Movies: Last Movie You Watched and Rate It | Cinema at the End of the World Edition

[Spring in Fialta]

Oh, I don't think it's absurd at all. 30 directors could direct the same script and you'd have 30 completely different films - the language is visual/auditive. Just like 30 writers could write 30 different books about the same basic story - the original anecdote wouldn't matter much in the results.

I 95% agree with that. My point rests on the fact that screenplays aren't interchangeable and that what would drive one director to make that or this particular artistic move - a move that is entirely their own - are inherently affected by the words and moves written on paper, and can't be dismissed for reasons that are beyond most human understandings of what makes one tick. Context is everything and you can never ignore the original root, which ultimately always belongs to the screenwriter.

To use an easy example of a movie whose affection we both share, Last Year at Marienbad's distinct voice owes as much as to Resnais' particular technical skills as it does to Robbe-Grillet's writing, but I strongly doubt that the former makes the same movie with a screenplay that holds the same story but written by a different screenwriter.

 

[kihei]

I have no doubt as to whether they can be equal, but above, is, I think, an absurd notion.

It isn't like a novel in literature where the work is an end product. A movie script isn't rigid like a blueprint, either; it's more like a roadmap. The director chooses how the movie is going to get to wherever it is going. Of course, a scriptwriter is important, but movies are cinema first, not literature--the visual component--moving pictures--is what sets cinema apart from the other arts. Therefore the director is almost invariably the chief guiding force behind the work, its "author" in a very real sense. Scriptwriters may provide the raw material, but I think of that as pretty much the clay or pigmentations that the director transforms into art if she is lucky. It's a collaborative medium. In many films, the cinematograph (or sometimes even the editor) transcends the scriptwriter in importance, but both ultimately serve the director's vision.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

I 95% agree with that. My point rests on the fact that screenplays aren't interchangeable and that what would drive one director to make that or this particular artistic move - a move that is entirely their own - are inherently affected by the words and moves written on paper, and can't be dismissed for reasons that are beyond most human understandings of what makes one tick. Context is everything and you can never ignore the original root, which ultimately always belongs to the screenwriter.

To use an easy example of a movie whose affection we both share, Last Year at Marienbad's distinct voice owes as much as to Resnais' particular technical skills as it does to Robbe-Grillet's writing, but I strongly doubt that the former makes the same movie with a screenplay that holds the same story but written by a different screenwriter.

I don't remember what was the text, but there's a recollection of Resnais' struggle to work with Robbe-Grillet (who was a control freak) and the many ways he subverted what was handed to him to make the movie he had in mind. But yeah, that's one rare example where you clearly have two authors, and where the screenwriter is himself a filmmaker-to-be (Resnais loved to work on strong voices like that, be it Duras, Laborit or even Cayrol), but still, all these films are so very Resnais that it's exactly the type of examples I'd use to demonstrate the opposite point: Marienbad is so far away from Robbe-Grillet's voice as a filmmaker (much closer to something Raul Ruiz could have signed) that you have to acknowledge it as a Resnais work, despite the many obvious typical Robbe-Grillet ideas it contains. Same with Hiroshima, it is recognizable as a Duras text, but not as a Duras film - which is the end result.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

It isn't like a novel in literature where the work is an end product. A movie script isn't rigid like a blueprint, either; it's more like a roadmap. The director chooses how the movie is going to get to wherever it is going. Of course, a scriptwriter is important, but movies are cinema first, not literature--the visual component--moving pictures--is what sets cinema apart from the other arts. Therefore the director is almost invariably the chief guiding force behind the work, its "author" in a very real sense. Scriptwriters may provide the raw material, but I think of that as pretty much the clay or pigmentations that the director transforms into art if she is lucky. It's a collaborative medium. In many films, the cinematograph (or sometimes even the editor) transcends the scriptwriter in importance, but both ultimately serve the director's vision.

I understand this, but would one ultimately argue that cinema (in most instances) stems from a literary tradition (i.e., words on a sheet of paper)? I have absolutely no gripe with acknowledging that a director may be more talented, important, intelligent and capable than the screenwriter of a given piece. But to place him as the premier author? I can't. The sheer practicality of cinema, no matter how much power its director holds, almost defies the logic of singular authorship (keep in mind here, I'm talking of flicks where the director did not themselves write the screenplay/plot). It's kind of why I never name the director when I title my reviews.

Think of it this way: Say X's weak, primitive hand drafted the first copy of Romeo and Juliet and Ol' Billy Shakes came along and perfected it with his own voice and sensibilities as we know it today. Do I have an issue with crediting Ol' Billy as important (or even more crucial) as X? Not at all. Do I have an issue with crediting as the author above X? Goddamn right I do if the piece itself wouldn't exist but for X's hand, no matter how unfamiliar it is with from the final product. While the germ isn't king, it deserves its equal due.

 

[kihei]

Azor (Andreas Fontana, 2021)

When the business partner of a Swiss private banker goes missing in Argentina while closing a deal, Yvan De Wiel (Fabrizio Rongione), travels from Geneva to Buenos Aires to replace his partner. This is the 1980s in Argentina when disappearances of inconvenient people to the ultra elite was the norm. As Yvan hears more and more of the whispers of mass disappearances, and the corruption of the elite who serve as his clients in the country, he slowly becomes corrupted by these shadowy forces – or was he already corrupt? Azor is a very slow burn thriller that feels influenced by Conrad’s Heart of Darkness or a John le Carré novel but about Argentina’s Dirty War and the corrupt world of high finance. Beautifully shot and a solid performance by Rongione (who I knew I recognized but couldn’t place where from – later realized he was in a bunch of Dardenne brothers films), it’s hard to believe that this is Fontana’s first film as it is an incredibly composed and confident first feature. I highly recommend it.

I really liked it, mainly because of how it subverted my expectations. In fact I thought it was too slow burn until the ending, and then everything clicked together and made perfect sense. Kind of a monster movie, from one perspective, with our Swiss banker in the Harker role to the Monsignor's ( and his associates) Count Dracula.

 

[kihei]

Spring in Fiala: I think we are on a different wavelength entirely on this one.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

I don't remember what was the text, but there's a recollection of Resnais' struggle to work with Robbe-Grillet (who was a control freak) and the many ways he subverted what was handed to him to make the movie he had in mind. But yeah, that's one rare example where you clearly have two authors, and where the screenwriter is himself a filmmaker-to-be (Resnais loved to work on strong voices like that, be it Duras, Laborit or even Cayrol), but still, all these films are so very Resnais that it's exactly the type of examples I'd use to demonstrate the opposite point: Marienbad is so far away from Robbe-Grillet's voice as a filmmaker (much closer to something Raul Ruiz could have signed) that you have to acknowledge it as a Resnais work, despite the many obvious typical Robbe-Grillet ideas it contains. Same with Hiroshima, it is recognizable as a Duras text, but not as a Duras film - which is the end result.

And I have zero issue with calling the film a Resnais work (it's not like a film only has to be work of one person) but I'm not certain why Resnais would/could be considered the author of the film above the screenwriter (and in this specific example, especially when we know how relatable the film is to his books) simply because Robbe-Grillet was a different artist when he himself eventually started running his own sets, which encompasses responsibilities that go beyond authorship.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

And I have zero issue with calling the film a Resnais work (it's not like a film only has to be work of one person) but I'm not certain why Resnais would/could be considered the author of the film above the screenwriter (and in this specific example, especially when we know how relatable the film is to his books) simply because Robbe-Grillet was a different artist when he himself eventually started running his own sets, which encompasses responsibilities that go beyond authorship.

That's the point, I think. These responsibilities are what constitutes the film and the basis of its "authorship".

Going from the Shakespeare example you gave to kihei, Norman Rockwell would hire photographers to compose the pictures he had in mind, and then base his paintings on their photos - are these unknown photographers to be considered authors of his paintings? Or going back to cinema, should Romero be considered the author of Snyder's Dawn of the Dead? Should Cornell Woolrich, who wrote the short story Rear Window is based on, be considered the author of Disturbia (which ripps off the Hitchcock film)? I'm sure he wouldn't want that!

 

[discostu]

I saw Nobody, with Bob Odenkirk last night. I really enjoyed it. It takes the John Wick concept, but puts an "everyman" actor at its core. It's a shame this film got buried by its release. It really needs more eyes on it. It's released by Universal, so likely on their Peacock service, but in Canada, I've been waiting for this to show up on one of the streaming services with no luck. I picked it up from the library though, but, I think if this was on Netflix, it would garner a lot of fans.

I thought the film made some interesting choices that I really enjoyed, but, the last act became too predictable for my liking.

Spoiler

The one part I found the most interesting is that the main character is looking for the fight that sets everything off, which means it's not really a revenge tale. It's an interesting perspective as numerous people in the opening act make so many comments to him about the desire of violence. This is still just a fun action, violent action movie, but scores points for me on making a bit of a statement on the idea of violence.

Good movie. Probably in the 7 or 8 out of 10 range.

 

[Pink Mist]

I really liked it, mainly because of how it subverted my expectations. In fact I thought it was too slow burn until the ending, and then everything clicked together and made perfect sense. Kind of a monster movie, from one perspective, with our Swiss banker in the Harker role to the Monsignor's ( and his associates) Count Dracula.

I had a similar reaction where everything clicked for me at the ending. I thought the ending was pretty clever and effective at getting its message across. Great look at the banality of evil.

The plot is a little tricky and the film is deliberately oblique, and it's one of those films that I think will benefit and improve even more from a rewatch

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Get Back. I like The Beatles, respect The Beatles and would never question the importance of The Beatles. But I am not a Beatles guy. I enjoy a lot of their music but I'm not nearly as in to them as the vast majority of their fans and 9/10 times I'm probably more in the mood for the Stones. So I went into this a tad skeptical. Eight hours? Do we really need that? Is this just Beatles bloat because the demand is always so high and most folks are going to happily gobble this up with little complaint?

Gotta say I was pretty riveted and thought the sheer mass of this was ultimately important and the right call (versus the 2-3 hour movie originally intended). The repetition, the work is the thing. I know a lot of the interactions generate chatter and given how they at least somewhat reset the impressions of what happened in these sessions, I get it. But I got the most enjoyment out of watching these guys create — how some idle noodling on a guitar grows and evolves into a final product. I found the realities here to be far more insightful or entertaining than any dramatized act of "creation" that would have been concocted in a biopic version of something like this.

And the coat and boot game in this was ... chef's kiss emoji.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

That's the point, I think. These responsibilities are what constitutes the film and the basis of its "authorship".

Going from the Shakespeare example you gave to kihei, Norman Rockwell would hire photographers to compose the pictures he had in mind, and then base his paintings on their photos - are these unknown photographers to be considered authors of his paintings? Or going back to cinema, should Romero be considered the author of Snyder's Dawn of the Dead? Should Cornell Woolrich, who wrote the short story Rear Window is based on, be considered the author of Disturbia (which ripps off the Hitchcock film)? I'm sure he wouldn't want that!

I think the major difference here is that we're talking about an adaptation from a different medium in a way that a screenplay isn't (i.e., the screenplay is written for the cinema) so no, you're right, I can't say that Woolrich would be the author of a film, but I think that argument may have changed if he had adapted his own work of prose into a screenplay before Hitchcock made Rear Window. And for clarity's sake, please note that I'm not placing the screenwriter above the director. I just have a problem with placing the director above the separate screenwriter in terms of a film's authorship.

Edit: Actually, your Norman Rockwell example is making me think. I'm wholly ignorant of paintings. Do you mean to say that a photographer took a picture and Rockwell would make paintings of that exact picture? Without variation?

 

[Spring in Fialta]

It appears that The Great Pretentious Debate of 2020 has been transcended by The Great Authorship Debate of 2021.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

It appears that The Great Pretentious Debate of 2020 has been transcended by The Great Authorship Debate of 2021.

Let's do artistic intent next year!

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

I think the major difference here is that we're talking about an adaptation from a different medium in a way that a screenplay isn't (i.e., the screenplay is written for the cinema) so no, you're right, I can't say that Woolrich would be the author of a film, but I think that argument may have changed if he had adapted his own work of prose into a screenplay before Hitchcock made Rear Window. And for clarity's sake, please note that I'm not placing the screenwriter above the director. I just have a problem with placing the director above the separate screenwriter in terms of a film's authorship.

Edit: Actually, your Norman Rockwell example is making me think. I'm wholly ignorant of paintings. Do you mean to say that a photographer took a picture and Rockwell would make paintings of that exact picture? Without variation?

 

[kihei]

Procession (2021) Directed by Robert Greene 8B (documentary)

Six victims of abuse by priests of the Catholic Church join forces to help relieve the trauma that has shaped their lives for the worse since they were little boys. With the help of a drama therapist they act out scenes from their past in various ways as a means of exocising at least some of their demons. I know of no other doocumentary or movie that so vividly and sometimes painfully addresses this kind of trauma that seems to never heal with time, a trauma that becomes an inescapable part of the victims' being. The film is certainly a brave attempt by these men, now in their forties, to overcome the sexual abuse that has shaped their emotions and lives for so long. I wouldn't say that watching Procession is a comfortable experience. How could it be? But I felt viewing the documentary accomplished several important things. First, it made palpable how deep the roots of this kind of violation of trust and faith go, demonstrating why so many victims just can't simply get over it because the wounds are so deep and so distressing. Second, it was shocking to realize that these victims and many others never got their day in court because the Catholic Church lawyers invoked time after time the statute of limitations which protected the alleged perpetrators. At the same time, police departments proved exceedingly reluctant to pursue such allegations. And finally, Procession shows that attempts at healing work most effectively within a collaborative framework where victims can support one another and share terrible memories in an atmosphere of trust. Procession is a powerful work and easily among the best documentaries of the year.

Netflix


Best of '21 so far

1, The Power of the Dog, Campion, US
2. Drive My Car, Yamaguchi, Japan
3. The Cloud in Her Room, Zheng, China
4. Bergman Island, Hansen-Love, France
5. Identifying Features, Valadez, Mexico
6. Swimming Out Till the Sea Turns Blue, Jia, China (documentary)
7. Azor, Fontana, Argentina
8. Red Moon Tide, Patino, Spain
9. The Green Knight, Lowery, US
10. Procession, Greene, US (documentary)

 

[Spring in Fialta]

View attachment 488041

I mean, I don't know that I'd call them the author, but I also think they deserve uh, major credit? I'm still not sure the comparison to screenwriting truly works but it's definitely an interesting exercise. I'd have to think more about it.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

I mean, I don't know that I'd call them the author, but I also think they deserve uh, major credit? I'm still not sure the comparison to screenwriting truly works but it's definitely an interesting exercise. I'd have to think more about it.

Can't agree with you there. I would give the photographer no credit at all on the end result, which is not a photography. On a more minor note, Jason Edmiston always uses his father as a stand in model in order to understand lighting and fabric movement:

I think he takes the pictures himself, but that's of no importance - no matter who took that picture, there's no link to the painting's authorship.

Same with (on a major note) someone like Chuck Close, he also took the pictures himself, but saying the photographer behind photorealist paintings deserves credit for the absolutely amazing showcasing of talent these works are would make no sense. Take Maria Kontis, she'd often work with found photos as source material.

This is from an old picture she found of her mother. The original photographer did not snap a masterpiece of nostalgia and the fading of memory, he or she deserve no credit here!

 

[kihei]

Annette (2021) Directed by Leo Carax 8C

Without any question Annette will be the most polarizing film of the year by miles and miles. A lot of people are truly going to hate it, but it will have strong defenders. I'm not a big musical fan and after about five minutes I was all ready to throw in the towel for this movie about a complicated relationship between a comedian and an opera singer....and then Annette just got to me and didn't let go. Part of the reason I like the movie is it is a musical that I can't see ever existing on stage. Annette is pure movie magic constructed by a director with a unique visiion for whom audaciousness has been a life-long calling card. That the movie is focused on Henry McHenry, an envelope-pushing comic and a clinically destructive misanthrope, is something you don't see everday in musicals. Adam Driver is great at bringing out just enough confusiion and vulnerability in Henry to make him compulsively watchable if not likeable. The songs are mostly shapeless little wisps of melody that are more recitative than catchy but every now and then they have a deeply haunting quality. There are gorgeous, imaginative scenes galore and an overiding sense of disquiet and foreboding. Marion Cotillard is fragile and vulnerable and baby Annette is a little doll...literally. Yes, this is a deliberately outrageous approach to a movie musical, but it worked like a charm for me.

Prime Video


Best of '21 so far

1, The Power of the Dog, Campion, US
2. Drive My Car, Yamaguchi, Japan
3. The Cloud in Her Room, Zheng, China
4. Annette, Carax, France/US
5. Bergman Island, Hansen-Love, France
6. Identifying Features, Valadez, Mexico
7. Swimming Out Till the Sea Turns Blue, Jia, China (documentary)
8. Azor, Fontana, Argentina
9. Red Moon Tide, Patino, Spain
10. The Green Knight, Lowery, US

 

[Pink Mist]

Procession (2021) Directed by Robert Greene 8B (documentary)

Six victims of abuse by priests of the Catholic Church join forces to help relieve the trauma that has shaped their lives for the worse since they were little boys. With the help of a drama therapist they act out scenes from their past in various ways as a means of exocising at least some of their demons. I know of no other doocumentary or movie that so vividly and sometimes painfully addresses this kind of trauma that seems to never heal with time, a trauma that becomes an inescapable part of the victims' being. The film is certainly a brave attempt by these men, now in their forties, to overcome the sexual abuse that has shaped their emotions and lives for so long. I wouldn't say that watching Procession is a comfortable experience. How could it be? But I felt viewing the documentary accomplished several important things. First, it made palpable how deep the roots of this kind of violation of trust and faith go, demonstrating why so many victims just can't simply get over it because the wounds are so deep and so distressing. Second, it was shocking to realize that these victims and many others never got their day in court because the Catholic Church lawyers invoked time after time the statute of limitations which protected the alleged perpetrators. At the same time, police departments proved exceedingly reluctant to pursue such allegations. And finally, Procession shows that attempts at healing work most effectively within a collaborative framework where victims can support one another and share terrible memories in an atmosphere of trust. Procession is a powerful work and easily among the best documentaries of the year.

Netflix


Best of '21 so far

1, The Power of the Dog, Campion, US
2. Drive My Car, Yamaguchi, Japan
3. The Cloud in Her Room, Zheng, China
4. Bergman Island, Hansen-Love, France
5. Identifying Features, Valadez, Mexico
6. Swimming Out Till the Sea Turns Blue, Jia, China (documentary)
7. Azor, Fontana, Argentina
8. Red Moon Tide, Patino, Spain
9. The Green Knight, Lowery, US
10. Procession, Greene, US (documentary)

The description to this sounds a lot like The Act of Killing, but from the victim side rather than the perpetrators.

 

[kihei]

The description to this sounds a lot like The Act of Killing, but from the victim side rather than the perpetrators.

Very much so. I flirted with making that point in my review, and then didn't because I couldn't think of an economic way to explain it. You just did a pretty good job in one clause.

 

[kihei]

Velvet Underground (2021) Directed by Todd Haynes 8A (documentary)

The band was not a conventional rock band and Velvet Underground in a not a conventional rock documentary. Todd Haynes, not my favourite director (Carol; Far from Heaven), seemed an odd choice initially to be involved in this film and then I remembered his curious approach to Bob Dylan (I'm Not There) and the connection made more sense. For a California guy, Haynes has a very good grasp of the '60s New York avant-garde art scene and he plugs the band right into it. This is a rock doc that is all about context and focuses on each of the original members, not just the querolous Lou Reed and the classically-trained lover of musical chaos John Cale who wanted to make music that was both elegant and brutal. Indeed, Cale especially makes for a great interview. Most of the film is devoted to the early days of the band, how they came together, how they teethed on the gay bar scene, and how they eventually were championed by and fit right in with Andy Warhol. As in real life, Nico comes...and she goes. Making good use of seldom seen archival footage, Haynes finds an interesting visual style with reference to the split-screen effects that first emerged in the '60s. At the moment the only rock bio that I can think of that is better is Martin Scorsese's in-depth take on George Harrison, Living in the Material World. High praise, in other words.

Sidenote: Shareefruck, wherever you are, we need you to review this one.


Best of '21 so far

1, The Power of the Dog, Campion, US
2. Drive My Car, Yamaguchi, Japan
3. The Cloud in Her Room, Zheng, China
4. Annette, Carax, US
5. Bergman Island, Hansen-Love, France
6. Identifying Features, Valadez, Mexico
7. Swimming Out Till the Sea Turns Blue, Jia, China (documentary)
8. Azor, Fontana, Argentina
9. Velvet Underground, Haynes, US (documentary)
10. The Green Knight, Lowery, US

 

[Puck]

The Guardian's Best of 2021 is out again. The top 10 countdown is on for a short period.

The 50 best films of 2021 in the US: 50-9

There is a UK and US version. I think the Guardian's film critics argue across the pond so they make up two voters list. (the results are from 2 sets of critics, so they differ slightly)

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Velvet Underground (2021) Directed by Todd Haynes 8A (documentary)

The band was not a conventional rock band and Velvet Underground in a not a conventional rock documentary. Todd Haynes, not my favourite director (Carol; Far from Heaven), seemed an odd choice initially to be involved in this film and then I remembered his curious approach to Bob Dylan (I'm Not There) and the connection made more sense. For a California guy, Haynes has a very good grasp of the '60s New York avant-garde art scene and he plugs the band right into it. This is a rock doc that is all about context and focuses on each of the original members, not just the querolous Lou Reed and the classically-trained lover of musical chaos John Cale who wanted to make music that was both elegant and brutal. Indeed, Cale especially makes for a great interview. Most of the film is devoted to the early days of the band, how they came together, how they teethed on the gay bar scene, and how they eventually were championed by and fit right in with Andy Warhol. As in real life, Nico comes...and she goes. Making good use of seldom seen archival footage, Haynes finds an interesting visual style with reference to the split-screen effects that first emerged in the '60s. At the moment the only rock bio that I can think of that is better is Martin Scorsese's in-depth take on George Harrison, Living in the Material World. High praise, in other words.

Sidenote: Shareefruck, wherever you are, we need you to review this one.


Best of '21 so far

1, The Power of the Dog, Campion, US
2. Drive My Car, Yamaguchi, Japan
3. The Cloud in Her Room, Zheng, China
4. Annette, Carax, US
5. Bergman Island, Hansen-Love, France
6. Identifying Features, Valadez, Mexico
7. Swimming Out Till the Sea Turns Blue, Jia, China (documentary)
8. Azor, Fontana, Argentina
9. Velvet Underground, Haynes, US (documentary)
10. The Green Knight, Lowery, US

Between this, Get Back and The Sparks Brothers it's been a pretty good year for compelling rock documentaries.

Even the lower tier of rock docs I've watched this year have all been fairly solid — Bee Gees, Kenny G, DMX, Zappa, Alanis Morisette.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

Can't agree with you there. I would give the photographer no credit at all on the end result, which is not a photography. On a more minor note, Jason Edmiston always uses his father as a stand in model in order to understand lighting and fabric movement:

View attachment 488197

I think he takes the pictures himself, but that's of no importance - no matter who took that picture, there's no link to the painting's authorship.

Same with (on a major note) someone like Chuck Close, he also took the pictures himself, but saying the photographer behind photorealist paintings deserves credit for the absolutely amazing showcasing of talent these works are would make no sense. Take Maria Kontis, she'd often work with found photos as source material.

This is from an old picture she found of her mother. The original photographer did not snap a masterpiece of nostalgia and the fading of memory, he or she deserve no credit here!

I won't argue with you here, as photography and paintings are not subjects I'm comfortable enough with to take a stand on, but I do think the differences between photographs ---> paintings and a film's screenplay as well as their intended purposes to be important enough that the responsibility of authorship can't be fully compared.