Monday, January 11, 2010
Band of Outsiders
During that process I scanned through the movie looking for the most iconic scenes. And I quickly came to realize something; you could watch the whole film with the sound off and understand it very well based solely on the strength of the images. And it dawned on me that it was reason I liked the film so much. There is no grand, sweeping cinematography here; it's all about the details and and small gestures that have a lot of meaning. The little touches that you wouldn't even think to put in the script but which lend meaning to the action. I didn't set out to make my video a chronological story but it ended up that way. By choosing the most meaningful scenes I could essentially distill the basic story into three minutes. Admittedly, some of the story elements are missing and as well as some of the subtext but it's a credit to Godard that he can say so much with a simple gesture or glance.
To quote Godard's narration near the beginning of the film: "We might digress now and describe how Odile, Franz and Arthur each felt. But that's pretty clear. So we'll let the images speak for themselves".
That is why I love Godard and this film. And cinema as an art form.
So, here is my video and following that, a description of what I think are some brilliant scenes from Band of Outsiders.
First of all, the title sequence, which quickly intercuts images of the three main characters, establishes a relationship before we've even been properly introduced to them.
Then we cut back to Arthur and Franz staking out Odile's house. They're up to something shady, even if we don't know exactly what it is yet. On the way back to the car Franz turns quickly and mimes shooting Arthur, who falls to the ground and writhes dramatically on the ground. On the surface it's a playful gesture but it has a deeper meaning. You can guess the nature of their relationship from that action. There's already an unstated competition. Is the girl coming between them already? And since we don't yet know if these guys are real gangsters or just petty thugs, the tension starts to build. How long until these guys are shooting at each other for real?
When we first see Odile, she's the picture of innocence. Modestly dressed, hair done up in pigtails and riding a bicycle. So there's already a contrast between she and them. We know the guys are about to take advantage of that innocence.
The triangular relationship is further strengthened by a single shot in the classroom. The camera pans from Arthur, over to Odile, who looks shyly at him before turning to gaze at Franz on the other side of the room.
As they are talking in the hall and Odile and Arthur seem to be getting sort of cozy, Franz literally and quite comically comes between them as he goes through the door.
Later, in the hall, Arthur asks her if she has ever kissed a guy. When he asks her for a kiss she awkwardly sticks her tongue out because she thinks that's how it's done. He kisses her on the cheek, but her gesture points out how innocent and naieve she really is. This is made pretty obvious in the dialogue but that scene alone is all you really need to establish it.
As they drive her home, with her in the front seat between them, she takes playfully takes Franz's hat and places it on her head. He promptly takes it back, probably not wanting to step on Arthur's toes. When they park and get out, Arthur removes her bicycle from the trunk and then rides it once around the car, as if to claim his property.
In the famous dance scene in the cafe, naturally with Odile between the two guys, Franz now takes his hat and places it on Odile's head for the duration of the dance. It wasn't until I watched this scene with no sound or narration that I picked up on the fact that Odile keeps stealing glances toward Franz instead of Arthur. It's subtle but almost certainly intentional.
And of course my favorite visual from this film, the sprint through the Louvre. Turning the hallowed halls of the worlds most famous art museum into a playground. I love how, in the first shot, they race past a well known classical painting, Jacque Louis-David's "Oath of the Horatii". The camera lingers there for a moment to make a point. But our young trio is long gone. It's a nice metaphor not only for the foolishness of youth but for the New Wave itself.
Once I started thinking about this film on a conscious level I started to understand that a lot of these small devices Godard uses are simple but not immediately obvious. While he gives you plenty to think about with the existentialist conversations of the lead characters, he's quietly building these signs into the background.
I'm sure there is much more of this film to analyze but these are the things that came to the surface for me as I was going through the process of re-editing the work of a master filmmaker.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
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.
Monday, December 28, 2009
Best of 2009

The Brothers Bloom - Riann Johnson

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

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.



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
Saturday, December 26, 2009
Nine

Monday, December 21, 2009
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.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
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.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
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.