Review: Amour

To contact us Click HERE

Acclaimed German-born director Michael Haneke makes films like a kid with a magnifying glass, tormenting ants. On the one hand, he's not safe, but on the other, he has a kind of disdain toward his viewers. His films are like a challenge to see how strong a viewer's constitution is. 
In Amour, Anne (Emmanuelle Riva) and Georges (Jean-Louis Trintignant), are a loving husband and wife, both in their eighties, and both retired music teachers. They go to a concert to see one of their most successful students. The next morning, Anne freezes up in the middle of a conversation. After a trip to the hospital, it is revealed that she has suffered a stroke and is now paralyzed on one side. Georges opts to keep her at home and hire nurses to help care for her. As her condition worsens and Anne is no longer able to communicate, the situation becomes more and more unbearable for George and their grown daughter Eva (Isabelle Huppert). Finally George is faced with a tough decision and a hard question: how much does he truly love Anne?
Amour is an exceedingly well-made movie, with carefully chosen shots that emphasize the drama, and with complex moral layers that force the viewer to consider very tough questions. Additionally, it's a rarity to see movies about older folks, and in that, the performances by these veteran actors are exemplary. But it's hard to get past a certain chilliness in the air, and it's hard to believe that Haneke cares about his characters as more than just moral experiments. (The title, Amour, which translates to "love," can be seen as both literal and ironic.) It's likely that viewers will come away from the movie with their heads full of thoughts, but their hearts largely untouched.

Review: Promised Land

To contact us Click HERE

A unique group of talents came together for this issue movie. Acclaimed author Dave Eggers wrote the original story, and actors Matt Damon and John Krasinski wrote the screenplay. Gus Van Sant directed, fifteen years after directing another Damon screenplay, Good Will Hunting. The result is pleasantly low-key and never seems preachy or angry. 
Two representatives from a big natural gas corporation, Steve Butler (Matt Damon) and Sue Thomason (Frances McDormand), arrive in a small farming community offering to buy the rights to extract natural gas from the earth. The farmers, savaged by the poor economy, are torn between taking the cash and risking the damage that the drilling (known as "fracking") could do. Matters are complicated when a grass-roots activist, Dustin Noble (John Krasinski) shows up to oppose them. At the same time, Steve finds himself developing feelings for a local schoolteacher (Rosemarie DeWitt). Will Steve figure out the right thing to do?
Despite good intentions, Promised Land raises more issues than it can reasonably tackle. Specifically, it brings up the complex question of what farmers are supposed to do in such a terrible economy, and should they risk damaging the environment in exchange for financial security? Yet it turns its focus to the personal journey of the Steve Butler character, and resolves that, leaving the farmers on their own. Van Sant gives this one a more cursory touch than usual, recalling Good Will Huntingand Finding Forrester, rather than more challenging films like Gerry or Elephant. But the well-rounded characters -- especially Frances McDormand's -- make it enjoyable along the way.

Review: Zero Dark Thirty

To contact us Click HERE

Zero Dark Thirty is the film of the year not because it's about the hunt for Osama bin Laden, but because Oscar-winning director Kathryn Bigelow has used that subject to discuss other things.
If any other director had interpreted this material, it would have turned into something to be merely tolerated during awards season and then forgotten.
But Bigelow (The Hurt Locker) is the only director alive that understands the complexity of violence; others show either the allure of violence or the repugnance of violence. Bigelow shows both.
For example, we have the movie's hotly debated depiction of "waterboarding" and the torture of accused terrorists. Bigelow shows it as both an effective means of extracting useful information and as a horrific practice that wears down everyone involved.
It's a Rorschach test; viewers may come away with only one viewpoint or the other, but they're both here.
Indeed, the movie has been correctly described as "apolitical," in that it barely mentions either of the two U.S. presidents in office during this manhunt, nor does it mention other partisan topics. It elicits an emotional response rather than a political one.
The opening sequence depicts the events of 9/11 simply as a black screen and a minute or two worth of the sounds of frantic phone calls, and the equally simple, equally powerful final scene also tells volumes.
In the middle, Bigelow presents the bulk of the story as a tense police procedural. One main character, CIA agent Maya (Jessica Chastain), drives the plot while minor characters float in and out of her life.
Over the course of a decade, Maya finds promising leads that turn into dead ends, and then unpromising little tidbits that turn into even better leads. It's imprecise work that requires meticulous attention to detail and not much private life.
One memorable shot shows Maya with some rare downtime; wrapped up in a burka, she returns home with Red Vines and soda for dinner.
Bigelow saves the excitement for the movie's climax: a daring raid on a house in which bin Laden may be staying. This nail-biting sequence has such a powerful impact that the dark, sinister nature of it may not even be evident until later.
The movie's greatness depends upon Bigelow's past as a crackerjack maker of "B" movies and genre movies, Near Dark, Point Break, Strange Days, etc.
Only someone with this resume could get inside Maya's story and tell it with a compulsively watchable quality. Indeed, Maya's journey is similar to that of Keanu Reeves' in Point Break. It's dirty work, but it can be thrilling.

New Reviews: December 21-31, 2012

To contact us Click HERE
Here it is... the last few weeks of the year, and my busiest time. I have been writing furiously for five days, and lost a half a day when a grease fire in the mall (!) shut down the initial screening of Jack Reacher (I had to go back and see it again, which turned out to fun anyway). Below you'll find reviews of all the major year-end releases and award contenders, plus a few other items that cropped up during awards season, as well as three DVDs and Blu-rays that came in during this time. Finally, there's my annual ten-best list (with runners-up and worst list included). Soon I'll be re-posting all this stuff on Combustible Celluloid, but at least you'll have the text to read in the meantime.

Now I'm off to wrap some presents and start to enjoy the holiday, with one more stop. I'll be moderating a Q&A with director Terry Zwigoff and actors Tony Cox and Lauren Tom at a screening of Bad Santa (director's cut), tomorrow night (December 22) at 8:30 at the Castro theater. Then... Happy Holidays, Merry Christmas, and Happy New Year to all my loyal readers, movie fans, and everyone else!!!

Features
2012: The Year in Film

New ReleasesAmourDjango UnchainedGirl Walk // All DayThe ImpossibleThe IntouchablesJack ReacherNot Fade AwayLes MisérablesOn the RoadPromised LandRust and BoneThis Is 40The Waiting RoomZero Dark Thirty
New DVDs & Blu-raysColor Me Impressed: A Film About The ReplacementsRed Hook Summer
Trouble with the Curve

International Online Film Critics’ Poll 2012 Results

To contact us Click HERE
This year, I was asked to join the International Online Film Critics Poll. Founded in 2007, this poll includes critics from the United Kingdom, Italy, the United States and other countries. The poll gives awards to recognize excellence of film every two years. This year, I was asked to consider movies released between November of 2010 and  November of 2012, which ranged from things like Black Swan and True Grit to Lincoln and Skyfall. (I had to look up the release dates for most of my picks.)
The results were... interesting. Most of them were the usual fodder chosen by the Academy, including the likes of The King's Speech, even though the hype machine stopped grinding on that movie long ago. Did the international critics really dig through the past two years, or did they simply look at the Oscar results? But surprisingly, the big winner with the most votes in every category, was Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, a film I loved, but which many of my American colleagues -- to say nothing of regular moviegoers -- found dull and difficult. What did my international colleagues see in the movie that many Americans did not? Hmm.
I admired The Master without really liking it, but I'm not sure why anyone would praise its screenplay, of all things, with its weird collection of half-formed characters. Likewise, Amy Adams was far better -- and had much more to do -- in Trouble with the Curve, which was oddly released the same day. And then there's The Artist with best original score, even though it blatantly stole Bernard Herrmann's music from Vertigo. But overall, out of the poll's top ten films, I would enthusiastically recommend six of them -- and I would conditionally recommend three others -- so that's not too bad. All in all, like most other polls, it doesn't mean a whole lot, but it is interesting, and  if people are looking for recommendations, it's a good place to start.
International Online Film Critics’ Poll 2012 Results
Best Film – Motion PictureTinker Tailor Soldier Spy

Top Ten Films (Alphabetical Order)ArgoThe ArtistBeasts of the Southern WildBlack SwanLincolnThe King's SpeechThe MasterSkyfallThe Tree of Life  Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
Best Director  Tomas Alfredson – Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
Best Actor in a Leading Role Gary Oldman – Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy 
Best Actress in a Leading RoleNatalie Portman – Black Swan
Best Supporting Actor Philip Seymour Hoffman – The Master
Best Supporting ActressAmy Adams – The Master
Best CastTinker Tailor Soldier Spy
Best Original ScreenplayPaul Thomas Anderson – The Master
Best Adapted ScreenplayBridget O'Connor, Peter Straughan – Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy 
Best CinematographyJanusz Kaminski – Lincoln
Best Production Design  Maria Djurkovic – Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy              Best Film Editing Tariq Anwar – The King’s Speech 
Best Original Score Ludovic Bource – The Artist
Best Visual EffectsThe Dark Knight Rises

Don't Make a Scene: Wings of Desire

To contact us Click HERE

The Story: Wim Wenders' original title for Wings of Desire (his preferred English title) translates to "The Sky Over Berlin."  Far be it from me to second-guess Wenders, but the original belies the Nature of the film.  The skies over Berlin are an unbroken line, literally, an open air expanse through which the angels of the tale glide.  But the film is one of transitions; everything is bisected and we cross over from one side to the other, breaking barriers as we move along, as easily as the angels walk through walls.  We move from the angels' point-of-view to that of the street, while at the same time changing from black-and-white (angel perspective) to color (our reality).  Even the city is in a state of flux, divided between West and East Berlin—it was filmed before the Berlin Wall fell—the architectures of the buildings changing, green-space being planted, slums falling, new buildings rising.  Everything is changing, and the only way to survive the transition unscathed is to have the grace to fly above it all.

Which is why this story of an angel who chooses this moment to make his own transition, from the spiritual to the tangible, is so special and fascinating.

Along the way, "there are so many good things," moments of poetry, both visual and aural, and everybody has their favorites: the library sequence—the angels hovering over the readers absorbing new thoughts, like it was an exquisite dish; the encounters with poor souls making the path of crossing-over; the dreams; the circus.

And then, there's Peter Falk. If there is a pivot-point for reality and fantasy, it is his performance in this film.  Playing Peter Falk (he's called that on-set of the movie he's making, and he's recognized by citizens as "Lt. Columbo"), he is a real actor, playing a movie actor—himself—who also has a special connection to the angels of the film (as do children, who can see them, while the actor cannot).  When Wenders offered this part—him—to Falk, I can imagine the actor hesitating for only a second, grasping it. Then, since he was pals and collaborator with John Cassavetes, well-known for on-set improvisation, Falk probably just said, "Yah, what da hell..." and did it.

It's my favorite scene in the film* (so far—I'm still studying this multi-layered gem), when we transition from an empty bus-compartment moving forward (semi-occupied by the angel Cassiel), to a scene of a humble food-stand, as the angel Damiel follows the perspective-lines of the bus on his path to tangible reality.  There he encounters Falk, in town performing in a movie, taking a smoke break, getting a warm-up.  Falk senses the unseen angel's presence, and engages him in conversation about the joys of life (much to the alarmed curiosity of the cook, who probably thinks this guy talking to himself, is crazy).  It is this encounter that will convince Damiel to "take the plunge" in the very next scene and pursue his desires, that have wings, angels' or no.

Just another in a series of angels, spiritual beings of miracles, who choose, instead to hope, to hope, to hope.


The Set-Up:  The angel Damiel (Bruno Ganz) on his rounds in Berlin, checks on some of his favorite haunts, the flying trapeze artist (Solveig Dommartin) and the actor, Peter Falk (Peter Falk).  Just when he thinks Life can hold no more surprises, he discovers one more, which sets him on a solid path.

Action!

Peter Falk walks through war ruins, which is intercut with Cassiel in an empty bus. 

Falk stops at hot dog stand, Damiel walks by. He - and the hot dog stand-owner - stare in amazement as Falk begins to speak:

FALK: I can't see you, but I know you're here!

FALK: I feel it.

FALK: You been hangin' around since I got here.

FALK: I wish I could see your face...

FALK: ...just look into your eyes and tell you how good it is to be.

FALK: Just to touch something!

FALK: See, that's cold. That feels good!

FALK: Or, here, to smoke, have coffee. And if you do it together it's fantastic.

FALK: Or to draw:

FALK: ...ya know, you take a pencil and you make a dark line, then you make a light line...

FALK: ...and together it's a good line. Or when your hands are cold...

FALK: ...you rub them together...

FALK: See, that's good, that feels good!

FALK: There's so many good things!

FALK: But you're not here - I'm here.

FALK: I wish you were here.

FALK: I wish you could talk to me...

FALK: ...'cause I'm a friend.

Falk stretches out his hand, Damiel grabs it. 

FALK: "Compañero."

Damiel leaves hastily...



Wings of Desire (Der Himmel über Berlin)

Words by Peter Handke, Richard Reitinger, and Wim Wenders

Pictures by Henri Alekan and Wim Wenders

Wings of Desire is available on DVD from The Criterion Collection









 * It is echoed later in the film with Cassiel, and again, in the sequel "Faraway, So Close!"

Walking Kurosawa's Road: Sanshiro Sugata Part 2

To contact us Click HERE
The inability to write about the films of Akira Kurosawa to my satisfaction led me to to take a different path: start at the beginning, take each film in sequence, one after the other, and watch the progression of the man from film-maker to Master.   I'm hoping I can write more intelligently and more knowledgeably about his work by, step by step, Walking Kurosawa's Road.

Sanshiro Sugata Part 2 (Akira Kurosawa, 1945) Any director thinking that "they don't do sequels," should bear in mind that Kurosawa did one...with only his third feature film.  Before embarking on his next project, the soon-to-be Japanese Master was pressed by his financiers to follow up his popular judo film with a continuation of the story, following the path of Sanshiro, now two years in self-imposed exile, having abandoned his position as Judo champion.

Things have changed, but he hasn't.  The city he comes back to is now under occupation, and the disciplines that Sanshiro struggled so mightily to learn, seem to have little significance in this new atmosphere.

Returning home, his acclaim is widespread, but he's dissatisfied.  A promoter tries to entice him into participating in a match with an American heavyweight champion for money, something both against the rules of Sanshiro's dojo and his own hard-fought-for beliefs,  He attends, however, and is disgusted when the martial artist roped into the match is summarily pummelled before the crowd of blood-thirsty Americans and Japanese.

Things had changed for Japan, as well.  Defeated in World War II, and occupied by the United States, the country that Kurosawa made the sequel in was far different from the one in which he'd made the original.  And one can tell by the very first sequence, he bristled at it (despite the fact that the first film, made during the war, was chopped up by Japan's ministry, to the point where no original print exists).  Imagine my shock when the first words heard in this film are in English.  They come from a belligerent American sailor hectoring, then threatening his rickshaw-driver—the abuse comes in a different language, but the opening is parallel to the situation in the first film, only now it's Sanshiro who comes to the aid of the driver, in the position (flat on his back) that he was in at the beginning of the first film, before his transformation.

He retreats to his Master's dojo, but sinks into a deep depression while, simultaneously, training that young rickshaw driver he'd earlier saved.  His disciplines start to fall away, as he begins to drink, his fortunes falling as his young student's rises.  The dojo provides no respite and relief—he is challenged to a fight by a tag-team of brothers, the Higaki's (also brothers to Gennosuki Higaki, the previous film's final combatant), one extremely aggressive and the other, deeply insane, to exact revenge on their fallen kin.  He also reunites (discretely) with the woman who loves him, and with Gennosuki, who is now in ill health and seeks a reconciliation before he dies, a far cry from his brothers' path of vengeance. 

The battles Sanshiro must fight—and avoids fighting—are much like the battles raging in his own mind.  With his fame, and abilities still intact, he is caught in a dilemma of purpose—should he fight with the stakes becoming decreasingly honorable?  And how long can he maintain his reputation while avoiding confrontation (and does he even want that reputation—with its incumbent honor—anymore, given how cheaply and shallow the value others impose on it are?  Is his reputation worth it in such a world?  And will the matches with his own demons (represented by the brothers) keep him from maintaining his own "wa?" 

It's a universal problem negotiating the minefields, internal and external, that dot our lives.  But, there's something else going on here, given the context and the environment in which Kurosawa made this film.  This was his first post-war film after the Japanese surrender (Kurosawa paused in the filming of The Men Who Tread on the Tiger's Tail in order to listen to Emperor Hirohito's "Gyokuon-hÅ�sÅ�") and for the nation this was a crushing, demoralizing defeat, especially given the fervor that the government had invested in its people.



How does a nation, especially one so steeped in tradition and pride, endure after such a concession?  Kurosawa encapsulates the answer in the fighting brothers who have challenged Sanshiro, one incapacitated by an epileptic "spell," the other who fights the master on a hilltop—not of frantic wind-swept grass as the first film—but a precipice blasted by snow.  After a long struggle, where Sanshiro is mostly passively defensive, the revenge seeking Higaki is defeated and sent tumbling down the hill.  He is saved and tended to by Sanshiro, while under the baleful watch of the younger Higaki brother, who in a moment of clarity, understands Sanshiro's purpose and responds to his brother's lament with the same words...and a beaming smile.



The influence of the good, the dedicated, the humble, and the charitable perseveres in this world of defeat and cynicism.  One could take the position for seeking revenge, but how much better it is to have grace—not curling up and dying, of course—and follow the better path, as this most popular of Japanese heroes, demonstrates.

This may be the greatest sequel in all of film.  But more than that, it is a gift from an up-and-coming master filmmaker to his nation, at its most desperate hour, in gratitude for the opportunities he had been given, and providing balm, solace, and wisdom, to go on.  It is an amazing film, inside of itself, and outside in the world in which it was made.

Don't Make a Scene: Good Night, and Good Luck

To contact us Click HERE
The Story:  Lots of back-story here, a lot of prologue, especially to younger readers for whom this era is like the Revolutionary War is to me. "Can't relate."

During the 1950's, the "golden age" of television, America was tarnished by "The Red Scare"—a combination of fall-out from the alliance with Communist Russia during World War II, Russia's aggressive annexation of victory spoils in the aftermath of that war, their acquisition of nuclear technology, and the flirtation of liberals and free-thinkers with Communism during the collapse of our economy during The Great Depression.  The '50's turned into "the perfect storm" of societal paranoia and political opportunism, the chief perpetrator being Senator Joseph McCarthy, who used the House Un-American Activities Committee to conduct hearings on anyone who might be intimidated enough to validate his constantly changing claims of communist infiltration (a small percentage of which might have been true).  Intimidation and implication were  the chief weapons of mass distraction from the concerns of of the Nation, and how many lives were ground up in the gears of the investigation.

But, it was a tightrope walk that couldn't be sustained without the craven caving in of witnesses with the intimidation of government penalties.  Things came to a head when McCarthy took on the U.S. Army—a sort of reverse military coup—and TV journalist Edward R. Murrow devoted a half-hour of CBS prime-time to call the Seanator out on his tactics.  Good Night, and Good Luck was the backstage story of that broadcast—and provided that information in a far more entertaining and concise manner.

This scene comes towards the end, after the broadcast and the fallout of the event has hit the network; political pressure on the reporters and CBS President William S. Paley (played by Frank Langella) is extreme, and so the chief instigators of the program, producer Fred Friendly (played by co-writer and director George Clooney) and Murrow (David Straithairn) are called before Paley to pay the piper.  The meeting between the three is formal, tense, but all parties have moments of muted emotion.  And afterward, Friendly and Murrow compare notes, ironically (and ruefully) seeing their fates similar to the Senator's they have called out.

It's a great scene, cagily written and cannily played, and Clooney chooses to end it on a speech by then-President Eisenhower, which comments on the McCarthy situation, and current events as a result of the Iraq War with its military tribunals, and indefinite detentions at Guantanamo Bay without specific accusations.


Action...in 3, 2..*


EDWARD R. MURROW: Natalie, did he say what it was about? 


NATALIE: No. Just that he wanted to talk to you in his office. 


MURROW: Uh-oh! 


CBS CEO WILLIAM PALEY: The problem isn't simply that you've lost your sponsor.  


PALEY: With Alcoa, "See It Now" still loses money. 
FRED FRIENDLY: Mr. Paley, the fee is $50,000 dollars.  Last week's episode we did... 


FRIENDLY: ...for less than 50,000 dollars. 


PALEY: Fred, you're speakng beyond your competence. 


MURROW: We'll certainly find another sponsor. (We can certainly find someone who wants to...)
PALEY: "Sixty-Four... 


PALEY:...Thousand Dollar Question" brings in over eighty thousand in sponsors and it costs one-third of what you do. 


PALEY: Ed, I've got Tuesday night programming that's number one. 


PALEY: People want to enjoy themselves. They don't want a civics lesson. 


MURROW: What do you want, Bill? 
PALEY: I don't want to get a stomachache every time you take on a controversial subject. 


MURROW: I'm afraid that's the price you have to be willing to pay. 


PALEY: Let's walk very carefully through these next few moments. 


MURROW: The content of what we're doing is more important than what some guy in Cincinnati...

PALEY: - what you're doing, Ed. Not me. Not Frank Stanton. You. 


MURROW: "CBS News", "See It Now" all belong to you, Bill.

PALEY:  You wouldn't know it.

MURROW: What is it you want? Credit?

PALEY: I never censored a single program. I hold on to affiliates who wanted entertainment from us. I fight to keep the license with the very same politicians that you are bringing down...


PALEY:...and I never, never said no to you. Never.

MURROW: I would argue that we have done very well by one another.I would argue that this network... 


MURROW: ...is defined by what the news department has accomplished. And I would also argue that never saying no is not the same as not censoring. 


PALEY:  Really? You should teach journalism. You and Mr. Friendly.

PALEY: Let me ask you this: 


PALEY: ...why didn't you correct McCarthy when he said that Alger Hiss was convicted of treason? 


PALEY: He was only convicted of perjury. You corrected everything else. Did you not want the appearance of defending... 


PALEY: ...a known Communist? I would argue that everyone censors, including you. 


MURROW: What do you want to do, Bill?

PALEY: I'm takng your program from a half an hour to an hour. 


PALEY: And it wont be a weekly program and it won't be Tuesday nights. 


MURROW: When would it be? 


PALEY:  Sunday afternoons. 


MURROW: How many episodes? 


PALEY:  Five. 


MURROW: Why don't you just fire me, Bill? 


PALEY: I don't think it's what either of us wants. 


PALEY: You owe me five shows.

MURROW: You won't like the subject matter. 
PALEY: Probably not. 


PALEY: Fred,...


PALEY: ...I'll need you for a moment.  


FRIENDLY: - Thank you, Mary. 
MARY: - Goodbye, Mr. Friendly. 


FRIENDLY: He wants me to lay a few people off. 
MURROW: I'm sure he does. 


FRIENDLY: Let's do our first show about the downfall of television. 


MURROW: Senate's gonna vote to censure McCarthy tomorrow.
FRIENDLY: Probably. 


MURROW: And then what happens? 
FRIENDLY: He sits in the back row. 
MURROW: Right. 
FRIENDLY: They keep him in the Senate. 
MURROW: They don't kick him out. 


FRIENDLY: No, he stays. 


FRIENDLY: Well, we might as well go down swinging. 


MURROW: Did you know the most trusted man in America is Milton Berle?
FRIENDLY: See, you should have worn a dress! 
EISENHOWER (OVER TV)-...or their culture is older, or they are more sophisticated.


MURROW: How does a Scotch sound? 
FRIENDLY: Scotch sounds good. 
EISENHOWER (OVER TV)-We love America. Why are we proud?


FRIENDLY: Did you know Joe and Shirley were married? 
MURROW: Sure. 
EISENHOWER (OVER TV)-We are proud, first of all...


FRIENDLY: - Did everyone know? 
MURROW: - Pretty much.
EISENHOWER (OVER TV) ...because from the beginning of this Nation, a man can walk upright, no matter who he is, or who she is. He can walk upright and meet his friend--or his enemy; 


 EISENHOWER (OVER TV) ...and he does not fear that because that enemy may be in a position of great power...


 EISENHOWER (OVER TV) ...that he can be suddenly thrown in jail to rot there without charges and with no recourse to justice. We have the habeas corpus act, and we respect it. 



Good Night, and Good Luck
Words by Grant Heslov and George Clooney (and Dwight Eisenhower)

Pictures by Robert Elswit and George Clooney

Good Night, and Good Luck is available on DVD from Warner Home Entertainment.

William Paley (top), Fred Friendly, and Edward R. Murrow (below)