(The rural American south, roughly contemporary)
IMDb
Director Jean Renoir considered this uneven, episodic story of a tenant family struggling to start their own farm, to be the highlight of his American exile period. Attempting to tap into a deep vain of Americana and mythologization of the protestant work ethic, Renoir comes up short in a number of respects. First off, while something can be said for the overwhelming 'close to the earth' aspects of the story, both in terms of its relative simplicity and evocation of the rural ethos, it's still mostly pretty dull stuff. Renoir made some of the finest films to ever come out of Europe, and while his characters in films like The Grand Illusion might sometimes fall into type, they never-the-less always remained fully realized characters. That extent of deep characterization felt noticeably lacking in this film, with leads Zachary Scott and Betty Field exuding little more then a pleasant banality, even after going through excessive hardships. The Beulah Bondi character, who I think was suppose to be charmingly cranky, was really just whinny and annoying. Even Normon Lloyd (man of one of the all time great creepy faces) was waisted. I suspect this features winning of the Best Picture Award at the Venice Film festival, had more to do with a general respect for Renior (mostly well deserved), and their being recently liberated by the Americans, then with its own merits. Granted time may have diminished the impact of the film, which was very much unlike the standard studio output of its era.
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
Saturday, May 5, 2007
The Mormons (2007)
PBS Site
Joint production of Frontline and The American Experience by religious documentarian Helen Whitney. I was impressed on several levels, both aesthetically and in terms of content. In the aesthetics department I liked the look of the thing, especially the lighting of the interview subjects, it seemed to re-enforce that twilight quality that I think the church occupies in the minds of most Americans (meaning the difficulty Mormonism presents in terms of classification, it's neither day nor night). Also I enjoyed a mostly new set of talking heads, as opposed to those featured in PBS's several Mormon themed documentaries of the late 1990's. The music was very moving at times, reminds me of Phillip Glass if he did prelude music for church devotionals.
In terms of content, I think the Church was treated very fairly, with real class. That seems to be the hang up of most Mormons when dealing with any presentation of the Church outside of official 'correlated' control, 'how do we look?'. The treatment falls in line with the so-called new Mormon history, the good points are highlighted, but the controversial topics are not glossed over in return. I know any talk about polygamy, mountain meadows, women's depression, homosexuals, the temple, etc., makes some orthodox Mormons uncomfortable. Many Mormons are okay with some limited discussion about these issues, but feel the need for it to always come around at the end to a reinforcement of orthodox positions, and more consumer friendly aspects of church doctrine and history. I on the other hand think we should probably talk about these 'fringe' issues more. We need to deal with them, because not dealing with them is denial, and denial is seldom healthy.
I'd be hard pressed to come up with something said in the documentary that is in any way outrageous, or intentionally offensive. People can and will disagree on matters central to the Mormon faith and experience, lets air all sides and hope were confident enough in our own position to not take offense and live with it. I'd like to heap some praise on Marlin K. Jensen, I know were not suppose to be rooting for future appointments to the apostleship, but I've had my eye on him since a talk he gave in General Conference back in 2000. Elder Jensen expresses positions on the subjects he is asked about that are safely within the LDS mainstream, but you always get the feeling that he really understands, even respects the other side on these matters. This is something sadly that I can't say for everyone in leadership. Again I gulp a little when Elder Oaks says that we shouldn't voice any criticism of the leadership, even when it may be true. Really my differences with the 'establishment' are mostly matters of style, and I've come to live with that. However everything I know tells me that a lack of criticism and oversight of any group or any person (including myself) leads to abuses.
There were a few places in this documentary where I was really moved, inspired, or felt like I made some kind of spiritual connection I never had before. For instance I never fully understood the Mormon obsession with dancing. I just kind of assumed this was a holdover of frontier entertainment from the 19th century. However when they spoke of dancing as a Mormon celebration of the body, and of joy in physicality (with some beautiful footage of graceful performance dance played as B roll) I nearly broke down. What a beautiful aspect of my faith that I had never appreciated, what a wonderful contribution to and extension of theology into the mortal sphere. But mostly I just appreciated the respectful honesty of all who were interviewed. I highly recommend The Mormons as a time saving substitute for any of a number of wonderful general overview books written on the Church.
Joint production of Frontline and The American Experience by religious documentarian Helen Whitney. I was impressed on several levels, both aesthetically and in terms of content. In the aesthetics department I liked the look of the thing, especially the lighting of the interview subjects, it seemed to re-enforce that twilight quality that I think the church occupies in the minds of most Americans (meaning the difficulty Mormonism presents in terms of classification, it's neither day nor night). Also I enjoyed a mostly new set of talking heads, as opposed to those featured in PBS's several Mormon themed documentaries of the late 1990's. The music was very moving at times, reminds me of Phillip Glass if he did prelude music for church devotionals.
In terms of content, I think the Church was treated very fairly, with real class. That seems to be the hang up of most Mormons when dealing with any presentation of the Church outside of official 'correlated' control, 'how do we look?'. The treatment falls in line with the so-called new Mormon history, the good points are highlighted, but the controversial topics are not glossed over in return. I know any talk about polygamy, mountain meadows, women's depression, homosexuals, the temple, etc., makes some orthodox Mormons uncomfortable. Many Mormons are okay with some limited discussion about these issues, but feel the need for it to always come around at the end to a reinforcement of orthodox positions, and more consumer friendly aspects of church doctrine and history. I on the other hand think we should probably talk about these 'fringe' issues more. We need to deal with them, because not dealing with them is denial, and denial is seldom healthy.
I'd be hard pressed to come up with something said in the documentary that is in any way outrageous, or intentionally offensive. People can and will disagree on matters central to the Mormon faith and experience, lets air all sides and hope were confident enough in our own position to not take offense and live with it. I'd like to heap some praise on Marlin K. Jensen, I know were not suppose to be rooting for future appointments to the apostleship, but I've had my eye on him since a talk he gave in General Conference back in 2000. Elder Jensen expresses positions on the subjects he is asked about that are safely within the LDS mainstream, but you always get the feeling that he really understands, even respects the other side on these matters. This is something sadly that I can't say for everyone in leadership. Again I gulp a little when Elder Oaks says that we shouldn't voice any criticism of the leadership, even when it may be true. Really my differences with the 'establishment' are mostly matters of style, and I've come to live with that. However everything I know tells me that a lack of criticism and oversight of any group or any person (including myself) leads to abuses.
There were a few places in this documentary where I was really moved, inspired, or felt like I made some kind of spiritual connection I never had before. For instance I never fully understood the Mormon obsession with dancing. I just kind of assumed this was a holdover of frontier entertainment from the 19th century. However when they spoke of dancing as a Mormon celebration of the body, and of joy in physicality (with some beautiful footage of graceful performance dance played as B roll) I nearly broke down. What a beautiful aspect of my faith that I had never appreciated, what a wonderful contribution to and extension of theology into the mortal sphere. But mostly I just appreciated the respectful honesty of all who were interviewed. I highly recommend The Mormons as a time saving substitute for any of a number of wonderful general overview books written on the Church.
Friday, May 4, 2007
The Goebbels Experiment (2005)
Excerpts from the diary of Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels, covering the years 1924-1945. Events are illustrated through archival footage, film clips, contemporary video of places refereed to in the journals, and the most minimal of reenactments. Kenneth Branagh's reading of the mans words is as strong a performance and you might suppose from the Irish Shakespearean.
The draw of the film is a glimpse inside the mind of this key Nazi leader. Goebbels obviously thought a lot of his own ideas and observations, and of all the big name party members, he kept the most extensive personal records. From a depressed and angry college years (one entry read might have been a veiled reference to a future suicide), Goebbels finds his meaning in the National Socialist Party, and in Adolph Hitler, a man with whom he would have a varied relationship.
At times Goebble's worships his Fuhrer, and can't seem to say enough good things about him, at other times it appears the Hitler is now an 'idiot' or has "lost his way, he no longer leads us." These shifts in perception seem to have a lot to do with the amount of attention he feels he is being paid ("Sunday: Breakfeast at the Furher's"), and the extent to which he is then currently in the fickle mans 'good graces'. Also highlighted is Goebble's opinions on other important Nazi's and world leaders, which also seem to change. Goreing for example is "a megalomaniac" then "a nice guy really" and finally "an idiot" and even "effeminate". The propaganda ministers assessment of Churchill also changes with time, going from "ugly, fat" to "an adversary to be respected, he's not as stupid as Chamberlain was."
As Goebbles was in charge of propaganda he spends a good deal of time in his diary's talking about movies. He is mostly a very critical reviewer, at least when it comes to forgone films, thought he had his issues with Leni Refensthal as well. In one entry he tells how a certain Czech film, while well made, had no effect on him, while words on the screen inform us that he later had an affair with the lead actress. Joseph's obsession with film and image lead to his own home as well, as the mans children where routinely photographed for propaganda purposes. Seeing his seemingly loving and happy large brood prance around on screen is all the more sickening when one knows that he and his wife poisoned them in Hitlers bunker, so that they would never live to be 'brainwashed' by the Allied powers. The Goebbels Experiment ends with footage of Allied troops inspecting the bodies of the dead children, and the burned corpse of the Joseph Goebbels.
The draw of the film is a glimpse inside the mind of this key Nazi leader. Goebbels obviously thought a lot of his own ideas and observations, and of all the big name party members, he kept the most extensive personal records. From a depressed and angry college years (one entry read might have been a veiled reference to a future suicide), Goebbels finds his meaning in the National Socialist Party, and in Adolph Hitler, a man with whom he would have a varied relationship.
At times Goebble's worships his Fuhrer, and can't seem to say enough good things about him, at other times it appears the Hitler is now an 'idiot' or has "lost his way, he no longer leads us." These shifts in perception seem to have a lot to do with the amount of attention he feels he is being paid ("Sunday: Breakfeast at the Furher's"), and the extent to which he is then currently in the fickle mans 'good graces'. Also highlighted is Goebble's opinions on other important Nazi's and world leaders, which also seem to change. Goreing for example is "a megalomaniac" then "a nice guy really" and finally "an idiot" and even "effeminate". The propaganda ministers assessment of Churchill also changes with time, going from "ugly, fat" to "an adversary to be respected, he's not as stupid as Chamberlain was."
As Goebbles was in charge of propaganda he spends a good deal of time in his diary's talking about movies. He is mostly a very critical reviewer, at least when it comes to forgone films, thought he had his issues with Leni Refensthal as well. In one entry he tells how a certain Czech film, while well made, had no effect on him, while words on the screen inform us that he later had an affair with the lead actress. Joseph's obsession with film and image lead to his own home as well, as the mans children where routinely photographed for propaganda purposes. Seeing his seemingly loving and happy large brood prance around on screen is all the more sickening when one knows that he and his wife poisoned them in Hitlers bunker, so that they would never live to be 'brainwashed' by the Allied powers. The Goebbels Experiment ends with footage of Allied troops inspecting the bodies of the dead children, and the burned corpse of the Joseph Goebbels.
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
Ryan's Daughter (1970)
(The Irish coast, 1916)
IMDb
David Lean never ceased being a master. After a triumvet of films consisting of The Bridge on the River Kawi, Lawrence of Arabia, and Doctor Zhivago, you couldn't really expect anybody to top those. While Ryan's Daughter is lesser known then these three films, and not nearly as epic in scope, it's just as strong in its direction. A vast film full of visual flourish, and griping story, as well as fascinating characters, and characterizations for that matter. If there had been a SAG award in 1970, I don't know how this film could have possibly lost. George C. Scott in Patton may have been more memorable as a single performance, but this movie has got Trevor Howard as powerfully righteous (not self righteous) Catholic Priest, Leo McKern as a blustery (but ultimately cowardly) inn-keep, and John Mills (father of Hayley and Juliet) earning himself a supporting actor Oscar as a sad, pathetic creature out of Lon Cheney.
Perhaps the most surprising performance in the film comes from Robert Mitchum, who proves he was capable of a lot more then the parts the studios usually gave him allowed. Here we have a quite, patient Mitchum, a man of dignity, poise, and learning, who is also an armature botanist. His being cast against type adds an extra layer of tension to the proceedings, as your just waiting for him to crack. Mitchum's Charles Shaughnessy is the village school master, who three years after his wife's death marries a much younger women, a former student of his in fact, who basically forces herself upon him so enamoured she is. That is not to say that Mitchum doesn't return the affection, he comes to love her deeply, deeply enough to see the marriage through the trouble that lies ahead.
The aforementioned trouble comes in the form of Randolph Doryan (Christopher Jones), a shell shocked officer sent back from the front because of a leg injury. Major Doryan is given what is considered a cushy position, at a small military post in occupied Ireland. The troubled but hansom young man comes quickly into a mutual fancy with Mrs. Shaghnessy. This is bad because not only do the local townsfolk hate the British officers there stationed, but Rosy's husband is Robert Mitchum, and you've all seen Cape Fear, you know what he's capable of. Capable or not he never acts in rage, though as he starts to piece together the puzzel of what is happening between his wife and the newcomer, you're pretty sure he's gonna.
However in the end its the towns people who seem to re-enforce the English stereotype of a hot blooded race who can't be trusted to govern themselves. You see that in the unruly young people who crowed the main (and only) street, because there is little employment around. You see it in the mob that comes up to the school teachers house to beat Rose Shaughnessy for being the traitor, though there is not but circumstantial evidence to suggest that she tipped off the British to the arms shipment from the Germans (guess who did?). Her husband knows she didn't do it because he was there with her when she would have had to have done it, and he can't say that kind of thing often. Nobel Irishmen are there to no doubt, the wonderful Trevor Howard, and likable resistance leader Tim O'Leary (Barry Foster)
Ryan's Daughter exceeded my expectations, I thank the late Frank Capra for recommending it to me as an example of great accomplishments in 'current' cinema in his 1970's autobiography. To bad I waited a good decade to take his advice.
IMDb
David Lean never ceased being a master. After a triumvet of films consisting of The Bridge on the River Kawi, Lawrence of Arabia, and Doctor Zhivago, you couldn't really expect anybody to top those. While Ryan's Daughter is lesser known then these three films, and not nearly as epic in scope, it's just as strong in its direction. A vast film full of visual flourish, and griping story, as well as fascinating characters, and characterizations for that matter. If there had been a SAG award in 1970, I don't know how this film could have possibly lost. George C. Scott in Patton may have been more memorable as a single performance, but this movie has got Trevor Howard as powerfully righteous (not self righteous) Catholic Priest, Leo McKern as a blustery (but ultimately cowardly) inn-keep, and John Mills (father of Hayley and Juliet) earning himself a supporting actor Oscar as a sad, pathetic creature out of Lon Cheney.
Perhaps the most surprising performance in the film comes from Robert Mitchum, who proves he was capable of a lot more then the parts the studios usually gave him allowed. Here we have a quite, patient Mitchum, a man of dignity, poise, and learning, who is also an armature botanist. His being cast against type adds an extra layer of tension to the proceedings, as your just waiting for him to crack. Mitchum's Charles Shaughnessy is the village school master, who three years after his wife's death marries a much younger women, a former student of his in fact, who basically forces herself upon him so enamoured she is. That is not to say that Mitchum doesn't return the affection, he comes to love her deeply, deeply enough to see the marriage through the trouble that lies ahead.
The aforementioned trouble comes in the form of Randolph Doryan (Christopher Jones), a shell shocked officer sent back from the front because of a leg injury. Major Doryan is given what is considered a cushy position, at a small military post in occupied Ireland. The troubled but hansom young man comes quickly into a mutual fancy with Mrs. Shaghnessy. This is bad because not only do the local townsfolk hate the British officers there stationed, but Rosy's husband is Robert Mitchum, and you've all seen Cape Fear, you know what he's capable of. Capable or not he never acts in rage, though as he starts to piece together the puzzel of what is happening between his wife and the newcomer, you're pretty sure he's gonna.
However in the end its the towns people who seem to re-enforce the English stereotype of a hot blooded race who can't be trusted to govern themselves. You see that in the unruly young people who crowed the main (and only) street, because there is little employment around. You see it in the mob that comes up to the school teachers house to beat Rose Shaughnessy for being the traitor, though there is not but circumstantial evidence to suggest that she tipped off the British to the arms shipment from the Germans (guess who did?). Her husband knows she didn't do it because he was there with her when she would have had to have done it, and he can't say that kind of thing often. Nobel Irishmen are there to no doubt, the wonderful Trevor Howard, and likable resistance leader Tim O'Leary (Barry Foster)
Ryan's Daughter exceeded my expectations, I thank the late Frank Capra for recommending it to me as an example of great accomplishments in 'current' cinema in his 1970's autobiography. To bad I waited a good decade to take his advice.
My Ten Favorite Lynch Films in Order
The fact that David Lynch has only made ten features in a 30 year career makes this list pretty easy to compile. I'll start with my favorite and work my way down:
1. Mulholland Dr. (2001)
2. Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me (1992)
3. Blue Velvet (1986)
4. The Elephant Man (1980)
5. The Straight Story (1999)
6. Lost Highway (1997)
7. Eraserhead (1977)
8. INLAND EMPIRE (2006)
9. Dune (1984)
10. Wild at Hart (1990)
1. Mulholland Dr. (2001)
2. Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me (1992)
3. Blue Velvet (1986)
4. The Elephant Man (1980)
5. The Straight Story (1999)
6. Lost Highway (1997)
7. Eraserhead (1977)
8. INLAND EMPIRE (2006)
9. Dune (1984)
10. Wild at Hart (1990)
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
INLAND EMPIRE (2006)
(Hollywood California contemporary, also extended 'flashback?' sequences, probably in Germany or Poland, most likely in the 1920's or 30's)
IMDb
After a five year absence from the big screen, David Lynch returns to feature films with INLAND EMPIRE. This third entry in his loosely defined 'California Trilogy', EMPIRE shares more in common with the two other entries in this series, Mulholland Dr. and Lost Highway, then with anything else the auteur has done (though there is a little Blue Velvet in there as well).
To start out with I should point out that INLAND EMPIRE really isn't a film, and that this statement apples in two ways. First off EMPIRE was shot on digital video, a medium whose possibility's the director was so taken with, that he has publicly stated he will never go back to using conventional film for movies again. Secondly, like the other two Lynch films previously cited, EMPIRE does not follow a traditional story structure. Exactly how we are to read the film, in terms of sequence of events, and what does and does not constitute its internal logic or reality is left ambiguous. I had previously determined, in my mind, that most of Lost Highway was 'An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge' type epiphany just before Bill Pullman was electrocuted by the state, and Mulholland Dr. primarily a women's sexual fantasy (don't ask), but EMPIRE has proven more difficult for me to place in my head. It is possibly a series of re-interpretations of an old Polish folk tale introduced early in the proceedings.
The ostensible plot concerns Nikki Grace (Laura Dern), an actress yearning for something of a comeback, who lands the female lead in a film called On High in Blue Tomorrows. Justin Theroux is her co-star Devon Berk, a performer who appears noted for bedding his leading Lady's, much to Nikki's husbands chagrin (what, is this Lynch's take on Bradgallina?). Early on in the films production the director, Kingsley Stewart (Jeremy Irons), reveals to the two stars information that has been dug up by his right-hand man Freddie Howard (Harry Dean Stanton). It seems that On High is a remake of film (known by a different title) that was never finished because the two leads were murdered, and that the current producers had intentionally plotted to hide this fact from the cast and crew. In short order the boundaries between whats happening on the set, in the film, and in 'real life' (whatever that is) start to bluer. As the film within the film is about adultery, you can see how this could cause problems.
Like the others in the 'California trilogy', EMPIRE doesn't really make sense in any empirical way, rather it functions in a sort of 'dream logic'. Themes, concepts, key phrases, and even actors show up in different guises. Be it an existential sitcome staring rabbits, or nine prostitutes doing the Locomotion, and no I'm not soft peddling a sex act here, the prostitutes are literally doing the dance the Locomotion, you somehow know its all supose to make sense on some level.
EMPIRE was weird and long, not fully satisfying as a movie, but something you could watch to get into a state of deep mediation. Maybe that's what Lynch intended. But if I could see into the future like Grace Zabriskie's character, I would hope to find Lynch moving in another direction. Throughout the showing I kept hopping that this movie would be a little like Fire Walk With Me, the ending of one of Lynch's creative periods, when he largely set aside the small town motif, and moved onto something different and even more inventive, in that case it was Lost Highway and the start of this current trilogy. With the director now in his 60's perhaps he has a new cosmology in mind to show us, and I for one will be ready at the ticket counter when he does.
IMDb
After a five year absence from the big screen, David Lynch returns to feature films with INLAND EMPIRE. This third entry in his loosely defined 'California Trilogy', EMPIRE shares more in common with the two other entries in this series, Mulholland Dr. and Lost Highway, then with anything else the auteur has done (though there is a little Blue Velvet in there as well).
To start out with I should point out that INLAND EMPIRE really isn't a film, and that this statement apples in two ways. First off EMPIRE was shot on digital video, a medium whose possibility's the director was so taken with, that he has publicly stated he will never go back to using conventional film for movies again. Secondly, like the other two Lynch films previously cited, EMPIRE does not follow a traditional story structure. Exactly how we are to read the film, in terms of sequence of events, and what does and does not constitute its internal logic or reality is left ambiguous. I had previously determined, in my mind, that most of Lost Highway was 'An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge' type epiphany just before Bill Pullman was electrocuted by the state, and Mulholland Dr. primarily a women's sexual fantasy (don't ask), but EMPIRE has proven more difficult for me to place in my head. It is possibly a series of re-interpretations of an old Polish folk tale introduced early in the proceedings.
The ostensible plot concerns Nikki Grace (Laura Dern), an actress yearning for something of a comeback, who lands the female lead in a film called On High in Blue Tomorrows. Justin Theroux is her co-star Devon Berk, a performer who appears noted for bedding his leading Lady's, much to Nikki's husbands chagrin (what, is this Lynch's take on Bradgallina?). Early on in the films production the director, Kingsley Stewart (Jeremy Irons), reveals to the two stars information that has been dug up by his right-hand man Freddie Howard (Harry Dean Stanton). It seems that On High is a remake of film (known by a different title) that was never finished because the two leads were murdered, and that the current producers had intentionally plotted to hide this fact from the cast and crew. In short order the boundaries between whats happening on the set, in the film, and in 'real life' (whatever that is) start to bluer. As the film within the film is about adultery, you can see how this could cause problems.
Like the others in the 'California trilogy', EMPIRE doesn't really make sense in any empirical way, rather it functions in a sort of 'dream logic'. Themes, concepts, key phrases, and even actors show up in different guises. Be it an existential sitcome staring rabbits, or nine prostitutes doing the Locomotion, and no I'm not soft peddling a sex act here, the prostitutes are literally doing the dance the Locomotion, you somehow know its all supose to make sense on some level.
EMPIRE was weird and long, not fully satisfying as a movie, but something you could watch to get into a state of deep mediation. Maybe that's what Lynch intended. But if I could see into the future like Grace Zabriskie's character, I would hope to find Lynch moving in another direction. Throughout the showing I kept hopping that this movie would be a little like Fire Walk With Me, the ending of one of Lynch's creative periods, when he largely set aside the small town motif, and moved onto something different and even more inventive, in that case it was Lost Highway and the start of this current trilogy. With the director now in his 60's perhaps he has a new cosmology in mind to show us, and I for one will be ready at the ticket counter when he does.
Tom Poston: 1921-2007
There was always something likable about Tom Poston. You could just kind of tell he was an incredibly decent and nice man, someone who could make even Bob Newhart seem unexceptional in the meek department. Whether he played cranky or resigned (the two states I really remember him in), he was always endearing, and someone you wanted to know and interact with on a regular basis. You just wanted Tom Poston to like you, because you liked him so much instinctively. Now this nice man is gone, and that's to bad, I had always hoped to see more of him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)