Monkey Business (1930)

Four stow-aways wreak havoc on an Atlantic cruiser. Hilariously funny movie though it lacks a bit towards the end which makes it perhaps one of the lesser of the Marx-brothers creations.

The Hitch-Hiker

Pressing on into the daunting mass of noir-flicks Ida Lupino's "The Hitch-Hiker" (1953) turned out to be a rather pleasant experience. It tells the story of two friends on a fishing trip that chances upon a hitch-hiker that they pick up. The audience have already been introduced to this murderous presence so it is no surprise that he takes the two hostage and takes them at gun point on a journey down Baja California for the town of Santa Rosalita.

The plot is stripped to say the least; the cast is limited almost entirely to the three and most of the dialogue consists of threats. Atmosphere and mood makes for this movie and it has an air of allegory about it. This hitch-hiker seems to be without motivation, it is never explained where he comes from or where he ultimately will go, he doesn't really seem to after money or anything else either really. It is not Cormack McCartney perhaps but certainly in that general direction.

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).