Sunset Blvd.



director: Billy Wilder
year: 1950


Hack screenwriter Joe Gillis (William Holden) can't sell many stories these days. His money situation is dire. It looks like he's going to have to pack in the writing dream and head back to drone work in Ohio. That is, until fate intervenes and pushes him into the long driveway of one of those exquisite mansions that the old stars used to live in. A relic from an earlier time. Except, this one's not quite a relic. In fact, it's still inhabited; and by none other than former queen of the screen Norma Desmond (Gloria Swanson), whose presence once lit up movie palaces all over the world, back when the pictures still meant something! But that was some time ago. Nowadays, Norma lives in seclusion and delusion, still dreaming of "a return", while her audience has shrunk to just one: manservant Max von Mayerling (Erich von Stroheim). Did I mention it all begins with Joe Gillis' dead body floating face-down in Norma Desmond's pool?


Thus begin's one of cinema's most famous voice-over narrations, told by Gillis out of the grave, as we flashback to the beginning and learn just how an unknown screenwriter ended up dead at the house of one of the film world's greatest former stars—and before the gossip rags distort it all in tomorrow's paper. It's not a pretty story; like most of Wilder's films, it has a nasty view of humanity as capable of causing itself immense pain and harm. But there's a tragic beauty about a tale like this one, told with classical beauty. Especially if we focus on neither of the two main characters, but, instead, on the emotional core of the film: Max von Mayerling. For, if Norma Desmond is the sad end of someone once great, thrown away by the same industry that used to pander to her, Max is the picture of constant and self-less devotion. Wilder never offers him even a moment of relief. As for Joe Gillis, he's a nobody, one of a million nobodies who come to Los Angeles to succeed, and succeed only at failure. Humanity is inhumane, Hollywood is ruthless and uncaring, and most of us end up either dead or insane, Wilder tells us. Of course, Sunset Blvd. has so much going for it—a quotable script, a novel-like sense of place, handsome cinematography, and a full command of cinema space—that we can, perhaps, be forgiven if we fail to notice all its cynical glumness and, simply, enjoy ourselves.

Sunset Blvd. tells us we're rotten, rotting, or rotted. But it does this in an impeccably entertaining and sympathetic way. Because even as Wilder's pointing out that most us are selfish fools, he still shows us that he loves us.

Old Joy



director: Kelly Reichardt
year: 2006


Two thirty-something friends, a father-to-be and a bald-and-bearded hippie loner, reunite for a two-day trip to a remote Oregon hot springs. They get a bit lost, eventually find their spot, soak, and return home. Simple, isn't it?

Except it's not that simple. For Old Joy, adapted as it is from a short story, works as something like a weekend retreat for the regular movie-goer; and its whole point is not immediate plot. Instead, it's languid, elusive style works to hint at the plots beyond, before (and perhaps after) the action of the film. The idea being that simple and seemingly irrelevant glances, words, movements in the present actually speak more about the past than the now. It's through this idea that Old Joy, which is about two guys camping, becomes a story about the drifting apart of youthful friendships and the inevitability of time. Meanwhile, the film itself works to disappoint what have become conventions of mainstream cinema. For example, Reichardt shows us a gun. To this gun, we respond with a narrow series of predictions: the friends will get attacked, their dog will die and have to be put down, one of the friends will murder the other. When none of these things happen, we realize that they were not as inevitable as we first thought! Where Old Joy does falter, however, is in its placing this gentle story of two friends and the passing of time in a deliberate political and sexual context: a car radio plays Air America, tensions and symbols hint at a maybe-homosexual relationship between the two friends. A back rub may just be a back rub, or it may be something more. Old Joy leaves that up to the viewer. It asks us to decide, refusing to do anything more than ask the question. Unfortunately, these are questions that disrupt the gentle harmony of the film; these are questions that would be better not asked at all.

Relax and spend time with two old friends and some original music by Yo La Tengo, Old Joy. There are certainly many more stressful and less appealing ways to spend 76 minutes of a rainy afternoon.

Forty Guns



director: Samuel Fuller
year: 1957


Jessica Drumond (Barbara Stanwyck) is a tough landowner—a "high riding woman with a whip", as one of the film's songs tells us—who rules, with the help of a loyal "forty guns", over her Arizona land with an iron fist and not much of a thought given to ideas like law and justice. But, when stoic and handsome gunslinger Griff Bonnell (Barry Sullivan) comes to town, things just may change. Will the hero and his two brothers be able to tame this dragon-lady, or will her rule of inverted-patriarchy continue to stand? Well, it is 1950s Hollywood, so that's not a real question; but it's still quite subversive until the ending!


With Forty Guns, Fuller truly lets loose. In crisp black-and-white, he charges into your head all weapons blazing: clinical editing, various extreme and amazing angles, and a myriad of visual effects in support of a story that abounds in crazy Freudian symbols! That the film was an inexpensive, quickly shot B-picture grants him the freedom, of course. But he also certainly makes the most of it, because painted onto the bones of what would have been a forgettable Western in lesser hands is pure creativity. This film is Fuller. All you have to do meet him is watch it. Granted, he's a bit of an eccentric, so you two may not get on, but give him 80 minutes of your time because if you strike up a friendship, it'll last forever. Oh, just don't pay much attention to the film's nonsense plot. Enjoy the technique, the style, the themes. Enjoy what are two of the weirdest musical scenes ever captured in a Western. Enjoy an impeccable shoot-out. Simply: enjoy one of the most unique Westerns of the 1950s.

Forty Guns: it's like if Samuel Fuller gave birth to a baby and that baby directed a western, that western would be like a western directed by David Lynch.

Inland Empire



director: David Lynch
year: 2006


Beautiful blonde actress Nikki Grace (Laura Dern) lands a role in a film with the nice Lynchean title On High in Blue Tomorrows. But, as she soon learns, the film's story isn't entirely original. In fact, it's based on a Polish folk tale and has already been previously made in Germany under the title Forty Seven—kind of: its filming interrupted by the murder of its two leads. Is that just a legend or is there something sinister within the story itself? Meanwhile, Nikki also finds herself falling in love with her playboy costar Devon Burk (Justin Theroux), and their relationship begins to mirror that of their two characters in the film, including the presence of an ominous husband. Then things get weird, realities start to shift, and Lynch takes over. I mean, really, it's a Lynch movie: a plot synopsis is impossibly unnecessary!


Inland Empire is Lynch on free reign: written, directed and produced. Three hours long, it contains all of the usual Lynch motifs, themes, and images in kaleidescope abundance; and spins them into what is, in effect, a marvelous Lynch epic. While it's certainly not as accessible or weirdly entertaining as a film like Blue Velvet—it lacks the histrionics of a performance by Dennis Hopper—it's certainly much richer, in nearly every way. Much of this has to do with the effects Lynch is able to create because, for the first time, he's shooting on video, not film. And he's vowed never to go back! Extreme close-ups, beautiful lighting, and lots of experimentation abound. There's also the strange and eerie contrast between what Lynch is showing and the way he's showing it (think something similar to Lars von Trier's Dancer in the Dark), which becomes one of the film's greatest ironies and complexities: despite it's "video look", which most people would say is more "realistic" than film, Inland Empire is actually far more removed from reality than much of Lynch's other work. It works deeper under the surface, so to speak. It's also important to note that the film was shot in Poland, with plenty of Polish actors, and is, in parts, in Polish. Eerie jazz all around.

Inland Empire is, simply put, a David Lynch epic. Experience it. Come on, baby, do the locomotion!

Postcards from an Inland Empire

Films can sometimes leave a strange mark on you, can sometimes impress their quality on you in unexpected ways. It's not enjoyment or visual appreciation or ideological awakening. It's not the appreciation of technique or the memorizing of snappy dialogue. No, it's not really anything at all: it's lack.


The last time I had this feeling was after the lights went out in a theater that was showing Sergei Paradjanov's Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors. It was my first time seeing the film, now one of my favourites, and I wasn't particularly enjoying it. In fact, the film was tiring me out and I was checking my watch to see when it would end. When it finally did end, I didn't wait for the credits to roll through, but just grabbed my coat, slid on my hat, and walked home. It was a short walk. I got in the door, unlocked my room, threw my coat in, showered, and hit the bed. It wasn't especially late, I had had some further plans for the night, but Paradjanov had exhausted me. I closed my eyes.

Then, suddenly, I felt it.

Lack.

Lack of the film, lack of its images and sounds and music, lack of its style, lack of everything that had just tired me out. But what tires someone out more than experience? And it was exactly that experience that I was missing: the experience of the film.


I felt that way again after finishing David Lynch's Inland Empire a short time ago. I'm tired, pooped, ready to fall into bed. Except this time I'm writing down how I feel. And it's the same feeling. I didn't enjoy Inland Empire on any of the usual levels: story, characters, composition, theme, etc. For a long while, I didn't enjoy it at all, and I was already thinking up all the nasty comments I was going to make about how David Lynch had finally overdosed on himself.

But then the credits came. I watched them this time, for reasons I'm sure everyone will watch them. And when the credits ended, I felt it again.

Lack.

It felt like part of the world had suddenly shut off. Like the 60W light bulb over your writing desk suddenly burning out. You may not have been concentrating on the light, but it was integral. And now that it's gone, you're certainly aware that it used to be there. You miss it. You lack it.


Perhaps, then, it's accurate to say that films like Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors and Inland Empire both cast their ambiance on me.


She's ready for her close-up, Mr. DeMille! And this one's somewhat mild. One aspect of Lynch's style that abounds in Inland Empire is the extreme close-up. Especially on human faces. I'm guessing it's the distortion that Lynch likes, the fish-eye effect. Working on video for the first time, he's making new uses from his new toys.


Here are two more examples, used for different reasons. In the top image, the close-up reinforces the character's emotion: sadness. The bottom image, however, is used to evoke feelings of menace and a taste of the grotesque.

Also, unlike the first still, where the camera is eye-to-eye and distortion minimal, the second is actually quite unnatural. I don't remember ever looking down at someone from that angle and from that close to their face.

The face will be a theme that continues throughout the film, with special attention paid to the face of lead actress Laura Dern.


Light will be another plaything for Lynch, who'll exploit not only changes in light, but will also take advantage of the non-film look of harsh light captured on video. The scene from which this is taken actually occurs in slow-motion, giving it an even more eerie or mystical quality.


Here, a blast of harsh light.


Here, red light.


Here, natural light.


And, finally, here: natural light of an extreme close-up, with distortion. The Three Faces of Nikki?

And that's not just a rhetorical question. Because another interesting dimension to Lynch's film is its knowledge of various styles of cinema. At one point near the beginning, for example, a character mentions Clark Gable, and, about ten minutes later, there's a film-within-a-film that plays, editing and dialogue, like a Classical Hollywood romance. Lynch is tricky like that, able to switch styles on a dime.


It also doesn't hurt if you have an actress like Dern, who can go from sultry to shaken from scene to scene and, in essence, play about four different characters.


Just another example of sultry.


Something of a cross between sultry and shaken. Leaning toward shaken.


All shaken.


In addition to all that acting and directing, there's also some experimentation going on. There's the new medium for Lynch to experiment with, of course, plus there's his complete fiscal power over the film, and then the usual Lynch creativity.

In a neat parallel with much of the film's music (jazzy, with lots of Penderecki), Lynch also seems to be riffing and improvising quite often: on various familiar themes and motifs, on plot, and on camerawork. But the film never becomes anything resembling a Cassavetes form of loose experimentation. Instead, we have an experimental form of classical music, or perhaps improvisation that's been pre-planned. I remember reading somewhere that before Coltrane went on stage, he'd spend hours practicing and memorizing his night's slice of improv.


A hole in a piece of clothing, burned with a cigarette and glanced through to watch a sitcom about giant rabbits.


In other words, Inland Empire is not without its faults. I mentioned earlier about being ready to rip into the film as David Lynch overdosing on David Lynch. Although I don't want to do that anymore, I still think the idea has its merits. Because given the freedom Lynch had in making this film, it almost invited him to try everything and anything that popped into his head; and then not to bother cutting it out to make a film that was, say, an hour shorter. There are moments in the middle portion of Inland Empire that seem to prove that Lynch is a bit too much of his own fan. He is a good filmmaker with a good dose of rich ideas, but he's starting to believe every one of his ideas is good.


Fortunately, Inland Empire has effective countermeasures!

Namely, that while it's a serious film for long stretches, it also leaps gingerly from mood to mood and tone to tone. Lynch's ability to shift from comedy to horror, for example, is almost uncanny. It often makes you want to rewind, just to see where exactly it happens. And most of the time it's not a blatant transition, with a musical cue, but something much more sly: a different way of moving the camera, a close-up that's too close-up, a change in lighting.


It ain't all serious business.


But, then again, it's not all innocent fun, either. You'll be amazed at how sinister a man with a light bulb in his mouth can be!


Especially when that light bulb belongs to a canted-angle lamp that could be one of the film's greatest villains!

Creepiness works equally well without people, too.


Although people do tend to help.


Makes you feel like you're in an aquarium or some kind of glass box, doesn't it? Reversing the role of character and spectator: Lynch boxes you in! Hello, TV.


A nice shot of Łódź in the wintertime.

Lynch filmed Inland Empire in Poland, and about a fifth of the film is actually in Polish. Several Polish actors play important roles, too. I wonder how different, how much more mysterious or ominous, the film plays to someone who can't speak Polish. I wonder what the sound of the language makes non-speakers feel.

Now I'm really getting tired, and should probably stop typing so I have less typos to correct tomorrow morning. I will, however, leave you off with a frame in the film that almost gave me a heart attack. Thank you, Mr. Lynch, for giving me this image just before I go off to have a dream:


Although, if I had my choice, I'd much prefer to have this next one burned on my brain before sleep takes me away! In either case, the ambiance makes for good suckling.


David Lynch's Inland Empire: it's like a little switch you can turn on to make your world a pinch more zesty. It's also #2 on the cinema spice rack, and a vital ingredient on dates with weirdos.

Thoughts after getting up in the morning: I still like the film, but not my post. Sentences sounded better late at night, when I was tired, than they do now. I'll have to tinker with them, but I'm keeping the images. I like those. Oh, and there were no Lynch-induced nightmares!

David Lynch's Inland Empire: still recommended on the morning after.

Ghost Rider



director: Mark Steven Johnson
year: 2007


From the Marvel comic. Stunt motorcyclist Johnny Blaze (Nicholas Cage) is cheated by the devil (Peter Fonda) into exchanging his soul for a life of servitude. He eventually becomes the titular superhero, with flaming skull and matching bike, when the devil decides to wage war against a band of other Hellish minions, led by Blackheart (Wes Bentley). However, this also gives Blaze a chance to earn back his soul. A beautiful reporter from Blaze's childhood (Eva Mendes) serves as love interest.

Ghost Rider's one of those movies that's just bad enough to not be entertaining, yet not quite bad enough to pass into the guilty pleasures of campiness. Cage's performance does come close to breaking this barrier (the others are just bad), especially if you watch his eyebrows, but the rest of the movie concentrates too much on copying images straight from the comic to be taken as intended comedy. Not that Ghost Rider ever aspires to anything more than passing your time, of course. But, even as a time waster, it's much too long and much too bland. And though some of its visual effects are indeed well rendered and set to pop music, the movie's biggest effect, the appearance of Johnny Blaze as the Ghost Rider, is actually quite disappointing.

Ghost Rider is best reserved for screenings in Hell.

The Lookout



director: Scott Frank
year: 2007


A stuck-up high school hockey star (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) gets cocky and gets into a nasty car wreck that kills two of his friends and permanently screws up his head: he now smells colours, has a faulty memory, sometimes lacks inhibition when speaking, and has trouble with putting things in order. He also now lives with an older blind guy (Jeff Daniels) who "looks like Larry Flynt". And, as he's still adjusting to this new life, some bad dudes led by a badass named Bone take advantage of his fragile sense of independence to enlist his help in knocking off the bank he works at. A drama that also involves a bank robbery ensues.


First off, The Lookout is the directorial debut of screenwriter Scott Frank. Although screenwriters aren't usually "names", you've probably already seen at least some of the movies he's written: Get Shorty, Out of Sight, Minority Report. Hence, don't be fooled. Though The Lookout does sound like the basis for one of his cheeky heist flicks, or at least Memento, it's primarily actually a drama about a young man putting himself together after a horrific accident. That's why the film tends to spin out of control and into predictability as the end nears, characters disappear and shooting commences. Still, what comes before is engaging and Gordon-Levitt, whose roles are never boring and who's usually quite good in them, does well here to make a difficult character work. In fact, the movie's worth watching for his performance alone. Which is actually quite telling, because the rest of the film is decidedly average. For his part, Frank does an unspectacular job behind the camera, though he does well enough to keep the spotlight off himself; there are no camera tricks, no tricky takes. It's simple filmmaking focused on story. The story's alright.

The Lookout is worth seeing for the drama and for the lead performance. Just don't expect a good caper flick.

Zodiac

I missed seeing Zodiac when it came out in theatres early this year. While I read good reviews and had enjoyed all of David Fincher's previous films, the subject of this one didn't especially interest me. I've never been one for the "true crime" and "serial killer" genres. It was a mistake to dismiss the film so easily, however, as Zodiac turned out to be something of a treasure: a mainstream American film that kept me interested and left me entirely satisfied when it was over.

Although I doubt Zodiac will be my favourite film of this year, because nothing in it truly stands out, that's exactly the reason for its underhanded greatness. For Zodiac, unlike most films—even many of the great ones—is competent at every aspect of filmmaking, from story to style to acting. It has no glaring weaknesses; it has only a lack of excellence. And, just maybe, that is a type of excellence, too.


So, while I hesitate to call David Fincher a great American director, his films do have an undeniable solidity to them, which proves that he's at least a very good craftsman. And it's in a film like Zodiac, which contains the bare bones for a very bad and very exploitive TV movie, that this craftsmanship comes through best.

The success of films like Fight Club and Panic Room can be "blamed" on people other than Fincher—source material, screenwriters, performances—but Zodiac, which mines Fincher's own childhood for memories and images, and relies on his filmmaking prowess to make every scene dramatic and interesting, can no longer be dismissed so readily. As the cool kids often say, this time it's all Fincher.

I include the above still for a very particular reason, too: in its artificiality, it reminds me of Alfred Hitchcock. I think back to several scenes in Marnie, in Frenzy, and even in Vertigo, where Hitchcock seems deliberately to make us aware that we are watching a film, and that film is not reality. There's something of a similar taste going on in parts of Zodiac: a true story told through blatantly artificial compositions and special effects. Watch carefully for the early shot when Fincher's camera flies into San Francisco for the first time, for example, and you'll see what I mean.

And, coincidentally, wasn't Alfred Hitchcock also considered a great craftsman before a group of young French critics decided that he was something more?


Another detail that caught my attention while watching Zodiac is the film's use of what is probably called, in academic criticism, a video game aesthetic. Specifically, I'm thinking of the first games in the popular Grand Theft Auto series.

In the above still, for instance, Fincher steals that game's visual point-of-view as well as some of its lighting effects. Compare:


Film, of course, lacks the interactivity of video games, and that alters how we perceive and read point-of-view. In this case, for example, the point-of-view no longer has a practical function: we're not controlling the car, so the top-down view doesn't offer a significant advantage over any other. But, even this idea is a little bit teased at, as we know that the taxi which we're following, in the Grand Theft Auto style, will inevitably come to a bad end! Our lack of interactivity, therefore, ends up being highlighted and flaunted by Fincher's choice of point-of-view. Which all makes the Zodiac killer all the more frightening.

In a fitting conclusion, the entire scene ends on a long take of what is obviously a computer-generated taxi, as the camera slowly moves further and further away. It's only too bad the words "game over" don't appear anywhere onscreen!


Finally, one other aspect of Zodiac that deserves some mention is the films relationship to other films: namely, its treatment of the release of Dirty Harry, a movie itself inspired by the Zodiac killer.


What does Zodiac say about Dirty Harry? Well, it implies that the famous film, with its famous championing of a brand of vigilante justice, exploited public fears, failed to stick to facts, and was released, cynically, when the events it was based on were still very much ongoing: that it was a simple money-grubber. This is an interesting position, taking into account that Zodiac, too, could be viewed as reckless exploitation—especially given the fact that it bestows de facto guilt on a suspect who was cleared several times by police. However, Fincher and company appear to think that time and a greater attention to "historical accuracy" ("based on the real case files" as the film informs us) elevate exploitation to exploration. Do they? I'm not sure: watching Zodiac did at times give me that strange feeling in the pit of my stomach, that feeling of voyeuristic guilt.

Overall, David Fincher's Zodiac is a suspenseful, well-made film. It's more interesting than most of what's in theatres, and well worth the time it takes to watch it.

Sunset Blvd.

There are films I watch once, films I watch twice, and then there's Billy Wilder's Sunset Blvd.


It hasn't always been that way, of course. But it's the way it is now. And, to think, it all began some time ago from that glorious beginning, that one movement of the camera across the title printed on a street curb, followed by a voice, that voice, and then come the police, racing to Norma Desmond's house, where there's a man floating in the pool, a murdered man, a dead man...


The floating body used to belong to Joe Gillis, a hack screenwriter whose stories suddenly stopped selling so well. The voice-over belongs to him, too, coming out of the grave, from the great beyond, narrating the film for us. A story about Joe Gillis meeting Norma Desmond and the complications that lead her to put him in that pool. It's a noir convention, and a noir story, but I've always had a hard time thinking of Sunset Blvd. as a noir film. It has many of the standard elements, that's true, but it's so infinitely more sad and tragic and nostalgic than something like Wilder's own Double Indemnity. The characters in Sunset Blvd. are sympathetic, not nasty and mean. Maybe the film belongs in its own genre, one closely related to another maybe-noir about a screenwriter, Nicholas Ray's In a Lonely Place.


It's also a "waxwork" film, a film that pays thematic and practical homage to the Hollywood of yesteryear, to the silent cinema and its icons. Now, waxworks: that's what Joe Gillis calls Norma Desmond's friends, those who come over for cards sometimes. One of them, the one in the above still, is played by Buster Keaton, for example. Fiction and reality mix. Also in the film are Gloria Swanson, Cecil B. DeMille, and Austrian actor-filmmaker Erich von Stroheim, all stars of an earlier period of filmmaking. Therefore, at the same time as the story of Sunset Blvd. is paying its respects to its own ancestors, Wilder is bringing them to a screen, paying them in a more tangible way as well.

But, there's a complication. For, as much as Wilder seems to defend the silent period through Norma Desmond, his own film relies incredibly on sound, that which Norma Desmond detests. From the voice-over to the music to the amazing dialogue, Sunset Blvd. is a film in a style and technique of its own time, if not even slightly ahead.


I love this image, along with many others in the film. This one, however, always reminds me of a scene in Lolita: an early part of the novel, in which Humbert Humbert sees Lolita reclining in her yard, and, though he desires her, still stays in the background, waiting to make his move. The three arches in the background give it all a sort of classical beauty, too. Like an old Hollywood set, perhaps in a DeMille picture.


As a counterpoint to the previous still, with its vast open space, Wilder brings us inside, into Norma Desmond's large and foreboding house. Notice how full the space is here. The entire screen is covered in textures: skin, cakes, a musical ensemble, paintings, a tiled floor. Later, Joe Gillis will tell us that the house is filled with "junk", but I don't think he's right. Wilder arranges it all so well, filling the emptiness in a way that would make Josef von Sternberg proud. In fact, some of the shots in this scene remind me of shots in The Blue Angel.


A twirling umbrella frozen in time. Well, I froze it. Wilder lets it twirl. Looks kind of like a giant eye, doesn't it?


Another detail: a page from the script Joe is secretly writing with a woman he's fallen for. In the end, this will prove to be his downfall as a lovelorn Norma Desmond, who is in love with Joe, learns of this romance and takes a gun to her cheating lover. That's how she sees it, anyway.

"Well, you'll make a rope of words and strangle this business!" Norma warns Joe when she first learns that he's a writer.

Rather fitting, too, that in a film which is so much about the collision of image and sound, whether historically or within a single frame, it is the written word that makes the difference, that brings Joe a new love and words that lead him to risk, and finally lose, his life.


There's also something of McLuhan in Sunset Blvd. In the case of Norma Desmond, she's fallen a technology behind the world, and has learned to privilege only one sense, the visual, over all others. She is obsessed with sight. When, at the film's end, she descends her marvelous stairs for the last time in a self-imposed fantasy of celebrity, of being back "in pictures", it is her sight that fails her: she doesn't see the police, the murder, the consequences. In other words, she has lost sight of reality.

Joe, too, is an interesting case. For instance, McLuhan often wrote that technology is an extension of the body: wheels, for instance, are the extension of feet, and automobiles are the extension of everything, the whole human figure. So, what does Joe Gillis say when the debt collectors want to take his car away?

"If I lose my car it's like having my legs cut off."

I wonder if Marshall McLuhan ever watched Sunset Blvd. I don't see how he couldn't have.


Finally, to the character who, as I watch and re-watch the film, comes increasingly to the forefront of its narrative: Max von Mayerling, Norma Desmond's sole servant, first husband (she had three), and first director. He made her a star, and he continues to make her a star, even if her audience has progressively shrunk to just one. As we and Joe eventually find out, it's Max von Mayerling who writes Norma the fan letters that keep her hopes of "a return" to the silver screen alive, who keeps her alive.

It is the above shot that is the emotional core of Sunset Blvd. Max Mayerling, so beautifully lit by Wilder, tells Joe the truth about himself and his relationship with Norma. Interestingly, it also Max who most survives the film itself. Joe Gillis, though he controls the story with his voice-over, is dead, and Norma, though her image is the last we see in the film, is insane. Max Mayerling, the devoted, survives them both. The poor fellow cannot escape, must keep on living. What a sad, tragic character. Subtle but devastating.


Speaking of the last shot in the film, here it is:

Norma Desmond, a once-great star in the Hollywood universe, now fading, blinking out of existence. Still, though her last rays reach us only now, she has actually been gone for a long time, her last shots of light plummeting through space while their source has already been extinguished, visible only because space is vast and memory moves no faster than the speed of light.

But, at least she went out, crushed under the weight of her own delusions as she was, in a magnificent and spectacular explosion.

Sunset Blvd. is one of the greats.

Tokyo Drifter

Two friends who haven't seen each other for a while meet for coffee on a Summer afternoon. One of them happens to be a crazy and creative filmmaker. Between sips, he starts to tell the other friend, who is a grocery store clerk, about some ideas for films that he's been having. The clerk friend gets into it, and together they flesh out one of the story ideas and write it on a napkin. Then they finish their drinks, put their money on the table, and leave. One of the two friends shoves the napkin into his pocket and goes home.


Three or four months later, the same two friends find out that they're both free from work for a week at the same time. One phones the other and they plan a short vacation. On a whim, they also invite a handful of other friends: unemployed, badly employed, or just kooky. When they all arrive at their destination, the filmmaker friend reaches into his coat pocket and pulls out the story napkin.

"What's that?" one of the friends asks.

"It's a story," says the filmmaker.

"What's it about?" asks another friend.

So, the filmmaker tells them the story on the napkin. And they all like it.

And one of them, probably sitting in the back and pretending not to listen, suddenly sits up and speaks.

"Let's make it."

"What?"

"Let's make the story on the napkin into a film."

So, they do. And it's fun. It's crazy. It's creative, improvised, airy, colourful.

A lot of time passes. Most of the friends die. Then, by accident, someone much younger and from another country picks up an old print of the film and watches it. She likes it. She shows it to her boss, who distributes old foreign films. He likes it, too. They clean the print up, find some extras, and stick it on a DVD. Someone buys it. Someone rips it and puts it online. I download it. I watch it. I think about it. And I write this review.

Welcome to the present.


OK, so that's most likely not the story of how Seijun Suzuki's Tokyo Drifter became a film. But—and this is the important bit—it very well could be. Hell, I'll even go further. It should be.

Because that's the type of film that Tokyo Drifter is: something made by friends, something largely improvised, something goofy in parts and daring in others, something stuck onto a nonsense plot that no studio would ever allow, something aware of and cribbing from older films, something repeating shots simply because they look good.

In other words, Tokyo Drifter, which was made in Japan in 1966, plays quite a bit like a film from the French New Wave circa 1959 or 1960. If I were to pick one specific point of comparison, it would be Francois Truffaut's Shoot the Piano Player—just without the emotions, in colour, and replacing attention to rhythm with a delibarately cartoonish style. Both films even have a catchy musical theme.


Tokyo Drifter is a film that works better as a series of stills than as a moving picture. Because when things start to move, you realize how goofy all the movements are. The punch-outs, the shoot-outs, the acting are all off. The same idea applies to the story. The right elements are all there, but when you join them together, you realize they're just stuck together. The progression is superficial, there only because in most films these types of events happen in this order. The film lacks its own logic. In all aspects, Tokyo Drifter is unpolished. Instead, everything in it relies on the raw creativity that Suzuki impresses on the film.

Which is not to say that the film is bad. It's not. In fact, the way Suzuki paints his film with colours and contrasts one colour with another, whether within one composition or across many, is often brilliant. The film is a visual joy.

For example, notice two shots of a similar subject in two different colours.


From yellow to red. Now, see how Suzuki is able to mix those colours in the same shot.


Or, if yellow to red isn't your cup of coffee, perhaps you'll prefer an example of the difference between yellow and blue.


Yellow, red and blue are Tokyo Drifter's dominant colours, aided sometimes by white and black in their usual roles. Yellow is most often associated with the drifter's singer girlfriend, red follows danger and several of the bad guys, and cool blue is the colour of the drifter's snazzy suit. However, much like everything else in the film, these rules are broken if any whim should dictate they be broken. Live by the sword, die by the sword (and there is a randomly-initiated swordfight in Tokyo Drifter!) is true here: every aspect of Suzuki's film that is rightly praised comes from the same nonchalant experimentation that gives birth to its unforgivable flaws.

Below, a shot whose composition relies on symmetry demonstrates the film's "off" quality.


Therefore, your enjoyment of Tokyo Drifter will most likely be decided by how much fun you have while watching the film, how much you share in Suzuki's insanity, and how much you're willing to forgive to witness a handful of perfect touches.

For me, the under-ninety minutes film began to grind on. Every few minutes I was pulled into the screen by some kind of masterful stroke, but the rest of time I spent thinking I was watching a group of friends having fun that I wasn't part of.

Tokyo Drifter is not without merit, and occupies a vital place in Japanese film history (Takashi Miike was perhaps born on the set), but it doesn't deserve the reputation it carries. The Criterion DVD cover gets it just right:

It's all thick lines and wild colours that never quite match up.

To Each His Cinema

Thirty-three three-minute shorts by thirty-three filmmakers to mark the occasion of the twice-thirty anniversary of the Cannes film festival. Themes vary, but general idea seems to be of the "what does cinema mean to you" variety, with Fellini and Godard thrown in for good measure. For the cynically astute, on the other hand, it wouldn't be out of place to call To Each His Cinema a big cinematic circle jerk, with enough splooge for everyone. If that seems a bit revolting, well, just don't be cynical. And enjoy cinema being celebrated by itself.

Now, some sentence fragments about each film.


Open-Air Cinema
d. Raymond Depardon

Very good, one of best. Crowd gathers to watch cinema on rooftop. Have no idea who director is. No real plot. But has beautiful look of polished photo-journalism. Naturalistic.


One Fine Day
d. Takeshi Kitano

Average. Farmer goes to cinema, Kitano works projector amid some foul-ups. Dryly surreal. Made me smile only because film-within-film is Kitano's touching Kids Return, a favourite.


Three Minutes
d. Theo Angelopoulos

Below average, was surprised to see Angelopoulos' name at the end. Old, ugly Jeanne Moreau meets dead Marcello Mastroianni and philosophizes for a minute. Fawning seriousness.


In the Dark
d. Andrei Konchalovsky

Above average, endearing. Older woman leaves post ("back in 15 minutes") to watch Fellini's 8 1/2 and cries. Only other people in cinema: young couple making out. When film finishes, changes sign ("sold out") and starts film from beginning. Melancholy, light. Poster for 8 1/2 next to Coca Cola posters give political meaning.


Diary of a Spectator
d. Nanni Moretti

Good, straightforward. Moretti takes literal approach, talks about cinema memories. Substantial for running time, with nice, subtle compositions.


The Electric Princess House
d. Hou Hsiao-Hsien

Below average, one-trick. Same cinema, then (gold) and now (old). Nostalgic with two images more personal than universal. Not without merit, but too long. Short film in long take aesthetic.


Darkness
d. the Dardennes Brothers

Good, with good ending. Boy stalks silently through cinema to steal girl's purse. Girl watches sad movie. Girl accidentally catches boy's hand, but instead of scolding, they resort to holding, as girl takes boy's hand and puts it to own face. Technically so-so, but elevated by concept.


Anna
d. Alejandro González Iñárritu

Average. Blind woman reacts to Godard film. One nice shot of transition from world inside to world outside theater. But too tedious and delibarate.


Movie Night
d. Yimou Zhang

Very good, one of best. Rich, and pleasant surprise because do not like Yimou Zhang. Cinema comes to remote China. Aging, first love, and childhood unfold. Also, one of few to not use long take. Very nice all-around.


The Dybbuk of Haifa
d. Amos Gitai

Awful. Jews in 1936 Warsaw paralleled with Jews sixty years later in Israel, watching same movie but with Hebrew subtitles. Movie stopped, air raid siren. Bomb comes. Big explosion, people die. Amateurish in all respects: technique, production, politics.


The Lady Bug
d. Jane Campion

Average, didn't understand. Man in cinema tries to kill ladybug, but ladybug actually fat woman dancing. Eventually, man crushes her with foot. Huh? Effects not bad.


Artaud Double Bill
d. Atom Egoyan

Very good, one of best. Sci-fi feel. Two people go to two movies, then share movies with each other using cellphone cams. Unlike most shorts, Egoyan's looks to future. Good use of technology. Rich and varied textures. Worth watching again.


The Foundry
d. Aki Kaurismäki

Average, slightly confused. Foundry workers go to cinema and see propaganda. Very Kaurismäki style, with less than expected actions and reactions. Dry, with vibrant colours.


Upsurge
d. Olivier Assayas

Very good, one of best. Young couple go to cinema. Followed by young bearded man. When couple make slight love, bearded man steal's young woman's purse. Unlike most other shorts, Assayas not in love with movie theatre but with cinema. Has gritty, realistic, night-time quality. Mysterious. Excellent editing. Worth seeing again.


47 Years Later
d. Youssef Chahine

Awful, one of worst. Chahine pays homage to self in bad short. Note: never watch another Chahine film.


It's a Dream
d. Tsai Ming-Ling

Very good, one of best. Most emotional. Tsai dreams about cinema and family in handful of beautiful shots. Feeling of cinema being personal even amid crowd. Idea of cinema as woven into memories. Magical. Worth watching again.


Occupations
d. Lars von Trier

Above average, as expected from Trier: creative, self-absorbed. Trier at own screening (Manderlay), next to annoying talking man. Annoying talking man tells Trier about job, then asks trier what he does. Trier says "I kill you!" and kills annoying talking man in theatre with axe in violent but funny way. Mean but entertaining.


The Gift
d. Raul Ruiz

Above average, but did not understand all. Blind anthropologist talks to niece in a cinema about South American tribe making wooden radio that projects Casablanca in three minutes. Colourful butterflies make appearance. Then woman flees. Huh?


The Cinema Around the Corner
d. Claude Lelouch

Average. Lelouch shows own history through trips to cinema. Nice tribute to parents, OK short.


First Kiss
d. Gus van Sant

Average. Boy works projector. Projects tropical waters. Woman in bikini appears. Boy takes off clothes, enters screen and kisses woman. Don't understand point. Not awful, just unfulfilling.


Cinema Erotique
d. Roman Polanski

Very good, one of best. Older French couple in cinema watching softcore porno. Only other cinema-goer, a shaggy and unshaven man in coat who is reclined and moaning. Wife tells husband to tell moaning man to stop. Husband gets usherette, who gets manager. Manager goes to moaning man. Who is moaning not from masturbation but because he fell from top of cinema! Funny, like a sickness, from Polanski. Nice cartoonish, lively quality.


No Translation Needed
d. Michael Cimino

Below average. Cimino films music video for Cuban singer. She likes video for time, then does not. Attempts to strangle Cimino. Huh?


At The Suicide of the Last Jew in the World in the Last Cinema in the World
d. David Cronenberg

Good. Last Jew attempts suicide while on live TV camera with TV personalities making stupid but catchy comments. A little satirical, a little zany. Much harsher and different from others, but not cinematically ambitious.


I Travelled 9000 km To Give It To You
d. Wong Kar Wai

Average. Young man in cinema gropes or falls in love with woman. Woman maybe falls in love back. Then it is all a film within a film. I think. Rendered through failed impressionism. Fails at own goal, but still interesting.


Where Is My Romeo?
d. Abbas Kiarostami

Above average. Women of different ages in cinema watching adaptation of Rome & Juliet. Tears. Last woman is older, real person. Short dedicated to her. In the end, sweet.


The Last Dating Show
d. Bille August

Above average. Nerdy Dane meets cute Iranian woman in front of cinema. Three men nearby, rowdy. Inside cinema, nerdy Dane says each line of dialogue to cute Iranian woman in English. Three rowdy men become angry, make racist comments. Nerdy Dane and cute Iranian woman leave. She wants to know how film ends, if characters get married. Nerdy Dane says they do. Then, cute Iranian says left motorcycle helmet in cinema. Nerdy Dane goes in to get it, but gets caught up in film. Meanwhile, cute Iranian woman accosted by three rowdy racist men. Nerdy Dane realizes time, runs out. Cute Iranian woman gone. Suddenly, there they all are: watching end of film in projectionist's booth, with three rowdy racist men translating for cute Iranian woman. She says "I do not think they get married" as woman in film machine guns man. Best short at telling actual story, but otherwise only average.


Irtebak
d. Elia Suleiman

Average. Director spends nervous moments in cinema bathroom as premiere goes on. Then ready to talk to small audience, but must move car. Kaurismäki style, but better than Kaurismäki short.


Sole Meeting
d. Manoel De Oliveira

Average. Khrushchev meets Pope. Dramatization of real event. Funny (When Comrade Pope tells Catholics to pray, Catholic pray"), but sub-par technically.


5,557 Miles from Cannes
d. Walter Salles

Good. Simple, but very entertaining. Two Brazilian entertainers bang drums and rap about Cannes in lewd but innocent way in front of cinema showing The 400 Blows. In end, neither actually been to Cannes. Different rhythm, idea than other shorts. Also nice to see cinema as catalyst for other type of creativity.


War In Peace
d. Wim Wenders

Good. Wenders takes camera deep into Congo. Shows people watching movie on small TV in large tent. Part filmed with night vision becomes frightening. Ends with declaration of first peace in region in one hundred years. Cinema from an interesting place in the present.


Zhanxiou Village
d. Chen Kaige

Average. Boys watching silent film make scene from silent film when use bicycles to power projector. Man comes, chases them away. But one stays and asks to see rest of film. Flash forward, man is older, blind, comes to bigger cinema with red seats. Too sugary.


Happy Ending
d. Ken Loach

Very good, one of best. Father and son stand in cinema line, read movie descriptions. Cannot decide what to see. Other people get impatient. Finally, they decide: no movie, let's go watch some footie instead. Very nice depiction of father and son relationship, and clever way to say that nothing good in cinemas anymore. Pessimistic, but not. Sly.


Overall, To Each His Cinema is worth watching. If you're familiar with the individual filmmakers, it's neat to try and pick out elements of their styles, and see which go against their typical styles; if not, it's also neat to take the thirty-three shorts together and identify some common stylistic aspects of contemporary cinema.

Will the film ultimately make you love cinema any more than you do? Most likely, not. Then again, like in all circle jerks, your satisfaction probably depends on how much you like the object being collectively drooled over. If you don't fancy cinema (and, generally, one specific type of cinema: that celebrated by the French arthouse crowd), then you just may end up looking around and wondering why the hell you're standing here, whacking, with these thirty-two men and one woman. If, however, you don't mind this type of cinema, then whack on!

Forty Guns: Review

As I've been watching my way through all the Samuel Fuller films I can get my hands on, I've been growing more and more impressed with the America director's work. However, it's been the recent double-punch of Pickup on South Street and Forty Guns that has me more than little convinced that Fuller's one of the all-time greats. Let's take a closer look at the second punch in the combination to see why...

Samuel Fuller's
Forty Guns

That's what the film's opening titles tell us the film is. And they're absolutely right, as what could have been a generic Western turns out to be a full-fledged, weapons blazing, forty-gun assault by Samuel Fuller's personal vision on your eyeballs and brain.

Because I'm feeling slightly disorganized tonight, and more than a little dizzy from trying to remember and recount enough plot to make what follows make some sense, I've given up on ordering things too much, and will say only this about story: Forty Guns is about a gunslinger who comes to town and slays the she-dragon who, with her posse, has disturbed the natural law and order of things.

Once upon a time, in a dream far far away...


Forty Guns begins on one of the film's incredible long shot landscapes. In this one, clouds roll over an emptiness guarded by distant hills; a wagon cuts through the middle. Soon, forty riders on forty horses will attack the landscape and overwhelm everything.


Aboard the wagon, meanwhile, we have our three protagonists: the Bonnell brothers. Griff is Ra atop the pyramid.


Jessica Fisher, the "high riding woman with a whip" that dominates her Forty Guns until being out-manned by the stoic and handsome Griff Bonnell. Played by Barbara Stanwyck, she has an uncanny resemblance to Hilary Clinton, doesn't she?


One of the minor characters in the film is blind. Here, Fuller's camera moves into his eyes to capture the blurred world that he experiences. The effect is also appropriate to the dreamy, subconscious quality of Forty Guns. Its story is something of a blur where narrative shapes are only hinted at and flow in and out of each other like liquids.


Wonderful composition from Fuller, who manages to squeeze over a dozen characters into one shot and make it all look like a Renaissance painting. Griff, of course, is in the centre.


The slaying in progress. This shot is taken from a wickedly surreal scene of a tornado. Griff survives and conquers. But is woman a force of nature?


One of the Bonnell brothers checks out a gun barrell, and what's behind it. Similar to one of the famous James Bond openings, and a creative touch to what would have otherwise been a visually boring scene; which is to say nothing of its Freudian implications...


Another landscape.


I wonder if the shape of the man's right hand is accidental, or if it's supposed to be shaped like a gun. It seems that danger, guns stalk everything in Forty Guns: from love to the title itself. In a shot from which I don't have a still, danger even appears as a word in the background; in another, the word gun.


Another landscape.


The film's grotesque sense of humour and fate: the smaller man in the top image will be dead soon, manipulated into an early coffin by the man on the right (himself an interesting character, a man of the law who's fallen into a nonreciprocal love with Jessica). The bottom still, a display made of death, speaks for itself.


Hug the wall, and don't faint. He faints.


Which leads to this death of the shooter who was supposed to kill Griff, below. You see, Griff's younger brother, who wants to be one of Griff's gang but whom Griff wants to be a farmer, killed the shooter, even though he—Griff, that is—thought that he—Griff's brother, this time—left town on a coach. It's all rather complicated and perhaps nonsensical. The point being: look at the shadows and the angle!


She has very nice guns. Remember the one through which one of the Bonnell brothers looked at her, a couple of images ago—she made that. She makes guns, and she'll also make a man out of you.


Poor chap's still madly in love with Jessica. Here, in this absolutely heartbreaking scene, his love will get hotter and hotter as her stays cold. But he can't melt her. She doesn't go for the heat. She prefers men her own temperature. Men like Griff.


Someone dies in Forty Guns. It's at a wedding. People converge on the corpse, still held in its lover's arms.


The second of two musical scenes in the film. Although songs are common to the Western genre, probably none are as out of place and plain weird as this one. Several reviews of Forty Guns mention David Lynch, and that's not a bad comparison to make.


A still from the most creative transition in Forty Guns. It's a long dissolve in which both images are in motion: the horses gallop past the camera as another camera slowly zooms in on Jessica Fisher's face.

And, finally, a sequence from an early shootout in the film. It's expertly handled by Fuller, who trims this scene, and the entire film, until all that's left is brevity and clarity—of style, that is; the narrative remains until the end anything but.