Death Sentence

not recommendedexcept for fans of the Saw franchise, who may find interest in watching Wan tackle something other than straight-up horror.

director: James Wan
year: 2007

Based on a novel by Robert Garfield. After his hockey star son is murdered in a random slaying and the court system fails to bring the killer to justice, an executive family man (Kevin Bacon) takes revenge into his own hands, waging personal war on the punk and street gang responsible.


With Death Sentence, James Wan steps out from behind the Saw, and remakes Death Wish in a style that reflects his horror films but without the smarts that make a good revenge flick. Neither agitation nor timely—there's nothing in the movie that justifies it being remade in 2007—the escalating violence is matched only by an escalating stupidity that culminates with the pissed off father rising straight from his hospital bed and entering a cheesy montage of loaded guns and macho poses before letting loose the fury of an average Joe scorned. The idiot policewoman who pops up throughout the film like a whack-a-mole can only stare at the open hospital window with fluttering curtains and utter profound truths about the self-destructive nature of vengeance. Some time prior, Wan also waxes on parental grief to the tune of what sounds like Sarah McLachlan covering Enya. Guns, however, still rule the day; and the end of the film brings mutilation and bullet-ridden corpses enough to placate those wanting their share of high contrast Saw-like violence.

The verdict: Death Sentence.

Gone Baby Gone



director: Ben Affleck
year: 2007


A pair of romantically-involved "Baa-stun" private detectives (Casey Affleck & Michelle Monaghan) test their relationship while tracking child abductions, much to the consternation of a fatherly police chief (Morgan Freeman) and his tough right-hand man (Ed Harris).


Gone Baby Gone is a trashy look at trashy people, directed by a trashy actor and starring his mumbling younger brother. It's set in the working-class neighbourhoods of Boston, although, as critic Armond White rightly points out, no one but the cops actually work. Instead, Affleck puts his Bostonian working-class collection of freaks on display with a perverse glee—in interviews often reminding us that, hey, they're not even actors! The result: gratuitous shot after gratuitous shot of obese bodies, scarred faces, and unrepentant bums adorn the story with what critics call "gritty realism". The irony being, of course, that while castigating the film's deadbeat, coke-addled mother for watching Jerry Springer, Gone Baby Gone wallows in the same filth: extreme melodrama staged by chicken-head eaters and bearded ladies. Much like Springer, it all ends with a serious lesson, too. How dignified.

This Baby doesn't deserve to be found.

Bend of the River

Former gunslinger Glyn McLyntock guides a group of homesteaders across the American West, to Oregon, in Anthony Mann's 1952 western Bend of the River. Along the way, he hopes to leave behind his violent past and start life over as a peaceful rancher.


The film's two stars are apparent from its first frames: Jimmy Stewart and the beautiful Oregon landscape. Notice the colour palette. The blues greys greens of the sky mountain forest will become the colours associated with McLyntock himself.


The same landscape here, but with an added, artificial frame. The women look almost like they're watching a Jimmy Stewart western on the big screen!


The first part of a lightning-fast pan: this close-up of McLyntock massaging the scarf around his neck—which is hiding wicked rope burn symbolic of his outlaw past—will, seconds later, become the face of soon-to-be hanged man Emerson Cole, whom McLyntock will save from death.


After an attack on their camp by a small band of Shoshone, which McLyntock and Cole repel, the homesteaders set off again. Right to left, East to West.


They arrive in Portland, an idyllic outpost town on the banks of the mighty Columbia river. Here, McLyntock will charter a steamship to travel upriver. He'll also make a deal for supplies, which he'll pay for, and which will be shipped later. Except they won't come.

Shades of It's a Wonderful Life:

With Winter closing in and the newly-established farmers needing food to last them until Spring, McLyntock will return to Portland—and see it transformed into a hellish boom town feeding off a gold rush.

Much like George Baily, the character played by Stewart in the Capra film, McLyntock will see, first-hand, what a life full of bad men like his past self would entail: booze, greed, gambling, and death. Portland, previously so full of light, has been turned into a city of eternal night, lorded over by those with guns and money.


The loneliness of the long distance rancher: more than anger, McLyntock's expression is one of sadness. Dismayed at the moral corruption that's overtaken Portland, he also fears he's that's caused it—carried it with him across the frontier. One of the questions that hovers over Bend of the River is that of the possibility of redemption: can McLyntock, having been bad, ever be a good man again?

Perhaps the answer's in the colours. Blue shirt, green jacket, grey scarf. In terms of the visuals at least, McLyntock doesn't fit into gold-fevered Portland anymore.

Of course, that's the optimist's answer. The pessimist might say that McLyntock's trying too hard. He's trying not to fit in. But that's just external, superficial. Inside, he's the same man he always was. The homesteading life is a lie.


But back to adventure! McLyntock and the farmers aboard the steamship, Mann showing off Oregon. I wonder if Werner Herzog ever saw this film.


Unloading. Another great pan: from steamer to beach. Although the ship is now off the screen, it still asserts its presence.


On the spot where the farming village will be built. McLyntock walks with Jeremy Baile, the village leader and convinced pacifist. Mann sets these men as opposites, and asks: can the one on the right ever become the one on the left?


Buildings need timber. An interesting shot on its own, and used as a spatial and temporal link. In the next shot, McLyntock hauls the felled trunk into the village.


Time passes. McLyntock travels into hellish Portland, causes a ruckus, and escapes upriver with food for the farmers. There are problems, however: the men from Portland are on their tail, and some of McLyntock's own men—Cole included—are entering into temptation. There's a gold mine not far from the farming settlement, and the gold miners would pay quite handsomely for this supply of winter food.

After setting up temporary camp in a defensible position, McLyntock and his men wait for their Portland pursuers, and take them, guns blazing. They beat the attackers back, killing some, letting others flee, and proclaim victory.

The next day, however, mutiny! Some of the hired hands rebel, wanting to steal the food and sell it to the gold miners. With Cole's help, McLyntock gains the upper hand, tackles the head rebel, and:


Three key images of Bend of the River: McLyntock poised and ready to thrust his knife into the rebel leader's chest; a woman's scream; McLyntock hearing the scream, realizing what he's about to do, and stopping. Not only is this an excellent example of how our mind links separate images into a narrative (a Kuleshov editing experiment if there ever was one!), but it shows that McLyntock's natural reaction is still violence, still killing.

But, is this also a moment of change? Does McLyntock the killer, interrupted by a woman's face, become McLyntock the noble? It's certainly a nice thought to believe that Mann has captured the exact moment of McLyntock's redemption—that the McLyntock who emerges from this scene, punctured by a scream, physically closer on the strip of film to McLyntock the noble than McLyntock the killer, is the new man he desires to be. But, does the rest of the film support this nice thought?

Early on, McLyntock tells Cole that he's going West to escape from a dangerous man. A man named McLyntock. Does he manage to outrun himself? Considering that the farmers only win their food and freedom because McLyntock is the better marksman, stronger fighter, and smarter stalker than his enemies, it's doubtful. He's still a gunslinger. The consolation: he's now gunslinging for a better cause.


The night before he's betrayed by Cole, the two buddies share some coffee by the campfire. They talk about their former lives, and their current prospects. Cole is hovering: help the farmers, or help himself?


From a nearby wagon, Jeremy Baile listens. For the first time, he learns about who McLyntock actually was: a Missouri raider. Having already professed that bad apples spoil the whole barrel and that men can't change, he'll now have to rethink his beliefs. The choice, however, isn't purely ideological.

Mann doesn't explore this murky area too much, but don't you always go with the guy who's on your side? Whether McLyntock is good, bad, in between, doesn't matter when he's the only one who, for whatever reasons, will fight to get your food, save your village, extend your Oregon dream.


The goldmine in the distance proves irresistible. Cole turns his guns on McLyntock, and commandeers the food supply.


Clash of titans on Mount Olympus: McLyntock, battered by Cole but not beaten, looms large over the Oregon horizon. If there's one thing to be said about Mann, it's that he's not shy about crafting mythologies.


As the wagons and the food roll through the mountains toward the mining camp, Jeremy and his daughter discuss the situation. McLyntock, they agree, wouldn't leave them. Beyond, in the snow, he's in pursuit.

Eventually, the climax comes. McLyntock arrives, outsmarts and out-guns Cole's men, then defeats Cole in a fistfight set on a bend on the Columbia river. It's a well-shot action scene, and one of many in a film full of them.


Emerging from the frigid waters, his scarf lost in the battle, McLyntock stands before Jeremy and his daughter with his entire past, his dark secret, laid bare: he was to be hanged once, and his body still bears the marks. What about his soul?


The farmers rejoice. Their lives have been saved and the future of their village preserved. Their entire journey from Missouri to Oregon has not been for nothing. And all thanks to Glyn McLyntock, former gunslinger, former thief, former killer.


As for McLyntock, he spends the extremely brief happy ending looking enigmatic as ever. I can't read his face. Is he happy? Will he be able to live as a rancher? The best answer I can muster: hopefully.

But I'm most reminded of the ending to Akira Kurosawa's The Seven Samurai. In that film, after the bloodletting has been done and the bandits defeated, the remaining samurai meet by the graves of their fallen friends. And, as the farmers rejoice in their Spring harvest, which, thanks to the brave samurai, they'll be able to keep, Kambei, the oldest and wisest samurai, speaks:

"Again, we are defeated. The farmers have won. Not us," he says.

I wonder of McLyntock isn't thinking the very same thing.


Post-script

I have one more image to post, and, because it doesn't fit within the film, I thought I'd separate it from my post about the film, too. It's tucked away in the brief happy ending. It's not held for a long time. The character is not an important one.


But it's such a lovely shot: the light through her hair, the soft marshy background, even the colours. It may not belong to Bend of the River in any real sense, but I'm glad Mann captured it and gave it a home.

Casa de Lava



director: Pedro Costa
year: 1995


A young nurse (Inês de Medeiros) accompanies a comatose immigrant worker (Isaach De Bankolé) from a hospital in Portugal to his home village in the Cape Verde islands. There, she opens her eyes and begins to explore both the land and its most-peculiar inhabitants.


Pedro Costa's Casa de Lava is a stamp collection: thousands and thousands of beautiful images, one after another, carefully and lovingly placed in a leather binder. But their organization, though fine, isn't absolute; it's one order, of many. Cut the film into shots and stitch it back together in another, and it retains it's beauty. What makes the film more than beautiful, however, is Costa's editing—the rhythms and patterns he creates. The binder is as fine as the stamps; the craftsmanship is as expert as the artistry. If Casa de Lava has a failing, it's in the storytelling: more evocative than narrative, more atmospheric than actual. Hence, while Costa's cinema will leave you satiated, it may also leave you feeling a bit unresolved.

I want to live in a Casa de Lava.

I'm Not There



director: Todd Haynes
year: 2007


Bob Dylan expressed as seven characters: a Depression-obsessed black kid named Woody Guthrie (Marcus Carl Franklin), a cigarette-smoking "poet" (Ben Whishaw), a shy and folksy singer-songwriter (Christian Bale), Billy the Kid (Richard Gere), a cynical celebrity who marries then divorces a French artist (Heath Ledger), iconic Dylan goes electric (Cate Blanchett), and, finally, a born-again singin' Christian (Bale).


The editing's great, the cinematography's not bad (Haynes and co. flip through film stocks and styles like they're Oliver Stone and it's 1994) and I'm sure it's all good fun for Dylan fanatics. Unfortunately, even for them, it's mostly superficial, "spot-the-reference" kind of fun ("Look, that guy's selling postcards of the hanging!"). Almost like a game you play while driving down to Florida. Sure, Haynes cranks up the artificiality and aims at surfaces for a reason, but that reason wears itself out over 135 minutes, leaving the film indulging only in itself. It teases with political images like LBJ, Vietnam, and the Black Panthers—and pines for relevance ("Why, isn't that—my, yes, it is! That's Cate Blanchett... playing Bob Dylan! Oh, how transgressive and progressive for a woman to play a man! Todd Haynes, you LGBT rebel!), but it's aesthetics over politics all the way. And it's hard to get past the way the film plays like it's been made a bit too quickly, not carefully enough: cracks in its aesthetic shell; surfaces only work when they're not broken. It eschews spontaneity for precision, and then cuts with a dulled blade. Some critics love the film, others complain that it should have been more like Walk the Line or Ray. Truth is, it ain't much different from those two biopics: good music accompanied by pretty pictures.

I'm Not There is neither here nor there.

Casa de Lava

Pedro Costa's 1995 Casa de Lava contains some absolutely breathtaking images. After I finished watching it, I wanted to post a frame from each shot. But that would be silly. And would take a long time. Nevertheless, I have posted a lot of them. And, yes, I know I get carried away with the pretty pictures sometimes...


The Faces of Marianna

Marianna, the film's main character, is played by Inês de Medeiros. She's a nurse who accompanies a comatose immigrant worker, Leao, from a hospital in Portugal to his home village in the Cape Verde islands. Throughout the film, she's constantly staring, looking, searching her new surroundings. Indeed, one of the film's themes could be expressed as the difference between seeing and understanding. Which, incidentally, is not an inaccurate way to describe the film itself.

But, don't let's get carried way with words.


They're all great, but I prefer the inquisitive gaze by lamplight. I'm such a softie.


Landscape

Casa de Lava features some incredible shots of the natural beauty of Cape Verde. When the Portuguese arrived in the 15th century the islands were uninhabited. Perhaps the first Portuguese explorers witnessed sights like these:


My favourite is the last one. There's something ethereal, mythical about it. The natural light softens the harsh, jagged quality that the others have. Also unlike the others, this one has a significant amount of depth.


Casa de Lava

The flattening serves a purpose: it makes good on the promise set by the title. Costa's Cape Verde is a strange land—both for Mariana and for us. It is entirely unlike Portugal. It's an underworld that its prisoners dream of leaving. But, at the same time, it weaves a spell on those who stay too long. As we stay, it bewitches us, too. Is this really such an underworld? The film's final line: "I want to die in Portugal."


In Portugal, mountains make way for buildings. Excavate, and reveal an apartment building. The man-made precedes the natural. Especially, notice that the dirt and rock occupies the foreground while the background is a solid mass of urbanity.


In Cape Verde, the opposite: the building in the foreground, mountains and sky in the background. Furthermore, Costa's flattening cuts the distance between them, placing both on nearly the same plane. The stone building becomes part of the mountain. In Portugal, man has tamed nature; in Cape Verde, nature is slowly taming man. The process of excavation is being reversed.


Notes

Since I have quite a few more nice things to post, and very little brain left to organize them or do much thinking about what they say about the film, I'll be lazy, put them in an ordered vertical row, and give a few improvised sentences about each.


Yes, another landscape, but this one's more surreal: the moon-like surroundings and a girl on a white mule.


One of the first things we see: the back of a person's head.


I read a blog post about Casa de Lava a few months ago, and this was the image the blogger included. Hence, I came to associate the film with this face. Context actually gives this shot meaning that I won't divulge. The same shot does repeat, too. Three times, I believe.


Leao, the comatose man, minutes before he enters his coma. Clean, simple composition with an impeccable light touch of colour.


An apartment complex at night. Casa de Lava has quite a bit of great nighttime cinematography. I'm not sure if this is the same building as in one of the earlier stills.


Leao in a coma, still in Portugal. Marianna is on the right, a doctor on the left. What can you say? Who needs special effects when you have Pedro Costa's eye!


Welcome to Cape Verde! Just before this, Marianna was engulfed in a plume of dust. Off screen left, Leao lays on a stretcher. Very much an Antonioni-type of shot.


Perhaps from Leao's point of view. This shot fades to one of the landscape shots I posted earlier. I included the mid-transition shot both because it's noticeable and because I simply like it. I don't think filmmakers take advantage of these types of effects enough. Some of the patterns and textures you can get are wonderful. Some great early examples are in Mario Peixoto's Limite.


From the back of a pick-up truck. Marianna and comatose Leao journey into the heart of darkness. Now that I've made an awfully deliberate and stale reference, I realize: in the Conrad story, Marlowe is supposed to venture forth to retrieve Kurtz, whereas, here, Marianna's mission is to deliver someone to the nether regions.


Another flat landscape engulfing a building. This time, it's both the ground and the mountain that are doing the consuming.


Not terribly visible, sadly. It's a black dog.


Apples always lend themselves to heavy symbolism, but I don't think that's the case here. It's just a unique shot. Nothing less, nothing more.


Filmed in pastels. What a wonderful image. The old man, because I'm sure you're dying to know, plays the violin and will invite Marianna to meet his family. If you remember the girl on the white mule, that's his youngest daughter. I think he also has thirty sons.


Perhaps not as visible as when in motion, but the difference in focus between Marianna and everything else is deliberately apparent. One of the more interesting and meaningful shots in the film, I think. Can she ever blend into her environment. Or, for the pessimists: once she blends in, can she ever blend out?


When I was in elementary school, I saw a movie on cable one late night when I should have been sleeping. It was terrifying and I still have vivid memories of certain scenes from it (two in particular), but I've never been able to find it again. In one of those scenes, a man dressed in glowing white robes steps onto a winding forest road at night. In another, a group of hunters laugh over the dead bodies of several people they've shot and killed. This one's set at dawn, and I think it may be the last scene of the film. Anyway, this shot from Casa de Lava reminds me of both of those scenes rolled into one shot.


Great paper texture, and I always enjoy a good close-up on something unconventional. I'm a huge nerd for noticing these things, aren't I?


Two more examples of looking shots. I'll get to Fassbinder's Ali, Fears Eats the Soul in a minute with something a bit more concrete, but if there's one thing I remember from that film, it's the camera's fascination with the ominous gaze.


Might as well do Ali now! I wish I had a copy of that film to capture images from, but, if the projector in my head is working properly, this seems like a nearly-exact replica of the "three cleaning ladies on the stairs" shot that Fassbinder uses.


The son of the staring older woman from a few images ago. Very noir feel to this one. In fact, one of the reviews of Casa de Lava that I read compared the film to Polanski's Chinatown. I think there's definitely something to that comparison.


Almost like a Jackson Pollock.


Another one of the great shots in this film. Notice how the background drifts away from the foreground because of the vibrant reds and greens. Instead of flattening, Costa amplifies separation. Also: the green bottle—which Marianna picks up and then puts in the perfect spot—seems borrowed from an Ozu film!


Caught in mid-brush stroke.


The possibilities of two characters and a corner. This shot is actually pretty long, and when it starts, the characters appear to be on a collision course. But both stop before they reach the point where they'd meet. Eventually, one of the doors open and both go in.


Just enjoying a beer. A throw-away shot in terms of narrative, but not in terms of visuals. That Costa holds it for as long as he does goes to show where his priorities are.


Again: breathtaking. The first time I saw this, I didn't even notice the vastness above the stone wall. The distance between Marianna and the camera coupled with the fact that she's the only character on the screen makes this seem like a scene from one of those old Sierra adventure games.


Sometimes I feel odd writing about shots like these, or even posting them. And I think a lot of their effect comes from their place within the film—between two long shots, for example, or representing a change in location or time. But sometimes they're nice on their own, too. In this case, there's a tension created because you expect the bits of paper to get blown away by a gust of wind. They never do.


I read once that on the ruins of Machu Picchu there are stones carved to resemble the shapes of distant mountains.


Another Antonioni shot: the desert's not red, but her dress sure is.


I don't think I have an overly dirty mind, but there's simply no way this shot isn't pornographic! And don't judge me so quickly: there's context, I swear.


Certain people just see cinematically. It's a gift, a talent—something innate. But, whatever it is, Pedro Costa and his cinematographer have got it. I'd wager this is what Godard meant when he said only a select few filmmakers use the camera to see. There is vision here.


There's an obtuse and strongly not-recommended book of essays edited by Ann Laura Stoler whose title provides a perfect description of these two consecutive shots. Haunted by Empire: Geographies of Intimacy...


I thought it was fitting to end with this one, because Costa ends with it, too. Enigmatic and damp, darkness awaits on the other side of the opening. Do you dare pass your body through, or will you merely gaze and wonder?

Day Zero

The white-on-black text sets it up:

From World War I through the Vietnam War, the United States Military relied on the draft for troops.

During that period, over 16 million men were drafted to serve in the U.S. Armed Forces.

Following the Vietnam War, the United States suspended the draft.

Until now.

Day Zero takes place in New York City, slightly in the future. Terrorists have struck not only the World Trade Center, but also somewhere in Los Angeles—killing over 15,000. The war in Iraq is ongoing, and, sensing the need for fresh soldiers, the U.S. government brings back the draft.


The film follows three called-up friends in the 30 days before they ship off to war. Aaron is a young author working on his second book, Dixon is a violent but honourable street-tough cab driver, and George is a rich-kid lawyer with a wife recently cured of cancer.

As expected, each of the characters reacts and adapts differently to the call-up:

Aaron, whose first concern is that he won't have time to finish his novel, has trouble coping with the idea of having to kill someone. Maybe from a tank or plane, he tells his bored psychiatrist, but not hand-to-hand, not eye-to-eye. He can push a button, but he won't pull a trigger.

Dixon, has less qualms about serving (and, perhaps, killing)—at least ostensibly. He has less to lose than Aaron, and, whereas Aaron is indifferent to politics, Dixon agrees with the war's purpose. However, the script does give him a love interest to keep up the dramatic tension: oh, my, what will he do now!

The third character, George, immediately tries thinking up ways to avoid heading overseas. He enlists his father, who has connections to Senators, his own legal expertise, and Googling "conscientious objector". He also seems the most opposed to the war on principle, though that doubles as a convenient cover for simply being afraid.

Below, Frodo finds out he's just been drafted to a special platoon whose mission is to take the One Ring deep behind enemy lines and toss it into a volcano.


I had a teacher in high school who used to predict what we were going to say, and, before we had a chance to say it, would warn us if he didn't like where we were headed.

"Don't go there," he'd say.

I had the same reaction while watching Day Zero, because, much like teenagers, it's a predictable slog through overwrought emotions and by-the-numbers storytelling that, bless its little heart, thinks it isn't. So, every time the film would be ready to hit another gob of green goo—deadbeat mothers, cancer patients, sexually molested children, self-mutilation—I'd remember that high school teacher and feel his pain. Unfortunately, the film went there.

Once, a long time ago, George was put in a position that had a clear sense of right and wrong, but, instead of doing the right thing, he took the easy way out and ran away. I wonder if that relates in any way to George's present situation...


What makes Day Zero especially frustrating is that it has a ripe premise and genuinely interesting characters. It's the execution that ruins both. I'd gladly watch another film about a fake draft or spend more time with Aaron, Dixon, and George—but without all the inane plot points and shocking (yet stunningly relevant to the story at hand) revelations. Squandered potential is worse than making nothing out of nothing.


Aaron shaves his head and goes crazy. He also hears helicopters while smashing things in his room. Taxi Driver and Apocalypse Now are cool, aren't they?


I do like this shot, though. It's my favourite from the film—which actually isn't badly made at all, if you look at the technical stuff. It's also surprisingly apolitical (although that can sometimes be a dangerous way of saying you agree with a film's politics) for a story about a military draft and the Iraq war. The war, the draft, the decisions the characters make: good, bad, neither? Forcefully neither, I'd say. Not that some political opinions would have hurt. Sometimes it's fun to be rubbed the wrong way for a bit!

As things are, however, what we get is closest to a misfired political cartoon: full of exaggeration and well-meaning intentions, neither funny nor meaningful. It's just a shame that for a city with as diverse and yummy a culinary culture as NYC, Bryan Gunnar Cole's Day Zero tastes so much like Haggis.

The Ten

Reviews for David Wain's The Ten are scattered across the map like gulags. But, while nearly every critic warns audiences that the film is bound to be an exercise in love/hate, the reviews themselves never veer into those extremes: at Metacritic, the highest rating is an 83 and the lowest a 25. And, in case you think it's a matter of high-brow versus low-brow, the respective high and low marks are set by Entertainment Weekly and TV Guide! The average, befittingly, is a dead-on 50.

What's this mean? Perhaps that the film, which wears its "edginess" on its sleeve, isn't all that edgy.


The Ten is comprised of ten short films narrated together by Paul Rudd in a black void. Each short is a comic riff on one of the Ten Commandments. In essence, then, the film is a series of short sketches that try to make you laugh as much as possible. If one doesn't tickle your funny bone, it's over soon and you can try again. I'm sure the filmmakers had Monty Python in mind. A lofty goal, indeed, and a failure on those terms, but that doesn't necessarily mean The Ten isn't funny on other ones.


That's Jesus in above still. He's Mexican, yes, but he's also that Jesus. For a meager living, he carves—and later sells—prosthetic limbs. During the summer, he falls in love with a nerdy American librarian who has come to visit his village (or is it has visited his village to come?), which happens to postpone the apocalypse.

At times, this particular skit also goes silent and a Spanish voice begins to narrate. Is it funny to hear a man say va-h-ina three times in a row? You don't have to answer out loud...


In another skit, two suburban neighbours compete over who can buy the most CatScan machines. Understandably, this leads to much marital strife, and an absurdly funny situation that involves a bunch of elementary schoolers rolling around a lawn, dying from radiation poisoning. It's complicated. I can't explain.


If this all sounds astoundingly stupid and nonsensical, it probably is. But what sets The Ten apart from most other astoundingly stupid and nonsensical comedies is that, despite being a "writer's movie", it has a great sense of visuals. Quite often, the image is what makes the joke—whether in tune with the words or as a separate lampoon of established film conventions. Also commendable is the pace with which the film zips along. You may hate the stories it tells, but The Ten tells them with a concise precision that deserves at least a tip of the hat.


Now, here's something I never thought I'd see: Winona Ryder falling in love with a ventriloquist's dummy. Again, I'm not sure what exactly makes it funny or what the hell it really means, but the send-up of romance genre conventions is startlingly good!


If I said the scene was also erotic, you'd think I'm weird, wouldn't you? Not that I thought it was erotic...

For the sake of scientific research, I wonder if I'll get extra hits on this review if I include terms like: naked wynona rider sex dummy porn ventriloquist wood.


I'm not even going to try to explain this one. I'll just say it's zany and musical and full of naked men on Sunday. Indicative of much of the rest of the film, it's hard to describe in words—and possibly only because it's overwhelmingly juvenile and moronic. In fact, thinking back, I truly have no justifiable explanation for why The Ten made me laugh. I only have my humble excuse: it had been a long day, I was tired...

Francis, God's Jester

Roberto Rossellini's 1950 retelling of the story of St. Francis of Assisi and his fellow monks is a beautifully unpretentious piece of spiritual cinema: a personal rebellion against the Biblical spectacles that Hollywood was regularly churning out on the other side of the Atlantic.


On Titles

Oh, how much is in a name! This film goes by two of them: The Flowers of St. Francis and Francis, God's Jester. Several years ago, I had a chance to watch the former, and didn't. Several weeks ago, I came upon the latter, and did. Not only do I still find the first title unappealing, but I'm not sure where it comes from. Francis, God's Jester is both closer to the original Italian title and makes more sense within the film. The Flowers of St. Francis is simply a mystery.


Let there be light!

God's Jester starts in the dark and in the rain.


A group of monks come down a muddy road.


As the rain pours, they suddenly stop in their sandals and wet tunics, and start to talk. As the conversation builds, Rossellini cuts between several shots:


Then, just as suddenly as they'd stopped, the monks burst into a hymn and set off again!

Across the river, running...


From darkness, into light: singing about God, running towards St. Francis.


For these monks, lightness is a change of soul—an inner condition—rather than something external like the breaking of a rain cloud. Their joy, rendered visible by Rossellini, is independent of atmospheric conditions or material possessions.


Spiritual Realism?

One of the extras on Crtierion's version of God's Jester is an interview with an Italian film historian who tries to place the film in the context of Rossellini's filmography. Prior to God's Jester, the historian says, Rossellini made his famous neo-realist war trilogy (Open City, Paisan, and Germany: Year Zero); after God's Jester, he'd go on to make a series of films about alienation and existential malaise—which the historian likens to Antonioni's work. How, then, do we understand poor St. Francis?


It's certainly tempting to see elements of both neo-realism and existentialism in the film, and some fine arguments could, I'm sure, be made to support both.

For instance, are Francis and his band of merry monks not the embodiment of the communist and socialist themes that run through Rossellini's war films? And are they not waging a type of war against the brutish world of 13th-century Italy? Furthermore, what exact signs of God does Rossellini provide?


Me: I see only the constant melancholy expression on the face of St. Francis, which suggests a wisdom based not on a special understanding of the divine, but, rather, on the realization that, in the absence of God, it is divine to believe in Him. Is goodness done in the name of a non-existent God devoid of meaning? Is Francis a saint because he has the power to grant meaning to the lives of his followers? Rossellini teases, and it sure is tantalizing to tug at all the loose strings to see what comes undone.

But pull on too many and everything falls apart: sometimes it's necessary and even fruitful to control the auteurist impulse. Read God's Jester too much as a cinematic link—the tail of one Rossellini period and the nose of another—and lose appreciation for the film itself, I think.


God made the humble to confuse the minimalists

Several critics refer to God's Jester as a minimalist film. I disagree. I understand minimalism as a style that an artist, in this case a filmmaker, consciously applies to an artwork, shaping content to fit a desired form. The result is usually somewhat artificial and more often than not is meant to be noticed by the viewer. In other words: minimalist style is not invisible style.


In cinema, I see minimalism consisting of long takes, an unmoving camera, sparse sets, little dialogue, subdued colours, and uncluttered, simple compositions. Although God's Jester does contain some of these elements, they never take precedence over practical considerations. For example, while much of the film is shot from a stationary camera, when panning best captures a character's movement or best shows the spatial relationship between two objects, Rossellini pans.

Or, when it's necessary to lower the camera from Rossellini's favoured eye-level position
, to show someone on the ground perhaps, the camera comes humbly down.


I, therefore, see Rossellini as more the humble stylist than the strict minimalist in God's Jester. Much like Francis himself, Rossellini sheds dogma when dogma becomes contrary to the attainment of his goals. Prayer and quiet reverence are good, but there's a blessedness in heating up the kettle and making soup, too.


Humble style isn't minimal style, but one that compromises and adapts. In God's Jester, Rossellini juggles classical composed beauty, religious iconography, and realism. And while he shifts through these styles effortlessly, it's never done to show off. Piety, not pride.


St. Francis & The Leper

God's Jester is composed as a series of vignettes. The quality of these vignettes varies, but my favourite is one of the shortest. Quiet, dark, simple and wordless, it recounts a nighttime meeting between Francis and a wandering leper. One of those wonderfully cinematic sequences that appear in films from time to time, I'll not spoil it with words:


Conclusion

Roberto Rossellini's Francis, God's Jester is a wonderful film—transcending style, genre, and some down-right poor dubbing to become one of the greatest filmworks about religion ever made. Ingmar Bergman must have been watching closely.

Godard Speaks!

An interesting recent statement by Jean-Luc Godard in the German weekly Die Zeit:

"Most directors, and three-quarters of the people who will receive prizes in Berlin [at the international film festival], only pick up the camera to feel alive. They do not use it to see things that you cannot see without a camera."

Although, like with most French intellectuals I've read, I don't understand what Godard means, and therefore can't agree with what he's saying, there's a certain interpretation of his vagueness that strikes me as definitely agreeable.


To pick up a camera because it makes you happy seems like filmmaking for yourself. To pick up the camera and show what otherwise can't be seen, seems like filmmaking for an audience. And I tend to agree that there's quite a bit more of the former happening than the latter. Being in the French intellectual mode, however, I won't provide any examples or proof, or name any names. I'll simply agree with Godard as I interpret him.

Now, as a film viewer, I'm indifferent to how a filmmaker feels when he's making a film. I don't care if he finds the act of pointing and shooting a camera cathartic, painful, insufferable, joyous, or boring. I'm much more interested in how I feel when watching that filmmaker's film. I don't care if a filmmaker feels alive while making a film; I only want to feel alive while watching it.

I also have a nagging suspicion that most filmmakers create films neither because its makes them feel alive nor because they want to show things that aren't visible without a camera. Instead, I think most filmmakers make films—and exhibit them at festivals, in theatres, on DVD—because they want to influence people, gain recognition, and make money. Not unlike bloggers, perhaps...

Incidentally, I wonder what Godard thought of Federico Fellini, who once said that, "It is only when I am doing my work that I feel truly alive."

He probably didn't give a hoot, because Fellini, unlike the latest wave of filmmakers, was using the camera to see new things.

In a way, then, cinema is a lot like masturbation: I'm sure it makes everyone feel good, but I'd only like to watch about 5% of the world's population while they do it. Therefore, if we believe Godard—and I rather do—we've sure gotten much uglier since 1959.

Vargas Llosa on cinema?

Peruvian writer Mario Vargas Llosa's 1982 comic novel Aunt Julia and the Scriptwriter has a funny structure.


The story is generally about the budding romance between a young man who works at a radio station and studies law, and his older aunt, a Bolivian divorcee who's come to Lima to find a new husband. A substantial subplot, however, revolves around the hysterical popularity achieved by a Bolivian scriptwriter who arrives in Peru and becomes a hit writer-performer of radio soap operas.

Vargas Llosa thus alternates chapters that tell the novel's "real" story with chapters that are self-contained "fictions": examples of the types of lurid, soapy tales told over the Latin American airwaves.

Two of these radio-plays reminded me of films I'd seen in the past year or so.

The first, recapped in a few sentences by Aunt Julia, doubles as the uncanny logline to a Christian Bale movie:

"Right now, for example, Olga and I are caught up in the one that comes on at three o'clock. The tragedy of a young man who can't sleep because the minute he closes his eyes he starts reliving how he ran over a poor little girl and crushed her to death."

The other, a bit longer and more gruesome, captures the climactic action of an absolutely dreadful Todd Field film:

The judge and the secretary looked at each other. The accused had risen to his feet. There was a Nazarene expression on his face, and the knife in his right hand have off a terrible premonitory gleam. His left hand slid down unhurriedly toward his trousers fly concealing the zipper, as he said in a pained voice: "I am pure, Your Honor, I have never known a woman. What other men use to sin with, I only use to pee with..."

"Stop right there," Dr. Don Barreda y Zaldivar interrupted him as a terrible suspicion dawned on him. "What are you going to do?"

"Cut it off and throw it in the trash to prove how little it means to me," the accused replied, pointing toward the wastebasket with his chin."

He spoke with false pride, with quiet determination. Their mouths gaping open in surprise, struck dumb, the judge and the were unable to raise any sort of outcry. Gumercindo Tello was now holding the corpus delicti in his left hand and, an executioner brandishing the ax and mentally measuring its trajectory to the victim's neck, raising the knife and preparing to let fall to consummate the inconceivable proof.

Not only is the act itself identical to the one Field regales his audience with (both men have been accused of molesting kids), but the entire tone (I'm sure Field imagined his viewers mouths gaping open in surprise, struck dumb as he milked the scene and stretched out the big "reveal" over about ten minutes) is the same. The only difference—and it's key!—is that where Vargas Llosa mocks, Field oh-so-seriously preaches.

I wonder, is that where we get our film ideas these days: sarcastically overwrought 1980s Peruvian mockeries of soap operas? Or does what passed as overwrought and laughable to Vargas Llosa in 1982 seem so straightly appealing today?

Incidentally, Aunt Julia and the Scriptwriter was itself badly made into a film in 1990. Starring, in the lead role:

Keanu Reeves.

Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End



director: Gore Verbinski
year: 2007


The third (and final?) of the Pirates movies sees Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp) back from the dead and zanier than ever, as his old friends Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush), Elizabeth Swann (Keira Knightley), and Will Turner (Orlando Bloom) must convene a Meeting of Pirate Lords to face the growing strength of the chauvinist / imperialist / capitalist British navy and its fellow travellers.


It's amazing how much money Disney and Gore Verbinski have been able to squeeze from an amusement park ride. And it's subsequently not hard to imagine why no one really wants to put this sacred cash cow to bed. But, man, end something already! Much like in Pirates II, a lot ostensibly happens in Pirates III without too much actually happening. It's no unlike a footie match where the two sides go at each other reasonably well for the full 90, get off a few crackers at goal, maybe hit a post, get a few cards—and then end nil-nil. Sure, you may've enjoyed the game, perhaps you'll remember it for a few days; but, in the end, no matter how well the lads played, a non-result result means forgetting. Same with Pirates III: it's slickly directed, rewritten to a polish, stuffed with neat effects [...] and still going after the credits.

At World's End they found it was round.

Flight over Lithuania

Arunas Matelis and Audrius Stonys' Flight over Lithuania (Skrydis per Lietuva arba 510 sekundziu tylos) is the first Lithuanian film I've ever seen. As far as I understand—there's no dialogue, so I'm simply puzzled visually—it's a succession of mostly-moving, mostly-aerial shots of various parts of Lithuania edited into a 10-minute short. I'm not familiar with any relevant context to put the film in, but, because most of the images are quite beautiful, I thought I'd share them with you:


I've played enough Flight Simulator to know that these instruments are found in airplanes.


However, the next shot seems to be from a train moving through some kind of tunnel. Granted, I haven't played Train Simulator, so I may be wrong.


Back in an airplane, it seems. We faded from the tail end of the last shot to these ones. Foggy Lithuania down below.


Through the fog: I like the shape of the buildings, with their long, slanted roofs. I wish I could live in one of them.


Blue and gold. It's hard to figure out scale in some of these, no?


A building and a waterway separate the wooded foreground from the wooded background. Watching the shot actually move gives a great feeling of depth.


In this shot, of a city, the filmmakers pull the old Hitchcock trick: zoom out as you move in. I assume that's the top of a Church.