Bogart with a beard

Those people that know their classical Hollywood cinema probably realise that the above title refers to the movie "The Treasure of Sierra Madre". At least this was the first time I saw Bogart with facial hair.

The movie is about 3 prospectors in the 1920s Mexico and their fortunes and misfortunes in search of gold. Although the story is quite predictable it is the solid acting which holds this movie together. Bogart plays Dobbs, the more cynical and suspicious of the three, accompanied by Howard (Walter Houston), the experienced one, and the pure-hearted Curtin (Tim Holt).

The most interesting character is probably the one portrayed by Bogart, because of his inner conflicts and ambiguity. He gives a very solid performance quite different from the typical macho Bogart, and also reminds me of his performance in "In A Lonely Place" .

Leni X 2

This week I finally came around to watching "The Triumph of Will" and "Olympia" by Leni Riefenstahl. These are classic documentaries made in the 30s in Nazi-Germany. This will probably put most people of, but if you can see beyond the Nazi propaganda these are in fact magnificent movies.

"The Triumph of Will" depicts the sixth Part Congress of the NSDAP and also follows Hitler around at various events such as Workers Inspection and a memorial for Hindenburg. I found myself getting really drawn into this movie, and I think it's very much thanks to the cinematic techniques used by Riefenstahl. She really manages to convey the grandness of the nazi-vision of one people, one reich and one leader. It's actually quite scary and really shows how easily it must have been to be seduced by the ideas of the Third Reich at the time. Another interesting historical aspect of the movie is that it was shot just after the SA (Sturmabteilung) were starting to fall out of favour with Hitler. Their leader had just been executed for treason a couple of months before the movie was shot. I personally think this movie should be seen for two reasons: firstly for its historical importance as a document from within Nazi-germany, and not an outside view which is the one we usually are offered. Secondly, it should be seen for its cinematography, which has influenced they documentaries ever since.

"Olympia" has much less of a propaganda feel to it and is more like retrospective of the 1936 Olympics held in Berlin. This is not to say that it hasn't got any artistic qualities, for example the opening sequence is a beautiful depiction of how the olympic torch travels from Greece to Athens. The opening ceremony is more interesting from a historical perspective, because we get to see which nations greet Hitler with a Nazi-greeting. No surprise Italy is among them, but I was more surprised to see the french do the same. The rest of the movie is basically devoted to showing all the separate events and results. It's slightly different from modern "highlights" TV-shows in that it has a more artistic feel to it, with a lot of beautiful slow-motion shots. The movie is actually in two parts, where the first focuses on the athletics and the other on the events taking place outside the Olympic Stadium. Of the those events I think modern pentathlon was my favourite, mainly because they were all military officers in uniforms competing, quite bizarre.

Whole New Thing

Apparently this movie appeared in the Gothenburg International Film Festival a few years back. I however managed to completely miss it which I remedied the other night. I had no expectations in particular and no real feeling about it acquired from trailers, reviews or what-not.

In many ways it is standard north American independent film. The production was fine, as were the actors. The issues that are dealt with, finding one's sexuality, growing up, being an outsider, are common to this genre. Curiously it shares themes with high school movies, even though here they are taken (allegedly at least) more seriously.

The Canadian winter works as an effective frame for the story underlining the isolation the characters all feel. We get to follow Emerson, a homeschooled genius kid and how troublesome he finds it settling in school. His parents are slowly drifting apart, each of them dealing with it differently, but both destructively. Emerson finds an ally and something of an intellectual match in his teacher mr Grant. Presumably due to his having little contact with the world outside of his parents hippie-like friends Emerson explores his relation to his teacher too far.

It provides an interesting watch though one has the feeling one has seen precisely this before. The problem of the movie is neither in the plot nor the themes but in some of the character development which seems rather strange at times. None-the-less this is a fairly good movie and is worth a watch.

Primer

There's one problem with watching a lot of movies and that's the fact that it gets harder and harder to be impressed by a movie. But it's still worth it because once in a while you stumble across a movie that completely blows you away. Primer is exactly that kind of movie. Written/directed/produced/edited by Shane Carruth (who also acts) on a silly small budget of $7000 this movie really shows how far pure skill and ingenuity can take a movie. Unlike most new "independent" movies, which in fact are produced by subdivisions of the major Hollywood-studios, this is proper independent cinema.

The movie is a sci-fi story revolving around a group of engineers that spend their spare time working on various inventions, and strike gold when they realise that they've constructed a time-machine. The consequences of this discovery are devastating and very complicated to say the least. The plot is in fact so intricate that I don't hesitate to say that this is the most intellectually demanding plots I've ever seen. It really requires you to focus and you're not given any Hollywood-style simple explanations. I've seen this movie 3 times and still haven't figured out the plot completely.

One reason why I really like the movie could be that I sympathise with the geekiness of the characters and enjoy the scientific edge to the movie, but I think this movie should appeal to anyone who likes challenging movies and appreciates the craft that goes into making them.

Charles Chaplin

I recently sat down and saw "Modern Times" and "City Lights", both being generally considered as Chaplin's best silent films. Now, I've been putting this off for awhile for reasons I myself do not even know. Maybe I was scared that they wouldn't be all that good. It seems as though every critic on the face of the earth praise these movies without even thinking about it. The thing is, they are that good. Now, for those of you wondering "why?" I'll tell you why.
First of all, they're hilarious, period. Some people claiming to be academics or maybe people considering themselves especially intelligent might frown and think it below them to watch a guy that stumbles around, well, fuck you. It is funny, it is just that the art of slap-stick has been sorely forgotten and abused over the years. Watching Chaplin is watching the master at work. Just observe his movements and the expressiveness of his face, it truly boggles the mind.
Secondly, Chaplin has a large heart and wasn't afraid to be sentimental. This might also be something some people might frown about, fuck them as well. I do not hold anything against sentimentality if it is done for the right reasons. Charlie did it for the right reason, which is plain to see.
Thirdly, and finally, these are intelligent movies and you should go see them as soon as you can (if you haven't already).

Dog Day Afternoon

Said and done, I watched Dog Day Afternoon yesterday. As in "Before the Devil..." the plot revolves around a failed robbery, but with the difference that this robbery ends up as a prolonged hostage situation. The lead part is played by Al Pacino, who does a great job as the dillusional and desperate bankrobber. In fact most of the movie focuses on this character and investigates his motives for committing the crime. At times the plot seems almost surreal with Pacino negotiating with the police and at the same time being cheered on by the public who have gathered outside the bank. But the movie is actually based on a real bank robbery that took place in Brooklyn in 1972.

I was expecting a really good movie and that could be one reason why I wasn't all that impressed. The heavy focus on one character and the fact that almost the whole movie takes place inside the bank added to my dislike. That said I don't think it's a bad movie it just doesn't have enough material or depth for 2 hours running time.

Before the Devil Knows You're Dead

I usually don't download pre-releases on bittorrent, but after hearing the review of this movie on the Radio 4 show Front Row I just had to see it as soon as possible. Predicting it to be one of the best movies of 2008 and mentioning "noir" and Memento really excited me, and let me say that I'm not dissapointed. I'm usually not impressed with the standard Hollywood-thrillers, but this one really stands out from the crowd.

The plot is really your standard heist movie with a robbery that just can't go wrong, but of course does so. Instead what makes this movie so good is the acting, the cinematography and the discontinuous chopped up time line. Philip Seymour Hoffman, who's in my opinion currently one of the best actors around, does an excellent part as the older dominant brother and the rest of the cast are almost nearly as good. The acting together with the cinematography creates a claustrophobic feeling that gets more intense the further the movie gets. The downward-spiral created by the failed heist recalls the bleak, deterministic feel of noir-movies and this movies should appeal to anyone who likes the old school stuff.

I was a bit surprised that I didn't recognise the director Sidney Lumet's name. A quick search on imdb made me realise my lack of knowledge as he has directed several well known movies, such as Dog Day Afternoon and Network. Network I vaguely remember as a decent drama, but I haven't seen anything else by him. This movie has sparked my curiousity and Dog Day Afternoon is already in my bittorrent client.

A couple of pictures recently seen

So, I spent my holidays mostly re-seeing a couple of movies as the facilities where I was offered the opportunity. Thus, first on the list was the traditional viewing of the 'Lord of the Rings '-triplet. Now, normally I will only make it through one but this time I decided to see them all over a period of three days. I think these movies are spectacularly good and will become absolute classics. The are only a couple of things that are worthy of critique, or at least mention. Firstly and most importantly, the ending is kind of screwed up. Jackson loses some of the emotional momentum by trying to follow the book too closely (perhaps). If I remember correctly the book has a rather long prologue of which the departure at the Grey Havens is the emotional climax. What happens in the films is that there seems to be several points in close connection to each other where we are supposed to be brought to tears. It only really works once though and thus the ending could have been better. Secondly, and much less importantly, occasional anachronism spoils the illusion (for me) in a series of movies where not spoiling the illusion is of crucial importance. And finally, Jackson continually uses women and children to represent fear and helplessness in a way that I think is uncalled for. That being said, I hold these films in high esteem.

I also managed to see Fritz Lang's seminal piece 'M' again, as well as Scorsese's 'Raging Bull
'. The former is an absolute masterpiece. The story of the deranged child murderer is both important, insightful and possess a weird humor at times. What strikes a viewer is the progressiveness of the first two thirds of the film in terms of photography whilst the last third is more like seeing a play.
'Raging Bull' is one of Scorsese's best pieces of work and it shows a quality about him that can been seen to various extents in a lot of his work. Jake LaMotta is aggressive and pathologically suspicious. His brother and manager tries to be pragmatic about the situation but is also aggressive. We get to follow Jake as he punches his way forward, succumbs to the politics behind the scenes, suspects his wife and finally, loses everything he loves and still, it seems, fail to understand why. In a key scene he's banging his against the brick wall of a dark cell wondering why and saying that he's "not that guy". From first you lay eyes on this man you realize that things are not going to work out well.

I also saw Allen's 'Stardust Memories'. A rather good meta-film that raises some questions about the artists relation to his or her work. I would say this is not Allen at his best but clearly worth a viewing.
Similar in name but as different as can be I also spent time in front of 'Stardust', written by the critically acclaimed Neil Gaiman. I must say I thought this picture was rather good and it had an original feel to it. It is a great pleasure in watching something come out of the genre that it isn't completely dependent upon Jackson's work. Maybe I was intoxicated by the spirit of Christmas but stories about true love never seem to fail to charm me.

What turned out to be a massive let-down was 'Death of a President'. This phony documentary about the assassination of George W. Bush seemed to have no point to it. The form seemed more like an experiment of what one can do with cutting up archive material than anything else and the faked interviews didn't strike me as believable.