Here’s the latest dump from my increasingly tedious list of films. At least I’ve started going to the movie theatre again. (CC means Criterion channel.)

Newer Films:

La Flor  (Argentina)  3.8  Forget the rating, as this film is almost impossible to judge in any overall sense.  During its 14 ½ hour length there are many moments of brilliance and long stretches that are boring.  For me, it’s by far the most interesting new film I’ve seen in a while, made by a director who is clearly a major talent.  The cinematography is often breathtaking and the music is excellent.

The Sparks Brothers (US/UK)  3.7  Outstanding documentary about a two brothers with a long and influential career on the fringes of pop stardom. They remind me a bit of people like the Coen brothers or the Quay brothers—siblings with long and fruitful creative collaborations.  (Ironically, one of their songs is about how collaboration is impossible.)  Don’t leave before the end of the final credits.

Nomad: In the Footsteps of Bruce Chatwin  (UK)  3.5  He may not mean much to millennials, but to my generation Chatwin is a sort of legendary figure.  And Herzog is the perfect director for this documentary, as they share a fascination for the stranger and more obscure aspects of our planet.

Audrey  (US)  3.4  At times, this documentary tries too hard at being “creative”, but Audrey Hepburn is such an interesting figure that it would be almost impossible to make a bad film about her.  Interestingly, the AFI says that two of the three greatest actresses of all time were named “Hepburn”, which isn’t a very common surname.  (The third was Bette Davis.)

Promising Young Woman  (US)  3.4  An entertaining version of the dangerous woman genre, for the Me Too generation.  It may not do well as it doesn’t fit neatly into any single film category, thus it might confuse viewers.  Brett Kavanaugh should watch this film with the whole family. 

Cliff Walkers  (China)  3.2   Zhang Yimou’s recent films are easy to admire (for their craftsmanship) but hard to get enthused about.  I’m anxious to see “One Second”, to see if he still has a spark of creativity.

Minari  (US)  3.2  Nicely crafted story, and well acted.  But I often had the feeling I’d seen this film before.

The Mystery Mountain Project  (Canada)  3.2  This is not the documentary for people that like dazzling 4k images and cute animals.  Rather it documents a group of individuals who attempt to recreate the expedition of a husband and wife back in 1926, in search of a lost mountain in British Colombia.  There were two things I liked about the film.  One was how it drove home the point that the wilderness in Canada is so much more inaccessible than in America.  A spectacular area of soaring mountains, glaciers, waterfalls and fiords just a few hundred miles from Seattle is almost impossible to access.  The other is the interpersonal dynamics of a group of individuals that run into increasingly difficult conditions in their journey.

The Dig  (UK)  3.1  Nice acting and set designs, but it’s somewhat heavy handed and full of clichés.  On the other hand, for each such film of this type there are plenty of people seeing these clichés for the first time.  So your mileage may vary.

The Cordillera of Dreams  (Chile)  3.0   This completes the Patricio Guzman’s trilogy on Chile’s geography and political history.  But in the third film he’s reaching diminishing returns.

SuburbanBirds  (China)  3.0  Didn’t have enough to hold my interest.

Older films:

Yi Yi   (Taiwan, 2000, CC)   4.0   At one point a character says something to the effect that movies triple the size of our lives.  We experience far more than otherwise.  This film is certainly a good example.  Like almost all of the greatest films of the 21^st century, it came out at the beginning of the millennium.  Not a good sign.

8 ½   (Italy, 1963, CC)  4.0    This film was restored in 2019 and the images look far better than what I saw in the movie theatre back in the 1980s. I also liked the film much better this time—I was too young when I first saw it.

High and Low  (Japan, 1963, CC)  3.9  Third time I’ve seen this film, and I still find the first 55 minutes to be brilliant.

Pygmalion  (UK, 1938, CC)  3.8  A near perfect film.  Better than My Fair Lady, mostly because Leslie Howard is far better that Rex Harrison. 

Rope  (US, 1948)  3.8  This Hitchcock film holds up quite well.  The second time around there’s less focus on the single take, and more focus on the insanely good technique (mise en scène for you film snobs).  I suspect that Hitchcock’s heart wasn’t in the (too conventional) final two minutes.

The Deer Hunter  (US, 1978)  3.8  Yes, the film is wildly unrealistic (would Pennsylvania deer hunters drive their car to the Cascade Mountains to go deer hunting?)  Parts of the film are kind of dumb, the music is hokey, and all the Asian characters are portrayed as sub-humans.  And yet by some miracle it still ended up being one of the most effective films ever made.  Back in 1979, people left the theatre in a state of shock.  In the 1970s, it seemed like you would rarely go for a few months without seeing a Hollywood film that was utterly unlike anything that had come before.

The Apartment  (US, 1960)  3.8  Somehow I’d never got around to seeing this seen this classic romantic comedy. Jack Lemmon and Shirley MacLaine are both outstanding.

Night of the Hunter  (US, 1955)  3.8  American gothic doesn’t get any better than the second half of this film.  Why didn’t Charles Laughton direct any other films?

The 39 Steps  (UK, 1935, CC)  3.8  I’ve seen this 4 times now, as it’s still one of the most enjoyable of Hitchcock’s British films.  It’s about marriage, handcuffs, and lots more.  Was later remade as Saboteur, and then a third time as North By Northwest.  If you’ve recently seen North by Northwest, you’ll notice the similarities.

The Immortal Story  (France, 1967, CC)  3.8  I’d never heard of this 57 minute Welles film, but like his other minor films it’s well worth seeing.  Every time I see short stories (Isak Dinesen in this case) turned into a short film I wonder why they don’t do this more often.  Why do films have to be 1 ½ hours to 2 ½ hours.  Why not 45 minutes?

My Winnipeg  (Canada, 2007, CC)  3.8   How often do you find yourself wondering, “What was life like in Winnipeg, Canada, during the 1960s?”  If you are like me, then probably not very often.  And yet every place is interesting when presented through the eyes of a talented director.  I’m the same age as Guy Maddin, and I also grew up in a state capitol near the center of North America.  This film unearthed lots of deeply buried memories, things I hadn’t thought about for 55 years.  Trudging through snow on a bitter cold winter night, lying on the couch, living above your parent’s business, elm trees, sex segregated swimming pools, traditional downtown department stores, hanging out near the rail yards, how 8-year old boys viewed girls.  It’s amazing how the mind works—details can be buried in memory for 50 years and then some trigger brings them to the surface.  How does that happen?  How are memories “stored” in the brain for a half century?

Ann Savage plays his mother, and is perfect.

Stray Dog  (Japan, 1949, CC)  3.7  This early Kurosawa film already shows his brilliance as a director.

Late Chrysanthemums  (Japan, 1954, CC)  3.7  A characteristic Naruse film about several women who were once geishas, trying to survive in post-war Japan.  Life is for others.

Saboteur   (US, 1942)  3.7   The first half is especially good, but the second half was done much more effectively in North by Northwest.  A sort of remake of The 39 Steps, but instead of the lovers being handcuffed together, only the hero is handcuffed.  On the other hand, an amusing pair of Siamese twins produce the same general effect.

To Have and Have Not  (US, 1945, CC)  3.7  Could almost be entitled “Casablanca 2”.  Say what you will about modern “superheroes”, I’ll take Humphrey Bogart.  His interaction with Lauren Bacall is, of course, what makes the film so good.

The Secret in Their Eyes  (Argentina, 2010)  3.7  The sort of film that would appeal to fans of “The Lives of Others.” 

L’Argent  (France, 1983, CC)  3.7  As with many Bresson films, it is composed of a series of details.  Mesmerizing. 

The Clockmaker of St. Paul  (France, 1974, CC)  3.7  Understated crime story based on a novel by Georges Simenon. 

Investigation of a Citizen Above Suspicion  (Italy, 1970, CC)  3.7 An amusing black comedy carried by the superb Gian Maria Volonte.   Also features a good Morricone soundtrack.

Fitzcarraldo  (Germany/Peru, 1982)  3.7  Is there any director around today who would even attempt something this ambitious?  I hadn’t seen the movie since 1982, and remember it as a Herzog film.  But it’s actually a Klaus Kinski film—he’s the one that makes it work.  Amazon’s print seems a bit muddy; some films from this era were not well preserved.            

The Servant  (UK, 1963, CC)  3.7  Dirk Bogarde, James Fox and Sarah Miles all fit their roles quite well.  The second half has all the surprises, but is a bit of a letdown.

Youth of the Beast  (Japan, 1963, CC)  3.6  Fans of Tarantino will love this stylish film by Seijun Suzuki.  Criterion Channel has a great looking print.

Zero Focus  (Japan, 1961, CC)  3.6  For the first hour you’ll think I overrated this Japanese noir, as it’s very plot driven and matter-of-fact.  Then it the last 40 minutes it shifts up to another level.

Force of Evil  (US, 1948, CC)  3.6  A must see film for fans of The Godfather and Mean Streets, two films that it clearly influenced.  The biggest drawback is that I never bought into John Garfield’s character, he just doesn’t seem like a very good actor.  Still, there is much to be impressed by.

Out of the Past  (US, 1947)  3.6   Excellent film noir.  Unfortunately, the femme fatale is subpar.

The Damned  (Italy, 1969, CC)  3.6  The film links Nazism and sexual perversion in a way that some people now might find offensive (not because of the way Nazis are portrayed, rather because “perversion” seems to be defined a bit too broadly by today’s standards.)  I’m not easily offended; I look at films from the perspective of the period in which they were made. 

Red River  (US, 1947)  3.6  Classic Howard Hawks western.

The Green Fog  (US, 2018, CC)  3.6  This experimental film directed by Guy Maddin is an homage to Vertigo, and will delight serious film buffs.  Ever wonder what happens in a Hollywood film when the actors are not speaking?  You’ll find out here.

Bay of Angels  (France, 1963, CC)  3.5  There are two primary reasons to see this Jacques Demy directed French new wave film, the beautifully restored B&W print and Jeanne Moreau.

Mikey and Nicky (US, 1976) 3.5  Fans of Taxi Driver might enjoy this film, which is a bit ahead of its time.  Today, it’s Peter Falk’s performance that holds up especially well.  I might be rating this a bit too low, as it’s a very impressive film.  But it’s just so darn ugly . . . 

Ariel (Finland, 1988, CC)  3.5  An early Kaurismaki film with his characteristic droll humor.

Family Plot  (US, 1975)  3.5  Even mediocre Hitchcock is pretty entertaining.  His final film.

Loves of a Blonde  (Czech, 1965, CC)  3.5  Amusing and perceptive look at what it’s like to be young and in love.

Death in Venice   (Italy, 1971, CC)  3.5 Fans of the novel might be disappointed, but one cannot actually film a novel.  At best, one can film the story within a novel.  While the film could use a bit more nuance, it is enjoyable to watch.  And the glorious 1970s color print was recently restored.  Films like Death in Venice and Barry Lyndon make modern CGI films look sterile by comparison.

The Comfort of Strangers  (UK, 1990, CC)  3.4  More of Venice in glorious color.  This sort of film is hard to pull off and the director falls a bit short.  But there is plenty to enjoy along the way.

Intimate Stranger  (US, 1991, CC)  3.4  A documentary about the filmmaker’s grandfather, who turns out to be a quite interesting person.  But aren’t we all?

Gun Crazy  (US, 1949, CC)  3.4  Really corny dialogue, but otherwise a pretty good noir from the golden age of that genre.

Dark City  (US, 1950, CC)  3.4  This noir is underrated.  It was Charlton Heston’s first role, and he is already a star.  People of my generation will recognize the two actors that went on to star in the TV series Dragnet.  Starts on the East Coast, then moves to LA, then Las Vegas.

Moonrise  (US, 1948, CC)  3.4  A feverish and indeed almost hysterical melodrama with cliché-ridden dialogue, and yet its intensity does grab your attention.

Gambit   (US, 1966)  3.4  Surprisingly entertaining 60s caper film.  Shirley MacLaine is charming and the film also stars Michael Caine.  But don’t almost all films star Michael Caine?  Herbert Lom in brownface plays an Arab named Shahbandar, and MacLaine plays a woman named Chang and is made up to look half Chinese.   Political correctness had not yet reached Hollywood—that was still about 2 years away.

The Prince and the Showgirl   (UK, 1957)  3.3  While this is not a particularly good film, Marilyn Monroe is wonderful, the only thing that makes the film worth watching.  It’s funny how reputations change over time.  In 1957, Lawrence Olivier was viewed as one of the very greatest actors and Monroe was seen as a lightweight.  It seems to me that her reputation has soared, while Olivier’s has slipped a bit. In any case, Monroe is far better than Olivier in this film.  Olivier is essentially a stage actor and Monroe is a movie actress—two radically different professions. On the other hand, give Olivier credit for knowing how to direct her.  (And yet Wikipedia says Oliver was frustrated because she stubbornly refused to follow his direction—Thank God!)

The Joke  (Czech, 1968, CC)  3.3  A critique of left wing Czech cancel culture circa 1950, made during the Prague Spring.  From this film we can infer that life on American universities in 2021 is freer than in communist Czechoslovakia during 1950, but less free that in communist Czechoslovakia during 1968.  Based on one of Kundera’s best novels.  (BTW, remember how excited we got when there was a new Kundera novel?  Which author is that true of today?)

Obsession  (UK, 1949, CC)  3.2  This sort of plot has been done a number of times, in various countries.

Clean Slate  (French, 1981, CC)  3.1  Very well crafted, but at more than 2 hours the nihilism wears thin.  This black comedy needs more humor.

Hands Across the Table  (US, 1935, CC)  3.0  Pleasant screwball comedy with Carole Lombard and a really young Fred MacMurray.

Love in the Afternoon  (US, 1957)  3.0  There were lots of Hollywood films set in Paris during the 1950s and early 1960s.  Why did they stop?  Perhaps because American audiences stopped being willing to accept Frenchmen speaking English, and our filmgoers don’t like subtitles?  Audrey Hepburn is always wonderful, but Gary Cooper’s kind of a bore.

Various documentaries on architects (Hadid, Piano, Gropius, etc.)  3.0  I won’t review these films separately, as most people wouldn’t be interested.

How to Steal a Million  (US, 1966)  2.9  This got pretty good reviews, but it’s a fairly bland and generic 60s caper film.  It does have Audrey Hepburn and Peter O’Toole, but that’s not quite enough.

Any Number Can Play  (US, 1949, CC)  2.9  Clark Gable plays a casino owner with a heart of gold.

Caught  (US, 1949, CC)  2.9  Given that is was directed by Max Ophuls and starred Robert Ryan and James Mason, I expected something a bit better.

Christmas in July  (US, 1940, CC)  2.8  This got very good reviews but I found it to be much weaker than the masterpieces that Preston Sturges produced a year later (The Lady Eve, Sullivan’s Travels).

Darling  (UK, 1965, CC)  2.7  The film is disappointingly bland, despite starring Julie Christie and Dirk Bogarde.  Avant garde subject matter often doesn’t age well.

Champaign  (UK, 1928)  2.6  One of Hitchcock’s weakest films, mostly of interest due to some technical innovations.

In the cosmos, light from more distant galaxies is shifted toward the red, as the further away an object is, the faster it moves away from us. This is called the “red shift”.

Something like this also occurs in history, where society looks increasingly evil the further back you look. At least going back a few hundred years. One can argue that just as its politically correct to make “moral relativism” excuses for primitive tribes of cannibals living in a distant rainforest, we are not too hard to societies living several millennia in the past. At least unless we can in some sense code them as “white.” This “evil shift” presents a problem for conservatives.

This post is motivated by a far better post by Matt Yglesias, which is highly critical of the position of conservatives in the history wars. At first I thought I wouldn’t be able to add anything of value, but then I realized that my venerable age might give me one of two useful insights into these questions.

Let me start with events so recent that we don’t view them as “history”. Certain cultural practices like the “casting couch” and “gay jokes” now seem to me to be much worse than I perceived them to be back when I was young. And I don’t think it’s just me. When the MeToo movement got momentum a few years back, people dug up tapes of celebrity roasts where comedians joked about sexual predators like Harvey Weinstein and Matt Lauer. For me, the wake up call occurred a few years earlier, when a former student told me about how her boss kept pressuring her for “dates”.

Contrary to what you might have been told, high school students like myself were taught about the evils of slavery, the treatment of Native Americans, and the Nazi Holocaust. The problem lay elsewhere. We never fully internalized the gravity of what we understood at an intellectual level. Is this just me? I don’t think so. I’d guess that during the 1960s there were at least 10 movies about US soldiers fighting the Nazis for each film about the Holocaust. During the 2000s, I suspect this ratio almost reversed—ten times as many films about the Holocaust. That’s an indication of what the public thinks is important.

And while we knew about slavery and the mistreatment of Indians, I don’t think we understood that these evils were analogous to the great evils that we see being committed in other societies. They seemed more like unfortunate blemishes on an otherwise stellar record of American progress. Today, I cannot recall why we felt that way.

Conservative nationalists want Americans to be proud of our country’s history. That’s not necessarily wrong, as these questions are highly subjective. One can make a decent argument that much of the bad stuff in early America was shared by many other societies throughout history, whereas the Bill of Rights, democratic elections, etc., were truly revolutionary innovations where America was ahead of the curve. BTW, nationalists in Eastern Europe and Asia face an even greater challenge. Their countries are often less distinctive than America, and thus they feel an even greater need to whitewash their history in order to glorify their homeland.

But even in countries that brought impressive and beneficial innovations to the entire world, such as the US and the UK, the “evil shift” of history is putting conservatives increasingly on the defensive. Conservatives were the last group to accept civil rights, women’s rights, gay rights, etc. The areas where conservatives were correct (say their critique of mid-20th century statism) tend to be relatively technical economic issues that lack the emotional resonance of human rights issues.

The Yglesias post is entitled “Conservatives can’t win the history wars”, but he also warns woke people not to expect too much from things like the 1619 Project:

My basic view is that all tellings of history reflect contemporary concerns, and it’s a little bit reductive and naive to think we can really debate which of these perspectives is “true.” . . .

If you’re writing a book, you can absolutely just say that the lesson of American history is that conservatives are bad. You can say that on your Substack, you can Tweet it, and you can write it in a special issue of a magazine. But you can’t teach it in public schools in Indiana because Indiana is full of conservatives.

One reason that I oppose the public school system is that I don’t want the government deciding what our children learn, just as I wouldn’t want the government running the media and deciding what constitutes “news”. If we must have public schools, then I’d prefer the schools themselves (not state legislatures) determine what they teach. And yes, I understand that this means that some schools will teach creationism while others will teach that white people are evil. I oppose those choices, but I’d like to oppose them by deciding where to send my child to school, not by voting. (Yes, if we have tax-financed vouchers then there would certainly need to be a few rules, but they should be kept to a bare minimum–do they cover the three Rs?)

One thing I like about Yglesias is that he’s not fully on board with the recent trend in American progressive thought. See how his patriotism shines through in his reply to Rich Lowry’s tweet that “American is a nation, not an idea”:

But that’s dumb. Words are just words, but again, it’s Lincoln who says we’re not just “a nation” but rather a nation dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal — i.e., an idea. Portugal isn’t dedicated to anything. It’s the Iberian kingdom that didn’t get amalgamated with Castille and Leon, and so its local dialect entered the era of mass education and mass media with the legal status of an official language, and so now they’re a “nation.” America’s not like that.

That’s why Yglesias is one of the few progressives that seems to be positively enthused about the prospect of one billion Americans.