Well, we've been working on my computer all week, and it's officially..., well died. Pretty much, completely, at least in it's current state, it passed away, officially, sometime after 10:00pm, when it wouldn't even bring up Windows anymore. We're working on fixing and/or replacing it, but in the meantime, we'll be mourning it's loss, and possibly scouring pawn shops and rent-to-own centers for some temporary solutions, to my problem. In the meantime, I've finished this part to the batch of reviews. I'll continue to post Canon of Film blogs, when I can, as with more reviews, and hopefully in the near future, I'll post some new regular blogs, including my long-delayed lists of the Top Ten Films of 2011! Yes, I didn't forget about it, I just haven't been able to get to it until now, for many reasons. (Don't forget to send in your TEN GREATEST TV SHOWS OF ALL-TIME LISTS too!) And leave a few comments if you can, on whatever you like/dislike about my blog, anyway. I mostly just get a bunch of Anonymous SPAM right now, and frankly, I don't like or appreciate it, especially at times like these, when I can only get to my blog every couple days or so.
Well, I hope you're all okay, and hopefully soon, this'll be completely finished, but here's PART 2 of this week's RANDOM WEEKLY MOVIE REVIEWS!
A SEPARATION (2011) Director: Asghar Farhadi
5 STARS
You know, every so often, especially when I'm hanging around the Library's DVD sections, will I see somebody pick up a movie, that I liked a lot, talk about it for a second, and then I'd come in, and talk about how great the film is, for about thirty seconds-to-a minute, something around that time, and then, they'd notice that the movie is in a foreign language, and they'd immediately put it down, noting something about, not being able to read subtitles or some other understandable bias, although occasionally, I just run into people who simply won't watch a movie because it's in a foreign language. I don't understand that, and as often-the-case, I find foreign movies far more interesting and adult than Hollywood movies of today. I think "A Separation," this year's Oscar Winner for Foreign Language Film, feels like an old Hollywood film, that could've opened right next to "Casablanca," or "Mildred Pierce," or those other great old Hollywood movies with incredible, realistic adult characters, where there's no good guys, no bad guys, just good people in a bad situation. The separation in the title is Nader (Peyman Moadi) and Simin (Leila Hatami). We meet them, arguing in front of a judge, in an early divorce court proceeding. Simin, wants to begin living abroad, but Nader won't leave his father (Ali-Asghar Shahbazi), who's suffering from senility and Alzheimer's. Their daughter, Termeh (Sarina Farhadi) has chosen to live with her father, who's a good student, and wise beyond her years, and very good in school, partly because of her tutor, Miss Ghahrail (Merila Zare'l) who often works with Termeh at home. Nader does what he can with his father, but has to hire some help, Sarieh (Sareh Bayat). She seems to be somewhat competent at a very tough job, which often includes taking her young daughter Somaya (Kimia Hosseini) but one day, Nader's Father gets out of the house, and she has to go after him. She tries to set it up so that her out-of-work husband Hojjat, (Shahab Hoessini) could replace her, without him knowing that she was working there before, (or at all), but he gets taken into jail by creditors, so she shows up for work again. When Nader arrives home afterwards however, her father is tied to the bedpost, fallen to the ground and barely breathing. There's money supposedly missing, and Sarieh and Somaya aren't there. She arrives later, claiming she had to be somewhere, later it's revealed that it's possible it was a doctor's appointment. There's a confrontation as she gets fired, and Nader throws her out, or does he? Later, it gets revealed that she had a miscarriage; she blames Nader. Nader says he didn't know she was pregnant, Miss Ghahrail says he didn't, but she knew. It didn't look like he was overly violent, and he did say the money was missing, but worse, his father had just nearly died, and was left alone. That is all I'm going to reveal, about the plot, and believe me, it gets far more complicated and intricate than that, as the situation slowly unravels, and soon, multiple complaints are filed before the court, all the while, Nader and Simin, still must go through this divorce, which neither really wants, and Termeh has to metriculate the mindfield of both her parents tales, as they fight each other, and for her. This is the kind of movie, I want Hollywood to make more of, and they could actually. This movie is Iranian, and in Farcee, and all the particular are Islam, and live under Islamic law, and believe in God, and as they try to live their modern lives, they still have to consider Allah's and Islam's place in their world, while their feelings and life get in the way, but it could've just as easily taken place in America. The movie made numerous critics Best Films list, and it will make mine. It even earned an Oscar-nomination for it's screenplay, the first time a film written in Persian ever got that acclaim. "A Separation" is a great, great film, about a sad situation that nobody wants to be in, but they have to be in, and make choices that will effects more lives than just their own, and they're all too aware of their actions. This is a masterpiece!
CORIOLANUS (2011) Director: Ralph Fiennes
4 STARS
Now I, like nearly everybody loves Shakespeare, but the man wrote 37 plays, and his best ones like "Hamlet," "Romeo & Juliet," "MacBeth,"..., get most of the acclaim and remakes, as they should. However, for Actor Ralph Fiennes directorial debut, he chose one of the lesser-known works, one that I must admit, is so lesser-known, not only had I never read it, I never even heard of it. I hate to admit that, but I am weak in terms of Shakespeare's roman plays, outside of "Julius Ceaser", so I came into "Coriolanus," a little blind. I didn't care as I was watching it, because all I really cared about was the great Shakespearian language said by some of these great actors of our time, but I'm fairly confused as to the actual story and the particulars of the plot. (Note: Remember to read "Coriolanus", before watching "Coriolanus again, and then, read a cliff notes version. [Hey, I love Shakespeare, but studying it from a book is hard, and not how you should experience it anyway.]) Coriolanus isn't a name, but a title, that's given to Caius Martius (Fiennes), who was a Roman General (In this modern Rome, where we often find out updates on the news/war from the news footage on TV) who's fighting the Volscians. However, the war is causing great distress over Rome. Riots in the streets, a food shortage, desperation and despair. Coriolanus returns home at the bequest of his mother, Volumnia (Vanessa Redgrave), and soon, he loses his own faith in the war, and after he's thrown out of Rome, he joins forces with his enemy Tullus Afidiaus (Gerard Butler, and boy he can't resist anything that takes place in, even a modern-day Rome, which looks a lot like Bosnia [Film was shot in Belgrade, Serbia]). They come together, and begin an all-out attack of Rome. It's a surprise ambush, but Coriolanus's mother and his wife Virgilia (Jessica Chastain, boy she can do anything, can't she.) finally talk him into laying down his sword, but it's all just a little too late. The film has as much action as any "Die Hard" movie, but I would watch it just to listen to these great actors talking in such wonderful Shakespearean dialogue.There's also some amazing performances by people like Brian Cox and James Nesbitt, fighting and arguing in whatever bar happens to double as a political war room in a city that's hanging by a thread and tearing apart at the seems by blood and grenade launchers. It's amazing Shakespeare wrote so many war and action stories, and was able to have them all performed on a Renaissance stage. It seems like some of his work, like "Coriolanus," or my personal favorite, Kenneth Branagh's version of "Henry V", seems to be tailor-made for today's Hollywood action films. I have to learn a little more before I really give a complete review of "Coriolanus," but as a movie, I was entertained and enthralled. A lesser Shakespeare, is still a Shakespeare isn't it.
YOUNG GOETHE IN LOVE (2011) Director: Philipp Stolzl
3 STARS
You know, there's two kinds of information that I don't know, the kind that I should know, and the kind that I don't. I went in to "Young Goethe in Love" and quickly realized that there was a small piece of information, that I did not know ahead of time, and now realize, that I obviously should've known it beforehand. That piece of information: Who Johann Goethe is. Stupid me. I think "Faust," and typically I think Marlowe. I learn or at least know about most of the major literary figures, at least enough to bullshit my way through party conversations, or at least make educated guesses on "Jeopardy!", if that opportunity were to ever come up, but Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (Alexander Fehling), until now, completely eluded me, and the more I read from his Wikipedia page, the more ashamed of myself I feel. This film takes place, before he became the world-renowned poet/author/playwright/politician... (Man, he's got a lot of slashes in his profession) and he was just a smart-alec Law School slacker dropout, who's once-again, disappointed his rich family, as his poems and plays continually recieve rejecttion letters from everybody publishing house in Germany. (There weren't exactly that many publishing houses in Germany at that time by the way.) It is around then that he suddenly meets Lotte Buff (Miriam Stein) a beautiful country girl, who watches over her six or seven siblings. They keep missing each other, and waiting for each other's letters, (And btw, this is the first period piece I've seen where two people are at a battle of wills to not write letters to each other.) until finally, they end up trying to surprise each other, by going to the other's homes, at the same time. This real-life love story between Johann and Lotte, we find out, was the inspiration for Goethe's novella, "The Sorrows of Young Werther", in which the main character commits suicide after finding out that his lover had been promised as a wife to someone else, the same thing happens here, minus the suicide. Making it worse, Lotte is engaged to Kestner (Mortiz Bleibtreu), the local prosecutor who Goethe, at the working of his father, had been apprenticing under. The moment all the particulars are in the same room is done in a rather cool, sly way, in which it's clear to everybody, the entire situation, without much words being said. These aren't those characters of other period pieces who are always scheming to get ahead. He goes through a drastic depression which the novella comes out of, which made him famous. (In Germany, Goethe is considered only 2nd to Shakespeare as the greatest writer of all-time) "Young Goethe shows him, before the fame, and as a cocky-young kid, who through love lost and tragedy, morphs into the great writer he became. He created some of the great story-arcs of Western literature, and if that means he loses his first love, maybe that's a good trade. I wish I knew who he was going into the movie, I might have even enjoyed it a little more, but if this movie makes me aware of more knowledgeable about Goethe, than, it's probably a good thing too. (Note to Self: Remember to revisit this film, after a few reading a few of his books.) [Note to self 2: Finish "Fifty Shades of Gray" first though, you have to return that to the library soon.]
GIRLFRIEND (2011) Director: Justin Lerner
2 STARS
"Girlfriend" presents an interesting conundrum as to whether or not it's possible to make a sympathetic and realistic film about someone who suffers from Down's Syndrome, while not simply exploiting the disease. Evan (Evan Sneider) has Down Syndrome. He has a job working at a local diner, and lives with his mother, Celeste (Amanda Plummer), who also works at the diner and looks like she's spent her life caring for a son with Down's Syndrome for most of her adult life. One day, Celeste doesn't wake up. Evan is an adult, but knows he needs someone around to help take care of him, but there isn't anybody. One relative gives him some money to live off of until they can reorganize their life a bit to accomodate him, but that can take awhile. These early scenes intrigued me at first; I even like the idea of Candy (Shannon Woodward) a single Mom in financial trouble who lives next door and Evan has had a crush on from afar. Candy's still living out her high school mistakes, which show up in the form of Russ (Jackson Rathbone), her ex-husband, who suspects her child isn't his, and is continuously late on his payment for the house, which he is supposed to pay for. Once Evan starts finding a way into Candy's world, by offering to help her financially, in comes Russ, who also knew Evan from high school, and he quickly goes to his old tricks of pretending to be his pal, while trying to, not only sabotage what little potential relationship there is between Evan and Candy, but also to try to get some information that exploits his own paranoia about his kid, which Candy refuses him to be around, for good reason. This is where the movie loses it for me. It takes what's essentially a poetic fable about these contradicting characters, and then insists on making it a tale about a clueless kid, with a disability, who inadvertantly causes disaster, because his disability makes him unable to read people better, or too trusting of a person. I'm not gonna claim that this story isn't unrealistic, in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if this was a tale based on a true story, that doesn't inherently make it good. It does feel like they're exploiting a kid because he has Down's Syndrome. I'm sure this isn't intentional, but just as an experiment, why couldn't Evan and Jackson have switched roles? (Evan Sneider's only other credit is from a short film, also directed by writer/director Justin Lerner, and while he's good in the role, I'm pretty sure he does suffer from Down's Syndrome, but I could be wrong.) Make him the father who's trying to use his disability to get information about Candy, while Jackson is the simpleton who loses his mother and wants to get with his old high school crushed who never gave him more than a simple hello. Well, maybe I don't want to make him a bad guy, but there were clearly better and less cliched and exploitative ways to go about telling this story. Or why tell this story anyway? The one-dimensional jealous ex-husband tale has been told to death as it is. I do believe "Girlfriend," was a film that started with good intentions, and of course, we know where those usually end up, and they ended up there this time. That's a cheap shot. Good intentions can be good, but you gotta have a good story to go with it, and "Girlfriend," just doesn't have one.
ROAD, MOVIE (2010) Director: Dev Benegal
3 STARS
At first, the title, "Road, Movie", seems almost too straightforward, but actually, there's more to this strange, yet endearing film. An Indian film, spoken mostly in Hindi, the movie begins with young Vishnu (Abhay Deol) who struggles to get out from his father's shadow. His father's not bad or mean, but he's a hair oil salesman, and wants Vishnu to follow in the family business. Instead, he finds an old Chevy Truck. How old is it? It's so old that he agrees to cross the Indian desert to take it to it's owners, a museum. They want to display it. Now, in case you're wondering what kind of museum would want this, but actually, the cool thing about the truck, that Vishnu finds out later, is that it doubles as a traveling movie theatre. He finds this out later, when he and his two pick-ups, a young boy (Mohammad Faisal) and Om, (Satish Kausik) use the theatre to help get away from some corrupt cops, who think the truck and the movie theatre equipment is stolen. He picks up Om, who asks for a ride to some out-of-the-way fair, that may or may not actually exist, but did manage to fix the truck, a couple of times when it was broken in the middle of the desert. He later, picks up a Woman (Tannishtha Chatterjee), who also climbs aboard as well. The movie is fairly aimless and episodic, like all great epic journeys, like all great road movies are. Random people, random events. This one, has some slight Jodorowsky meets Homer-style absurdity to it. During one point, when they get caught stealing from some warlords water supply, Vishnu hair oil turns out to be just as usual as the movie theatre he's carrying. There is this, almost purgatory like aspect to "Road, Movie," particularly at the end. Do they ever get to that museum they're supposed to be going to? Do they even remember that's where they're going at the end? I know, I had to look back and remember when writing this; and it seemed to be fairly insignificant to begin with. Hey, it isn't the destination, but the pilgrimage itself, isn't it. I guess that's all that's really being elaborated on in "Road, Movie," but it was quite a nice cool way to go about it. I was mostly entertained, and the footage of the landscapes are some cool places that I had never seen before, so I'll recommend "Road, Movie".
THE WAR ROOM (1993) Directors: Christ Hegedus and D.A. Pennebaker
4 1/2 STARS
Documentaries, more than any other genre, particularly the ones of the cinema verite variety, are wonderful windows into the times. History lessons that never get taught. The way something actually was at a specific moment in place. They tend to be about the behind the scenes of things, and if they're lucky, sometimes they can be about major moments in history. That's one of the reasons why Presidential Elections have been a major subject for them. The HBO movie "By the People", documented the behind-the-scenes of Obama's 2008 Election bid, that one's is the most recent, and it doesn't take much to contrast that with "Election," about the Wisconsin Democratic Primary in 1960 between Hubert Humphrey and John F. Kennedy, and you can see how drastic the times, but the sausage-making that is politicking has changed, and the many ways it's stayed the same. The most famous and possibly best movie like this, is "The War Room," from legendary documentarians Chris Hegedus and D.A. Pennebaker. Possibly because it might have been the most unusual and strangest of political campaigns in modern, Clinton's '92 Presidential run. No Democrat had been in office in 12 years, and they were just eight years after Reagan had turned the entire country red. Clinton's campaign started with Gennifer Flowers (Man, has it been awhile since that name has been mentioned), and somehow ended, with a landslide win, in what will probably be the last legitimate 3-person Presidential race in history, and somehow, no matter what the press releases, the candidates or the advisors say, you don't think that such a campaign can hinge on George Stephanopolous, trying to convince a Chicago AM radio jock the usefullness of publishing an inaccurate story of Hilary Clinton having given birth to a Black child out of wedlock. (Man, the conspiracy-laden right wing were starting then, weren't they.) Stephanopolous and James Carville, both look so strikingly young in this film, it's almost otherworldly to even think that they, were essentially the people running the country. It's also bizarre to see Carville holding an intense strategy sessions, while a twelve-pack of Budweiser is being opened and passed around. Hey, times have certainly changed, this was before everybody had to drink Red Bull. Their devotion to Clinton is unwavering, although, it's hard to tell whether the tone of the campaign was determined so much by the candidate, or by the staff, or both. "The War Room," in the title, is about as unimpressive as can be. It's whatever room they can manage to scrounge up, put a decent-sized table around, and have campaign meetings, that hinge on the kind of signs to pass out during the convention. "The War Room," also strangely marks the only time D.A. Pennebaker and Chris Hegedus recieved an Oscar nomination, for Best Documentary. I'm not sure how it compares to some of their historically important rockumentaries like "Don't Look Back," or "Monterey Pop", but it's certainly a worthy entry, and it's gonna be watched for years as a study of how maybe the most unusual Presidential election in Modern history, played out, and how it was masterminded by two of the most different and unlikely of individuals behind the scenes, in Carville and Stephanopolous. Especially considering how they've become such constant and regular presences in the news and political worlds, seeing them, right before they would become household names, in the most surreal of environments, is fascinating good enough to watch "The War Room," alone, even without the significant historical importance the film.
2012 (2009) Director: Rolan Emmerich
3 STARS
You know, I actually kinda dug "2012". Not gonna lie, I wasn't exactly looking forward to watching this one; I've never been a big disaster movie fan, nor am I, a particularly big fan of Writer/Director Roland Emmerich. Like most of his films, I don't think there's much use or need to take "2012" so seriously, but for about, the first half of the movie especially, I actually got into it. It's totally ridiculous and completely absurd, and way-beyond every probably known scientific theory, but I'm recommending it, because, I was mostly entertained. There's two main stories, one begins in 2009, when a geologist, Dr. Adrian Helmsley, (Chiwetel Ejiofor) reports to the President's main advisor, Carl Anheuser (Oliver Platt) that the Earth is about to be destroyed. It seems the Earth's core is heating up, at an alarming rapid rate, and it's already started causing some worldwide catastrophes such as tsunamis, and global warming. It's around this time, a secret production is planned in China, to be something, that's supposedly gonna save mankind. Pricetag to get on, a billion Euros, as well as a scientifically chosen few, not to mention global superpower world leaders (Although curiously, Africa seems to have been missing from this.) As 2012, the supposed Ancient date of the Apocalypse according to the Mayan calendar, (which it isn't, it's actually only the date that the Mayan calendar ends), there's been a noticeable increase in world disasters and mass suicides, and many people in California, and waking up to giant cracks in the street and collapsed freeways. (So no difference. Kidding, folks.) It's here where a failed novelist, Jackson Curtis (John Cusack), has also begun piecing together some of the bits of information that the world might be coming to an end. He showed up with his kids to take them to a lake near Yellowstone Park, a lake which no longer exists, and a Yellowstone Park that's about to explode. It's there he runs into a crazed A.M. radio conspiracy D.J., Charlie Frost (Woody Harrelson, and man, is he making a living off these kinds of characters.), who might not be nearly as crazy as he seems, especially when California, finally does fall off into the ocean. Somehow, Jackson wrangles up his kids, ex-wife, Kate (Amanda Peet), and her name husband Gordon (Tom McCarthy), by driving through California in a limo, and Boy's Big Boy's donut rolls past every them, and building after building begins blowing up, and the roads, keep bouncing up under them, and a few "Speed"-like impossible highways jumps later, they're on a plane out of California, and eventually they catch up to a rich Russian friend, Yuri (Zlatko Buric), and are on the last plane out of America, and into the Himalayas, were the "Arks," are almost completed building. That was coolest video game, I've seen in movies in a while. The ending of "2012," became a little too cliche for me, particularly how the Platt character is cold-hearted and ruthless about his survival, but no one else, and how he just pressumes command after President Wilson (Danny Glover) makes a last-second decision to not go on the ark, although his daughter Laura (Thandie Newton) does find a way to make it, right around the time, the South Pole relocates to somewhere in the middle of Wisconsin. These sort of one-dimensional characters just put these kinds of films to a screeching halt, although I'll give credit for making some of his arguments seem reasonable at first, it didn't transcend the stereotype. I doubt he was looking for any stereotype transcending, but that would've been nice to see. Still, I had more fun with "2012" than most disaster movies, and even more fun than some of Emmerich's misguided previous disaster films like the heavily overrated "Independence Day". (Haven't seen "The Day After Tomorrow", yet) He says this was his last disaster film, and I hope it is too, but at least he ended on a fun one.
THE BLACK DAHLIA (2006) Director: Brian De Palma
2 1/2 STARS
The case of "The Black Dahlia," is one of the most infamous crimes of early Hollywood. I've long heard about it, even before this movie was made. It's already got some interesting twists and turns, without having the great L.A. Crime Pulp-Novelist James Ellroy, involved in the writing of the movie. On paper, this movie has enough talent that it really should succeed. Brian De Palma directing, good actors, some wonderful sets, beautiful Oscar-nominated cinematography, some myths on the history of Hollywood.... on paper, this should've worked. The movie begins with two cops, both of whom happen to be former boxers. Dwight 'Bucky' Bleichert (Josh Hartnett) narrates the film, and is officially in the role of detective for this neo-noir. He had a winning amatuer and professional record, but for reasons that are never fully explained, he became a cop instead, and his last match is against the Police champ, and future partner Lee Blanchard (Aaron Eckhart) for charity. They're publicized as "Fire" vs. "Ice", and after the fight, they become friends, along with Lee's live-in girlfriend Kay Lake (Scarlett Johansson), whom he first met on a case years ago. There odd relationship soon develops a strange "Jules and Jim"-like quality, although Bucky rejects any advances by Kay, and does his best to repress any of his own feelings towards her. Instead, he begins focusing his attention on a gruesome murder of a young starlet-wannabe, Elizabeth Short (Mia Kirshner, seen only in flashback, and a few rehearsal tapes she shot at some of the studios.) They have a disturbingly hard time tracking anybody that new Elizabeth, but eventually, they manage to track her down to a lesbian club she used to frequent to score an occasional drink by pretending to be femme. It's there, that Bucky meet Madeleine Linscott (Hilary Swank), the movie's second femme fatale. She admits to knowing Liz and one of her friends on the audition circuit. She's from a rich family, with a father, Emmett (John Kavanagh) who basically built Hollywood out of old wood thrown away by Mack Sennett. His "Hollywoodland" development, is what the original Hollywood sign used for development, and it's also around the spot where Liz, apparently filmed a porn movie with a couple friends. Madeleine is definitely acting out, but she's also hiding something, as all great femme fatale who eventually sleep with the detectives are. "The Black Dahlia," had quite a few problems. First, the pacing. De Palma almost always seems to have trouble finding the correct pace for most of his films, even some of his really good ones, but he usually either quick cuts and presses the action forward as much as he can, or he tens to really pace himself and be more cerebral with his pacing. Here, I think he chose the former, and it eventually wore itself out a bit too much. We had a hard time caring as much for the end of the film, as we were in the beginning, and the beginning wasn't exactly working out great to begin with. The second is the casting. Josh Hartnett was somewhat hot at the time, but he doesn't really seem like a natural fit in the detective role, particularly this film. He lacks the beaten-down-by-life feel he should have, and half the time, he just seems bemused by everything around him. The other strange acting choice was Hilary Swank, who I normally love, but while she does everything she can with this, this is not a believable part for her. Period pieces in general are somewhat troubling for her, but as a femme fatale, particularly this femme fatale, didn't really work. I wonderer a bit what would happen if Hilary and Scarlett had switched roles, that might have helped this film a bit, might have helped them out, too. (Although Scarlett Johansson was fine in her part, but she could've had more fun in the other role, I bet. Having Eckhart and Hartnett switching roles might not have been a bad idea, either) This long puzzle seem to start unraveling, and then, doesn't really stop for the longest time either. The last hour or so of the film, seems to go on forever, with one last twist after one last twist. It's dark, seedy, and beautiful and has all the elements of a great modern noir, but it's one of those stories about somebody having all the notes at their disposal, but none of the music. Ultimately, I was disappointed in "The Black Dahlia".
LOVE IS A MANY-SPLENDORED THING (1955) Director: Henry King
3 STARS
A winner of three Oscars, including two for music, "Love is a Many-Splendored Thing," must have seemed provacative in it's time. It's hasn't aged particularly well, unfortunately. Based on her autobiographical novel, when we first meet Han Suyin (Jennifer Jones), somebody calls into an operating room, and calls out "Doctor". I must admit, I wasn't expecting Jennifer Jones to come out. Han,is Eurasian. One of her parents were British, while the other was Chinese, and while her friend Anne (Virginia Gregg), who is also Eurasian, typically tries to pass herself off as caucasian, so as to, seem more desireable to the married men she's sleeping around with, I guess? (It's a little obaque the explanations) Han is constantly at a struggle between her Asian side, and her European side, and this is shown often in the clothes she chooses to wear, and not a whole lot else other than her insistant dialogue about it. (In the clothes defense, the film's third Oscar was for Costume Design) It's around this time, that she reluctantly begins a relationship with Mark Elliott, (William Holden) an American correspondent, currently station in Hong Kong to cover the Chinese Civil War, which broke out shortly after the Communist Revolution. Nowadays, there's soome obvious thoughts we have, like why couldn't a girl, who was at least, really Asian even play the part of Dr. Han? Of course, if wasn't practice to mix the races in Hollywood at that time, and when a lead character was Asia, he/she was often portrayed by a white actor/actress. (Although the movie did win a special Golden Globe for "Best Film Promoting International Understanding) "Love is a Many-Splendored Thing," is probably best remember for the title song, and for the famous beach scene with Holden and Jones, one of many times they tried to make allusions to the famous scene in "From Here to Eternity". Natural, the problems arise involving cultures, like will Han's Chinese family accept mark into the family, or the fact that Mark was married before, and is still in the mix up a divorce, or how about having a wife who's a professional in her own right, a doctor no less. To me, she seems to care as much, if not moreso for her profession than she does for Mark. Maybe that's why the ending, with her lover not coming back from the war in Korea, seems rather sudden. This isn't one of the really great old Hollywood movies, but it's worth watching at least for historic value. Although I spent much of the film wondering who I'd cast opposite Lucy Liu in a Lifetime movie remake that would surely give her an Emmy nomination. There's a few infamous stories about Jennifer Jones being a bitch on the set, that are fun to read.
Saturday, October 13, 2012
Thursday, October 11, 2012
CANON OF FILM: "HIS GIRL FRIDAY"
HIS GIRL FRIDAY (1940)
Director: Howard
Hawks
Screenplay: Charles
Lederer based on the play “The Front Page” by Ben Hecht and Charles MacArthur
I’ve seen, “His Girl Friday,” I don’t know, nine or ten, times, maybe more over the years. And I’ll be
honest, I have absolutely no idea what the film is about, what the plot is,
what the story is. Howard Hawks was never one who particularly paid attention
to whether or not a film made any logical sense. In his great film “The Big Sleep,”
is notorious for having a plot with many loopholes, like a man killing two
people after he jumped off a bridge. If anything, I’ve actually criticized him
at times being too unrealistic with story, like with “Ball of Fire,” where Gary
Cooper and seven old men live in a college, writing an encyclopedia and doing
apparently everything else together, as they learn about slang from a local
nightclub singer/mobster’s girlfriend in Barbara Stanwyck. Although he’s known
for a few dramas, “Red River,” is considered one of the best Westerns of
all-time, he usually made comedies like this one, and usually screwball
comedies. He was once quoted as saying, “When all else fails, make a drama,”
always looking for the comedic aspects in even the most serious of films.
“…Only Angels Have Wings” is a good example, about pilots running delivery
routes through the Central American jungle.
Hawks was also…, well let me put it
this way, if George Cukor is a “Woman’s Director,” Hawks, is a “Man’s
Director.” A Man’s Man director to be precise. He was often known to ride dirt
bikes, skydive, and race cars all over and around Hollywood and the country,
and most of his films are filled with these kinds of actions. What does this
have to do with “His Girl Friday,”? Not much actually. This movie based on a
play and an earlier film called “The Front Page,” (it’s actually been remade
two other times as well) is about two newspaper reporters Walter and Hildy
(Cary Grant and Rosalind Russell) as they battle, battle wits, connive, screw
over, and help each other out as they do whatever means necessary to get the
next big story, often trying to create the next big story, while somewhere
along the way or at the end, falling back into love. There’s a subplot about
their past marriage, and her current fiancé and something else about City Hall,
all eventually coming together in typical screwball comedy ways. Having seen
the movie a few times, I’d be amazed if there was anything at all that was the
least bit accurate about the newspaper industry in the film. The movie’s
actually more famous for its dialogue, and not just the wittiness of it, and it
is incredibly witty, but also because of the speed of it. This is a 180-page
script that made this ninety-minute movie, and to do that, all the actors not
only had to learn they’re lines to the letter, they had to overlap dialogue
with the other actors constantly, and then speak their dialogue twice as fast
as normal. This movie might seem pale in comparison to people who are used to
watching the fast-paced dialogue of some modern-day TV shows like “The West
Wing,” and “Gilmore Girls,” but at the time, this was unbelievably unusual.
Today, “His Girl Friday,” gets severely overlooked. I’ve seen special edition
DVDs of the film, but I’ve also seen it at the dollar store where it would be
paired with another lesser Cary Grant film that’s not particularly memorable. I’ve
caught it twice this week in the middle of the night, on one of the classic TV
channels we get on digital. I watch it ‘cause it’s funny as hell, and also
because of the manic dialogue of the movie, I catch many funny lines that I
hadn’t caught before, or maybe didn’t remember. Oddly enough, this might have
been a film better suited to Cukor, with witty dialogue and comedy that
could’ve come out of “The Philadelphia Story,” but he might not have known as
Hawks did to force the actors to speed to up, and drive the movie kinetically
towards its nonsensical climaxes. I think Hawks is more hit-and-miss than some
critics and analysts, but I’ll say this, even his weaker efforts are still
entertaining, the man certainly knew how to make great films, and maybe more
importantly, he made great entertainment. “His Girl Friday,” in many ways,
represents a true Howard Hawks film. Wall-to-wall comedy done with lightning-fast
speed, just because he can.
Tuesday, October 9, 2012
MOVIE REVIEWS #45 PART 1: "ELLES", "OSLO, AUGUST 31", "LE HAVRE", "AND EVERYTHING IS GOING FINE" and MORE! Plus a message regarding some of my blog's/computer's technical difficulties.
Dear Loyal Readers:
This edition of my "Random Weekly Movie Reviews" is incomplete, and it'll quite likely remain incomplete for awhile. You've all read about my constant complaining in recent weeks about my computer problems, while, as of the time I'm writing this, I have regained a some home internet activity at this time, my computer's erratic nature leads me to believe that it's only temporary. I wrote the original draft of this message by hand, because for over 27 hours, I was unable to get onto the internet, and didn't think I'd be able to get on until I was at my local library, Tuesday Night. Hopefully, I will be wrong about the temporary status of my home internet, but if I'm not, I do have multiple Canon of Film entries pre-written and ready-to-post, if needed, and I'll be continuing to write and finish, this batch of movie reviews, as soon as I can. I'll also be adding more movies than I planned to to the blog, because I can't stop watching more just because I can't review, so this blog will be a long, multi-post entry, and there might be times in the near future where that might be the only things I'll be able to post for a while. As to the nature of my computer problems, it's got a severe virus that continually copies what's in our memory, slowing everything down immensely, and jamming everything up, and slowly eats out modem connection, just enough to make them stop working, and then cruelly, makes it so that we're unable to uninstall or delete them. We're considering all options, most of which we can't afford, but we are still considering anyway. (BTW, if there are any editors out there who think I might be a good addition to their newspaper/magazine staff, and are willing to pay me, even of a trial basis, this would be a good time to get in contact with me, through either my Facebook or Twitter, I assure you, they will somehow, constantly be checked ASIAC, and I can always write to certain lengths, on deadlines, and cut out all vulgarities in my writing, if asked.) So, while I might not be able to update this blog as often, or in the manner that I'd prefer for awhile, I can assure you, the Readers, that I will be updating the blog as regularly, as I can, but I ask that you all bear with me until then. Oh, and if anybody happens to be a computer expert, or perhaps, has an extra, relatively-working computer with internet capabilities that you just want to get rid of, let me know or Facebook, or Twitter, or comment on my blog, that can work too.
Thank You All, Sincerely,
David Baruffi
Oh, and P.S.: I still want all your lists for the TOP TEN GREATEST TV SHOWS OF ALL-TIME!, so make your choices, and get those to me too!
Okay, so with that caveat, here's Part 1 of this Edition of my Random Weekly Movie Reviews!
ELLES (2012) Director: Malgorzata Szumowska
3 STARS
The more I think back on "Elles," the less I like it. It was relatively well-made, technically, which is why I'll recommend it, but....- You know, this is one of those occasions where one could say that, maybe I suffer a bit from having watched too many movies. I know, that's a typical refrain for people when they disagree with a critic's opinion, but, had I not seen other recent films dealing with, essentially the same subject of prostitution, I might enjoy this film more. Unfortunately, after seeing movies like "House of Pleasures," "Student Services," "A Call Girl," "The Girlfriend Experience" to name a few, "Elles," seems to lack the insight into the world, that we learn from those other movies. "Student Services," in particular make "Elles" pale in comparison. Both films are about university students, who also work as prostitutes. (Well, University-age) "Student Services,"'s was a first-person account, while "Elles," is purely an outsiders perspective. The outsider, is an Elle-France journalist, Anne (Juliette Binoche). She a mother-of-two, with a husband who's rather dull. We catch up to her, interviewing Charlotte (Anias Demoustier) who's one of two prostitute she's interviewing for her latest assignment. Charlotte, who goes by Lola, is independent. She's trying to earn money for an apartment. The other interviewee is Alijca (Joanna Kulig), who's a Polish immigrant, who hooks because she's enjoy expensive things. One of them has a boyfriend. Which one, I don't remember, I think Charlotte. It doesn't really matter, 'cause most of the times we follow them, when they aren't having their interview turn into a rather personal friendship with Anne, they're busy working. There's a lot of illicit sex in the movie, and the film actually got an NC-17 rating. (I think it should be an R, personally, especially when you compare it to the also NC-17, "Shame") Needless to say, Anna soon inspired and influenced by her new friends. Either that, or maybe she's had a long drought of sexual frustration, that just now, she's beginning to not ignore. Her sex scene, is a masturbation scene, and a sad one at that. (Not that any masturbation scenes are particularly happy, but....) "Elles", which just means "Girls" in French, is well-made and well-acted, but ultimately shallow, and too narrow a point of view. I don't learn a whole lot about prostitution, marriage, sexual frustration, that I didn't know before, and get told better. Maybe I have a soft spot for Juliette Binoche, who can transcend almost any material given to her. I'm recommending it, with a caveat that there's better films on these subjects out there, and they're worthing looking for. Maybe to understand why those films are better, perhaps it's worth seeing "Elles," to understand why they're better.
OSLO, AUGUST 31 (2012) Director: Joachim Trier
4 1/2 STARS
This is the 2nd film I've seen by Danish-born Norwegian Director Joachim Trier, after his previous film "Reprise", I didn't particularly love that fim, but I can't exactly imagine off the top of the head, what those two films have in common, either. "Oslo, August 31," is a pretty straightforward title; it takes place entirely on Augst 31, and it follows Anders (Anders Danielsen Lee) who's out for the day from his rehab center. He's got a job interview with a magazine editor to write articles. In the meantime, he decidest to spend the day getting around and catching up with the few friends he still has around. He begins with a couple friends who are now married, and raising a kid. He remarks at a party later, talking to an ex-girlfriend, who's been with her boyfriend for nine years. They seem to be flirting on the edges, while trying to vaguely talk about their own personal feelings. There's a lot of these strange and random conversations in the movie. Occasionally, Anders isn't even in the conversation, he's simply listening intently to someone else's conversation, like while sitting in a diner, listening and imaginingly as a woman lists off what has to have been some kind of longago-written bucket list, she's reading from her laptop. The interview begins by going well. He knows the magazine, the editor seems impressed with him, but then the discussion moves to his resume. It's impressive, but there's a lot of years that are strikingly blank. It's around then that Anders begins to lost it. He confesses to his addictions, and then he storms out. It's clear to mention that he storms out, and isn't thrown out. He loses it, he probably would've been hired even after he said he was a drug addict. Instead, he ends up going out to some of those friends he probably should stay away from. He gets offered a drink, and he takes it He even meets a girl, Rebecca (Ingrid Olava), who's nice. She knows nothing of his past. The night continues on, like dozens of previous nights he must have had before. Metriculating from place-to-place, getting more people in their group, especially girls, as the night goes on. He doesn't go skinny-dipping, but he hangs on the edge of the pool, and watches everybody else. He returns to his home after. You can imagine what he does there. There ends "Oslo, August 31". It's a simple film. You can make dozens of films with the structure. It's a quiet film, about a man who's intuitively aware of his surrounding, and the minutes of the day, floating by, as he can see himself, falling back and deeper into his own regretable, but inevitable patterns. You may notice how much more comfortable he seems to be after he drinks. He's way more unsure and erratic in his behavior before he drinks. We don't realize it, but the tension in the film, is inherently inside him, not so much a conflict, but a struggle for him to survive. He knows, if he can get through today, things will be okay, at least he knows it can, possibly. "Oslo, August 31," is quite an interesting film. I think an interesting comparison might be Spike Lee's "25th Hour," which also takes place in a day, but this film is even more narrow, and painfully focused. Anders is the only thng in the movie, essentially. Everything else, is just the things that Anders runs into. Possibly because we know for Anders, each day may be the last. Sometimes it's hardest for Anders to tell whether or not it will be.
LE HAVRE (2011) Director: Aki Kaurismaki
5 STARS
I think I now understand the appeal of great Finnish Director Aki Kaurismaki. I had only see one film of his previous, "Lights in the Dusk," which didn't particularly intrigue me. With his latest feature-length film "Le Havre", I'm now beginning to understand, and appreciate his deadpan view of the world that's almost too tired to recognize it's own absurd nature. "Le Havre," which is made in France, and is a coastal town on the shores of Normandy, which nothing seems to happen. Marcel Marx is an aging shoe-shiner at the docks, a profession I'm surprised to learn still exists. His wife Arrietty (Kati Outinen), suddenly falls ill, and has to stay at the hospital. She doesn't reveal just how sick she is, but she worries about Marcel. At this time, there's a large cargo that's arrived on a ship, that was supposed to continue onto London, carrying about a dozen or so African refugees. When they open the container, one of the refugees pops out and takes off. Strangely, the police don't seem to rush to get him, and he manages to hide out for a while, until Marcel takes him in. Neither Marcel, or the kid, Idrissa (Blondin Miguel) know exactly what to do. The police, particularly one oddly nosy one, Monet (Jean-Pierre Daroussin), who reminds me a bit of Inspector Clouseau, if he wasn't a clutz. Soon, he begins to get the local neighborhood involved in hiding Idrissa, and Idrissa begins helping around the house. Not because Marcel asked him to, but he started doing it anyway, probably 'cause it needed to be done. He traces most of the rest of the refugee to a camp in Calais, where they're waiting to be sent back. Marcel finds a guy who's willing to smuggle Idrissa to England, but he can't afford the money. I'm making this movie sounds like an Italian Neo-Realist masterpiece. It's not, it's fact, it's some of the greatest use of dry humor, I've seen in a movie in a while. Kaurismaki isn't afraid to just, let a scene sit there, and lie there a little bit longer than it should. There's tension and drama, like an action thriller, but everybody moves at the pace of snails, and the answers to everyone's problems, come at obscure angles, and usually involve things that even seem trivial to the locals in this film. You'll notice I stopped short of explaining how Marcel tries to get the money. If you can figure it out based on what I've told you so far, you might be a witch or some kind of powerful psychic, 'cause believe me, I haven't left you anything close to a clue. Kaurismaki's clearly an original artist and voice. I've heard about many of his films for awhile, now I'm really looking forward into digging into his back filmography. I have a hard time imagining that "Le Havre," doesn't rank as one of his best, but if it doesn't, I definitely want to see what his bests are. This film, is as playful as it is emotional. It's also a great example of the difference between "What something's about," and "How it's about it." I've seen many versions of this basic story, but the greatness in "Le Havre," is the how Kaurismaki chose to go about telling it. I like the film the more and more I think about it.
AND EVERYTHING IS GOING FINE (2010) Director: Steven Soderbergh
4 STARS
Soderbergh's "And Everything is Going Fine," was compiled as a memorial tribute to the late great Spalding Gray. He worked with Gray originally in his film "King of the Hill". He was a profound actor and writer, particularly in the theatre scene, but his greatest fame was as a monologuist. I guess the proper terminology might be one-man show, but he exactly what you'd consider a performer. He told stories, most of them were funny, and at many times profound, and they certainly came from a distinctive New York Intellectual perspective, but he was mostly known for his monologues. His first monologue he made, was about his experience on making "The Killing Fields". Soderbergh directed a filmed production of his monologue, "Gray's Anatomy". There's footage from that film, combined with mixed footage of most of his productions, some backstage and televised interviews, and some documentary footage of him. Gray passed away shortly after a 2004 accident he had; he appeared on stage with crutches for many of his last monologues, many of which were actually just interviews with audience members, and he loved the idea of finding fascinating stories to pull out of them, if he could. He told stories of the interviews he had with people at his shows, at his other performances, and on talk shows. Soderbergh compiled and made this tribute to him, and the movie consists primarily, of him talking. It's no surprise he became famous for his monologues, the man is intrinsically interesting. He has that presence and wit that you'd equate with people like Fran Lebowitz, Eric Bogosian or Andre Gregory. Out of the entire movie's 89 minutes, I wouldn't be shocked if all but two minutes of it, is just him talking. Him telling stories, him telling the same stories at different time, him talking to his father about the stories he tells about him,.... It's practically a best-of Spalding Gray, a long collection of slices and pieces of his monologues and interviews, tracing his life story as far as he can, and I can't think of a better tribute to such a man. I can't wait to watch the movie again, and just listen to the amazing monologues of Spalding Gray, or better yet, I'm gonna put a few of his monologues on my Netflix for later. "And Everything is Going Fine," is a beautiful tribute, but it would be an amazing introduction to the great works of Spalding Gray.
THE NAKED CITY (1948) Director: Jules Dassin
5 STARS
Jules Dassin's American film noir, "The Naked City," spun off into a TV series, one of the first films to become a successful TV show, and it's practically a prototype for all detective/crime series pilots ever made. It's also, one of the best classic American film noirs. The city, is New York, and we meet a lot of people in the city, most of them, going about their day as usual. A maid, however, walks in on her employer, who's naked in the bathtub, and dead. The woman is Jean Dexter, a sometimes model. The two detectives on the case are Lt. Dan Muldoon (Barry Fitzgerald) and Jimmy Halloran (Don Taylor). At a certain point, they think they might have found the guy, but he was elusive, almost like he was some kind of athlete. There's a couple suspicious characters however. One named Frank Niles (Howard Duff) who's answers continually seem more and more evasive, the more they question him. Another is Ruth Morrison (Dorothy Hart), a fellow model-friend of hers, who's seems to keep showing up at unexpected places, and under different names. There's a narrator who gives us in on details about the case, and the city, and the detective go from place-to-place, with pictures of Dexter and the others, hoping they find someone who might have known her or seen her. Meanwhile, the newspapers seem to be all over the news story, as front-page covers continue to flow down the sewers, each with a more sensational headline than the day before. The film really is a typical crime procedural. If this story had been shot today, it probably would resemble an episode of "CSI...", but back then, shot in black-and-white, during the golden age of film noir, it's shot the way those "CSI" shows probably should be shot now. Gritty, realistic. The movie was actually shot in New York City, and many of the locations and extras were actual New Yorkers. On imdb.com, the film is even described as semi-documentary. I'm not sure I'd completely go that far, but it is a good way to showcase the realism of the film. It's bare, like a "Dragnet," or a "Law & Order", and yet, remains romantic and at the same time humbled by the city, and the story, of what is ultimately, just one little crime, the next crime that needs to be solved, one of many crimes. The narrator's famous ending, still feels true, even today. "There are eight million stories in the Naked City, this has been one of them." Just one of them. Thank God television took off, so we can get a glimpse of the rest of them, late at night on reruns (and for that matter, thank God for reruns). Dassin would eventually get kicked out of Hollywood, and eventually move to France, where he'd make the most of his future films, including the legendary caper drama, "Rififi". Dassin's work is still somewhat overlooked in America, but for basically inventing the TV crime drama, albeit, probably accidentally, he's always gonna be one of the true greats of film noir.
PURPLE NOON (1960) Director: Rene Clement
4 STARS
Some of you may find some of the plot points in "Purple Noon," sound familiar, and they should. The same story that "Purple Noon," is based on was also the inspiration for the film "The Talented Mr. Ripley", the Anthony Minghella film. In fact these are only two of the five ilms, that have been made based on the Patricia Highsmith's Tom Ripley novels. None of the films, as far as I can tell, are in any way connected to the others, and the books aren't particularly connected either. Highsmith's character of Tom Ripley (Alain Delon) is a truly evil character. He's a fake. He tries to steal identities, is willing to kill and do more in order to continually gain higher power in the upper crust of society, and he's a sociopath. Highsmith gives him, only one good character trait, and that is, he is curious about human behavior. He observes it, he often mimics it. He tries to desperately understand it. Here, Tom befriends a similarly erratically-behaved man, Philippe Greenleaf (Maurice Ronet), who lives life to the fullest. When they first get together, they spend the night partying all over town. At one point, they buy a cane from a blind person they run into, so they can imitate being blind, and try to hit on a woman using it. They do, and eventually, they get her to try using the cane, which she pays money for (More than they bought it for) and then, they leave her in the middle of the road, pretending she's blind. Philippe is dating and living with Marge (Marie Laforet). It's on a trip out on Philippe's boat, where he realizes that Tom's stealing much of his papers. He notices Tom standing in the mirror, trying to act like himself. Soon, after they leave Marge ashore after she gets upset at Philippe, she leaves for ashore, Tom kills Philippe, weighs down his body, and tosses it into the Ocean. She comes ashore and tells Marge and everybody that Philippe has left. He transpires to begin trying to not only fill Philippe's shoes metaphorically, but also, leave evidence, pretending to be Philippe in order to make sure that he's presence remains. During one out-of-town trip, where Tom takes Philippe's typewriter to send letters to Marge, including a will, he ends up killing one of Philippe's friend, who catches Tom in the act. After about ten minutes of dragging the body down a hotel, and dumping it, it suddenly occurs to him, that Philippe killed him, not Tom. Naturally, "Purple Noon," and "The Talented Mr. Ripley," will forever be compared. My personal favorite Ripley film so far is Liliana Cavani's "Ripley's Game" (I haven't seen "The American Friend," or "Ripley Under ground" yet), but between these two, "TTMR" is more accurate to the novel, including exploiting the homosexual subtext, being completely examined, while "Purple Noon," only insinuates it, at most. Yet, "Purple Noon," is more intimate. The story ties itself together, much easier, although it does end with Ripley's crimes eventually revealed. It's tricky, but I think I prefer the look and the style of "Purple Noon," although I also gave "The Talented Mr. Ripley" 4 STARS. They are totally different films, oddly enough. It's the first official film I've seen by Rene Clement (although he did co-direct Cocteau's "La Belle et La bete", but was uncredited), and it's possible I simply prefer him to Anthony Minghella, who I've always been more reluctant to embrace. I think I prefer Delon's Ripley to Damon's, but that might be because the other characters were slightly more interesting in "TTMR", while here, the characters seem to enter Ripley's world, and we get to see discover how much of a sociopath he is, as we go along, and not, really learning about it earlier. They're both definitely both worth watching. Both are good movies, both are great examples for auteur theory analyses, both give us distinctly accurate portrayals of Highsmith's wonderfully intriguing character. I guess "Purple Noon," was cinema's first introduction to the character, so for that reason, maybe it's more interesting, especially considering how it must've been approached by audiences at the time.
IN THE REALM OF THE SENSES (1976) Director: Nagisa Oshima
4 1/2 STARS
I don't know what exactly is, or if there is a difference, between being a sex addict, and nymphomaniac, but if "Shame," is about a sex addict, than "In the Realm of the Senses," is about two nymphomaniacs, who happen to find and fall in love with each other. I've seen porno films with less physical sex in them than "In the Realm of the Senses," and just as graphic as porn, it's a film that-, well, man, is this a hard film to figure how to describe accurately. Based on actual events, that occurred in pre-war Japan, it starts with Sada Abe (Eiko Matsuda), who works as a servant at a geisha house. Essentially, almost like a geisha in training, and this geisha house, seems to be predominately bisexual and bi-curious, by the way. She's sees one of the girls, who secretly has a strange sexual relationship with Kichizo Ishida (Tatsuya Fuji). She soon begins trying to have a similar relationship with him, and soon, she gets what she wants. Kichizo is married on top of that, by the way, but eventually, they soon become relatively inseparable, and god help anything with a vagina if they are. the maids and servants constantly complain about how they spend so much time having sex, that they hardly ever eat, or sleep, or anything else, and even those activities, seem to just get incorporated into their sex. Sex includes everything from...-, you know what, I can't finish this sentence. I know what the words are, to fill in here, and I often can be very vulgar and obscene with a lot of my writings and dialogues, and I probably should warn any sensitive viewers about the specifics about it's extreme content, but, even if I was actually willing to describe the disturbing details of their lovemaking, I wouldn't know where to begin. The content starts at extreme, and then, gets more and more extreme, until finally, one of their lives will be sacrifice, for their love. (And by love, I mean orgasm. Maybe I don't, maybe it's sex, or love or climax, or... Ugh, I don't know.) Sada mentions at one point being tested as a kid, and it turns out she's unbelievably extra-sensitive, down there, and apparently, she's can't control it. I don't know why he can't control it either, but if any of them ever said no, to what the either wanted, well, I about to say that the ending might have been completely different, but, actually, I'm not so sure about that. These two did not have a safe word, not that they were ever gonna use it. There's multiple ways to interpret this film, metaphorically, if one is able to sanitize themselves from it long enough to try. There's one obvious joke I can make about Penis Envy, and you'll know what I'm talking about by the way, once you see it. Honestly, sometimes I don't even know how to judge a movie. It's a hard X, and it's still, NC-17, and it's gonna be NC-17 in a lot of places by the way. In Japan, the publishing of the screenplay got Writer/Director Nagisa Oshima arrested, and a court case dragged on for years until he was acquitted, and there are other censorship disputes and court cases in other countries, including England, Germany, and Israel. Well, now, let's discuss this, first question, is it porn? I know Justice Potter Stewart's definition, but here's mine: Pornography: Sexually explicit art/material created for the sole and only purpose of getting a masturbatory reaction from a viewer. By that definition, this is definitely not porn. There are certain parts of this movie, where if you're masturbating to it, you really need to be check into somewhere, for a long, long, long time. So it's not porn, but it is erotic. It is, sexual; it is sensual. It's also graphic; it's also violent, and it's very disturbing, and it displays, what I would describe as abnormal behavior, and I'm pretty sure most sex experts would too. However, it's well-made, it's well-acted, and it achieves the goal that's it's trying to do, and as a film, it's utterly compelling, like a couple people having sex in the middle of the road, that's next to the deadly car accident. (That doesn't happen in this movie. To see that however, watch David Cronenberg's film "Crash") I couldn't stop watching. I don't know how many starts to give it. Something might die inside me if I give it five stars, but I can't give it negative review as a film critic, I can't say it's only average, like a 3-. Sigh. Alright, 4 1/2 STARS, so watch it, definitely is a have-to-watch film, and I apologize for any trauma I might cause by doing that, but it's an essential film, and essential films have to be seen.
This edition of my "Random Weekly Movie Reviews" is incomplete, and it'll quite likely remain incomplete for awhile. You've all read about my constant complaining in recent weeks about my computer problems, while, as of the time I'm writing this, I have regained a some home internet activity at this time, my computer's erratic nature leads me to believe that it's only temporary. I wrote the original draft of this message by hand, because for over 27 hours, I was unable to get onto the internet, and didn't think I'd be able to get on until I was at my local library, Tuesday Night. Hopefully, I will be wrong about the temporary status of my home internet, but if I'm not, I do have multiple Canon of Film entries pre-written and ready-to-post, if needed, and I'll be continuing to write and finish, this batch of movie reviews, as soon as I can. I'll also be adding more movies than I planned to to the blog, because I can't stop watching more just because I can't review, so this blog will be a long, multi-post entry, and there might be times in the near future where that might be the only things I'll be able to post for a while. As to the nature of my computer problems, it's got a severe virus that continually copies what's in our memory, slowing everything down immensely, and jamming everything up, and slowly eats out modem connection, just enough to make them stop working, and then cruelly, makes it so that we're unable to uninstall or delete them. We're considering all options, most of which we can't afford, but we are still considering anyway. (BTW, if there are any editors out there who think I might be a good addition to their newspaper/magazine staff, and are willing to pay me, even of a trial basis, this would be a good time to get in contact with me, through either my Facebook or Twitter, I assure you, they will somehow, constantly be checked ASIAC, and I can always write to certain lengths, on deadlines, and cut out all vulgarities in my writing, if asked.) So, while I might not be able to update this blog as often, or in the manner that I'd prefer for awhile, I can assure you, the Readers, that I will be updating the blog as regularly, as I can, but I ask that you all bear with me until then. Oh, and if anybody happens to be a computer expert, or perhaps, has an extra, relatively-working computer with internet capabilities that you just want to get rid of, let me know or Facebook, or Twitter, or comment on my blog, that can work too.
Thank You All, Sincerely,
David Baruffi
Oh, and P.S.: I still want all your lists for the TOP TEN GREATEST TV SHOWS OF ALL-TIME!, so make your choices, and get those to me too!
Okay, so with that caveat, here's Part 1 of this Edition of my Random Weekly Movie Reviews!
ELLES (2012) Director: Malgorzata Szumowska
3 STARS
The more I think back on "Elles," the less I like it. It was relatively well-made, technically, which is why I'll recommend it, but....- You know, this is one of those occasions where one could say that, maybe I suffer a bit from having watched too many movies. I know, that's a typical refrain for people when they disagree with a critic's opinion, but, had I not seen other recent films dealing with, essentially the same subject of prostitution, I might enjoy this film more. Unfortunately, after seeing movies like "House of Pleasures," "Student Services," "A Call Girl," "The Girlfriend Experience" to name a few, "Elles," seems to lack the insight into the world, that we learn from those other movies. "Student Services," in particular make "Elles" pale in comparison. Both films are about university students, who also work as prostitutes. (Well, University-age) "Student Services,"'s was a first-person account, while "Elles," is purely an outsiders perspective. The outsider, is an Elle-France journalist, Anne (Juliette Binoche). She a mother-of-two, with a husband who's rather dull. We catch up to her, interviewing Charlotte (Anias Demoustier) who's one of two prostitute she's interviewing for her latest assignment. Charlotte, who goes by Lola, is independent. She's trying to earn money for an apartment. The other interviewee is Alijca (Joanna Kulig), who's a Polish immigrant, who hooks because she's enjoy expensive things. One of them has a boyfriend. Which one, I don't remember, I think Charlotte. It doesn't really matter, 'cause most of the times we follow them, when they aren't having their interview turn into a rather personal friendship with Anne, they're busy working. There's a lot of illicit sex in the movie, and the film actually got an NC-17 rating. (I think it should be an R, personally, especially when you compare it to the also NC-17, "Shame") Needless to say, Anna soon inspired and influenced by her new friends. Either that, or maybe she's had a long drought of sexual frustration, that just now, she's beginning to not ignore. Her sex scene, is a masturbation scene, and a sad one at that. (Not that any masturbation scenes are particularly happy, but....) "Elles", which just means "Girls" in French, is well-made and well-acted, but ultimately shallow, and too narrow a point of view. I don't learn a whole lot about prostitution, marriage, sexual frustration, that I didn't know before, and get told better. Maybe I have a soft spot for Juliette Binoche, who can transcend almost any material given to her. I'm recommending it, with a caveat that there's better films on these subjects out there, and they're worthing looking for. Maybe to understand why those films are better, perhaps it's worth seeing "Elles," to understand why they're better.
OSLO, AUGUST 31 (2012) Director: Joachim Trier
4 1/2 STARS
This is the 2nd film I've seen by Danish-born Norwegian Director Joachim Trier, after his previous film "Reprise", I didn't particularly love that fim, but I can't exactly imagine off the top of the head, what those two films have in common, either. "Oslo, August 31," is a pretty straightforward title; it takes place entirely on Augst 31, and it follows Anders (Anders Danielsen Lee) who's out for the day from his rehab center. He's got a job interview with a magazine editor to write articles. In the meantime, he decidest to spend the day getting around and catching up with the few friends he still has around. He begins with a couple friends who are now married, and raising a kid. He remarks at a party later, talking to an ex-girlfriend, who's been with her boyfriend for nine years. They seem to be flirting on the edges, while trying to vaguely talk about their own personal feelings. There's a lot of these strange and random conversations in the movie. Occasionally, Anders isn't even in the conversation, he's simply listening intently to someone else's conversation, like while sitting in a diner, listening and imaginingly as a woman lists off what has to have been some kind of longago-written bucket list, she's reading from her laptop. The interview begins by going well. He knows the magazine, the editor seems impressed with him, but then the discussion moves to his resume. It's impressive, but there's a lot of years that are strikingly blank. It's around then that Anders begins to lost it. He confesses to his addictions, and then he storms out. It's clear to mention that he storms out, and isn't thrown out. He loses it, he probably would've been hired even after he said he was a drug addict. Instead, he ends up going out to some of those friends he probably should stay away from. He gets offered a drink, and he takes it He even meets a girl, Rebecca (Ingrid Olava), who's nice. She knows nothing of his past. The night continues on, like dozens of previous nights he must have had before. Metriculating from place-to-place, getting more people in their group, especially girls, as the night goes on. He doesn't go skinny-dipping, but he hangs on the edge of the pool, and watches everybody else. He returns to his home after. You can imagine what he does there. There ends "Oslo, August 31". It's a simple film. You can make dozens of films with the structure. It's a quiet film, about a man who's intuitively aware of his surrounding, and the minutes of the day, floating by, as he can see himself, falling back and deeper into his own regretable, but inevitable patterns. You may notice how much more comfortable he seems to be after he drinks. He's way more unsure and erratic in his behavior before he drinks. We don't realize it, but the tension in the film, is inherently inside him, not so much a conflict, but a struggle for him to survive. He knows, if he can get through today, things will be okay, at least he knows it can, possibly. "Oslo, August 31," is quite an interesting film. I think an interesting comparison might be Spike Lee's "25th Hour," which also takes place in a day, but this film is even more narrow, and painfully focused. Anders is the only thng in the movie, essentially. Everything else, is just the things that Anders runs into. Possibly because we know for Anders, each day may be the last. Sometimes it's hardest for Anders to tell whether or not it will be.
LE HAVRE (2011) Director: Aki Kaurismaki
5 STARS
I think I now understand the appeal of great Finnish Director Aki Kaurismaki. I had only see one film of his previous, "Lights in the Dusk," which didn't particularly intrigue me. With his latest feature-length film "Le Havre", I'm now beginning to understand, and appreciate his deadpan view of the world that's almost too tired to recognize it's own absurd nature. "Le Havre," which is made in France, and is a coastal town on the shores of Normandy, which nothing seems to happen. Marcel Marx is an aging shoe-shiner at the docks, a profession I'm surprised to learn still exists. His wife Arrietty (Kati Outinen), suddenly falls ill, and has to stay at the hospital. She doesn't reveal just how sick she is, but she worries about Marcel. At this time, there's a large cargo that's arrived on a ship, that was supposed to continue onto London, carrying about a dozen or so African refugees. When they open the container, one of the refugees pops out and takes off. Strangely, the police don't seem to rush to get him, and he manages to hide out for a while, until Marcel takes him in. Neither Marcel, or the kid, Idrissa (Blondin Miguel) know exactly what to do. The police, particularly one oddly nosy one, Monet (Jean-Pierre Daroussin), who reminds me a bit of Inspector Clouseau, if he wasn't a clutz. Soon, he begins to get the local neighborhood involved in hiding Idrissa, and Idrissa begins helping around the house. Not because Marcel asked him to, but he started doing it anyway, probably 'cause it needed to be done. He traces most of the rest of the refugee to a camp in Calais, where they're waiting to be sent back. Marcel finds a guy who's willing to smuggle Idrissa to England, but he can't afford the money. I'm making this movie sounds like an Italian Neo-Realist masterpiece. It's not, it's fact, it's some of the greatest use of dry humor, I've seen in a movie in a while. Kaurismaki isn't afraid to just, let a scene sit there, and lie there a little bit longer than it should. There's tension and drama, like an action thriller, but everybody moves at the pace of snails, and the answers to everyone's problems, come at obscure angles, and usually involve things that even seem trivial to the locals in this film. You'll notice I stopped short of explaining how Marcel tries to get the money. If you can figure it out based on what I've told you so far, you might be a witch or some kind of powerful psychic, 'cause believe me, I haven't left you anything close to a clue. Kaurismaki's clearly an original artist and voice. I've heard about many of his films for awhile, now I'm really looking forward into digging into his back filmography. I have a hard time imagining that "Le Havre," doesn't rank as one of his best, but if it doesn't, I definitely want to see what his bests are. This film, is as playful as it is emotional. It's also a great example of the difference between "What something's about," and "How it's about it." I've seen many versions of this basic story, but the greatness in "Le Havre," is the how Kaurismaki chose to go about telling it. I like the film the more and more I think about it.
AND EVERYTHING IS GOING FINE (2010) Director: Steven Soderbergh
4 STARS
Soderbergh's "And Everything is Going Fine," was compiled as a memorial tribute to the late great Spalding Gray. He worked with Gray originally in his film "King of the Hill". He was a profound actor and writer, particularly in the theatre scene, but his greatest fame was as a monologuist. I guess the proper terminology might be one-man show, but he exactly what you'd consider a performer. He told stories, most of them were funny, and at many times profound, and they certainly came from a distinctive New York Intellectual perspective, but he was mostly known for his monologues. His first monologue he made, was about his experience on making "The Killing Fields". Soderbergh directed a filmed production of his monologue, "Gray's Anatomy". There's footage from that film, combined with mixed footage of most of his productions, some backstage and televised interviews, and some documentary footage of him. Gray passed away shortly after a 2004 accident he had; he appeared on stage with crutches for many of his last monologues, many of which were actually just interviews with audience members, and he loved the idea of finding fascinating stories to pull out of them, if he could. He told stories of the interviews he had with people at his shows, at his other performances, and on talk shows. Soderbergh compiled and made this tribute to him, and the movie consists primarily, of him talking. It's no surprise he became famous for his monologues, the man is intrinsically interesting. He has that presence and wit that you'd equate with people like Fran Lebowitz, Eric Bogosian or Andre Gregory. Out of the entire movie's 89 minutes, I wouldn't be shocked if all but two minutes of it, is just him talking. Him telling stories, him telling the same stories at different time, him talking to his father about the stories he tells about him,.... It's practically a best-of Spalding Gray, a long collection of slices and pieces of his monologues and interviews, tracing his life story as far as he can, and I can't think of a better tribute to such a man. I can't wait to watch the movie again, and just listen to the amazing monologues of Spalding Gray, or better yet, I'm gonna put a few of his monologues on my Netflix for later. "And Everything is Going Fine," is a beautiful tribute, but it would be an amazing introduction to the great works of Spalding Gray.
THE NAKED CITY (1948) Director: Jules Dassin
5 STARS
Jules Dassin's American film noir, "The Naked City," spun off into a TV series, one of the first films to become a successful TV show, and it's practically a prototype for all detective/crime series pilots ever made. It's also, one of the best classic American film noirs. The city, is New York, and we meet a lot of people in the city, most of them, going about their day as usual. A maid, however, walks in on her employer, who's naked in the bathtub, and dead. The woman is Jean Dexter, a sometimes model. The two detectives on the case are Lt. Dan Muldoon (Barry Fitzgerald) and Jimmy Halloran (Don Taylor). At a certain point, they think they might have found the guy, but he was elusive, almost like he was some kind of athlete. There's a couple suspicious characters however. One named Frank Niles (Howard Duff) who's answers continually seem more and more evasive, the more they question him. Another is Ruth Morrison (Dorothy Hart), a fellow model-friend of hers, who's seems to keep showing up at unexpected places, and under different names. There's a narrator who gives us in on details about the case, and the city, and the detective go from place-to-place, with pictures of Dexter and the others, hoping they find someone who might have known her or seen her. Meanwhile, the newspapers seem to be all over the news story, as front-page covers continue to flow down the sewers, each with a more sensational headline than the day before. The film really is a typical crime procedural. If this story had been shot today, it probably would resemble an episode of "CSI...", but back then, shot in black-and-white, during the golden age of film noir, it's shot the way those "CSI" shows probably should be shot now. Gritty, realistic. The movie was actually shot in New York City, and many of the locations and extras were actual New Yorkers. On imdb.com, the film is even described as semi-documentary. I'm not sure I'd completely go that far, but it is a good way to showcase the realism of the film. It's bare, like a "Dragnet," or a "Law & Order", and yet, remains romantic and at the same time humbled by the city, and the story, of what is ultimately, just one little crime, the next crime that needs to be solved, one of many crimes. The narrator's famous ending, still feels true, even today. "There are eight million stories in the Naked City, this has been one of them." Just one of them. Thank God television took off, so we can get a glimpse of the rest of them, late at night on reruns (and for that matter, thank God for reruns). Dassin would eventually get kicked out of Hollywood, and eventually move to France, where he'd make the most of his future films, including the legendary caper drama, "Rififi". Dassin's work is still somewhat overlooked in America, but for basically inventing the TV crime drama, albeit, probably accidentally, he's always gonna be one of the true greats of film noir.
PURPLE NOON (1960) Director: Rene Clement
4 STARS
Some of you may find some of the plot points in "Purple Noon," sound familiar, and they should. The same story that "Purple Noon," is based on was also the inspiration for the film "The Talented Mr. Ripley", the Anthony Minghella film. In fact these are only two of the five ilms, that have been made based on the Patricia Highsmith's Tom Ripley novels. None of the films, as far as I can tell, are in any way connected to the others, and the books aren't particularly connected either. Highsmith's character of Tom Ripley (Alain Delon) is a truly evil character. He's a fake. He tries to steal identities, is willing to kill and do more in order to continually gain higher power in the upper crust of society, and he's a sociopath. Highsmith gives him, only one good character trait, and that is, he is curious about human behavior. He observes it, he often mimics it. He tries to desperately understand it. Here, Tom befriends a similarly erratically-behaved man, Philippe Greenleaf (Maurice Ronet), who lives life to the fullest. When they first get together, they spend the night partying all over town. At one point, they buy a cane from a blind person they run into, so they can imitate being blind, and try to hit on a woman using it. They do, and eventually, they get her to try using the cane, which she pays money for (More than they bought it for) and then, they leave her in the middle of the road, pretending she's blind. Philippe is dating and living with Marge (Marie Laforet). It's on a trip out on Philippe's boat, where he realizes that Tom's stealing much of his papers. He notices Tom standing in the mirror, trying to act like himself. Soon, after they leave Marge ashore after she gets upset at Philippe, she leaves for ashore, Tom kills Philippe, weighs down his body, and tosses it into the Ocean. She comes ashore and tells Marge and everybody that Philippe has left. He transpires to begin trying to not only fill Philippe's shoes metaphorically, but also, leave evidence, pretending to be Philippe in order to make sure that he's presence remains. During one out-of-town trip, where Tom takes Philippe's typewriter to send letters to Marge, including a will, he ends up killing one of Philippe's friend, who catches Tom in the act. After about ten minutes of dragging the body down a hotel, and dumping it, it suddenly occurs to him, that Philippe killed him, not Tom. Naturally, "Purple Noon," and "The Talented Mr. Ripley," will forever be compared. My personal favorite Ripley film so far is Liliana Cavani's "Ripley's Game" (I haven't seen "The American Friend," or "Ripley Under ground" yet), but between these two, "TTMR" is more accurate to the novel, including exploiting the homosexual subtext, being completely examined, while "Purple Noon," only insinuates it, at most. Yet, "Purple Noon," is more intimate. The story ties itself together, much easier, although it does end with Ripley's crimes eventually revealed. It's tricky, but I think I prefer the look and the style of "Purple Noon," although I also gave "The Talented Mr. Ripley" 4 STARS. They are totally different films, oddly enough. It's the first official film I've seen by Rene Clement (although he did co-direct Cocteau's "La Belle et La bete", but was uncredited), and it's possible I simply prefer him to Anthony Minghella, who I've always been more reluctant to embrace. I think I prefer Delon's Ripley to Damon's, but that might be because the other characters were slightly more interesting in "TTMR", while here, the characters seem to enter Ripley's world, and we get to see discover how much of a sociopath he is, as we go along, and not, really learning about it earlier. They're both definitely both worth watching. Both are good movies, both are great examples for auteur theory analyses, both give us distinctly accurate portrayals of Highsmith's wonderfully intriguing character. I guess "Purple Noon," was cinema's first introduction to the character, so for that reason, maybe it's more interesting, especially considering how it must've been approached by audiences at the time.
IN THE REALM OF THE SENSES (1976) Director: Nagisa Oshima
4 1/2 STARS
I don't know what exactly is, or if there is a difference, between being a sex addict, and nymphomaniac, but if "Shame," is about a sex addict, than "In the Realm of the Senses," is about two nymphomaniacs, who happen to find and fall in love with each other. I've seen porno films with less physical sex in them than "In the Realm of the Senses," and just as graphic as porn, it's a film that-, well, man, is this a hard film to figure how to describe accurately. Based on actual events, that occurred in pre-war Japan, it starts with Sada Abe (Eiko Matsuda), who works as a servant at a geisha house. Essentially, almost like a geisha in training, and this geisha house, seems to be predominately bisexual and bi-curious, by the way. She's sees one of the girls, who secretly has a strange sexual relationship with Kichizo Ishida (Tatsuya Fuji). She soon begins trying to have a similar relationship with him, and soon, she gets what she wants. Kichizo is married on top of that, by the way, but eventually, they soon become relatively inseparable, and god help anything with a vagina if they are. the maids and servants constantly complain about how they spend so much time having sex, that they hardly ever eat, or sleep, or anything else, and even those activities, seem to just get incorporated into their sex. Sex includes everything from...-, you know what, I can't finish this sentence. I know what the words are, to fill in here, and I often can be very vulgar and obscene with a lot of my writings and dialogues, and I probably should warn any sensitive viewers about the specifics about it's extreme content, but, even if I was actually willing to describe the disturbing details of their lovemaking, I wouldn't know where to begin. The content starts at extreme, and then, gets more and more extreme, until finally, one of their lives will be sacrifice, for their love. (And by love, I mean orgasm. Maybe I don't, maybe it's sex, or love or climax, or... Ugh, I don't know.) Sada mentions at one point being tested as a kid, and it turns out she's unbelievably extra-sensitive, down there, and apparently, she's can't control it. I don't know why he can't control it either, but if any of them ever said no, to what the either wanted, well, I about to say that the ending might have been completely different, but, actually, I'm not so sure about that. These two did not have a safe word, not that they were ever gonna use it. There's multiple ways to interpret this film, metaphorically, if one is able to sanitize themselves from it long enough to try. There's one obvious joke I can make about Penis Envy, and you'll know what I'm talking about by the way, once you see it. Honestly, sometimes I don't even know how to judge a movie. It's a hard X, and it's still, NC-17, and it's gonna be NC-17 in a lot of places by the way. In Japan, the publishing of the screenplay got Writer/Director Nagisa Oshima arrested, and a court case dragged on for years until he was acquitted, and there are other censorship disputes and court cases in other countries, including England, Germany, and Israel. Well, now, let's discuss this, first question, is it porn? I know Justice Potter Stewart's definition, but here's mine: Pornography: Sexually explicit art/material created for the sole and only purpose of getting a masturbatory reaction from a viewer. By that definition, this is definitely not porn. There are certain parts of this movie, where if you're masturbating to it, you really need to be check into somewhere, for a long, long, long time. So it's not porn, but it is erotic. It is, sexual; it is sensual. It's also graphic; it's also violent, and it's very disturbing, and it displays, what I would describe as abnormal behavior, and I'm pretty sure most sex experts would too. However, it's well-made, it's well-acted, and it achieves the goal that's it's trying to do, and as a film, it's utterly compelling, like a couple people having sex in the middle of the road, that's next to the deadly car accident. (That doesn't happen in this movie. To see that however, watch David Cronenberg's film "Crash") I couldn't stop watching. I don't know how many starts to give it. Something might die inside me if I give it five stars, but I can't give it negative review as a film critic, I can't say it's only average, like a 3-. Sigh. Alright, 4 1/2 STARS, so watch it, definitely is a have-to-watch film, and I apologize for any trauma I might cause by doing that, but it's an essential film, and essential films have to be seen.
Friday, October 5, 2012
PBS FLIPPING THE BIG BIRD! REALLY, THIS WAS A PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE-WORTHY SUBJECT?, AND MY OWN PERSONAL LOVE AND MY THOUGHTS AND EXPERIENCES ABOUT PBS PROGRAMMING!
It's not that I necessarily disagree with Romney's obsession on cutting funding to PBS and CPB, although I completely do, and if anything, their funding should be doubled, at least, but it's such a minor and small thing that one must ask the question of why he is so intently focused on it, and thinks it's such a crucial detail that he brings it up during a Presidential debate? I won't make any secrets as to my political allegiance, I am a registered Democrat, and my political position is somewhere to the left of liberal. People may think certain things, like my side is an NEA-loving artsy-crafty stoner hippie side, but really, we barely even blink an eye at things like giving money for "Sesame Street" and "Antiques Roadshow". Our basic thought process that we go into when we're confronted with such a question goes something like this. "PBS? Give money to them so they can, dot, dot, dot,... okay, that sounds like good people to give money too. Now, back to trying to give health insurance to people who don't have it." That's really all the thought we think about, and it should be in considering how much money we actually give them.
Okay, let me give you some numbers. About 15% of PBS's budget, is from government subsidies. Now that's the average per/PBS stations, across the country, so many stations' budgets can be about 40-50% government subsidies, so while many stations would be relatively okay, a significant chunk of there budget would be taken away from several stations, possibly to the point where they'll need to fold. Cutting the budget entirely, would save exactly, 0.00014% of the budget, about $300 million dollars/yr (Source: dailykos.com), spread over, I don't know, 300 or 400 stations, nationwide (You can find all the station on PBS.com, I'm not counting them all), about 70 or so, have produced and/or currently produce nationally-broadcasted PBS programming, on top of, whatever local programming most stations make. About a dollar per/person, in America. That's , 1.4 ten-thousandths of a percentage, of the budget, saved. That's, two fighter-jets, maybe. Okay, I'm being facetious, I don't know how much a fighter jet costs, but cutting Public television doesn't save any real money, especially when you can simply raise a tax and save it, rather easily. It's just Romney cutting programs, just so he can, because he believes government spends too much, which they don't, and that they should put that money, along with the money from other government cuts to other things that he thinks should have more money than they have, like the rich, or the military probably. Whatever else he thinks needs money when in reality, it doesn't. Honestly, I'd prefer it if he'd have the balls to cut the money from something like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, or whatever, and place it somewhere else; at least that would show some actual philosophical choice and opinion from him on what government should actually do. Doing this, bragging about cutting PBS. is just, well it's just stupid crap. Really, I think it's one of the worse things you can cut from the government, but say you want to do it, is it such a major measure that it should be brought up to the level of "Being Discussed and Argued on a Presidential Debate"? It just isn't. Neither are such questions as "Should the government fund the arts?" or "Should gays marry?" or "Should a woman be forced to keep an unwanted child, who's a result of a rape, if she doesn't want to?" The answers are "Sure, why not?", "Sure, who cares?", and "Jesus Christ, give her an abortion if she wants it, for fuck's sake!" It's these insipid minor issues that the right tends to focus on, under the guise of an failed philosophical theory, and an imagined cultural superiority they have, and somehow, this means Big Bird, gets invoked during a Presidential debate, and it inspires a Million Muppet March. (Seriously, there's actually going to be a "Million Muppet March", I already liked it on Facebook.)
Fine, Romney won the debate, because, Obama clearly was rusty, and was annoyed that Romney was placed on an equal pedestal as him. (I would be too, if I was him.) If I'm sounding personal about this, well, let me tell you something. Most of the day, while I'm at home, I have PBS on. My default station, especially in the morning, is PBS, and the middle of the night too, which is when they usually air reruns of the primetime PBS shows I missed because I chose to watch "The Mindy Project" instead. I don't like everything on there. Not a big "Nova" junkie. I think "Daily Business Report," is insipid and annoying, (And btw, I think it's a pretty lousy status about our world, that business news, actually is "Daily"! Everyday, something happens in business, that's worthy of a 1/2-hour news program? Who's running this country, the government, or Coca-Cola? How about a "Weekly Business Report", PBS? One hour-, say-eh, Friday Night, after "Washington Week," push Bill Moyers and Charlie Rose, back an hour, that's really all we should need, of Business news. It's not like they're reinventing the assembly line everyday.) I think "The Cat in the Hat Knows A Lot About That", really bastardizes Dr. Suess... I could go on. I'm sick of "Keeping Up Appearances" reruns too, but even with some crap, most of it, it keeps my mind fresh. I enjoy it. Better than most of those annoying talk shows, judge shows, bad reality shows, even better than the two soap operas that are still on the air, and definitely more fun to watch than Steve Harvey on "Family Feud", so I'm too old for most of it. Well, frankly, it's better. I'll take better and too young for me, than too mindnumbing and stupid.
Actually, I'll tell my own personal story about PBS. This would've been, 3rd or 4th grade, and just like now, I didn't have cable at the time. I'd come home from school, and there wouldn't be a lot on, but they used to have, on like FOX, and a few other channels, afternoon shows for kids. Cartoons mostly. "Animaniacs," for instance, that was a big one when I was young. Couple other things. generally, but even though, I didn't need Elmo for my ABCs, I put on PBS. First to watch, "Where in the World is Carmen San Diego?" which I loved, and still do, and then I'd keep it on most of the afternoon, until "Seinfeld" reruns or "Jeopardy!" or whatever was on before primetime. So, one of the things PBS used to show at that time, was "Barney & Friends". I didn't particularly love that show, but it was either that, or on FOX, "Mighty Morphin Power Rangers", which didn't particularly interest me, so I kept "Barney..." on. Unbeknownst to me, this was one of the worse possible decisions I ever could've made, as I was thusly informed by, everybody in my class about it. (Worse decision #2, was casually telling my class that I watched "Barney...", thinking everybody thought the way I did. Lesson learned.) I mention this, because this is one of the only times I ever really remember caving in to so-called "Peer Pressure", as it eventually got so bad, that eventually, I started watching "...Power Rangers" just to shut everybody up. That's not to say that "...Power Rangers" was bad, it wasn't. It wasn't great. It really started losing its way after they kept changing actors and the green/white ranger kept changing colors, and when, oh, what were they're names, the two doofuses, that were the Laurel & Hardy of that show, always getting into new scams and bullying others... (Snaps fingers, snaps fingers...) Oh, hold on, let me look it up.... (Elevator musac version of Olivia Newton-John's "Physical") Bulk & Skull, when they like, became mall cops or something like that? (Never, in a million years, would I have gotten that, btw.) Anyway, it jumped the shark, multiple times, and, frankly, I preferred watching "Barney...", at least until all the kids on the show grew up, and they had like five or six dinosaur friends of his. Anyway, the main point is that, despite being made fun of ruthlessly, I eventually regretted the decision. Yeah, I preferred watching "Barney..." over "Power Rangers". Figuring nothing else, at least Barney's educational. Now, I love PBS. I don't watch everything like I said before. Currently, I love "History Detectives," "Market Warriors," "Arthur," and especially "Wordgirl". Yeah, I still like some of the kids shows, the good ones anyway. I question why on "Super Why" there are three human characters, and then, a pig, trying to read books and solve the problems in the stories. I mean, they got the regular boy, Why, the sporty girl, and the African-American princess, you'd think, they'd come up, with a fourth human character, but we get Alpha Pig? That always frustrates me. But, other than a few minor quibbles like that it's just good background music really. It's either that or Kathie Lee Gifford, and I'll take the show that inspires kids to read, even with the weird, personified alphabet-expert pig.
Anyway, my point being overall is that, I understand wanting to cut government programs, or even cutting the budgets on some of them, but there's many reasons why this, is stupid. One being, that we don't need to, we could simply increase taxes on the uberwealthy to pay for most of it. (Oh yeah, I love taxes. I know nobody wants people to say that, but taxes are the greatest, period, invention, period, ever period, exclamation point.! The great equalizer. It's the price you should gladly pay for being rich. You pay taxes, we get rebates, we spend the rebates, and the money goes into the system, and eventually back to the rich again, as the money goes up, and then back down. It works, everytime, don't get why that's such a problem, unless everybody on the right is just plain greedy.) Another being that it's bad politics to make it so that Big Bird is your political opponent, 'cause frankly, you're not gonna win. Third, it's dumb in general to cut something like that, and small, easy-to-understand quality government programs, especially since, Fourth, PBS and CPB, actually work! and isn't that typically the kind of programs Republicans want to begin with. Small, easy to understand, does the job it tries to do, you can easily see the results... At least that the rhetoric I hear from David Brooks all the time on the "PBS Newshour". Cutting programs or parts of programs we don't need, or don't work, that's understandable, but cutting programs that have been so incredible successful, especially that cost us so little, that's just dumb. It's not my biggest complaint about Romney, probably not even in my Top Ten, but, hell, he's the one who chose to focus such attention to it. It's the same old game, and I hate playing it, but we don't care about something so trivial, so we say, sure, go ahead, free country, then their side decides, just for the hell of it, to be against it, so now, because they're taking an insipid contrary opinion, now I have to defend it as usual. Could be worse I guess. Usually they take an obnoxiously, idiotic, insipid, contrary opinion on something really important. So, hey, maybe a GOP Presidental Candidate who's anti-PBS is progress?
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
NETFLIX vs. HULU! YES, I'M FINALLY JUST GONNA COMPARE THE DAMN THINGS, LIKE EVERY OTHER ENTERTAINMENT BLOGGER ALREADY HAS, HAPPY?!
I tried to avoid this subject for awhile, 'cause I really don't think I have anything of particular importance to say on it, but lately, due to some financial situations, I haven't been able to afford Netflix on the regular basis that I'd prefer, and as result, this week, I finally took advantage, bregrugingly, of Hulu.com's one week free trial for Hulu Plus. I didn't want to personally. Sure there's a lot of movies available on Hulu, not to mention nearly the entire Criterion Collection, which certainly has a great appeal to cinephiles like me, although I've found some cool gems of on Hulu that you don't have to pay for, it's frankly still not a service that I think it's worth it. Now, it's entirely possible that my opinion on this subject can change in the future, considered how Netfilx is being run into the ground sometimes, but it's a subject that a lot of people are fighting and discussing about, and it goes back to this debate of streaming movies versus DVDs, so I thought I'd rehash this debate again, possibly show my point of view on this.
Now, the reason that I've switched to Hulu.com temporarily, is not simply because it's cheaper than Netflix, which is certainly is for me because I insist on streaming and DVDs, but it's mainly because without having Netflix on hand for the moment, I'm unable to clear movies from my queue at the rate I prefer. Now I don't know the profile of the average Netflix user, but here's how I am. I have all spots 500 spots, filled in my DVD queue, every week, starting early Sunday morning usually, like around one or two am, when I go to netflix.com/AllNewReleases, and they update the new releases on DVD for that week. They do it badly, because it's hardly everything they typically get in, and they've taken to a stupid practice of not informing their readers of when new seasons of TV series are now available on DVD, but I do that and I also use another site, videoeta.com to show what's newly available on DVD this week. If you're wondering what my big complaint about Netflix is, despite my numerous other complaints, believe it or not, my big complaint is the 500 DVDs is not enough. (This is on top of what is about 400 films listed in my Instant Queue, which I just haven't gotten around to filling) Despite all the other stupid business decisions and crazy-ass shit they tried over the past couple years or so, that still is my biggest complaint. During these rare occasions when I don't have Netflix available, I usually spend my time borrowing movies from my local library, which more should take advantage of, especially if your local library is apart of a library system like mine is, and has an online catalog/database, because sure enough, a lot of the things you might want, there's a chance that they'll eventually have it. I also go there, 'cause it's easier to stream movies on their computers, but also give me a limited amount of time, to do that, but I do take advantage, and usually I watch Netflix for that. I also use Netflix, as my first resource for the library (as well as any video store/Redbox I may happen to make a rare visit too [Although I wish those visits weren't as rare as they are now, especially the ones to video stores]), because the first movies I look for are movies that are already on my Netflix list. That way, I can knock one or more films off, and then, put on another one. In case, you're wondering, and for those familiar with my Aquarian list-making obsession, I have typed-out, and constantly-updated lists of movies and TV shows, which are on waitlist, to be on my Netflix lists. So, the John Nashian lengths I go to, to watch as many things as I can, are very elaborate. So, and this is where Hulu.com comes in, when I can't constantly update my Netflix at the rate I need to, for whatever reason or another, that's when I start to cruise Hulu.com, for any movies, that, you guessed it, happened to be on my Netflix queue, and actually, I've found quite a few, and many of them were free, not to mention a lot of movies that I would like to watch, but I just haven't had time or space to put them on my queue yet, and of course, what Hulu.com is really good at, having loads of television, past and present. Although, if you're anything like me, the only times I really check out the television options on Hulu are when I absolutely have to watch a TV show, that's usually either on cable, or happens to be an episode I missed, and it's available on Hulu.com, which believe it or not, really narrows it down, and frankly I prefer to watch DVDs of whole series, if possible. Although, once in a while, I have to admit, I do need a random laugh, so I pop on Hulu, and find a random "Family Guy" episode. (Or occasionally, "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia", when that's available. And once in a blue moon, "Archer".)
So generally, that's how I use these products, but lately, I've run out of most of the free films on Hulu.com that I can watch that also are on my Netflix, at least as far as I can tell. I wasn't gonna go searching every movie on my Netflix queue on Hulu, just to double check... again. That can be annoying, so, I certainly know that I have a bunch of movies, on Netflix, that are on Hulu Plus, which is Hulu's premium service, and includes, the Criterion Collection, along with a bunch of other movies (Usually stupid ones) that they also supply, so I'm going on Hulu.com as much as I can this week, to knock off films on my Netflix queue. I have to. I know there's other streaming sites available if I just looked for awhile, or paid for, but if I can't afford it, but honestly I don't like the idea of doing that either, in case I happen to run into and/or stream something perhaps shouldn't legally have been available for streaming, (I am a full-fledge supporter against illegal downloading/streaming, and I tend to like to practice what I preach, although I'm not gonna lie, that can get difficult sometimes.) and many of the other sites I'd have to pay for anyway, so it's a lost cause, and I'd rather use these two, which generally are the most effective. And frankly, even the library's availabilites, can at times be limiting. I only have a seven DVD limit at my library, for instance, I can't have more than 7 DVDs out at one time. (I do have the use of multiple library cards for just this problem, but sometimes that can be tricky as well.)
If I have a choice though, I will almost always use Netflix first. This goes back to my personal belief that streaming movies is not the future, if for no other reason than because, the only way that that would actually work is that, everybody would have to have a powerful enough computer to stream movies (Which not everybody has, believe it or not techies), and be able to stream, literally, every available film/tv shows, etc., on one site. (It would have to be on one site BTW, somebody gotta's eventually win this war) There can be multiple options, but everything that can ever be available, has to be available, and were farther from having that comprehensive a database than anybody wants to admit, so until then, there's going to be some place for DVDs. I prefer it to be a video store, than a Redbox, but as long as Netflix is around, I'll take that. (Although, Netflix also, has to do a better job at making every available DVD available on their site {ie. first season of "Louie", Netflix! WTF is the problem with this?!}) I like Hulu fine, in fact, in many ways, I'd prefer streaming movies on Hulu than Netflix, but it's about having the ability to watch anything I can, anytime I want. Streaming TV shows, occasionally, streaming movies, I love it. Original series, for both of them, I'll try to get to them, eventually, many of them sounds good. In the meantime, Hulu.com, is a good cinephile methodome clinic. For people like me, it's good to use, when you're regular movie dealer is out-of-town, for awhile. It's a lot cheaper, and there's a decent selection when you look around, but ultimately, it's not gonna have everything you want to see, and you're gonna eventually have to switch back to the more powerful drug as soon as you can, even though you're aware that it can hurt you, and has the tendency to screw you up bad, and a lot more, if you aren't careful, but at least, they'll give you the full amount of your fix, until your satisfied. Alright, I probably could've come up with a better metaphor, but you get the idea.
Basically, it depends on what you want. If you want to watch a lot of TV, and I certainly believe wholeheartedly everybody should have a certain extensive knowledge of television, than Hulu.com is probably for you. (I'm not being facetious btw; too many people out there, should have a bigger TV knowledge than they do, especially teens and youths, learn about "Cheers," learn about "M*A*S*H", learn about...- learn as much as you can about TV. TV didn't start with Seinfeld reruns. It's as much apart of the American culture and lexicon as Shakespeare is. If you don't know who Ted Baxter is, you need to watch more television. Plain and simple.) If you watch enough TV already like me, because, we have a television, or seven, than Netflix will usually have most of the things you missed on DVD or streaming, plus most of the movies I haven't seen yet. That's my comparative analysis of Netflix and Hulu.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)