Random Film Thoughts: As we start a new...

[Aaron Leggo]

I too adore Jonze’s Where the Wild Things Are. It’s a fantastic, strange, mournful look at childhood loneliness and the imagination that fills in the cracks. The music is wonderful and Max Records is a revelation. His performance is easily one of my favourite kid performances of all time. I really think he nailed that character in a way that is almost overwhelmingly powerful. The decision to go with actors in costumes with some puppetry involved to bring the titular Wild Things to life is a wonderful way to go and probably helped Records’ performance as well, giving him something tangible to act with. I know there were rumours of lots of problems with the costumes and Jonze’s decision to go that route, but it all paid off beautifully in the end.

Most of all, I think Jonze’s decision to go with a rougher aesthetic works wonders. Shooting in actual locations as opposed to soundstages with exaggerated sets that could mirror the look of Sendak’s illustrations is a brave and brilliant choice. Sendak’s drawings are gorgeous and haunting and could also work well in a movie, but the route that Jonze takes ends up elevating the material for me. I feel like he made a very adult movie about childhood, but not in a way that will alienate kids so much as respect them and not pander to them, two things that get at the very heart of Sendak’s approach to children’s lit. Jonze’s movie feels like an adult looking back on childhood, but in a way that can still access the reckless imagination and zaniness of a child’s mind.

Shooting at the real locations grounds Max’s adventure so that the danger and adventure still feels consequential and perilously challenging as a result. By avoiding some of the more fantastical visual flourishes that could have been afforded by a set-based approach, Jonze taps into something more primal about Max’s loneliness and fears. He gives it all weight, the kind of melancholic ache that a child can feel and an adult can articulate.

By taking these artistic liberties in the adaptation, I think Jonze ends up crafting the definitive companion piece for Sendak’s book.

[erikdean]

Count me in for huge, huge love for WtWTA.

[crazyfists3600]

Count me in for huge, huge love for WtWTA.

[McTeague]

Most of all, I think Jonze’s decision to go with a rougher aesthetic works wonders. Shooting in actual locations as opposed to soundstages with exaggerated sets that could mirror the look of Sendak’s illustrations is a brave and brilliant choice. Sendak’s drawings are gorgeous and haunting and could also work well in a movie, but the route that Jonze takes ends up elevating the material for me. I feel like he made a very adult movie about childhood, but not in a way that will alienate kids so much as respect them and not pander to them, two things that get at the very heart of Sendak’s approach to children’s lit. Jonze’s movie feels like an adult looking back on childhood, but in a way that can still access the reckless imagination and zaniness of a child’s mind.

Because adults don't have imagination and can only think of realist scapes and not crazy dreamscapes? I can't buy that argument. I don't think a dreamier look would have made it any less adult.

[crazyfists3600]

Because adults don't have imagination and can only think of realist scapes and not crazy dreamscapes? I can't buy that argument. I don't think a dreamier look would have made it any less adult.

That's because you OBVIOUSLY don't get anything.

[crazyfists3600]

So, all this talk of Where the Wild Things Are started drawing comparisons to this years Beasts of the Southern Wild in my head and so I rewatched Zeitlin's film last night and I must say, it really is, for me, a remarkable look at childhood in very much the same vein as Jonze's masterpiece. UGH, I really liked BotSW when I first saw it, but I absolutely love the hell out of it now.

[Aaron Leggo]

Because adults don't have imagination and can only think of realist scapes and not crazy dreamscapes? I can't buy that argument. I don't think a dreamier look would have made it any less adult.

I’m not arguing that adults are incapable of imaginative dreamlike thought, but rather that by grounding the land of the Wild Things in real-world locations, Jonze manages to comment on childhood with an adult set of fears. There’s something hardened about the locations that I feel would be softened by fantastical sets and I like how that suggests a loss of innocence that while not necessarily complete, still remains a very real threat, if not an inevitability.

The paragraph just after the one you quoted in my original post gets more at what I think works so well with the location shooting. I love the primal qualities of Jonze’s approach.

Also, other than the obvious extension of the plot (that took only a handful of sentences to unfold in the book), the biggest change from book to movie is that in the book, Max’s room transforms into the forest and his adventure goes from there, while in the movie, Max actually runs away and clearly travels to a different location. In the book, it’s suggested that Max never actually left his room (though this is up for interpretation, I guess), while movie Max embarks on a more treacherous journey by actually running off by himself in the night. I think it’s an interesting decision that helps communicate Max’s fear and anger and then sets the stage for what is to come. I would argue that this decision on Jonze’s part, while a deviation from Sendak’s approach, genuinely complements the book by lending Max’s adventure a new shade of darkness.

[Timmer]

I loved Where the Wild Things Are. the amount of heart in that film is just stunning.

[Timmer]

I'm not really a fan of melodrama normally, but I quite enjoyed Magnificent Obsession with Irene Dunne. Everything about the film was so restrained and almost cautious, and yet the gravity of the character's plight was always front and center. This is a nice instance of directing restraint married to a cast who understands their place within it; Dunne underplays the blindness angle and is fine in the role, but it was Robert Taylor who impressed me the most. I don't think I've seen much of his filmography, if anything else frankly, but as his character matured and aged, I felt like the actor's performance got better and better. I completely bought into his transformation into a brilliant Doctor.

[Broad]

Persepolis

****.5/*****

Having read the graphic novel I thought I'd finally see this film, and I'm so glad I did. Beautifully animated in a monochromatic palette with simple lines this film is so rich in emotion, honesty and an endearing nature. From the moments the opening credits start rolling with gorgeous images it really sets the scene of a nice and simple time which we see deteriorate around Marjane throughout the film.I really admire the film in the way like the book it easily winds the growing up of a girl with the problems facing the entire populace of the country. This was a real treat to watch, and I don't know if I was meant to but the Eye of the Tiger sings was hilarious. Also despite it's simplicity it really is quite informative on how harsh the regime was and still is I assume.

[lazarus]

I just projected Orson Welles' The Trial tonight for friends. Most of the DVDs floating around are horrible quality because of the film's public domain status, but I bought a nice anamorphic transfer when I was in Berlin last year (a blu-ray has since come out on Studio Canal).

First off, the image looked fantastic. I don't think I've ever seen it in the theatre before, so this was the largest format viewing I've had to date. And of course with Welles' frames, it's essential that his work is seen on the biggest screen possible. I was surprised that the DVD was this good, but also I'm really impressed at the cinematography by Edmond Richard, who also did Chimes At Midnight and a few of Buñuel's late masterpieces.

Not only does the architecture of the old Gare d'Orsay provide some staggering imagery, but the art direction itself is so well-done, particularly in the office of The Advocate, with all the old books piled everywhere.

What was really fun this time around was to pick out all the voices of the supporting players that Welles had dubbed over (particularly the effeminate painter Tintorelli near the end). I counted at least six but read somewhere he did up to twelve. The main actors all appear to have done their own voice work (all in post-production, as was typical for international productions like this): Romy Schneider, Jeanne Moreau, Akim Tamiroff, and of course Anthony Perkins, who is just fantastic. He starts off so nervous and awkward that it almost begins to grate, but over the course of the story he becomes more confident, more defiant, more cocky. I love the way he handles Welles, Schneider, and Tamiroff during his second visit to the Advocate's office; he has a great scene where he's curled up on a windowsill with the latter and they're just giggling with each other as he subtlely grills Tamiroff for information. Perkins himself apparently said that working with Welles was the biggest honor of his career. High praise considering Psycho but there's no doubt in my mind that this is the greater artistic achievement.

Beyond the script itself, which is delicious at times and such a brilliant satire of the modern world, oppressive bureaucracy, and sexual panic (an extra layer of irony here due to Perkins' closeted homosexuality), the film is shockingly ahead of its time in a visual and editing sense. Imagine the New Wave directors seeing this film and realizing that the old master Welles was already doing what they were supposedly innovating. In addition to the baroque compositions, and Welles' typical use of wide-angle lenses and low-angle shots, there's also a healthy amount of hand-held camerawork (which we saw as early as the Grandi murder scene in Touch of Evil), and it's used to great effect here. And the scene of Perkins being chased by all the young girls...one wonders if Lester saw this before A Hard Day's Night. The following scene in Tintorelli's studio, with all the rapid cuts to the children's eyes peeping between the slats. It's disorienting and magical at the same time.

There's so many other scenes one could go into detail on, but those who know the film are aware of its riches, and those who haven't seen it should discover the rest on their own.

[McTeague]

I'm not really a fan of melodrama normally, but I quite enjoyed Magnificent Obsession with Irene Dunne. Everything about the film was so restrained and almost cautious, and yet the gravity of the character's plight was always front and center. This is a nice instance of directing restraint married to a cast who understands their place within it; Dunne underplays the blindness angle and is fine in the role, but it was Robert Taylor who impressed me the most. I don't think I've seen much of his filmography, if anything else frankly, but as his character matured and aged, I felt like the actor's performance got better and better. I completely bought into his transformation into a brilliant Doctor.

You have to see more Stahl! It's true that his restraint makes his melodramas become honest examinations on human nature. And it's also funny how Sirk instead made them work again -albeit in a self-aware, ironic way- through the polar opposite approach, ha!

[VannVicente]

First movie I watched in the theater for this year was, weirdly, Les Miserables. It was admirable, but Hooper's directing almost killed it for me. My eyes were bleeding from all the extreme close ups. I loved seeing the sets, when the camera actually showed them. But you don't get to see the beautiful sets in the background about 75% of the time. Personally, I thought that Hathaway's performance was fantastic. Barks and Redmayne are both second; Barks' rendition of Own My Own was delivered strongly, while Redmayne's scenes post-revolution were great. Crowe was as bad as everyone said he would be. His voice was atrocious, and coming from someone who read the book, the way he portrayed it conveyed none of the intense internal moral struggles going on within Javert. He looks like he was trying too hard to keep barely in tone ALL the time. Overall, I give it a 6.5/10.

First really good movie I watched this year was The Piano Teacher, as part of a way to catch up on Haneke's filmography. That was an excellent film, but kind of horrifying for, you know, a teenager. Then I watched Cache, which was even better than The Piano Teacher. It was intelligent, compelling, and disturbing.

[Aurelius]

I wish I could travel back in time and retroactively punch Pete Doherty in the face for Confessions Of A Child Of The Century (I was standing right next to him in Cannes, just before the premiere). There quite a bit to like about the film (the production design and cinematography in particular), but that 'performance' ruins all.

[lazarus]

It's never the marginally-talented assholes who die of drug overdoses, sadly.

[Souler]

I wish I could travel back in time and retroactively punch Pete Doherty in the face for Confessions Of A Child Of The Century (I was standing right next to him in Cannes, just before the premiere). There quite a bit to like about the film (the production design and cinematography in particular), but that 'performance' ruins all.

How'd he smell?

[RRA]

I just projected Orson Welles' The Trial tonight for friends. Most of the DVDs floating around are horrible quality because of the film's public domain status, but I bought a nice anamorphic transfer when I was in Berlin last year (a blu-ray has since come out on Studio Canal). There's so many other scenes one could go into detail on, but those who know the film are aware of its riches, and those who haven't seen it should discover the rest on their own.

Splendid review, and yes THE TRIAL is a great little unheralded gem unfortunately.

I just cry at the number of lost classics Welles didn't get to finish or make or whatever because of money trouble or his personality or bullshit studio politics.

But at least we also got CHIMES AT MIDNIGHT.

[Stéphane]

Vanilla Sky

This was pretty good.

Cameron Diaz!!!

[crazyfists3600]

Vanilla Sky

This was pretty good.

Cameron Diaz!!!

That movie was embarassing, but Diaz was sensational and is my runner-up for Sup. Actress in 2001

[haqyunus]

The Third Generation by Rainer Werner Fassbinder is a fully-realized and oh so lively film and has his trademark features of cynicism, irreverence and pathetic but sympathetic humor. The exciting, roving shot high up from a skyscraper, from which the movie starts, it sets you up for an intriguing experience. It is a very strong satire, a very dark black comedy (maybe a bit too bitter for some) on middle-class, wannabe revolutionaries (or rather so-called bourgeois terrorists) and the capitalist oppressors and how they enable each other. It was quite relevant and (no doubt) controversial at the time of it release in its native West Germany.

It is clever; it is funny and pretty exciting in its style and execution. Even if the bawdy inter-titles don’t make total sense with the narrative they are biting and sting and do represent the state of the country at that time. The way scenes and characters are shot through doorways, stairs and moving camera, it adds up to the goofy self-seriousness of the characters. This is done in a way that it seems that the camera is also making fun of the delusional characters. In spite of all that, Fassbinder is not blind to the section of the society which is innocent (and perhaps authentic?) and are actually being hurt (e.g. Hanz) and I think the great thing is that overall it maintains a certain level of suspense. You want to stick the group and know what is going to happen.

The ensemble is made of Fassbinder regulars and they are totally up for the game as the performances are tongue and cheek sort of self-aware in the sense that of the ridiculous-ness of the situation.
The ending is the culmination of the point that RWF was trying to make and totally rips apart the target of his critique by setting it during the carnival. Can they be even more foolish? Can they be even more bizarre and out of touch from reality? It also sort of brings the one of the major point (the relationship between capitalism and its reactionaries) of the movie full circle with the kidnapped 'villain' reciting and shown through a television: the medium used through-out the movie as the tool and source of all this self-created hysteria.

It is fascinating and makes one appreciate it more given that on how small budget it was made (which was kind of true for most of Fassbinder's movies anyway.) A lot of cast members double-dutied and half of them didn't even speak German (e.g. the constant and ubiquitous TV voice-over were video-taped by RWF himself from actual news and performing the DP duties as well.)