TIFF: She, A Chinese

This is another installment in the long delayed series of reviews I had planned for the films I saw at the Toronto International Film Festival in September, 2009. I hope to write several more of these in a much more timely manner than I have so far. But I make no promises. Alas, life is busy and writing this stuff doesn't pay.

The second day of the festival began with Xiaolu Guo's She, A Chinese, which is based on Guo's own novel. Guo introduced the film as a coming-of-age film, or a film about youth. She asked, "What is coming of age?" In our globalized world, it is likely that question is becoming more difficult to answer. How does a young individual discover who they are in a world that has become more accessible, both through access to transportation, as well as through technology (the internet, film, literature, etc.), which, in a way, makes the world much larger. Today's youth perhaps feel even smaller, in a world that appears much bigger. Of course, our modern youth do not really have any other time to compare their time to, so how aware of this changed world are they? Nevertheless, their methods of navigating through the 21st century are different than those of previous generations.

Connected to this question of youth, is Guo's assertion that the film is not about national identity. To this I then wonder, why is the film titled She, A Chinese. This title suggests questions and/or themes of nationality, be they on national identity, multiculturalism and other cultural studies, as well as issues of gender. The film follows Li Mei (Huang Lu), who is born in a small Chinese village and eventually leaves for the big city, then on to London, England. It is a global journey where we initially want to think about the film as being only about a Chinese girl; but it eschews the still too common Western approach, which shows China through the lens of Western Orientalism: China as the foreign and exotic. It becomes more a study of displacement and wandering, where both China and England can seem both foreign and familiar. Guo herself was born in a small Chinese village, but has lived in London for years now - she is of mixed culture and heritage; an example of the multicultural existence familiar to an ever-growing number of people. Guo, aware of how many Western and Chinese films alike have portrayed China through this Oriental lens, tries to focus on individuals and cross national barriers, creating a multi-national image of the world.

National identity might not be at the root of the film, but it is still a part of the film and a subject worth examining. The film presents three different cultures through its principle characters: Li Mei and Spikey (China), Mr. Hunt (England), and Rachid (India). The film does a pretty good job to present these characters as individuals rather than cultural stereotypes, while showing how some of their cultural differences create tensions between them.

Even more interesting to me than the cultural issues are the gender issues within the film. Li Mei's track record with men throughout the film is hardly stellar; every man she has a relationship with takes advantage of her, and proves unreliable, leaving her alone to fend for herself. After being sexually assaulted by a truck driver in her home town, Li Mei heads for the city, begins helping and working in a brothel, and eventually becomes the girlfriend to Spikey (Wei Yi Bo), a criminal thug. Ironically, Spikey seems to be the nicest man to Li Mei, though he tries to pay her after having sex with her (perhaps a misguided act of sincerity on this bumbling criminal's part). But Spikey's machismo, gangster lifestyle is hardly a safe, dependable one; his demise leaves Li Mei on her own again, though - thanks to Spikey's criminal activities - financially set.

When Spikey and Li Mei Meet - A Poor Quality Excerpt

With Spikey's money she travels to England and falls in with the elderly widower Mr. Hunt (Geoffrey Hutchings). This seemingly kind old man helps Li Mei for a while, but eventually his own attraction to her pretty, youthful body becomes problematic. Mr. Hunt displays a rather Oriental tension of attraction and repulsion to the beautiful, young foreigner. Here both sexual and cultural tensions drive the two apart, for they can neither satisfy each other sexually, nor fully understand each other culturally. As is true of all the relationships in the film, there is a general failure to really communicate; most of the time the relationships are sexual, and if a sexual relationship is all there is, then the failure of that relationship is seemingly guaranteed.

Li Mei's Indian boyfriend, Rachid (Chris Ryman), also takes sexual advantage of her, through buying her clothes he thinks make her look sexy, to just pressuring her into sex. After using her for a while Rachid abandons her, claiming to be going back to India. This is likely motivate by the news that Li Mei is pregnant. This storyline becomes a somewhat conventional statement of men's failure to commit to a relationship, choosing instead to simply use women for sex and then dump them when the men no longer have a convenient use for those women.

This abuse of women by men seems a more common theme of the film than the cultural themes, showing how men's mistreatment of women to not be nationally or culturally exclusive. Men just mistreat women. While Li Mei is rather resourceful and finds a way of surviving, she is also rather ignorant and irresponsible, often expecting those men to provide her with the material pleasures she wants. She is often selfish, assuming that she can use men to get the things that she wants. The abuse between the sexes is less than commendable and in the end all the characters seem to hardly have fulfilling lives. The motives of these characters, influenced by the ever-more material world and belief in self-centered preservation and immediate pleasure leaves everyone lacking.

She, A Chinese raises some interesting questions and tries to tackle multiple themes in a way that is both supportive of its main character, Li Mei, and distant from that character. The film does not idealize her; her flaws are apparent and I found myself both sympathetic to her, while being completely exasperated by some of her behavior. Huang Lu's performance captures that balance of drawing our sympathy and frustration very successfully. In the end I felt more distant from her and uncertain as to whether I liked her at all. In some cases she brought her troubles upon herself, in others she is genuinely a victim. The themes of the film are interesting ones, but in the end I felt too distanced and annoyed with what I was seeing to feel much optimism for Li Mei's future. As one who likes to think that society still contains decency and goodness, this film seemed a somewhat flat declaration that we just can't win and we don't know where we're going anymore.

Director Xiaolu Guo

What do you watch in a year?

Now that the Academy buzz has subsided a bit, I feel obligated to alleviate some of the post-awards backlash by posting a list of honors based on movies/television that I've watched in the past year. Since part of my proper day job deals with what I watch, I find it helpful to keep a little log - title, year, director/creator, and a basic rating. When I say basic I mean a three star system:

Three*** = I would own it
One* = I'm so violently angry at this particular movie that I spend the next five days rehabbing with non-stop German New Wave films while mainlining peanut butter.

You might think this is a pretty simple system, and I wouldn't disagree; I'm a simple kind of guy. Easy to please you might say. Forgiving. Stupid. Whatever. I justify the simplicity by the fact that I refuse to watch 'anything'. I hate, hate, hate to have my time wasted watching something lame when I could be watching something I know I'll enjoy (see therapy for one-star films). Therefore, I tend to know beforehand a bit about the film, be it history, context, people, etc. and many titles on the list are repeats (yes, I had seen, among others, Back to the Future, Night of the Hunter, and Big Trouble in Little China before). Basically, I know what I like and what I don't. Now that doesn't mean that I don't like to be challenged or surprised - I do. Hence... the variation in the ratings.

[this is the part where your brow furrows as you contemplate the profundity while simultaneously questioning your life's direction and purpose without Boast]

Since this list isn't limited to what was released (and forgotten - Zodiac!) in the past year, it can serve as a ready reference when you need something new (or old) to watch. And, in an effort to achieve our goal of being the coolest, I have also highlighted a few titles that stood out over the course of the year. Think of this as the Oscars minus the annoying bits. Plus you can print yourself a personal copy of the list for free. Now that's what I call the bomb-diggity.

* * * * *
And the Winners are...

Overall Favorite- West Wing (1999-2006)

Aside from being one of the most prophetic shows on television, Aaron Sorkin's blend of drama and comedy is remarkable. A refreshing polar opposite to the current administration.

Weirdest/Coolest - American Astronaut (2001, Cory McAbee)
It's like indie sci-fi New Wave expressionist rock musical noir. The universe that McAbee creates is like Isaac Asimov meets Joss Whedon. Rocks much?

Best movie that I wouldn't watch with my grandmother - Tipping the Velvet (2002, Geoffrey Sax)
Adapted from the novel by Sarah Waters, this BBC drama is a raunchy, dramatic, and hilarious trip through a side of Victorian England that would cause your grandmammy to blush and then slap you silly. Waters' novel Affinity was also one of my favorite reads from last year.

Strangest run of back-to-back movies - Gabbeh (1996, Mohsen Makhmalbaf), Blade (1998, Stephen Norrington), The wind will carry us (1999, Abbas Kiarostami)
OK. So, I was doing a bunch of research and prep for an Iranian Film Festival that I was organizing and presenting at our public library. That is where Gabbeh and The wind will carry us come in. And honestly, I can't think of a better group to sandwich a bloody vampire flick between. Can you?

Most Misunderstood - Barbarella (1968, Roger Vadim)
That is, "Most Misunderstood" by adolescent boys as well as middle-aged city council members. I'll just say that Vadim's brilliant sex-lib satire does more to illustrate the merits of film as a political tool than anything in the mainstream media. If there is any question, Barbarella holds the power people. Barbarella holds the power. And if any of you feel the need to pour on the Hate, I've got an arsenal of yet unpublished material to make you weep like an impotent man-angel.

The Goods:

Three Star Rating System
The List

No Country for Old Men

Much has already been said, critically and otherwise, about No Country for Old Men’s “hunter becoming the hunted” and the prospects of Javier Bardem winning an Oscar (which would be great). While such clichés citing overt and somewhat elementary symbolism flow like sentimentalism from a Spielberg movie, the more sinister and indicting themes at the core of this story confound such reductive criticism while demanding attention. Contrary to the popular notions of chic hipsters, Country doesn’t settle for merely achieving pop-genre status but, like many of the great films, resists simple classification and generalization to the effect of appealing to multiple tastes and sensibilities while being pointedly insightful. Of course the tense story and action, paced by remarkable editing, grabs our focus as well as our concern. But where the film becomes the most fascinating is in its acute awareness of cultural politics in America.

Although Llewelyn Moss is a sympathetic character who gets drawn into a treacherous stalking match, it’s significant that we understand him as a truly opportunistic guy who is determined to keep a bundle of money he gained by shady chance. That this money is someone else’s never deters him from trying to keep it even though he clearly understands that doing so puts him and his family at terrible risk. This act seems to characterize more of the McMahonian notion of capitalist expectation than one would normally assign to a poor schmuck being stalked by a raging psychopath. To ignore this and idealize a protagonist’s morally dubious actions based on our empathetic support is a remarkably dangerous practice and one that is deftly exploited by the Coens and award winning novelist, Cormac McCarthy.

Similarly, at the center of the film’s parade of ubiquitous and abrupt violence is the idea that no one is exempt and punishment (or dire consequence), however unjust, is inevitable. The fact that neither lawful nor vigilante retribution has a marked effect on minimizing the imminent brutality that Anton Chigurh brings further parallels a culture muddled in paradox and misconception. This is not to say that the film promotes fatalism, but only that it has its finger on the proverbial button of our societal conundrum of violence and terror. As Sherriff Bell’s narration brilliantly bookends the film, we understand the layered and self reflexive irony that veterans returning from conflict are doomed to relive the same madness at home.

No Country for Old Men evokes a haunting vision of social anxiety in America, defying our best efforts to evade responsibility in a way that could generically be considered post neo-western-noir. Despite the ambiguity of such categorization, we could also surmise that the Coen’s have made a masterful adaptation of a striking novel. More importantly, however, the filmmakers appear to have not only been faithful but have had faith in their source material – a virtue to be sure. If artists continue to make comparable renderings because of such stark and relevant works (i.e. if Moss really is America’s redneck Everyman) then our cultural position is bleak indeed.

Assessment: Many stars

Resident Evil Still Fighting Negative Waves

The reviews are in, opening week is passed and the critical consensus seems to be that Resident Evil: Extinction is a waste of time. This isn't a new conclusion for the Resident Evil franchise, but I can't help but wonder why the negative waves? It's Resident Evil. Not Citizen Kane. Should we honestly expect such brilliance from a show whose source material is a video game franchise? It's like expecting Pirates of the Caribbean to be of the same caliber as Fassbinder's BRD Trilogy.

Extinction doesn't even get the bogus criticism of being 'so bad it's good'. Perhaps people would be happier if Russell Mulcahy and Paul W.S. (not just one initial, but two!) Anderson had said Extinction was meant to be bad, or they were paying tribute to fellow bad movies. Heck, if Tarantino and Rodriguez can do Grindhouse and convince people it's great cinema, why can't Resident Evil exist as what it is: a pulp sci-fi/fantasy, fully equipped with poor lines and gun/machete-toting women who always look beautiful.

Extinction does have flaws, as do most shows like it. . . . or maybe just most shows. It would have been cool to see more of Vegas and spend more time in Vegas. I could have done without Ashanti. The ending was rushed and not explained very well. Well, then the show was ok. Not terrible. Not amazing. I got what I expected and was satisfied. Maybe that makes me just really easy to please, or just a sucker for pulp sci-fi.

Pulp shows like Extinction have their place and are fine in their own right. The issue with them is perhaps not so much the quality of these films as the expectations put on them. It seems they're supposed to stand up against shows they have no business being associated with. It could also be that the easy thing to do is trash shows like Resident Evil, Aeon Flux [2005], and The Island. Kinda how it's easier to praise stuff like The Departed, Saving Private Ryan, and Braveheart rather than be the guy ripping them apart.

'Grindhouse' Review

For all y'all who be jonezin' for some pulpy exploitative throwbacks, Elina Shatkin at the LAist has some good things to say about the new Tarantino/Rodriguez project, Grindhouse. It sounds like all you Ho's better get your afros on, cause this ride's gonna jet.



Cheers to Neal @ Rabbit + Crow for the heads-up!



Tagged under:
Reviews, Grindhouse, Entertainment

Wonderfalls

I just finished watching a TV series on DVD called Wonderfalls that aired in 2004 and was cancelled after only 4 episodes. It follows Jaye Tyler, a recent graduate from Brown University, as she enters post-university life… by moving home (Niagara Falls), buying a trailer, and working as a sales clerk in a touristy souvenir shop. Normal enough? In her dry, self-deprecating way, she thinks so… until inanimate toy animals start talking to her. Talking wax lions and pink lawn flamingos aren’t without their own brand of weirdness as their cryptic counsel encourages Jaye to reach beyond her standard (and quite hilarious) routine of cynicism and doubt.

Wonderfalls is (minus the talking animal bit) like a mash-up of Arrested Development and Veronica Mars and, like both of these shows, runs the risk of being too clever for its own good. All of this said, it’s not difficult to see why this show was cancelled, given the track record for cancelling great series by US networks.

I would normally consider it a comedy, but for the pointed social critique. Good poppy fun with bite that will make you laugh out loud.
Bing!

Tagged under:
TV, Entertainment

David Bordwell on 'Infernal Affairs' and 'The Departed'

"Infernal Affairs or The Departed?" Surely a question to stir up the excitable fanboy and pseudo-savvy filmgoing buzz-word-dropper. And despite the fact that I happen to really like Infernal Affairs and have yet to see The Departed, I think it's the type of comparison that rarely produces anything other than opportunities to display a (lacking) knowledge of cinema. In fact, I think the main reason people generally trash Nolan's reworking of Insomnia has nothing to do with the film at all, but that the original is Norwegian and by 'preferring' it they can dip into the international well of film that seems to elude so many.

That said, Hong Kong cinema expert David Bordwell makes some interesting points about each film that go beyond fanboy excitement and EWeekly predictability.

[Read the article]



Tagged under:
Film

Yo La Tengo Plays Salt Lake City

Yo La Tengo played SLC last night at the venue formerly known as Bricks (aka, the WORST venue in the western hemisphere), presently known as In the Venue (still understood to be the most reliably half-witted venue in the city) or maybe Club Sound, as the signage suggests. Despite the venue’s best efforts to ruin the show (lights going out in the middle of the set, misspelling the band’s name on the marquee, no publicity, etc.), the band was absolutely fantastic. In fact, the lighting fiasco during the 15+ minutes of ‘Pass the Hatchet, I Think I’m Goodkind’, actually made for an experience like unto a David Lynch dream sequence by the sheer will and performance of the band. Georgia’s drumming, eerily lit by moon and street light pouring through a window, took on a strobe-like power-pulse that thrashed around James’ steady groove (and good humor – he started to laugh, not for the last time) and Ira’s blissful dirge of reverb and feedback. Complimenting this were the kitchy melodies and sweet sincerity of tracks like ‘The Weakest Part’ and ‘Mr. Tough’, both off their latest and most lovably titled album, ‘I Am Not Afraid of You and I Will Beat Your Ass.’ OK. So the comparison to David Lynch is probably unfair, since Yo La Tengo replaces the aberrant horror with a wall of sound that could be emanating from a jet engine looped through fuzz pedals and shot with amped-up feedback. No, despite the fact that my diaphragm shook and my fillings bled, there was no horror in the show. Only brilliance.





















Tagged under:
Yo La Tengo

Three Great Documentaries

I've been on a documentary and juice diet lately* and have a few recommendations.

The Wild Parrots of Telegraph Hill - I remember when this hit the theaters in the US, we were still living in Norwich and were too lazy to make the trip to see it. I also remember that pretty much no one who saw it disliked this movie. Well, I can now say that I'm not the bad guy for being the first to hate it. The doc follows Mark Bittner, a guy who befriends a flock of wild parrots residing on/around Telegraph Hill in San Francisco. The story of how he came to meet the parrots and get to know them (and they him) is fascinating, as is his philosophy on life and how we interact and relate with animals. Check it out - it's brilliant. Bittner also has a web site and a book that you should probably buy. You can order signed copies of the book from the Oasis Sanctuary web site.

Cane Toads: An Unnatural History - This doc is wierd, insightful, and humorous. Not a conventional heartwarming story by any means, Cane Toads explains a bug problem in Australia and how the introduction of a non-native species (the Cane Toad from Hawaii) was designed to eliminate the bug infestation... but didn't. Now there are these ginormous toads all over the place.




I am trying to break your heart - If you love the rock band, Wilco, then you need to see this doc about the process of releasing their remarkable album, "Yankee Hotel Foxtrot." It examines the band's process of songwriting/deconstruction, as well as recording and mixing an album. Most notably, I am trying to break your heart shows how the band, riding the wave of three previously successful albums, got dumped by their label after they had the new album recorded and in hand. The amazing thing? Wilco got to keep the album.

Great photography, great music. Check it out. Your elitist sensibilities will thank you.

The great thing about all of these documentaries is, if you happen to live within the Provo/Orem Paradox (POP), you can check them out at the Orem Public Library.


*I'm not really on any kind of juice diet.

Tagged under:
Entertainment, Documentary

Steely Dan offer Wes Anderson Advice©

Fans are an interesting bunch. Obsessed fans… well, they’re interesting for slightly different reasons that are more selfish than Golden Rulish. For all of you hipsters who worship Wes Anderson, (even so much as to send bits of assumed advice his way) here is a bit to His Geeky Holiness, Señor Anderson, from the copyrighted and royaltied guys of Steely Dan© - yes, THAT Steely Dan.

You can also link to the full article below, which includes another fine letter to Owen and Luke Wilson.

From: W. Becker and D. Fagen [AKA Steely Dan© ]
To: Wes Anderson

Maestro:

As you may know, we are the founders of the celebrated rock band "Steely Dan"©. If for some reason you don't know our work, check with Owen and Luke Wilson - they're both big fans. Here's something you may not know about us: when not distracted by our “day job” – composing, recording, touring and so forth – we like to head downstairs into the paneled basement of our minds and assume the roles we were born to play - you may have already guessed it by now – the roles of Obsessive Fans of World Cinema.

That's right. Eisenstein, Renoir, Rene Clair, Bunuel, Kurosawa, Fellini, Godard, Tarkovsky, Ophuls the Elder, Blake Edwards, Ophuls the Younger, you name it. Sat there, dug it.

Maestro, we give to you this Message: there was a time when Giants walked among us. And, damn, if you, Wes Anderson, might not be the one to restore their racial dominance on this, our planet, this Terra, this... Earth.

You may have heard that we have recently made it our personal project and goal to deliver a certain actor of no small importance to your past and present work from a downward spiral of moral turpitude from which it seemed there might be no escape. We are delighted to report that, with the news of Mr. ________'s participation in your new film (which we understand to be entitled, indeed, charmingly, “Darjeeling Limited”), our efforts have been repaid, and How.

This unqualified victory has inspired us to address a more serious matter. Let's put our cards on the table - surely, we are not the first to tell you that your career is suffering from a malaise. Fortunately, inasmuch as it is a malaise distinctly different than that of Mr.______ , and to the extent that you have not become so completely alienated from the intellectual and moral wellsprings of your own creativity, we are hoping that we - yours truly, Donald and Walter - may successfully "intervene" at this point in time and be of some use to you in your latest, and, potentially, greatest, endeavor.

Again, an artist of your stripe could never be guilty of the same sort of willing harlotry that befalls so many bright young men who take their aspirations to Hollywood and their talent for granted. You have failed or threatened to fail in a far more interesting and morally uncompromised way (assuming for a moment that self-imitation and a modality dangerously close to mawkishness are not moral failings, but rather symptoms of a profound sickness of the soul.)

Let's begin with a quick review of your career so far, as it is known to us and your fans and wellwishers in general.

You began, spectacularly enough, with the excellent "Bottle Rocket", a film we consider to be your finest work to date. No doubt others would agree that the striking originality of your premise and vision was most effective in this seminal work. Subsequent films - "Rushmore", "The Royal Tenenbaums", "The Life Aquatic" - have been good fun but somewhat disappointing - perhaps increasingly so. These follow-ups have all concerned themselves with the theme we like to call "the enervated family of origin"©, from which springs diverse subplots also largely concerned with the failure to fulfill early promise. Again, each film increasingly relies on eccentric visual detail, period wardrobe, idiosyncratic and overwrought set design, and music supervision that leans heavily on somewhat obscure 60's "British Invasion" tracks a-jangle with twelve-string guitars, harpsichords and mandolins. The company of players, while excellent, retains pretty much the same tone and function from film to film. Indeed, you must be aware that your career as an auteur is mirrored in the lives of your beloved characters as they struggle in vain to duplicate early glories.

My favorite is their aptly appointed theme of “envervated family of origin”©.

Now that’s what I call, “Quality”©.

[Link] to the full letter.

Tagged under:
Entertainment

Dispelling Myths About Miami Vice

Since it's TV-to-big-screen adaptation was announced, I've found myself confused by the insistence of the general public and critical world that Miami Vice is going to suck neon-lit, 80s pastiche, art deco butt. Well, it doesn't. Is it a stand alone feature that was inspired and adapted by the series' original creators and producers? Yes. Do they think so little of their ideas that they merely homage the original with tongue-in-cheek distaste in order to skive along on the recent bandwagon of television-to-feature tedium? No. Is poor Colin Farrell finally going to transcend his apparent status as Hollywood's most invisible leading action man? ... Um... who knows?

What Michael Mann has created is a grim and cynical cop/drug bust movie. Is that all? No. Despite what lazy critics might lead you to believe, it's never that simple people. This film isn't Heat, by any means, it's Miami Vice. A different film. Thank you Michael, we all appreciate the fact that you don't just recycle all of your films. What we don't appreciate is high school criticism parading around as professional competence.

[Enter: The Doofus]

Eric D. Snider, illustrious cheap thrill enthusiast and apparent film-hater (whom I have previously posted on here), seems to have had his assumptions that this was going to be Charlie's Angels dashed into reductive pieces.

He begins his review of Miami Vice by saying,

What Michael Mann -- executive producer of the TV series and writer/director of the new film -- has done is take that story and strangle all the fun out of it... The fact that I've never seen an episode of "Miami Vice" does not appear to be a liability.

Considering that Snider criticises the feature for being devoid of 'fun', I would say that it is a BIG liability - how can he assume that the TV series had any fun in it to be removed in the adaptation if he hasn't even seen it?! What does he mean by 'fun', anyway? Should the 'convoluted' vice cops be cracking more jokes, or making more sexual inuendos? Should there be more slo-mo car crashes or gun battles? Maybe the undercover cops should be a bit more wacky because the whole scenario is just a little too dramatic and not fun enough. That's what we need: drug busts that are not just uplifting and pleasant, but enjoyable and fun.

He continues,

Mann's films tend to be melancholy, even somber ("Ali," "Collateral," etc.), but never has he seemed so hell-bent on dreariness. The story, easily handleable in a two-part TV episode, is stretched out for 133 minutes, its themes repeated endlessly. Occasional bursts of action provide temporary respite. Then it's back to the dreariness.

It's sure good that his 'etc.' wasn't replaced by, um, I don't know, 'Heat' or 'Last of the Mohicans' or 'The Insider', because that would have ruined his whole argument, since they are all monuments to uplifting sensationalism. What I think Snider wanted was 133 minutes of bursting action to deaden all of that pesky dreariness. Need I remind anyone that the title of the film is Miami VICE? Not Miami Somewhat-uplifting-and-hopeful, but Vice; complete with all of the respiteless dual meaning.

Does this all mean that I thought Miami Vice was prefect? Definitely not. My purpose here is to encourage people to stop making/listening to stupid criticism that rails on it for not being another Michael Mann film or claiming that it is worthless and shallow. Michael Mann may be the best director since Michelangelo Antonioni or Andrei Tarkovski at commenting on humankind's relationship with themselves and with nature. Whether it takes place in Los Angeles or Miami, Mann's films build on characters in morally distressed situations that resemble similar themes found in Antonioni's Mediterranian or Tarkovski's deep space. The simple fact that Crocket and Tubbs are vice cops working under cover doesn't make their respective moral and physical battles in urban and rural environments any less of a comment on the paradox of 'fighting' conflict or discovering/losing humanity.
Mann implements a number of interesting formal techniques here. The use of silence is very effective in illustrating the feeling of disbelief and wavering sense of bearing. Several times sound would cut completely, as we watch a character carry on a telephone conversation, or respond to a particular situation. In these scenes, not only do we not hear the dialog, but we don't hear music or ambient noise either and are left to gather the story elements from other characters' reaction shots - a huge improvement over Collateral, in which I thought more than a few scenes were botched by lame audio edits and annoying music.

The use of camera focus also makes us consider who/what is important. The overall cinematography embraces a documentary style, with shaky pans and quick rack focus, and several times the camera would frame a character (usually in extreme close-up) and remain out of focus. Which makes us wonder who/what is in focus? Are our heros maybe too entrenched in the under cover nature of their seedy business that they have lost moral focus? I would say, yeah.

These themes are crammed into a fairly straight forward cop/drug bust plot complete with pros and cons. To reduce a movie like this down to what it isn't, rather than what it is, is cheap and lazy. Take the time to think about the details and the elements that make you uncomfortable or interested; They are there, but you may have to put forth a little effort to notice.











Click image for wallpaper


[Link to Snider's full review]


Tagged under:
Entertainment, Miami Vice

A Fiver for V

There are times when moviegoers should really have their expectations set low before walking into the theater, just so they can be humbled to the dust when they end up liking what they saw. I'll admit that I was probably one of the few who were actually skeptical of V for Vendetta when the previews first started rolling several months ago, and the resulting humility that I felt walking out of the cinema was just barely overshadowed by the laps my mind was running. I'm not as enamoured with 'The Wachowski Brothers' as some (I generally think that anyone who refers to themselves by the title, _______ Brothers, needs to put the PSP down and get off the bus right now). But before you assume that I've gone and registered at all of the MTV fanboy forums (I'm still trying to get them stoked on Ken Loach), let me also say that I liked the film, but I didn't love it.

Firstly, I'm not one to focus on performances - since I know next to nothing about acting or how people 'should' act and 'convincing' is a term used to assume elitist authority over a process that I believe is completely subjective - but I was very impressed by Natalie Portman. I also have to admit that I expected it to be more stylized than it was, but maybe that's because I haven't read the graphic novel. Is the source material more comicky than the film? (comment your answer below)

That my expectations were surpassed in these instances only worked for the film, I think; weak or overstated performances and an overstylized mise en scène would, while appealing to the geek and anti-establishment crowds (and resulting in a flood of Slash Lit), only cheapen the effect of the movie.

The artistic references and quotes were a nice touch, but anyone can quote Shakespeare or say they collect contraband artifacts and call themselves aficionados. Director James McTeigue distinguishes his film from other posers by assimilating, rather than just referencing, themes from such works as Shakespeare's Twelfth Night, or What You Will and Henry V and especially The Arnolfini Marriage by Jan Van Eyck - which was hanging on V's wall. The numerous reflective and lighting motifs that specifically borrow from the chiaroscuro elements in Van Eyck's painting were craftily brought into the film, not only as homage, but as subtle stylizing that wasn't overpowering or alienating. In fact, if you've never heard of Van Eyck or aren't familiar with Shakespeare's work, the film still flies brilliantly, since it isn't beating you over the head with self-indulgent intertextuality (which, for some reason, still works nicely in comedy).

Many of the more politically themed statements (yes, film is indeed very political, and this one overtly so) are very timely, such as the issue of patriotism vs. nationalism, symbols/acts of identity and purpose, as well as the ambiguity and subjectivity of the term Terrorism (V was both a terrorist and a revolutionary, kind of like George Washington or Samuel Adams and the Boston Tea Party folks). My advice to people who have a problem with this film's candid position on politics is that they shouldn't watch a film essentially inspired by Guy Fawkes.

All of this isn't to say that I thought V for Vendetta was flawless - quite the contrary. The film's premise focuses on the evils of totalitarian leadership as it promotes the tagline, 'People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.' While this palindromic phrase works well for catchy advertising, I wonder if fear is really what we should be promoting. It's as if to say that Big Brother does heinous things (which we hate, by the way), therefore we should become what we hate in order to overcome Big Brother. The film poses many problematic situations, but the only solutions it offers are similarly problematic.

I also found myself wishing there was more location shooting to really create a vivid cultural, distinctly British, context (there really is more to London than Big Ben and the Houses of Parliament). I'm sure that the Northerners would also agree that it painted a rather reductive view of Britain - especially since the industrial North has dealt first-handedly with vicious riots, anti-government/police protests, and general public disgruntlement well within the memories of most middle-aged Britons. The splattering blood also got a bit cliche when V took out the circle of policemen, almost to the point of being absurdly humourous, ala Kill Bill, which I don't think was their intention.

These little complaints, however, don't begin to overtake the fact that the depth of most scenes made my brain hum. If anything, the flaws and problematic situations only stimulate more thought, resulting in a few sleepless nights. Give a movie props when it can stay on my mind for several days afterward, and this one sure will.

Penny for the Guy? Give 'em a fiver.

Tagged under:
Film, Entertainment, Art

'Inside Man': A Review of a Review

A while back, Stevo posted on the joys of finding a surprisingly high-brow film column in an essentially nameless local advertising paper. Unfortunately, our experiences with media and pop-culture criticism can’t always be that enlightening – even when they do have a name and a web site.

Firstly, so you don’t get the wrong idea here, this is not a film review. As per our modus operandi, we focus on all aspects of pop-culture, including the actual criticism of it by fellow aficionados and professionals. Given this, we find it our responsibility to identify and mock heavily those who assume journalistic authority over a medium which they apparently despise and/or know little about. One of my favorite such self-proclaimed ‘critics’ is Eric D. Snider, who seems to be making a veritable career out of writing smug articles that reduce movies to either Laughs, Violence, Acting, or some other low-brow description for base entertainment. Such tourism cannot be left unchecked.
Secondly, I have not seen the film, Inside Man. But, again, this is about the general level of criticism and not the film, right?
Right.

Snider begins his review by saying,

There is so little to "Inside Man" that it barely warrants a full-length review. It's a bank-robbery movie, and an entertaining one, but that's all it is.

Stop. OK, so you are telling us – as a movie critic – that there is nothing to say about this film? As a thesis statement, this first line isn’t entirely unremarkable, as he pretty much supports it throughout the rest of the review by giving a patronizing synopsis with ‘snide’ interjections to humor it up a bit. Not bad if you are looking for post-modern ways of constructing your freshman term paper, but a film critic should have loads to say about any film (historical/social relevance and context, theoretical and formal analysis, etc.), after all, he’s the estimable critic, right? We could only presume.

Furthering this essentialism, he states,

[The film] goes on a little too long -- it's directed by Spike Lee, who has never made a movie that didn't go on a little too long -- and then it ends.

‘Never.’ Spike Lee has directed over twenty films and several shows for television since the late seventies, and you mean to say that not one of those succinctly managed the time effectively? We are talking about Spike Lee and not Michael Bay, right? Has Snider seen every Spike Lee film so as to qualify him to make such a definitive statement? In my mind 4 Little Girls is the perfect documentary, weighing in at a slogging 102 minutes of captivating relevance, but I guess we can all just forget that one in the name of reductive absolutism.

With a screenplay by first-timer Russell Gewirtz, this is one of the few joints directed by Spike Lee that he did not write or co-write himself. Rest assured, there is still some of Lee's usual racial tension and sexism -- most of the women in the film are identified either by their breast size or their voracious sexual appetites –

Again with the blanket statements. But what I’m curious about is what he means by, ‘Lee’s usual racial tension and sexism.’ Of course we know that one of the common tropes in Lee’s work is race related, but is Snider claiming that he is sexist here as well? I misunderstand, since the dance scene / opening credits from Do the Right Thing seem to indict the lustful viewer therefore empowering the black woman through her unabashedly sexual presence. The term ‘usual’ obviously excludes one of Lee’s most popular and critically acclaimed films. All of this isn’t to say that Inside Man is a brilliant film without flaws, or that it doesn’t have sexist elements (I can’t say, having not seen the film), but only that Snider’s lazy tactics render his review and critical authority impotent.

The most interesting thing about this review is that the only analysis he performs is negative, which completely undermines his rather safe ‘B’ rating. I guess there are a lot of points given on the ‘entertainability’ of the overall synopsis, because his evidence certainly doesn’t support his results. Maybe this is just a pandering to the general consensus that the film is fairly decent (i.e. doesn’t want to lose his audience when they notice that other critics gave the film a positive review). If only we could all get away with such critical doublethink.


[Link to the full review]
-------------
Special Features
Other favorite lines from his review:
-The robbers have done their homework. They know what the cops are going to try before they try it.
Yeah, Emergency Response is so overrated and predictable; just like in Heat, and Le Samouraї, and The Asphalt Jungle.

-In [the film’s] basic scenario, it resembles "Dog Day Afternoon" so much that one of the characters mentions it.
In critical studies it’s often called intertextual reference; something that you praised Kill Bill for.

Tagged under:
Film, Entertainment

Sterilized Meaning - in a humorously annoying kind of way

A while back, I had the opportunity to watch the James L. Brooks film, Spanglish. The experience was, however, rather strange and unsettling, largely because it wasn'’t just Spanglish, it was a Clean Flicks version of the film that some friends had lent us. This was the first time I had submitted myself to one of their sterile bastardisations, and this only because I didn'’t contribute in any way to the financial support or endorsement of their shady practise (cheeky, I know, but I have my standards). Their website claims that they remove all profanity, nudity, graphic violence (rather ambiguous and misleading terminology that allows them to take the moral high ground while not restricting the proverbial market share), and sexual content, which was absolutely spot-on in the case of Spanglish. Unfortunately, as will happen, the process by which this material is removed also inevitably means that certain structural and contextual elements will be affected, thus altering the overall narrative, even if only slightly - which I would argue is still a deceitful trick played out by faceless people with evil designs (come and let'’s hold hands, so we can be afraid together).

I understood all of this beforehand and was, I thought, sufficiently prepared. The last I had really looked into the film was when it was still in the cinema and I read an interesting review by Jonathan Rosenbaum. What I had stupidly forgotten was the recurring theme of miscommunication and how, when certain things are removed from a conversation (like vocabulary/dialog) there is likely to also be a subsequent loss of understanding.

[Enter: The Dragon]

As I sat there watching what is, admittedly, a rather disconcerting film to begin with, I had the distinct feeling that, like the characters in the film, I too was missing something quite vital to the overall understanding of the picture. Certain scenes, having been unrighteously cut because of content, began midway or stopped abruptly thus undermining the real force behind many of the characters' actions and ultimately the central message of the film. I truly felt like the non-english-speaking character, Flor, (apart from the fact that she's a woman, people) whose confusion at being excluded from certain fundamental levels of understanding became quite comical, if ultimately frustrating. However, Brooks used the lack of English subtitles during Spanish dialog (among other somewhat crafty techniques) to create a sense of misunderstanding leading to compelled empathy. If he'’d only called the sweaty little mole in the Clean Flicks dungeon to cut the film instead, he might have saved some time and money shooting those 'unnecessary' bits in order to create the same effect.

The Clean Flicks web site happliy proclaims that this is all because, "It's About Choice!"
Only in the fascist sense my friends, because my choices were completely stripped after I decided to watch the thing.


[Mike previously posted a version of this on another ranty blog]