrospective on the films of Akira Kurosawa, in honor of his centennial birthday.]

When it comes to adaptations of Macbeth, restraint is not usually part of the equation, and Kurosawa’s thrilling take on the Bard’s succinct, bloody tragedy is no exception.  I’ll let those more familiar with Japanese culture than I hold forth on the director’s use of Noh drama conventions in the film.  For me, the most remarkable aspect of Throne of Blood is the potency with which the director and writers convey the tragedy’s distinctly Greek patrimony.  I’ve always found one of Macbeth’s most compelling themes to be the mystery of free will, a focus that marks the play as an heir to a vital Hellenistic tradition, epitomized in Sophocles’ Oedipus the King.  However, Shakespeare and Kurosawa probe beyond the rudimentary paradoxes that crop up wherever prophecies of doom are concerned, conveying the supremacy of our baser natures over our noblest aspirations, as well as the essential helplessness that characterizes so much of the human experience.

Moreover, there’s an undeniable and incredibly fruitful tension at work in Throne of Blood between the Kurosawa the tale-spinner and Kurosawa the humanist.  It’s clear the director has a lot of affection for the bombastic, exaggerated dimensions of the story, evident in the way Toshirô Mifune’s Washizu stalks around bow-legged, stiff-spined, and eyes bulging. Or in the discordant whistle that pierces the soundtrack when Washizu learns he has been named master of the Northern Garrison. (Just! Like! The! Spirit! PREDICTED!)  However, the film always retains a sense of mournfulness and desperation that gives it greater weight than that of a mere wicked fairy tale.  Kurosawa and Mifune manage to make Washizu genuinely pitiable—he actually evokes a whimpering child when Miki’s ghost makes its appearance—even as the man succumbs to the blackest, most putrescent excesses of hubris.  And of course, there is Isuzu Yamada’s turn as the terrifying Asaji, who makes Lady Macbeth seem like a quivering piker by comparison.  It’s not a perfect film.  Too often, Kurosawa laboriously extends sequences that don’t seem to warrant such treatment, as in Washizu and Miki’s wanderings after their encounter with the forest spirit, or in the Lord Tzuzuki’s funeral procession.  Yet Throne of Blood stands out as one of the finest filmic adaptations of Shakespeare I’ve seen, capturing the spirit of the source material perfectly while also serving as an exceptional cinematic work in its own right.

What’s It Like to Be the Bad Man?

Friday, July 16th, 2010

The Killer Inside Me
2010 (USA)
Director: Michael Winterbottom
Viewed: July 12, 2010
Format: Theatrical Print (Landmark Plaza Frontenac)

Michael Winterbottom’s adaptation of Jim Thompson’s 1952 noir novel The Killer Inside Me is not an enjoyable film, at least as one usually applies the term to a movie-going experience.  Nor is it without vexing structural flaws.  And yet it is an undeniably fascinating work, an absorbing and unnervingly insistent portrayal of a murderous mind that joins the ranks of cult notables such as Mary Harron’s American Psycho and John McNaughton’s Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer.   However, the gaze of Winterbottom’s film reaches back to a more distant point.  Specifically, to Psycho, whose particular cinematic genius the film cannibalizes and assimilates into its own strange approach.  Working from a screenplay by director John Curran, Winterbottom maintains a literate awareness of Hitchcock’s seminal thriller throughout his film, without resorting to shameless appropriation or self-conscious homage.  Thompson’s novel has made the jump to the screen before, in a 1976 Stacy Keach vehicle directed by Burt Kennedy.  However, the new film does not carry the telltale odor of a flimsy remake, nor that of an adaptation overly beholden to its source material.  This new take on The Killer Inside Me is insolent and distinctly cinematic.  It ambles along a lurid, eccentric path on an unsettling mission: to convey both the hideous normalcy and incomprehensible disconnection of the psychopathic mind.

(more…)

Late to the Game: Sherlock Holmes

Thursday, July 15th, 2010

2009 (USA)
Director: Guy Ritchie
Viewed: July 11, 2010
Format: Blu-ray - Warner Brothers (2010)

Guy Ritchie purges the Victorian starch (and elegance) from Doyle’s sleuth, while preserving Holmes’ spooky powers of deduction and highlighting forgotten character details, such as the Great Detective’s talent for bare-knuckle boxing and his penchant for narcotics.  Purists will doubtlessly blanch at the director’s approach, which paints Holmes as a superhero for a steampunk-tinged nineteenth century London.  However, Robert Downey Jr.’s portrayal possesses sufficient odd-duck touches to render this Sherlock a credible (if multiplex-friendly) variation on the iconic character.  Witty and rollicking, the film focuses on a Holmesian mainstay—banal evil dressed up in mystical garb—and generally succeeds, despite a story stuffed with baffling plot holes. The gaggle of writers (surprise!) are too eager to sacrifice consistency for the sake of action, and leave far too much unexplained, despite a coda where Holmes sweeps away a plethora of seemingly supernatural events with his vaunted reason.  Still, there’s plenty of glint to admire on this bauble, whether in Ritchie’s flamboyant style, Hans Zimmer’s lively score (his most flat-out stimulating in years), or the consistently rich art direction, which relies heavily on conspicuous computer effects, but still manages to delight.  Sherlock Holmes suggests that anachronistic Victorian adventure can be guilty good fun, The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen be damned.

Film Diary: Ran

Wednesday, July 7th, 2010

1985 (Japan)
Director: Akira Kurosawa
Viewed: July 5, 2010
Format: Theatrical Print (Webster University Moore Auditorium)

[Ran is being screened on July 2-6 and 8, 2010 as a part of the Webster University Film Series’ retrospective on the films of Akira Kurosawa, in honor of his centennial birthday.]

Ran is something of a seminal film for me.  It was not only the first Kurosawa film I ever saw, but also the first non-animated Japanese film and the first non-English-language epic.  It remains the only staging, adaptation, or re-imagining of King Lear I’ve ever seen, live or filmed.  On this point, I think that Kurosawa’s take—which owes as much, if not more, to legends of the historical daimyo Mori Motonari than it does to the Bard—makes for better cinema than a stricter adaptation of Lear might have made.  Ran doesn’t really have any analogues to the often confusing Gloucester plot threads in Shakespeare’s tragedy.  The story rests on the simple formula of the Great Lord and the Three Sons, with Lady Kaede thrown in as the wild card (or the ace up Misfortune’s sleeve, depending on you look at it).  That said, at its core, Ran is fundamentally a singularly bleak Shakespearean tragedy, stocked with characters who lament (to the heavens, no less) the cruel, capricious, bloody nature of the human condition in suitably purple prose.  It’s a flawlessly grim film, where even the jester Kyoami’s japes seem ripe with dire portent, and it is this discipline in tone that prevents Ran from sliding into the depths of angst-ridden self-parody.

Consistent with what I suspect is the pattern for most viewers, the first time I saw the film, the bloody siege of the Third Castle is what stuck in my mind, along with Tatsuya Nakadai’s frightening visage. To be sure, the siege remains a brutal, utterly de-romanticized depiction of warfare, but repeat viewings reveal a slower film than one might remember, replete with pauses, meanderings, and lengthy shots of little more than Nakadai’s Hidetora reacting to each fresh twist of fate with stupefied, goggle-eyed horror.  Which isn’t to say that Ran is a sedate film, by any means.  With the exception of the opening sequence on a bucolic green hilltop, the scenes in which very little action is occurring are nonetheless characterized by an uncanny “offness,” frequently underlined by natural sounds that intrude into visually placid moments, bestowing a sense of alarm and discord.  This gives the audience ample time to savor the pure cinematic majesty of the film, while still maintaining a gnawing awareness that events are tumbling into chaos.

This was my first time experiencing Ran on the big screen, and I discerned endless details that I had never picked up on before.  The most startling occurs in the final shots, as Suburo’s army marches away in grief across a barren plain.  Eventually the films cuts to a closer shot of the orange cliffs that loom behind the army, where blind Tsurumaru waits on the precipice for his sister.  I had never before observed that Tsurumaru is actually visible in that initial long shot, as little more than a dot on the cliffs.  That detail, putting an actor on that precipice, all so that there would be that little shadowed speck there, and the audience would gasp, “Oh my God, is that the blind guy, still standing there—” just before the cut that confirms it… well, that’s what epic film-making in the days before CGI was all about.