Saturday, July 19, 2008Felidae Release Year: 1994Country: Germany Starring the voices of: Ulrich Tukur, Klaus Maria Brandauer, Mario Andorf, Helge Schnieider, Wolfgang Hess, Gerhard Garbers, Ulrich Wildgruber, Mona Seefried, Manfred Steffen, Uwe Ochsenknecht, Michaela Amler, Christian Schneller, Tobias Lelle, Frank Roth, Alexandra Mink, Michael Habeck Writers: Martin Kluger, Akif Pirincci Director: Michael Schaack Music: Anne Dudley Producer: Hanno Huth The German-made animated feature Felidae has, at least at first glance, the slick commercial look of the type of Hollywood productions we're used to seeing from the likes of Disney and Don Bluth. If you're anything like me, that might prove to be a bit of a stumbling block, because, being that I'm no big fan of mainstream animation, that's not the type of cinematic experience I tend to seek out. And indeed, during its first few minutes I had some serious doubts about whether I was going to enjoy Felidae. Then came the moment when the film's protagonist, a feline detective by the name of Francis, stumbles across his first horribly mutilated kitty corpse, and I quickly realized that there were quite a few shades of difference between Felidae and Fievel Goes West. Based on the first of a series of novels by author Akif Pirincci, Felidae starts out like an especially grue-spattered boys' adventure (but with cats) and quickly turns into a bleak apocalyptic noir along the lines of Robert Aldrich's Kiss Me Deadly (again, but with cats). In the service of this dark vision, the filmmakers pile on the extreme gore and nightmarish imagery, still managing all the while to deliver a complex and compelling mystery. Needless to say, this isn't one to show the kids, and I would hesitate to recommend it to the more sensitive cat lovers out there. However, feline enthusiasts of a bit more two-fisted nature might find much to like, especially in the obvious respect and care that the filmmakers bring to the task of representing their titular creatures ("Felidae" being the name for the biological family to which cats belong). Both Pirincci (who scripted) and the animators charged with bringing his words to life do a pretty good job of providing their furry cast with feelings and motivations recognizable to humans without simply turning them into humans in cat drag. While these cats speak to each other in complete sentences and have an awareness of human doings far beyond what one might expect, there is no doubt that theirs is a world entirely "other" from the one that their oblivious owners inhabit. There's also been an effort not to sentimentalize the beasts; these tabbies, for all their anthropomorphic antics, are just as likely to casually display their buttholes, gulp down a passing fly, eat garbage and piss wherever they please as your own little Whiskers or Tigger. Oh, and they also screw -- and, as in life, it's no candlelight-and-Barry-White-on-the-stereo affair, but rather the same brutal spectacle of hissing, biting and forced penetration that plays out every day in suburban backyards from here to Munich and beyond. Felidae begins with Francis, who is gifted with an inquisitive temperament beyond that of the typical house cat, moving into a new neighborhood where a feline serial killer appears to be on the loose. While his newfound friend, a battle-scarred and foul-mouthed tom by the name of Bluebeard, shares the belief of the other cats in the neighborhood that the bloody murders are the work of a human, Francis thinks that the evidence points to another cat, and sets out to sniff out the culprit. His search brings him in contact with a messianic cat cult who worship a perhaps mythical super-feline martyred at the hands of a sadistic human scientist (and who express their worship through a ritual of mass self-electrocution); and later leads him to discover that the very house he and his owner have moved into may have been the site of the fabled atrocities -- which in reality go way beyond what anyone could previously have imagined. Francis is guided in his search by a series of vivid dreams which make up some of Felidae's most memorable -- and horrifying -- moments. I challenge anyone who has seen this film to forget the mentally scarring spectacle of a gigantic Gregor Mendel rising up from a vast feline killing field to wield hundreds of mangled cat corpses as marionettes. Another indelibly disturbing image occurs when Francis and Bluebeard stumble upon an underground catacomb filled with decomposing and skeletal cat remains -- at which point they realize that, contrary to what they thought, the killer they've been tracking is responsible for the murder of, not just several, but hundreds of their brothers and sisters. Images of mass graves and genocide abound in Felidae, as do references to eugenics and racial purity, and it is one of its flaws that its approach to allegory is just a bit too on-the-nose. (And, seriously, all you Germans who are far too young to have had any direct involvement in the Holocaust? We forgive you. Honestly.) Another for me is that, for a noir protagonist, Francis comes off as just a bit too bland and innocent -- bushy-tailed, if you will. An over-dependence on catnip might have been a nice touch in this regard, and in lieu of that, we might have at least got a better sense of the effect that Francis' descent into darkness has had on him. He appears to be less cynical about humans than the other cats in his new neighborhood (he is at first unfamiliar with the local term "can opener", which refers to humans in terms of what the cats see as their only useful function), and while he appears troubled by the human cruelty he witnesses, we don't really get much of a sense of him wrestling with any dissonance between his old and new perceptions. Still, these are all minor complaints in light of what Felidae accomplishes. Given both its concept and execution, its novelty value is guaranteed. But that it goes beyond that to deliver such a solid and involving mystery, rife with powerful moments and some nasty shocks, is something to be celebrated. One might think that having cartoon kitty-cats prancing across the screen would work against the consistent atmosphere of oppressive dread this story calls for (even if those kitty-cats are doing some pretty awful things), but the finished product proves otherwise. Furthermore, on a technical level, Felidae is -- if a little slick at times for my taste -- gorgeous. A glance at the various credits of the large, international crew of animators who worked on the film indicates that they were among the most accomplished professionals in the business at the time. In addition to the solid character design and studied believability of the movements, the backgrounds are beautiful without exception -- rich with color and lush detail to an extent that they sometimes threaten to upstage the foreground action. Given that high level of technical artistry, I'm glad that Felidae was made in 1994 -- rather than today, when it would undoubtedly have been done with CGI. CGI is to me intrinsically post-modern, always seeming to be about nothing so much as itself -- constantly, by way of its very resemblance to live action, calling attention to the trick that it's pulling on the audience as it's doing it. As such, it might be fine for films that are just an episodic series of gags, but in service of a sustained narrative -- especially one that requires the attention to detail that Felidae's does -- it's just a distraction. Drawn animation is definitely the ideal medium for creating the kind of enclosed reality that's needed for us to invest ourselves in a vision as quirky as Felidae's. Given that, this film should stand as a testament to the viability of that medium in the face of the increasingly indistinguishable CGI features that hog our theater screens each holiday season. Felidae, though in German (the original voice cast includes a number of noted German actors, including Klaus Maria Brandauer), oddly features an English language theme song sung by Boy George. There also exists a perfectly acceptable English language dub, which can be found on the German DVD release (which, sadly, doesn't include English subtitles for the German language version). All of this indicates that it was made with an eye toward an overseas release, which is not surprising given the obviously high financial investment that went into it. Yet chances are that you have never even heard of it, much less seen it. That it never received a theatrical release in America is a no-brainer; distributors would undoubtedly have hit a mental logjam trying to market a movie that looks on the surface like a family film but plays out like an angst-ridden version of The Aristocats as imagined by Eli Roth. But surely there are enough people here in the states who would love this orphaned little cinematic tabby -- who would take it into their homes, let it curl up in front on the fire, and then rip their throats out -- to merit it's release on domestic DVD. Labels: Anime and Animation, Country: Germany, Film Noir, Year: 1994 posted by Todd at 5:23 PM | 7 Comments Friday, April 06, 2007Macao
1952, United States. Starring Robert Mitchum, Jane Russell, William Bendix, Thomas Gomez, Gloria Grahame, Brad Dexter, Edward Ashley, Philip Ahn, Vladimir Sokoloff. Directed by Josef von Sternberg and Nicholas Ray. Written by Stanley Rubin and Bernard C. Schoenfeld. Buy it from Amazon
Macao starring one of Teleport City's favorite half-asleep actors, Robert Mitchum, is an exceptionally good thriller, not exactly a noir film but a solid old school crime thriller with good pacing, cool characters, and a great twist. Despite the exotic setting, it doesn't bank too heavily on the "shadowy Chinatown" style of filmmaking, and there are no Caucasians in fake eyelids parading about. Actually, no, there is apparently one, but it's so well done that i didn't even notice. In fact, there are very few Asian characters at all, other than a couple of assassins and a lot of background extras. Instead, the film focuses on a small group of ex-patriots who have converged on the infamously decadent and borderline lawless Portuguese colony. Big time crook Vincent Halloran runs an upscale gambling parlor in the colony, where he must stay, a spider trapped in his own web, for fear of the British police waiting to arrest him for a whole host of crimes committed in Hong Kong, the most recent of which involved the murder of an undercover cop from New York. Unfortunately for the Brits, they have no jurisdiction in Macao, and the corrupt Portuguese officials are happy to have Halloran in their country. Enter a trio of Americans who arrive via steamer for a variety of reasons. Tough talking brunette Julie (Jane Russell) is looking to start over as a singer, after wandering the world and becoming disillusioned with its inhabitants. Goofy salesman Lawrence Trumble (William Bendix) is looking to set up shop and make some cash selling an array of junk. And mysterious wanderer and ex-soldier Nick Cochran (Mitchum) doesn't seem to have any real purpose in Macao, though the fact that he is from New York clues Holloran and his toadie police chief Sebastian (Thomas Gomez) into the fact that Cochran is there looking to take Holloran down for the murder of the other New York cop. So begins a cat and mouse game involving guys in awesome old suits. Halloran hires Julie to sing in his nightclub and tries to pay Cochran to get the hell out of town. Cochran never seems overly interested or disinterested in Halloran's offers, but the two become wary business partners when Trumble -- who seems to be slightly more crooked than his "golly gee" exterior lets on -- brings Cochran in on a deal to sell a posh diamond necklace to Halloran. The only hitch is that the necklace is in Hong Kong, and if Halloran leaves Macao, the Hong Kong cops will nab him as soon as he's three miles off the coast. The only problem Cochran runs into with the deal is that Halloran recognizes the diamonds as coming from a necklace he himself is the owner of. I'm frequently impressed by how lean yet well-developed the plots of so many old movies are. I mean, this is a pretty basic story: gangster kills a cop, hides out in a lawless haven, and another cop goes in to bring him out. And yet the plot is so expertly executed, the dialog is so good, and the actors are so committed to their roles that the movie becomes substantial. Modern movies rely heavily on convoluted, tangled plots and sub-plots to flesh out running time and compensate for bland or shallow characters. In Macao, the plot is secondary, just a way to explain why these people are here. The movie belongs to the actors, and it's a pretty fabulous cast. Russell is picture perfect as the femme fatale of the piece, tough and sassy but also kind and romantic when the time is right. She plays the disillusioned woman of the world well, never veering into the realm of caricature or over-the-top cartoonishness. She's thoroughly believable as Julie. Ditto our man Mitchum. Robert Mitchum is probably my all-time favorite actor. Everything about him is cool, and no man ever made high-waist pants look so slick. When he was younger, my grandpa Harley used to style himself after Mitchum as much as possible: same style of clothes, same hair, same swagger, and I have to say, if ever there was a man worthy of emulation, Robert Mitchum was certainly him. Brad Dexter is deliciously sinister as the big boss, who is equal parts businessman and gangster, more than happy to avoid conflict if he can bribe his way out of it. Rounding out the core cast, William Bendix is great as the amiable traveling salesman who is revealed to be more than he seems. Mitchum and Russell were the reason the movie was made. After their successful pairing in His Kind of Woman (which is similar to Macao in some ways and features an outstanding performance by Vincent Price, among others), legendary producer and batshit insane dude with Kleenex boxes on his feet, Howard Hughes, was keen on making the most of the success of and chemistry between the two -- though it would seem that his primary goal was oriented far more around Russell than Mitchum, who was already an established leading man's man. And most of Hughes interest in building up Russell seemed to be focused on his enormous bustline rather than her acting prowess. Russell does a good job here, despite where Hughes' eyes may have been. I referred to her as a femme fatale, but that's not entirely correct, just as Macao isn't really film noir. She's not there to lead the hero to his destruction or anything. If the film has anything close to a femme fatale, it's Gloria Grahame as Holloran's number one dice thrower. For my money, Grahame's looks blow Russell out of the water, and her character here is a good mix of femme fatale and wounded lover. I would have loved to see her get a more substantial role in this movie. And this movie belongs to them, the actors, not to the plot. This is definitely an actor's film, and the story is there to serve the development of these characters and their interaction with one another. The only real subplot involves Margie (Gloria Grahame), a woman in the employ of Halloran and who seems to be in love with her dashing but dangerous boss. She is none too happy when Julie shows up and catches Halloran's eye. But other than that, screenwriters keep things nice and streamlined. If I haven't mentioned it before, I really dig old black and white "Chinatown intrigue" movies. I've gone over the key ingredients before: secret passages, elegant gambling clubs, sinister assassins with curved daggers lurking in the shadows. I can watch pretty much anything that contains these elements. Drawing from the pulp stories of guys like Sax Rohmer (if you want the full run down on the history of Sax Rohmer and Yellow Peril pulps, check out our review of Face of Fu Manchu), shady Chinatown shenanigans became a staple of the Poverty Row B-movie quickies that were churned out to fill out the undercard in theaters during the 30s and 40s. Most of these movies weren't very good, and most of them didn't seem to know a whole lot about Asia or Asians (elements of Japanese and Chinese culture and style are freely mixed depending on how little the writer knew). When Rohmer was writing, you were free to hate, fear, and understand all Asians equally. Once World War II started, Chinese were good guys and Japanese were inscrutable evil demons. Then there was the Communist revolution, and someone had to go back into their own Yellow Peril propaganda leaflets and swap the two nationalities, so that the Japanese were our buddies and the Chinese were a hulking red menace poised to crush the entire world beneath the weight of Communism. A number of higher profile films also relied on Western infatuation with and anxiety over the exoticism and alleged inaccessibility various Asian cultures. Highest profile among these would be the Charlie Chan films, which traded heavily in spooky Chinatown stuff and walked a thin path between Ogami Ito's two lakes of fire. On the one hand, Charlie Chan and his Chinese pals were the heroes, and the white folks were usually revealed to be either incompetent boobs or villains. On the other hand, Chan himself was played by a Caucasian actor in fake eyelids and false teeth, throwing out a lot of "Ah so" and "honorable grandfather say" dialog. In my opinion, the final tally is in favor of Charlie Chan being more positive than negative when it comes to race relations. A clumsy looking step by today's standards, but then, today's standards are pretty much all talk, no action, as we've gone from employing fake Asians to be cool characters to employing real Asians to be kungfu guys. It's a shame there's still a stigma attached to the name of Charlie Chan, though, because many of the early movies were really quite good, and it's an idea that's ripe with remake potential (preferably in a period setting, as a modern-day Charlie Chan wouldn't be as cool). The one person I've heard lately speaking about desire to resurrect the franchise is, of all people, Lucy Liu. More power to her, says I. Well, I says that and also, "I love your freckles." Although Chan was the marquee character, there were plenty of others cut from the same cloth. Hungarian horror and noir film icon Peter Lorre played Japanese super-sleuth Mister Moto in a long-running and generally high-quality series of films. Boris Karloff did time as the Mysterious Mr. Wong, and Fu Manchu was always lurking somewhere in the background. Related to these Chinatown movies were movies set in China, usually in Hong Kong, with its intriguing blend of ancient Chinese mystery and recognizable to the West imperial British rule. You could spice up a mundane thriller pretty well if you simply plopped it down in "the Orient." Macao was directed by Josef von Sternberg, last seen here as the director of another fabulous "Orient noir" set in a lawless Casbah-esque location, 1941's The Shanghai Gesture. The two films would make a fabulous double bill (one could imagine that you'd catch a steamer from Shanghai to Macao and find it captained by Clark Gable a la China Seas). As with The Shanghai Gesture, and as with all of his films, von Sternberg applies meticulous detail to the look of his film. Despite the title and the setting, Macao is not steeped in Orientalism or exoticism. The key locations are a hotel and Halloran's nightclub, and although both bear the obvious stamp of being Chinese in design, neither is excessively so. The primary function of Macao isn't t be alien or exotic; it's to serve as a criminal haven. One could have just as easily set this film in The Casbah, or 1930s Shanghai, or any place where the threads of international law begin to fray and those who would cut them are able to find sanctuary. Unlike The Shanghai Gesture, Macao doesn't revel in or become intoxicated by the decadence of the setting. It is fairly sedate by comparison, though this shouldn't imply that it is in any way less elegant in its design. The men all look sharp, clad in tuxedos and pale, tropical weight suits. Jane Russell parades through the film in a number of swanky looking dresses and ornate pieces of jewelry. Where as the casino in The Shanghai Gesture was a hallucinogenic, near dreamlike palace of vice and shady, doomed souls, Halloran's casino in Macao is much less symbolic affair. It is, by and large, simply a casino, treated by the art design as a place of business rather than as some twisted den of pleasure and destruction. Halloran's office is an office. It has nice decor, but it's just an office -- a far cry from Mother Gin Sling's ornate office that bordered on throne room. But both settings serve their inhabitant well. Halloran is, after all, a very real-world crooked businessman, and his main concern is maintaining his power and making cash. Gin Sling was a half-mad woman bent on revenge, and her primary goal was to destroy in the most elaborate way possible those she saw as having ruined her. Running a casino was little more than a means to the end of revenge. I said earlier that Macao, despite coming from the era of the noir film and being a film about cops and criminals, isn't exactly noir. It certainly has elements of the noir film -- the mysterious and flawed protagonist, the powerful businessman/criminal, crooked cops, and a hard-as-nails dame -- but it lacks a certain claustrophobic bleakness (and close-ups of the faces of sweating guys in undershirts) that informs the noir film. We may have haunted characters, but they are not hopeless or self-destructive. Von Sternberg infuses Macao with less a sense of desperation and more a sense of adventure. Julie and Nick Cochran would be more at home among the ranks of globe-trotting thrill-seekers than they would the damned and depressed denizens of noir, and Macao has more in common with high-spirited adventure fare like China Seas than with noir films like A Touch of Evil. Despite being a crime film, Macao is just too snappy, and too much fun, to really be considered noir. It also sports a sense of humor, though it's hardly a comedy. Bedix's Trumble is the closest thing the movie comes to having a comic relief character, and he's hardly comic relief. He just gets in a few jokes. What comedy there is, is subdued and pretty effective. And there are no "wacky Oriental" characters (just an assassin and an old man), and at no point do I recall that musical snippet -- you know the one -- that usually plays whenever an Asian character enters a scene. This was von Sternberg's final film, and by all accounts, it was a troubled production. Von Sternberg himself hadn't worked for a while when the infamous Howard Hughes tapped him as director for this film. Von Sternberg found Hughes an impossible producer who forced too many meddling clowns" into the affair, and both Mitchum and Russell developed an intense dislike for von Sternberg on account of the way he treated his crew. Things got so bad that, at some point, Mitchum flat out refused to work with von Sternberg any further, and von Sternberg was summarily dismissed and replaced by top notch noir director Nicholas Ray (They Live By Night, In a Lonely Place, and later Rebel without a Cause and King of Kings). Despite this, the film still remains largely the vision of von Sternberg. As with The Shanghai Gesture, it seems Macao is largely overshadowed by what many critics dwell on as his signature masterpiece, The Blue Angel. Despite the troubled production and the need to call in Ray to finish (and reshoot much of) the film, I found Macao to be an extremely enjoyable adventure film, with a decent sense of romance, nice sets, and great cast anchored by the chemistry between Mitchum and Russell. A snappy script with a good sense of humor and a great (and surprising) twist make it, if not must-see swanky cinema, then at least should-see cinema. Labels: Action: Adventure, Director: Josef von Sternberg, Director: Nicholas Ray, Film Noir, Stars: Robert Mitchum, Year: 1952 posted by Keith at 6:47 PM | 0 Comments Monday, November 28, 2005The Shanghai Gesture
1941, United States. Starring Ona Munson, Gene Tierney, Walter Huston, Victor Mature, Phyllis Brooks, Mike Mazurki. Directed by Josef von Sternberg. Adapted by Josef von Sternberg from the play by John Colton. Purchase from Amazon.com.
If you ever want to see a scene that perfectly captures a heady air of decadence and mania without going all over the top and Caligula on you, look no further than the scene in Josef von Sternberg's The Shanghai Gesture that introduces us to the opulent gambling parlor operated by the enigmatic Mother Gin Sling (Ona Munson). Centered above the main gambling floor, the shot assumes a bird's eye view of the hall and its inhabitants as it spiral downward into the fray, where people drink, gamble, and flirt with an orgiastic glee as the delirious music swells. It's an incredibly effective and a perfect way to sum up this oddball noir drama set in the indulgent underbelly of Shanghai just prior to World War II. Shanghai at that time was the hub of Asia, a rich seaport that every country wanted to control and where every two-bit con artist, hustler, adventurer, gambler, mercenary, and romantic could go to chase their dreams of fame, fortune, and power. It was Weimar Germany in Asia, complete with a citizenry too bleary-eyed from the decadent lifestyle prevalent in the city to realize that fascism and war was knocking on their door. The city was split up among various foreign powers all vying for increased control of the city. France had their own concession, but the International Settlement was the hub of Shanghai, and it was controlled largely by the British tai pans with input from American and French representatives as well as, as the war progressed and Japan expanded its conquest of China, Japan and Germany. The Chinese inhabitants were largely second-class citizens banned from entry into the city's most popular places, though a number of the country's most powerful and most famous native criminals flourished. The population of Shanghai was truly diverse, comprised of the aforementioned nationalities as well as a massive number of Indian Sikhs, Russians and Eastern European Jews seeking asylum from the Communist Revolution and escalating Nazi persecution, respectively. Set against this backdrop is the story of the Shanghai Gesture, the archetypical story of a collection of "damned souls" collected together to smoke and betray one another. Sitting in the center of the web is Mother Gin Sling, owner of one of the largest gambling and drinking establishments in the city. Ona Munson is obviously not Chinese, but if you watch old movies dealing with Asian characters, that's nothing out of the ordinary. However, The Shanghai Gesture opts for an almost absurd approach to itself. Everything is larger than life and informed by von Sternberg's penchant for the highly stylized, artistic approach of German expressionism. Thus Ona Munson isn't just a Caucasian actor in fake eyelids. She's an over-the-top near-parody of the commonplace Caucasian actor masquerading as an Asian character. Her costumes are wild, her hair and eye makeup greatly exaggerated. I doubt this was any sort of political or social commentary on whites playing Asians as much as it was simply part of von Sternberg's overall absurdist aesthetic. Enter into the picture British tycoon Sir Guy Charteris (Walter Huston), who wants to shut Gin Sling's debauched palace down to make room for his own developments and plans for the city. Rounding out the cast of characters caught in the web are Charteris' naive daughter (Gene Tierney, The Ghost and Mrs. Muir, Laura) who becomes corrupted by the pleasures and sins offered at the nightclub, brassy blonde Dixie (Phyllis Brooks) who comes to Shanghai and ends up getting a job at the nightclub, and suave ladies' man and con artist Doctor Omar (Victor Mature -- young and dashing enough to demonstrate why he was, at one time, considered a major matinee idol), who seduces both Phyllis and Victoria Charteris -- who goes by the nickname Poppy, as a not-too-subdued allusion to an addiction and to the original story's opium den setting. Sir Guy and Mother Gin Sling try to outmaneuver one another, resulting in a Lunar new Year's feast in which Gin Sling calls together to corrupted souls that form the nucleus of the story (as well as a few random others just to fill out the place settings) and reveals a series of dark secrets that she hopes will keep everything and everyone under her control. The Shanghai Gesture was originally a play set in an opium den, but when it made the leap to the silver screen, censors balked at the idea of having it set in such an unsavory place. Since gambling was considered a more Hayes Code-friendly vice than opium smoking, they made the switch. Beyond that, I'll confess total ignorance of the contents of the play, and so won't comment on how the movie compares. As a movie, though, it is fabulous. Von Sternberg, who honed his skills at creating decadence in films like The Blue Angel, expertly creates an air of sated over-indulgence in which sin and seduction has become so commonplace that the inhabitants of the city have lost all moral bearing. The sets are grand and spectacular despite this being a relatively low budget production filmed entirely on sound stages. Nothing is realistic, but everything is believable. It has a tremendous sense of style that creates grand scope where there might otherwise be none, and not until In the Mood for Love would a period film set in a not-too-distant Chinese city create such fervor for art and fashion. If you are ever searching for a great theme for a party, look no further than this movie. Ona Munson's Gin Sling wardrobe is outlandish and gorgeous, and Victor Mature looks picture-perfect as the chain-smoking Arab playboy in a smart slim-cut suit and fez. Walter Huston also appears every bit the staunch and condescending British authoritarian, though he manages to invest his character with a sense of dignity and reserve that keeps him from becoming unlikable. This is largely a plot and character driven piece, and the actors have complete command of the characters and dialogue. Despite the machinations and air of decay, there is also a sweeping sense of romance, though it's hardly the sort of romance that makes the covers of romance novels. The Shanghai Gesture exaggerates the state of Shanghai at the time, but only just, and the whole thing take son a dreamy, almost narcotic appeal. It's hard not to want to lose yourself in the neon-drenched back alleys and glittering nightclubs, even though you know it's ultimately going to destroy you. There are worse ways to go, after all. More than anything else, this movie is about creating a particular atmosphere. You can't take your eyes off the movie. It completely pulls you into this bizarre Sodom and Gomorrah of alcoholics and romantics, crushed souls and vengeful rivals. The Shanghai Gesture isn't an especially well-known title these days, even with the noir revival that has been brought on by the release of so many old films on DVD. But don't let its obscurity relative to something like The Maltese Falcon fool you. It deserves much more attention than it gets, and it illustrates one of the forgotten traits of a lot of great noir films; the willingness to be experimental and completely weird in a way that makes everything seem absurd yet somehow still utterly believable. Labels: Film Noir, Netflix Diary posted by Keith at 4:29 PM | 0 Comments Sunday, November 20, 2005The Big Sleep
1946, United States. Starring Humphrey Bogart, Lauren Bacall, John Ridgely, Martha Vickers, Dorothy Malone, Peggy Knudsen, Regis Toomey, Charles Waldron, Charles D. Brown, Bob Steele, Elisha Cook Jr., Louis Jean Heydt. Directed by Howard Hawks. Written by William Faulkner. Purchase from Amazon.com.
It's not every day you see a line-up like this: original book by Raymond Chandler, screenplay by William Faulkner, with Howard Hawks directing and Humphrey Bogart in the lead role as iconic hardboiled private eye Philip Marlowe. That's an all-star assembly of talent if ever there was one. Still, tackling such a great book is always risky business, and since The Big Sleep is one of my favorites, I was anxious to see what they'd do with the source material, which isn't unfilmable by any stretch of the imagination but does contain certain quirks and oddities that would make it tricky material to handle. No need to worry, because the film adaptation succeeds at faithfully following most of the book while taking a few Hollywood liberties that don't betray the original story -- though I'd have been happier with the book's ending being shot instead of the film's revision, but that's minor for me. Los Angeles private eye Philip Marlowe (Bogart, who was custom made for the role) is hired by an wealthy old man to suss out the validity of a blackmail attempt and determine whether the man should just pay up or try to get rough with the blackmailer. At the center of the controversy is one of the old man's two daughters (Martha Vickers). She's a wild one with all sorts of kinks the old man either doesn't know about or, more likely, simply pretends not to know about. The other sister, Vivian (Lauren Bacall) is more reserved, though like anyone in this type of film, she too has her vices and secrets (gambling being the primary one). She is convinced that her father has hired Marlowe to find a missing man, a sentiment shared by many of the cops, thugs, hustlers, and crime bosses Marlowe encounters as he tracks the blackmail scheme and, invariably, gets involved in a rind that includes murder, pornography, and kidnapping -- among other things. Chandler always packed his books with a dizzying number of outlandish yet still believable plot twists, and Faulkner's screenplay does its best to cram as many as possible into the 114 minute running time. So what does the movie do right? Pretty much everything. In my opinion, this is Bogart's best role -- better even than Casablanca and Treasure of the Sierra Madre, better even than High Sierra or The Maltese Falcon. Bogart's possibly my favorite actor (in as much as I can make up my mind about such things), and he's perfect for the role of the world-weary Marlowe, who puts on a tough guy act but whose character is underscored by a sense of chivalry and melancholy loneliness. Bogart captures all the aspects that make Marlowe such a compelling literary character, and he handles the quips and comedy -- which are an equally essential part of Marlowe -- with perfect timing and delivery. The best compliment you can pay an actor inhabiting the skin of a literary character, as I see things, is to say that the actor plays it the way you would want to see it played. That's what Bogart does. He says the lines the way I wanted them to be said, perfectly and absolutely. His partner in crime is Lauren Bacall, still an acting neophyte at the time of this production and in rather a precarious situation. Although she'd received accolades for her role in her debut film, To Have and Have Not, critics savaged her sophomore role in Confidential Agent. If she got nailed with another round of negative reviews, it would pretty much mean the end of her career (as there were no Sci-Fi Channel Original Movies at the time). As it's told, her work in The Big Sleep was less than stellar, resulting in her agent requesting that Hawks go back and refilm certain scenes to give Bacall a second chance and avoid what could be a career-ending performance. Since Hawks obviously had a vested interest in making the best movie possible, he agreed and months after shooting had wrapped, he rounded up key members of the cast and reshot a number of scenes. The result was exactly what everyone hoped for. The chemistry between Bacall and Bogart crackles with energy, and not just because they would become eventual real-life husband and wife. Cinema is littered with the corpses of husband-wife duets in which their characters exhibit absolutely no connection and chemistry. It helps, of course, that Bogie and Bacall had Chandler's dialogue to work with. Faulkner sticks pretty closely to a lot of Chandler's language, and when he veers from the source, he still manages to perfectly blend new material with the original. The back and forth between the principles is wonderful, easily one of the best pairings in film history. I'm not even a very big fan of Lauren Bacall, but with close direction, a strong script, and Bogart to bounce things off of, she turns in a world-class performance. That said, I prefer the original cut of the film, at least in certain regards. There are scenes in it -- specifically between Marlowe, the cops, and the assistant DA -- that are crucial to making more sense of the plot. I've never understood why the later version of the film cut that scene. The DVD release contains both versions of the film. The later version is definitely better for Bacall; the earlier version is definitely better for the plot. As it's cut in the 1946 "final" release, the plot becomes even more incomprehensible than in the 1944 version. But it's not like Chandler's source material was all that straight-forward. Reportedly, Howard Hawks contacted Chandler himself to sort out some details, specifically about who killed the Sternwood family butler. Upon rereading his own story, reviewing his notes, and thinking about it a while, Chandler told Hawks he wasn't really sure. I'm thankful both cuts are on the disc, because they're both spectacular films. Marlowe's running narrative is what makes Chandler's books good, but the assortment of deliciously bizarre and seedy supporting characters is what often elevates them to the sublime. Hawks relies on a host of solid supporting actors to bring the world of Philip Marlowe to life. The key to Chandler's books has always been that they take place in a slightly askew universe. Certain coincidences occur to propel the story forward, but within the confines of the world he constructs, Chandler's stories follow the rules they set for themselves. The Big Sleep is a world of decadent libertines and crazy nympho girls, of harried cops and slick gamblers, petty blackmailers and three-time-losers. Faulkner's screenplay doesn't leave any of them out, though they do crank down some of the more controversial aspects of the book to placate the Hayes Code censors (the homosexual relationship between two of the supporting characters is overt in the book but only hinted at in the movie). As I said, Faulker was smart enough to realize how brilliant Chandler's original novel was, and he doesn't monkey around with it too much (the story goes that Hawks was given $50,000 to get the rights to The Big Sleep. He managed to get them for $5,000 and then pocketed the remainder). There are minor differences here and there, but the only major change is to the ending. The identity of a killer is changed, certain guilty characters are made less guilty, and instead of Marlowe heading off alone into the sunset, he gets a sunnier finale. It is Hollywood, after all, and although the era and private eye aspect of the movie means it's inevitably tagged as film noir, it's not really nihilistic enough to really deserve the moniker (Chandler's books, for that matter, are also generally more comical and his protagonists nicer and more heroic than you'd get in "true" noir fiction). Faulkner's alteration of the ending, while obviously parting substantially from the book, isn't bad. I didn't see anything wrong with the original ending, but I guess if you have to have a happier wrap-up, this one is pretty good. Movies like this are why I keep watching movies. OK, yeah. Movies like this and Holy Virgin Versus the Evil Dead. It's rare that you have so many brilliant players hitting on all cylinders -- too many geniuses often results in an unholy mess, and while The Big Sleep certainly flirts with confusion, it's never incoherent. You just have to work at the plot a little. It's just about as close to perfection as a film can come. Labels: Director: Howard Hawks, Film Noir, Netflix Diary, Stars: Humphrey Bogart, Year: 1946 posted by Keith at 6:09 PM | 0 Comments Tuesday, August 31, 2004Band of Outsiders
1964, France. Starring Anna Karina, Louisa Colpeyn, Chantal Darget, Sami Frey, Ernest Menzer, Claude Brasseur, Jean-Luc Godard. Directed by Jean-Luc Godard. Buy it from Amazon
It's time for another Jean-luc Godard review, but where as I struggled with exactly what I should say in regards to Breathless, partially because it seems one of the most written-about films this side of Zombie Lake (which, disturbingly, seems to be one of the most reviewed movies on the internet), when it comes to Band of Outsiders, my problem is with having too much to say. So we'll start with the so-called general consensus: Band of Outsiders is Godard for people who don't much care for Godard. Where as I sometimes wonder if I like breathless simply because it's been pounded into my head that I like Breathless, or perhaps I'm mistaking admiration for Godard's daring break from convention with actual love for the film, there's no question in my mind that Band of Outsiders is a film I have quickly come to adore. Considered by some to be one of Godard's lighter films because it is more accessible and less maverick in its approach, Band of Outsiders still offers up a fine example of the French maverick at his best, and the fact that he doesn't imitate himself should be an example of Band of Outsiders' inventiveness rather than the other way around. Missing from the film, for the most part, are Godard's signature jump cuts and unsteady camera. In their place is one of his more conventional and straight-forward narratives. But don't let the surface simplicity of the film trick you. This is still Godard, and this is still the French New Wave. There's a lot boiling under the surface even if it's not as expressly obvious as in Breathless and the director's other, better known, and more celebrated works. Band of Outsiders tells the story of three people. Two of them, Franz (the smolderingly handsome Sami Frey) and Arthur (DeNiro-esque Claude Brasseur) are down-on-their-luck pulp entertainment nerds who fancy themselves real-life low lives. They're not, of course, and remind me of comic book nerds who think reading The Punisher or Wolverine makes them tough. The third is Odile, played by the divinely beautiful Anna Karina (the love of Godard's life, at least at the time, and his muse through the 1960s), a young woman who lives with an over-protective aunt and has told her English class mate, Franz, about a large sum of relatively unguarded money stashed in her home. Franz tells Arthur, and the two of them decide to coerce Odile into going along with a scheme to steal the money. There's just one problem: all three of them are idiots. Well, maybe not quite idiots. Childlike and naive is probably a more suitable description. Odile is so sheltered from the real world that she still dresses like a little school girl (something that seems perfectly acceptable to the men of the 1960s, and I guess the 1970s, and the 80s, and well, all men throughout the entire history of there being grown women dressing like schoolgirls). When she brags that she knows all about tongue kissing, she demonstrates to Arthur by closing her eye and sticking her tongue out as far as she can. Arthur and Franz are no better. They still run around pretending to be gangsters by shooting at each other with their fingers. Everything they know about being tough, they learned from American gangster movies, and neither has any experience with the real world. One look at the crime they're intending to pull off shows that it's painfully easy, and yet they botch it entirely. They meet to concoct a plan in a local cafe, but Franz and Arthur spend more time jockeying for the affections of Odile in a funny "musical chairs" bit in which each man keeps trying to trump the other in an attempt to sit next to the gamine Odile (why can I always describe women in Godard films as being "gamine." I guess he and I share a common taste). Like children, they can't focus on their purpose for even a few minutes. Ostensibly, Arthur and Franz are more interested in the money than Odile, or so they tell themselves. For Arthur, at least, it might be true, but that doesn't stop him from abandoning their plan to plan in order to flirt and engage in the film's signature scene as the trio, Odile in her schoolgirl dress and Franz's gangster fedora, dance the Madison. It's a simple scene, but you'll see it mentioned in every single review of the film. That's because it's infectiously charming, joyous, and simply a fun scene, maybe one of the best Godard ever shot. Reading a description of it will not do the scene justice, but even people who hate Godard can't help but smile and find themselves beguiled by Band of Outsiders' joyous charm during this scene. The whole "let's make a plan" scene reminded me of when I was young and played Dungeons & Dragons. Yes, I played D&D. I bet you did, too. I was an early adopter of the game, back when the red boxed "Basic" and blue boxed "Advanced" sets were sold, and everyone played Keep on the Borderlands a thousand times. Although this was right about the time people started making alarmist made-for-TV movies about how D&D would make Tom Hanks freak out and try to jump off skyscrapers because he thought he was wearing Elfen Boots of Jumping +3, our motley band of adventurers never resembled the candle-burning, cloak-wearing youths in the after-school specials. Generally, our meetings consisted of half an hour of character modification (ie, cheating), half an hour of consuming Stouffers' French bread pepperoni pizzas, and maybe an hour of game play, tops, in which we didn't follow any rules and had characters strolling about with three of four catapults and fifty crossbows in tow. If we sustained the game for an hour, it was a record, as usually our youthful zeal prevented us from concentrating on melee with kobolds in favor of running outside to play in the woods or going out back to play TRON by throwing racquetballs at each other. We could never focus on the task at hand, and watching Odile, Franz,a nd Arthur try to devise a burglary scheme was like watching myself try and concentrate on D&D. It was just more fun to dance the Madison. The trio finally stitch together the rudimentary basics of a plan far more complex than it needs to be. Given Odile's aunt's tendency to go out to society events, all they have to do is waltz in when they know she's gone and take the money. Anyone could do it, but Franz and Arthur are just too, well, stupid to think of it. They're too committed to playing it out like a movie, which requires masks and hostage taking and all sorts of other needless complications. In fact, one of the film's best attributes is the narrator, who in the scene after the trio of bumbling would-be criminals split up to carry out the plan, explains that Franz and Arthur waited until after dark, because that's always how it's done in bad B-movies. It doesn't occur to them, though it does to Godard, that B-movie heists almost never work. But even when things run terribly afoul, the trio doesn't seem to be able to deal with anything as real. It never seems to occur to them that this is anything but a scene from a movie. The fate of the aunt confuses me a bit. It's not much a spoiler to reveal that she's accidentally killed during the feeble burglary attempt, but later when the other occupant of the house comes home, we see a figure run to meet him at the door, wearing what looks to be the same white slip as the aunt. Which would lead one to assume that she wasn't dead at all, and Arthur and Franz just don't know how to tell if someone is actually dead. I watched the scene a couple times, even in slow-motion, but I can never tell if that is indeed the aunt who meets the other guy at the door. Thematically, either fate works, though our trio only mistakenly thinking she's dead maintains their likeability. The narrator pops in several more times. During the Madison dancing scene, he pops in to say something to the effect of, "Now would be a good time to review how each of our heroes is feeling, but that should be pretty obvious." He also gives a nonsensical run-down of the plot half-way through "for those who came into the theater late." And finally, in the end, one of the funnier and more poignant pieces of narration explains that they will leave the characters here, when they are happy and hopeful, instead of continuing on and revealing any failure and frustration they may experience later in life, once again, because that's how good pulp novels always do it. The deadpan narrator was an integral part of old film noir, so it's a natural device for Godard to adopt, though he does so with absurdly wonderful results. Though easier to follow and digest, Band of Outsiders shares much with Godard's previous homage to American B-movies, Breathless. Both feature characters who are looking to imitate their American idols. Where as Jean-Paul Belmondo's Michel really was a small-time hood, Franz and Arthur's "petty crook" status exists purely in the realm of fantasy. Franz is guilty of bad driving, but that's about it. Jean Seberg's Patricia in Breathless is a lost woman looking to become French just as her French boyfriend seeks to be more American, though neither of them really knows much about what that means as they've both formed their idea of what it is to be French or to be American based only on pop culture entertainment. None of the leads in Band of Outsiders are as world-weary as Michel and Patricia; they're too naïve for that. But all these characters share a common bond in that they've mistaken movies for reality. These themes are part of the reason modern directors like Quentin Tarantino are such big Godard fans.
Tarantino himself is like a character out of a Godard film, someone who has constructed his ideas purely out of what he's seen in movies. But then he takes it even further by making movies based on identifying with movies. Where original writers drew from life experience, Tarantino draws from the experience of watching the experiences of others on screen. Yeah, it all goes around and around, doesn't it? Tarantino even adapts the Madison scene from Band of Outsiders for his dancing scene in Pulp Fiction, but by that point I'd lost track of where modernism meets post-modernism meets post-post-modernism, or whatever. All I know is that like Michel, like Arthur, like those guys who read The Punisher, Tarantino thinks he's tough because he makes tough guy movies. In that sense, he manages to both be similar to Godard and be a character from a Godard movie. Now where was I? Oh yes, Band of Outsiders and Breathless, but I think I'm finished with that for now. Let's move on to the performances. No wait, maybe I'm not done with Breathless, because I'm about to mention it again. The performances in Breathless were often purposely stilted, deadpan, and remote, with characters staring blank-eyed into the camera and reciting their lines lifelessly. Godard doesn't rely on that technique for Band of Outsiders, where the acting is much less stylized and more "believable." All three leads have incredible charisma, with Arthur being the most obviously dangerous of the three, the kind of guy who sees lots of movies and fancies himself a tough guy and might one day just haul off and stab someone out of delusion. Chalk that up to the fact that he lives with overbearing, clingy relatives and an uncle who seems to be a real-life hood. And Anna Karina - what can I say? It's obvious why the characters, and even Godard himself, can't keep their minds on crime when she's around. She's a stunning beauty, and her childlike innocence mixed with a desire to understand more of the world makes for a charming character. She's never really played for sexual appeal, though she certainly has it. She's like a girl at summer camp who is just noticing the fact that boys notice her. And not to leave the other sex out of the equation, actor Sami Frey has the dark, slightly sinister good looks of an genuine film noir matinee idol. Not being adept at writing about music, all I have to say about the score is that it is utterly fantastic. Cool, swiging, jazzy -- simply perfect.
The script by Godard, based on a pulp novel by Dolores Hitchens, is as I said, far more straight-forward and accessible than his other work. But then, most of his scripts are pretty straight-forward; it's how he handles them that makes them seem strange. But since the direction here is less "arty," Band of Outsiders seems like a more straight-forward film. It's a good way to ease yourself into Godard. Though it doesn't boast his signature directorial flourishes, it does contain most of his important themes and reflect his love for noir B-movies and desire to both praise and poke fun at their conventions. The sign of great satire, which people seem not to remember these days, is that you poke fun at a film or type of film without seeming snide while, at the same time, being a fine example of the type of film at which you're poking fun. A satirical gangster film, then, has to also be a good gangster film. Band of Outsiders pulls this off with aplomb. It also showcases Godard's love for picking apart film making in general, though less directly than he would later do in films like Contempt. Band of Outsiders is a gangster movie, and it's a movie about gangster movies. But you can ignore all that, because none of it is really in your face. Ultimately, what Band of Outsiders is a uniquely enjoyable, imminently delightful celebration of a film. It certainly doesn't deserve to be considered "Godard lite" or "one of his lesser films." It's every bit as clever, funny, and biting as anything the director has done, only more likeably so. It may not be Godard at his heaviest, or Godard at his best, but it's Godard at his most entertaining; Godard at his wittiest. And that's the Godard for me. Labels: Country: France, Director: Jean-luc Godard, Film Noir, Netflix Diary, Year: 1964 posted by Keith at 6:44 PM | 1 Comments Tuesday, July 27, 2004Breathless Release Year: 1960Country: France Starring: ean-Paul Belmondo, Jean Seberg, Daniel Boulanger, Jean-Pierre Melville, Henri-Jacques Huet, Van Doude, Claude Mansard, Jean-Luc Godard, Richard Balducci, Roger Hanin, Jean-Louis Richard. Writer: Jean-Luc Godard and Francois Truffaut Director: Jean-Luc Godard Cinematographer: Raoul Coutard Music: Martial Solal Producer: Georges de Beauregard Original Title: A bout de souffle Availability: Buy it from Amazon It's "one of those films," but even more so than Blow Up. You can escape film school without seeing Antonioni's anti-thriller masterpiece, but few and far between are the professors who won't sit you down and make you watch and over-analyze the film that made Jean-Luc Godard's career and stands out, even today as the defining film of the French new wave and, in a way, of the entirety of French cinema - or perhaps more directly, of the entire host of clichés commonly commented on when people lampoon French cinema. I mean, this is a Godard film based on a Truffaut plot. There wouldn't be two more famous French directors until Jean-Pierre Jeunet and, umm, well that Luc Besson guy, who actually has more in common with Godard than might at first be apparent. I don't really have enough time here to go into a history of the French New Wave, and to be perfectly honest, I hardly have the knowledge to do so. My exposure to the movement is still limited to those rare moments I was paying attention back in college. Like anyone who took film classes in college, I had to sit through a few. At the time, I think I was too young and wild and full of crazy ideas. I thought the films were talky and pretentious and got by primarily on the reputations they made by getting a few outspoken critics to hail them as groundbreaking masterpieces. Now, as an older man who has tired of the razzle-dazzle and bright lights, I can go back and reevaluate a film like Breathless from a more relaxed and rational point of view. One of the defining characteristics of the French New Wave, or at least those pieces of it to which I've currently exposed myself, seems to be a love-hate relationship with American cinema and culture. That could sum of France itself, but really, you get to the point in your life when jokes about the French just aren't that funny anymore. Well, maybe one or two of them are, but given the savaging France has taken for having the nerve to stand up and express opinions contrary to Bush's America, I tend to have a little more respect for them these days than I did back when I was fighting the Gerries in the Argone Forest back in 14-18 War. Besides, if nothing else the French have given us fine wine, some good chicken dishes, French women, French kissing (or is that Freedom kissing now), and French Lick, Indiana, which gave us Larry Bird. Besides, like I said a couple days ago, although we saved the French in both World Wars, they saved us during the American Revolution, so if it hadn't been for America, the French would be speaking German; and if it wasn't for France, us Americans would be speaking English. Yeah, I like that joke so much I've now trotted it out in two separate reviews. I thought for a while I actually made it up, but now I'm pretty sure I heard it somewhere else, which makes me using it twice even lamer. So where was I? Ah yes, much of the French New Wave seems to have been built upon filtering American pulp culture through the lens of French and European intellectualism (or pseudo-intellectualism, if you are cranky about such things) as much as it is rejecting the classical aspects of a well-polished, well-made film in favor of experimental cinema-verite style, clever editing, and almost documentary-style proximity to the subjects of the film, often with handheld cameras. It all begins here in Godard's directorial debut, and many claim that all modern filmmaking begins with this movie, meaning you can look at Breathless in one of two ways: you can look at it as a film, or you can look at it as a revolution. Well, yeah, you can look at it any other number of ways, or combine those two, but they are the aspects of the film with which I'll be poking around. As a revolution, there's not much denying Breathless' impact on filmmaking. Everything changed the day people saw Breathless. Technique changed, and more importantly perhaps, content changed. It is the movie that opened the way for more radical political films. It pioneered a style of filmmaking, writing, and acting and inspired countless stylistic offshoots that took the manifesto and ran with it in wildly diverse directions. It challenged pretty much everything anyone thought they knew about how a film could be executed. In this sense, it doesn't matter how the pieces are put together in Breathless itself; it only matters what Breathless did to other films. As is befitting for such an anti-establishment sort of movement, many of the innovations in the film were not the product of a conscious philosophy but were, in fact, simply side effects of limitations. Handheld shots were used because they could not afford to lie down tracks for proper dolly shots. The jump edits which came to define the film were a product of the film being overlong by half an hour. Rather than cutting whole scenes, Godard decided to trim bits and pieces from within each scene. Watching a manifesto isn't usually much fun, though, and since this is a film we should be interested in whether or not it is an entertaining film, which means, was I personally entertained? I could write about whether or not you were entertained, but you know, we get onto some shaky ground there and to be frank, I lied about pretty much all the psyonics and mind reading powers I had in D&D. So all I can say is that, as a film, Breathless entertains me, but as important as I recognize it to be in the grand scheme of things, it's more of a call to arms than a movie I would sit down and watch for enjoyment. Godard takes the basic tenants of a classic American film noir set-up and goes batty with them. Jean-Paul Belmondo, who would skyrocket to French icon status with this film, stars as Michel, a small-time Paris nobody who idolizes Bogart and the other tough guys of American gangster cinema. He practices tough guy facial expressions in the mirror, always wears a fedora, and smokes more cigarettes in a single film than any other character in cinematic history, probably even in that dippy pander-to-unhip-hipsters dump of a film 200 Cigarettes. But try as he might, he still looks like a kid playing dress-up, and no amount of gangster posturing can cover the fact that he's basically a confused, scared loner. The hypnotically beautiful Jean Seaberg stars as Michel's opposite, an American girl trying her best to be more French. "Gamine" would not be used again so often to describe an actress until Audrey Tautou's turn in Amelie. She's utterly astounding to look at, and her appearance here, cute beyond belief and sporting the pixie haircut, would become iconic during the decade. Her character, Patricia, is a more mystifying figure. Michel we can understand and see through. But Patricia is more difficult to decode. The two young wanderers meet one another after Michel kills a police officer during a botched car theft and must go on the run. The two spend time making love, seeing movies, chit chatting, and smoking a whole lot of cigarettes before Patricia basically begins to wonder if she loves him enough not to turn him in. The film is less about the plot than Godard's approach to filmmaking, but even so, the film remains breezy, witty, and enjoyable even as it delves into the depths of pretension. This is thanks in part to lead actor Belmondo, who is comic in his tough guy appearance. Belmondo had been pummeled into a curious state thanks to a boxing career, and his utter lack of classic leading man good looks (itself an homage to Humphrey Bogart) allows him to carry himself with a humorous air. While Patricia remains inscrutable, Michel is just sort a hopeless loser you can't help but warm to even when he's being a bastard. He would have gotten along well with Alfie. Both Michel and Patricia, however, are characters running in sharp contrast to what people expected of movie leads at the time. They are rebellious, adrift, and precursors to the sort of violently anti-authority figures that would come in their wake. But I won't let reputation alone put twinkling stars in my eyes. I fully admit that I'm not just a film geek, but also a film history and technique geek, and my interest in such things obviously colors my enjoyment of Breathless. If you don't share such a passion, then this movie still has the potential to offer you something to enjoy, though it's more likely you'll just find the whole affair on the irritating side of irritating. Although I have a healthy appreciation for the film, I wouldn't pretend not to understand how someone, even someone intelligent and well versed in film, could find the whole thing a ponderous, pompous mess. I still feel that anyone interested in film should see it if for no other reason than to flesh out your education and see when so much of what has been taken to outrageous extremes these days (jump cuts, unexpected editing, shaky hand-held cameras) and become annoyingly overused convention was still fresh and bold, not to mention much better done. Plenty of movies have become events, but I find it easy to separate most of them from their sensation. Not so with Breathless, since what caused the sensation remains challenging even today. That leaves me with the feeling that Breathless isn't so much to be watched and enjoyed as it is to be watched and studied -- though I do rather enjoy it. Truth be told, I could just sit and stare at Jean Seaberg for ninety minutes and be happy. That this is one of the most influential films of all time is not a debatable point. It's a fact. Now, whether or not those innovations were put to good use in making a film you can enjoy - that's up for you to decide for yourself. Me? Yeah, I dig it, but that's the kind of guy I am. I think noir fans might get a kick out of it as well since it plays with the genre conventions so much while still remaining more or less faithful to the formula. And even if you're just amused by philosophical mind games, you can sit and think about how the French New Wave was inspired by films of the classic Hollywood era and in turn inspired the ground-breaking American films of the 1970s, which were determined to destroy the concept of the classic Hollywood film. Whether you love it, hate it, or think it sounds like you would probably hate it, it's a film you really should get around to seeing sooner or later. After all, everything was different from there on out. Labels: Country: France, Director: Jean-luc Godard, Film Noir, Netflix Diary, Year: 1960 posted by Keith at 11:57 PM | 0 Comments |
|
![]() |