My Favorite Film of 2009: Inglourious Basterds

The first time I saw Quentin Tarantino’s “Inglourious Basterds” I came away with the feeling that I had just seen an important movie. It’s such a unique film that I couldn’t quite get a handle on it. I went back a second time with it fresh in my mind to see if I could distill my thoughts a bit but it only gave me more to think about. I was drafting a long-winded review in my head but I put off writing about it. Upon it’s DVD release I got an opportunity to examine it a little closer. And while I don’t think it’s a perfect film (I wince every time Eli Roth comes onscreen) I do think it’s the best of the year and one of the most important films of the decade.

Here are a few reasons why:

1). This is the film that finally taught morons to read subtitles.

Let’s face it, the advertisements for the film are nothing but a compilation of the most juvenile and violent scenes taken out of their original context. Those people who went into this thinking it was a splatterfest romp through WWII got something else entirely. It’s one of the largest bait-and-switch promo campaigns in film history, one in which the title characters become supporting players in their own film.

Let’s start with the opening scene, which is essentially a 20 minute conversation between two actors, one of which isn’t even a main character. And a great deal of that conversation is in French. One of my greatest cinematic pet peeves is when characters speak English instead of their native language for the benefit of American audiences. In this case the conversation begins in French but after a few moments Colonel Landa requests that they switch to English. At this point I’m thinking “Ok, Tarantino has acknowledged the fact that they should be speaking French but has carefully made a segue into English so this thing will play to the frat boy crowd.” But then I realize something brilliant is going on. There’s actually a reason for switching to English – Col. Landa doesn’t want to alarm the French-speaking Jews hiding underneath the floorboards. This sets the tone for the rest of the film, which to my surprise and delight, turns out to be a story about the complexity, subtlety and beauty of language. I’d say about 80% of this film is spoken in French, German or Italian.

What follows about an hour after this opening conversation is without a doubt the most entertaining thing I saw all year. We have three German-speaking members of The Basterds deep undercover as SS Officers meeting with German actress-turned-spy Bridget Von Hammersmark in a French bar filled with Nazis. They try to maintain their cool under the pressure of an increasingly suspicious Gestapo Officer while being forced into a party game in which they have to guess a person’s name written on a card on their forehead. There are so many layers of deception and identity going on in that scene that it’s astounding. And of course there is the language. While the Gestapo officer has no trouble discerning the Frankfurt and Munich accents of two of the undercover Basterds, he is puzzled by the seeming English accent of Lt. Archie Hickox. I will admit that during the first two viewings I couldn’t tell the difference between the German spoken by the guy from Munich and the German spoken by the Brit, but on the third viewing I knew to listen more closely, and by god I could hear it! The tension eventually builds until you can’t take it anymore, and even though it ends in an orgasm of shocking violence (as many Tarantino scenes do) you really have to appreciate how it gets there.

Once I realized what Tarantino was doing with the language in this film I fully expected large groups of people to start walking out. A packed Saturday night crowd on opening weekend most likely didn’t come to see a foreign film. But everyone was just as riveted to the screen as I was. And as we were exiting the theatre I was very surprised to hear no complaints at all. People were actually phoning their friends to tell them to see it immediately. My faith in humanity was briefly restored.

2). The Best Movie Villain in Recent Memory

When was the last time you have seen someone as well written and superbly acted as Colonel Hans Landa? Remember how Hannibal Lecter was so menacing because he was the most intelligent person in the film? But what happens when you put something like that in a position of power? When asked about his role as Colonel Landa, Christoph Waltz claimed that the whole character was all right there in Tarantino’s script. I’m sure Tarantino deserves much credit but Waltz is certainly being modest. His Landa never gives away his true intentions until it’s too late and you realize that he’s been one step ahead of our heroes at every turn. And if he wasn’t such a self-serving fascist you would almost have to admire him. He’s the most fleshed out character in the film and you could go so far as to say that even though he is the villain, he is the main character this story. They say that heroes are only as strong as their villains and what Tarantino and Waltz have created here is one of the best villains ever to grace a movie screen.

3). The End of Holocaustsploitation?

“Holocaustsploitation” is a term that hasn’t quite caught on in English vernacular and I kind of hope it doesn’t. I use it here to describe the glut of films in recent years that have mined the Holocaust for entertainment value. Regardless of whatever Spielberg’s intentions were with “Schindler’s List” (and I have no doubt that they were good) it has become clear that the shortest path to an Oscar nomination (outside of playing someone who is mentally ill) is to star in a holocaust film. It’s the ultimate “serious subject” genre. You could spend days debating the relative merits of films like Life is Beautiful, Jakob the Liar, The Pianist, Black Book, The Boy in the Striped Pajamas, Definance, The Reader and many others. In most cases you would probably find good intentions but some larger questions remain. Is it ethical to fictionalize something so sensitive and traumatic? Is there an inherent guilt in watching these films for entertainment? What issues are we still dealing with 75 years later that cause filmmakers to continually return to this era? Go back and view Alain Resnais’ 1955 documentary “Night and Fog” about

the German death camps. It’s certainly not enjoyable but I think every human being should watch this at least once. And then ask yourself, “Is there anything more to be said about the Holocaust”?

I think there’s a fine line with these types of films and each one is potentially dangerous and irresponsible. And sometimes we don’t realize where that line is until we’ve crossed it.

So where does Inglourious Basterds fit in? On the surface it looks like it could be the type of irresponsible film I was just talking about. Yet it somehow maintains a precarious balance on that line and then in the last few minutes completely obliterates it. One thing it does is that other than the first scene in which Shoshanna’s family is murdered, there are no images of oppressed Jews. No concentration camps, no piles of bodies, no serial numbers. The Jews in this film are all empowered and angry. This alone sets the film apart. Inglourious Basterds is simply the revenge film to end all revenge films. The issues that continue to spur on the creation of new Holocaust films? Tarantino sets out to solve them. The issue for most of us, I think, is the pent-up anger and frustration that we will never be able to go back and put a bullet in Hitler’s head ourselves. And of course we never thought we’d see a closeup of Hitler’s face riddled with bullets and then subsequently blown up with dynamite. Tarantino has the balls to give us exactly what we’ve always wanted but never thought we’d see. If this was presented as revisionist history (like Forest Gump) we would be right to be offended. But this is really an alternate timeline in which one of our biggest wishes is fulfilled. But the real kicker is that for the most part the film is handled with such reverence and elegance, moreso than any other American war film I can recall. That’s the crux of this whole thing and what I had the hardest time wrapping my head around. You have such exquisite scenes like the two that I described earlier intercut with what can only be described as tasteless juvenile violence. It’s a film that contradicts itself as you are watching it.

My sincere hope is that after Adolph Hitler and most of the Nazi high command have been obliterated in one of the most satisfying film climaxes ever that we can put this behind us. This film offers catharsis unlike any other I have seen. I don't know what is left to be said about World War II that hasn't already been said.

I think this is a film that recognizes the characteristics of Holocaustsploitation and tiptoes carefully around it. I don’t know what Tarantino’s intentions were. Maybe it was just to create something entertaining out of the stale World War II genre, which would pretty much disprove the last few hundred words I wrote. I’m still not entirely sure what to make up of this film.

I guess I’ll just have to watch it again.

Best of 2009

My year end list normally exceeds ten and I try to not to limit it to such an arbitrary number. Unfortunately, 2009 made it a little too easy on me this year. There are a few films that might take that final spot given my mood but I feel that this year I can be satisfied with a top ten because there just wasn't that much to choose from.

So here they are, in alphabetical order:

500 Days of Summer - Marc Webb

At first this film seems like something that is engineered for the cynical hipsters of my generation, but it turns out to be quite an original and heartfelt film, a romantic comedy for those of us who hate romantic comedies. I enjoyed the film when I first saw it but it has been my conversations about the film afterwards that have made me appreciate it. I find it fascinating how the different sexes view the story. Males generally side with Tom and they understand exactly what it's like to be put through the wringer like that and turn around and blame the girl for his misery. Women seem to think that Summer did nothing wrong and was honest with Tom from the beginning about not wanting a relationship. The movie was so effective in this regard that it had me hating Zooey Deschanel (my number #1 celebrity crush) for what she did to Tom until it was explained to me later by members of the opposite sex that she hadn't actually done anything to him. It's more about what we do to ourselves and I think that's what makes this film so relatable. There is one sequence that I think is brilliant and it's one that I don't think I've ever seen in a film before: the expectations vs. reality split screen. You know you've played out that "expectations" film in your mind a million times only to be crushed by harsh reality. So I admire director Marc Webb for not sugar-coating this story but also for turning in one of the more honest relationship comedy/dramas I have seen in a long time.

The Brothers Bloom - Riann Johnson

I can't remember the last time my opinion of a film has been so at odds with the major critics. Yes, this flim is overly cute, contrived, whimsical and clever but I really liked the audacity with which Riann Johnson pulls this all off. It's like he decided to try to outdo Wes Anderson and just went way over the top with it. There's nothing about Johnson's previous film "Brick" that suggested he could make a film like "The Brothers Bloom" but here it is and it's a hell of a fun ride. I've never really paid much attention to Rachel Weisz before but it's impossible not to fall in love with her in this picture. Untimately this film just goes around in circles and doesn't really end up anywhere surprising but the the trip is so entertaining. Given all the valid criticisms that I have read from other reviewers I feel like I should know better than to like this film but I do anyway.

Fantastic Mr. Fox - Wes Anderson

I was very pleased that Wes Anderson was able to finally break out of his comfort zone without sacrificing what essentially makes his films so unique. And I think that creating a visual in minature world is a natural progression for Anderson's meticulous style. Almost every scene of this thing is worthy of studying in freeze frame for the sheer cleverness and artistry of it. I've already written at length about this one in a previous review, but I will say that in a year where there were many unique animated films this one takes the top spot.

Inglourious Basterds - Quentin Tarantino

This was the only film of 2009 that I liked enough to see three times. Please see my in-depth write up coming soon.

Moon - Duncan Jones

The best science fiction is about ideas. The kind of thing that you can get across in a fifteen page short story and let go of. While Avatar may appear to be the pinnacle of sci-fi, it's really just fantasy in space. Moon, on the other hand, owes more to those one-off stories by Azimov, Clarke, Bradbury and Ellison. The kind that take a scientific idea and spin it into something existential and challenging. It's a pity that there aren't more of these idea-driven films made. This one edges out the similarly cerebral "District 9" simply because it refuses to regress into a sci-fi action spectacle. Sam Rockwell carries the whole film himself in dual roles. It's this kind of bold decision that makes Moon so fascinating. Director Duncan Jones holds our attention for 97 minutes with one actor and an idea. Not many other filmmakers would even attempt that.

The Road - John Hillcoat

If there was anything bleaker than The Coen Brothers' "A Serious Man" it would have to be "The Road" based on Cormac McCarthy's novel, who the Coen's mined for Oscar gold a couple years ago with No Country For Old Men. Any faults this film may have are also faults of the novel because this is probably the most faithful adaptation of I book I have ever seen. I have longer review of this film from earlier in the year. Suffice it to say, neither the novel nor the film pull any punches.

A Serious Man - The Coen Brothers

Why do bad things happen to good people? This Coen Brothers film doesn't set out to answer that question, only to make you ask it. I knew going into this movie that it was a retelling of the Book of Job but after some research I can't tell you the point of the Book of Job. In fact there are quite a few biblical stories with confusing morals. In trying to make sense of story I felt just as lost as Larry Gopnik, our title character. Larry eventually turns to the church to help him solve his increasingly dire problems and after a series of visits to unhelpful rabbis he's just about at the end of his rope. The poor guy never gets a break. I will admit that I was puzzled by the ending even though I'm the type who likes an ambiguous ending over a nice tidy package. But the Coens create such a likable character in Larry that you want to see him succeed even while denying you the opportunity. In the end I take from this what I already knew: life is unfair. Sometimes you have to crawl through a river of shit and suffering to reach a those few beautiful moments that make life worth living. I guess it depends on your own outlook whether Larry will survive long enough to reach his next life-affirming moment. This is a challenging film from the Coen Brothers but at this point in their career I would expect nothing less.

Summer Hours - Olivier Assayas

Given that French filmmaker Olivier Assayas' last three films dealt with the corporate takeover of a pornography company, a rock star trying to kick a drug habit and a high-priced call girl who gets caught up in an international black market, you really wouldn't think he was capable of making a film like Summer Hours. The plot is simple; the wealthy art-collecting matriarch of a scattered family passes away and they are left to divide up her belongings. This setup allows Assayas to explore the nature of family as well as the commodification of art. Most of the film consists of the family discussing what to do with their mother's belongings. The actors, including Jeremie Renier and Juliette Binoche, are all so natural that it's not hard to believe you are witnessing a true family conflict. And while this conflict leads to some intense scenes there is such a simple beauty to the way Assayas photographs the summer home where most of the action takes place. There is nothing deliberately shocking here, as in his previous films which often have the effect of being off-putting. This one draws you in unlike anything he has done in the past. After years of what you could consider "ugly" films, Assayas has given us something truly beautiful.

Two Lovers - James Gray

While Joaquin Phoenix was having his much talked about performance art freakout on The Late Show with David Letterman, the movie he was supposedly there to promote quietly got swept under the rug. The plot is fairly simple - Leonard, a charismatic but directionless young man meets two available women and must decide which one to choose. Phoenix is so natural and likable in this role that we have no trouble relating to him. We know that he is troubled because he half-heartedly attempts suicide in the first minutes of the film. We also know that these two women, who are on such opposite ends of the spectrum, will eventually knock him off the precarious balance that he maintains throughout the film. One of the women, played by Gwyneth Paltrow, seems to always be in crisis but it's not hard to believe that Leonard will fall for her simply because of the male trait that causes us to want to be strong protectors. On the other hand, the woman played by Vinessa Shaw is warm and caring and motherly, which is also appealing. It may be a little too simplistic to assume that these are the only roles that women play in man's life, but they sure are strong archetypes. We know that Leonard will have to eventually choose his own role or die trying. It's fascinating trying to watch Pheonix maintain a balance between the two. I do hope that he tires of his alternate persona soon and returns to acting because he is one of the best.

You, The Living - Roy Andersson

This was my most pleasant surprise of 2009. It was orignally released in Sweden in 2007 but only had its US premiere in one New York theatre in 2009. It's debatable whether or not this belongs on this year's list but since American audiences won't be able to watch it on DVD until January of 2010, I thought it was appropriate to include here. It's not often that a film challenges the way you watch a movie. I suppose some people might consider You the Living to be excruciatingly slow and boring but this is a film that rewards patience and focus. The film is comprised of 50 short vignettes, some of which relate to the others, although most stand alone. The camera is always stationary, so that each scene takes on the features of a living painting rather than a film. What I found fascinating was that the subject in the frame on which you think you should be focusing is not always where the true action is happening. It's like how you can stare at painting for a long time and become fascinated by a small detail rather than the overall composition. Almost every character in this film is dealing with some problem, be it real or existential. Many of them address the audience directly pleading that no one understands them, although the director slyly knows that we all feel just as lost. Much like "A Serious Man" there is no answer to these peoples' problems but sometimes it just feels good to know that someone else has the same problems. This film is "absurd" in both senses of the word - the Camus sense and the Monty Python sense. One of my favorite cinematic scenes of the year involves a man preparing to do the "tablecloth trick" even though we already know he is going to fail. I never would have thought you could create such a suspenseful scene in a couple minutes and with a camera that never moves. But this is a film that defies a lot of what I thought I knew about cinema.

Honorable mention goes to: Star Trek, Up, District 9, Paranormal Activity, Where the Wild Things Are, Funny People, The Hurt Locker, Coraline, The Informant, An Education

Nine

Rob Marshall's "Nine" is an exercise in pointlessness. While Fellini's "8 1/2" is a very personal film, with the character of Guido standing in for Fellini himself, the film version of "Nine" is really owned by no one. Adapting "8 1/2" into a Broadway musical in the first place is a questionable choice. It's a strong film because it takes advantage of what the film medium can do, and it is now and forever will be the quintessential film about making films. It was first performed on stage in 1982 in a musical written by Arthur Kopit and Maury Yeston. Jump ahead 27 years and we now have an adaptation of the stage version written by Anthony Minghella and Michael Tolkin and directed by Rob Marshall (Chicago). So what began as a striking autobiographical work by one of cinema's most famous auteurs is now bastard child of Hollywood and Broadway. There are simply too many cooks in the kitchen with this new version and the result is a bland mess.

There are really only two ingredients in this thing that really work. I went to see this strictly based on the involvement of Daniel Day Lewis (a perennial favorite of mine) and Marion Cotillard (quickly becoming one of my favorite actresses). They are both fantastic in this movie and I didn't doubt for a second that they were giving it all they could. The rest of the cast is serviceable and each of the women are given musical numbers and a few key scenes. Penelope Cruz is sexy as hell but behaves exactly like you would expect her to. Who better to play the ideal woman than Nicole Kidman? Unfortunately her role doesn't require her to do anything but look beautiful. Kate Hudson is quite dull as an American reporter. Veterans Judi Dench and Sophia Loren hold their own in small roles but are never given anything to do. I guess you can blame the small roles on the structure of the original story, but that begs the question of why such a star-studded remake was necessary in the first place?

So, if we remove the personal aspect of the film and let the involvement of a multitude of creators water down the orignal point of the story, what are we left with? Unfortunately not much. I think it tries to be a love letter to Fellini's Italian cinema but that's hard to pull off when almost no one in your cast is actually Italian. So let's see, we have two Brits, an Aussie, French, Spanish and two Americans. Fergie's musical number, "Be Italian" is especially infuriating. Fergie, I know what your area code is and it's nowhere near Rome. Oh, and let's not forget that everyone inexplicably speaks English in this film.

The cinematography in this film is incredibly lifeless and makes me yearn to watch the amazing black and white photography of Fellini's "8 1/2" and "La Dolce Vita".

Oh, and let's not forget the fact that is a musical, although I can't for the life of me figure out why it should be. I'm not much of a fan of musicals but I can assure you that there are no memorable tunes in this one and that the lyrics are very trite.

It's been a long time since I have felt the urge to actually throw things at the screen. If not for the fact that Daneil Day Lewis and Marion Cotillard are so electrifying every moment they are on screen, I would have walked out. For the majority of the film I kept asking myself why this thing should even exist and by the end of it I hadn't come up with an answer.

Avatar

If James Cameron were to take his new film Avatar back in time about 30 years and show it to a late 70s audience, it would probably be easier to convince them that in the future we had actually colonized alien planets and had sent a film crew there than it would be to explain how CGI works. When the height of computer graphics is an Atari 2600, Avatar must truly seem like it comes from another planet. I really can't say a thing to fault the technical aspects of Avatar. Every second that one of Cameron's Na'vi are on the screen you sit there mesmerized at a creature that really shouldn't exist in such rich detail and natural movement. I can't even begin to imagine how many man hours of motion capture, modeling, texturing, lighting and compositing went into this film.

Let's consider how far we've come in the last decade. 2001's "Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within" purported itself to be the pinnacle of CGI at the time. They even went so far as to create the first "virtual actress" in Dr. Aki Ross, a character model that they thought was so fully realized that they expected to re-use her in future films. As it turns out, she wasn't much of a commodity. Appearing in a bikini in Maxim was the height of her post-film career. It wasn't too long before high school kids with a souped up computer and a pirated copy of Poser were creating their own virtual women, once again proving that any new technology will be co-opted to satisfy our basest needs. As far as Final Fantasy revolutionizing filmmaking - well, the trend didn't really catch on with movie-goers but it did influence storytelling within the video game industry. Even today's mediocre games have fully rendered cut scenes that surpass what Final Fantasy delivered in 2001.

The Star Wars prequels attempted to carry the virtual torch into a new millennium, but despite the technical wizardry ILM had pioneered in the previous decades they weren't able to create believable virtual worlds. The effects in the Star Wars prequels often felt clunky and distracting and made me yearn for the days of puppets and matte paintings.

Robert Zemeckis' people have made some pretty significant advances in virtual characters but I still find the idea to be very unsettling. The fake children and psuedo Tom Hanks of The Polar Express really creep me out. Beowulf further upped the visual ante but I find that the women characters in that film, largely due to being idealized versions created by men, seem to have all the expressiveness of sex dolls.

James Cameron takes one big leap over the Uncanny Valley by simply choosing not to recreate human characters with CGI. If something feels a little alien to you, well, its because they are aliens. Overall, Avatar is technically flawless.

The art direction here is splendid. This film must be a creative person's dream to work on. The world of Pandora is incredibly beautiful and for a couple hours we don't mind taking a tour of it. It really does feel new and fresh and always a joy to look at.

So why am I spending so much time talking about the visuals? Because that's pretty much the only significant aspect of this movie. The plot is very simple. The film is about 2 hours and 40 minutes long but you could easily summarize the whole story in a few sentences. It doesn't challenge the way you think about anything and there is really no subtext to analyze. Spoiler alert! Pocahontas and Dances with Wolves lead the Ewoks to victory over the evil Empire, the Iraqis get to keep their oil and everyone lives happily ever after in Smurfland. Everything plays out exactly as you would expect it to and every plot point is telegraphed way in advance. There is really no tension or drama here and by the end of the film you'll start to get bored by the extended action scene that Cameron probably designed to top every other action sequence in any movie ever. And the action is pretty thrilling and refreshingly comprehensible (I'm looking at you Michael Bay) but ultimately never quite pulled me in to the point that I cared what happened next or gave me any sense that the unexpected could actually happen. It's all by the numbers and we've seen it all before.

There was a brief moment where our hero Jake, in an awkward voice-over, mentions life in his Avatar body seems to be reality while his real life has started to feel like a dream. When I initially heard about the concept of Avatar I was hoping the film would explore this theme more in depth. Given our society's penchant for disappearing into MMORPGs like World of Warcraft or Second Life, it would seem like a theme worth exploring and certainly more of an interesting focus than the hundredth anti-occupation film since the Iraq war started. Avatar really glosses over that MMO gamer aspect (although it is very glossy).

I seem to remember a time when action films were built around human beings and occasionally punctuated with special effects. These days the films are built on special effects and occasionally punctuated with people. As amazing as the CGI effects are there is still a need to connect with the characters and Avatar sometimes makes it hard to do that. There were times when I knew I was supposed to be feeling emotion but I just couldn't muster a tear because deep down I knew I was missing that human connection. So as far as we have come on a technical level, we're not quite there yet.

Avatar has been the source of a lot of talk and speculation in the months leading up to its release. People would ask me what I thought about it and I didn't have much to say. Given that James Cameron is responsible for one of my favorite films, Terminator 2, and one of the biggest cinematic turds in recent memory, Titanic, it was hard for me to form any kind of opinion. And now that I have seen the film I find that my view of it is pretty much as it was before. I'm still kind of indifferent.

2009 in Review: Entertainment, Weakly

No, no...the inclusion of the above shot from "500 Days of Summer" doesn't mean I thought it was a bad film. But that scene is a nice metaphor for my film experience this year: Expectations not met.

It's almost pointless to make a "worst" list isn't it? I usually don't even bother because I try to avoid the bad ones. But my personal criteria for a bad film is simply wasted potential and disappointment and this year I found an unusual amount of those two things.

Most of the previous year’s best films were provided by giant Hollywood blockbusters. The Dark Knight, Iron Man, Wall-E, Tropic Thunder..... but look how far we have fallen in only a year. This summer’s blockbusters were excruciatingly bad. These films make me want to punch myself in the face. These films are Hollywood’s best case for illegal downloading. All I was looking for this summer was some escapism that didn’t make me feel like an idiot and it was nowhere to be found. Lets start with the worst of the worst:

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen may very well be the worst film in the history of cinema. Sure, there are no-budget amateur films that are worse, but we are talking about a multi-million dollar Hollywood production that was seen by almost everyone. I will admit that my inner eight-year-old was excited about this one and I happily paid $9 for the chance to see it. Unfortunately, this film’s intelligence level is below that of an eight-year-old. It should be entertaining to watch giant robots blow shit up, yet somehow Michael Bay makes it a chore. Bay is responsible for what I see to be the worst trend in modern action movies: quick cutting. No shot lasts more than a few seconds, rendering the action incomprehensible. Combine that with vapid, one-dimensional characters, talentless acting, a story that makes no sense and means nothing and you have a film that combines all of Hollywood’s worst aspects into an incredibly painful two hours.

I have a theory that in about 20 years The Criterion Collection will release a Michael Bay retrospective. His films will be significant in that they started the decline of cinema.

The best praise I can give to G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra, X-Men Origins: Wolverine, or Terminator: Salvation is that none of them were as bad as Transformers. I really wish I had something nice to say about them because they are all based on franchises that I loved as a kid. Unlike The Dark Knight they have not grown up with us. I came out of all of these somewhat depressed about not being able to recapture the magic I felt as a child and fearing for the future of a human race that actually enjoys this crap.

I'll have another post soon about some of the trends I saw this year, as well as the annual "best of" list.

Team Jacob

I found the Team Edward (James Olmos) graphic online earlier this week over at /Film. If I was the kind of person who wore funny t-shirts I would definitely buy that one.

So I couldn't resist the visual joke or the opportunity to co-opt the Twilight brand with my own Team Jacob image. Irene Jacob that is, star of two of my favorite films, Krzysztof Kieslowski's "The Double Life of Veronique" and "Three Colors: Red". She was my teenage heartthrob back in the day. And in 1994 probably the most beautiful woman on the planet. At that point she was on her way to becoming a great actress. Unfortunately, since those two Kieslowski films near the beginning of her career, she hasn't done anything worth mentioning. Trust me, I've sat through quite a few bad to mediocre Irene Jacob films in the hopes that one of them would return her to the prominence she deserves.

The Twilight branding actually works pretty well with her photo from "Red". While I can't stand the series itself I actually kind of like consistency of the design between the books and the novels. It's almost like they were developing a brand right from the beginning. That's the power of graphic design folks.

Wild Strawberries

I've somehow managed to live 31 years on this earth and have been an avid film buff for half of them, yet until a couple days ago I had somehow managed to have never seen a film by Ingmar Bergman. How someone can keep a film blog and never have seen "The Seventh Seal" I don't know. I suppose that would have been the place to start, being his most well known film. But that's not where I started. I organize a film discussion group that meets every month and this month we chose three films that are favorites of Woody Allen. "The Bicycle Thief", also one of Allen's favorites, was the subject of my first blog post. The second was Bergman's "Wild Strawberries."

I'm not that knowledgeable about Woody Allen so I'm not really qualified to discuss how it relates his work but these are my thoughts about "Wild Strawberries" in general. Knowing the context in which a film is released really heightens your appreciation of it. For instance, without context you might look at most of the French New Wave as incredibly dull. There's nothing shocking about "Breathless" if you've ever been exposed to "Pulp Fiction". Regarding Bergman's films, I'm pretty much without the context of his other films or Swedish films in general. Wikipedia tells me "the film is often considered to be one of Bergman's most emotional, one of his most optimistic, and one of his best." If this is one of his most emotional then I understand why "The Seventh Seal" is regarded as such a cold and distant film.

I will admit that I had trouble relating with the characters. The actors and characters are likable, yet Bergman remains at a cautious distance. Isak's flashbacks to his childhood don't really convey any kind of warmth yet I feel that's what the director intended with those scenes. Instead, an uncomfortable Luis Bunuel vibe creeps into the scenes that are supposed to be pleasant memories and the surrealism is really racheted up once Isak starts having nightmares.

The film is essentially a man reflecting back on his life as he is about to receive an honorary degree. The film takes place during the trip from his home to the university. He is accompanied by his daughter-in-law. Along the way they stop to pick up some hitchhikers and a couple of stranded motorists and even stop by Isak's childhood home which gives him an opportunity to reflect.

While I wasn't particularly moved by any of the flashback scenes, there was one scene that I thought was brilliant. In the back seat of the car we have the three youthful hitchhikers, so full of life and energy. In the middle seat (really, how big is this car?) sit a bickering middle-aged couple. And the front seat is occupied Isak and his daughter-in-law Marianne. It's three stages of life sharing the same car. Marianne eventually asks the argumentative couple to get out and we find out later that she has recently had an argument with her own husband and fears becoming like that couple. Isak, on the other hand, has already been through a rough marriage and is all the wiser for it. But even in old age his wisdom doesn't save him from regret and self-doubt as his dreams start to become more painful reminders of his failings.

It does end on what Bergman intends as an optimistic note, which is another childhood flashback. Like I said, I didn't feel that the flashback scenes were very successful and I think the success of the movie depends on how you perceive those scenes. There were enough interesting ideas in this film to make me curious about Bergman's other films. "The Seventh Seal" is already in my Netflix queue.

The Road

For me, watching John Hillcoat's "The Road" after having read Cormac McCarthy's novel was a unique experience. I've never seen a film that so perfectly captured what I had pictured in my mind as I read the book. Part of that might be chalked up to the fact that I had seen some production stills of the film before starting the book, so my imagination was already colored with a grey palette. But I don't think that accounts for all of it. There's something about the language McCarthy uses in the novel that removes any room for interpretation. The descriptions are incredibly vivid yet at the same time the economy and simplicity of the language is very poetic.

Aside from one small misstep at the end, I would say this has to be the most faithful adaptation of a novel I have ever seen. I don't know if I should give too much creative credit to Hillcoat. He doesn't really put his personal stamp on anything, but after watching his debut feature "The Proposition" it's as if he was born to direct this film. I do have to give him credit for not compromising the gruesome and bleak nature of the story. Try as they might, the trailers attempt to make it look like an action packed adventure with the beautiful Charlize Theron at the center of it, despite the fact that she's in the film for no more than ten minutes. I know they are having trouble selling this to American audiences and the studio probably won't make the budget back on this one unless it gets some Oscar buzz soon. It's a film that certainly deserves some recognition and will be near the top of my best of 2009 list. But it's so grim that it's not something I'd be willing to watch again very soon.

Fantastic Mr. Fox

I consider myself to be a big fan of Wes Anderson but with his previous film “The Darjeeling Limited” it’s clear that he’s been stuck in a creative rut. Two years ago, while my other favorite American auteur, Paul Thomas Anderson, was reaching well outside his comfort with “There Will Be Blood”, Wes Anderson turned in exactly what you would expect of him. You can almost diagram the formula: Bill Murray + The Kinks + strained relationships + a slow-motion final shot + his perennial font of choice: Futura Bold. Fantastic Mr. Fox includes nearly all of those things but it’s still a large creative leap forward for Anderson and I’m really happy to see the results.

While the bare bones plot of the films is based on Roald Dahl’s book of the same name, the film is %100 percent Wes Anderson. It’s charming as hell and probably the most I have laughed during a film this year. Mr. Fox’s meticulously crafted world is a creative extension of what Anderson has done is previous films with “The Royal Tenenbaums” and “The Life Aquatic” (think the cross section cutaway of the ship). It also gives him ample opportunity for visual jokes, many of which I’m sure I missed. I’m looking forward to this one on DVD so I can make use of the freeze frame feature to study the details. My favorite visual joke is the graffiti of the word “CUSS” (being the film’s all-purpose profanity) spray painted on a wall in the background. (I can’t wait to work “clustercuss” into a conversation). I also loved the way the action plays out in one scene on security camera monitors, from left to right, like comic book panels come to life.

Ultimately, I’m not sure what the subtext in this film is, if any. I picked up on themes of rebellion and being true to your nature but there’s no overt moral to this film. And that’s fine because it’s one of the most entertaining films of the year.

The Bicycle Thief

Even knowing that “The Bicylce Thief” (1948) is regarded as one of the best films of all time, I wasn't able to get through it the first time I tried to watch it about five years ago. Maybe my tastes have changed or I’ve become more patient, but on the second try I found it to be thoroughly engrossing. Not having seen it through to the end the first time I didn’t realize the ambiguous title (also known as Bicycle Thieves) not only refers to the thief who steals Antonio’s bicycle in the beginning but also to Antonio himself who resorts to stealing someone elses bicycle at the end of the film. His anger at the thieves suddenly turns to understanding as he is put into a desperate situation. I suppose the poor are more likely to steal from the poor because its easier than stealing from the rich.

There were a few other things that I noticed on a second viewing. The posters Antonio is hired to paste up are of Rita Hayworth in “Gilda”, an ironic contrast between the decadence of Hollywood and the harsh reality of post-war Italy. And I also like the tension that director Vittorio de Sica builds the first time Antonio leaves his bicycle unattended. We know from the title of the film that his bike will be stolen. Antonio returns and the bicycle is still there and it’s very unexpected later in the film when his bicycle is stolen out from under his nose as he is working.

It’s a heart-wrenching film and bleak film. I wonder how it was perceived by American audiences in 1948, who were probably used to the glamorous Hollywood happy endings.

For some reason, the theme of bicycle theft has been a popular one in films all over the world.

“Beijing Bicycle” (China), “Cyclo” (Vietnam), and even Tim Burton’s “Pee Wee’s Big Adventure” are all somewhat inspired by The Bicycle Thief.

I’ve even seen it used a couple of times in comedy. A recent episode of ABC’s sitcom “Modern Family” was called “The Bicycle Thief” in which a father tries to teach his irresponsible son a lesson by stealing his new bike, only to find out that it wasn’t his son’s bike at all but that of another kid.

Mike Leigh’s 2008 “Happy Go Lucky” begins with a scene where the irrepressively cheery Poppy browses in a book store only to come out and find that her bicycle has been stolen. And instead of that incident driving the rest of the plot, her zen-like attitude calmly dismisses it as she remarks “I didn’t even get a chance to say goodbye” and then goes about the rest of her day as if it doesn’t matter. It’s a pretty good joke if you know the influence The Bicycle Thief has had on modern cinema.

I just wonder why the bicycle motif appears again and again. I guess its a very universal symbol. I suppose it might have different connotations in American culture. We typically see it as a luxury item used only for sports or recreation, while for the rest of the world it’s a primary means of transportation and therefore carries more significance. I suppose if someone made an American version of “The Bicycle Thief” it would be an SUV or minivan that was stolen. Or maybe an iPhone.