Entry#188: The Fall

Trailer

One of the biggest compliments to a filmmaker, besides an Oscar nomination, would be an endorsement by a recognized and acclaimed director. Plenty of directors have gotten their start this way and the tradition continues to this day. Recently, for example, Peter Jackson (Lord of The Rings, Heavenly Creatures) kick-started Neil Blomkamp's career by backing Neil's directorial debut, District 9. To have someone support your work like that is truly an honor and an easy jump-start for a film career. Because of how prestigious a director/sponser is, I was quite surprised to find out that The Fall had TWO well-known directors backing it up. Both David Fincher (Fight Club, Zodiac) and Spike Jonze (Being John Malkovich, Adaptation.), apparently, helped finance the film because they believed in it so much. That's saying something for an otherwise unknown filmmaker.

The Fall chronicles the relationship between a hospitalized young girl, Alexandria, and her new acquaintance and storyteller, Roy Walker. After a harsh fall, Roy finds himself bedridden, with his only company consisting of seemingly angry friends and an imaginative Romanian girl (aka Alexandria). As times passes and Alexandria visits more often, Roy discovers that he's slowly becoming addicted to the morphine that's been prescribed to him. With the addiction growing, Roy uses Alexandria to bring him more "sleeping pills" in exchange for a creative and lushious fairy tale. Reality and fantasy blur, though, as Roy's state of mind and Alexandria's imagination interweave with one another in the fairy tale.

The cinematography of the film is very well-done and artistic. Thanks to the use of color and conventional film methods, the director is able to create two distinct worlds with differing visual styles. The 'real' world, for example, relies on orange and gray coloring to portray the reality of 1920's America. Menawhile, the fantasy world is filled with every color imaginable to show off the power of imagination. Both worlds are visually-appealing and showcase the hard work that went into this film. The best sequence, though, has to be the film's opening credits. Those moments are so well-structured and so perfectly compositied that it feels like watching a living painting. Sharp, chiche, and creative, the visuals are a great component of the film.

The characters, though, are only decent to pretty good. We get to know Roy and Alexandria, but only on a limited basis. For instance, Alexandria is naive and charming, as virtually all little girls are, but we don't really get to know her character. If we compared the film with Pan's Labyrinth, a film with similar fairy-tale themes, we'd see that Alexandria feels flat while Ofelia, the main character of Pan's Labyrinth, is a more well-rounded and interesting character. The same can pretty much be said of Roy. However, I'm a bit iffy on the fairy tale characters. They're supposed to be simle, that's granted, but they can feel very generic in this film; almost like a cast from a below-average JRPG (Japanese Role-Playing Game) video game. All in all, the characters are interesting but only half-developed.

That said, the film still retains a fascinating narrative and a stylish and emotional atmosphere. The story flows quite smoothly and the interweaving of reality and fantasy proves to be just as interesting as it is emotionally-investing. Heck, I thought the characters were only "pretty good" but found myself in tears during the last twenty minutes of the film. The atmosphere really nailed that wodner that comes with fairy tales AND the harsh realities of life - and that isn't an easy task by any means.

I really liked The Fall. The characters were only decent but the atmosphere and lovely visuals definitely make up for it.

Entry#187: The Puffy Chair

Trailer

With Cyrus being hailed as one of the better comedies to come out in 2010, I thought I'd check out what else the directors, the Duplass brothers, created before their success with this latest film. According to the IMDB, Cyrus is only the directors' third film and it's the first one to have a large-ish budget. Before that, the directors had made two "mumblecore" films called The Puffy Chair and Baghead, both of which were made on an incredibly-low budget and utilized a variety of minimalist techniques to enhance the film. "Mumblecore", for those unaware, is a new style of film that tends to focus on realistic characters, usually twentysomethings in college, that are placed in realistic situations with natural-sounding dialogue. In short, realism is very important to the "mumblecore" genre and it is, admittedly, an interesting style of filmmaking. For instance, things like texting and teenage slang are typically common in these types of films and are considered a major component of the realism. Regardless, this would be my first time watching a "mumblecore" film and, while it was creative, I'm not sure if I'd call The Puffy Chair a "good film".

The film follows the laid-back Josh, his brother, Rhett, and his girlfriend, Emily, as they drive cross-country to pick up Josh's father's birthday gift - a giant purple LazyBoy chair. Though the gift seems random, it's actually very sentimental as Josh's father used to own an identical chair when the family was much younger. As the group travels from New York to Virginia, Josh must come to terms with his crumbling relationship while surviving the bizarre events that take place along the way.

In terms of characterization and dialogue, the film's pretty snappy. Because of the focus on realism, the film's characters feel all the more human, relateable, and likable. Josh, Emily, and Rhett make for some goofy, albeit lovable, characters and it's easy to care for them because of how real and genuine they feel. The dialogue, as I said before, is also very realistic thanks to the slang, long pauses, and use of "filler" phrases such as "Um" or "Well, I dunno...". The dialogue furthers the authentic feeling of the film and its characters, making it truly feel like a film that's heavily based in reality. There's a specific sequence in the film that really showcases the realism that I'm talking about. Taking place in Rhett's apartment, we see the trio enjoying some fresh pizza while discussing Rhett's interest in nature and film.  It's very minimalist and the scene is mostly comprised of "Yeah, man"s and repetitive dialogue. It feels very much like an actual conversation and, to me, is the best example of the film's realism.

 That said, though, The Puffy Chair certinaly seems to break its focus on realism for the sake of dramatic tension. For example, there's a sequence where Rhett confesses to wanting to marry a girl that he's only known for less than 24 hours. He isn't kidding either - he's completely serious. You'll hear stories like these on rare occasions, but it's far from something common in life. It's because of events like these that the film feels just as realisitc as it does unrealistic. It's as if the screenwriters realized that real life can't make a well-structured film and added some random events to kick some life into the film. The flip-flopping between randomness and realism makes the narrative feel indecisiive and confused.

The cinematography's decent for an independent film. While the camera is of a nice quality and the editing's fair, the lack of composition and structure really shows. The camera's all over the place and doesn't feel cinematic or contemplative at all. Frankly, it's only a step above home movies. There isn't too much to say - the visuals are decent but they could've been much, much better.

Overall, The Puffy Chair is only a decent film. While the characters are likable and the dialogue's realisitc, the rest of the film is pretty lacking.

Entry#186: Mary and Max

Trailer

Oftentimes, people overlook the small gems that surface in film festivals like the Sundance Film Festival or the Cannes' Film Festival. They're content with watching mainstream and Hollywood-produced films, that frankly end up sucking, but, for some reason, can't seem to give smaller films such as Mary and Max a chance. Whether this is due to the common misconception that independent films are "overly artsy" or because the mainstream film industry is more accessible, films like Mary and Max go unheard of. Meanwhile, trashy flicks likes Transformers 2 and Twilight are making millions of dollars despite their very low quality. It's just a shame, as filmmakers like Adam Elliot (Harvie Krumpet, Mary and Max) have more talent than half of the mainstream industry. Regardless, though, Mary and Max proves to be a touching and darkly comedic film.

The film stars the titular Mary and Max, one of whom is a lonely eight-year-old girl in Australia and the other an atheistic Jew from New York with Asperger's, as they form a friendship as pen pals. After many more letters, and plenty of strange conversations, the two develop a very close friendship and prove to be the only friends they have in the world. The rest of the film follows the duo as their friendship soars and wanes over the next twenty-two years.

The film's great in terms of characterization. The characters are well-written, lovable, and genuinely interesting. Max, for instance, is just as hilarious as he is pitiful. I felt a deep sense of sadness for his situation but, at the same time, enjoyed his hilarious dialogue and sense of unintentional humor. He was just such a great character and Phillip Seymour Hoffman gave a fantastic performance to compliment Max's character. Mary was also a naive, yet charming, little girl and I really felt her presence in the film as well. She's just as well-written and depressed, yet hopeful, as Max is.These two characters interact with each other lovingly in a way that's very human, very real, and very heart-felt.


The claymation of the film is simply splendid. It gives the film a nice look and the lighting used in the film, from the artificial light of Australia to the darkly-lit streets of New York, provides just as much symbolism as it does atmosphere. Loneliness is a key theme to the film, and it can be felt through the film's visuals. The dilapidated and black look of New York, for example, shows the coldness and sadness inhabited by Max's world. It isn't actually until Mary sends him a gift, a rubber ball, that some color shows up in his world. It's well-animated, framed, edited, and is pure eye-candy.


Also, I'm not usually a big fan of narration, but the narrator in this film (Barry Humphries) was just superb. Not only did he deliver his lines with a strong sense of meaning and storytelling, but it furthered the feel of a nighttime story that the film has. It's somewhat tragic, somewhat poetic, and somewhat fairy tale-like. All in all, though, it's a film that has a big heart and a love for lonely people.


If I did have a problem with the film, though, it lies in the some of the more unbelievable aspects of the story. I don't believe, for example, that Mary would've continued writing Max after an eight-month hiatus. Not only that, but some of the plot events felt like unneeded reasons to create drama or tension in a narrative that really didn't need it. The film's about Mary and Max - that's it. I don't think the asylum sequences or the hiatus were really that necessary, as they really seemed to drag out during the film's narrative. Regardless, it's not a huge flaw.


It may not be perfect, but it doesn't need to be. Mary and Max is a sweet, smart, and very emotional film. Sometimes the plot seems to take precedence because it feels like "nothing's happening" - which isn't a bad thing - but the characters are truly the focus. With a witty sense of black humor and wonderful visuals, the film's a treat in all aspects.

Entry#185: The Birth of a Nation

Trailer

The Birth of a Nation is both famous and infamous within film history.  From critics to Woodrow Wilson, the film has garnered plenty of attention due to its sheer invention and innovation of cinematic language and its uncompromising racist overtones. In fact, the film glorifies the KKK as "heroic knights" during the film's long third act.  It's uncomforting, to say the least, but not all films have to be "right" in order to be great.  The Triumph of the Will, for example, is a very well-made film that happens to promote Nazi ideals and makes a god out of Adolph Hitler. It's despicable, but to completely dismiss the film is disrespectful to the technical achievements and landmarks of the film. The same applies to The Birth of a Nation. D.W. Griffith, the director of the film, may have displayed a shocking amount of racism (even in an age where racism was common), but he made up for it by virtually creating the cinematic techniques that filmmakers still use to this day. Fading out, fading in, split-screen, flashbacks, and wide-angle shots are only a handful of Griffith's very important contributions. Regardless of its racism, the film's still a great landmark in film history.

The film follows two families, the Northern Stonemans and the Southern Camerons, before, during, and after the American Civil War. Before the South's secession and the ensuing violence, the two families were quite close and the sons, especially Benjamin Cameron, found themselves attracted to the daughters of the other family.  They often visited, wrote to, and shared long hours with each other during their carefree days. Once the war broke out, though, the families grew apart as their sons were sent out to kill one another. The rest of the film follows the eldest sons of the families as they go through the Civil War, the Reconstruction, and the birth of the Ku Klux Klan.

Before going any further, it's best to acknowledge the film's racism before anything else. From the start, the racism is quite blatant as all of the blacks are portrayed as simpletons, idiots, hooligans, thieves, dishonest workers, lazy men, and overall 'animal-like'. It's sad, really, that anyone could truly believe that their fellow man could actually behave like this. At the same time, however, it's a dark side of history that we need to face. The racism, though obvious, is only present in the background of the first half of the film. It wouldn't be too difficult to ignore the racism in the first half by completely focusing on the sentimental and human stories of the Stoneman and Cameron families. After the first half, however, the film takes a dramatic shift and brings its racist agenda to the forefront of the film. Portraying an equal rights Senator as misguided, and possibly "tricked" by his mulatto servant, the film states that blacks are trying to "take over" the South for their "Black Empire". It's ridiculous. Even if the film didn't have a racist agenda, the film's politically-charged second half seems nowhere near as powerful as the first half's emotional and heart-felt story. The characters are still focused on during the second half, but it seems more like propaganda than anything else. The sheer shock of the sights in the second half, such as an animal-like black man's attempted rape and Christ appearing before the world to "congratulate" the KKK, are both unsettling and depressing. Still, the film's still technically impressive during these moments and the editing and cinematography remains ground-breaking.

Moving on, though, the film's storytelling methods and characters are amazing and way ahead of their time. Griffith created a complex narrative in a cinematic world where the most complicated films beforehand were A Day in the Life of a Fireman and The Great Train Robbery. The characters and the setting feel like something out a richly-written and thoughtful novel, thanks to the well-developed characters and the fluid style of editing. This film marks the creation of the typical American epic that everyone's become so accustomed to. The editing and characters proved that films could go beyond simple and remedial shorts - that films could tell epic stories such as the ones found in popular or classic novels. The characters are interesting and very likable, allowing for complex characters that we can relate to and care about. Yet another innovative success on the film's part.

It's insane to think that a film crew in 1915 could create such visual accomplishments such as the renowned battle sequence during the film's second act. The fighting spanned for miles and the action felt just as dream-like as it did realistic. The flowing nature of the editing makes the film go by quickly despite the film's three-hour runtime. This editing allowed for the narrative to never seem stagnant or disjointed - it was meant to create a storyline that both enticed and thrilled audiences and to show the birth of a new "nation" of art. The cinematography's very impressive as well, as the camerawork was fantastic and the cinematic techniques felt fresh due to their recent creation within the film world.

It's sad, though, that the film promotes plenty of great messages while simultaneously promoting racism. The film speaks of the horrors of war, the nurturing of family, the importance of forgiveness, etc. and so forth. The Birth of a Nation paved the way for cinema as we know it, but its racist overtones are difficult to ignore. Other than those overtones and an iffy introduction, the film's a great landmark and is a "must-see" for anyone who's interested in film.

Entry#184: A Night in Casablanca

Though many consider A Night at the Opera to be one of the Marx Brothers' best films, I actually think it's one of their weaker films (out of the few that I've seen). It's still great, don't get me wrong, but MGM's strict ethical code forced the brothers to "clean up their act" in order to appease a larger audience. This meant that the relentlessness and anarchic nature of their humor was completely thrown out the window. Most of the sequences were still funny, yes, such as the state room scene in A Night at the Opera, but it lacked the sharpness and utter freedom that made the Marx Brothers so funny to begin with. They'd been tamed, leashed, and stripped of their ability to do whatever they wanted. They could only make fun of certain individuals, had to have motivations behind their jokes, and always had to help out their fellow man. It was too tame and this lasted for another four films until the brothers' contract with MGM ran out. After that, United Artists picked up the brothers' act and restored much of their previously-vanquished freedom. In this indirect parody of the blockbuster classic Casablanca, the Marx Brothers were able to bring a sense of chaos back to their wicked sense of humor.

Following the murders of two managers of a hotel, Groucho is hired to replace them. What Groucho doesn't realize, though, is that Count Pfefferman - a resident of the hotel and undercover Nazi - has been killing off the hotel managers to keep suspicion away from his secret life and his horde of gold hidden within the hotel's elevator shaft. Eventually joining up with Chico, a merchant, and Harpo, Pfefferman's former servant, the comedic team must maintain "order", if you will, at the hotel while aiding a young French soldier in his quest to clear his name.

Thanks to United Artists' looser rules, the Marx Brothers are able to return to their relentless style of humor. Groucho, for instance, is free to humilate the upper class, the poltical, and the undeserving once again as of this film. With the exception of the French soldier and his lover, nobody's safe from any of the brothers' ridicule and it's a wonderful return to style. The humor's as freash as ever in this film as well. There are plenty of memorable quotes and moments, mostly coming from the group's loud-mouth (and my personal favorite of the bunch) Groucho. Chico and Harpo are great as well, and there are plenty of humorous moments coming from their characters. The charades scene between those two, for instance, has to be one of the film's highlighted moments.

What separates the Marx Brothers' films from other comedies, though, are their focus on character. The brothers, along with the usually theatrical supporting cast, aren't exactly landmark-making, but they're very cartoon-like which gives them an instant sense of likalbiltiy. In other words, the Marx Brothers are almost like the live-action versions of Mickey, Donald, and Goofy from Disney - they're silly yet very lovable. Every minute spent with these hilarious and clever comedians is a minute of laughs, charm, and appreciation.

However, I wouldn't say that A Night in Casablanca is perfect. Firstly, the film takes *way* too long to start. I don't mind waiting for the brothers to make their entrance, but fifteen minutes of an expositional opening feels like too much and it drags itself out before we meet any of the Marx brothers. It's not a major flaw, mind you, but those fifteen minutes feel like an etenrity. Next, despite moving over to United Artists, brothers were still expected to put on a few musical numbers in order to please crowds. These musical numbers feel like pointless filler, though, as the only served to meet major auidences' expectations. They exist simply for crowd-pleasure and, by this point in time, the random vaudeville piano performances feel random. They'd work onstage, no question about that, but there's no excuse for them to be present in a film.

As far as cinematograhpy goes, there isn't much to say. The camerawork's nice and the editing is fairly decent and gets the job done. There are moments when the editing aids in the joke-telling, but these moments don't happen often.

A Night in Casablanca, though, proves to be a fresh comedy. It's got a few flaws, but it's otherwise charming, witty, hilarious, and just plain fun.

Entry#183: Pale Rider

 

Trailer

Clint Eastwood is, by no means, a bad director. When he's at the top of his game, he's making great films like Unforigven and The Outlaw Joesy Wales. However, Eastwood has made plenty of sub-par to "just plain bad" films during the long expanse of his career - Pale Rider would fall under this category. It's not as if Eastwood didn't put any thought or work into this film, it's just that the generic and shoddy script brought the film down in a major way. Seriously, with a script like Pale Rider's, I'm not sure who could've had the ability to "save" this film. What really shocks me, though, is that the film would go on to be nominated for a Palme d'Or, which is the highest prize awarded to films competing at the Cannes Film Festival. That just blows my mind; how on earth could anyone see something great in this poor film? I digress, though, and shall proceed to actually explaining my contempt for this cliched film.

 

The plot follows a small mining community during the late era of the American Old West. The community may be simple and quite poor, but the people making up this community have big hearts and simply want to make an honest living during an age where dishonesty brings violence, immorality, and quick cash. Speaking of dishonesty, though, Coy LaHood - the richest man in the next town over - is the boss of a hydraulic mining company and wishes to take the small mining community's land. After multiple turndowns, LaHood soon resorts to raids and intimidation in order for the community to turn over their land. Just when things seem bleak, a drifter rides into town and singehandedly defends Hull Barret, a member of the miners, from a group of LaHood's ruffians. Dubbed only as "Preacher", due to his attire, the stranger helps defend the small community from the violent and greedy underlings of LaHood.

The concept's a bit lackluster, admittedly, but this film could've been decent, at best. However, the poor scripting, inherent lack of character, and the sloppy editing make this film's characters virtually impossible to get to know or like. I feel bad that the miners and their families are threatened, that really sucks, but the film gives me no reason to care about these characters. They're all cookie-cutter cliches that can be found in dozens of dozens of Westerns. They're not characters at all - they simply exist to give this film *some* sort of life and purpose. Sadly, because we don't any of these people, it's like watching a bunch of uninteresting strangers converse at an airport. It's boring. It doesn't help that the dialogue is completely expositional. There's no character development or focus, as the dialogue simply exists to get the film from one point to the next. In other words, I saw the characters' lips moving but I couldn't feel what they were saying. It was dull, trite, and lifeless. Even Clint Eastwood's character seems a bit cliche. Sure, everybody loves a cool gunslinger character, but we've seen elements of this character in a plethora of films like Shane or High Plains Drifter. 

Speaking of cliches, this film rips off a catalogue of classic films. Seven Samurai, Shane, Leone's Dollars trilogy, etc. and so forth. It's virtually a hodgepodge of cliches from other - and far better - films. The nameless gunslinger, for instance, can be seen in films like The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly, Yojimbo, High Plains Drifter, Once Upon a Time in the West, and more. The village in trouble? Seven Samurai along with a bunch of films that tried to homage the aforementioned film - such as The Magnificent Seven - but failed. Greedy corporate leader? Too many films to list. 'Nuff said. Pale Rider is derivative and can't seem to come up with anything remotely original.

It's not all bad, though, as the cinematopgrahy's quite impressive and Clint Eastwood, despite a low quality script, is able to, as always, entice audiences with a great performance. The visuals, I thought, really showed off the beauty of the film's landscape and looked really nice in terms of old-fashioned style and taste. The best scene, for me, has to be when LaHood's men kill the man with the large shard of gold. The camerawork's great and the snow really blends in with the utter violence that's depicted onscreen. There's something morbidly aesthetic about the combination of blood and snow... Anyway, as I was saying, Clint Eastwood also proves his worth as an actor in this film. He's haunting, understated, and performs greatly in his role. It's virtually the same role he's always played, though, but that's not too big of a problem.

Pale Rider's just a poor film. It's got a great leading performance and decent visuals, but those elements are virtually the only good things about the film. It's got a nice story structure but that's useless without good characters. Cliche, dull, and filled with forgettable characters, the film has very little to offer.

Entry#182: Suspiria

Trailer

I hadn't ever seen any of Dario Argento's films until Suspiria, but I can totally understand his appeal after watching this film. It's not a perfect film, let alone a fantastic one, but it's certainly very effective and haunting. In all aspects, Suspiria assaults the senses with its unrelenting nightmarish qualities until you're on the edge of your seat in both suspense and shock. Argento doesn't pull any cheap tricks or gimmicky 'jump scares' - the film's completely built on atmosphere, slow-building terror, and a soundtrack that's both shaking and darkly beautiful. I'm unsure if I want to view more of his films, though, as many filmgoers (including Argento's biggest fans) claim that Suspiria is Argento's best work. Suspiria was a great horror film and all but, at the same time, it had some very obvious flaws in its framework. If this flawed yet atmospheric film is his best, I'm not sure if I want to be disappointed by Argento's weaker films. Regardless, though, this film's fascinating and lingering enough to definitely be worth your time.

The film follows a young American girl, Suzy, who's just arrived in Germany to study ballet at a prestigious dance academy. After a long ride on a dark and stormy night, Suzy arrives at the academy to discover a student fleeing for her life and a voice from inside telling her to leave the area and never come back. Suzy's frightened and leaves as instructed, but not before getting one last glimpse of the fleeing student in the nearby woods. The next day, Suzy returns and, surprisingly, is entered into the academy with a warm welcome from the school board. News soon breaks out that fellow student, Pat Hingle, was murdered the night before. It doesn't take Suzy too long to realize that this girl was the fleeing student from the night before. Along with her roommate, Suzy begins to investigate the mysterious academy and its apparent background with witchcraft.

The soundtrack is, without a doubt, amazing. I'm a fan of plenty of horror films, and the soundtracks in films like Psycho and The Exorcist work brilliantly, but this may be the best soundtrack I've ever heard in a horror film. It's perfect and it's one of the few soundtracks I've actually considered purchasing. It's so deathly haunting and harrowing, leading the viewer in with soft music and then just pulverizing them with this quick-paced music with horrific chanting in the background. It's like a scarier version of the soundtrack from The Exorcist! It's just so effective and creepy that I can't help but enjoy it and fear it.

Visually, the film's very stylish. Argento uses primary colors often, especially red, to give the film this horrific nightmarish quality to it. The murder of Pat Hingle, for instance, is so dream-like and brutal that it captures a feeling of dread that's found only in nightmares and grim fairy tales. I don't want to spoil the scene, as it's possibly the darkest moment of the film, but the sheer usage of color and darkness contained within that sequence is simply shocking. Along with the rest of the film, the visuals prove to be just as stylish as they are haunting.

As far as characterization goes, the film's only decent. We get to know Suzy, our leading character, but only on a limited basis. The rest of the cast simply exists to further the plot of the film; we never get to know any of them. The cook, for instance, starts out with a role and seems to lose virtually all significance by the second half of the film. Why? Because she only existed to further plot points. That's it. Still, as the film is more concerned with atmosphere, I can't say the lack of characterization is devastating. The characters serve their purpose and the concept is very fascinating. It's a big flaw, but not a terrible one...

As the film is directed by a "horror aficionado" from the 70's, you can expect to see some over-the-top moments and dated gore. The bat scene, for example, looks horrible because of the poor effects. The reason that older films like Psycho and The Exorcist work are because of their use of suspense over effects. Unless you can get something wicked onscreen, it's best to stick your monsters in the shadows.

Suspiria may flawed but it's still a great horror film. With a chilling soundtrack, nightmarish visuals, and a great sense of atmosphere, the film's an underrated work that's worth looking for.