Helvetica

Gary Hustwit, UK, 2007
2 out of 4 stars

On certain occasions, I can be somewhat susceptible to persuasion when someone makes an off-the-wall film recommendation, particularly in the classroom for some reason, and this is a perfect example of it; a feature documentary on a font, for gosh sakes, that a guest lecturer in my “history of the book” seminar enthusiastically recommended.

I actually respect it as a valiant effort, but of course it turns out to be largely boring to someone who doesn’t already care about fonts or design. Helvetica consists of two kinds of scenes; talking-head interviews with designers and typographers, and series of brief shots of Helevtica use, mostly in various street signs. I’m slightly more interested in fonts than most people, and I was surprised to realize, for instance, how many major logos are all in this same font, which honestly in its large street-style is almost unrecognizable from its computer version. I found the London sequence to have some particularly interesting visual touches, but overall these sequences are quite repetitive.

As for the interviews, I felt that relatively few of the people with whom the director spoke with were either interesting or insightful (much less both). The young designers come off as pompous art-school twits with almost nothing to say, while the experts who tried to explain its historical origins nearly bored me into a stupor. A few people make some interesting points about Helvetica’s cultural and economic significance, and at times I almost felt like the film was worth it. Overall, it’s not; this could have been an interesting article but for the unconverted it cannot be an interesting film.

Source: Red Envelope DVD
19 May, 9:05 PM

Iron Man

Jon Favreau, USA, 2008
3.5 out of 4 stars

When the script and the actors suck, a superhero action movie, with minimal action and maximum buildup and exposition can be one of the most painful things to suffer through. The best recent example of this is the excreable Fantastic Four, which doesn't even feature a battle sequence until the last 15 minutes of the film, rather spending most of its running time as the lifeless cast blandly ruminates over powers that only took them a minute to obtain. Thankfully, Iron Man is more in the vein of Batman Begins, another film in which a man with no inherent superpowers accumulates both the skills and the experiences necessary to ultimately inhabit his role as superhero.

Yet although I've given them the same rating, I should be clear that Batman Begins was definitely a deeper, more complex and more thought-out film. Iron Man would probably be significantly worse without the presence of Robert Downey, Jr., who seems to be gradually making up for last time, even as he cleverly trades off of his own unfortunate public persona in his role as the dissolute-but-brilliant Tony Stark. Unlike Bruce Wayne, Tony is not traumatized, he's just in a stage of arrested development that has prevented him from considering the consequences of his actions as a weapons designer/merchant. It takes an origin story centered in Afghanistan to reorient his thinking and kick off some gradual, but worthwhile, character development.

Interestingly, the original Iron Man was born of the Vietnam War, and that story's attitude towards said war was much less complicated, to put it lightly. The comics have already updated both the setting and the politics, so I'm not sure how this stacks up to more recent incarnations (I only really started recognizing Marvel injokes during the very last scene), but I think Jon Favreau's film walks a fine line regarding the depiction of terrorists and ultimately succeeds in avoiding the main pitfalls. Overall the attitude is one of sophistication, although some things are nonetheless overlooked out of necessity.

As for the action, well, as I said there's not exactly tons of action in this film, but the story and acting are such good quality that the action feels even more earned. Watching Iron Man fly around is in itself exciting, which is somewhat surprising considering that "you'll believe a man can fly" was the original superhero movie tagline, even before I was born. Above all, it did leave me looking forward to the sequel (and I wouldn't mind if there was a bit more action that time).

By the way, if you go see it, make sure to stay until after the credits.

Source: Paramount 35mm print
16 May, 8:00 PM

Solaris

Stephen Soderbergh, USA, 2002
3 out of 4 stars

Something, not quite explained, is going wrong at the end (or at least it feels like it) of space, but despite the somewhat-goofy spacesuits, the significance of the events is much more focused on the interpersonal. Sent to investigate this phenomena (even the message apparently doesn't mean what it seems to mean), Chris Kelvin (George Clooney) is soon visited by someone who could not actually be there, specifically his wife Rheya (Natascha McElhone). Flashbacks ensue (not for the last time, either) in which we get a surprising level of detail about their relationship, from beginning to end.

All this unfolds at a fairly deliberate pace, despite the short running time, and it can be quite captivating at times; there is a certain visual appeal to the shot composition (really starting to wish I had the language to describe this stuff better) and the performances are often compelling. Overall, though, I couldn't quite get involved enough in the thing, even though I felt like I cared about the characters, and was at least interested in what was going on without being too removed from it. The spaceship sets don't look particularly good on a mid-sized television (I'm gonna assume that they look much better on a movie screen), which is a bit of a problem considering how long we end up staring at them when not that much is going on. The ending is interesting, but I wish I knew what it meant, although I suspect that I'm being needlessly obtuse here (it was probably the best part of the film). I consider this a good film, overall, but I'm not sure that I would recommend it; it's just too hard to get a handle on.

Source: Fox DVD
9 May, 8:56 PM

Sólo con tu pareja

Alfonso Cuarón, Mexico, 1991
4 out of 4 stars

I have been working my way through Cuarón's filmography ever since, believe it or not, I saw Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, and I was just as pleased with this film, his feature debut, as I had been with his others. It's basically an absurdist sex comedy, at times solidly in the realm of farce, while other times it verges into even stranger or darker territory. Despite the more limited resources and the seemingly less-conducive subject matter, the film looks great and has the same sense of visual inventiveness that one sees in his later films

The protagonist is the usual lothario type, who we meet in the process of fooling around with both his boss and the nurse that works for his amiable neighbor, a good bourgeois doctor who is content to live vicariously through tales of his sexual exploits (although even this leads to problems for both characters on more than one occasion). We also learn that the hero is not particularly concerned about protection, which also becomes an issue.

I definitely wouldn't try to claim that the film is entirely original; it seems fresh enough to me, but some aspects of the story are more familiar than others. What I like is that there is nonetheless a good balance of optimism and cynicism which allows the viewer to forgive some of the lapses. More importantly, the film just gets more and more hilarious, particularly the darker it gets. It's definitely worth looking into.

Source: Image DVD
3 May, 9:57 PM

No End in Sight

Charles Ferguson, USA, 2007
3 out of 4 stars

I was slowly making my way through "Bush's War", a two-part "episode" of PBS Frontline, when I got the notification that this movie would be the next to arrive in my mailbox. The redundancy seemed unfortunate, but I ultimately became so consumed with what I learned in "Bush's War" that I found myself interested in seeing and learning more, so I went ahead and watched the film. The result of all of this is that I found myself in a better position to actually judge No End in Sight on its merits as a work, rather than giving it a knee-jerk four-star rating due chiefly to the shock of what I learned from it.

Instead, I found this documentary to be a solid piece of work, but perhaps a bit undeserving of its de facto status as the flagship Iraq War documentary. Part of this is indeed because Frontline has in fact, it turns out, been doing shows on this stuff for years; "Bush's War" was something of a synthesis of earlier shows, with the focus to some extent being on the decision-making process that led us to war, whereas No End in Sight is more interested in the colossal mistakes made in the beginning of the occupation (there is apparently a Frontline on this subject as well, and director Charles Ferguson even uses a clip from it at one point!). Being that it is PBS, it is also pretty neutral on the face of it; of course, the facts line up to present a picture so damning that there is no real need to lay it on with any extraneous, overt ideological critique.

Ferguson, of course, is not a public television journalist, so he has no need to strive for objectivity; even so, he seems to have sensed that the facts speak for themselves (not something I always believe, mind you, but clearly the case here). The question is, really, whether he has made any use of film as a medium. There seems to be a very small amount of original footage (although who knows how original), but it's mostly a talking-head piece. This is compelling enough, as much of the things we learn are quite shocking, and not all of it was covered at least in the particular Frontline that I saw. The downside to Ferguson's approach and his status is that he is able to get only one unrepentant proponent of the Bush policies. With this guy, he sets up a very theatrical, indirect "confrontation" with one of his key witnesses; the narrator makes a point of informing us that these two men were interviewed again in order to reconcile contradictions between their testimonies. Although contrived, it's also satisfying in that you always wish that these things were actually "resolved" more thoroughly, and the confrontational aspect of it is something that Frontline largely eschews.

Overall, though, this is best suited for television; I really can't imagine watching it in a movie theater (although the occasional use of split screen did render some footage hard to focus on for someone with a modest-sized television). For film, I think I would be more interested in one of the docs that actually focuses on original, on-the-spot footage. Ferguson does augment the work of the PBS journalists, but he ultimately comes off as a little redundant. All that said, you're more likely to want to see this film then you are to watch three hours of "Bush's War" on streaming video, so on that basis alone I recommend it; this is stuff you need to know, and you will be better off, albeit angrier, for having seen it.

Source: Red Envelope DVD
29 April, 9:41 PM

One Nite in Mongkok

(Wong gok hak yau)
Derek Yee, Hong Kong, 2004
3.5 out of 4 stars

They tell you from the beginning, if you're paying attention, that this movie is about fate. Although many of the Hong Kong films dealing with cops and gangsters emphacize some form of honor or heroism, this picture very quickly sets the stage for a tale that is grittier not in the sense that it depicts unpleasant events (although there is that too), but in that it does not provide us with these comforting lenses through which to observe the action.

For one thing, it takes quite a while for the protaganist, a young man from the mainland hired to kill a gang boss, to even appear in the picture. Although his story ultimately drives the film, albeit with frequent cutaways to the police and their attempt to avert a gang war, the fact that he doens't show up until events lead to his introduction seems to show that, even though our focus is on him, he is only a part of larger events. In fact his introduction is surprising, as before we meet him the film seems heading towards more of an ensemble approach, but Daniel Wu turns in a good performance as the often-conflicted, somewhat naive and moralistic would-be killer. His costar, Cecilia Cheung, does overplay her more cliched "prostitute with a heart of gold" role (although it may just be overwritten as well), but their relationship, strange as it is, is nonetheless appealing, as they are both in Hong Kong due to similarly dire conditions in their home villages, bringing in an important social critique to the film (not something I've seen in many Hong Kong cop films).

I enjoyed this film quite a bit, in part because it is extremeley foreboding, particularly the closer you get to the end, but is not unrelenting. Rather than whip you up into some exaggerated frenzy of dread, One Nite in Mongkok (pity about the idiotic spelling in the English title) is more about the banality of coincidence (or fate, I guess) and the compromises that all the characters have made with varying degrees of deliberateness. This makes for a film that is both more interesting and more challenging than most.

Finally, although I lack the filmic vocabulary to go into detail, the film is shot with a good degree of energy and artistry. While ultimately it falls under the umbrella of mainstream film, there does seem to have been an artsy inclination on the part of the filmmakers, and in this case I'd say their ambition was well-realized.

Source: Tai Seng DVD
21 April, 8:45 PM

Modern Times

Charlie Chaplin, USA, 1936
3 out of 4 stars

Honestly, I am tempted to give the first two sequences 4 stars and the rest of the film 2 stars; as it is, I split the difference and ended up with the good-but-not-great 3 star rating.

This is actually my first Chaplin film, and as I am not a film student (but rather a "projectionist," in which capacity I saw this film), it will most likely be my last. I didn't find the conventions of the "silent" (with occasional speech near the beginning and sound effects throughout) film too difficult to get a hold of, and for the most part the humor was not incomprehensible.

If anything, the bar was perhaps set too high by the first sequence, in which Chaplin's "Little Tramp" desperately tries to make his way through a day at the factory, becoming increasingly unhinged with results that myself and most of the undergraduates found absolutely hillarious. No surpise that an English professor would assign this, as Chaplin demonstrates the "alienation of labor" concept far better than Karl Marx or any of his followers could hope to!

There are flickers of brilliance throghout (the first jail sequence is pretty solid), but the film increasingly becomes repetetive (near the end the Tramp ends up in yet another factory, even mirroring many of the earlier gags albeit in a different context. It seems that Chaplin was regrettably unable to maintain the high level of both social commentary and humor that he shows at the beginning.

Source: Warner DVD
15 April, 7:10 PM

The Host

(Gwoemul)
Bong Joon-ho, South Korea, 2006
3.5 out of 4 stars

This Korean mega-blockbuster came to my attention during its small but respectable American run thanks to major critical Internet hype, to the point that I watched it despite my general antipathy to "monster movies," and in this case the hype was mostly justified. The random attacks on the people of Seoul by a large mutant fish-creature serve as a very interesting vehicle for biting social commentary on Korean society (surprisingly easy to grasp despite my general ignorance about said society), and more importantly, a critique on the US' paternalistic, borderline-malevolent (at least here) relationship with the Republic of Korea.

Political themes are not that rare to horror films, I understand (not so much from watching them as from reading reviews), and the perspective on America is not unfamiliar to me from the handful of American films I've seen, dealing both with the early 21st century and the mid 20th century. Nonetheless, The Host, like all the best blockbusters (increasingly an oxymoron, at least domestically) is a terrific genre mishmash of satire, melodrama and suspense. The fact that certain scenes, such as a notably excessive display of grieving by the family around which the film revolves, leave the viewer unsure as to whether they are meant as melodrama or satire (or both) only increases the impact and appeal of the film.

The plot itself is aimless in a good way, as the twists and turns effectively convey the sense of frustration with the South Korean and American governmental and military response to the monster, as well as the struggle of the average (perhaps even below-average), regular family to fight both the monster and the monstrously uncaring systems they are at the mercy of. There are definitely flaws; the main female character is woefully undeveloped particularly in comparison to her male counterparts, and there was one glaring aspect of the film that I found to be extremely problematic (but cannot reveal for fear of spoilers), but overall this is a surprisingly effective piece. And for those who care, there is thankfully not too much gore (the most extreme scene is probably the one where the monster belches out an improbably large heap of bones).

Source: Magnolia DVD
14 April, 9:52 PM

The Battle of Algiers

(La Battaglia di Algeri)
Gillo Pontecorvo, Italy / Algeria, 1966
4 out of 4 stars

I expected this to be more of a "broccoli" film, meaning that it would be "good for me" but not particularly interesting. Yet from fairly early on (after some getting used to it), I was very impressed by how engrossing, even thrilling at times, a film about terrorism could actually be.

Calling it "terrorism" might sound wrong, considering that this is a film that very much celebrates the national liberation struggle of the Algerians against French colonialism (a situation that, while never all that far from our American experience, is more uncomfortably familiar to even the most clueless citizen than it has been for us in quite a while). Part of what makes this film great, though, is that while it does glamorize to an extent through sheer cinematic force, it also forces you to take a clear look not only at what's at stake but also at precisely who will, for instance, die in a bomb blast (children included). As such the film manages to transcend both propaganda and facile, disingenously "neutral" docudrama to create something altogether more compelling and troubling.

Finally, when I mention terrorism I am also referring to what is sometimes called state terrorism, as the second half of the film, roughly speaking, is dedicated to the French Army's response to the revolutionary upheaval. While their leader might arguably be portrayed in an overly-sympathetic manner, the main Algerian rebel is still clearly the hero, and furthermore, the fact that the colonel does have a sense of "honor" only makes his actions the more disturbing. As the press corps finally start to reflect a growing civilian unease with harsh military tactics (sound familiar?), the best moment comes when the colonel reminds just how implicated they are in the colonial project. I should also note that the Ennio Morricone score is quite awesome!

Source: WEA subtitled VHS
10 April, 6:10 PM

The Taste of Others

(Le Goût des autres)
Agnès Jaoui, France, 2000
3 out of 4 stars

Some time ago, I watched a film called Look at Me and enjoyed it enough to add director Agnès Jaoui's earlier (and first) film to my Netflix queue, but not, apparently, enough to make it any kind of priority. My conclusion is that this is a solid, entertaining effort, but that Jaoui definitely improved in her subsequent outing.

There is definitely a similar style at play here, as we have witty but often dry dialogue, frequent cuts between different sets of characters, and a somewhat sudden and jolting introduction into the plot (you figure out who is who and what relationship they have to each other about 15 minutes into the film). Although this film does juggle several storylines, most of the focus is on a bumbling, bourgeois industrial manager who becomes more interested in his English lessons (forced upon him by higher-ups so that he will be able get this international deal through) when he becomes enamored of his tutor during her performance in the theater. This plot allows for the filmmakers to provide amusing but not entirely earthshaking commentary about the relationship between the bourgeoisie and the art-intellectual caste, among other things. While some of the characters may seem simplistic at first, most ultimately become sympathetic and invovling.

That said, this film does ultimately seem a bit slight. Jaoui and her husband, co-writer Jean-Pierre Bacri (also the de facto star here) try to weave together all these characters, but some ultimately don't seem to contribute too much, concerning the plot or the overall conceptual thrust of the piece, which as I said is not eathshattering in and of itself. While Look at Me wasn't perfect, either, Jaoui and Bacri seem to have worked out some of these problems in their following film, so it's a bit disconcerting to go backwards as I ended up doing with their work. I guess on the off chance that you were to see either of these films, you should see the first one first, or only see the second one.

Source: Buena Vista DVD
1 April, 10:09 PM

Offside

Jafar Panahi, Iran, 2006
4 out of 4 stars

Iranian women, as the text at the beginning helpfully explains to American audiences, are barred from attending sporting events, which of course means that this film is about a handful of young women, who, for different reasons, try to sneak in to particularly important soccer match that will decide whether or not Iran will make it to the 2006 World Cup. It bears noting, by the way, that much of this film was actually shot in the background during the game (although you won't see much of it).

The film, then, is about gender in Iran, but it is also about class, as the often-hapless soldiers who become the reluctant guards of these seemingly privileged city women come from rural, provincial backgrounds, and its theme inherently leads to a consideration of nationalism as well. We know that there are “bad guys,” so to speak, in the Iranian system, but for the most part those figures stay offscreen; instead, we have two mostly sympathetic groups who both have legitimate grievances. The director chooses to present both of these sides rather than telling us what to think. It might be tempting to chalk all this restraint up to an aspiration to see the film screened in its own country and not just in international markets (it didn’t work), but I think that the presentation of the film is actually quite sincere and insightful, albeit very subtle (I'm sure plenty of the nuances escaped me from my vantage point).

Like all the other handful of Iranian films I’ve seen (almost all of which were banned domestically by Iranian censors), this one is filmed in a neo-realist style with long takes and a cast of mostly non-actors. Ths one, however, is undoubtedly my favorite of the ones I’ve seen, as it is the first one with an overall comic tone, which is pretty rare not just in Iranian film but in any neo-realist film. While it does start slow, the confrontations are amusing while also thought-provoking, and the characters are quite engaging, but the comic nature of the film does not mean that important questions are being dodged; although Persepolis was a good film, I felt like this one was in many ways more enlightening and entertaining. Even if you’re skeptical about this kind of film, I would recommend you give it a chance.

Source: Sony DVD
16 March, 10:17 PM

Super Size Me

Morgan Spurlock, USA, 2004
3.5 out of 4 stars

I’m gonna assume that everyone has heard about this movie, and as such, I’m not gonna spend any time describing it for you. The first thing I will say is that it probably benefited from really low expectations on my part. Intellectually, I still object to Spurlock’s methodology; it’s the film version of what a public radio panel recently referred to as “extreme sports writing,” and I think that documentaries should not, in general, be documents of stunts. Furthermore, It’s hard not to be bothered by the futility of the whole thing, and it’s also hard not to wonder what would have been the point if, say, he had managed to get himself permanent kidney damage.

My greatest critique of this film, prior to actually watching it, was that it dramatized the obvious, and therefore must not have any real purpose; in this respect, I believe myself to be proved wrong. The truth is that what is obvious to some is not obvious to others, and I found myself increasingly uneasy at the degree to which I personally felt indicted by the film. I remember feeling this way when I first read Eric Schlosser’s Fast Food Nation, but the effect has not been the same upon reviewing it for my class (the film was also shown during three class periods, interspersed with some other activity), and any case, I think the visual effect is very crucial; I was disturbed simply by the sight of how gigantic the now-defunct “super size” actually was.

The real question is whether this film can cause anyone to change their behavior; Spurlock obviously would like the government and corporations to change theirs, but he explains the lobbying system (overlapping with Schlosser here, as he often does) clearly enough to show us that that’s not going to happen, so he does leave it up to us in the end. Initially, I felt irritated at being condemned without actually being enlightened (it’s not like I didn’t know that I shouldn’t eat that Western Bacon Cheeseburger, after all), but over time I feel more hopeful that I may have actually internalized some of the message. And most importantly, the film is much more entertaining than I expected, due mostly to its shock value; aside from that, the interviews in particular and such consist of a more complete package than the marketing would suggest (in fact the central stunt is largely just a marketing gimmick when it comes right down to it). My students did not react audibly as often as I did, but many of them had after all seen it before. But if I’m gonna measure this by how much impact it had on me, I should probably come back in a month and raise or lower the rating based on how concerned I am by that point!

Source: WEA DVD
5 March, 3:20 PM

Breach

Billy Ray, USA, 2007
3 out of 4 stars

The film launches with some footage of a press conference with John Ashcroft in early 2001, as he announces the capture of a mole in the FBI; a title card takes us two months back and engages us in the story of a young operative, Eric O’Neil (Ryan Philippe), tasked to play the obedient subordinate to grumpy old man Chris Cooper and dig up some dirt on him. Of course, things are not what they seem and Philippe’s character has not been told the whole truth, but the film for the most part plays out as a complicated dance between the competent young hero and the grizzled, prickly character actor. It’s not just about the guys, though, as Philippe’s real boss, gamely played by Laura Linney, shows up every now and then to act tough; the obligatory cameos by the Wife Who Doesn’t Understand are as annoying as they usually are, but you can tell the filmmakers sorta know this, and it does pay off more than you might expect.

So as the critics say, Cooper’s performance is often compelling, and Philippe does a reasonably good job at keeping up. The film can also be very tense at times, and Ray does a good job selling us on the gravity of the whole situation. Ultimately, however, I can’t help but feel like the film is not quite exciting or significant enough due to its excessive dependence on standing up to the scrutiny they felt would ensue from the “based on a true story” tagline; this impression was only strengthened after viewing the bonus features, in which you see. I do think that they made the right choice, even in an artistic sense, in not seeking to “explain” Cooper’s character anymore than they did, as this would only detract from his performance. The problem is that the filmmakers seem to have decided that just putting on a fairly compelling reenactment of a recent even is enough of a raison d’être. Honestly, how can you do a story about intelligence failure in that brief pre-9/11 Bush period without trying to say, I don’t know, something about it! And finally, the ending really underwhelms; perhaps this was unavoidable, but perhaps a director should also ask if the thrill of a “true story” necessarily justifies a plot that will eventually just sorta go flat (I’m sure they punched it up a bit here and there, but it feels like they didn’t do so enough). As entertaining as the film is, it ultimately comes off as a more mature, more polished version of America’s Most Wanted.

Source: Universal DVD
6 March, 8:42 PM

There Will Be Blood

Paul Thomas Anderson, USA, 2007
3 out of 4 stars

I’m beginning to wonder if I have overly specific expectations for films about historical problems. You probably wouldn’t expect me to draw parallels with Sweeney Todd and my reception of it, but once again I found myself a little miffed, at least when the film was over and I reflected on it, that a filmmaker had almost threatened to make a film about something like the social impact of the early 20th century oil boom on a small town, but had instead decided to focus on how crazy this one guy is.

The parallels are limited, admittedly. I thought this was a much stronger film, partly because I didn’t really notice the missed opportunities until after. Just as all the critics said, Day-Lewis is a captivating presence, although there is a valid question as to whether he is believable as a fully-realized character, rather than as a human phenomenon.

And maybe I’m being too literal in my approach to the film. You see, there is a scene where the main character, Daniel Plainview, makes copious promises for economic and infrastructural development to the aforementioned small town. We are probably supposed to gather that he is lying, but you never even get enough of a glimpse of the world outside Plainview himself to really ascertain the truth of his statement. His story of demented, solitary obsession is compelling, but particularly considering the length of the film, it’s remarkable that it is depicted in isolation to such a pronounced degree. Maybe his character progression (if you can call it that) is supposed to represent the social trends, and maybe his rivalry with a young churchman played by Paul Danno is supposed to serve the same purpose, but the approach ultimately led, for me at least, to a sort of decontextualized feeling, the feeling of “what’s the point?”

I actually still did get something out of this film and you very likely will too. I don’t quite think the critics and the Oscar voters are wrong; I just think they are conditioned to value, perhaps even overvalue, certain things, and this movie is to some extent designed with those things in mind. A familiar story, of course.

Source: Paramount 35mm print
12 February, 2:50 PM

Paprika

Kon Satoshi, Japan, 2006
3.5 out of 4 stars

When a film centers around a device that enables psychotherapists (at least that's what I think they were) to enter into the dreams of their subjects, you expect for there to be a certain amount of trippy, mind-bending imagery, and perhaps even a general abandonment of literal narrative in favor of a more "dreamlike" approach. Of course, we do get plenty of this imagery (parades full of monuents and "Children's Day" dolls, amusement parks, and so on), and it's both exhilitaring and disturbing in a way that no other film I've seen lately has been (nice to see the Japanese still doing something with animation, particularly the mostly-hand-drawn, traditional kind). However, the odd thing about Paprika is that this imagery is contained within an overall plot structure that bears many of the trappings of a straightforward narrative, as the scientists, sometimes with the help of a police detective, try to recover a missing device and deal with the havoc apparently caused by its misuse.

It's only as the film continues that it becomes apparent that the filmmakers are not playing as straight with us as they initially lead us to believe. Most of the characters in this film have unexpected relationships with each other, and these relationships are generally revealed in very awkward, confusing ways, usually after quite a bit of time has elapsed. Some of these are obvious whereas others just seem like they should have been obvious. Yet even though the audience had been left hanging about certain aspects of the plot, the occasional reveals leave us expecting a greater degree of narrative closure than we are ultimately afforded by the film. We are in fact cleverly misled into expecting more of an explanation.

Of course, I don't believe that any of this is accidental, although it did frustrate my friend a lot more than it did me; I suppose I was in the mood for something that didn't entirely want to make sense, and I really do think the trojan horse of the traditional narrative was cleverly implemented. As to what the film is saying philosophically, well, as usual I'm at a bit of a loss as far as that goes. I found the use of what I understand to be stock anime depictions of women (cold-hearted scientist, peppy bright-haired witch-type), not to mention men (stern detective, absent-minded old man) to be both somewhat tiresome and seemingly knowing at the same time (it's interesting that it shows up in what strikes me, perhaps incorrectly, as more of an "art-house" anime). I should also mention that as much as the "dream device" and the amusement park imagery sounds horribly unoriginal when I describe it, much like something that has showed up in one Star Trek or X-Files episode too many, it is in fact much more mindblowing than it sounds. Check it out but be prepared for weirdness and incoherency!

Source: Sony DVD
18 Jan, 9:21 PM

Killer of Sheep

Charles Burnett, USA, 1977
3.5 out of 4 stars

You may or may not have heard of this film; it's was a UCLA film school thesis long ago, never got distribution until last year due to music rights issues (too expensive). It's basically European-style neo-realism applied to a depiction of working-class life in Watts (and if all that sounds like I am cribbing off of introductory remarks by academics from my university, well that's because I am).

I'm afraid that I don't really have much to add to what others have said about this film, but I'll solider on anyway since this may possibly be your introduction to it. I was impressed by the degree to which, as many pointed out, narrative was entirely eschewed throughout. Sometimes I find this frustrating, but it seems both appropriate and effective in this instance. Too many films about oppressed people rely too heavily on grand, impending tragedy, while the Hollywood version usually relies on implausible or unearned, uplift, but Burnett shows us that things are not that simple in this environment. He chooses to focus, to some extent, on the unspoken turmoil of a family man working in a slaughterhouse, drawing obvious but understated parallels between his job and the conditions of living in his neighborhood. People bluster their way through various mundane (and sometimes, grimly hilarious) situations, but are largely unable to articulate their deeper problems. Interspersed throughout are scenes of children playing, roughly, trying to claim their post-industrial spaces as best they can, visually paralleled directly with the sheep. I can't claim that I was able to come to that profound of an understanding of the film on my own, so I will say that I appreciated seeing it in this "academic" context. It's worth a look as long as you know what you are getting into!

Source: New Yorker DVD
17 Jan, 6:26 PM

Reno 911!: Miami

Robert Ben Garant, USA, 2007
1.5 out of 4 stars

This is of course one of those films that defeats criticism, if only in the sense that when you say it’s bad, people who are likely to agree with you say “no duh, why did you watch that anyway?” while people who disagree with you will call you names like “elitist,” or tell you that it’s supposed to be dumb. Admittedly I am not a big fan of stupidity for its own sake, but I have found the show fairly entertaining in small doses – if you’re not familiar with it, it centers around really idiotic and obscene police officers in Reno, sort of a broad Cops parody with a strong basis in improv.

I think it’s pretty clear that there was no real chance of the material being made into a good film, as the people involved just don’t seem to have the discipline for it. One bit that really struck me was an extended sequence in which successive interactions consistently had an awkward dissolve transition as the editor had to skip over the unsuccessful improvisations the actors had probably stumbled through. I could go on about other ways in which this film was poorly thought-out or shoddily made, but the main point is that, for the most part, it was not particularly funny. The best praise I can give is that I didn’t really think that much about how bad or pointless it was until afterwards; I wasn’t really enjoying it, but neither was I angry about how bad it was (and that is saying something, with me)

Source: Charter VOD
10 Jan, 9:13 PM

Persepolis

Marjane Satrapi & Vincent Paronnaud, France / USA, 2007
3.5 out of 4 stars

Ah, it’s nice to see a good movie again. It’s certainly not perfect. I’ve read the first volume as published in the US, and I definitely felt that the second half of the film, adapting the second half, was not as strong. The first half deals with Satrapi’s childhood in Iran and has some really interesting things to say about how children struggle with and process the complex, yet inane, political changes around them in times of extreme strife, such as the Iranian Revolution. We are not robbed of a sophisticated treatment through this perspective, rather we gain new insight on something that most of us probably didn’t have much insight into in the first place!

The second part of the film, meanwhile, is on her high school experiences as a lone member of the diaspora in Vienna – still strong, but more familiar – and her college years back in Iran, which is a bit stronger. None of this, however, reduced my positive feeling towards the movie too much. The animation, while stylized, is very expressive. Little Marjane is cute but not overly so, and the imaginative universe (in which she talks with God) is effectively juxtaposed against the dark reality of political purges without missing a beat. There are a few awkward transitions between various short episodes, paradoxically moreso in the mostly-stronger first half, but this is mitigated by the surprisingly-high level of humor (when appropriate, that is).

It’s something new, different, and worthwhile as animation is concerned, and as far as “third world memoir” is concerned; there are flaws but they are quite easily overlooked. Go see it, when you can!

Source: Sony subtitled 35mm print
5 Jan, 1:30 PM

Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street

Tim Burton, USA / UK, 2007
2.5 out of 4 stars

The sad thing is, I enjoyed most of this movie, particularly its atmosphere (sure it’s the same as the other Burton films, at least aside from the blood, but Burton still does a good job at pulling you in as always) with two major reservations. The first of these was, of course, that the performances of Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter were definitely not good enough to justify their casting in light of their insufficient vocal talents. It’s slightly unfair to lump them together, as Carter, as much as I like her, is significantly worse than Depp. Either way, it’s a shame, as the songs were really awesome and the orchestration in particular does its best to prop up these singers, allowing you to overlook their faults as much as possible.

My second problem with the film was that it seemed to be dragging on a bit, and this was only compounded when it took a turn that I had trouble following. You see, the title character undergoes a pretty complete shift in modus operandi something like three-quarters of the way through the film. I don’t know if this worked better in the musical, but in the film, I really felt like the transition was just unsatisfying and incoherent, and from there on out, I had a lot more trouble “relating” to the action, as it were. Although I might not like the musical any better, I suspect that I’m just not impressed with Burton’s psychology or his social conscience, as he usually operates on the surface and this work asks for a greater insight into Todd’s mentality than Burton can ultimately provide us. Or maybe the premise just doesn’t work for me in the first place.

Source: Paramount 35mm print
3 Jan, 1:50 PM

The Great Debaters

Denzel Washington, USA, 2007
2.5 out of 4 stars

There are a lot of unflattering things I could say about this movie, and believe me, I will say them. Much of it seems over-familiar, such as the love triangle, the pubescent fantasies, and even the general whiff of what some critics call “underdog uplift.” It’s definitely weighed down too heavily with conventionality, something my compatriots and I were quick to blame on the fact that it comes out of Oprah Winfrey’s production company.

So, it’s not entirely a good film, but nonetheless, I found that as it went on, my reservations about the often ham-handed execution were increasingly overridden by my interest in the story itself, because if aspects of it are too familiar, there’s something about the overall thrust that seems worth telling in a sociopolitical sense. That is to say, this movie should have been better, but it still may indeed be good for you, or at least for someone, and it doesn’t entirely lack complexity either.

The subject here is a debate team at a black college in 1930s Texas, coached by a leftist agitator type played by the director. One can’t help but feel that one is being patronized a bit by how their debates transpire – we are given to understand that they do not get to choose the position they will take on an issue, but, mysteriously, they are nonetheless always depicted as taking positions consistent with civil rights and leftist thoughts in general, while their black (at least initially) opponents always sound like Clarence Thomas or worse.

Clearly, the filmmakers aren’t really comfortable with the idea of “debating.” I would assume that if the position is not chosen by the debaters, they must occasionally have had to defend unpalatable positions, but that’s apparently too complex for this film. That said, I couldn’t help but feel after a while that there was something, dare I say it, uplifting about seeing these young people triumphing through showing their verbal prowess and speaking truth-to-power, and of course, uplift is the more important goal for the filmmakers.

Aside from that, I felt that there was some real insight in some of the formulations the film puts across regarding racial injustice at the time, specifically considering the sometimes-contradictory intersections between poverty and race. It also doesn’t shy away from the horrific nature of phenomena such as lynching, something that is in itself valuable for any historically-illiterate young person (this being almost a redundant statement). Finally, I really appreciated how the relationships were put across, as there seemed to be some interesting things being said about black masculinity, specifically regarding how relationships are strained by the pressures of racism, but ultimately preserved out of mutual understanding and the not-uncritical support of women.

Source: MGM 35mm print
2 Jan, 3:40 PM