Recent Screenings: 2008

I haven't done a Recent Screenings post since January 2008, which is too bad, because I've seen some excellent films this year.

Alas, few of them were actually released in 2008, so if you're looking for a Best of 2008 list, you'll have to go elsewhere. Here are some possibilities: Roger Ebert, Anthony Lane and John Waters.

Meanwhile, from films I saw for the first time in 2008, here are twenty I enjoyed the most. My Ten Favorite, in alphabetical order, followed by ten more worth watching.

Black Narcissus (1947) - There's no easy way to describe this haunting and mesmerizing film. I avoided it for several years, because the idea of Deborah Kerr playing an Anglican nun made me yawn just thinking about it. But I was very wrong. The great directing team of Michael Powell & Emeric Pressburger create a lush, fascinating world and then delve into some powerful questions. Kerr has been chosen to lead four other nuns in an effort to start a convent and infirmary high up on a mountain in the Himalayas within a strange former palace. Cultures, religions, and individual personalities come into conflict. Erotic tensions build up. The wind howls through the isolated and eerie palace. People lose their minds. British colonialism seems ridiculous and powerless in the face of spiritual and cultural forces thousands of years old. Who is observing who? What does spirituality really mean? Powell & Pressburger slowly increase the pressure until it explodes in a disturbing climax - something like beautiful horror.

Death at a Funeral (2007) - One of the funniest films I've seen in years. A classic in black comedy. Drugs, midgets, closet homosexuals, cranky old guys in wheelchairs, scatological humor, and lots of family dysfunction. All at a funeral. Viewers should know by the end of the first scene if this is going to be their cup of tea.

In Bruges (2008) - Brutal, violent, profane, politically incorrect, and darkly humorous. With surprisingly intelligent contours. Brendan Gleeson and Colin Farrell play hit men sent to the medieval city of Bruges to wait for their next assignment. Gleeson, a tired old pro, calmly takes in the beauty and history of the city. Farrell, who recently botched his first assignment, fumes and rages, a seemingly shallow young man incapable of appreciating the finer things in life. Over time, the men form an interesting bond, as Farrell slowly comes unglued by guilt. The acting is superb all around, with Farrell delivering his best performance ever. Ralph Fiennes almost steals the show, however, as their "complicated" Irish thug boss. I didn't see a lot of new films in 2008, but this may have been my favorite.

Iron Man (2008) - I'm tired of super-hero/comic book movies, but it's impossible not to enjoy Robet Downey Jr.'s performance in Iron Man. A smart, funny, well-paced film that doesn't take itself too seriously - what the Spider Man series had going for it before its abysmal third installment. This one held up well on a second viewing; I have serious reservations, however, about its inevitable sequal.

King Lear (1987) - Directed by Jean-Luc Godard. With Burgess Meredith as "Don Learo," Molly Ringwald as Cordelia, Woody Allen as Mr. Alien, Norman Mailer as "The Great Writer," and controversial theatre director Peter Sellars, who also worked on the "script," as William Shakespeare Junior the Fifth.

It would take a very long post to properly examine this film, not to mention telling the back story of its production, which is one of the most fascinating (and/or disastrous) in cinema history.

Vincent Canby at The New York Times called the movie "tired, familiar and out of date." Time Out says it's "Godard's dullest and least accomplished [movie] for some time." User Comments on IMDB are filled with hatred and rage.

Meanwhile, Kevin Thomas of The Los Angeles Times hails it as "a work of certified genius," and The National Film Archive of India places it on a list of the Greatest Films of All Time.

There are two important things to keep in mind about Godard and his King Lear project:

1) Godard lost interest in making traditional narrative films sometime in the early-to-mid 1960s. As a general rule, it's always better to approach one of his works as a cinematic poem or visual philosophical treatise rather than a "movie." Anyone who comes to this film expecting a story based on Shakespeare's King Lear will be greatly flummoxed, then furious. Kurosawa's Ran this is not.

2) Nobody seems to read or consider the sub-title of this work - King Lear: Fear and Loathing. A Study. An Approach. A Clearing. No Thing. Does that sound like you're about to enter Kenneth Branagh territory? Yet"a study, an approach, a clearing" is a fair explanation of Godard's project.

When you also take a look at the cast list and the names of some of the characters (Woody Allen as Mr. Alien?) one wonders why anyone thinks this is going to be a normal re-telling of Shakespeare's classic. Yet they do. And they get really, really angry when they encounter Jean-Luc Godard tearing apart the Bard and using him to investigate the very meaning of written and visual language.

Not an easy work, granted (though not that difficult either, if you just let it be what is.) But Godard's King Lear was the most thought-provoking and inspirational film I saw in 2008.

It's no wonder that many critics hate Godard, because he's basically challenging the very nature of narrative film, and making us think about our relationship to words and images. He's been trying since the early 1970s to create a new kind of cinema, and though he's failed in many ways, one gets the feeling that his attempts will be remembered and finally investigated more fully in the future. (The advent of YouTube, for example, seems to fall in line with ideas Godard was working on in the early 1970s.) And King Lear, in many ways, is his main treatise on the subject.

He also explores the historic relationship of the film industry to capitalism and mobsterism. Burgess Meredith is given the impossible task of playing a godfather version of Lear, and he does an amazing job. I scoffed beforehand at the idea of the Penguin playing Lear, but I was wrong.

In addition to being intellectually fascinating, King Lear is also quite funny in parts. And there are moments of stunning beauty, when Godard reminds us that he is a master at creating some of the most powerful images in cinema.

I certainly wouldn't recommend this film to everyone, but if you're willing to drop all expectations at the door and enter in, you may be pleasantly surprised.

Either that, or you're going to hate the movie, hate Godard and hate me.

Modern Times (1936) and City Lights (1931) - I don't know why it took me so long to see these two classics by Charlie Chaplin. My great loss. In Kabbalah, one is not supposed to enter the orchard until his or her fortieth year. Perhaps I had to wait about that long to fully enter into the orchard of Chaplin.

Modern Times was a great place to start. City Lights was both funny and beautiful.

So much cinema comes from these two Chaplin films.

No Country for Old Men (2007) - So much has been written about Joel and Ethan Coen's Oscar-winning film that I have little to add. Warning for the squeamish - this is a very violent film. If you can get through the disturbing opening scene, you can get through the rest of the movie. And you should, because it's a powerful film, the best work by the Coens in a long time. One piece of advice: Everything will make more sense, especially the ending, if you think of Javier Bardem's Anton Chigurh as Death.

Nosferatu: Phantom der Nacht (1979) - Werner Herzog does Dracula, with Klaus Kinski as the vampyre and Bruno Ganz and Isabelle Adjani as the young couple he haunts. Herzog creates a beautifully creepy atmosphere from the first moments of the film and never sways. Great for Halloween.

Sherlock Jr. (1924) One Week (1920) The General (1927) - Buster Keaton classics. I had actually seen The General, but it was great to re-watch it after so many years. What an amazing film. Yes, it's funny, but I had forgotten how much of an adventure it is, as Keaton winds up behind enemy lines during the American Civil War.

Sherlock Jr. is like an hour-long catalog of cinematic gags and amazing stunts that would later be used throughout film history. Delightful. One Week reminds one that the early days of film coincided with Surrealism in art, and the two were often much closer together at the time than we realize.

WALL·E (2008) - Ebert calls this "the best science-fiction movie in years." The first 45 minutes miraculously combine Chaplin and Keaton with an end-of-the world scenario out of The Omega Man. Though it's an animated film, the "camera work," editing and and directing feel reminiscent of live-action classics. It may be classified as a "family" film, but it offers up one of the best contemporary critiques of our consumer culture. And a bumbling but deeply curious trash-compacting robot reminds us what it means to be human.

Ten Other FIlms I Enjoyed.

Ballada o soldate [Ballad of a Soldier] (1959) - A simple, beautiful and powerful film from the Soviet Union.

Forever Female (1954) - William Holden, Paul Douglas and Ginger Rogers in a literary comedy about the theatre world. Alas, we never see these kinds of movies anymore.

In the Valley of Elah (2007) - Tommy Lee Jones kicked ass in 2007.

Juno (2007) - Funny and quirky enough not to slide into schmaltz.

The Limey (1999) - Intelligent Soderbergh thriller with old Brit Terence Stamp in L.A. trying to find out who killed his daughter.

Muerte de un ciclista [Death of a Cyclist] (1955) - The most famous work by Javier Bardem's uncle. Kind of a Spanish Hitchcock/Clouzot thing.

Nashville (1975) - I'm not a big Altman fan, but this was a masterpiece. Henry Gibson and Lily Tomlin - only a few years removed from TV's Laugh-In - deliver amazing performances.

Rendition (2007) - Excellent political thriller with Jake Gyllenhaal.

The River (1951) and Partie de campagne [A Day in the Country] (1936) - Two Jean Renoir classics. The River is based on a novel by Rumer Godden, who also wrote the novel Black Narcissus.

Sang d'un poète, Le [Blood of a Poet] (1930) - Cocteau's first film. A must-see.

Recent Screenings

Michael Clayton (2007) - Written and directed by Tony Gilroy. Starring George Clooney, Tom Wilkinson, Tilda Swinton and Sydney Pollack.

George Clooney's new film has received a lot of positive reviews, and I have to say, it lives up to the hype. I'm a sucker for intelligent political-legal thrillers, and Michael Clayton is one of the best I've seen in a while. Mostly because of a fine script and some excellent work by its main actors.

George Clooney plays Michael Clayton, a lawyer at a big New York law firm whose job it is to go into bad situations and fix them. The work is thankless, and it's starting to get to him. In one of the best lines of the movie, Clayton is trying to help an arrogant executive who has just hit a pedestrian with his fancy car and driven away. He's furious that Clayton's advice, for which he's paying the firm a huge amount of money, is simply to call the police and report the accident. The client was led to believe that Clayton would perform wonders. "I'm not a miracle worker," Clooney says. "I'm a janitor." The client finally realizes just how far up the creek he really is, while the audience realizes how bad Clayton feels about his job right now. In addition to his professional work, which constantly keeps him in the murkier areas of morality and ethics, Clayton has tried to start a bar with his irresponsible brother, but it failed, and now he owes some tough people a lot of money that he doesn't have. There's also been a gambling problem. And he's divorced. In the midst of this mid-life crisis, the firm's biggest crisis ever suddenly unfolds. It's premier litigator, a legend in legal circles named Arthur Edens, has stopped taking his meds and strips down naked during an inquest, proclaiming his love to a young farm girl involved in the case he's working on who he sees as being pure and innocent. Clayton is sent off to fix the situation, because the firm is trying to merge with a giant English entity.

Clayton and Edens, played by Tom Wilkinson in a terrific performance, know each other pretty well, and after a while, Clayton starts to believe that his friend's proclamations about an ugly conspiracy on the part of a giant agri-chemical corporation involved in the case may not just be the fantasies of an unmedicated bipolar mind. Strange things start to happen, people die mysteriously, and Clayton gets wrapped up in the case.

Clooney does well in a great role, one that gives him the ability to stretch out and show his various strengths as an actor and star - toughness, shrewdness, emotion, elegance. I'm not sure there's another actor right now who reminds me so much of the stars of classic Hollywood, and I wouldn't be surprised to see him nominated for Best Actor when Oscar time rolls around. At one point in the story, after a particularly rough night, Clayton shows up at the office and Sydney Pollock, playing his boss, says, "You look like shit." Yeah, right. George Clooney looking like shit in the morning, which means he's slightly rumpled and looks even sexier. Sydney's obviously never seen someone like me in the morning.

Tilda Swinton also gives a strong performance, capturing the progressive slide into becoming an unethical person, with all of its tortured emotion, and in her case, sweaty arm pits in a company bathroom freak-out. Even Pollock delivers what may be his best performance ever.

The writing holds everything together. I wasn't expecting much, knowing that director-screenwriter Tony Gilroy was responsible for . . . writing, is that really the correct word? . . . the Bourne trilogy. But I was pleasantly surprised by the high level of his screenplay, as well as by Gilroy's direction. The ending may be a little too easy, but I went with it, bacuase it stayed true to the rest of the film in a certain way. If his debut is any indication, I look forward to seeing more work from Tony Gilroy in the futrure. This is a very good film. RECOMMENDED.

Control (2007) - Directed by Anton Corbijn. Starring Sam Riley, Samantha Morton and Alexandra Maria Lara.

The first half of Anton Corbijn's debut film, Control, may belong with the best movies ever made about rock and roll. He does such a wonderful job of capturing what it's like to be an ordinary teenager in love with rock music, so much so that you want to start a band. In the beginning of the movie, Ian Curtis, a working-class kid from a dreary town outside of Manchester, walks home from school clutching some treasure wrapped in plain brown paper. It turns out to be the new David Bowie album, which at the time was Aladdin Sane. Who doesn't remember the excitement of bringing home a new LP by your favorite musician? Curtis lays in bed, smoking a cigarette and just listening. But eventually he rises from his lazy reverie and starts posturing in front of the mirror while his hero rocks out. On Curtis' desk, you see notebooks labeled Poetry and Novels, and we watch him scribbling his songs as well. Ah man, it just brought back so much of my youth.

I have to admit, I was afraid to see Control. The film is based on the true-life story of Curtis, who wound up being the singer and songwriter of the influential post-punk band Joy Division. After struggling with epilepsy, and torn up over events in his personal life, Curtis hung himself on the eve of the band's first tour of the United States, just as they were making it big. This tragic backstory, and the band's dark, emotionally powerful music made Curtis a cult hero - my generation's version of Jim Morrison - and proved an early inspiration for the Goth movement. (Sadly, and unfairly, as the band was always better than that.) But the myth surrounding Curtis is pretty powerful. Lord knows, I thought, what a movie about him will be like.

It didn't help that Corbijn was directing. Better known as one of rock's premier photographers (you've seen a lot of his photos, including U2's Joshua Tree cover), he had directed a posthumous music video of Joy Division's "Atmoshpere," which I found silly and pretentious. But positive reviews of Control by Anthony Lane in the New Yorker, A.O. Scott in The New York Times, and Roger Ebert gave me enough courage to seek it out one Friday afternoon while I was in New York. And to my very, very pleasant surprise, Corbijn has crafted a wonderfully simple and straightforward film that blows all the superfluous Joy Division myth right on its ass.

What's completely missing from the Goth aesthetic is what made Joy Division such a great band - the muscular, working-class punk background that gave them their start. And that's mostly what the movie is about. Curtis and a few mates from a gritty little town, starting up a band after seeing the Sex Pistols in concert. Meanwhile, Ian, who's just a teenager, marries his girlfriend Deborah. She's a normal girl who likes living in her little British town and wants to raise a family. The film is actually based on her autobiography, Touching from a Distance. Cobrijn shows what's it's like for young kids in this situation, practicing their music, going off to work at their jobs, and being married young. There's no glorification of the process. And, in fact, you don't need to know anything about Curtis or the band to appreciate this movie. It's much more universal than that.

Unlike most star biopics that strut their Hollywood big-budget glamour across the screen, Corbijn has gone after something completely different. Shooting on black and white film, Control feels at times like a small nouvelle vague film from the 1960s. And it works very well. Also, Corbijn infuses the film with a lot of sly humor. Mopey Joy Division fans hoping for some dark, depressing film, are not going to be happy with the results (if they can ever be happy). Actually, I've read some comments by fans who don't think the film captures the band or Curits very well. But that's not true. Corbijn knew the band. He actually left his home in Holland and moved to England because he loved their music so much - that's how he got his start, by photographing them just before Curits died. What these fans are upset about is that Corbijn has shattered a lot of the myth surrounding the band. In one of the best lines of the movie, Ian and Deborah are at a small party at the home of some neighbors, and one of the women says to Deb, "Wow, Ian's kind of famous now, isn't he?" "Not to me," Deb says, looking at him across the room. "I still have to wash his underwear."

The film also features some great scenes of the band playing their music. Curtis had an unusual, jerky dancing motion when performing live, which some say may have been related to his epilepsy, and he was a very powerful presence on stage. Sam Riley, who plays Curtis, not only looks a lot like the singer, but he does an amazing job of conveying Curtis' intensity while performing. The rest of the actors also do a fine job playing the music.

One interesting note, the film never makes mention of the fact that the three remaining members of Joy Division changed their name to New Order after Ian died and went on to tremendous success of their own. That's always amazed me, for he was such a powerful songwriter and performer. How many bands survive the loss of such a pivotal front-man? Look at those albums by The Doors after Morrison died. Not exactly the stuff of rock legend. (What, you didn't know The Doors made two albums post-Morrison? Well, there you go.) The surviving band members were involved in the production of the film, however.

Alas, the second half of the film starts to drag, as Curtis encounters the second love of his life, a woman journalist from Belgium. He's genuinely torn between Deborah and his new love. He knows that Deborah has been a good wife and loves him, but he feels restrained with her. He desperately wants out of the environment he grew up in, whereas she's content with it. Meeting an intelligent and sensitive women from the Continent only heightens his confusion. The triangle is handled well, thanks in part to the great job Samantha Morton does as Deborah. But the second half, trying to build up to the inevitable sad ending, seems to lose its energy as it turns away from the music. All in all, however, it's an impressive film, even for those who know nothing about the band. If you like rock and roll, this is definitely one to watch. RECOMMENDED.


QUICK TAKES

La Belle et la bête [Beauty and the Beast] (1946) - This magnificent film deserves an entire post, but I'm running out of energy. La Reina and I turned on Turner Movie Classics one night just as this started. We'd both seen it multiple times, so we said, "Well, let's just watch a few minutes while we eat dinner." An hour and a half later, we floated away from the TV, having been caught up once again in this most fantastic of films. There is simply nothing in cinema like the works of Jean Cocteau. He created a delirious, beautiful and poetic world that has never been equaled on film. And what was interesting this time, was to see how simply it all was constructed. The surreal images are very transparently produced - those are obviously actors behind the curtain holding candelabras - but that doesn't lessen their incredible impact. In fact, it's fascinating to try and figure out how Cocteau achieved his magic. And it is magic. Just goes to show that you don't need CGI to create a highly imaginative universe. If you've never seen this, watch it. If you haven't seen it in a while, watch it again. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED.

Shooter (2007) - What a Rambo movie would like if directed by a liberal. A Special Forces sniper, played by Mark Wahlberg, is betrayed by his government, then set-up to take the fall for an assassination attempt on the president. (Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.) What saves the movie is some decent writing, and some pretty angry but accurate political analysis. A lot of people get shot in the head by sniper fire. (No, I mean, a lot.) Michael Peña does well in a supporting role. Not bad for a video night. You'll enjoy the Bronson-like vigilantism, then spend the next day concerned that you enjoyed it so much.

The Lady Vanishes (1938) - The first of two Hitchcock films I watched recently that I had never seen before. (Well, evidently I had seen this one, because I remembered some of the scenes.) This won't go down as one of my favorite Hitchcock films, but it's very good. It seems somewhat predictable now, but that's because Hitchcock was developing so much of the vocabulary of cinema during this time. All of the plot devices he uses here you've seen dozens of times. Just keep reminding yourself that films like this one were the beginning of it all. It helps to have Michael Redgrave (yes, the father of Lynne and Vanessa) in it, as well as Dame May Whitty who plays Miss Froy, the old lady who disappears on the train.

Frenzy (1972) - After a series of commercial and critical duds in the last part of the 1960s, Alfred Hitchcock returned to England to make Frenzy, which was hailed at the time as a return to form. I don't know about that. What I see is a great filmmaker sadly trying to keep up with the times, and not really succeeding. The only R-rated effort of his career, and the only one to feature nudity (a very disturbing scene, be forewarned), Frenzy made me realize how important subtlety was when Hitchcock was slyly dealing with sexual tension/perversion, which was most of the time. There are some great moments - the man was a master of cinema - but my friends and I figured out the storyline about five minutes into the film, and, worst of all, there's just no suspense. There are some dark comic moments, including a police investigator forced to eat his wife's experimental cooking, and one brilliant cinematographic piece, a long, silent shot coming out of the apartment building where a murder is taking place. Other than that, it's a pretty sad and dreary affair.

Deja Vu (2006) - I was skeptical about this one after reading the back of the DVD - I mean, time-travel, terrorists, police investigation, romance - it sounded like a recipe for a pretty bad flick. But after considering the DVD several times and always putting it back on the shelf, my respect for Denzel Washington won out, and so I gave it a chance. Actually, I enjoyed the first 4/5 of the film. Is it just me, or is there an epidemic of bad endings going on right now? This one wasn't as bad as some others, but it went from relatively reasonable (I mean, as reasonable as time travel and terrorists can get - it made sense in its own world) to dropping the ball at the end. If you don't expect much and can deal with Tony Scott (Crystal, take note), it's not totally bad. Hey, it's got Denzel Washington.

I'll Sleep When I'm Dead (2003) - I love the title, although it had to be changed from its original: I'll Sleep When I'm Watching This Film. Director Mike Hodges and actor Clive Owen team up again after their wonderful Croupier to bring us this dark, lifeless effort. Some interesting parts here and there, but even Clive can't save this from being pretty damn dull.

Premonition (2007) - This is what happens when you're married and have to give in sometimes to your partner's wishes. If only La Reina had had a premonition about how boring this film was going to be. (Or just listened to me.) I mean, come on, has Sandra Bullock made a good film in the last ten years? It's like watching a girl you're infatuated with go out with one jerk after another. "Why's she going out with him?" "Why's she making that film?" Okay, maybe it wasn't that bad, but it's just not that good either.

Recent Screenings

"A film is a petrified fountain of thought."

Jean Cocteau

Death Takes a Holiday (1934) - Directed by Mitchell Leisen. Starring Fredric March, Evelyn Venable and Guy Standing.

Imagine Jean Cocteau being lured to Hollywood in the 1930s and directing a romantic comedy/drama in which Death is one of the lovers. Maybe Luis Buñuel collaborates a bit on the screenplay. And Giorgio de Chirico helps design the sets. But it's all very Hollywood at the same time. Well, that's the kind of the territory one enters in the unique and unusual Death Takes a Holiday. I'm not sure I've seen seen a classic Hollywood film quite like it. There's something strange about this movie, something hard to pin down. Whatever lies at the heart of its mysterious charm, I've seen it twice now, and both times I came away feeling like I had just experienced a wonderful and atmospheric little treasure.

Based on an Italian play (La Morte in vacanza) by Alberto Casella, the film features Fredric March in the impossible role of Death. Curious about human experience and angry that everyone is always so frightened of him, Death decides to take on human form for three days. He shows up at an opulent villa in Italy, where an aristocratic family and several friends are currently staying. After striking a deal with the Duke, Death takes form as Prince Sirki, "from a distant land." He spends time with the various people on hand but is particularly drawn to a beautiful young woman named Grazia. Though engaged to the Duke's son, she is equally intrigued by the Prince. As his time runs out in human form, Sirki becomes disillusioned with the endless social activities of his hosts, all of which seem futile attempts at filling up their time. He wants to experience love, but the clock is getting closer to midnight. Finally, he encounters Grazia again at a ball, and he finally understands the "dream that lifts [men] above their dust... and their little days." Grazia longs to go with him to his distant land. Will she follow where he is going?

I've mentioned before what a delicate balancing act Sunset Blvd. managed to achieve among various genres. Death Takes a Holiday accomplishes a similarly impressive feat. It's too funny to be a straight romantic drama, and too serious and morbid to be a straight comedy. The humor is often sly and dark in tone. Since Death has taken a holiday, nobody dies. A broken-hearted lover jumps off the Eiffel Tower but survives. Death/Prince Sirki feels bad about it: "I wish I could've helped him." But it's not really a black comedy, missing the essential cynicism of that genre. It's often classified as a fantasy film, but that doesn't feel quite right. It's more a philosophical Surrealist affair. I don't really know what it is, but it works.

The film pulls off its balancing act in part because of the sturdy, matter-of-fact direction of Mitchell Leisen, who today is probably only known to a few classic film buffs but was well-respected in his own time. I've seen four of his films now, and all of them have been great, and two may wind up among my 100 Favorite Films whenever I finish my new list.

But the real key to Death Takes a Holiday is the incredible performance by Fredric March. Whenever the film needs a counter-point emotion to keep it on track, he delivers the perfect mood. He's funny, menacing, suave, naive, world-wise, poetic, fierce, and romantic. Was there a better actor working in Hollywood in the 1930s and early 40s than Fredric March? I'm not sure. I don't know who else could've pulled off the role of Death with such sheer ability and panache. Just when you think it's going to ease into a simple, comic Hollywood movie, March suddenly turns dark and brooding. "What a monstrous comedy," he says of his predicament at one point, and we know he means the whole human condition. When one of the young female guests tries to land him as a royal catch, he forces her to look into his eyes. Terrified at what she sees, the young woman freaks out and tries to get away from him. He may be funny a lot of the time, as when he gets initially upset at someone referring to death as "the old man," but he's not messing around. He wants an answer to his question about human experience, and if his hosts don't comply, he has no qualms about taking all of them with him when he goes.

Perhaps it's this setting of Death among the aristocrats that makes me think of Buñuel, who used a similar device for several of his films, including the deliciously dark Exterminating Angel. Also, there is a strong Mediterranean Catholic element at work in the film. It is, perhaps, that which distinguishes Death Takes a Holiday from your typical Hollywood offering. When I realized upon second viewing that it had been based on an Italian play in the Surrealist 1920s, a lot of things came together for me. At the beginning of the movie, while the aristocrats are slumming at the local village festival, Grazia is in a dark church, praying. She's strongly romantic, almost mystical in her outlook. And while one could say her love of Sirki shows a certain obsession with death, it could also be seen as a mystical desire for unity with the unknown. But there's no doubt that the original story owes much to the frequently dark and mysterious Catholicism of Italy, Spain and France that produced Surrealists like Dali, Buñuel and Cocteau.

There are three other crucial aspects of the film that give it weight and solidity. The first is the excellent and atmospheric cinematography by Charles Lang. Though you may not recognize his name, Lang was nominated for 18 Oscars for cinematography in his long career (tied for the most ever) and shot several Billy Wilder films, including Sabrina, Some Like It Hot and Ace in the Hole. His camera work in Death Takes a Holiday shows an obvious debt to Cocteau, whose first film, Blood of a Poet, had come out a few years before. The second crucial aspect of the film, which works in perfect tandem with Lang's photography, is the Surrealist-inspired set design. Most of the action takes place at the villa, with numerous shadowy arches, statues in the garden, and black and white tiled floors that all seem lifted from Di Chirico paintings. Meanwhile, as characters stroll or waltz in this atmospheric setting, the strains of Debussy and Chopin can be heard at times, and the haunting music accentuates the lush, dream-like quality of the surroundings. Somebody on this project had a strong working knowledge of Surrealism and used it to great advantage in what could've easily been a bland Hollywood production.

Besides March, most of the acting is top-rate. Evelyn Venable has an unenviable role as the beautiful, romantically/mystically-inclined Grazia. A lesser actress could've easily gone headlong into schmaltz, but Venable invests her portrayal with just enough dignity. Henry Travers (Clarence the angel in It's a Wonderful Life) provides comic relief and a sly, world-weary outlook as the Baron. Guy Standing, as the Duke, also does well.

The film drags a bit between its interesting opening scenes and the point where Fredric March shows up. And I could've used less of the family and more of March's first two days, which are hinted at more than depicted. But if one stays with the movie, it is a special work, a rare bird from from 1930s Hollywood. Unfortunately, this wonderful film is currently only available in video or in DVD as a part of the Deluxe Edition of Meet Joe Black, a 1998 remake starring Brad Pitt (and of which I've read little that is positive.) That's really a crime, as Death Takes a Holiday is a unique and wonderful American classic and should not only be presented on its own but should be restored to the best condition possible. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED.


Zodiac (2007) - Directed by David Fincher. Starring Jake Gyllenhaal, Mark Ruffalo, Robert Downey Jr.

From 1969 through the early 1970s, a serial killer who called himself Zodiac terrorized San Francisco and surrounding counties. The police were never able to arrest anyone, despite Zodiac sending cryptic letters to them, as well as to the various San Francisco newspapers. David Fincher, who directed Fight Club and Se7en, presents us with a combination feature - part serial killer movie and part police procedural-journalistic investigation. The script is based on a book by one of the people involved in the case - an unlikely source: an editorial cartoonist for the San Francisco Chronicle who became obsessed with the case and worked on it even after the paper and the police had given up on it. Fincher's film is, in fact, ultimately about obsession, both on the part of Zodiac, who couldn't stop himself from killing; and on the part of Detective Toschi, who led the case for the SFPD; the cartoonist, Robert Graysmith; and the Chronicle's crime reporter, Paul Avery. Though we see Zodiac's murders, most of the narrative follows the three men pursuing him. We watch what happens to them, their careers and their families as they become more and more obsessed with the case.

The acting in the film is quite good all around. Jake Gyllenhaal plays Graysmith, the cartoonist, who was literally an Eagle Scout, and never seems to quite fit in at the newspaper. He loves puzzles, keeps to himself, doesn't drink or smoke. But as he becomes obsessed with the case, he spends more and more time lurking around Avery's desk, "looming," as Avery says. "Remember, we talked about the looming." Graysmith is a nerd. Paul Avery, played by Robert Downey Jr., is a cool hedonist. It's the late 1960s-early 70s, and he enjoys the recreational drinking and drugs available. In the end, that's how he handles (or doesn't handle) his obsession. Meanwhile, Detective Toschi, portrayed well by Mark Ruffalo, struggles to keep his home life together, as well as his hard-fought-for position in the police force.

There are couple of disturbing scenes of violence (this is the director of Se7en, after all), but most of the film follows the somewhat pedestrian aspects of the various investigations. Fincher's direction is good at the beginning, but the film starts to drag after a while. I like what the story is trying to do, following out these obsessions, but strictly as an investigative film, I found it lacking in some respects. Elements are introduced and then disappear. Clues that seem like they might be important are never brought up again. Part of this is due to the very nature of obsession, trying to follow out some mystery to the bitter end. There are many, many dead ends along the way. I respect Fincher's willingness to show us that. But there are also plot holes. I hate plot holes in otherwise intelligent films. And the obsessive people in this film wouldn't stand for plot holes. They spent years and years pouring over holes in the case.

Zodiac is a creepy, fascinating film, and has a lot going for it. Fincher has a good eye for disturbingly absurd aspects of life. The first victims, a young couple, are listening to Donovan when they're shot multiple times in a violent, bloody scene. But the song is "Hurdy Gurdy Man," which, as Fincher has keenly recognized, has its darker aspects. There is, by the way, a great soundtrack in this film. Go for the ride, don't ask too many questions, and it's a dark, interesting journey. RECOMMENDED.


The Battle of Algiers [La Battaglia di Algeri] (1966) - Written and directed by Gillo Pontecorvo. Starring Yacef Saadi, Jean Martin and Brahim Hadjadj.

Anyone interested in what's happening in Iraq right now should see this film. Hell, even if you don't have any interest in Iraq, you should still see it - it's a landmark motion picture, the father of the modern political thriller. Though it's over 40 years old now, Battle of Algiers seems like it could've been made this year. And, in fact, it was being shown at the Pentagon at some point recently. For one thing, it makes you realize once and for all that the United States of America is involved in a colonialist occupation of an Arabic country. You can talk all you want about "The War on Terror" and all of our noble-sounding ideals about bringing democracy - sorry, free-market democracy - to the Middle East, but once you see how close our situation is to that of the French in Algeria, you can't fool yourself anymore. All you can do is act like Col. Mathieu in the film, the scarily efficient and no-shit Frenchman in charge of combating the Algerian "terrorists." Our version is General Petraeus - sort of. We still want to convince ourselves that our occupation is a "good" one. Mathieu doesn't really bother with the political or philosophical debate. His stance is basically: If you believe the occupation is good, then we have to torture the Algerians. I found his manner refreshing in some ways. How terrifying.

For some reason, I thought Battle of Algiers was a documentary film, and so I avoided it for a long time. But it's not. It's shot in a documentary style and was based on a book by one of the Algerian resistance leaders, Yacef Saadi, who also stars in the film. But it's still a fictional account. The important difference in this fact, is that the movie plays out dramatically as a suspense film. I have to be in the right mood for a political documentary. But give me a suspense film, and I'm there. I don't know what that means. My first instinct is that it's not a good thing, that I'm not serious enough about important things. But then I realize, deep down, it's probably healthier. I believe more in the "truths" of fiction, perhaps, than I do non-fiction. Political documentaries can too often have a smug, self-righteous tone when it comes to doling out the "truth." (See Michael Moore.)

Instead, The Battle of Algiers gives you history, politics and philosophy in an entertaining suspense film, with a powerful human component. That doesn't make it any less penetrating or effective. Or contemporary. A young Algerian woman leaves a bomb in her handbag in a French bar, killing numerous people. Later, one of the intellectual leaders of the Algerian resistance, who has been captured, is brought before the French press. A reporter asks him if it isn't cowardly to plant bombs in baskets and handbags. He replies, "And doesn't it seem to you even more cowardly to drop napalm bombs on defenseless villages, so that there are a thousand times more innocent victims? Of course, if we had your airplanes it would be a lot easier for us. Give us your bombers, and you can have our baskets."

This is an intellectually potent and challenging film, as well as entertaining. Most of the story follows a young, uneducated Algerian who slowly transforms into one of the leaders of the resistance. It's also an emotionally compelling film, sending shivers down the spine at times. After most of the Algerian figures in the film have been hunted down by Mathieu's forces and killed, there is suddenly a large-scale and spontaneous resurgence of ordinary Algerians who take to the streets in protest. It's a dramatic conclusion, and also a important lesson: When it seems that you've cut off the heads of the underground movement, the serpent can rise up again, even more powerfully than before. This is why military solutions to situations like this are ultimately useless if they're not part of an overall diplomatic and political solution. Ask the Spanish how many times their government has "cut off the heads" of the Basque terrorist group ETA.

In addition to the feature film, the DVD contains not one but two extra discs loaded with interviews, documentaries, essays, etc. The Battle of Algiers was an important film in terms of style and impact, and it's interesting to hear some contemporary directors talking about its influence on them. It's also interesting to see the interview with Yacef Saadi many years later. Don't miss this great, great film. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED.


Galaxy Quest (1999) - Directed by Dean Parisot. Starring Tim Allen, Alan Rickman, Sigourney Weaver, Tony Shalhoub, Sam Rockwell.

For anybody who's ever spent to much time watching (and reading about) Star Trek, this is a hilarious and delightful comedy that manages to skewer the Trekkie phenomenon, but with the kind of care and attention that can only come from great love of the subject matter. Whoever came up with the idea for this film deserves extra bonus points - it's so simple and brilliant. The cast of an old sci-fi TV show called Galaxy Quest is now reduced to signing autographs at conventions and cutting ribbons at the opening of a new megastore. ("By Grabthar's hammer . . . what a savings.") Meanwhile, real space aliens (The Thermians) who are on the verge of being destroyed by their enemies have intercepted old transmissions of the show and believe that their only hope for survival rests on the great Captain Taggart ("Never give up. Never surrender.") and his trusty crew. Naive and desperately hopeful, the Thermians don't seem to realize that their hero, Captain Taggart, is really just a washed up, self-centered actor named Jason Nesmith, who's been reduced to drinking himself to sleep, or that the rest of the crew doesn't really like each other all that much at this point. Still, the actors wind up in space and are forced into the kind of adventure that they played at all those years. They just don't seem to have learned much from their previous experiences. ("Didn't you guys ever WATCH the show?!")

Besides the great premise, Galaxy Quest can also be held up as an example of perfect casting. I was never a Tim Allen fan, but he's very good as the egotistical but charming Jason Nesmith. It's hard to imagine a better portrayal of a William Shatner/Captain Kirk-like figure. Alan Rickman hits every note right as a former Shakespearian actor ("I played Richard III . . . There were five curtain calls.") who hates himself for winding up on TV and hates Nesmith for hogging all the limelight. Sigourney Weaver, as a buxom blond (!), plays off her own fame as the smart, tough Ripley in the Alien films, delivering a hilarious performance. And Tony Shalhoub and Sam Rockwell add their own delightful and wonderful touches to round out the cast.

I don't know how I missed this when it came out. I was in Spain, I guess. Thanks to Liam for recommending it. It's loaded with hilarious lines and perfectly captures both the inanity of shows like Star Trek ("Does it help to roll on the ground?") as well as the adventure and great storytelling. An instant favorite. RECOMMENDED.


The Killers (1946) - Directed by Robert Siodmak. Starring Burt Lancaster, Ava Gardner and Edmond O'Brien.

Lancaster and Gardner both became stars after this excellent film noir based on Ernest Hemingway's short story of the same name. In Hemingway's tale, recurring character Nick Adams finds himself in a diner taken over by two gunmen who are waiting for an ex-boxer named "The Swede" to come in for dinner. After a tension-filled time of waiting, the gunmen realize the Swede's not showing up, so they go out to look for him. Nick knows where the Swede lives and goes to warn him about the two killers. To Nick's surprise, the tough ex-boxer doesn't seem to care, as he just lies on his bed in the dark room, waiting for the inevitable. In just a few sentences, Hemingway has gone from gangster thriller to powerful existential drama about facing death.

I've always loved the story, but I wondered how anyone could turn such a perfect little tale into a full-length film. Well, producer Mark Hellinger brought in his co-author from an earlier crime drama they had done together, the classic Bogart film High Sierra. John Huston. By this time, Huston had already begun directing his own films, including the great Maltese Falcon. The only problem was that Huston had joined the army during World War II to make propaganda films and was still in uniform. He was also under contract to a different studio. So Huston's friend and sometime collaborator, Tony Veiller, served as a front, taking Hellinger's money and giving half to Huston. Then Veiller and Huston locked themselves up in a New York hotel room (and in several New York bars) and put together a great script. The question in their minds was: What would cause a tough boxer to wind up in a sad boarding house, surrendering to his certain death?

Well, a woman, of course. So Huston and Veiller constructed a series of flashbacks that show how the Swede got into such a position, waiting for his killers. They left in Nick Adams, but only in the first part of the film. Instead, they wrote in the character of an insurance investigator, played by Edmond O'Brien, who becomes intrigued by the case of this boxer, his gangland connections, and the woman who could lead him into such existential despair. For director, Hellinger got Robert Siodmak, one of the German emigrees who came to Hollywood during Hitler's reign. Siodmak had already directed a series of dark, psychologically interesting thrillers that featured innovative cinematography that was partly influenced by German expressionism, including Phantom Lady and The Spiral Staircase. These were some of the films the French began to discuss in terms of a genre called film noir. Hellinger wanted that same edge for his film, which was his first major project as an independent producer. In fact, he wanted to raise the stakes in terms of a harder, more realistic psychological crime film.

For the role of the boxer, Hellinger hired an unknown acrobat who had never been in a movie: Burt Lancaster. His muscular, brooding performance has been called the strongest of his career by some critics. But who would Hellinger get for the woman? He needed someone who could make a man "steal, go to prison, die for her," as one film writer put it. After a long, unsuccessful search, a fellow producer happened to see a sleeper of a film that featured a young actress named Ava Gardner. The producer worked next door to Hellinger and knew he had been looking for the right femme fatale. The next morning, he called Hellinger and said, "You better go see this girl." That night, Hellinger went to see the movie. He called Ava first thing in the morning and had her come in for an interview. Later, Hellinger said that Gardner got the role the moment she walked into his office. "It was sex-two-and-even." Would a man steal, go to prison or die for Ava? Well, she got to Frank Sinatra bad enough that he wound up slitting his wrists. Yeah, she works as a femme fatale.

Siodmak's taut direction, the excellent screenplay by Huston and Veiller, the solid acting from unknowns Lancaster and Gardner, and Elwood Bredell's fantastic black and white cinematography make The Killers a great example of film noir. RECOMMENDED.


Other films recently screened:

Foreign Correspondent (1940) 8/10 - Hitchcock directs Joel McCrea and Herbert Marshall in this tale of an American journalist investigating German secrets agents in London on the eve of World War II. Very good but not great Hitchcock.

Texas, Brooklyn and Heaven (1948) 6/10 - I've been waiting to see this film for several years. Last Christmas, I was even given an original 1948 movie poster for it, a great, great present from my in-laws. How could it possibly live up to such a title, I thought? Well, it wasn't too bad in the end, saved mostly by a somewhat surreal series of scenes that take place in "Gaboolian's Riding Academy" in Prospect Park, Brooklyn. It's a warehouse full of mechanical animals and exotic make-beleive sets - a kind of precursor to Disney, but much more humble. Believe it or not, Gaboolian, the old Russian owner of the "Academy," was played by Michael Chekhov, nephew of the famous writer, Anton Chekhov. His only role of consequence in the U.S. was that of Dr. Bruloy in Hitchcock's Spellbound, for which he received an Oscar nomination. But he was a famous actor in Russia and studied under Stanislavski. He wound up as a drama teacher in New York, and his pupils included Gary Cooper, Gregory Peck, Ingrid Bergman, Marylin Monroe, Yul Brenner and other stars. The story of Texas, Brooklyn and Heaven is admittedly slight, but how could I not like a film about Texans hanging out in Prospect Park? There are some interesting shots at the beginning of the film that show Dallas in 1948, but Brooklyn, sadly, is mostly relegated to a studio version in Hollywood. There are several good secondary actors, including Margaret Hamilton (The Wicked Witch), Irene Ryan, (Granny from The Beverly Hillbillies), Lionel Stander (Max from Hart to Hart), and William Frawley. Unfortunately, the print of the film was atrocious, as if someone had videotaped the movie while it was on television and then transferred the tape to DVD. Too bad. Eventually, everyone will realize what an important film this is, and I'm sure it will be restored with great care. (Cough.)

Sahara (2005) 8/10 - I don't know why this got such a bad rap when it came out. As long as you don't take it seriously, it's a very funny, fast-paced action-thriller, involving a Confederate ironclad that may or may not have ended up in the African desert, a deadly plague spreading rapidly through a West African country in the midst of a civil war, treasure hunters, a beautiful scientist from the WHO, and a corporate bad guy who's French. It's become one of my favorite action-comedies from the last few years. Matthew McConaughey and Penelope Cruz were the big names, but Steve Zahn steals the show.

The Painted Veil (1934) 6/10 - Gretta Garbo and Herbert Marshall star in this 1934 adaptation of W. Somerset Maugham's novel of the same name. Garbo was truly an amazing screen presence and shows why in her portrayal as the restless Katrin. Herbert Marshall also excels as her wounded husband, Dr. Fane. Unfortunately, despite several good scenes, the screenplay never fully develops. La Reina, who also saw last year's remake, says the narrative in that version was fleshed out much better.

Gangs of New York (2002) 4/10 - I've spent the last five years doing extensive research on New York City in the 1860s, and people kept telling me I had to see this film. Well, no, as it turns out, I didn't. I could have easily spent the rest of my life without watching this overblown yet surprisingly dull, tedious, and historically inaccurate film. Scorsese took himself way too seriously on this one. A lot of people ragged on Cameron Diaz's acting, which I mostly found unmemorable, but what about the great Daniel Day Lewis' almost cartoonish portrayal of Bill, the Butcher? The violence at the beginning of the film verges on psychopathic and makes me wonder if Scorsese knows how to advance the emotional trajectory of his films without spilling (literally) buckets of blood. If I hadn't seen his Age of Innocence, I'd really wonder. His use of the 1863 Draft Riots (one of the most fascinating events in our country's history) as a backdrop for the climatic showdown is not only riddled with factual flaws but seems tacked on, careless, and intellectually suspect in its depiction. Bad history. Mediocre movie-making.