A beautiful, calming and great film from Hirokazu Koreeda , i have nothing but good things to say about his films, they just always mesmerise me and i’m in love with the simple yet heartwarming and deep stories in his films, stories about everyday life. such an inspiration and i like to use his films as learning material for my own writing.
After the storm was such an easy watch for me,which surprised me considering how it takes me more than one sitting usually to watch a whole film, humorous and captivating, the story about family and relationships, using a simple concept that illustrates the complexity of these bonds we share with our families and parents, and of course, the grandmother character was my favourite i love her so much!! (and i hope she gets her condo one day!! haha )
okay so clearly this isnt a 30 films in one month challenge anymore as its proven to be a little more difficult than i thought haha, it took me three days to watch this film as i’m still trying to get used to watching a full film in one setting.
Girlhood is a french film about a young girl called Mariem who struggles with finding a place for herself in a society and community that holds her down and expects to much from her, at first i got the impression that the girl gang she joins was bad news and that it would change her life for the worse, but i was surprised at how close she got to the girls and she managed to grow and become more confident (although it was through not so good means that she was influenced to do)
the film has a consistent style and cinematography that i wasn’t a big fan of personally, the camera was most of the time too steady almost?? which might have been done for a specific reason, although i did like the lighting used.
some of the scenes felt too long (such as the scenes the girls dancing at the hotel to a full song? i just don’t understand why they had to shoot the whole song as if its a music video??)and the story confused me at times, the ending was open ended which was interesting. I also would have wanted to see more of the relationship between mariam and her mom and sisters.
Overall I felt the film was interesting and shed a light on the lives of young people of colour in france and the rough lives they lead that isn’t represented as much, especially in a simple non stereotypical form which this film kinda achieves.
I started off the journey with this beautiful turkish film about 5 sisters and their struggle with family and tradition in their little village. I Absolutely loved the cinematography, the casting and the overall soft female vibe this film ad, the use of light and colours was very well done, very inspiring.
In terms of story, i was a little surprised by it at times and some of the events confused me, mainly because of my previous ideas of what culture and society in turkey was, but maybe i just don’t know enough about it, some aspects felt a little too exaggerated to me and a little too cliche? and sometimes the characters made decisions that didnt fit the scene or were unpredictable? (e.g sisters death scene). again maybe i didnt understand the plot fully or missed some things.
One thing that was interesting was that the use of religion and culture as the influence behind the strict family rules was blurry and religion wasnt blatantly blamed as much as its done in other films with similar topics, by this i mean the girls seemed to have an overly strict family compared to the rest of the village, as we saw the other girls in the village go to school freely etc.
Overall i really enjoyed this film, the green turkish countryside was a beautiful setting and it was also a look at how one can tackle social issues etc
I saw Dora and the Lost City of Gold (2019) at a local cheap theater with one of my friends last night and, to quote my friend, it was “wild”. Overall Dora is a fun movie that offers very important and positive Latine representation, and most of the minor things that bothered me (lack of narrative cohesion, the unrealistic absence of the sheeramount of paper involved in actualarchaeology) certainly wouldn’t bother the core demographic (children). However, Peter Debruge, writing for Variety, commented:
““Dora and the Lost City of Gold” goes out of its way to establish that the character isn’t a tomb raider or a treasure hunter, but rather an explorer, risking her life for the love of knowledge. That ranks her as perhaps the most “woke” big-screen adventurer since the invention of cinema, making Indy’s indignant “That belongs in a museum!” seem so 20th century by comparison” (“Film Review: ‘Dora and the Lost City of Gold’”).
This is where, I think, we get into some trouble. Spoilers below.
There are, on the surface, some obvious differences between a “treasure hunter” and an “explorer.” Treasure hunting is destructive and extractive, taking artifacts based on how high their potential resale value might be, with a complete disregard for the surrounding artifacts/environment, let alone the cultural meaning of the either artifact being extracted or the things being destroyed to retrieve it. An explorer, we are told, doesn’t take the gold.
“Exploration” and “explorer,” however, are highly loaded terms. Exploration is intrinsically linked to colonialism and imperialism, and explorers have historically been central to the production of knowledge and the generation of public and private interest which paved the way for colonization. They have also, historically, taken the gold. This is highly evident in the way that Cambridge Dictionary defines “explorer” as “a person who travels to places where no one has ever been to learn about them” because if explorers go where no one has ever been and explorers go to places where people of color have lived and are actively living, we now know who counts as a person and who doesn’t. To be fair, this specific phrasing is not a universal definition, but other definitions still contain the same problematics. Google Dictionary, for example, defines “explorer” as “a person who explores an unfamiliar area; an adventurer”. Here we can maybe concede that the “unfamiliar area” is unfamiliar to the person exploring it not an area that “no one” is familiar with, but again when we consider how the term is applied, explorers implies an emptiness to the region being explored: someone on vacation might “explore” the city of New York, but they wouldn’t be considered an explorer for doing so.
This leads us into the problematic of “jungle puzzles.” The phrase is first used in the movie by Randy, the cliche socially awkward nerd, after they have fallen into an aquifer. Dora and Randy both notice that the star map on the roof is wrong, prompting Randy to say it must be a jungle puzzle and pull a lever at random in order to correct the star alignment and reveal something hidden. Dora says there is no such thing as jungle puzzles, the room begins to fill with water, and they realize the star map was in fact accurate the whole time and they had just been looking at it wrong. This scene offers an excellent subversion of the “jungle puzzle” trope which is so often utilized in jungle-action/explorer flicks. In the images and rhetoric of colonialism, we frequently see the “challenge as invitation” theme appear, and often in ways which are very violently sexualized. This model is not only applied to colonial imaginings of colonized women/women of color, but to the feminized land itself, and it is very much as rape-y as this implies. The entire jungle puzzle trope is centered around the idea that ancient and/or indigenous peoples built their cities and their civilizations in order to serve as “escape the room” tests of courage, morality, and knowledge for outsiders, rather than for actual use by the inhabitants of those cities/members of those civilizations. It carries over the idea that the challenge of solving the puzzle invites in explorers/colonizers, and often it further imagines a universal morality and understanding of value which the explorer/colonizer can access and succeed at. Because of this, having a scene where explorers believe that an element of indigenous civilization was designed for outsiders to “solve” in order to be “rewarded” only to realize that they not only misunderstood the accuracy of an Incan star map, but that the entire structure was just a regular part of Incan life that had nothing to do with outsiders is an important intervention.
Unfortunately, upon arrival at the city of Parapata this initial intervention is lost, as the children quickly realize there are in fact “jungle puzzles” both to enter the city and to view the giant golden monkey statue. I do want to emphasize here that between Indiana JonesandDora and the Lost City of Gold, it is obviously important and even radical to see the rugged individual (cishet white man) model of Indiana Jones replaced by four kids–two of whom are Latinx and one of whom is played by an Australian Aboriginal woman–working together, and this shift is apparent in the way they characters interact with the city and its guardians. However, because it uses the same tropes it has many of the same issues. Again, it imagines that the city was built as a test, but the problematics of this representation are heightened by the arrival of los guardidos perdidos/the lost guardians and the old woman who initially tried to keep both the treasure hunters and the explorers away from Parapata but in the scene leading up to Dora solving the final puzzle, transforms into a beautiful young Incan princess and allows Dora to attempt the puzzle.
First, as a separate but connected issue, the figure of the Incan princess also plays into the idea of indigenous peoples as mystical/mysterious, ancient, and displaced from/frozen in time. First of all, I again want us to think about definition and application; according to Google Dictionary “ancient” means “belonging to the very distant past and no longer in existence.” The Incan Empire fell in the 1530s under Spanish conquest and the Incan people still exist today; when we look at Europe, Stonehenge is ancient; you don’t ever hear about the “ancient” art of Leonardo di Vinci, and he was dead and buried for more than a decade before the Incan Empire was destroyed. While we are not told where the guardians or the princess comes from, what we are implicitly told by an de-aging of the Incan princess is that they seem to be connected to the “ancient” empty city rather than contemporary Incan society, and subsequently that there are no modern Incan peoples, or that the modern Inca are irrelevant to this story. Against this lack of contemporary Incan indigeneity, Dora refers to the student body of a Los Angeles high school as its “indigenous population” several times throughout the film; it is imperative to consider how this undermines modern indigenious communities and their experiences.
Furthermore, the figure of the old-young princess fully leans into the sexually exploitative imagingings of colonized peoples/cities/lands as desiring of the entrance of outsiders; as an old woman, the princess’s role is to warn away, but as the young woman her role is to invite in the worthy, with the worthy being those who are able to solve the puzzle. Dora says she wants to learn, and the princess allows her to attempt the puzzle, but what exactly is Dora supposed to be learning (it seems the reward for the puzzle is the ability to view a giant gold statue of a monkey) and, more importantly, why is the entire city centered around this test?
I just finished the final season of Jessica Jones on Netflix and overall I feel fairly ambivalent about it. I think the first season was by far the show’s strongest and I felt like the show lost some of its heart (namely through the way we see the corruption of Trish and especially Malcolm), but overall I felt like it held to some of its core themes, and I certainly didn’t hate it. However, what this season got me thinking about, and what I think becomes a clear problematic which repeats throughout many of Netflix’s Marvel originals shows is the way the vigilante role of the superpowered heroes is represented and played out: heroes demonstrate repetitively the failing of America’s criminal justice system, and yet ultimately reify the validity of these structures in very frustrating ways. Definitely spoilers below.
Before continuing, I do want to emphasize two things: first, this is intended to be an intervention on an incredibly prevalent problem, not a complete dismissal of the shows themselves. Considering how much of the Marvel Cinematic Universe centers on the stories of white men (frequently rich or middle-class, and exclusively canonized as heterosexual despite fan counter-readings), it is important to acknowledge the significance of Netflix shows centering their stories on women, people of color, and people with disabilities, as well as the way they, to some extent, address the social inequalities that marginalized communities and individuals experience. Secondly, I also do not want to suggest that all of the Marvel Netflix-originals have the same kinds of potentials; The Punisher, for example, does not, to me, hold the same possibilities as Luke Cage, and I’m not even looking at Iron Fist because I haven’t watched it and don’t intend to.
Let me first start by briefly discussing the concept of the prison industrial complex and prison abolition. If you are unfamiliar with the concept or the activism I highly suggest reading The Nation’s article “What Is Prison Abolition?” and looking at Critical Resistance, which was co-founded by Ruth Wilson Gilmore and Angela Davis. Taken from the website’s about, “the prison industrial complex (PIC) is a term we use to describe the overlapping interests of government and industry that use surveillance, policing, and imprisonment as solutions to economic, social and political problems.” What prison abolition is about “is a political vision with the goal of eliminating imprisonment, policing, and surveillance and creating lasting alternatives to punishment and imprisonment.” There are a number of excellent scholars/theorists/activists who discuss prison abolition, but here I’m going to be citing and discussing “Prison Reform or Prison Abolition?” (the introduction to Angela Davis’s Are Prisons Obsolete?) and Morgan Bassichis, Alexander Lee, and Dean Spade’s “Building an Abolitionist Trans and Queer Movement with Everything We’ve Got.”
Let me start tracing this argument through Jessica Jones by drawing out a few of the examples which initially brought this criticism to the forefront of my mind while watching this final season:
Corrupt Cops & the Need for Jury Evidence: while the show demonstrates the limitations of policing and the criminal justice system, it simultaneously acknowledges corrupt cops who are abusing their power and the inability of police to lock up a villain because they don’t have enough evidence or the ability to get said evidence. By showing these together, there is a suggestion that the two issues at once separate from each other and equally problematic. We do not see police officers acting without warrants, assaulting/shooting suspects (although in one scene, an officer threatens to shoot Jessica when she is smashing a gazebo and digging beneath the foundation to recover a body neither the officer nor the homeowners realize is hidden there up until Trish begins filming her), or acting outside of the law to collect evidence; instead, the show’s hero does many of these things in contexts which suggest she is correct to do so (again, the antagonist she is facing up against is a psycopathic serial killer who tries to kill her multiple times). The corrupt cop in this season is removed from the central action; his corruption allows Jessica to do what she “needs” to do (destroy evidence which will allow the villain to be incarcerated, to keep her sister out of prison), and is represented as being separate from the police force as an institution. There is even a way in which his actions are presented as being potentially justifiable: he kills drug dealers to steal from them. We are told this is wrong because they are kids and still have “time to change,” implying that if they were adults, their murders would be perhaps justified (and one officer even comments that “one of those kids” hit her in the head with a bike lock, suggesting that their age doesn’t matter); we are also told it is wrong because his motive is the theft, not “justice.” This again implies that things might be different if he was murdering drug dealers for dealing drugs, and again obscures the systemic inequalities which produce crime, as well as the way the PIC contributes to and benefits from these inequalities.
“Supers” and Prisons: acknowledged but never fully addressed is the significance of “supers” as an unprotected category. When Trish is arrested, Detective Costa informs her that the NYPD doesn’t have jurisdiction and that powered peoples are, apparently, not afforded due process of law. When Jessica is initially reluctant to tell the police that the masked vigilante is Trish and hopes to stop Trish herself, Jessica comments that no one really knows what happens on the Raft because no one from the Raft is able to contact the outside world. Given the context that Luke Cage’s powers came from illegal experimentation conducted on him while he was incarcerated, it seems possible if not probable that experimentation/medical torture is being conducted on those incarcerated on the Raft, and it becomes all the more insidious that Luke shows up to explain to Jessica that he himself had to send his brother to the Raft, and convince her to do the same. Essentially by addressing some of the extreme human rights abuses involved in incarceration in the real world through the metaphor of fictitious superpowered people being denied the (facade of) protections that are extended to suspected criminals, the argument being made is that even incarceration at its worst is a necessary and viable solution to crime.
The problematic of “diverse” cops: this is less centered in the narrative and subsequently has lower stakes than the other two examples I discuss above, but by representing a “diverse” police force, we are given the illusion that police forces “are” “diverse”, and that this means something. Costa, who is shown having “personal problems” in the form of going through the adoption process with his husband, who is worried about how much Costa is working and whether or not he will be more present as a parent, obscures the reality of homophobia in the PIC.
Davis argues that “the prison is considered so ‘natural’ that it is extremely hard to imagine life without it” (10) and the consequence of this is that “the U.S. population in general is less than five percent of the world’s total, whereas more than twenty percent of the world’s combined prison population can be claimed by the United States” (11). She goes on to raise the question “why were people so quick to assume that locking away an increasingly large proportion of the U.S. population would help those who live in the free world feel safer and more secure?” (14). Jessica Jones, Luke Cage, The Punisher, and Daredevil, address, to varying degrees and varying success, some of the problems of the PIC: they acknowledge police corruption, wrongful incarceration, the effects of financial inequalities on criminal justice outcomes (namely in the power of the rich to avoid punishment), illegal treatment of prisoners (through experimentation/medical torture), the effects of trauma and poverty on the creation of the “criminal”, and the lasting effects of incarceration. However, the solutions suggested through these shows, at best emphasize alternative models of policing/surveillance (in the case of Jessica Jones, private investigator and serial trespasser, an increased kind of policing/surveillance) and reforming systems rather than abolishing them. The problem with this, as Davis points out, is that “frameworks that rely exclusively on reforms help to produce the stultifying idea that nothing lies beyond the prison” (20). Furthermore, the shows, for the most part, do not even call of for reforms or imagine reform as a real possibility anyways; they suggest empathy but maintain that prison or death are the only ways to stop “real” criminals. The prison is almost always the naturalsolution in these shows; the only question is who belongs in them and how they should get there. Worse, the only show which consistently deviates from the naturalness of incarceration is The Punisher, which suggests the better alternative to prisons might be revenge killings.
In discussing “the hero mindset,” Bassichis, Lee, and Spade discuss, essentially, the pitfalls of neoliberalism and argue that “stories of mass struggle become stories of individuals overcoming great odds,” and give the example of narratives which center Rosa Parks as “sparking” the Montgomery Bus Boycott through a solitary (“lonely”) act while obscuring the reality that she was an experienced civil rights activist acting in part of a series of civil disobediences (26). This is a general problematic of the superhero (and especially “vigilante” hero) genre, and it becomes particularly relevant in shows such as Luke CageandJessica Jones which are addressing systemic issues like racism, the prison industrial complex, and sexual assault/abuse in important (if imperfect ways). Superheroes, especially vigilante heroes, predominantly work alone; when they do team up it’s typically only with one or two others (Jessica working with Trish), short-lived (The Defenders), or both (Jessica sometimes working with Luke, Malcolm, and/or Erik). What’s important, is that they arevigilantes, working outside of structures or movements; while operating outside structures can have the potential to suggest alternatives solutions to the structures (ie the way that prison abolition looks to find solutions outside of policing/prisons), it also centers the solution (and problem) on individuals in ways which obscure the realities of broader structures. Even in these limited “team-ups” there is little to no potential for meaningful coalition between individual heroes and organizations/activist communities to address the broader inequalities which are being addressed/acknowledged.
This plays out in the third season of Jessica Jones in the way that it centers on a binary logic which runs: prisons or vigilante-justice through murder. The audience is told that the police don’t cut it, they can’t always know who’s a “good” person or a “bad” person, and because of that “good” people are vulnerable and “bad” people walk free. The initial antagonist is a psychopathic serial killer making it easy to subscribe to this model. While it is perhaps better that the solution isn’t for Jones to kill him (again, this is the solution suggested in The Punisher), the problem is not only a reification of the prison, but that in order for this solution to be realized, Jones must take on a heightened policing role, following him, illegally searching his house, and chasing down leads the police overlooked. As Bassichis, Lee, and Spade point out, “the violence of imprisoning millions of poor people and people of color, for example, can’t be adequately explained by finding one nasty racist individual, but instead requires looking at a whole web of institutions, policies, and practices that make it “normal” and “necessary” to warehouse, displace, discard, and annihilate poor people and people of color” (23). The binary is further traced through Trish Walker, who herself becomes a (vigilante) murderer; she is partially excused (morally/as a character) of the murders, because her first two kills are assaults that go to far because she flashes to her mother’s murderer, and the third is her mother’s murderer. Furthermore, her role as a vigilante is contextualized through her own experiences of powerlessness as the victim of abuse. However, even as Trish represents a more morally ambiguous case for the need for prisons, the solution (prison) never addresses the issues we are told shaped her actions, nor any potential for other outcomes.
Black Mass is a film of epic proportions that succeeds best in its smallest moments, and reminds us of why we all fell in love with Depp as an actor in the first place.
I must confess that I watched Valdimar Jóhannsson’s Lamb (Dýrið) whilst having a goblet or two of Absinthe, but had I viewed it tea-total, I don’t think it would have been any less strange!! I don’t want to give away too much of the film but the basic premise is that a farming couple, Maria and Ingvar (played by Noomi Rapace and Hilmir Snær Guðnason) living on a remote sheep-holding in Iceland…
Antlers (2021), directed by Scott Cooper and based on the short story ‘The Quiet Boy’ by Nick Antosca, has in its promotion highlighted the production role of Guillermo del Toro to whose films Antlers shares some similarities but shows some differences. Like a number of del Toro’s movies the principal backstory concentrates on children growing up in difficult circumstances, but the delivery here…
In the 21st Century Folk Horror Revival, several names keep coming to the fore, among those are the partnership of British film director Ben Wheatley and screenwriter Amy Jump. Together they have previously brought us the new wave of folk horror gems Kill List (2011) and A Field in England (2013) as well as the tangentially associated Sightseers (2012) – a darkly humourous film that is akin to…
Named after a protagonist known for her tough temperament, Rocks could just as easily be used to describe the material of the film itself. On one level, it’s a joyful and sometimes riotously funny look at school girl friendships, with an authenticity that will ring true to anyone raised on the culture of chicken shops and snapchat filters. Beneath this though, is a tough and yes, rocky, story about a protagonist with the weight of the world on her shoulders.
From Sarah Gavron, Director of Brick Lane andSuffragette, this also follows a girl who is forced to take control of her life in the face of difficult circumstances. The story is refreshingly simple - after her mother suddenly leaves home, black British teenager Olushola (Bukky Bakray), known to her schoolmates as ‘Rocks’, is tasked with looking after her little brother (a terrific D’angelou Osei Kissiedu), and somehow keeping her school life from falling apart. Set over the space of a few stressful days in London, as Rocks eludes the interest of social services, Gavron is able to explore the inequalities of the British economic system, and the innocents whose lives are ultimately impacted.
Based on a story by Theresa Ikoko, Rocks feels like a film drawn from personal experiences, so detailed and lively is its portrayal of school life in London. Much of this has to be attributed to it’s cast of newcomers, the spirited girls who act as a support network for Rocks at her time of need. It’s fair to say that most Hollywood coming of age movies lack the level of easy chemistry on display here, with Gavron clearly happy to let her cast improvise and display their vibrant characteristics and diverse cultural backgrounds. It’s a delight to watch them as they spar and share playful insults, and the film draws many laughs simply from their interactions.
Because of how strongly each character is sketched, you truly come to care about their fate. Bukky Bakray delivers an incredible debut performance as Rocks, a resourceful teen who is forced to think fast and be a source of stability for her brother. As a character who insists on carrying the burden of her situation alone (she makes light of her mums disappearance) Bakray does an excellent job of showing the toll that this would take on a young girl, and the scenes she shares with Osei Kissiedu are tenderly played. The inner conflict within Rocks plays out best in her friendship with Sumaya (brilliantly played by Kosar Ali), the funny and supportive best friend whose attempts to help initially fall on deaf ears.
As the situation gets increasingly difficult for Rocks to keep up with, Gavron doesn’t shy away from the harsh reality of the circumstances, resulting in some truly heartbreaking moments. Yet, despite its upsetting subject matter, the prevailing feeling here is one of empathy and hope, as the power of friendship and communication is heralded as a means to overcome hardship. During current times, it’s hard to think of a more relevant message.
Drawing heart and humour from the bleak situation of its protagonist, Rocks is a delightful and endearing tribute to female friendships, lifted by a young but highly capable cast of newcomers.
Minority Report (2002) Lag Time: 14 years Dir. Steven Spielberg Starring: Tom Cruise, Colin Farrell, Samantha Morton, Max von Sydow
Here we have one of Steven Spielberg’s most unique but ignored films from his 2000s filmography: Minority Report. I explore what about it makes this film underrated and what weaknesses have buried it outside our cultural memory.
Spielberg’s 2002 thriller is very clearly in the company of other film adaptations of the works of story-teller Philip K. Dick. A coupling of futuristic vision and plot-twisting action, Minority Report represents the famed author well as it places itself among the higher-quality adaptations. And yet, despite very positive reviews, this film does not attract very fond retrospection. It remains frequently overlooked.
We see elements compete throughout the film. The story, taking place in 2054, is set-up quite well in the exposition. We learn that a special police force called “Pre-crime” has been channeling the clairvoyant powers of three gifted “pre-cogs” to catch murderers before they commit their crimes. While certain mechanics of the plot are directly introduced, there are many moments that reveal Spielberg’s knack for handling details, for setting up characters and situations without drawing attention to the fact that exposition is happening. One thing that makes this director so great is how slyly he wields Chekhov’s gun. The Pre-crime system is set-up incredibly well with an engaging opening scene and rising action. These first forty-five minutes are, however, weighed down by special effects that do not quite seem ready for this film’s demands, and by editing that is not quite fast enough to support action which is nevertheless intriguing and original.
The middle of this movie is its most puzzling part. While in the interest of world-building and resisting the temptation to fill that world with two-dimensional stock characters, the second forty-five minutes are characterized by a weirdness that seems more or less arbitrary. There are moments in the scenes with the botanist (the “inventor” of Pre-crime) and the surgeon (with an interesting but distracting backstory) which wind this movie a little less tightly than other Spielberg works. The vines that attack protagonist John Anderton and the subsequent antidote scene are an instance of the extraneous world-building detours that do not really fit the tone or the plot and only distract the pace. I believe these weird moments and characters are there for that pace though. In distracting the flow, they make up for what would likely be an under-stimulating and slow-paced middle segment. But that rescue job is achieved by bizarre and burdensome intrigue alone.
The plot takes us to events of foreseen homicide, and we seem to be gearing up for an unsatisfying conclusion. A climax nears but it seems contrived and premature, with an unimaginative dramatic theme about thwarting destiny. Perhaps because of what came before, I was expected to be let down as I expected the movie to come its end. But then the plot twists. And it does so quite well. I fell for some story-telling sleight-of-hand, and so the twist was truly unexpected. What evolved in the final act was the most entertaining and successful part of the whole film as plot elements which before seemed under-cooked began to evolve. The story’s concept is engaged to the plot’s extreme benefit in what is really some excellent screenwriting work by Scott Frank and Jon Cohen. The film’s mystery is at its most rich in these final forty-five minutes. They redeem the film, if I do say so myself, and make it well worth the watch.
The screenwriting is not all this well written. There are a few weak lines which mainly serve as your basic dramatic padding. And there are too many puns revolving around eyes. While not a fault of the writers, the screenplay does not always seem to match well with the direction by Spielberg and the editing by Michael Kahn, most evident to me in the scenes in the greenhouse and the surgeon’s apartment. The production gives these scenes (and more) a faster pace than the writing warranted. These issues of pacing, if it is not yet apparent, seem to be the most impressionable issues of the film as I look back on it.
There are moments of the score by John Williams which really standout as mature and individual in his ouerve. At other moments, you can hear that he was rushed into this score from his work on Attack of the Clones. They are stylistic siblings, genetically linked. The design of this film also stands out. The movie, if anything, is the realization of a great effort of cinematic future-building. Beyond the production design, the visual style itself is inspired yet sometimes gets in the way of the film’s clarity with Kamiński’s overlighting and desaturating with the film.
Each of these elements - from writing to visuals and more - supports the overall film well but also each have their moments of weakness which work to unwind the film. In short, this film has taken the back-seat in Spielberg’s filmography, likely due to its inconsistency and an occasional strangeness which can be off-putting for viewers. The weaker scenes reveal the dissonance between art and action. But there are elements which are strange in just the right ways, and where the art and the action merge is the realm of pure mystery and cinematic tension, the latter of which for sure is right in Spielberg’s wheelhouse.
Worth a watch? Definitely. Worth remembering? I can see why it hasn’t been. Worth reviving? I think so. Whether the new television show does that, I have yet to see. But looking back to the film is certainly a fair use of anyone’s time.
Going Through My Movies Part 12: The Human Condition (1959-61)
How do you even talk about this movie?
The title is completely accurate. This is a film about the human condition. What it means to be human. The cost of being human.
Everything.
The Human Condition is technically 3 films: No Greater Love, Road to Eternity, and A Soldier’s Prayer, all of which themselves are split into 2 parts.
I choose to view it as one film. It’s all based on the same book, the Criterion box set calls it “A film by Masaki Kobayashi”, all the parts acknowledge their placement in the whole (i.e. Road to Eternity begins with a screen that says “Part 4”), and also the films don’t work on their own. They would still be good, but they’re all clearly operating as parts of one larger story.
Anyways, what is that larger story?
The Human Condition is the story of a sane man in an insane world. Kaji is a socialist, and a humanist. He believes deep to his core that every man, woman, and child deserves respect, and that the best thing for humanity, for everyone, is for us to work together.
And this man is placed in fascist Japan.
You believe that every man is born equal and that we should all just love each other and do what’s best for humanity as a whole? Great, go fight for the axis powers.
Everywhere Kaji is put, running a Japanese prison, basic training, the front lines, a Soviet POW camp, or just wandering the Manchurian countryside, he tries to make things better.
But over and over again he is stopped. He isn’t allowed to make things better, anytime he pushes through and manages to make some change, things are only made worse for himself. He’s in a constant dilemma and we’re with him all the way.
Kaji is a modern Sisyphus. He is forever doomed to push his boulder of humanism up a hill in an uncaring cruel world. And he’s doomed to do this for eternity, or 9 hours of runtime, whichever comes first.
I’m not going to lie to you and pretend that those 9 hours go by fast. They don’t. This is actually an extremely slow movie. You never mind because it’s so great, but it is slow. By the end, you feel like you’ve taken in the totality of human experience.
The Human Condition is also about a search for meaning. Japan is fighting a war they cannot possibly win, but almost every character in the movie deludes themselves into thinking that the Japanese empire will topple the invading forces. What’s the point of even going on? Why shouldn’t Kaji just lay down his arms and desert his country?
It’s a good thing to search for when Kaji is fighting for what’s right. What’s the point of it all? Can we really do good? And I don’t mean make things better for a while, can we make real lasting change for the betterment of our society?
The Human Condition doesn’t really give us solid answers for any of the questions we’re going to ask. But it isn’t really shouting into the void either. It gives you ideas and concepts and just leaves the final decision up to you. Characters in the film make their decision, it’s just your choice if you agree or not.
The film is filled to the brim with these grand wide shots and I think they serve a couple purposes. One they’re just really beautiful shots. Two they’re good at portraying some of the actions that are taken in the settings of the film. And three, they emphasize how small we are.
I think if I were to condense the themes of the film into one sentence, it would be that humans are small stupid creatures.
We are at war with each other and ourselves, and we refuse to help ourselves. But we still matter. We may refuse help, but we still need to try to love each other. We can’t give up. That is what really makes us human.
And maybe we will fail. Maybe it will end in tragedy. Maybe we will be separated from those we love. Maybe we will lose what made us love life. But we need to try. If not, then what’s the point of our lives? Why do we put any importance on these small stupid creatures?
The Human Condition is not only a monumental achievement in cinema but in humanity. I think if everyone in the world watched this film the world would be a better place.
I think this is the greatest film ever made. I implore you to watch it
Next up in my collection is Kiki’s Delivery Service, which I am very excited about.
An insightful look from a director with humanitarian views and a passion for character development. Pather Panchali is about a family living in a rural village which serves as the ancestral home of the patriarch of the story, who goes by the name Hari; he lives there with his wife Sarbojaya and their two kids Durga (daughter) and Apu (son). Hari is a religious scholar with a penchant for playwriting and poetry; however, he is hard pressed to find honest work for decent wages, so he is forced to do odd jobs here and there to support his family — often causing him to leave the homestead for months on end. Most of Pather Panchali covers about a 5-month window in which Hari embarks on a job and we as the audience get to see the general hardships the family must endure, especially his wife, Sarbojaya until Hari returns.
This was Satayjit Ray’s first induction as a filmmaker. A true passion project, if I have ever seen one.
Ray focuses a lot of time developing the characters’ emotions as well as tendencies so that we as an audience begin to learn of their intentions and feelings without them ever having to voice why and what they are doing. He captures daily life in rural India with careful detail not rushing any sequences, this way the audience can grow to be involved with the family and eventually care for all their trials and tribulations.
It is a true testament to a caste system based society, as such the characters are rooted very specifically in their “roles,” as women tend to the children and household chores and the old become forgotten an neglected. This allows the to audience enjoy all their small victories and empathsize with their losses as no feat is too small or insignificant in terms of the relative aspects of living in a society that’s often times looked at as taking one step forward and two steps back.
The film captures “life,” from child birth to adolescence and then death, the representation of the circle of life also serves as a metaphor for modernization in that some of the older traditions the characters retain actually hold them back from progressing, but are hard pressed to fight it as it eventually will happen and will force them to adapt, because it absolutely needs to happen — especially in a severly impoverished nation that doesn’t allow for equal opportunities.
I read that this film’s production had gone way over Ray’s already miniscule budget as well as being met with severe delays. What was supposed to be 3 years took 5, but in essence it added quality to the film because we get to see the children actually ‘grow.’ It must have also forced the director to be a lot more selective in terms of location scouting as some of the scenery, although shot in black and white, are very rich in detail.
I am very grateful for having the opportunity to see this movie and believe it is a testament to its quality of Ray’s filmmmaking that I was able to sit through all 2hrs of it even though it was a black and white film from 1955 that I streamed off of DailyMotion and the quality was in 240p afixed to a 4:3 ratio.
An over simplified view on what makes humans ‘sentient’ and robots incapable of being such; then proposes the evolution of the machine to feel without any logical explanation. Consciousness is somehow quantified via a helmet that can process neurotransmissions into data.
Deon is an engineer for a robotics company, they designed a series of robots that help fight crime where it runs rampant in South Africa (basically like RoboCop). Deon, unsatisfied with his work and hungry for the next step in robotics, engineers a new type of A.I. from his home that has the capability to 'feel.’ Without wanting to take a risk on his newfound A.I. the CEO of the company refuses Deon’s proposal to test it out on a robot. Meanwhile, two criminals down on their luck hatch a plan to kidnap the engineer of the robots to, for a lack of better words, “make a like a remote or something to switch em off like a television.”
Instead of going off on a tangent on why this movie wasn’t good, I am going to start with how this movie could’ve passed as an “above average” film.
One of the main issues of this film is its exposition; sci-fi is all about the exposition, especially ones that aim to be blockbusters and or action flicks — it’s good to get a clear explanation out of the way for a clear line of awesomeness to ensue. Example; The Matrix, we get a little bit of action in the beginning to spark our interest and then we get a lot in the middle explaining the purpose of The Matrix and then the last 40 mins of the movie we get the lobby scene followed by the bullet time etc.
Chappie was onto something with its beginning with scientists explaining the unsurprising aspect of evolution that has transpired and then it falls flat on its face. If we are talking about the evolution of the robot, why not pursue Moore’s Law and compound it with Kurzweil’s Law of Accelerating Returns? There’s a story in there where Deon the engineer could have created a processor for these robots that he unknowingly knew was too advanced for his own pride blinds him to this fact, and thus the robots learn on their own and they create their own robot that devoids Asimov’s rules for robotics, and now we have an interesting character in Chappie being one of a kind.
Believe me, I really wanted to like this film, and actually prayed for its success. I still love Blomkamp and am excited for Alien 5, but ever since District 9, his follow ups have been getting progressively worse.
His decision to include Die Antwoord, and I literally mean Die Antwoord (they didn’t change their names), was NOT the answer (haha get it?). They did add a sense of wonderment to the film, but they took away from it as well as this was a clear promotion for the band as they spray painted Chappie with one of their album names on the side of his head and branded him with one of their popular monikers “Get Rich” in their signature font. The tattoos on Ninja and Yolandi, I can accept as it gives the film authenticity, but their over the top style only brought an imbalance to the film as Blomkamp had to find actors to keep up with Die Antwoord’s own eccentric style, which just ended up looking unnatural, not to mention their tracks played nonstop throughout the film.
If at all anything the film does a good job following the rules of a children’s novel and or cartoon in which an exposition climax and denoument must be encompassed in a 30mins period, but in the instance of Chappie everything drags on uncomforatably long — if it’s going to be over stylized satire go that route, if it’s supposed to be a provocative thought piece make it so and without outside elements that so obviously influenced the filmmaker — look instead to Ex Machina.
Apparently, a lot of people disagree on the film’s quality as the film is currently rated a 7/10 on imdb, which is absolutely preposterous to me as I see it as a 6, realtive to the imdb scale. A 7 or above still ranks the movie as being genuinely good, but certain core aspects of the film cause a great divide amongst people’s opinions, but a 6 is a clear cut indication that one needs to turn their brain off and completely suspend belief, because even at its lowest this film was somewhat entertaining.
Cannot believe this is what Miller has been holding in all these years.
George Miller unleashes the full extent of his imagination in a carefully balanced “seesaw” of a movie. The film rips through the senses in its almost poetic simplicity with structure and incredibly long action sequences that pause only for very brief moments to increase the stakes of the film and the plight of its characters. Take all the extreme outlandish elements of the 3 previous films and take out the over acting and apply modern day tech and you get a perfected vision of what Miller originally wanted to portray and patiently waded through such films like Happy Feet and you (the audience) finally get what I can only say is an incredibly satisfying “high octane” thriller that puts the previous 3 cult hits to shame.
It is a post-apocalyptic future; how far from now? I don’t know. The world as we know it, or as much of it that Miller lets us see is reduced to desert wasteland divided by warring factions. Our hero Max is captured and dragged into a place known as “The Citadel” powered by the slave labor of many all to serve the purpose of one, Immortan Joe, of whom controls the most valuable assets known to man, water and gas. Joe lives similarly to that of a Pharaoh and only keeps his most trusted around him as his cabinet; all of them are members of his family. Max is kept alive to donate his blood to Joe’s warriors known as the “War Boys.” Much like a crazed despot Joe keeps a harem with 5 beautiful women of who appear flawless in an otherwise desolate landscape to mother his children. One of his own trusted officers named Furiosa runs off with the 5 wives to return to her homeland.
Mad Max: Fury Road has razor sharp action sequences powered by Miller’s crazy imagination as people fearlessly leap from vehicle to vehicle in high speed pursuits through the desert. The structure of the film is on point as the War Boys all have their roles to play; notable roles being that of the electric guitar player that’s tied to a giant rig to simply play power riffs to empower the war boys and to set the tone of things to come, much like drummer boys and buglers of the past. There are also crazed maniacal roles called “Polecats” who dangle on long poles in Buster Keaton-esque fashion as they swing from the top of poles from dune buggies to board other vehicles in acrobatic fashion.
I had heard in an interview that George Miller employed the consultation of the author of the Vagina Monologues, of whom have worked with victims of sexual abuse to create the demeanor and disposition of the 5 wives in this film. All of the actresses did a wonderful job portraying distrustful and distant visages as well as strong courageous roles when the occasion called for it.
Miller portrays all the wonders of womanhood as we see the 5 wives first appear in almost mirage like sequence in which their limber bodies are being bathed upon a desert landscape covered only in the thinnest of cloths — but throughout the film we see that although they appear to be delicate creatures they fare the perils of this savage wasteland. Lead by one of Charlize Theron’s more memorable roles as she brings an immeasurable sense of ferocity to the movie. Whether she plays an ambitious tycoon or a depressed wife she stays true to her roles and does great justice to the films she stars in by staying true to the aesthetics as she voluntarily buzzed her head for this role.
Although the dialogue is sparse, Miller is able to paint an effective picture using modern day technology to create viscreal imagery powered by knee jerk camera movements to accentuate the disjunctive nature of his savage imagination. The character development is created solely through the different environments in which the characters came, be it the underground grungey conditions of the war boys, to the beautiful paradise in the center of an otherwise claustrophobic and dry landscape made for Immortan Joe’s 5 wives — George Miller effectively brings together the different walks of life to fight for a common cause.
Miller blew my mind when I was younger and happened to stumble upon The Road Warrior on a random weekend afternoon on television wherein I learned how suspenseful a scene can be as I saw Mel Gibson desperately try to grab a hold of a shotgun shell while maintaining control of his vehicle during the middle of a chase, and blew me away again with the incredible use of CG infused backdrops and vivid color to breathe new life to his career defining franchise.
This is a revamp, but can also be a continuation in the franchise as it can be viewed as Max traversing the wasteland and stumbling upon random scenarios in which he becomes the reluctant hero as he searches for redemption.
I am literally astounded at the technical and storytelling innovation that went into this film.
Riggin Thomson (Keaton) is now just a former shell of himself from his prime during the early to mid-90’s where he reigned supreme as the “it” actor grossing billions of dollars off the “Birdman” franchise. He has since fallen off Hollywood relevancy and is attempting a comeback by writing, directing and starring in his own Broadway play that is loosely based on his life.
From the opening credits, the audience knows that this film marches to the beat of its own drum as the director nods to the rebellious Godard as he uses vibrant reds and blues to portray his opening credits, much like Godard’s work from the 60’s; the similar usage of typography and animation is used to set the tone for the film.
Alejandro González Iñárritu typically focuses on heavier themes and much more depressing narratives, from what I’ve seen (21 Grams & Babel). It was a welcoming surprise for me as this, relatively “dark comedy,” effectively weaves its way through the main characters ego revealing to himself the cruel truth he doesn’t want to hear, and then revealing to the audience (us) what he actually wants; as his ‘id’ is portrayed by his fictional on screen character “Birdman” as his conscience.
The film’s cinematography grabs a hold of your attention and forces you to move with the actors at their pace. I don’t know how they did it, but the movie almost feels like it was done in a single take.
Iñárritu, uses minimal surrealism in the film, which makes the film that much better, but more so he uses reality to show just how Keaton doesn’t really fit into society, anymore, as he’s refused to adapt to the times making his prescence in any scene almost surreal and anachronistic as we the audience are thinking to ourselves, everyone around Keaton’s character must be aware that he’s a washed up actor, thus creating a sense of tension in every scene as Keaton is just a hairline of a fracture away from losing it; and isn’t that just how an actor in real life is? Because a lot of their lives are surreal.
Overall though, I am glad the surrealism was kept to a minimum unlike films like “Synecdoche, New York” where I spent most of the movie trying to interpret Kaufman’s intentions, rather than enjoying it.
Keaton and Norton to Keaton and Stone — we get the most chemistry, as both pairs convincingly play out their roles to the extent where it didn’t even feel like acting; I actually found myself wishing success to Emma Stone’s character and an untimely demise for Edward Norton’s. Norton, also tears this film a new one as an experience obsessed actor that dabbles a little too much in his own methodology as he instigates fear amongst his cohorts, coupled with his compulsive attitude he goes off on his own self-absorbed tirades of being a real stage actor with actual range, rather than some former film superstar that relies on special effects and bloated budgets to gain notoriety.
These type of satirical autobiographical films seem to do wonders, revitilizing and or finding actor’s careers as we saw with Mickey Rourke in “The Wrestler” and Eminem with “8 Mile.” It even goes to show how much the public is hungry to see something “realistic” while poking fun at a person as long as its not themselves.
Suffering for your art/passion is a time honored tradition amongst creatives and if one feels themselves getting empowered after watching this film, one also gets to walk away with the feeling of acceptance in that, you’re not the only one that is suffering and or things could be worse…
Birdman was a breath of fresh air in an otherwise dull climate full of movies that:
1. Thanks to VOD and Redbox — movies are being pumped out left and right, I cannot keep up anymore, and it has to be assumed that most of the drabble being pumped out are not good.
2. Social media, tends to dumb down cinema nowadays, but watching a movie like this restores faith in the art.
3. (not that I am complaining) It’s nice to see a passionate film versus another cgi infused actioner.
Birdman, does not try to be something it is not. It delivers inspiring performances from everyone involved.
Dracula Untold is a piece of historical fiction (lol). Vlad the Impaler was a real person who struck fear into his opponents by impaling his victims, and Mehmed was a real Sultan during the Ottoman Empire (Turkey). Vlad and Mehmed did meet each other in the battlefield during Mehmed’s conquest of Southern Europe; whilst spreading Islam. What’s considered Southern Europe? I don’t know, other than Romania — because that’s where Bram Stoker’s Dracula (the vampire) takes place.
Vlad, wants peace as he’s tired from fighting and resents his violent past as well as his methods. He does not want to be known as “The Impaler.” He is the prince of his land and is in charge of the safety of his people. Vlad wants to be a kind but firm ruler, but his patience is tested as Mehmed encroaches into his lands thus commmitting an act of war, however, these are the Turks we are talking about and they have already conquered many lands and knowing this Vlad knew he stood no chance against the sheer size of Mehmed’s army. To raise the stakes even higher, Mehmed taunts Vlad by even threatening to take Vlad’s son to raise as his own. Not knowing what to do Vlad climbs the mountains that no one dares go near in search of a monster that can lend him immense power to fight the Turks.
Much of this film is centered around Vlad’s personal conflicts as the actor Luke Evans portrays Vlad in a one dimensional output of much distress as he cringes his face throughout the whole film, at just about everything.
The important lesson to be learned in this film is that committing your soul to the darkside comes with dire consequences that we as people cannot comprehend on how to control. You cannot seek guidance from a monster and any power lent to you by a creature dwelling in the dark, is just bad news.
Dracula Untold, is accidentally entertaining in that the film tries to make you sympathsize for Vlad as his choice was a difficult one, but when your kingdom and family is threatened what is a prince to do? But we must not forget this is also Dracula, we’re talking about.
I was sorely disappointed in the action sequences as the editing consisted of incredibly fast takes and just when you, the audience realize you were robbed of your time, the cut away scenes get even worse as the filmmakers thought they were clever in preserving the PG-13 rating as the last half of the only fight scene that mattered was resolved via the reflection of a falling blade of a fallen soldier in slow motion. Seriously? Wtf. It felt like I was watching an intro montage, which would’ve been okay, but this was already halfway into the movie.
One brightspot was the villain from my “go to” childhood action movie “The Last Action Hero,” was Dracula’s maker and that was amusing to me as I was able to recognize him right away even with the makeup; funny how those things stick with you. *note I did not mention Game of Thrones
I guess not much was to be expected as this is a cgi infused PG-13 film about Dracula; expectations are to be held in check as this is a farcry from Coppola’s Dracula. Credit is due to the writers as they were able to integrate some historical facts into the film which gave its plot some depth. Furthermore, I am such a sucker for these types of films about heroes with godlike strength — this won’t be the last PG-13 action movie I will be disappointed in and it certainly isn’t the first.
Love in the Time of Hysteria (Sólo con tu pareja, 1991), is a film by the masterful Alfonso Cuaron. It is his first full length feature film and shows off his cinematic prowess without a high production budget. It serves as a cautionary tale with a sense of hilarity.
Tomas is an ad-man struggling to find a slogan befitting a can of jalapenos, between his work and figuring out ways to get out of work he squeezes in his personal life which is occupied by his insatiable need to satisfy his sexual urges. One day he hooks up with two women in the same night and gets caught. As payback one of the women pulls a nasty prank on him that leads Tomas to believe he has AIDS.
This film does a great job showing the incredible struggles of finding love. It shows a stark comparison between Tomas and his best friend Mateo—Tomas sleeps around and is by relative definition a good looking male whereas his friend Mateo is overweight but is successful as a doctor and is happily married. A delicate balance is established in the film for the audiences to easily tell the two apart. For Tomas takes the act of making love for granted as he unknowingly has sex with numerous partners but finds no meaning in what he does whereas Mateo and his wife Teresa look down on Tomas for they feel like he takes the best parts of being in love for granted, as Teresa constantly scorns Tomas for his ways.
Upon learning of his condition Tomas goes through many ranges of confused emotions as he even creates a manifest of all the women he has slept with and figures out that this is not him, and that all this time he was doing this to fill a void in his life; he ultimately decides to commit suicide, but is often sidetracked by his own cowardice to do so.
The film displays how many view relationships as something that is more of an imprisonment rather than a gift. It takes the protagonist through a grueling self realization process as he is tortured by the thought that he will one day suffer a slow and painful death; teaching the audience that love is not something that is to be taken light heartedly nor is it achieved through simple means and therefore should not be given out like candy.
Another thing to note once again are the fantastical, yet simple set pieces Cuaron uses to tell his story. There is a lot to look at for he frames his shots with focus being his primary initiative, for the audience is forced to use the elements of his cinematography to also figure out what is going on and what the character is thinking.
Not the best in terms of story, but Cuaron’s artistic prowess keeps the audiences’ attention transfixed on an otherwise “stale-ish” story.
Not once does this film give into popular conventions. And I love it for that.
Snowpiercer is a film by Bong Joon Ho, this was a film with clear classist values with sci-fi undertones. The director did an excellent job bringing to life his ambitious vision; inspired by a French graphic novel (I have not read it, therefore I will not compare it).
Earth has succumbed to the effects of global warming and in a last ditch effort, humans release a chemical cooling agent into the atmosphere, in hopes to delay the inevitable. This fails; and in turn throws the planet into another Ice Age ending civilization as we know it. The precious few that remain, live in a train, created by its deranged genius Wilford; empowered with the God complex, Wilford forcibly creates a caste system in which the poor suffer inhumane conditions while the rich survive blissfully at the front of the train.
Visceral and intense, the film’s momentum happens rather quickly, as the characters are introduced one after another. They are all in agreement that living in the back of the train sucks, and what’s the point of holding onto erroneous ideals of class when society as a whole has already been reduced to a precious few, why not smash the socioeconomic barrier and attempt to progress humanity beyond the train.
As the gritty violence unfurls and the revolution begins, a lot of violence ensues in a leisurely fashion. I say leisurely, for the survivors even take a break from fighting to ring in the new year, enjoy sushi, and observe a classroom. I really enjoyed this aspect of the movie for Bong Joon Ho plays off the ethos of the survivors. There’s no where else to go but backwards or forward and atop of that aspect, what real purpose is there in fighting, when there’s virtually nothing left to fight over. The tight quarters of the train impacts the environment of its characters effectively thus making the film less about being a sci-fi action thriller and more of an allegory on humanity’s destructive nature.
Ed Harris plays an offshoot of Conrad’s deranged “Mr. Kurtz” or depending on how you look at it; Coppola’s Col. Kurtz. As he is a genius engineer that built the train and eventually adopts a philosophical view that eventually develops into an insane God complex, obsessed with keeping everyone on the train, as he decides who lives and who dies.
Depending on how you look at it the train in the film can be viewed as a metaphor, for like society’s thought process; narrow and enclosed, the train in itself is narrow and enclosed as it trudges forward in a never ending loop, doomed to repeat the same steps over and over again.
Bong Joon Ho took on an immense task readying this film for the international market, and it’s a true testament to his skill as a director of which English is not the primary language, yet he was still able to direct a cast that is comprised of mostly English speaking Caucasians, and still make an effective sci-fi film.
A Field in England, is a testament to Ben Wheatley’s skill in experimental filmmaking; in other words this is something you haven’t seen before. It is an awesome portrayal of macabre as well as subtle storytelling.
Amidst the English Civil War (during the 17th century) a servant that goes by Whitehead is charged with the task of finding an Irishman by the name of O'Neil. Whitehead flees from his handler’s grasp along with others who are fleeing from battle. Alone in a field, they are tricked into doing all the manual labor for an alchemist who had his assistant poison the deserters with psychedelic mushrooms, rendering them helpless to the normal conventions of reality, thus making them easier to control. And all this was done with the hopes of finding some kind of buried treasure.
A Field in England, in my opinion is a foray in the hypothetical, what if alchemy was real?
In this film I believe the director is saying it is and the concept is understood by a few, because after all it is taking place in the 17th Century.
There is a lot of showing and not telling during this movie, as the audience is forced to either sink or swim rather quickly. I understand that this film isn’t for everyone and it’s also not necessarily one’s own personal level of intelligence to understand or like this film, but rather your level of interest on the topic, or if you just enjoy great cinematography then you’ll like this film. Touching on the topic of the film; it’s about alchemy and the surge in interest it had during the 17th century under the guise that people thought they could transmute lead into gold.
Possible Spoilers (evidence from film to support my theory):
Whitehead is a homunculus (as he’s called one by his handler) and he was created by a man known simply as ‘master.’ I believe the Irishman he was charged to find, O'Neil, was an apprentice of Whitehead’s master who stole his notes on Alchemy and was able to teach himself the dark arts, this is why Whitehead was searching for him. O'Neil is later found buried, presumably in another realm as the deserters and Whitehead are forced to tug on a rope tied to a cryptic totem that later pulls O'Neil back onto their plane of existence.
O'neill also accuses Whitehead of knowing the location of the treasure as he’s taken into a tent and presumably tortured, but I think he was shown either a vision and or was 'activated’ by being force-fed these runes which allows his body to be a tool used to find things since he is homunculi; his body can technically be a vessel for other uses befitting of his creator. And afterwards when he’s done supposedly finding the location of the treasure he regurgitates the runes and is returned to a normal state of consciousness.
Wheatley does good in creating an atmosphere in which the most simple things are taught to be appreciated by the audience, for this film takes place during the English Civil War, and science is yet to fully blossom into what it is today, as the audience must grit their teeth through the poor hygiene that is gratuitously displayed throughout the film; which makes the film all that much more visceral to present day audience.
The tent scene was one of the most powerful scenes I have witnessed in cinema, as it is so simple, but the framing and the expression on the actor’s face as well as the music that plays over it gave it a haunting appeal as well as a dark and twisted fantastical sense of hilarity.
Overall I can say that this is a bit of sci-fi/thriller/period piece. Details that are captured is excellent even in an environment that is limited only by production budget but limitless in imagination as these 5 search the field for a treasure that only the supposed Whitehead himself knows of it’s whereabouts.
This is my first film I have seen from Wheatley and I like it a lot. It is a breath of fresh air, for his avant-garde style showed me something new, and daring for this is not a film that cannot ever possibly find commercial success but was still made in the name of art.
a fairy tale narrative told over a murder mystery novel.
The Grand Budapest Hotel is a film by the fabled Wes Anderson. It is his immediate follow-up to his 2012 hit Moonrise Kingdom and like such, shines on its ability as a story-telling masterpiece.
The film opens on multiple timelines that work as layers as one peels back to reveal another. It opens on a novel that is then taken over by the author’s narration of himself being told the story that he has written. The story follows a concierge that ran an esteemed hotel. Gustave was his name and he held great pride in his work as he kept a tight leash on his hotel and its workers making sure his guests were always entertained and taken care of. He also indulged in multiple affairs with many of the hotel’s guests, but only those that were lonely old rich women, who also happened to be blonde. One of the women meet a tragic demise and leaves a fortune to Gustave, however to his plight he is also charged with her murder, and he must now prove his innocence while avoiding the inevitable invasion of Mitteleuropa by the Fascists.
This is probably some of the best story-telling I have seen as it intermingles a murder mystery atop of an almost fantastical adventure story. One can assume Anderson takes from the works of Agatha Christie as he made room to make a character named Agatha.
At face value this film is a metaphorical tale about the death of chivalry. For, Gustave (Ralph Fiennes) goes out of his way to always portray a polite and calm demeanor, regardless of his current situation. His fault as a human lies in that he’s a philandering fool preying on the vulnerability of lonely old women, but the audience can’t help but side with his whimsical character for he authentically cares for all his lovers. It isn’t until the invasion of Poland which sparks the beginning of WWII, do we realize that was the proverbial “end” of chivalry as the entire world gets engulfed into war as well as the inevitable the loss of innocence that goes with the territory of total war.
Anderson’s artistic direction in this film was magnificent as CGI is substituted with practical set pieces that are infused into the film to look like a giant model unit created by that of a hobbyist; in this case it’s Wes Anderson. As closeups and vignettes are used to portray important aspects. Anderson also cleverly plays with the aspect ratio of the film in the same school of thought as Soderbergh to represent the different time periods in which the film takes place.
One aspect of the film that I really enjoyed was how the film takes place during the rise of the Third Reich, but the film never openly admits to the portrayal of Nazism. Anderson employs the use symbolic euphemisms as the SS symbol is cleverly disguised as Z’s that also look a little like lightning bolts. He doesn’t count on the momentum of WWII to drive his film as it stands on its own merit.
Anderson has come a long way in terms of his writing/directing since Bottle Rocket. Admittedly so, I was personally never a fan of his work until Darjeeling Limited, because that was the first of his films I felt, started to make sense, for he always portrayed his actors as disjunctive shells of human beings that appear too doped up on Xanax for me to ever care about. However, his style always compelled me to throw money his way for the price of admission, and I am glad I did for this film does not disappoint.
Oblivion is a film by Joseph Kosinski, one cannot completely hate this film, for the director tries to expose elements of a true sci-fi film to the masses, of whom would otherwise never give two squirts of piss about the genre. It has all the makings of a great film; the main point being that existential philosophy is intertwined into a story about a post-apocalyptic future on Earth, in which the narration in it of itself is just an illusion.
An alien race known as “Scavs” suddenly appear in Earth’s orbit, they lay waste to our planet for theirs is ruined and they are in need of our resources. Humans are forced to use nukes to stop the Scavs but in doing so ruin Earth, leaving it uninhabitable. Humans are relocated to one of the moons of Saturn and Earth is drained of its remaining resources to help power the human’s new home. in order for this to happen a 2-man team is left on Earth to maintain the machines that carry out these tasks. One day pods crash land on Earth with human survivors and this sets off a chain of events that begin to arise questions within one of the two workers on Earth.
Kosinski does not disappoint in the visual sector as he brings to life the visual effects—effectively within the boundaries of Oblivion’s story. The design of the ships as well as the costumes and the minimal usage of colors reminds the viewer heavily of the greater films that inspired this one.
My main gripe with this film is that there isn’t much originality in it. It is an over simplified high production film that doesn’t leave much to the imagination, but to be fair I saw this film as an introductory lesson in great sci-fi, for the demographic, this film obviously tries to capture are the same people who are fans of Tron and or Tron Legacy, the latter being a film also by Kosinski.
The film tries to weigh upon our emotions as it questions the true identity and worth of the human soul as well as the value of our memories. What makes people, people? Physically we are present, but that’s something that science is proving can be artificially created, so what makes you, you? Oblivion tries to capture this existential state of being in an elementary way as it trudges along its beautiful CGI induced landscapes. It really presents a false sense of being in that it tries to be too intelligible for its own good. Oblivion even spotlights Andrew Wyeth’s renowned art piece “Christina’s World.” A painting considered to be in high regard and a prime example of existential art, for at first glance you see a girl in the prairie and depending on the person one can interpret this painting many different ways for her positioning as well as the isolation invokes many feelings in people. Oblivion tries to piggyback a lot of the film’s contents off the profound content from other people’s works as this film centers around the premise that things are just an illusion and human’s are very easy to manipulate with the right amount of fear instilled into their being.
Development is almost non-existent in this film, as it suffers quality to squeeze in quantity; while at the same time hiding its twists; I guess this is something that would have served better had they hired a better screenwriter or maybe added 15-20 more minutes to the film. It has the feeling of being profound but take away all the bells and whistles and one realizes that everything in this film that gives it any kind of merit is actually borrowed from other films, leaving behind a movie that stands alone as a barely passable action film with a sci-fi theme.
The desolation in the film was the best emotional response I got from it, as it was kept on a very tight leash. To understand that there’s so much empty space available on Earth, but to be limited to such a small sector was really invigorating in terms of the film’s mystique.
I applaud the director on being so sci-fi savvy, and admire his ambition in wanting to expose a great genre that doesn’t get the attention it deserves to a wider audience. However, he needs to work on a project in a collaborative effort, for I do not think he can do it alone. One day, I would love to see his talents develop under the tutelage of the Wachowskis, together they can make a film that would be a classic.
If…., is a film by Lindsay Anderson, a director so meticulous, he’s able to capture the non-sequential spontaneous acts of adolescent boys and frame it in such a way that forces the audience to admire each sequence in the movie.
This film follows the path of students entering their senior year at a boarding school in England during its post WWII era. They are constantly drilled to uphold tradition as well as pride for their country. As adolescents they naturally rebel against the system in typical fashion; drinking, smoking, sneaking off campus…Their expectations for life and their school eventually go completely awry as their own boredom takes over and they plan to lash out violently towards their fellow classmates as well as teachers.
Lindsay Anderson’s vision for the film is a cinematographic masterpiece, in which he portrays an err of caution towards Britain and their traditionalism as they needlessly force old values onto their youths. And grant privilege to those who are undeserving and solely given privileges just because of their birth rights.
Anarchy, is the film’s greatest prescursor as the main characters often break the rules of the strict boarding school by intentionally going against all of its teachings. Their dormitory is even transformed with pictures of war and violence, as its contents decorate their walls; giving clue to the audience that these boys are “lost” and are seeking a greater focal point for their adolescent mind sets. They are seeking for something more, something to fight for and believe in, but cannot find due to the rigid nature of the traditions they must live by.
Like all films that go against archaic traditions and enforce progressive values, the film itself, in its storytelling is different. From the same school of thought as Godard, the film bounces from black and white to color; I tried to think really hard what the director’s intentions were behind this ploy, but couldn’t quite come up with a reason other then the fact that whenever the black and white sequences were occurring, the most simple and mundane tasks were being displayed on screen.
If…., is a great example of a film with not much going on for the majority of its duration, but builds upon performance and its content; the director does a great job with shot selection for he must have had a good working relationship with the cinematographer as it shows in each scene. The film stands out as social commentary and art, the majority of the film is memorable visually in my mind like a photo memorabilia. Lastly, as a side note; it goes without saying, this must have been a film J.K. Rowling scrutinized over for a lot of the details in the film, down to even how the characters are dressed remind me heavily of Harry Potter…
Gravity is a film directed by Alfonso Cuaron, a rare director that is able to take virtually any story handed to him and have it be told through beautiful cinematic sequences. From A Little Princess to Children of Men, his vision for movies is unparalleled and always plummets its audience deep into his film’s story.
A team of astronauts from NASA are sent into space to fix the orbiting Hubble telescope. During their mission another orbiting satellite is destroyed and its remnants now space debris. The debris is rapidly hurdling itself toward the team of NASA astronauts and inevitably makes contact with them, destroying their ship and leaving two astronauts stranded right outside Earth’s atmosphere.
When watching Gravity, and its plot develop, the audience not only is impressed by the amazing visuals in the film, but also by the emotional depth it carries. Sandra Bullock carries the entire film on her back as she goes from the disparate astronaut of whom essentially is in space to do a job and is all “business,” unlike George Clooney, who is often cracking jokes and telling stories while doing his spacewalk. It is in the small moments of dialogue between Bullock and Clooney do we get to realize what each character is about; and the different reasons they have in partaking in a remarkable experience of going to space.
Bullock is disjointed and wandering life with no destination, which makes space the perfect place for her; her character suffered through a tragedy in which her daughter’s life was taken from her due to a freak accident, and it left Bullock questioning the meaning of her existence; with work being the only reason for her existence.
She uses the opportunity that she has with Clooney to talk to him about her problems; turning space into her proverbial chaise lounge in a psychiatrist’s office. It is in these intimate moments that the audience can realize, that there are moments in life that will drag us down, but it’s how we overcome our obstacles and what we take away from the life lesson, is what shapes our future.
In the beginning Bullock’s character goes into space where the lack of gravity is symbolism for her not wanting to face the weight of her issues, but ironically enough it is her issues that help her realize her true strength and helps guide her through her predicament.
Cuaron majestically captures Bullock in the most beautiful ways as her dainty but fit body whimsically floats around in zero gravity, and her emotional depth drives the film past being just a visual spectacle. The moral of the film is simplified due to the simple nature of space and its representation of nothing and everything; the point here is to always persevere against all odds.
This is hands down the single greatest cinematic experience I’ve had in the better part of the last 3 years. Cuaron restores my faith in modern cinema with this gem. This entire film is one long breathtaking visual feat, packed with uncompromising suspense and reminds us that the problems we face on a daily basis is nothing compared to the grand scheme of life.
The Killing (1956) is a film by Stanley Kubrick. It has the makings of a classic, but held back only because of the time period in which the film was released, but nevertheless it’s still a prolific look into the minutia of Kubrick.
An ex-convict, finally free from Alcatraz has planned a heist down to the ’t.’ He has gathered all the right pieces that he must need to make it succeed as he brings together a team of people all necessary for the success of the heist. However, the one thing he could not calculate were each person’s motives as well as their personal lives; as the story unfurls so does the universe’s uncertainty as the otherwise perfect plan slowly unravels due to the unpredictable nature of the human condition.
This is a very enjoyable film, for its narration creates the momentum for the film as the ominous narrator pushes the story along in the form of a cautionary tale. The narration also gives clue to the fact that this heist had already happened and that as the audience what we are watching is a re-telling of it, giving the film a superlative feel for the audience as we get to be spoiled with Kubrick’s relatively genius and innovative screenplay.
It’s amazing how much “fat-trimming” is done to the film, as each character isn’t developed by their individuality, for it seemed like the decade in which it takes place defines the characters, for all the roles were seemingly cliche. Yet their intentions for taking the job are all highlighted in their respective categories, which allows the audience to realize why it’s so difficult managing people, because everyone has problems of their own, but will place them on the “back burner” in order to make capital, and to maintain a level of professionalism. Characters need not apply in heist films, only their skill sets, because the success and failure of a heist film lie within the details of the film’s writing.
Kubrick indeed captures the violence in the film with great shock, relative to its time period, as its shaky movements makes its rounds, carefully framing each shot to emphasize the actions of the individuals involved in the caper.
Stanley Kubrick even gives a nod to the game of chess. He alludes to the fact that like chess even the smallest movement of its pieces can completely alter the outcome of the game. This is a great metaphor for the plot as a lot of emphasis is placed upon the precision of the people involved in the heist, and how important each of their roles are to the overall success of the job.
The Killing was an absolute privilege to watch. It shows the makings of a genius filmmaker who will later move on to make 2001, Dr. Strangelove, Barry Lyndon etc. It’s not an depth character study like Clockwork, nor is it revolutionary like 2001, but The Killing is a solid heist film that is created with careful detail
One thing is clear about this film, the director has seen zombie movies before.
World War Z is directed by Marc Forster, a director who in my opinion just can’t seem to catch a break in the action genre. Don’t get me wrong I loved Finding Neverland and The Kite Runner, both inspirational and uplifting films, but come on now, Quantum of Solace and Machine Gun Preacher? And now WWZ—money is clearly the motive here.
World War Z is the film adaptation of the book by Max Brooks. I have never read the book, so I will not be comparing the film to it; this review will be solely based on the film’s merit. A viral pathogen threatens mankind as it turns people into violent zombies that topple armies and governments. One man is charged with journeying across the globe in search of an answer to the pandemic…
There are a couple moments in the film where we as an audience get to realize that this is a great film, but not for what it is made for. The writing sends us off in multiple directions and ultimately loses the audience on the film’s point. When the comparison between mother nature and serial killers is formed we begin to think, oh maybe humans did this, maybe there is a lesson to be learned here, but then that point gets quickly dropped. Then I was infatuated by Brad Pitt’s character and his resourcefulness as the minutia in his character’s observational skills slowly gives clues to the audience on solving the pandemic; these skills were taught to himself from his days as an UN Investigator. The film begins to finally finds its bearings in that it is all on Pitt to save the world, kind of ridiculous; so is this film supposed to be a metaphor or a political thriller? And then we get the film’s money shots in which we realize this is a survival movie, but on a grand scale, but then as that begins to develop in the film we are brought right back down again for the film then actually turns into a decent survival horror movie.
One grandiose point I’d like to bring up, that in my opinion was the film’s saving grace from being a total fiasco, were the sequences in Israel. From a sociological standpoint this was remarkable, because the Jewish nation of Israel is comprised of people who have been persecuted for literally thousands of years, it only seemed forthright that they would be the most prepared as one of their analysts explains to Pitt’s character that the nation of Israel has come to embrace logic and implemented normalcy bias into their defensive strategies.
As Brad Pitt traverses around the world in search for an answer, there was a simile I kept thinking about; like a chicken with its head cut off, this film runs around desperately searching for its roots, for it’s completely unoriginal and unfaithful to its zombie roots, but serves as a decent anthropological look into the human potential in surviving an outbreak of biblical proportions.
I know this film only got green lit because of the recent trend humping of the zombie genre, so I’d like to interject a little overview on how one should perceive this genre. The best zombie film of all time, and one you should see before you consider yourself an aficionado of any sort and or even state an opinion about zombies is “George A. Romero’s Dawn of the Dead (1978).” This film not only is packed with brutally honest social commentary, but it is the reason why we love zombie films as Romero masterfully taps into the human psyche and our natural urge to reign chaos and act out our most ornery inhibitions. If you want to expand your knowledge base even further you’ll watch the cultist masterpiece, also from Romero “Day of the Dead (1980),” this film now expands upon Dawn of the Dead and gets experimental with its own subject matter, but if you want to see how a proper zombie horror/survival film is done, there is Danny Boyle’s “28 Days Later,” as its surrealistic take on the human condition warps your perception of reality as Boyle creates a scary scenario that felt all to real for comfort. And obviously ‘The Walking Dead’ series is the best contemporary off-shoot of Dawn of the Dead, for it finally is able to serialize the horror rather than limit it.
WWZ, wasn’t bad, it was fairly good. However, there is a film somewhere in this one that’s an actual great zombie horror-survival film, and hopefully the sequel will get it right. The director of this film has clearly seen zombie movies and used their outline to make WWZ, and that was my main problem with it. One would think with a $200 million budget; a budget, mind you, that’s unheard of for a zombie movie, would have had more originality than this film, but credit is due in that an entertaining zombie movie was made with a PG-13 rating…
Dead Alive (aka Braindead) is directed by the fabled Peter Jackson. This film is an exhibition of gore with a context of hilarity. Although corny, the film exercises great discipline as Jackson was able to combine comedy, violence, romance, all of which get summed up in a satisfying denouement.
In a small town in Australia or New Zealand (I think it’s AU or NZ because people were flipping the bird with the “V” sign) a Sumatran Rat-Monkey has been flown in to show it off at the zoo. A histrionic mother spies on her son as he’s on a date at the zoo, unaware of her surroundings she is bitten by the Rat Monkey and is quickly turned into a psychotic zombie. Unbeknownst to her son who is named Lionel; he struggles to keep her “alive” as he takes on a hilarious sense of denial and treats her with the same attention as if she was alive, but with the same precautions one would take with a wild animal. Her condition worsens and soon she is biting others and as they turn, Lionel realizes there is too much to handle between his new found lover, his scheming uncle and his uncontrollable collection of zombies…
The environment created by Jackson in this film adds to this film’s core values, as it doesn’t take itself seriously. The design of the town in which Lionel lives in mirrors that of an ideal “small town” during the 50’s, occupied by set pieces that rival the model set in which “Mr. Roger’s Neighborhood” takes place. Overall, the theme here is “happy go-lucky.” All these elements eventually get shit on by the irony imposed by Jackson in this “squarish” town when the blood and gore begin to splatter, which only adds to the film’s aesthetic appeal.
Peter Jackson, has crafted a wonderful cultist gem in this movie. I loved all of its “campy” elements as it takes on a light-hearted approach to gore a la Sam Raimi. There are absurd close-ups and the content is a joke, at one point there is a kung-fu priest who fights the zombies in the name of the lord as he begins to dismember their body parts with his brute strength, then two zombies even copulate and create a mischievous cannibalistic zombie baby that comically wreaks havoc throughout the duration of the film. By the film’s climax the protagonist plows his way through rows of zombies with his lawnmower strapped to his person and is left in a puddle of blood, so much blood that he’s barely able to stand without slipping.
Dead Alive even finds time through all of its gore infused calamity to even bring closure to the film’s protagonist as he finds out that his domineering mother isn’t the saint he thought she was. Jackson even hints towards an extreme bout of symbolism as he shows Lionel being “born anew” for Lionel gets absorbed into his mother’s womb and has to tear himself out to be free of her, and gain his freedom.
This film is by far one of the most entertaining films I have ever seen. I love these corny forays into gore, it really let’s the imagination run free without having it be sadistic. I know however, that this film’s content isn’t for everyone since not many can take its subject matter seriously enough to enjoy, if that makes sense to you…
Born into show business, Dolores Costello’s parents, Maurice and Mae, were both performers on stage and in early films for Vitagraph. Dolores had multiple credits in Vitagraph films before she even celebrated her tenth birthday. In fact, I’ve already covered one of Dolores’ early films on this blog, as part of my Christmas movie throwback list.
As Dolores and her sister Helene aged out of child roles, they hopped over to New York and worked as models and on stage for Florenz Ziegfeld. Famed Broadway producer Ziegfeld ran a series of very successful revues on Broadway featuring showgirls who exemplified a specific brand of free-wheeling, vigorous femininity. Such was their popularity that the nickname “Ziegfeld girl” had nationwide recognition. Many Ziegfeld girls found success on film – Dolores and Helene were brought back to the movie business by Warner Brothers. After some minor roles, Dolores was picked by John Barrymore to star alongside him in The Sea Beast (1926), which was loosely inspired by the novel Moby-Dick. Dolores’ star rose dramatically over the next few years and she would marry Barrymore in 1928.
The Cosplay
When I originally saw these portraits of Costello, I immediately wanted to recreate them in closet cosplay. But, even now, I haven’t been able to definitively pinpoint when they were taken or if they were taken to promote a specific film. Based on her styling, I reckon they were likely shot around 1928-29. Then I came across an uncited suggestion that they were taken during the production of Noah’s Ark (1928). So, I watched it and the assumption seems probable. I did not intend to make this a post about a movie, but Noah’s Ark is so interesting, I couldn’t help myself!
The Film
Noah’s Ark is fascinating. It stands firmly between the silent and sound eras. Darryl F. Zanuck conceived the film as a dual story: a World War I romance tale and a creative retelling of the story of Noah from the book of Genesis. Originally planned as a fully-silent epic, the production of Noah’s Ark was extended due to the emergence of talkies. Sound segments were filmed making Noah’s Ark one of many hybrid films made in this transitional period. Though it was released at the end of Hollywood’s sound/silent hybrid cycle, it was a big box office success.
The film begins with a preface likening biblical stories to contemporary life, easing the viewer into the mirrored story of the flood/WWI. The story commences with our cast of characters on a train traveling through Europe, carrying a very international crowd. We meet two all-American types, Travis (George O’Brien) and Al (Guinn “Big Boy” Williams), a German showgirl, Marie (Costello), a minister (Paul McAllister), and a Russian intelligence agent, Nickoloff (Noah Beery). The train is violently derailed over a bridge, but Travis and Al manage to save Marie and end up at a local inn with other survivors, including Nikoloff. Travis saves Marie once more that night, as Nickoloff sneaks into her room with ill intent. At the same time, soldiers arrive at the inn announcing that war has broken out.
Later, in Paris, Marie and Travis have fallen in love and marry, while Al enlists in the army. Travis finds it hard to say goodbye to his good friend and gets swept up when he sees Al marching away. Travis quickly joins up too, leaving Marie to fend for herself–a German citizen stuck in France in the middle of the war(!!!). All three lose touch. In a heart-wrenching turn of events, when Al and Travis by chance end up in the same trench together, the chaos of the battlefield leads Travis to accidentally kill Al with a grenade. Back in the city, Marie has resumed working as a showgirl where she is recognized by Nickoloff, who has her arrested as a German spy. Nickoloff plants evidence on her and uses his influence to ensure that she gets the firing squad. In another chance encounter, one of the military men assigned to carry out the execution is Travis, who immediately attempts to stop the execution. At that moment, however, a German attack buries the whole lot of them under a ton of rubble. As they sit without much hope of survival, the minister (the same one from the train), recounts the story of the flood.
Noah (McAllister) lives in a kingdom ruled by King Nephilim (Beery) who worships a god called Jaghuth. God warns Noah of the oncoming flood and Noah has his sons begin constructing a massive ark. One of Noah’s sons, Japheth (O’Brien), is in love with their servant girl, Miriam (Costello). King Nephilim plans to sacrifice Miriam and kidnaps her. When Japheth tries to save Miriam, he is captured, blinded, and forced into hard labor. The flood comes suddenly just as Miriam is about to be killed. Japheth manages to escape his chains and his sight is restored divinely. He finds Miriam and the two make their way to the ark. Meanwhile, a whole menagerie of animals also make their way to the ark while masses of people are battered by waves and washed away.
Returning to the 1910s, the people buried under the rubble are rescued and learn that the armistice is signed and the war is over.
READ MORE below the jump!
The production of this film was a massive undertaking. All of the special effects are dazzling. The compositing, miniature work, and matte paintings all really stood out to me. Now, the flood sequences were a lot to take in. It’s been reported that some stunt performers were killed filming these scenes and many were badly injured. I managed to track down five different books that report this, all with slightly different accounts. However, none of them cite a source for this information, so I’m not sure how much of it is apocryphal. Regardless, it’s easy to believe. Many of the shots of the flood waters bombarding these extras are wide shots with lots of people and lots of water. Trying to film those shots while adequately monitoring the safety of all performers seems likely impossible. (One reason we should be very grateful for CG nowadays IMO.)
I’d honestly recommend this movie broadly because its excess alone is remarkable and the dual-story format is entertainingly strange. However, watching this on the other side of the Second World War makes the hopeful ending totally gut wrenching.
Also, the relationship between Al and Travis is so so so queer. O’Brien and Williams have a lot more chemistry together than O’Brien and Costello. But, honestly, that chemistry imbalance actually makes the 1910s section more interesting.
Despite the film’s extended production, it made a very tidy profit. While Costello’s films during the silent/sound transition were popular, she had a minor speech impediment that made the process bumpy for her. And so, a few years later, Costello chose to retire to focus on raising her children. After divorcing Barrymore, Costello made a strong, but unfortunately short comeback to films. Thankfully, before her re-retirement in the 1940s, we all got her wonderful turn in The Magnificent Ambersons(1942).
Dolores Costello, for me, represents a kind of sehnsucht. The fits and starts of her career gave us captivating glimpses at what could have been a full and ranging filmography, but never came to fruition. Noah’s Ark is one of those glimpses. The gravity of Marie’s situation settling on to her is so effectively communicated through Costello’s face and body language–all of the uncertainty, anxiety, abandonment–that little needs to be made explicit in the 1910s section. What a gift she had!
a fallen pilot from the american allied forces, two south korean escaped soldiers, and three north korean guerrilla soldiers coincidentally meet in a secluded village called dongmakgol, where its villagers have never seen a gun or heard of the ongoing korean war - what could possibly happen?
what takes place in the next 2 hours of screentime is a lovely mix of comedy, drama, wartime violence, nostalgia, and heartwarming relationships that makes welcome to dongmakgol one of the better reunification films i’ve seen thus far.
what really distinguishes welcome to dongmakgol from other war films, though, apart from the creation of dongmakgol itself, is the injection of absurd comedic moments (as the koreans might say, gags) that had me chuckling in my seat. those who watched the film would know - from the explosion of popcorn to the guerrilla soldiers wasting their ammunition on killing snakes - and in some way this resembles bong’s trademark casual juxtaposition of comedic moments and grave topics. yet what welcome to dongmakgol did not neglect to do was to emphasise the severe trauma war could cause soldiers, regardless of which side of the fence they stood on. to this, i found the ensemble acting so solid i felt for every character, even the unnamed villagers. it was also a pleasure to see young jung jae-young (!!), shin ha-kyun, and kang hye-jung.
its ending, where the north and korean soldiers leave dongmakgol to create a decoy base to prevent the american forces from bombing the village, definitely brought a tear to my eye. as did the departure scene, where the dongmakgol villagers - not knowing the magnitude of the soldiers’ sacrifice - weep goodbye to the strangers they had sincerely welcomed and taken care of. ultimately, i think welcome to dongmakgol is at heart a pacifist film, with dongmakgol representing a pre-war simplicity and innocence that both sides (and the director) yearn for.
(i was surprised by how explicitly anti-american certain scenes were, especially in depicting american soldiers’ disregard towards bombing potential communist bases, despite risking civilian lives. interestingly, this film was released around the same time as the host - and forms part of the anti-american zeitgeist of the early 2000s, while shedding light on foreign forces’ brutality during the war.)
tonally,welcome to dongmakgol reminded me of studio ghibli films, notably grave of the fireflies. this was achieved most ostensibly through joe hisashi’s music, which create a surreal and mystical atmosphere for the village. the stone figures / masks that decorate the paths leading to dongmakgol, or the appearance of butterflies whenever wartime weapons threaten to disrupt dongmakgol’s peace further emphasised the simplicity of dongmakgol and its connection with nature. the replacement of the symbols of wartime brutality with symbols of nature was a genius move - even the depiction of american bombs resembled fireworks.
welcome to dongmakgol, all the while placing the severity of war square centre, uses its artistic license to create an extraordinary, light-hearted tale of the korean war. it may seem like a cluttered film from afar, but it’s a surprisingly easy film to like and feel for. – 9/10
