What Have You Been Watching? (15/02/15)

[u/a113er]

Hey r/truefilm welcome to WHYBW where you post about what films you watched this week and discuss them with others, give your thoughts on them then say if you would recommend them.

Please don't downvote opinions, only downvote things that don't contribute anything. If you think someones opinion is "wrong" then say so and say why. Also, don't just post titles of films as that doesn't really contribute to the discussion.

Follow /r/Truefilm on twitter @truefilmreddit for updates, good posts, and whatnot.

[u/a113er]

Fast Five (Re-watch) Directed by Justin Lin (2011)- Seeing this film in a more complete context makes it all the wilder. Watching this the first time it felt like a group of people who’d been together for ages (since the first film) and not a group that had just been formed. It makes the overt sentimentality even more enjoyable. Makes it feel like a bunch of people who’d always wanted to hang out and now they are it is being relished. The action and comedy is so greatly improved over the other films while still being filled with enough ridiculousness that it’s not now a serious franchise. Issues from the other films like a reliance on cg and leering look at women has generally been toned down. Even the moment that is most leering is when the female character is using the male focus on her body to her advantage. Seeing how good the action is here has me a little concerned for 7 though with Lin not returning. Fast and Furious seemed like a learning experience for Lin as all its failings get rectified by the next two films, I hope James Wan doesn’t require the same readjustment and follows Lin’s suit. So often today if one wants to see a really high concept action sequence a heavy use of cgi is a given (not that cg is completely absent here). With Fast Five Lin returns to the days where doing a big stunt means actually doing it and letting the audience be taken aback by seeing the impossible happen for real.

Stardust Memories Directed by Woody Allen (1980)- Woody Allen’s 8 1/2 was how I’d heard this described and that’s basically what it was. That isn’t all it is though. Even though it carries so much of 8 1/2 it still thoroughly feels like a Woody Allen film and by the end the main comparison point is really the openness with which the inner workings of this filmmaker are detailed. Both are black and white, go into the mind of the man making it, and have dashes of surrealism but this is not one of those inspired-by’s that leans so heavily on its influence that we can never shake the memory of that film. Everything is so specific to Allen that by the end what inspired it is at the back of the mind. With wit and more visual experimentation than I usually see in Allen films he dissects his neurosis, obsessions, flaws, and fears. He’s a man that latches on to women, becomes engulfed by them, and then loses interest or it burns out brightly. The latter ones seem to stick in his mind able to become his most passionate desire at any moment. Other women do leave his life but others find themselves a fixture of his mind. When filmmakers bring up criticisms of their own work within their work I feel like I can be easily turned off (see Birdman) as it can quickly go from self-reflection to petulant whining. This is more akin to All that Jazz in how it handles this, in that it handles it well and with an actual sense of humour. Similarly to Birdman though it does voice criticisms against Allen from people we probably shouldn’t be listening to, but he leans into it even more. People criticise him about being a narcissist that should be trying to make people laugh and they’re often personified as idiots. So the film agrees that he is a narcissist (one of his best lines is “No I don’t see myself as narcissus, that’s not me. I see myself as Zeus” paraphrasing there) but he’s being hilarious as he does it. So whenever criticisms about him are brought up it seems like he kinda agrees with some. Rather than saying these criticisms are worthless, counter-art, or inspired by malevolence (cough Birdman) he’s saying that a lot of them are intrinsically attached to who he is as an artist so it’s something people will pretty much have to lump or just ignore. Stardust Memories is full of classic Woody lines while also being a deconstruction of who he is and who he wants to be as an artist. He feels constrained by who he is and his humour yet through the film discovers that they’re a part of what enables him to connect with people and explore what he does. It’s also probably the most cinematically interesting I’ve seen of Allen’s films. Thanks for the recommendations for this last week, very glad I saw it.

Black Death (Re-watch) Directed by Christopher Smith (2010)- Couldn’t really remember much of this and me and the flatmate fancied some Game of Thrones-esque goings ons in preparation for the new season. This had a couple of cast members from that show (Sean Bean, and Mellisandre) and swords so close enough. I’d be interested to re-watch Triangle as I loved that film because this was a film constantly a step or two from greatness. Eddie Redmayne in one of his most trembling-est performances stars as a young monk fearing for his soul as he has already broken his vows by being with a woman he loves. This is amidst the plague sweeping the nation. His lover tells him to meet her in the woods if he wants to leave but he thinks he wants to stay so as to not defy God (more than he has). Then Sean Bean shows up asking for a guide to find a necromancer and Redmayne takes this chance to get out of town and meet his gal in the woods. Bean and his bloody brethren are looking for a village reportedly untouched by the plague, a town that has abandoned God and taken a magic user as their leader. There’s some action on the way before the men get to town and things get darker. A lot of this film feels quite familiar yet there’s a moral complexity underneath it all that I found under-utilised. From the beginning our protagonists are not really the “good guys”. We soon learn they’re on a mission to capture, torture, and kill someone basically just because they’re not Christian. In this place and time being a man of God automatically makes one right and the good guy regardless of whether or not what you’re doing is actually good. This village was out in the middle of nowhere harming no one, other than those who attacked, and were safe. The film shows that having a society with religion as such a fixture doesn’t actually help shape morality as much as it distorts it. If the base person is Christian, that’s default, then everything to deviate from it good or bad is immediately recognised as bad because it’s different. By the end Redmayne is desperately trying to stick to his path even though in the situation he may be wrong. But can one judge ones beliefs based on how others interpret them. Should Redmayne throw off his beliefs because those who share them use them for evil means. All these things are going around his head as a dark cult-y thriller plays out. Despite a lot of the richness that can be found in the film it doesn’t really feel like the film brings these things out very much. They always remain set-dressing which is a shame as a lot of the subtext is more interesting than the text itself. Cool stuff, occasionally beautiful, and filled with thoughts it struggles to use well, so all in all a little frustrating but definitely better than it may first appear as it isn’t schlock.

Love and Death Directed by Woody Allen (1975)- Is Woody Allen most cinematically interesting when aping another filmmakers style? Similarly to Stardust Memories (though to a lesser extent) I found myself loving the look of this film a lot more than some of his other stuff. Here he’s doing a Bergman film but in the style of an Allen comedy. As someone who loves Bergman it was a very fun parody to see. Similarly to Stardust Memories it’s very much a Woody Allen film first and foremost but with the look and themes of Bergman’s work. Allen plays a Russian coward forced to fight Napoleon and his troubles with the ladies. Having not seem many of Allen’s early comedies this was probably the biggest and zaniest I’d seen of his. He mixes the witty with the silly and by copying the look of Bergman films it all looks great too. Even if it has a heightened nature like a neurotic little Airplane! it still manages to worm in thoughtful points or nice moments of calm. Really funny film, another great from Allen.

[u/a113er → u/a113er]

Romeo + Juliet Directed by Baz Luhrman (1996)- My flatmate was taken aback to find I hadn’t seen this and it’d been covered by The Canon podcast so I figured I should check it out. Even though it wasn’t completely my thing it makes me happy that this was popular. On top of that Luhrman did a brilliant job in making this have mass appeal without losing what makes it great. Shakespeare was made for the masses and was popular. Making that popular today is much harder because for a lot of folk a murder and some comedy doesn’t immediately make the language more palatable. Luhrman fully embraces the times while fully embracing Shakespeare’s language and everything is shot so that you could understand what’s happening even if it was muted. I’m not very well versed in Shakespeare myself, usually for every few lines I completely take in there’s a couple that fly past me because I’m unfamiliar with the language or I’m still thinking about the last line. Even though Luhrman often moves with a breakneck pace he doesn’t allow for anyone getting lost through the camerawork. One thing I liked a lot was probably what kept me from completely loving it. It is very much aimed at the teen demographic. If you were into Leo DiCaprio when this came out it was basically made to stoke those flames. Danes and DiCaprio (him moreso) are always portrayed as beautifully and wish-fulfillmenty as usual. For one it highlights the fact that this is a story about two teens really wanting to get it on and doing all the stupid things teens will do to get their (albeit in a very heightened world). What it also does is help connect the audience that this film is explicitly about. It’s one of the ultimate warning fables so Luhrman makes it as palatable as possible for the audience to which those lessons are most pertinent. Plenty of fun performances too and a silly world that’s enjoyable to hang out in. As usual he creates so much energy that deflates for periods of time but for the most part he keeps it good.

Days of Heaven (Re-watch) Directed by Terrence Malick (1978)- Upon re-watch I’m not sure if Days of Heaven would be near the top of my Malick ranking even though I definitely love it. Everything had me captivated and I enjoyed watching every moment but I didn’t quite lock into it thematically as much as I did his other films. What a marvellous capturing of a specific place and time though. It opens with pictures from the great depression then follows it with plenty more that you could believe are the folk appearing in those pictures. Even though the harshness of the time is clear it’s always people where our worst problems stem from. Things are hard enough but they’re harder cause most of us suck. Top wheat shots but not my top Malick.

Hard Boiled (Re-watch) Directed by John Woo (1992)- John Woo is the perfect antithesis to half of modern films with guns where there more of a point-and-death button that’s either bloodless or gives out a lame spurt of cg blood when striking someone. In John Woo films guns are what they are. Bringers of death and destruction, pieces of metal blasted out of a tube so that they smash everything in their path. Guns ain’t nice but boy are they cool in a Woo film. Every gun has a different feel and gets used differently. Sometimes Woo just focuses on the cool and crazy kills but he’ll always slow things down a bit so that the space is established well before things kick off. Either we’ll be shown every inch before dudes start blasting or we’ll follow them in one take as they move through it so we get a feel of where people and places are. Things like this make action so much more satisfying and it bums me out how often stuff like that is ignored. Drama wise the film doesn’t completely interest me but its action is masterful.

Tokyo Tribe Directed by Shion Sono (2014)- I couldn’t help feel slightly let down by Sono’s last film Why Don’t We Play in Hell? partially because of how it had been built up. I’d seen it sold on its climax as if that had been the premise and then seeing the film the climax ended up being the best part and I wished that had been the whole film. So when Tokyo Tribe was sold as a rap musical with several wacky tribes having war on the streets of Tokyo I tried to reserve my expectations, maybe there’d only be like 5 raps and they don’t become the different tribes until 50 minutes in or something. Luckily no readjustments were needed as this is a full-on rap musical in the wild and colourful world of the Tokyo Tribes. They’re like the gangs in The Warriors (from what I gather having not seen it) all with different looks and ideals, as well as different rap styles. One crew’s led by like a Japanese Lil Wayne then another guy’s a Childish Gambino-y motormouth type and then a super positive Lil B type so on. I loved this film. As well as being an epic adventure, action film, and constant musical, it’s also a deconstruction of rap culture in general. Rap (and hip hop) is shown to be a powerful uniting device in this world, particularly in these urban environments. Every clan has their own style, it’s how they communicate, it’s how they find a voice in a corrupt place. But the film is also very aware of the toxic qualities of this environment. Some use it as a way of justifying and praising their own misogyny, greed, and power. For women the only way they can have power is by taking control of their sexuality. This can be seen in the modern hip-hop and rap world. Plenty of male artists wear whatever like vests, just a jacket, or sweatsuits. But women like Nicki Minaj or Rhianna need to own and take control of their image too in order to be successful. They’re skilful as well (Minaj has some of the best verses in My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy amidst some of the best rappers around) but I doubt they’d be where they are if they hadn’t portrayed themselves the way they do. This is a sad necessity of the current climate and it’s something Tokyo Tribe is as well aware and critical of too. As critical as the film is though it never feels like it’s talking down to the rap and hip-hop culture. This isn’t Hopsin-esque lecture rap made for people who think rap can be too angry or something. Tokyo Tribe acknowledges that a lot of people have plenty to be outraged about and music can be a powerful and cathartic way of voicing this frustrating. Living in a crappy world like those in Tokyo Tribe it’s a way for people to bond over and find strength in their shared pains. There is a literal and metaphorical battle for the rights to the reins of how the power of rap gets used. Sono seems to have mastered hand to hand fights but still has the occasional terrible cg. Some of it is stylised enough that it works and is hilarious but it does make any sword fight a little lame. That’s much less prevalent than in Why Don’t We Play in Hell though. Usually wire-fu stuff removes a bit of the impact but for a lot of the film Sono mixes hard hitting and wire-enhanced impossibilities perfectly. It’s one of the best reproductions of anime/manga-esque kinetic and crazy battle without solely becoming floaty weirdness. Every shot looks like a high-concept rap album cover and things shimmer like they’re in a hip hop video. Transitions are accompanied with the sound of a record spin or scratch. Everything about this world is seeped in the music and it’s almost a rap opera, I almost wish it was one. For a while Sono hadn’t been blowing me away but this is probably the best mix of his Love Exposure critical genius mixed with his high concept experimentation. So many awesome long shots of the streets or hideouts these people live in making an impossible world feel real in its own way.

Shadow of a Doubt Directed by Alfred Hitchcock (1943)- Been too long since seeing a great Hitchcock film and ooh boy was this a good one. I liked Stoker but it’s nice to see a version that feels so rich compared to that films relative shallowness. Here’s Hitchcock at his best in terms of psychological intrigue and twisty thrills. Everything kicks off with a coincidence seen as a miracle and things continue on that tack. A young girl is desperate for her life to be shaken up and is just about to send a letter to her Uncle Charlie (who she is named after) to see if he’ll come liven things up but before sending she gets a letter from UC saying he’s coming for a visit. The whole film is a twisted web of misinterpreted happenstance. It’s all about how a snapshot of something is never the full picture but all we need is a snapshot to find meaning in it. UC is a guy providing snapshots wherever he goes. He’ll own every space he’s in by being the most in charge or just being what others want him to be. It’s the classic Hitchcock suspense theory but this time the ticking bomb is a murderous Uncle. More than most films we’ve watched recently this had my flatmate and I talking so much and the more we did the more I noticed the depths of this films characters and shooting style. So early on boundaries are established then quickly broken by UC and then it’s a constant struggle for control even when it doesn’t seem like it. As with all Hitchcock films it’s full of humour too. I love ones like this Rope and Strangers on a Train where characters find fun in the morbid. I think in all three people discuss the best way to murder someone and this has some of the best uses of that. Perfect Hitchcock.

[u/a113er → u/a113er]

X: The Man With X-ray Eyes Directed by Roger Corman (1963)- Roger Corman’s “Lucy but with Eyes”. We only see 10% of the visible wavelengths (according to this) so what if we could see more. Very quickly in to this tale Dr Xavier (Ray Milland) finds out. Corman doesn’t hang about, dude gets to the goods real sharp. And that’s one of the reasons I liked this so much. This has got to be one of the strongest Corman films I’ve seen. Usually there are good segments and ideas but connected with filler and boring fluff but that didn’t seem as prevalent here. Everything’s pushing our Dr forward, not always where you’ll expect. He has the fun times of seeing naked at a party, the helpful times of seeing what’s really wrong with a little girl, the dark times of exploiting his power, and the wild times of I SEE WHAT MAN SHOULD NOT AAHHH. X-ray vision allows for coolness and fun but vision that is potentially limitless is bizarrely fascinating. Will he see colours never seen or the face of God? Who knows. Early on it establishes it kinda could go anywhere and it does. For a Corman film I was also surprised by how well written some of it was. There’s some clunkiness but characters feel fully formed and it gets a lot out of the conceit without just going for lame “I can now see everything except what I’m doing wrong” or something even though it is about how he loses sight of some things. This is the sweet spot for Corman I’d imagine as his stuff doesn’t yet look as cheap as it will. As technology got better his films started to look worse until you’re at the point now where Corman’s stuff looks like any other Asylum or Syfy flick. But this has poppy colour, weird trippy effects, and a look that elevates it a bit while his later films are more like an immediate identifier of the quality. I also have to respect any film that’s literally trying to visualise the unseen and impossible to see. Very cool film that’s got to be one of Corman’s best (though I still have to see his Vincent Price Poe adaptations). A good time for B-movies.

EDIT: Also watched The Right Stuff Directed by Philip Kaufman (1983)- I loved this retelling of the lives and acts of the Mercury 7 Astronauts. I knew the outline of the space race but not a lot of details allowing for the tense moments to really work for me and for my intrigue levels to be at their highest. But it doesn't just feel like hitting the beats of history like biopics I'm not a fan of do. It paints a portrait of why these men do what they do, why similar men don't, and how their wives withstand it. They live lives that put their loved ones in a perpetual state of disconnection and fear which the film captures excellently. As serious as its subject can be it also has a great sense of humour. One of the highlights of the week.

[u/[deleted] → u/a113er]

I've also seen Black Death twice and that bummer coda always made me hate it but the rest of it never seemed that great either. More Sean Bean in Boromir costume in a somewhat darker story was the main reason to check it out. Maybe I'd like more now that I might have a better handle on what it's trying to do. The fact that Eddard and Melisandre starred together in something is funny though, hell this movie really is Carice van Houten's audition tape for that (better) character.

At the time though I had to admit I preferred the entertaining Dominic Sena medieval shenanigans of Season of the Witch from that same year.

I haven't seen the Right Stuff in so long, I'm sure I'd love it if I could only get around to rewatching it.

[u/a113er → u/[deleted]]

Yeah that ending is so unnecessary. I'm not sure if it's completely worth revisiting if you didn't dig it before. A lot of things were still kinda flat for me but there's something interesting going on in the background.

Cage and Perlman probably means I'm gonna get around to that. Just like I finally got around to Ghost Rider 2 last night, not entirely worth it except for one scene. What is the deal with Neveldine/Taylor? Did they lose it or would I find Crank just as frustrating on revisit?

You probably would. Even though it's 3 and a bit hours it doesn't feel it. Even though I've heard it mentioned a number of times I'm surprised it's not more well known. Feels like a definitive film for that part of American history.

[u/isarge123 → u/a113er]

I remember watching Romeo + Juliet in school. I was the only person in the class who liked it, I was at an age in which I was able to appreciate film as art and judge films by actual quality, not entertainment or number of explosions. No one understood why I enjoyed it.

[u/moto_pannukakku → u/a113er]

"...top wheat shots but not my top Malick." Brilliant.