Films of the 3rd quarter

I now watch so many films that I can no longer wait for an annual list. Most are older, so there’s almost nothing here for people who want tips on new films. I put “CC” next to films I watched on Criterion Channel, which is a very high quality service. Some of the old B&W films on CC actually looked better on TV than at the theatre, something which I never expected to see. Many include interesting documentaries.

2020:Q3 New Films: 

Museo  (Mexico)  3.5  Interesting film with some nice dialogue and acting.  I’d encourage this promising director to slow down a bit with the camera.

Tenet  (US)  3.5  Christopher Nolan is a sort of magician.  He takes preposterous plots and through the use of smoke and mirrors (i.e. skillful direction) he convinces you that it’s all sort of plausible.  This plot was perhaps a bit too implausible.  And no, I’m not interested enough in all the clues scattered about to sit through 2.5 hours of action sequences for a second time.  Even so, this is worth seeing if you were a fan of Inception and Intersteller. I also saw a trailer for the new James Bond, which actually looked better than usual. And a trailer for Dune, which was sort of blah. Only three people in the (huge) movie theatre, including me.

There Are No Fakes  (Canada)  3.5   I have a hard time recalling a documentary where the contrast between good and evil was so stark.  It’s horrifying that some of the villains will get off scot-free.  The worst villain got 5 years in prison, whereas he deserved 50 years.   Even half way through this nearly 2-hour film the viewer has no idea where it’s going.  I also find it interesting that the villains lie so shamelessly.  I was never quite sure whether they think they can get away with lying and don’t realize how obvious their lies actually are, or if their attitude is “I know that you know that I’m lying, and I don’t care.”

The Gardener  (Canada)  3.2  A tonic for the evil in “There Are No Fakes”.  Everyone in this film is a decent person.  Not a great documentary from a style perspective, but if you have a really good TV then the visuals are very enjoyable.  At 85 minutes, it’s about 25 minutes too long—not for young people.

John McEnroe:  In the Realm of Perfection  (France, CC)  3.1  Boring and pretentious at first, but gradually becomes more interesting.  A sports documentary unlike any other. I hated McEnroe when he was playing, but I also believe he was the best player ever. Not best in terms of winning, but best from an aesthetic perspective–which is what matters to me.

Romance Doll  (Japan)  2.8   This film could only be made in Japan.  Not as good as the previous Japanese love doll film (Air Doll), which was directed by Koreeda.

Older films:

Rashomon  (Japan, 1950, CC)  4.0  It’s been a long time since I’ve seen this film, but it is even better than I recall.  (Perhaps it’s the restored print.)  Mifune is an animal.

Charulata  (India, 1964, CC)  3.9  Until this year I’d only seen 4 movies directed by Sanyajit Ray.  Now he’s becoming one of my favorite directors, with a sensibility that is similar to Ozu.  The print looked fantastic on the Criterion Channel; so clear it almost seemed like you weren’t watching a film at all.  This film is timeless—people will still be enjoying it 100 years from now.

A Story From Chikamatsu  (Japan, 1954, CC)  3.9  The second half is full of those luminous Mizoguchi night scenes.  A near perfect film.

The End of Summer (Japan, 1951, CC) 3.9 Ozu’s films allow the viewer to breath, partly by leaving lots of stuff out that would be included by any other director. It’s like a great watercolor painting that achieves its effects by leaving parts of the paper white. The film contains a sad reference to parents giving up hope that their son would ever return home (presumably from Russia), an aspect of post-war Japan that is not well known to Americans.

Au Hasard Balthazar (France, 1966, CC)  3.8  If you watch this on Criterion Channel, check out the 13 minute interview with Donald Richie after it’s over.  There’s also a one-hour documentary, where Bresson has a number of interesting comments on cinema as a art form.  Warning—some people are likely to be bored by this film.

F is For Fake  (US, 1975, CC)  3.8  Orson Welles directed many underrated films, but this might be the most underrated.  Start with the fact that the editing is as good as in any non-Welles movie I can recall.  It’s also Welles’ most autobiographical film.  A classic exercise in post-modernism—highly intelligent, and hugely enjoyable to watch.  Of course it completely bombed at the box office, as did almost all of Welles’ masterpieces.

Mr. Arkadin, aka Confidential Report  (US, 1955, CC)  3.8  A lesser known Welles film, but still shows many flashes of his brilliance.  It’s full of 4-star scenes—absolutely spectacular sequences—but mired with 3-star acting. A master class in filmmaking that obviously influenced Kubrick, who put the same techniques into even greater films.  Very clever—Welles was way ahead of his audience. 

Satantango  (Hungary, 1994, CC)  3.8  Here’s what you need to know before watching this film.  It’s black and white.  Almost the entire film takes place in the rain, in a poor, muddy, ugly, run down village in Hungary.  The characters are unappealing, indeed mostly stupid.  There is almost no plot, little dialogue, and the film moves at an extremely slow pace—slower than any other film.  Ever.  It makes Stalker seem like Fast and Furious.    Oh, and it’s 7 hours and 19 minutes long.  Still interested?  If so, look for a major work of art by Europe’s greatest director of the past 30 years—Bela Tarr.  The other 99.9% of humanity would be bored out of their minds and should avoid this film like the plague.  (It came out the same year as Pulp Fiction.)

Don’t listen to idealistic, well-meaning cineastes that tell you to “give this film a chance”.  If my description doesn’t make you want to see the film, you will hate it. 

No Direction Home  (US, 2005) 3.8  Second time I’ve seen this documentary, and I liked it even more this time.  (I prefer it to Scorsese’s other two documentaries of Dylan and the Band, although if you don’t like Dylan you won’t be as interested in the film as I was.)  Dylan seems to struggle to speak, as if he’s trying to avoid saying anything that’s a cliché, anything obvious, anything the listener expects to hear.  I could never speak that way, but he comes close to pulling it off.  The press conferences are a sort of bizarre performance art, as if he’s operating on an entirely different plane of reality from the reporters. 

The film covers 1961-66, when his music evolved rapidly.  There’s evidence for the productivity of big cities in the fact that when he left Minneapolis from NYC in early 1961 he was nothing special, and a few months later when he returned he’d learned so much in Greenwich Village that he was already highly talented, already “Dylan”.  And even though I already knew about the fan reaction at his concerts in 1965-66, it’s still sort of bizarre to see him booed by his own fans when he was at the absolute peak of his career.  How does something like that happen? 

Joan Baez comes across really well, as do a number of other people who were interviewed.  There’s so much to cover that even at 3½ hours there’s basically no discussion of the fascinating process of making Blonde on Blonde, even though the film ends in 1966.  Also a reminder of how fast he progressed.  Both Bringing it all Back Home and Highway 61 Revisited came out before Rubber Soul.  They showed a 1965 pop chart with  ”Like a Rolling Stone” at #2, right behind “Help”, which seems to me like a song from an earlier era.

I know Where I’m Going  (UK, 1945)  3.8  I’m a big fan of Powell/Pressburger films, and this is one of their best. I liked it just as much as when I first saw it 35 years ago.  The film clearly influenced Local Hero, another great film placed in the Scottish highlands. One critic (Barry Norman) put it in the top 100 films of all time, while another (Molly Haskell) voted it in the top ten films of all time. Martin Scorsese called it a masterpiece. Wonderful cinematography.

Yearning  (Japan, 1964, CC)  3.8 Naruse handles female characters especially well, and this one features the wonderful Hideko Takamine.  He also understands business. Modern films often seem premised on the assumption that audiences want one entertaining scene after another.  Older Japanese films like this one are often more like short stories where at the very end everything snaps into place.

I sort of feel like 1964 was Japan’s best year ever, just like 2008 was China’s best year.  (Both years featured Olympics coming out parties, and 1964 was also the year Japan’s bullet train began service (and 2008 for China).)  Happiness isn’t getting what you want; it’s the feeling of being about to get what you want.  Watching this film you can sense Japan changing rapidly.

Intentions of Murder  (Japan, 1964, CC)  3.7  Typical of Imamura’s earthy style, but also contains some expressionist moments that are almost surreal.

The Big City  (India, 1963, CC)  3.7 The same actress as in Charulata, but a very different film.

Taipei Story  (Taiwan, 1985, CC) 3.7  One of the first great films of the Taiwanese golden age.  Edward Yang directed and Hou Hsiao Hsien starred in the film.  Like many Taiwanese films it’s affecting you in ways that you are unaware of until the end.

Ashes and Diamonds  (Poland, 1958, CC) 3.7  First time I’d seen this classic, and from the vantage point of 2020 is seems reflective of its era—a sort of stereotypical mid-century modern European black and white film classic.  The late 50s were a peak of cinema, with Vertigo and Touch of Evil also coming out in 1958.  And then there’s 1959.  Imagine being able to see the following sort of films month after month (all came out in 1959):  North By Northwest, Some Like It Hot, Imitation of Life, Rio Bravo, The 400 Blows, Pickpocket, Hiroshima Mon Amour, The World of Apu, Floating Weeds, The Human Condition (I and II), Good Morning.   What will 2020 bring us?

The Story of Floating Weeds  (Japan, 1934, CC)  3.7  As late as 1934, Ozu was still making silent films.  I didn’t find the story to be all that interesting, but there are some really beautiful scenes.  (The film was remade in 1959 as simply “Floating Weeds”.)

The Great Buddha+  (Taiwan, 2017)  3.7  The supply of great Taiwanese directors seems inexhaustible.  Now we can add Huang Hsin-yao to the list. This black comedy is a bit hard to describe, but has some great cinematography (always a good sign with new directors.).  Imagine if Jim Jarmusch had made Parasite, and you might have some idea of what to expect.  I may revise my estimate of this film when I’ve seen a few more by the director, and have a better sense of what he’s doing here.

Family Viewing  (Canada, 1987) 3.7   I hadn’t seen this film in 33 years and it holds up surprisingly well.  More audacious and complex than Egoyan’s first film (Next of Kin).   In 1987 it seemed like an exploration of technology—today is seems more like an inquiry into meaning.  And I wonder how many viewers realize how funny this film is.

Flowing  (Japan, 1956, CC)   3.7   Naruse is somewhat less distinctive than the other great “classic” Japanese directors, less of an auteur.  But he’s still excellent. The print quality was subpar.

Wrong Move  (Germany, 1975, CC)  3.7   Beautiful restored print.  Wim Wenders road movie—his specialty.  Hanna Schygulla.  Screenplay by Peter Handke, but it’s definitely Wenders’ film.  Not sure it goes anywhere, but a very enjoyable (and amusing) journey.  The film features an erotic scene with thirteen year old Nastassja Kinski and probably could not be made today.

Detour  (US, 1945)  3.7  The darkest of all film noirs, and one of the best.  Edgar Ulmer delivers the goods in just 68 efficient minutes.  You don’t need more time when you know what you are doing.  Ultra-low budget “B-film”.  Here’s your actual “pulp fiction”.

BTW, the star (Tom Neal) had a life pretty much like a film noir, including the murder of his third wife. Co-star Ann Savage gives an absolutely savage performance.

Gaslight  (US, 1944)  3.6  I saw this one day after Detour, and the difference in production values was startling.  Ingrid Bergman carries the film in one of her most characteristic performances.

Boyhood   (US, 2014)  3.6  This film is does something that is almost unique—follows the same boy through 12 years of life.  Actual adolescence is much weirder, much more painful, much more exhilarating than what is portrayed here. Even so, I could imagine a lot of people really loving this film. Not a great film, but watching it is certainly an experience.

The 400 Blows  (France, 1959, CC)  3.6  People will say I rated this classic much too low.  Perhaps it went a bit over my head.

The Darjeeling Limited (US/India, 2007)  3.6  Even a less than top flight film by Wes Anderson is full of perfect little moments.

Empire of Passion  (Japan, 1978, CC)  3.6 A follow-up to In the Realm of the Senses.  A sort of mix between a film noir and a ghost story.    

Take Aim at the Police Van  (Japan, 1960, CC)  3.5 This can’t possibly be the Japanese title, can it?  An early Seijun Suzuki B-noir full of pleasurable scenes, despite clunky dialogue and wooden acting.  The director knew the audience would like the arrow through the prostitute’s breast so much that he repeated the scene two more times.  I like seeing Tokyo back in 1960; amazing how much it’s changed in the past 60 years.

La Isla Minima (aka Marshland)  (Spain, 2014)  3.5  There’s now a major industry of gritty, realistic serial killer films.  At this point the plots don’t really matter, as all are pretty similar.  It’s all about whether the film immerses you in an interesting time and place, preferably with good acting and dialogue.  This one’s above average, a sort of poor man’s Memories of Murder.  It takes place in a river delta in southern Andalusia, during the early 1980s.

Dressed to Kill  (US, 1980)  3.5  I was surprised how well this early DePalma film holds up.  Karen Allen is wonderful and the film is full of pleasurable scenes. Like James Cameron, DePalma’s much more skilled than he is intelligent.  The shlocky soft core porn opening is cringe-worthy.  But the man can direct.  Back in 1980, I often recall thinking, “They could never have made this film 20 years ago.”  Now when I watch 1980-era films I think, “They could never make this film today.”

No Subtitles Necessary:  Lazslo & Vilmos  (US, 2012) 3.5  A documentary about two life long friends who risked their lives filming the 1956 Hungarian Revolution and then went to Hollywood where they became highly acclaimed cinematographers.

The Long Goodbye  (US, 1973)  3.5  Altman directed but it’s the cinematography by Vilmos Zsigmond that makes this a pleasurable viewing experience.  Altman’s a good director, but (like Woody Allen) doesn’t do any one thing well enough to be a great director.

Manhunter  (US, 1986)  3.5  In the shadow of Silence of the Lambs, but a very good film in its own right.  Pity about that annoying 1980s pop music soundtrack.

Point Blank  (US, 1967)  3.4 John Boorman’s film does have some pretentious attempts at art cinema that don’t work, but after a shaky opening it’s an enjoyable crime thriller with “cool” visuals.  Boorman doesn’t understand the music of 1967, but does capture something of the visual style of that pivotal year—a weird mixture of crazy psychedelic colors and ultra cool midcentury modern office buildings.

Bottle Rocket  (US, 2016)  3.4  In his first film Wes Anderson had not yet perfected his style, but it’s still an enjoyable 90 minutes.  It’s R-rated, but then this is America.  You can certainly watch the film with your children.

The Year of Living Dangerously  (Australia/Indonesia, 1982, CC)  3.4  This Peter Weir film seems a bit dated.  At one point the character played by Signourey Weaver tells Mel Gibson that his reporting is a bit too melodramatic.  So why doesn’t Weir realize that his film is also a bit too melodramatic?  Nonetheless, Peter Weir films are almost all well above average, and this is no exception.

The Elephant God  (India, 1979, CC) 3.4 This is a playful detective story, quite different from Sanyajit Ray’s other films. A bit bland overall, but saved by a few excellent scenes.

Antonio Gaudi  (Japan, 1984, CC)  3.3  A near silent documentary film that focuses almost exclusively on Gaudi’s buildings.

The Blue Bird  (US, 1940)  3.3  I may have rated this too high, but I found it to be an interesting film, and one I’d never heard of.  It came out a year after The Wizard of Oz and copied its style.  It’s obviously not nearly as good, but it’s still a nice children’s film—and to a modern eye it’s more imaginative than a lot of the stuff that now comes out of Hollywood.  

It occurs to me that at the end of the 1930s, the film industry suddenly made a huge leap in special effects (also see Fantasia, Gone With the Wind, etc.), and then leveled off for several decades, before exploding again in the 1970s.  The forest fire would have terrified little American children back in 1940—which of course is a very good thing.  (Not so good for European children, who had plenty of other things to be terrified about.)

Next of Kin  (Canada, 1984, CC) 3.3  Atom Egoyan’s first film was made in 15 days for $20,000, but already demonstrates some of his favorite themes.

Indiscreet  (US,  1958)  3.2  This Stanley Donen romcom (with Cary Grant and Ingrid Bergman) got very good reviews, but it seemed to take quite a while to get going.  Eventually it all clicked into place.

Rounders  (US, 1998)  3.2  John Dahl always delivers satisfying entertainment.  This isn’t his best, but it does feature excellent actors. 

The Miracle of Morgan Creek  (US, 1943)  3.2  Directed by Preston Sturges.  Amusing and charming, but a big step down from his two 1941 classics.

A Simple Favor  (US,  2018)  3.1  Nothing special, but a fairly entertaining black comedy.

Goldfinger  (UK, 1964)  3.1  Sometimes viewed as the ultimate Bond film, it has not aged well.  In retrospect, it’s where Bond films started to degenerate into silliness.   Would have been a much better film when it first came out in 1964—almost thrilling.

Dead Again  (US, 1991)  3.1  Kenneth Branagh has some talent at both acting and directing.  Unfortunately, he would have been better off being great at one specific thing, to avoid ending up doing middlebrow Swedish TV when he got 25 years older.  This film was intriguing at first, but then gradually unraveled toward the end.

Insignificance  (UK/US, 1985)  3.0  Nicholas Roeg is a good director, but he’s over his head in trying to juggle so many ideas.  Worth seeing only due to the presence of Theresa Russell (playing Marilyn Monroe.)

Diary of a Shinjuku Thief  (Japan, 1969, CC)  3.0  This is a sort of experimental film from 1969.  Perhaps it would have been called “avant garde” in 1969, although I’m not sure that term has any meaning today.  Seeing a 50-year old cutting edge film is a bit disorienting, which is why I can sort of recommend it even though I didn’t actually like it.  It’s either much better or worse than the 3 stars I give it—I’m just not sure which.  Perhaps I’ll watch it again some day.

Mysterious Object At Noon  (Thailand, 2000, CC) 2.8  A pseudo-documentary of the sort that was popular in the 1990s.  There’s sly humor, but don’t watch this if you are tired—it’s visually bland and some of the humor requires more knowledge of Thailand than most of us possess.  I couldn’t spell the director’s name without looking it up if my life depended on it:  Apichatpon Weerasethakul.

Chinese Odyssey 2002  (China, 2002)  2.8  Weird title.  One of those zany Chinese comedies that loses something in translation.  Lots of references to Wong Kar Wai films.

Crimes of Passion (US, 1984)  2.8  Ken Russell is not my cup of tea, but this film definitely has its moments (both good and bad.)  People who like DePalma might want to check this out, but prepare yourself for some appalling dialogue.  I wonder if an actress like Kathleen Turner would even do this sort of film today.

Fight Club  (US, 1999)  2.7  How did such a mediocre film come from a good director using excellent actors?  An ugly story with a dumb screenplay—and way too long.  A good director can overcome a bad screenplay or a bad plot, but it’s hard to overcome both.

Almayer’s Folly   (Belgian, 2011)  2.7  This Chantal Akerman adaptation of Conrad’s first novel never came to life.  It’s fine to want to comment on various aspects of society, but you should not forget to make an actual movie.

Caddyshack  (US, 1980)  2.6  I recall people talking about this movie as if it’s sort of a comedy classic—like Animal House.  It’s not—but then maybe Animal House isn’t either, I haven’t seen if for 40 years.

5000 Fingers of Dr. T  (US, 1952, CC)  2.5  When I was young this Dr. Seuss film seemed kind of cool.  Seeing it again on my 65^th birthday was a quite different experience.  Almost a camp classic, but not quite bad enough or weird enough.

Dead or Alive  (Japan, 1999)  2.5  I wish that Miike would use his impressive talent to produce a few more good films, instead of lots of skillfully made bad films.

Downhill   (UK, 1927)  2.5  This silent film is strictly for Hitchcock completists (like me).  The problem is the story—it’s just dreadful. Hitch didn’t yet have enough clout to pick his projects.

Track 29  (US, 1988, CC)  1.8  When Nicholas Roeg lost his touch, his career went downhill fast.

Reading:  Flaubert—Sentimental Education.  A change of pace from my binge reading of Conrad.  I made the mistake of reading Madame Bovary when young and stupid, and then never went back to Flaubert.  Even now he’s an intimidating writer for me.  I’d have to read this masterpiece twice—more slowly the second time—to come close to fully appreciating it.  Apparently it’s Kafka’s favorite novel—which is almost a dictionary definition of underrated. (BTW, I can see why Woody Allen adores this book.)  For some reason the novel reminds me of the painter Manet.  What Manet did to the art of painting is sort of like what Flaubert did to the novel. (And at roughly the same time and place.)  Elsewhere Flaubert said:

“To be stupid, selfish, and have good health are three requirements for happiness, though if stupidity is lacking, all is lost.”

Obviously this is intended to be a bit provocative.  But is it true?  How would you describe happy people?

It seems half true to me.  Here’s how I’d put it:

Happy people are unintellectual, prudent and non-hypochondriacs.  If they meet those three criteria, you can still be happy with common sense intelligence, generosity toward others, and actual physical ailments.

Don Quixote—I never knew this novel was 2000 pages long (and I’m a slow reader.)  I imagine you guys have all read it already, but you could make a very impressive library out of classic books that I’ve never read.  More playfully “post-modern” than I expected—no wonder Borges likes it so much.  My 4-volume set was printed in 1908, and I had to separate pages in the last 200 pages, which is often the case when I read old books.  What percentage of classic books are never read to the end?  I’d say over 50%.

Cervantes understood that it’s consumption that matters, not income:

. . . the rich miser is only a covetous beggar; for, not he who possesses, but that spends and enjoys his wealth, is the rich and happy man . . .

Tags:

This entry was posted on October 04th, 2020 and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response or Trackback from your own site.