Film: Waking Ned Devine

Director: Kirk Jones
Genre: Comedy
Source: Ireland (1998)
Rating: PG
Location/Format: Netflix Instant Watch
Grade: B-

I haven't watched this movie in about a decade, but it still entertained. It's not particularly profound or innovative film making, but it is a delightful little story. Ian Bannen and David Kelley make a really funny pair, and the image of Kelley riding a motorcycle naked will always by hilarious. There are great themes about community and friendship, but they're pretty much there on the surface, so I don't have much interesting insight.

Great bonus this time around: James Nesbitt! After seeing him in films like (the similarly themed) Millions and shows like Jekyll, it's great to see him here earlier in his career. He's not playing a weighty role like some of his future gigs would be, but he's still sharp as Pig Finn, the pig farmer.

It's just an entertaining little romp that you can give to anyone to enjoy. Not much else to say.

Sad confession: I've watched a ton of British and Irish film in my life, but I still found the accents really hard to follow for about ten minutes or so. Is that just me? Or do they start "really Irish" and then tone it down a bit.

Alternate Film Title: "Skinny Naked Man on Motorcycle!" (I mean, come on.)

Book: Let's Pretend This Never Happened

Blogger (or Bloggess, I guess is her Internet appellation) Jenny Lawson is undoubtedly funny. She has the ability to take any normal story to an 11, and often in unexpected ways. She's like Dave Sedaris but a little more offensive and with less attention to detail, less of a filter, and less philosophical insight. I tore through her book in a matter of days, and though her childhood is neither as terrible or as disturbing as she claims, and though her ability to make any situation awkward and light mental imbalances may be at times cringe-inducing, it is all also pretty funny.

But also exhausting. I have to imagine spending extended time with Jenny, if she's anything like her writing voice, would try anyone's patience after a while. There's great humor, but also who wants to always be at 11 all the time? 

Still, that's a minor complaint, and if I got a little tired of her constant mountain-out-of-molehill-making, I still really enjoyed the read. She thinks differently than most people, and that ability to see things from a skewed perspective means that I never knew where her stories and her head were going to take her, even if her life itself (this being a memoir and all) didn't go anywhere particularly exciting. She's still a satisfying bit of good cheer, and if the writing may get a little redundant, it also had me laughing out loud repeatedly. (Seriously. People were looking at me funny at the gym.) And that, at the start of the school year, is just what I needed.  

Grade: B

Film: The Third Man

Director: Carol Reed
Genre: Film Noir
Source: UK (1949)
Rating: Approved (Probably PG)
Location/Format: Turner Classic Movies
Grade: A-

Possible book idea: A historical piece on the working relationship, influences, and personal lives of Joseph Cotten and Orson Welles. Part biography, part film analysis. Seriously, I love these guys together.

A classic (maybe one of the classic?) film noirs, The Third Man has a lot about it that's easy to like, and Joseph Cotten is right at the top of that list. His opening voice-over is genuinely funny, and he plays the genre's "ordinary man" with both a sense of humor and a sense of simmering emotion--is it outrage? lust for the woman? confusion? I'm not always clear, but there is a complexity to the role and his reading of it that I love. He is increasingly becoming one of my favorite classic film stars, which is nice since he turns up in so many movies (with or without Orson Welles). As far as the rest of the movie, the film's twists and turns are effective as well, as are the unusually jaunty score and the supporting characters.

But let's be honest here. This film lives on above all because of two (related) things: its depiction of post-war Vienna and its masterfully shadowed cinematography. 

Vienna here is all brick piles and shadowed corridors, and cinematographer Robert Krasker rarely finds a scene he can't ratchet up the tension on by throwing in a dutch angle or two. It's hugely effective, because as Cotten's character Holly Martins loses his grip on what's true, what's real, and what's right, so do we. We are constantly thrown off balance, just as he is, and the cinematography serves as a metaphor for the fluctuating moral orientation of Martins and his associates. It's stunningly effective, and I think I could easily use this (or clips of this at the very least) in my Film Studies class. Similarly, the shadows that creep around Vienna--sometimes attached to foreboding figures, sometimes lurking in doorways, sometimes covering up our protagonists all together--work beautifully too. I'd love to get my hands on a great blu-ray version of this, because I think the bonus crispness would only add to the effectiveness with which Krasker and Reed are painting with light and shadow here. It's really hard to look away--and why would you want to?

This is another one I feel I could watch again and again and draw something new each time--and that's a good thing, since my wife missed it and only caught the wry final shot, after which she immediately asked if we could watch it together sometime.

Man, sometimes the classics are classic for a reason.

Alternate Film Title: "The Ugly American" (not because Cotten is ugly, just because there are so many culturally crossed wires throughout the film...

Film: Gimme Shelter

Director: Albert Maysles, David Maysles, Charlotte Zwerin
Genre: Documentary
Source: USA (1970)
Rating: PG
Location/Format: HuluPlus
Grade: A-

Well, this was fascinating. I've "known" about Altamont and how the Hell's Angels killed a man at a Rolling Stones show for ages, but this documentary opened my eyes to what went wrong as well as the fallout of the situation. It was traumatic and tragic, and it exposed a side of Mick Jagger that I had never really seen before.

Mayles/Zwerin allow silences to play out pregnantly in this film, but it's the people doing the talking who seem to get their ire. They show large sections of "planning" conference calls in which the poor organization of the Altamont concert is apparent: a lack of parking, a lack of planning, a lack of security. Knowing what we know now, it's impossible not to be shocked at the lack of foresight these big promoters and businessmen had, but of course at the time they must have been expecting another Woodstock: peace, love, and understanding. In failing to plan, the concert organizers come off as money-grubbers who took no thought for the people they were supposed to be planning for. Yes, the Stones were on stage when the stabbing occurred, and yes, they technically presided over the mayhem, but by repeatedly emphasizing the packed stage (so many people just milling about while bands were trying to play), showing Jagger's deer-in-the-headlights look, and allowing the band's viewing of the footage to devolve inot shocked silence, Mayles/Zwerin clearly allow their sympathies to shine through. It's great commentary-through-editing, and the film's structure really worked for me in that regard.

That's not to say that the Stones come off as angels, either. Early footage of Jagger playing up the rock-star angle, including lines like "Something always happens when we play [Sympathy for the Devil]," and other examples show why parents and "responsible adults" didn't really like him and were quick to point the finger at him as responsible for the ills in the world. He enjoyed pushing buttons, playing the bad boy, and pushing the limits of good taste.

Still, Jagger's sins seem minor here. Of course, noticeably absent from the film is the perspective of the Hell's Angels, other than a clip from a radio show in which a spokesman blames Jagger for blaming them. Similarly, there is no real explanation or investigation into the victim himself, which makes this more of a film about celebrity than about tragedy in the specific. I think at least acknowledging the victim a bit would have strengthened the emotional weight of the film.

Still, I came in to the movie just looking for something in the background while I worked, and I ended up not getting anything down because I was so drawn into the movie's drama. I was distressed, moved, and left with a sadness and malaise that I didn't expect. Powerful film-making.

Alternate Film Title: Nah, Gimme Shelter is about perfect--a little bit of a plea, a little bit of a demand, a little bit of an allusion to the storms that overwhelm us.

Film: Days of Heaven

Director: Terrence Malick
Genre: Drama
Source: USA (1978)
Rating: PG
Location/Format: Criterion Blu-ray
Grade: B+

I think I overhyped Days of Heaven for myself. The last two Malick films I watched--Tree of Life and Badlands--are both in my top ten (or twenty) movies of all time. Both films had a profound impact on me and left me reeling with the beauty and power of cinema. And I'd heard so many times that Days of Heaven is one of the most beautiful films ever shot. And it really is beautiful. The artistry of those fields, of the sky, of the interplay of golden light and breathtaking landscapes. It is a film I want to watch again for a number of reasons, not least of which is to drink in the visuals again. As in Badlands, I feel like Malick knows how to film fire like no one else. It's gorgeous, and the whole movie really is rich in that regard.

And yet.

Much as I was drawn in by the beauty of the film, I had a hard time connecting with this film. Perhaps it was the gratingly harsh accent of Linda as she narrated the movie. (Really, I am not sure what she added to the film, and it's one reason I feel like I must have missed something, since she seemed so . . . irrelevant to the plot and flow of the film.) Perhaps it was the way the film cut through moments and scenes and weeks before I knew what was happening. Perhaps it was the abrupt and seemingly incongruous ending. But it just didn't grab me the way I hoped it would. It seemed choppy--not with the artistry of Tree of Life, but with like it was put together by a hand trying to cram in so much that it forgot to work out the pacing.

Still, that house on the bare landscape. Sam Shepard (and holy cow, is that guy the man, or is that guy the man? It's so easy to just get wrapped up in his fantastic performances, from this film to The Right Stuff to Mud just this past summer--and then you realize, wait, he is also a Pulitzer Prize winning playwright? Some people are just dripping with talent). The magic hour glow. All of the pieces of greatness are there, and so I'm left with the dissatisfaction of the subjectivity of film, when you're left to wonder what captured everyone else that you missed. I won't dispute the beauty of the film, but I found myself disappointed with the screenplay and the editing.

I wholly admit, this was just a gut reaction, and as I said, I want to see the film again, and as I also said, I did like it. I had just hoped (maybe even expected?) to love it. And this time through I didn't. 

On the other hand, that's just another reason I'm glad I own it. It really will allow me the opportunity to watch it again, to watch it with commentary, to study it and figure out what I'm missing. I love that. 

Alternate Film Title: "Richard Gere's Translucent Duster"

Film: Mary and Max

Director:Adam Elliot
Genre: Animated Comedy Drama
Source: Australia (2009)
Rating: NR (PG-13?)
Location/Format: Netflix Instant Watch
Grade: A-

It's hard not to fall in love with the characters of Mary and Max (and with the film Mary and Max). The two are so delightfully odd--and so tragicomically (is that a word?) real--that you can't help but see in them every time you were left out, or didn't fit in, or weren't . . . valued. They are misfits, but they--like most misfits--don't understand why they're misfits. They just see the world ignoring them. The film wears its heart on its sleeve, and of course any heart exposed like that is an open wound too tender to the touch. But mostly it's about finding someone else who sees your heart, and carefully places it back in your chest, and bandages you back up. 

And then maybe shares some chocolate with you to help you feel better.

There's a delightful sense of fun and optimism in the film that stands out against its caricatured character design and black and brown palette. It has been said that the difference between comedy and tragedy is distance, but Mary and Max suggests that perhaps the difference between the two is more about whether or not you have someone to share it with. Mimes killed by falling air conditioners, an increasingly absurd series of goldfish deaths, alcoholism, suicide attempts, broken hearts, agoraphobia--life is filled with chaos and unfairness, but that doesn't mean we have to lose hope. Finding another voice to talk to in the darkness can make even the worst of experiences bearable. And that in itself is beautiful.

I picked this film as an extra credit film in my high school Intro to Film Studies class. We started out the semester looking at "the state of film today" before we jump backwards into film history, so I wanted to show my students something with mass appeal and star-powered and big-business and contrast it with something personal and unique and small. I'll find out soon if any of them took me up on it. I hope so. This is a film with a lot of beauty, a lot of humor, and a lot of soul. I loved it.

Alternate Film Title: "Unexpected Eric Bana Cameo"

Film: Elysium

Director: Neil Blomkamp
Genre: Sci-Fi
Source: USA (2013)
Rating: R
Location/Format: Glynn Place Stadium Cinemas
Grade: C

Neil Blomkamp has an amazing eye for sci-fi visuals and creating interesting technological worlds. He also approaches political metaphor like a drunken three year old trying to play with the family dog--stumbling around with obvious good intent but no sense of nuance or finesse, banging hands together and blatantly thumping what should be caressed. In a future world, the 1% live in a perfect space paradise, while the 99% live in a ghetto Los Angeles. Apparently there is no middle class. Also (in case the economic metaphor wasn't enough) the poor people want to illegally enter Elysium, passing themselves off as citizens, in order to receive the free health care that the rich are inexplicably unwilling to share with anyone else. 

You see where we're going here.

When the film focuses on these ideas (or on the cloying and unnecessary flashback scenes), Blomkamp's hands are so heavy that lesser issues like a love story get caught in their orbit, and the film gets clunky. It's weird, but I thought District 9 handled both the political metaphor and the protagonist's backstory much more effectively, so this seemed like a step back in that regard.

Also, in a step back for French accents everywhere, Jodie Foster's choices were . . . odd, to say the least. Her character was a poorly drawn caricature who Blomkamp had no interest in giving depth to. Maybe that's why she decided to try and spice things up with that ridiculous (and only semi-stable) accent? I don't know.

I liked Damon a lot here, though, and I liked Sharlto Copley here too, who seemed to be having so much fun playing the mentally unbalanced private military contractor (OK, OK, political metaphor, I hear you! Keep it down please!) that even though my Filmspotting mentors criticized it for being over the top, I thought he brought a charismatic sense of danger and violence to the screen, which I hadn't really expected.

The film is violent, for sure, and often needlessly so. But the rough design of the world made up for it. The guns, the tech, Damon's exo-skeleton: all of it was interesting and made for some great world enrichment. The film doesn't go to great lengths to explain how the exo-skeleton enhances Damon's strength, for example. It instead shows things like Damon gripping the side of a car and bending the metal as his hand squeezes the door. I like that, and it's that little attention to detail that makes Blomkamp stand out.

As a film, this is bigger budget than District 9 but not as interesting. It's silly and overly simplistic, even if I did see real potential in this world. But that won't stop me from seeing the next Blomkamp movie either. He's trying to create interesting sci-fi universes with something to say to the contemporary world, and even if he's not as good at it as he thinks, I can't fault him for trying. After all, he's shooting for something beyond mere Avengers-style popcorn entertainment, and I'd like to see more directors do that.

I'd just like him to have a little deftness while he's doing it.

Alternate Film Title: "Is That an Exo-Skeleton Outside Your Pocket or Are You Just Happy to See Me?"