Free-Talking on Cinema, Movies, and Film (3)
by HELEN GEIB
Free-Talking Series: Next Post
**********
OCTOBER 2, 2010- POLLS CLOSED; NEW POLLS COMING SOON
The “Best Movie” of 2002 and 2003 polls are closed. Far fewer people voted than in the 2000 and 2001 polls, which I’m guessing explains the 2002 result and why the votes both years were concentrated on just a few titles. It’s also the case that most of the movies that didn’t get any votes are foreign, indies, or documentaries- in other words, not many people have seen them. (Does that also explain the low turnout?) The 2004/2005 polls are coming soon.
**********
SEPTEMBER 28, 2010- WILD GRASS AND THE WAGES OF FEAR
Director Alain Resnais’ intellectual comedy Wild Grass (2009) came through town this week, proving once again the combined power of Frenchness and a name director to bring the unlikeliest of films to the city’s semi-arthouse Landmark theater. My capsule review: The French New Wave lives? Resnais and Co. delight in confounding audience expectations of story, character, theme and generally speaking, progression from A to B. It’s pointless and indeed beside-the-point to analyze of it in terms of story, character, themes, etc., but relevant to note that a principal target of its parody is the thriller of obsession. People bored to tears with traditional narrative storytelling may love it.
I also watched a second French film this past weekend, but this one a classic: Henri-Georges Clouzot’s The Wages of Fear (1953). Four men desperate to escape the existential hell of an isolated village in an unnamed South American country take a job transporting unsecured nitroglycerine across hundreds of miles of back-country mountain roads. At times, the tension is so great that the film becomes nearly unendurable. A masterpiece of suspense, The Wages of Fear was the “movie of the month” for my film club and I was re-watching it in preparation for the discussion (no hardship there!). Coincidentally, it famously exemplifies the classical French cinema that Resnais was and is opposing. Wild Grass is a running in-joke for cineastes that has meaning only in relation to orthodox filmmaking like Clouzot’s.
**********
SEPTEMBER 23, 2010- “THE SECRET IN THEIR EYES” AND MEANING FULL MOVIE TITLES
When I was thinking about how to approach The Secret in Their Eyes, I considered writing around the title because it’s such a good entry point to the film. It leads immediately to the hero Benjamin, who shows himself a romantic in his belief in the eyes as a window to the soul. The story is driven by secrets- keeping them and exposing them. Characters reveal themselves, often unknowingly, through the direction of their gaze. And what are the secrets in their eyes? Drama and critical plot points come from the answers to that question. The title also introduces the theme of passion; sometimes romantic, and sometimes for other things that consume men’s lives, like the drink.
I did structure my review of An Education around the title. What are some other films with meaningful titles?
**********
SEPTEMBER 15, 2010- NEW POLLS: BEST FILMS OF 2002 AND 2003
The polls are now open for the best films of 2002 and 2003. Vote away!
**********
SEPTEMBER 12, 2010- BEST FILMS OF 2000 AND 2001 READER POLLS: WINNERS
The polls are closed and the results are in for the readers’ choice picks for the best movies of 2000 and 2001. Gladiator was the clear favorite for 2000, with Commentary Track “best of” and “runner up” selections Requiem for a Dream and O Brother, Where Art Thou? splitting the bulk of the rest of the vote.
The results for 2001 were much more fractured than for 2000 (where a full six films on the shortlist failed to garner a single vote, including my personal no. 2 pick from the list Beau Travail). Gosford Park received a surprising near 60% of the vote. The rest of the votes were spread almost evenly over the remaining titles, with only Ghost World getting no love.
**********
SEPTEMBER 8, 2010- THE MINER’S LIFE (NOT ON DVD)
Yesterday’s DVD recommendation was a list of movies about miners. I really, really wanted to include G.W. Pabst’s great Kameradschaft (1931), but was thwarted by its unavailability on DVD.
**********
SEPTEMBER 2, 2010- READING MOVIES TO STUDY THE CINEMA OF WAR
I got the chance to be a teacher this week. A professor I know at one of the local universities who teaches a course on “the cinema of war” invited me to be a guest lecturer for the first class. My job was to teach the students how to “read” a film critically. Basically I tried to show them things to look for beyond story, character, and performance- to pay attention to the visuals and the soundtrack, and to be aware of how filmmakers use images and sounds to shape meaning and elicit a specific emotional and intellectual response. I was inordinately nervous, but it was also a lot of fun, and the students were great.
I had planned to show clips from two movies, but technical difficulties kept me to only one. The one I didn’t get to play was a scene from Wake Island (1942), a war/propaganda film released just nine months after Pearl Harbor, and little more than eight months after the Japanese finally overran the Marine defenses on Wake.
I was going to pause on this image and talk about the complex symbolism of the shot composition and lighting. To set the scene: The setting is a makeshift machine shop after the first Japanese air attack. The man is a pilot who has just been told by his commanding officer that his wife was killed at Pearl Harbor. This is also the film’s “why we fight” scene, and the officer’s speech frames the fight in the unusual terms of “We must destroy… destruction.” The actor’s delivery is matter-of-fact throughout and the entire scene is characterized by restraint and sincerity.
The image gives symbolic visual expression to the dialogue that just concluded. The pilot is enclosed and supported by his plane. This is the plane that he will use to destroy Japanese planes- like the ones that wrought destruction on Pearl and were the vanguard of the Japanese invasion of the South Pacific. He is framed by his weapon and also by his flag; a furled flag stands beside him and a stupendous flag created by light and shadow has been the backdrop to the scene.
The second clip was the opening credits sequence of The Warlords (2009), a Chinese historical drama set during the Taiping Rebellion of the late 19th century. It’s a stupendous and perfect intro to the film. There’s far too much going on visually and thematically to summarize here, but by way of example here’s the title card:
This image is preceded by shots of battlefield carnage and succeeded by a slow pan over a field of corpses. I used the title card to talk about how filmmakers enrich the content of a scene by juxtaposing complementary or opposing imagery. “Warlords” is a loaded word, with many definitions and connotations. The superimposition of the title over the image creates a rich dialogue between word and image. A critical reading of the film listens to the dialogue and parses its meanings.
**********
Free-Talking Series: Prior Post
I’ll put Warlords on my Netfix queue. I’m getting more an more interested in Chinese history, and the Taiping Rebellion was a fascinating period. Wake Island is a great piece of early-war cinema. I’ve read critics who hold Back to Bataan as the best of this group, but I think Wake was better in a number of ways.
Wake Island is in that small, special group of war films that ask us to consider what it’s like to face the deadly certainties or near-certainties of battling overwhelming odds. Compare it to 300, Zulu, or Gettysburg.
It would be an interesting experiment to screen Wake Island for a group of people who don’t know the historical outcome or context of the battle (not too difficult to find today, I’m sure). To what extent does the film depend on its audience possessing that knowledge for its emotional power and to successfully convey the larger “why we fight” message? I watched it again in preparation for the class and was strongly affected by it, just as I had been the first time I watched it some years ago, but then I bring to it the informed historical perspective. I can only imagine its effect on contemporary audiences, for whom Pearl Harbor was an open wound and the issue of the war was very much in doubt.
I’ll have to put Back to Bataan in my Netflix queue. That’s one I missed during my WWII war movie phase.
Warlords has very little to say on the causes/ major players/ battles of the Rebellion. Given the realities of Chinese film censorship that was probably forbidden territory (or at least the wiser course to avoid anything that susceptible to political readings). It does draw a devastating portrait of the suffering endured by the foot soldiers in both armies and the civilian population of the south. The main drama raises universal themes of the moral responsibilities of leadership and the limits of individual heroism and comradeship in politically-driven modern warfare.
Kameradschaft is another for your list of movies that are inexplicably not available on dvd. It’s a marvelous film that I saw once on vhs. Anyone who has kept a video player and is lucky enough to find a copy is in for a rare cinematic treat.
Gladiator has been out for ten years? Sheesh! I do cast my vote as favorite movie from that year. The history was weak, but the story was good and the visuals were great.
“Gladiator” wasn’t a history lesson that showcased people from popular Roman history and in a popular story but rather a fictitious story told in a popular setting; and the fact that it borrows the plot of “Spartacus” is always a cool idea. Personally, it’s a better film than “Spartacus” because Kubrick’s heart wasn’t in it when he made it. He even said that “Spartacus” is his least favourite film to have worked on, even with Sir Lawrence Olivier and such acting for him.
Anthony Mann (“Winchester ’73″, “El Cid”) was directing it originally and had a row with Kirk Douglas, and after being fired by Douglas Kubrick was hired by him because they’d worked together on “Paths of Glory”, one of the greatest anti-war films ever made.
“Gladiator” is my pick for 2000′s best film. :O)
I really enjoyed Gladiator but Requiem was my pick for 2000. I haven’t seen it in the ten years since but it is still vivid in my mind;it’s a powerful intense film.
For all of you – and that is probably all of you – who didn’t see Beau Travail I suggest you give it a try. Basically the Billy Budd story set in the contemporary French Foreign Legion, it is another that lingers in my mind for its stunning imagery. Do watch it on the biggest screen you can to really appreciate the cinematography.
2001′s list was so eclectic and balanced for quality that I found myself unable to choose. If I was asked to pick a personal favorite rather than the ‘best’ from the group it would be ‘In the Mood for Love’.
How could Ghost World get no love?? Thought it was brave.
@Ken and Nir: I’m a big fan of Ridley Scott’s films and Gladiator is no exception. In addition to what you’ve already mentioned: I love the action in the arena- so intensely thrilling! Joaquin Phoenix’s mad emperor was the only weak link. Even though I know there’s ample historical precedent, I never felt the character/performance was a good fit with the ensemble.
@Miriam: Beau Travail is incomparable. Whenever I reminisce about the great, special films I had the good fortune to see at Indy’s late lamented arthouse Key Cinemas, Beau Travail tops the list.
@Karen: I know, right? Granted it was a fine lineup of films, but I was still surprised. It made several of the writers’ top 3s in the final round of voting.
Nothing really clever comes right to mind, but something like Stagecoach is apt and conveys more meanings upon reflection. And I like the ambiguity of The Claim as a title.
No Country for Old Men, The Rules of the Game (1939)…
Renoir brings Grand Illusion to mind. Let Him Have It is another good one.
“Grand Illusion” is amazing, one of the best anti-war movies ever made. And so are Kubrick’s “Paths of Glory” (good title!) and “All Quiet On the Western front”.
More titles: Seijun Suzuki’s “Branded to Kill”, “Beat” Takeshi’s “Sonatine”, Billy Wilder’s “Ace in the Hole”, Jean-Pierre Melville’s “Army of Shadows”, Anthony Mann’s “Bend of the River”, Pietro Germi’s “Divorce Italian Style”, G.W. Pabst’s “Pandora’s Box”, Akira Kurosawa’s “Throne of Blood”, Shohei Imamura’s “Vengeance is Mine”…
I see you kept noodling it. :-D As you might have guessed, I really like a title that connects with the themes of the film and gets you thinking more deeply about them.
Your examples are good but I have to admit I often feel a small nagging doubt when it comes to titles of foreign movies. Does the translation truly capture the connotations and ambiguities of the original, and moreover does it create new (and perhaps unintended) meanings? Possibly I’ve just spent too much time with Hong Kong films, where the answers are usually no and yes.
Check out Jean-Pierre Melville’s “Le Deuxième Souffle”, aka Second Wind with Lino Ventura. The meaning is quite up there with what it needs to exclaim. Also, Melville’s “Le Samourai”. A perfect title! :OD
Re 2002 results, all I can say is “the eyes have it”. That movie didn’t even make my best of list for the year.
lol
The eyeball was the proverbial straw for me too.