This week's Netflix offering was the 2005 "Tsosti" by movie maker Gavin Hood.
When I saw Gavin's name, I knew I'd recently seen another movie by him but couldn't remember which. So when I was done, I looked him up. Gavin was also the director for Rendition, which I saw a month or two ago but didn't review at the time, and... X-Men Origins: Wolverine.
Huh. One of these things is not like the others; one of these things just doesn't belong.
So, Tsotsi. Pretty good. If you liked Slumdog Millionaire but wouldn't mind something darker, you'd probably like this one. Imagine what Slumdog would have been like if we'd followed Salim instead of Jamal, and I'd say it's a pretty good idea of the tone of Tsotsi. Completely different plot, but same sort of mood.
The storyarc is a little shallow, but it's pretty good. I could have done without the love subplot, because that is exactly the sort of love story I hate, but it goes in a way I can write off and doesn't ruin the movie for me.
It is also very well put together, in that there are visual elements you'd think are just environment flavor that later tie in, and themes that tie together throughout the movie. Gavin Hood: the man has some skills.
I'm not really sure what else to say about it that won't spoil it. I think darker, earlier Slumdog Millionaire set in South Africa sums it up pretty well.
Also on the disk is Gavin Hood's short movie "The Storekeeper" from 1998, which runs about 20 minutes. Oh my gosh, this is the darkest, saddest thing in the world. I am too sensitive for this movie. I don't think I've ever said that before, but I'm saying it now. I would not have watched it if I knew where it was going.
To explain why I wouldn't have watched it would spoil horribly, and I'd hate to give away the ending to those who can handle it, so let me put it this way. When you know where it is going -- not when you think you know, when you know. You will know. -- then if you don't want to follow it in heart-rending detail, turn it off right there.
Someone out there will now call me a big huge baby that I couldn't handle this. I will own that. I'm too sensitive to be watching this one.
Finally, Rendition. I'm doing it on this entry because if I didn't, I'd babble about it all over the place up in Tsotsi.
You know, when I first got my cell phone, I got constant voice mail messages for the previous person with that number, mostly from bill collectors. I've gotten a lot of those cleared out, but I still get one every now and then despite my voice mail message clearly stating that you have reached Jinnayah Realname's private cell phone, that no one else uses this number, and if you are not looking for Jinnayah, than you have the wrong number. (Note to self: Did I ever actually change it back to this after putting a nicer message on when I was using it for a work event? I should if I haven't.)
It could be worse, though. Imagine if your phone number had previously been held by a terrorist. Or if one of your friends' numbers had been held by a terrorist, and they've been calling you. And you're traveling outside the country when a major terrorist attack that kills a CIA agent happens. And you're not an American citizen. And your skintone is kinda brown.
You see where this could lead to some serious suckage.
The movie is dealing with the doctrine of Extreme Rendition. When it was enacted under Clinton, as best I can tell, it was basically an illegal extradition to take suspected terrorists from somewhere else and bring them to the States to be tried. IMO that's problematic enough. Most of America's major international problems spring from our complete disrespect or even disdain for other country's sovereignty. Under the Bush administration, however, extreme rendition became downright Evil. Capital E. This is what "let" the American government and/or its allies kidnap people and torture them.
As an aside, on the DVD with the movie is a short documentary that inspired it. It runs about 30 minutes. To my liberal friends, this is more than us being able to say "We told you so." This is a big slice of "Oh my God, it is way worse than we thought."
Anyway, back to the movie. There's actually two stories going on, so there is some good human dynamic stuff going on amongst locals to the terrorist attack that kicks us off, and you don't have to spend the entire movie watching someone get tortured while his pregnant wife wigs out trying to find him. It also includes an unusual storytelling technique that you will either love, or think is an incredibly cheap trick. Unfortunately, telling you what it is would spoil the whole thing. Myself, I made a sarcastic snark during the reveal, realized I was correct, and then found myself thinking "you know, that actually worked pretty cool."
One thing I particularly like in it: the kidnapped guy's wife has a friend in a Senator's office who is helping her, and ends up dropping it because he is advised that if this is not an absolutely clear case, if Kidnapped Guy is not absolutely beyond a doubt completely clean, if there turns out to be any reason whatsoever for him to be suspected, the friend's career is over. He's told that before they challenge the Extreme Rendition doctrine, they need a completely clear and clean case.
Let's think about this for a moment. How royally would our government have to screw up for there to be a completely clean case, absolutely no reason for suspicion whatsoever, not even a "remember that weird kid in your high school biology class? Yeah, your classmate was a terrorist" kind of super-sketchy connection? The Kidnapped Guy, he had some phone calls to his cell, that may even have been quick hang-ups, and since he's from the Middle East there might be a distant cousin or an old classmate or a friend of a friend's sister thing somewhere in there.
And that's the point. If we as a society, not just government reps or media figures, are going to wait for a completely clear case to say "no, this is wrong", we might as well just push the self-destruction button when we get there, because if it has gotten to that point, the country is a lost freaking cause anyway.
So, in general. The movie is disturbing (and the included documentary even more so), but if you can handle that it is worth seeing. I really liked the unusual storytelling once I got past the initial "you did what?" and overall it's a good story.
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Movie: Terminator Salvation (no spoilers)
First, though, from the "what is wrong with some people" category. Who takes little little kids to see a movie like this?! When I saw all these families with young kids in the line, I figured most of them were for Night at the Museum, the only little-kid-friend movie showing in that theater. So when I heard a family with 3 kids from 18 months to 6 years order tickets for Terminator, I just about swallowed my own tongue. Return of the Jedi scared the living crap out of me when I was their oldest's age, so I can only imagine what this movie would have done.
Don't get me wrong, they managed the kids OK. There was a freak-out during the promos, but that's all I heard, and when I came out the mom was already sitting outside with the littlest at the least. But still, whatever happened to babysitters? Did they just go extinct? All of my coworkers have kids, and yet I honestly do not remember the last time I heard someone talk about hiring a sitter.
Do a playdate swap with another family, something. Do not take little little kids to a movie like this. Even if you don't mind if they see the violence, a theater's sound system with an action movie's soundtrack is very hard on sensitive little eardrums. Use some flippin' sense, people.
OK, rant over.
Terminator Salvation, spoiler-free version. If you're surprised that I went to see a Terminator movie, that's fair. I have nothing serious against the Terminator series, but it doesn't particularly float my boat, either. I saw the first one years ago on TV, and... meh. Seen bits and pieces of the second one. Meh. Didn't see the third; from everything I heard and saw, it seemed pretty interchangeable with the first and second, except that we blow up the world at the end.
The promos for this one looked different. There's no time travel, Arnie was nowhere in sight, and it looked like there might actually be some grappling with issues. I like issues in my movies. And worst case scenario, a Terminator movie can at least be counted on for some good explosions, so what the heck.
Generally speaking, I liked it. It has a few flaws, but not too many and not too fatal, and generally it's a good movie. Good issues, generally good characterizations. There were a few flaws there, but my biggest ones went away when I checked the Terminator timeline and realized this one is set way before the future portion of the others. I'd say the characters are unusually human for an action movie, and I like that.
My biggest complaint is that the trailer spoils the major plot twist. That kind of thing always cheeses me off. All those people worked really hard to make a mind-blowing OMG perception shift, and some idiot down in marketing screws it all to hell by featuring it in the promo. Dumbass.
And, would someone please tell Christian Bale to stop doing that thing with his voice. Dude, did you take acting lessons under Jack Palance? Stop that! Right now! You don't sound bad-ass; you sound congested. Stop, talk normal. You can carry it without trying to drop your voice an octave. Trust me.
Finally, this is just the nature of the franchise (or really, any action movie at all), but I also find it funny just what inefficient killers the Terminators are. Humans are fragile creatures. You can stab us, you can shoot us, you can break things -- there are any number of ways to kill a human. And yet the Terminators can't seem to figure it out. They're grabbing people, throwing them against walls and into electronics equipment and over railings to 20 foot falls, and their victims just aren't dying. They can't figure out this killing thing. It's like having a Terminator after you actually makes you less likely to die a painful violent death.
Nonetheless, if those are my biggest complaints, I think that says a lot. You know I'm a big complainer. ;)
Now, let me be a bit nerdy for just a few moments about some technical aspects. I don't usually notice this sort of stuff unless it's very good or very bad, but this time I did, and thought they were quite good.
First, I really like the use of the desaturated filmstock. There are different filmstocks out there. There are a few that are known for eye-blinding bright colors. Kurosawa loved this for his later work; Dreams is especially eye-searing. This uses the opposite, which is a very muted color palette except for splotches of red everywhere. Although not always realistic, I thought it had a very nifty effect.
Second, I don't generally like modern action movie directing/camerawork styles, especially the tendency towards quick cuts and sudden moves. This movie, however, I found generally well executed, and it used some very interesting POVs and camera angles. For instance, the helicopter crash right near the beginning and the way it was shot: very creative, very effective -- much more than the usual quick cuts around the outside would have been.
So, in summary: Definitely worth 2 hours and 4 bucks. You take Arnie out of the franchise, and good things happen.
Don't get me wrong, they managed the kids OK. There was a freak-out during the promos, but that's all I heard, and when I came out the mom was already sitting outside with the littlest at the least. But still, whatever happened to babysitters? Did they just go extinct? All of my coworkers have kids, and yet I honestly do not remember the last time I heard someone talk about hiring a sitter.
Do a playdate swap with another family, something. Do not take little little kids to a movie like this. Even if you don't mind if they see the violence, a theater's sound system with an action movie's soundtrack is very hard on sensitive little eardrums. Use some flippin' sense, people.
OK, rant over.
Terminator Salvation, spoiler-free version. If you're surprised that I went to see a Terminator movie, that's fair. I have nothing serious against the Terminator series, but it doesn't particularly float my boat, either. I saw the first one years ago on TV, and... meh. Seen bits and pieces of the second one. Meh. Didn't see the third; from everything I heard and saw, it seemed pretty interchangeable with the first and second, except that we blow up the world at the end.
The promos for this one looked different. There's no time travel, Arnie was nowhere in sight, and it looked like there might actually be some grappling with issues. I like issues in my movies. And worst case scenario, a Terminator movie can at least be counted on for some good explosions, so what the heck.
Generally speaking, I liked it. It has a few flaws, but not too many and not too fatal, and generally it's a good movie. Good issues, generally good characterizations. There were a few flaws there, but my biggest ones went away when I checked the Terminator timeline and realized this one is set way before the future portion of the others. I'd say the characters are unusually human for an action movie, and I like that.
My biggest complaint is that the trailer spoils the major plot twist. That kind of thing always cheeses me off. All those people worked really hard to make a mind-blowing OMG perception shift, and some idiot down in marketing screws it all to hell by featuring it in the promo. Dumbass.
And, would someone please tell Christian Bale to stop doing that thing with his voice. Dude, did you take acting lessons under Jack Palance? Stop that! Right now! You don't sound bad-ass; you sound congested. Stop, talk normal. You can carry it without trying to drop your voice an octave. Trust me.
Finally, this is just the nature of the franchise (or really, any action movie at all), but I also find it funny just what inefficient killers the Terminators are. Humans are fragile creatures. You can stab us, you can shoot us, you can break things -- there are any number of ways to kill a human. And yet the Terminators can't seem to figure it out. They're grabbing people, throwing them against walls and into electronics equipment and over railings to 20 foot falls, and their victims just aren't dying. They can't figure out this killing thing. It's like having a Terminator after you actually makes you less likely to die a painful violent death.
Nonetheless, if those are my biggest complaints, I think that says a lot. You know I'm a big complainer. ;)
Now, let me be a bit nerdy for just a few moments about some technical aspects. I don't usually notice this sort of stuff unless it's very good or very bad, but this time I did, and thought they were quite good.
First, I really like the use of the desaturated filmstock. There are different filmstocks out there. There are a few that are known for eye-blinding bright colors. Kurosawa loved this for his later work; Dreams is especially eye-searing. This uses the opposite, which is a very muted color palette except for splotches of red everywhere. Although not always realistic, I thought it had a very nifty effect.
Second, I don't generally like modern action movie directing/camerawork styles, especially the tendency towards quick cuts and sudden moves. This movie, however, I found generally well executed, and it used some very interesting POVs and camera angles. For instance, the helicopter crash right near the beginning and the way it was shot: very creative, very effective -- much more than the usual quick cuts around the outside would have been.
So, in summary: Definitely worth 2 hours and 4 bucks. You take Arnie out of the franchise, and good things happen.
Friday, May 22, 2009
Movie: The Man Who Laughs (spoilers)
This week's Netflix offering is The Man Who Laughs, an American silent movie from 1928.
So how did I find this one? Well, let me put it this way. Batman fans, does this face look at all familiar to you?
Yup. Waaay back in 1940, the Joker's visual design wascompletely ripped off of inspired by Conrad Veidt as Gwynplaine. Which is rather ironic, because Gwynplaine's story could easily drive a person to go on a massive killing spree, and yet he largely abstains.
Now, I'm going to do this review a bit differently than I usually do, because silent films are a different animal than modern films, or even classic talkies. It's a completely different art form, with different criteria. You either like it, or you don't.
Would I recommend this to a complete silent movie virgin? Um... It's not on my short list, but I wouldn't talk someone out of it, either. (The short list: Kino's version of Metropolis -- if you haven't seen Kino's, you haven't seen it; any decent cut of Nosferatu; or the Chaplin Collection's Modern Times. Really, any decent edition, but the Chaplin Collection's is probably the easiest to get right now.) It's a good silent film, fairly typical of the genre if you throw both American and German films into the pot together. The last 20 minutes is more Hollywood-y than the rest, and the chase scene is practically right out of Phantom of the Opera, but for the most part, it's good.
Would I recommend this to someone who already likes silent movies? Yes. Absolutely. If you like silent movies, you must see this. It is a fascinating transitional piece.
Originally it was concepted as a Lon Chaney movie. Small problem: Chaney kind of worked for a rival studio. So, the producer thought, why don't I try that Conrad Veidt guy? And while he was at it he got a couple of other big name German movie makers, and ended up with this really cool hybrid between German expressionism and American realism. It's more realistic than a typical German movie of the period, but much deeper and more thoughtful than most of the American movies. (Well, except for that last 20 minutes. But you can't have everything.)
On top of that it was made when theaters were transitioning to talkies. They decided not to do it as a talkie because, well, in the make-up Conrad kinda... couldn't talk. But it is one of those interesting transitional pieces that has a coordinated soundtrack despite being a "silent". (Although it is inadvertently amusing, because they seem to have had a cast of 5 guys trying to voice crowd scenes of several hundred.)
Also, Conrad Veidt is an amazing actor to pull off this role, especially in a silent. In a silent, there are no lines and voice intonations to express your meanings. It's all gesture and facial expression. Well, this movie removes half his face from that equation, and he's never been one for the hugely exaggerated gestures of many silent actors. And yet he pulls it off amazingly well.
So, in summary: if you like silents, or you like Conrad Veidt, you should see this one.
So how did I find this one? Well, let me put it this way. Batman fans, does this face look at all familiar to you?
Yup. Waaay back in 1940, the Joker's visual design was
Now, I'm going to do this review a bit differently than I usually do, because silent films are a different animal than modern films, or even classic talkies. It's a completely different art form, with different criteria. You either like it, or you don't.
Would I recommend this to a complete silent movie virgin? Um... It's not on my short list, but I wouldn't talk someone out of it, either. (The short list: Kino's version of Metropolis -- if you haven't seen Kino's, you haven't seen it; any decent cut of Nosferatu; or the Chaplin Collection's Modern Times. Really, any decent edition, but the Chaplin Collection's is probably the easiest to get right now.) It's a good silent film, fairly typical of the genre if you throw both American and German films into the pot together. The last 20 minutes is more Hollywood-y than the rest, and the chase scene is practically right out of Phantom of the Opera, but for the most part, it's good.
Would I recommend this to someone who already likes silent movies? Yes. Absolutely. If you like silent movies, you must see this. It is a fascinating transitional piece.
Originally it was concepted as a Lon Chaney movie. Small problem: Chaney kind of worked for a rival studio. So, the producer thought, why don't I try that Conrad Veidt guy? And while he was at it he got a couple of other big name German movie makers, and ended up with this really cool hybrid between German expressionism and American realism. It's more realistic than a typical German movie of the period, but much deeper and more thoughtful than most of the American movies. (Well, except for that last 20 minutes. But you can't have everything.)
On top of that it was made when theaters were transitioning to talkies. They decided not to do it as a talkie because, well, in the make-up Conrad kinda... couldn't talk. But it is one of those interesting transitional pieces that has a coordinated soundtrack despite being a "silent". (Although it is inadvertently amusing, because they seem to have had a cast of 5 guys trying to voice crowd scenes of several hundred.)
Also, Conrad Veidt is an amazing actor to pull off this role, especially in a silent. In a silent, there are no lines and voice intonations to express your meanings. It's all gesture and facial expression. Well, this movie removes half his face from that equation, and he's never been one for the hugely exaggerated gestures of many silent actors. And yet he pulls it off amazingly well.
So, in summary: if you like silents, or you like Conrad Veidt, you should see this one.
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Movie: Psycho (spoilers)
I don't really have to worry about spoiling "Psycho", do I? I mean, even if you've never seen it, you know the deal with Norman Bates and his mother, right? 'Cause I'm going to assume you do, or you don't really care anyway.
I've tried to give Alfred Hitchcock the benefit of the doubt. I've watched his early stuff, I've watched his later stuff, I've watched stuff with actors I know I love, I've watched his spy movies, I've watched his horror movies. I really think I have been more than fair with giving him a chance to live up to his reputation. And at this point, I really think he's overblown. I just am not at all impressed with Alfred Hitchcock's work.
So, Psycho. Supposedly one of his greats. Some people would even call it his magnum opus. (We usually refer to those as "mean" people.) So widely parodied that even if you've never seen it, the words "Bates Motel" trigger an "Oh crap" and odds are you know the deal with Norman and his mother.
So, never seen it, decided to watch it.
One of the supposedly innovative aspects of this movie is the sudden change halfway through. We're watching Janet Leigh for an hour, and then her character up and gets killed and we have to go find another protagonist somewhere else. OMG, no one's done this before and it's so unexpected and innovative and creative.
Uh huh. May I politely suggest that there's a reason no one else before or since has tried to pull a stunt like this?
To me, it doesn't come across as innovative; it comes across as bad pacing. Let's review what takes up the first half of the movie. Janet Leigh parades around in her underwear, steals a buttload of money, goes to hook up with her boyfriend, has a change of heart and decides to go back, and takes a shower. This should take 20 minutes, half hour tops.
Worse yet, this is not the worst of the pacing problems by far, but I'll get to that in a moment. First, the shower scene. The famous shower scene, regarded as one of the most terrifying moments in cinematic history.
For a moment, forget Psycho, and just imagine a really good horror movie murder-in-the-shower scene. And just to up the ante, I'm taking away the last 50 years of special effects technology, so imagine a really good horror movie shower scene murder in an era that doesn't have the ability to show realistic wounds at all, much less in the process of being made. Think about what that would look like.
Odds are, it includes a quick cut, doesn't it? Maybe shows one horrific injury, maybe not even that. Maybe just cuts away on the downstroke. Right?
Not this. The shower scene is 3 full minutes from water on to life gone, and features an attack with a knife that is obviously fake and woman that is obviously not dying. There's even a very nice, relatively long shot of this rubber knife sliding across her tummy, obviously fake.
Quite frankly, this scene is far more disturbing for its rather masturbatory nature and what it says about the people making it and the people they intended to watch it, than it is as a horror movie moment. Norman and his rubber knife are not scary; some man thinking this would be thrilling to watch for 3 whole minutes, that is scary.
So, she's dead. Back to pacing problems. Am I correct in thinking that if we show Norman putting the body in the back of a car, we will all assume he is cleaning up and hiding the mess? No, not Alfred. He shows us every second of Norman cleaning the bathroom, in real time. We spend at least 5 and maybe even 10 minutes watching a man clean a bathroom. I realize this just didn't happen in 1960, so maybe he just was afraid people wouldn't believe a man cleaning a bathroom if he didn't show the whole damn thing. "How can Norman's mother be dead? Who cleaned the bathroom?"
Come on! I'm sorry, but mopping is not exciting cinema, I don't care how much chocolate syrup you've splashed or where you've splashed it.
Then there's the ending. It's painfully obvious that The Three Faces of Eve was recently published (1957). This multiple personality thing is new and exciting enough to play with, but Alfred can't assume the audience is going to know about it. So, we get a nice long boring talky clinical BS-ing scene for the majority of our denouement. This is good, because after all that mopping I could really use a breather. :P
Summary: not impressed. In fact, I need to go to my Netflix queue and clean off any more Hitchcock movies. They just never get any better.
I've tried to give Alfred Hitchcock the benefit of the doubt. I've watched his early stuff, I've watched his later stuff, I've watched stuff with actors I know I love, I've watched his spy movies, I've watched his horror movies. I really think I have been more than fair with giving him a chance to live up to his reputation. And at this point, I really think he's overblown. I just am not at all impressed with Alfred Hitchcock's work.
So, Psycho. Supposedly one of his greats. Some people would even call it his magnum opus. (We usually refer to those as "mean" people.) So widely parodied that even if you've never seen it, the words "Bates Motel" trigger an "Oh crap" and odds are you know the deal with Norman and his mother.
So, never seen it, decided to watch it.
One of the supposedly innovative aspects of this movie is the sudden change halfway through. We're watching Janet Leigh for an hour, and then her character up and gets killed and we have to go find another protagonist somewhere else. OMG, no one's done this before and it's so unexpected and innovative and creative.
Uh huh. May I politely suggest that there's a reason no one else before or since has tried to pull a stunt like this?
To me, it doesn't come across as innovative; it comes across as bad pacing. Let's review what takes up the first half of the movie. Janet Leigh parades around in her underwear, steals a buttload of money, goes to hook up with her boyfriend, has a change of heart and decides to go back, and takes a shower. This should take 20 minutes, half hour tops.
Worse yet, this is not the worst of the pacing problems by far, but I'll get to that in a moment. First, the shower scene. The famous shower scene, regarded as one of the most terrifying moments in cinematic history.
For a moment, forget Psycho, and just imagine a really good horror movie murder-in-the-shower scene. And just to up the ante, I'm taking away the last 50 years of special effects technology, so imagine a really good horror movie shower scene murder in an era that doesn't have the ability to show realistic wounds at all, much less in the process of being made. Think about what that would look like.
Odds are, it includes a quick cut, doesn't it? Maybe shows one horrific injury, maybe not even that. Maybe just cuts away on the downstroke. Right?
Not this. The shower scene is 3 full minutes from water on to life gone, and features an attack with a knife that is obviously fake and woman that is obviously not dying. There's even a very nice, relatively long shot of this rubber knife sliding across her tummy, obviously fake.
Quite frankly, this scene is far more disturbing for its rather masturbatory nature and what it says about the people making it and the people they intended to watch it, than it is as a horror movie moment. Norman and his rubber knife are not scary; some man thinking this would be thrilling to watch for 3 whole minutes, that is scary.
So, she's dead. Back to pacing problems. Am I correct in thinking that if we show Norman putting the body in the back of a car, we will all assume he is cleaning up and hiding the mess? No, not Alfred. He shows us every second of Norman cleaning the bathroom, in real time. We spend at least 5 and maybe even 10 minutes watching a man clean a bathroom. I realize this just didn't happen in 1960, so maybe he just was afraid people wouldn't believe a man cleaning a bathroom if he didn't show the whole damn thing. "How can Norman's mother be dead? Who cleaned the bathroom?"
Come on! I'm sorry, but mopping is not exciting cinema, I don't care how much chocolate syrup you've splashed or where you've splashed it.
Then there's the ending. It's painfully obvious that The Three Faces of Eve was recently published (1957). This multiple personality thing is new and exciting enough to play with, but Alfred can't assume the audience is going to know about it. So, we get a nice long boring talky clinical BS-ing scene for the majority of our denouement. This is good, because after all that mopping I could really use a breather. :P
Summary: not impressed. In fact, I need to go to my Netflix queue and clean off any more Hitchcock movies. They just never get any better.
Movie: Whatever Happened To Baby Jane? (spoilers)
This week's Netflix offering was "What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?"
Hmm. What to say about this one. Oh, I know:
Robert Aldrich: undisputed master of the Idiot Movie.
He was also responsible for Hush, Hush Sweet Charlotte (made two years after Baby Jane), and there are a lot of similarities between the two movies. Bette Davis is already shrieking out lines and wearing clothes much too young for her, and once again the audience is not supposed to suspend their disbelief so much as they are supposed to suspend all cognitive functioning whatsoever.
Before the opening credits, I'm supposed to believe that the most sought-after actress in Hollywood (little self-insertion fantasy fulfillment there, Ms. Crawford?) has neither a chauffeur, nor an electric gate to her estate, nor a security guard.
Afterward, I'm supposed to believe that an insanely wealthy woman who is now crippled has not had a lift installed in her house after 27 years of being in a wheelchair, nor is her bedroom on the ground floor. Also, she has decided to live as a hermit, despite really having no apparent inclination to do so and actually rather liking company.
When Blanche finally accepts that her sister is dangerously off in Skoodly-Woodly Land, it never occurs to her to sit her butt down on the steps and scoot down in order to reach the phone, maybe at night when Jane is sleeping. Nah. Eventually she reaches a point desperate enough to do some elaborate gymnastics to climb down the railing. Now at this point she is 98% certain that Jane is going to kill her. She hasn't eaten in several days except for some chocolates she found in Jane's drawer -- along with Jane's "signature forgery 101" practice book. So, does she call the police? No, she calls a doctor she's been consulting with.
This doctor knows Jane is off in Skoodly-Woodly Land, because that's why he was called in to begin with. He has been trying to talk Blanche into having Jane committed -- which implies that he realizes Jane is a danger to herself or others. He also knows that Blanche is wheelchair bond. So when he gets a panic-stricken call from Blanche begging for help with Jane, is he at all concerned?
Not a bit. Not a skosh. Sure Jane's dangerously insane and completely out of touch of reality, but that's nothing to worry about, right? "Has she turned dangerous? Oh, she has? Darn. Well, I guess I can maybe mosey out there-- Are you sure you need a housecall for this?"
The cincher, though, the absolutely over-the-top Oh My God The Stupid It Burns has got to be the ending. It takes place on a crowded beach. There are at least 50 extras in this scene -- including two cops. Jane kidnapping her sister after getting caught at having Blanche thisclose to death is all over the plot-point channels on the radio and TV. And yet NO ONE notices the 50 year old woman dressed like a 10-year-old from 1917, or the other 50-year-old woman dressed completely from head-to-toe in black lying on the beach dying. On top of that, the cops completely failed to notice the 20-year-old car that exactly matches the description in the APB and is blocking the main road to this beach.
Head, meet desk.
So in summary, same opinion as Hush, Hush Sweet Charlotte: Don't do it, man!
In fact, never watch anything directed by Robert Aldrich, ever.
Hmm. What to say about this one. Oh, I know:
Robert Aldrich: undisputed master of the Idiot Movie.
He was also responsible for Hush, Hush Sweet Charlotte (made two years after Baby Jane), and there are a lot of similarities between the two movies. Bette Davis is already shrieking out lines and wearing clothes much too young for her, and once again the audience is not supposed to suspend their disbelief so much as they are supposed to suspend all cognitive functioning whatsoever.
Before the opening credits, I'm supposed to believe that the most sought-after actress in Hollywood (little self-insertion fantasy fulfillment there, Ms. Crawford?) has neither a chauffeur, nor an electric gate to her estate, nor a security guard.
Afterward, I'm supposed to believe that an insanely wealthy woman who is now crippled has not had a lift installed in her house after 27 years of being in a wheelchair, nor is her bedroom on the ground floor. Also, she has decided to live as a hermit, despite really having no apparent inclination to do so and actually rather liking company.
When Blanche finally accepts that her sister is dangerously off in Skoodly-Woodly Land, it never occurs to her to sit her butt down on the steps and scoot down in order to reach the phone, maybe at night when Jane is sleeping. Nah. Eventually she reaches a point desperate enough to do some elaborate gymnastics to climb down the railing. Now at this point she is 98% certain that Jane is going to kill her. She hasn't eaten in several days except for some chocolates she found in Jane's drawer -- along with Jane's "signature forgery 101" practice book. So, does she call the police? No, she calls a doctor she's been consulting with.
This doctor knows Jane is off in Skoodly-Woodly Land, because that's why he was called in to begin with. He has been trying to talk Blanche into having Jane committed -- which implies that he realizes Jane is a danger to herself or others. He also knows that Blanche is wheelchair bond. So when he gets a panic-stricken call from Blanche begging for help with Jane, is he at all concerned?
Not a bit. Not a skosh. Sure Jane's dangerously insane and completely out of touch of reality, but that's nothing to worry about, right? "Has she turned dangerous? Oh, she has? Darn. Well, I guess I can maybe mosey out there-- Are you sure you need a housecall for this?"
The cincher, though, the absolutely over-the-top Oh My God The Stupid It Burns has got to be the ending. It takes place on a crowded beach. There are at least 50 extras in this scene -- including two cops. Jane kidnapping her sister after getting caught at having Blanche thisclose to death is all over the plot-point channels on the radio and TV. And yet NO ONE notices the 50 year old woman dressed like a 10-year-old from 1917, or the other 50-year-old woman dressed completely from head-to-toe in black lying on the beach dying. On top of that, the cops completely failed to notice the 20-year-old car that exactly matches the description in the APB and is blocking the main road to this beach.
Head, meet desk.
So in summary, same opinion as Hush, Hush Sweet Charlotte: Don't do it, man!
In fact, never watch anything directed by Robert Aldrich, ever.
Monday, May 11, 2009
Movie: Gentleman's Agreement
I gave my new Roku box a go during the Saturday night busy period, and I'm glad to say it played very well. No delays, good picture quality. The movie I watched was, as insinuated by the post title, the 1947 "Gentleman's Agreement."
This movie was made with the main aim of being what I call "Hollywood Edgy". That's when a movie would have been very radical and edgy -- if it had been made 20 to 30 years earlier. By the time it is made, though, it's no longer really edgy; it just serves to show how many bigots are left (which, unfortunately, is usually a big number). For example, Brokeback Mountain. Gay cowboys exist! And it can be sweet and loving! 1975, or maybe even 1985, that would have been really edgy and radical. In 1995, it could maybe be at least progressive, riding the crest of the breaking wave. By 2005, this is not really edgy.
Older example: "Guess Who's Coming To Dinner?" about interracial marriages and anti-miscegenation laws. In 1947, this would have been really edgy. In 1957, cutting edge progressive. In 1967... the Supreme Court overturned the laws it was complaining about while it was still in the theaters. (And to make it even less edgy, they give viewers several big HUGE outs so they can disapprove of the marriage without feeling racist. The couple has only known each other 11 days and has a large age difference.)
Gentleman's Agreement was about the evils of antisemitism and how wrong it is to discriminate against Jews -- in 1947. Immediately after WWII and that pesky Holocaust thing, I'm not thinking this was an unpopular opinion.
However, I give it credit for a few moments -- a couple that were progressive for the time, and a couple we still don't do.
First, 1947, they do sneak in a few zingers towards oppression of African Americans. One point where they're listing off inappropriate racial slurs and include the word "nigger" in the list that is mostly pointed towards Jews. A second is when the movie exposes a "some of my best friends are" kind of racist, and another character says of him that he really does think he's all that and a bag of chips. "You should hear him rail against the poll tax." In 1947, I'd venture these were pretty progressive statements.
Second, the BFD of the movie is that racism is not the exclusive provenance of morons, rednecks, and other "those people". That there are tons of decent people, who disagree with the obvious but aren't real concerned about overturning it. It's really trying to show the insidiousness of it.
Frankly, the media doesn't go with that message very often. Seriously, I'm trying to think of a modern movie about racism were racists weren't "those people", and I'm failing. Take, for instance, Gran Torino, out just in the last year. Good movie, but the racist is a irascible old asshole that no one likes, and on top of that he also gets a little bit of an out as a veteran of the Korean war. And all of us in the audience can sit here and be assured that we're not like him.
All in all, it wasn't bad. It was what is was, nothing and nothing less, but it wasn't bad.
This movie was made with the main aim of being what I call "Hollywood Edgy". That's when a movie would have been very radical and edgy -- if it had been made 20 to 30 years earlier. By the time it is made, though, it's no longer really edgy; it just serves to show how many bigots are left (which, unfortunately, is usually a big number). For example, Brokeback Mountain. Gay cowboys exist! And it can be sweet and loving! 1975, or maybe even 1985, that would have been really edgy and radical. In 1995, it could maybe be at least progressive, riding the crest of the breaking wave. By 2005, this is not really edgy.
Older example: "Guess Who's Coming To Dinner?" about interracial marriages and anti-miscegenation laws. In 1947, this would have been really edgy. In 1957, cutting edge progressive. In 1967... the Supreme Court overturned the laws it was complaining about while it was still in the theaters. (And to make it even less edgy, they give viewers several big HUGE outs so they can disapprove of the marriage without feeling racist. The couple has only known each other 11 days and has a large age difference.)
Gentleman's Agreement was about the evils of antisemitism and how wrong it is to discriminate against Jews -- in 1947. Immediately after WWII and that pesky Holocaust thing, I'm not thinking this was an unpopular opinion.
However, I give it credit for a few moments -- a couple that were progressive for the time, and a couple we still don't do.
First, 1947, they do sneak in a few zingers towards oppression of African Americans. One point where they're listing off inappropriate racial slurs and include the word "nigger" in the list that is mostly pointed towards Jews. A second is when the movie exposes a "some of my best friends are" kind of racist, and another character says of him that he really does think he's all that and a bag of chips. "You should hear him rail against the poll tax." In 1947, I'd venture these were pretty progressive statements.
Second, the BFD of the movie is that racism is not the exclusive provenance of morons, rednecks, and other "those people". That there are tons of decent people, who disagree with the obvious but aren't real concerned about overturning it. It's really trying to show the insidiousness of it.
Frankly, the media doesn't go with that message very often. Seriously, I'm trying to think of a modern movie about racism were racists weren't "those people", and I'm failing. Take, for instance, Gran Torino, out just in the last year. Good movie, but the racist is a irascible old asshole that no one likes, and on top of that he also gets a little bit of an out as a veteran of the Korean war. And all of us in the audience can sit here and be assured that we're not like him.
All in all, it wasn't bad. It was what is was, nothing and nothing less, but it wasn't bad.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Movies: "The Leopard" and "Ocean's Eleven"
I'm putting both of this week's movies together, because I don't have a lot to say about either of them.
The first was "The Leopard", a 1963 movie about a prince of Sicily during the Italian revolution of the 1860s. It struck me as "meh". It wasn't bad, but I don't know enough about Italian history to really follow it as well as I'd like, and it doesn't handhold you. Honestly, I thought what the movie was trying to express was done better in one scene with Londo in Babylon 5. (The one where he recalls finding his father crying and lamenting that 'my shoes are too tight, but it does not matter, because I have forgotten how to dance' and now understands the metaphor because he too has reached a point where he feels stifled by his life, but has forgotten the joie de vie that he would want his freedom back for.)
Beautifully shot, and exquisite costuming, though. Because I'm nerdy like this, I was particularly struck the costumes, or at least the women's, are all actually correct period. But that's just my thing.
The second was Ocean's Eleven, the one made in 2001, not the original from the 1960s. Something about the Rat Pack just makes my skin crawl, and I don't know what, but it's a mark against any movie. So, watched the new one instead.
I love a good heist pic. (Although, "The Italian Job"? Not a good heist pic.) Ocean's Eleven is a pretty good heist pic. Yen could stand to be less of a stereotype, and I notice the black guy gets the really gross stuff to do, but at the same time he has an awesome British accent so at least it isn't the usual stereotype. What really keeps me from calling it a great heist flick, though, is the ex-wife love subplot thing. Look, Danny. She's not into you, she was never into the real lying thieving you, and if she was written at all realistically, she never would be into you.
Forget Tess. Instead we make the bomb expert a woman, get your practically mandated dose of sexual tension there, and in the end she goes off with the cute completely green pickpocket from Chicago.
So, spoiler-free conclusion: good movie, ignore Tess.
Spoiler version: I know I have no romance in my soul, but if I saw via security camera my ex-husband say to my current boyfriend who has just had his vault cleared out of $160 million (that's 9 digits, people) "I can get your money back if you'll give up on Tess" and my boyfriend says "OK", I would actually hold a bigger grudge against the ex. Don't get me wrong, I'd leave the boyfriend. After all, he's got insurance, and he did just basically agree to dump me. But I can't feel that bad when it took $160 million to make him do it. On the other hand, my ex is basically trying to buy me. It's a situation that one person has set up and the other has acquiesced to, and they both suck, but IMHO, the one who set it up sucks more.
But they both suck.
Personally, I'd go off with the cute completely green pickpocket from Chicago. :)
The first was "The Leopard", a 1963 movie about a prince of Sicily during the Italian revolution of the 1860s. It struck me as "meh". It wasn't bad, but I don't know enough about Italian history to really follow it as well as I'd like, and it doesn't handhold you. Honestly, I thought what the movie was trying to express was done better in one scene with Londo in Babylon 5. (The one where he recalls finding his father crying and lamenting that 'my shoes are too tight, but it does not matter, because I have forgotten how to dance' and now understands the metaphor because he too has reached a point where he feels stifled by his life, but has forgotten the joie de vie that he would want his freedom back for.)
Beautifully shot, and exquisite costuming, though. Because I'm nerdy like this, I was particularly struck the costumes, or at least the women's, are all actually correct period. But that's just my thing.
The second was Ocean's Eleven, the one made in 2001, not the original from the 1960s. Something about the Rat Pack just makes my skin crawl, and I don't know what, but it's a mark against any movie. So, watched the new one instead.
I love a good heist pic. (Although, "The Italian Job"? Not a good heist pic.) Ocean's Eleven is a pretty good heist pic. Yen could stand to be less of a stereotype, and I notice the black guy gets the really gross stuff to do, but at the same time he has an awesome British accent so at least it isn't the usual stereotype. What really keeps me from calling it a great heist flick, though, is the ex-wife love subplot thing. Look, Danny. She's not into you, she was never into the real lying thieving you, and if she was written at all realistically, she never would be into you.
Forget Tess. Instead we make the bomb expert a woman, get your practically mandated dose of sexual tension there, and in the end she goes off with the cute completely green pickpocket from Chicago.
So, spoiler-free conclusion: good movie, ignore Tess.
Spoiler version: I know I have no romance in my soul, but if I saw via security camera my ex-husband say to my current boyfriend who has just had his vault cleared out of $160 million (that's 9 digits, people) "I can get your money back if you'll give up on Tess" and my boyfriend says "OK", I would actually hold a bigger grudge against the ex. Don't get me wrong, I'd leave the boyfriend. After all, he's got insurance, and he did just basically agree to dump me. But I can't feel that bad when it took $160 million to make him do it. On the other hand, my ex is basically trying to buy me. It's a situation that one person has set up and the other has acquiesced to, and they both suck, but IMHO, the one who set it up sucks more.
But they both suck.
Personally, I'd go off with the cute completely green pickpocket from Chicago. :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
