Movies: The Official "Movie of the Week" Club Thread III

[kihei]

Point Blank (1967) Directed by John Boorman

Talk about a single-minded guy. Cheated out of his share of a $93, 000 heist, wife kidnapped, and himself shot to boot, Walker (Lee Marvin) acquires steely resolve, not so much to do with getting his wife back but with getting the money he has, er, earned. The is a revenge movie with a straightforward plot and lots of dead bodies, most directly or indirectly dispatched by Walker as he works himself up the food chain of "The Organization." It's funny--another crime movie the next year with a single-minded guy on a mission, Bullitt with Steve McQueen, was a huge commercial and critical success, Point Blank initially did poorly upon its release with viewers and critics alike. Of course, one guy was on the side of the angels and one guy decidedly wasn't--he just wants his money. Plus, Point Blank is an amazingly violent movie for its time which initially turned a lot of people off, violence made all the more vivid by Walker's enthusiasm for it. He threatens a lot of people; he beats up a lot of people; he shoots a lot of people; hell, he shoots a phone. But Marvin is every bit as cool as McQueen, and maybe more intelligent, or, at least, cunning. He is a tough guy in the mold of a Humphrey Bogart tough guy--only with far more willingness to use violence to achieve his ends. Marvin, modelling some neat threads that he looks great in, is just totally fun to watch as he matches wits with some seriously over-matched people. You might ask, why doesn't the mob just give him the money and save the carnage? But I was glad they didn't as that would not make much of a movie.

Then there is Angie Dickinson as Lee's sister-in-law, the movie coming a few months after Angie's legs were insured for a million dollars. That was money well spent. Angie and Lee have about five minutes of totally bonkers cinema, as first she tries to beat Marvin up, I mean, really tries, then she tries to drive him crazy by turning all the appliances on, then she hits him with a pool cue, hard, then she knocks his feet out from under him, then, with him still dazed on the floor, she passionately kisses him. It's appalling, outrageous and funny as hell in a kind of loosey-goosey way that has fallen out of fashion. All things considered, Dickinson's performance might be the sexiest in Hollywood history. Sure makes the short list anyway. Point Blank is a movie that is more fun now than it was then. Not that doesn't necessarily mean that times have changed for the better.

 

[Jevo]

Point Blank (1967) dir. John Boorman

Walker (Lee Marvin) robs a criminal organisation together with his partner Mel Reese, intercepting the courier on Alcatraz. However Reese double crosses Walker, and shoots him after they complete the job, leaving Walker to die on Alcatraz. However Walker lives, and sets out to find Reese and recover his part of the heist. He finds Reese in LA, but Reese has used all the money from the heist to pay off his debt to a syndicate called The Organisation. Walker gets the names of some people in The Organisation from Reese, and then throws him off a balcony. Walker then starts seeking out the people from the The Organisation to make them pay him back his share of the heist money.

Point Blank is a brutal crime thriller, particularly for its time. It's a one of the first examples of New Hollywood, with its use of violence and brutality, which was previously restricted by Hays Code. The movie builds upon classic film-noir tropes, with its stoic male hero looking to uncover some sort of secret and get his revenge. But also borrows from French New Wave with its fractured and non-linear story telling. Point Blank is hardly as original now as it was when it first came out, since a lot of what it does really well, has been copied for centuries since.

Lee Marvin was made to play a tough guy, and Walker is definitely a tough guy. Some might say he often isn't doing much in this film except being in the frame. But I think one of the best things Marvin does in this film, is so often not doing anything. It fits the character, Walker doesn't say anything unnecessary, he is always calm and in control. Marvin is an imposing man and has incredible screen presence. When he just stands silent and looks at another man, you feel the danger felt by the other man. And the worst thing Marvin could do in that situation is to do too much. In my opinion Marvin here is one of the best examples of this type of character ever. I struggle to think of anyone who could have done it better.

Despite having been an influence on many crime thrillers which came after it, Point Blank is still worth watching, and feels fresh. It manages to still have its own identity. It still retains that energy from being a film made just as things very changing in Hollywood, so there was no "recipe" for making it, so there's experimentation and saying 'what the hell, lets try', by people who had a great vision for what would end up working.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

I've seen it a few times now and I LOL (as the kids say) every time he gets mad and shoots the phone.

 

[Chili]

Finished reading a biography on Lee Marvin recently (called Point Blank which I recommend). To paraphrase one quote 'He was tough on screen because he really was tough'. Ran away from home for the first time at 4 years old. Was found a couple of days later on a train headed out of town. Ex marine who saw combat duty in the South Pacific and did have to take life. He was later wounded by a sniper which ended his war. Must have had a lot of nightmares of what he saw during his service (5 pack a day smoker and heavy drinker). There's a scene near the end of 'The Big Red One' where his squad enters a concentration camp and he befriends a starving child. It's a moving scene and must have brought back memories. His favorite actor was Toshiro Mifune. Used to call him in Japan, the conversation must have sounded something like it did in 'Hell in the Pacific' (one speaking in English, the other in Japanese). Was in some great films.

 

[kihei]

Paan Singh Tomar (2012) Directed by Tigmanshu Dhulia

One could call Paan Singh Tomar a sports biopick with a very unconventional arc. The movie focuses on Paan Singh Tomar, an athlete who dominated Indian steeplechase championships for seven straight years, winning several international medals to boot. However, as the character himself bemoans, it was not his sports prowess for which he became primarily famous. At the end of his career, he had little choice but to go home and defend his land. Ostracized by a corrupt legal system and scheming relatives, he was forced to become an outlaw. He and his gang specialized in kidnapping people and soon became a power of their own in the region. Not many athletes of any kind go on to become warlords, and the movie makes clear it was not Tomar’s wish to do so. But fate dealt him the circumstance, and he felt that he was in a race that he must complete.

Irrfan Khan won his only Indian equivalent of an Academy Award for his performance in this film and he is its principal attraction. While Paan Singh Tomar rolls right along, it is not always a very polished effort. Parts of the story simply are not told very well, either leaving out important information or not connecting key events in a way that would have told the story more clearly. But Khan is not part of these problems. His Tomar begins the movie as a modest athlete who runs principally to get more food to eat and who is ready to accept authority without question. His approach to the world is almost simple-minded in its trusting nature. As a result, his gradual transformation to becoming a criminal through circumstances beyond his control is riveting. He gains his maturity and sense of command gradually but with always a residue of bitterness about the life and innocence that he had to leave behind. The movie is not without humour—there is a funny moment when one of his gang wants to tie up a hostage, and Tovar replies “What? You think he can outrun me?” But those moments are few and far between. In fact, the movie might have been too downbeat if not for Khan’s multifaceted performance—he kept me interested throughout just watching him respond to the events taking place before him, his eyes revealing the price of his disillusion. As a New York Times writer commented, it is difficult to pin down just what Khan had as an actor, but he sure had something.

Being among my very favourite actors, I took Khan’s premature death personally. It is so sad to see such a wonderful talent die so relatively young (53 years old). I always wistfully think how wonderful it would have been if he could have performed in Satyajjt Ray films, but Ray died just as Khan was coming on the scene. But they would have been ideal collaborators—a great humanist actor working with a great humanist director. I could see Khan easily in central roles in such Ray films as The Hero, Devi, Days and Nights in the Forest, Distant Thunder, The Home and the World and many more Ray films. The greatest compliment I could give Khan is that he was an actor worthy of sharing Ray’s art, a kindred spirit if there ever was one. His legacy will be enduring.

subtitles

 

[kihei]

My next pick will be 45 Years (2015), now playing on the Criterion Channel.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Paan Singh Tomar
Dhulia (2012)
“No one is a rebel by choice.”

The true story of Pann Singh Tomar (Irrfan Kahn) who was an athletic legend and then was forced into a life of rebellion.

I was more taken with the second part of the tale than the first. Early on there’s an almost Forest Gumpian quality to Tomar. He’s earnest and though not simple of mind, he’s simple of motivation. He likes to eat. While in the Army he learns that athletes get more food. So he decides to run. He’s a natural. He’s so good he’s a threat to displace other runners in events. His coach asks him to run the steeplechase instead. He does it because he’s a nice guy. Again, Gumpian. Of course he’s great at it. He finds much success.

Hoooo boy the music during the early running sequences is really something. Some of those guitar riffs would make Harold Faltermeyer cry. It’s like Top Gun but with legs instead of jets.

Once retired, our hero returns home to find an almost Western-like lawlessness. Bandits claiming land and crops that aren’t their’s. This kind athlete is turned into a rebel to survive. He wanted a war when he was young. He was denied that, but finds it as he’s older. His early optimism morphs into a more steely eyed outlook. Again, I favor the latter over the former.

I suppose there’s something to be said for the theme of society using up and spitting out athletes. This is certainly a far more dramatic example than any U.S. equivalents. Tomar was a bit of a cipher for me though. I don’t know if that’s true to the man or a product of the performance. I don’t think it’s bad by any means, but the circumstances of the story really outweighed the character to me.

The movie overall was fine, but I don’t think much beyond those guitar riffs will stick with me. An interesting enough story about a man I knew nothing of. But I wasn’t much moved positively or negatively.

 

[Jevo]

Paan Singh Thomar (2012) dir. Tigmanshu Dhulia

Paan Singh Tomar is a champion steeplechaser turned rebel. He invites a journalist to interview him, to tell the story of how he became a feared rebel. As a young man in the Army, his talent for running was noticed when he joined the sports squad, because there was unlimited food for athletes in the army. A coach turned him onto steeplechase, where he quickly found success, became the Indian national champion and even represented his country in the Asian Games, where he claims he lost out on a medal due to having to run in spikes for the first time. When his brother tells him about a relative called Bhanwar Singh is trying to claim their property, Paan Singh quits the army and moves back to his village to resolve the issue. He tries to involve the authorities, but gets no help and Bhanwar Singh gets more and more aggressive. When Bhanwar attacks Paan Singhs family and kills his mother, Paan Singh starts his own gang and begins planning revenge.

Lets start with the good. Irrfan Khan is great when the director allows him to be, even though he doesn't get much help from either the script or most of his supporting actors. The script is terribly clicheed, even by biopic standards, and even fails to make the main character particularly sympathetic or human. Every ounce of humanity in him comes entirely from Irrfan Khan. Says something about his talents that he's able to make something of Paan Singh in this film.

Blockbusters are rarely great art, and this was a big blockbuster in India when it came out. You could have hoped it was more in the Jaws variety considering its critical praise in India, but I feel it's more in the Transformers variety. Different cultures appreciate different things, but I just don't feel Paan Singh Tomar is a well made film in any way. Every emotion is hammered down with accompanying heavy handed music, but worse yet, the direction often fails to get us anywhere near this emotional cue, so the music feels entirely out of place. I'm not sure there's many surviving records of the events of the 3000 meters steeplechase at the 1958 Asian Games, but I don't think they portray the Indian participant taking his shoes off mid race, only to then run lightning speed in barefeet, only to barely miss out on a medal. I wasn't sure whether I should laugh or roll my eyes at that scene. At least there wasn't any musical numbers, it was already feeling a bit long.

 

[Jevo]

Onibaba (1964) dir. Kaneto Shindo

Set in the mid-fourteenth century, a period of civil war in Japan. Two women, a mother and her daughter-in-law live alone near a river completely surrounded large reeds. Their son and husband, Kichi, is away fighting in the war, and they have to make way themselves. Their crops have mostly failed, so they have turned to hunting, and they prey on samurai from the war, who have become lost in the reeds. Killing them, throwing them into a deep pit and taking their clothes and weaponry and selling them for food. One day their neighbour Hachi comes back from the war, he originally left together with Kichi, and he brings the sad news that Kichi has died. Not a man of much sorrow, he quickly turns his attention to the beautiful young widow. Kichi's mother doesn't like this affair and tries to discourage it, but Kichi's wife quickly succombs to Hachi's advances. One night Kichi's mother comes across a strange samurai in the reeds wearing a creepy mask. She kills him and takes the mask, and hatches and idea to pose as a demon to scare Kichi's wife from visiting Hachi during the night.

In Japanese folklore an Onibaba is an old woman who have turned into an Oni, which is an ugly ogre-like creature with horns, remniscent of the mask Kichi's wife puts on. Onibaba is a weird mixture of genres. It's part folklore inspired period drama, part horror, but probably also part Noh theatre where the mask is from, and where Kichi's mother's character is taken from. But the movie being this mixture of genres is hardly something you notice while watching it because it manages to make everything that happens seem completely natural within that world. Despite the movie itself not being very naturalistic. The environment they live in with the reed forest covering the land as far as the eyes can see, seem to me to be almost otehr worldly, not a place fit for human habitation. The way Kichi's wife runs like a frenzied hound towards her lover in the night, is not exactly a piece of naturalistic acting, and this is probably another place where the theatre inspiration comes through, as this seems more like something you'd see on the stage, rather than on the screen. I haven't thought this completely through, but you could probably make a good argument that the film should be interpreted like a stage play, rather than a film, since in terms of acting and storytelling, it has more in common with stage plays than it does most films.The premise of two women hunting stray samurai among the reeds, and dumping their bodies into a seemingly bottomless pit (a pit which despite being right next to a river, is not filled up with groundwater, how convenient) is hardly a story from the realist movement, but the movie sells it completely and I bought into it from the start. That's the great thing about film really, if you do it right, you can make people buy into anything, and Shindo has done a great job as a director here. It's clear he has a complete overarching plan for what this movie was supposed to be, and he achieves it and it shines through in every scene.

Despite the possible argument that this film is more stage play than film, the cinematography does not disappoint. It's beautiful black and white, with some Ozu inspirations as well in the scenes inside the hut. Where the camera is placed stationary low on the ground, and in some scenes Shindo also uses Ozu's trick of exagerating the distance between characters depth wise to create a greater sense of space in the little hut, but also to emphasize character relations at that moment. I particularly like the night shots out in the reeds. Again the lighting is more stage like than naturalistic with the reeds brightly lit up by a sharp light near the characters, but with complete darkness around. It's beautiful and eerie, and most important of all, perfect for the film.

Japan has 5-600 years of experience with Noh theatre and having actors wear masks, but I was still impressed with how well Nobuko Otowa was able to emote despite wearing a mask with a funny expression. She was greatly helped by cinematography and editing, since lighting and angle from where she was shot did so much to emphasize what she was doing, but it still worked wonderfully.

I hadn't watched Onibaba before now, and I didn't really know what to expect from it, and the blurp on IMDB didn't make things much clearer, but either way, I'm not sure I could have expected what it actually was. There might hardly be a film out there like it, and it is exceptional at what it tries to do. I'm glad I didn't know anything, because reading anything wouldn't be able to do justice to what it actually is.

 

[Jevo]

My next pick is A Short Film About Love.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Onibbaba
Shindo (1964)
“Show me the way out of this grass.”

A mother and her daughter-in-law live in a remote hut amid a field of reeds and grass not far from a riverbank. It’s the perfect setting for their vocation — killing and robbing wayward samurai. Partly for need, partly as a sorta revenge for the loss of their son/husband who, like the other samurai, was off to war. Their existence is thrown into flux though with the arrival of a fellow bandit who has his sights on the daughter-in-law. They begin a nightly affair behind the mother’s back. Meanwhile a masked samurai arrives. The mother tricks the man and steals his mask to use in a scheme to stop the affair. Alas the mask itself is infected/cursed and her gambit costs her more than she could have imagined.

This is a horny and utterly engrossing little horror morality tale. Like Grimm or a dark O. Henry. The setting is half the success. Shadowy and ominous. Wonderful sound design of wind blown reeds and grass. A real stinger of a musical cue. The atmosphere is thick and evocative with this one. I hadn’t seen this before but am a fan of Shindo’s equally spooky Kuroneko. Killer ending too.

The characters are simple and straightforward, but it’s effective and fitting for this dark fable. The broad, over-heated emotions play perfectly. Lots to adore here. I liked the opening sequences which effectively laid out the women’s schtick. The “hauntings” that come later in the film as the mother terrorizes the daughter-in-law are memorably eerie.

Equally at home to play in a film school course or tucked into the lineup of a horror movie marathon.

 

[nameless1]

My next pick will be 45 Years (2015), now playing on the Criterion Channel.

Great choice. I love to see what you guys think about it.

 

[kihei]

Onibaba (1964) Directed by Kaneto Shindo

I have always had a soft spot for movies that set out to do one specific thing and do it very well. The movies can be as diverse as The Virgin Spring and Gravity, but in addition to all their other attributes, they share consistency of purpose and display real craftsmanship in their pursuit of that end. Onibaba is one of those movies, basically an ancient folk tale perfectly told about an old woman and her schemes to keep her former daughter-in-law and her new lover apart. I had seen the movies years and years ago, but I remember being disappointed because my preconception going in was that it was a horror movie. Expectations can sink movies, and I wasn't very impressed at the time. Watching it again, the funny thing is that it is a horror movie, but a far more subtler one than I was expecting all those years ago. In many ways, it is a cautionary tale delivered in one neat package but with deep resonance. While Onibaba cautions against hubris, duplicity, envy, jealousy, and bitterness, it does so in an ever-moving-forward way set among a sea of tall reeds that could hardly be more evocative of the sense of becoming lost and getting in over one's head. The only quibble I have is I don't know why Hachi, our eager male suitor, has to die at the end--that seems an extraneous gesture in a movie that deliberately avoids such superfluity. However, everything else in Onibaba from the performances to the setting to the cinematography to the lighting contribute to the effectiveness of this seemingly simple tale.

subtitles

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Leviathan
Castaing-Taylor, Paraval (2012)
**squishy fish noises**

A commercial fishing trawler patrols a cool and stormy North Atlantic, hauling in its bounty. That’s about it. And it’s barely even that.

A documentary “about” a commercial fishing boat but not in the sense one might think. No talking heads. No interviews. No real context at all. We don’t learn names or backstories. There’s no narrative. No plot. It’s a feeling more than anything. Moments and impressions. Sounds ... whoa the sounds. Cranking gears, wet and wriggling fish. You can practically smell the diesel (do boats use diesel? I don't know because this DOESN'T TELL US ANYTHING).

The camera dips and in and out of the ocean. It’s disorienting at times. Wasn’t sure if we were seeing above the water or below. There’s prolonged stretches of chains moving, of fish being piled into a bin, of cooly efficient men dismembering rays, of one man snacking in a meager kitchen and gradually dozing off while watching a show about what else, but ocean fishing.

It’s a fairly trying journey — not in event mind you, because not much really happens — but rather in execution. A harsh reading would call it tedious, but I get the sense that that’s the exact point. The directors want you to feel the repetition, the tedium. They want you to see the gore and hear the noise. In that sense, it’s a rousing success.

I embarked on this wanting, hoping to learn something (I’m a sucker for the sea and such tales, I even liked reading Moby Dick in my teens). I truly didn’t know it is what it actually is. The early moments were spent thinking “Oh crap, what I have I gotten into here” and, in full disclosure, I began having regrets in the middle, but dammit it kinda lulled me into submission. Is there a documentary wing of the Slow Cinema world? This would be there I imagine and despite my intrinsic resistance to such things, this one worked on me.

Perhaps it was the sea.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Next pick: John Ford's The Searchers

 

[Jevo]

Leviathan (2012) dir. Lucien Casting-Taylor and Verena Paravel

Completely derived of exposition, context and story, Leviathan is a look into the North American fishing industry. The film takes us onto a fishing vessel from New Bedford Massachusetts, and the camera follows the crew during their trips out to sea. Whether that be action packed moments on deck as fish are hauled onto the boat, or it's quiet moments in the breakroom watching a grainy TV. Much of the movie seems to take place at night, or maybe those are just the images that have stayed with me the most. And the night gives the sea, which can already be a dangerous and scary place, another dimension with the ominous pitch black darkness surrounding the boat all alone with the elements. It's almost impossible to say exactly what the filmmakers wanted to say with this film, maybe they had nothing in particular to say. But the way it's made, every interpretation is on the viewer. To me, that darkness as the elements roar is the real leviathan, the real sea monster. We are only there because nature allows us to be, if nature wanted to, it could sink us in a matter of minutes out at sea, and there would be nothing we could do about it.

Both Casting-Taylor and Paravel are trained anthropologists, and Leviathan can easily be seen as a sort of ethnographic film. Except here we are not following an ethnic group in a faraway land, here it's a very specific profession which is being followed. It's an interesting way of looking at the film. And with the title of the film and the setting of New Bedford, it's hard not to try and draw parrallels between Leviathan and Moby Dick. Moby Dick is an allegorical narrative, which this movie doesn't have, but it also devotes a large portion of the book to tedious explanations about whaling, whaling practices, whale species and their use in whaling etc. It is also partially an ethnographic examination of the whaling industry, just like this movie is of the fishing industry. The whaling industry has mostly died out, initially because whale oil got usurped by petroleum, but also because of environmental concerns as many whale species had been hunted to near extinction. The fishing industry have faced similar pressures over the last decades, as several populations of common edible fish, are reaching lower and lower numbers. Perhaps the fishing industry is going the way of the whaling industry. It doesn't look like it right now, but neither did it look like the whaling industry would end in the 1850s when Moby Dick was published.

Leviathan is a special film, there's none other like it I think. It's beautiful in its own special way. It tells you nothing, but leaves you with a lot to think about, and no two viewers are left thinking the same.

 

[kihei]

Leviathan (2013) Directed by Lucien Castaing Taylor and Verena Parevel

Leviathan is a documentary that relies exclusively on often abstract images to show what a long night on a deep ocean fishing trawler is like. The first third of the movie is epic, no other word for it, as men toil with strange otherworldy equipment to steal from the sea its bounty. The star of this section is the sea itself which does not give up its treasures lightly. The sea is roiling, relentless, primal, potentially deadly, a force of nature so powerful, so chaotic, so mythic that it can only inspire awe. The images in this section are immersive (no pun intended for once), their very abstraction adding to their force. Technically, Leviathan is stunning. Some of the camera angles are beyond belief--on the side of the boat, or underwater, or in front of the boat, or peering into the watery abyss from god knows where. There is great beauty here, but it is not a documentary about that.

The rest of the movie is about the interlopers who try to survive the savagery of the sea by bringing to it a savagery of their own. From the fishes point of view, what we are looking at is a nightly holocaust of slaughter and debasement that is repeated over and over. I'm reading a novel at the moment, Three Day Road, about a pair of Cree snipers from Northern Ontario during the first World War. Part of their backstory deals with how back home they kill what they eat and how much they respect the animal that has been slayed to feed them. They take part in a ritual of thanks and they assure the animal's spirit that no part of its sacrifice will be wasted. What a contrast to what we see on this trawler. I am neither a vegetarian nor a tree hugger, but what I took from this movie was the sheer carnage on display and how nobody on that boat thought twice about it. Which isn't so unusual as, of course, generally I don't think twice about it either. How often do we visualize how that filet mignon or lobster tail landed on our plate. Concerning what it took to get that food to my kitchen, Leviathan demonstrates one thing utterly: there is no good way for an animal to die. The fish and sea creatures perish anonymously, in agony, gasping for breath that will not come; they die in thousands at the hands of dispassionate men for whom their work is merely hard toil. Some of the creatures die needlessly--we watch a species of obviously inedible ray get swept over the side of the boat, their carcasses literally shooed out the door--for them, just a case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Those giant nets when emptied that look like something out of an intergalactic car wash entrap everything unfortunate enough to get in their way, and there is no means of escape.

The other big takeaway for me from this movie is forget your raptors and sharks and lions and wolves, there has never been a predator on the face of the earth that can hold a candle to homo sapiens. To think that nature would not be better off without us is to engage in a particularly disingenuous form of hubris. We are death incarnate, most likely on the way to killing ourselves in the process.

Not everything in the documentary works. The final third goes on too long and is too repetitive. There is one slow-cinema shot of a seaman sitting in the mess drinking a cup of coffee and staring at the camera. This single shot is held for nearly five minutes. I had enough time to ask myself what am I supposed to make of this shot. It's a kind of a Rorschach test. Whatever feeling you have about the rest of what you have seen gets attached to your reaction to this man who is just sitting there. Is he merely a guy exhausted from his toil, or a man with limited skills lucky to find steady work, or a cigarette-chomping automaton (the cigarette becomes a symbol of disdain, thoughtlessness, stupidity in this movie), or a cold-blooded killer. Basically he is just a guy doing his job; it is the viewer who adds the coloration. I think, too, there is a strong metaphor here for rapacious capitalism. What we see is a sort of mass strip-mining of the sea with no conscious thought given to what we are actually doing. Even if it wouldn't change much, I kept thinking we should at least acknowledge what we are doing out of our own mindless self interest. But of course that is a form of hypocrisy, and of a particular liberal kind, in noticing these things without any intent of changing one's behaviour or even altering one's diet. It is impossible to wring one's hands with a straight face. Humans are needlessly cruel; a lesson relearned again and again. But just to point that out rather than doing anything about it, how upset am I really? Pass the tartar sauce.

 

[kihei]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Jesus, K, I'm not done editing.

But, thanks.

 

[kihei]

Next pick: John Ford's The Searchers

Good one--I've had this on my list, too.

 

[kihei]

45 Years (2015) Directed by Andrew Haigh

Kate (Charlotte Rampling) and Geoff (Tom Coutenay) are about to celebrate their 45th wedding anniversary with friends in lovely Norfolk, England. Kate is 70-years-old, attractive, fit, intelligent, whole. Geoff is a few years older, more fragile, rumpled, intelligent, about 97% whole. As they are planning for their celebration, Geoff gets news that the body of an old lover from half a century ago has been finally found in a glacier in Switzerland, her body perfectly preserved in ice. This occurrence brings back melancholy memories for Geoff, and he wonders briefly if he should go to Switzerland to help with the situation. The import of this news is first negligible on Kate, but the more she thinks about it, the move distraught she becomes. 45 Years quietly, expertly examines the gradual estrangement of Kate from Geoff, which Geoff can do nothing to prevent, it seems. 45 Years is a fascinating story of two elderly characters, both still feeling love for one another, but both still vulnerable to a past that is long distant and presumably toothless. In a long-term relationship such as this one, familiarity can breed contempt and complacency, but it can also breed contentment as well. For Kate, her contentment rests on a foundation that might have been a little shaky to begin with. There are hints in the movie that she does not feel fully appreciated by Geoff, though Geoff begs to differ on this score. Some underlying tensions already exist, how could they not after 45 years, and the eerie news of Geoff's first love is enough to widen the seemingly slight fissures in the relationship. This is especially true after Kate sniffs around Geoff's old diary and photos and discovers the young girl he loved was very likely pregnant when the accident occurred. She breaks the cardinal rule of commonsense partners and asks a question she should have kept to herself: if the accident hadn't happened would Geoff have married the girl? To which Geoff replies with an unguarded "yes." From this point on, Kate's world becomes to crumble. From one perspective, why does her husband's early romantic relationship, which takes place before she met or even knew Geoff, bother her so greatly; why can't she just let it pass? But her heart doesn't work that way. Even after Geoff pledges his love to her tenderly at their wedding celebration, the cloud over her happiness remains fixed, permanent, darkening. Though it defies logic, it is as if for her the relationship is as broken as Humpty Dumpty and all the king's horses and all the king's men are not going to be able to put it back together again.

This geriatric love story is just beautifully played by Tom Courtenay and Charlotte Rampling. In her youth, Rampling was a good actress but hardly in the same class as contemporaries Vanessa Redgrave, Julie Christie and Glenda Jackson. As she has matured she has become a great actress with this performance among her finest achievements, a performance that has as much to do with body language and facial expression as it does with words. Kate's decline is very gradual but it is perfectly gauged by Rampling. And Courtenay who I had not seen in decades, so long ago that I was shocked to realize how old he was (and, by extension, me ), is equally perfect as Geoff, loving but not as mindful as he might be about the growing stresses on his partner. Played with compassion by both actors, Geoff and Kete's relationships suffers from a slight but dangerous imbalance dangerous to all romantic relationships regardless of age. When love is at its peak, that love seems to be shared equally, but as the years roll by, an imbalance can start to form--one partner cares a little more than the other. Insecurities, even tiny ones, start to fester. This happens to Kate. She runs up against her own limitations and there is nothing she can do regain her balance. The slight, perhaps imagined, discrepancy in feeling overwhelms her basic good judgement. In another couple, all might have been well--the foundation rock solid still, impervious to threats from the past, real or imagined. That's just not the case with these two likeable people. The moral of the story is even for septuagenarians love can still break your heart.

Criterion Channel

 

[kihei]

My next pick is Michelangelo Antonioni's The Passenger.

 

[TD Charlie]

@kihei I loved 45 Years. It made me extremely uncomfortable with how real and raw it was, particularly to two elderly and highly vulnerable characters. I'm not sure if your review was guarded for spoilers, but I felt quite different about the characters almost the entire way. To me, the husband hid some deeply personal secrets from his wife, and while such information certainly CAN BE taken to the grave, it clearly impacted his entire life and relationship, thus making the last 45 years with his wife a lie. The whole thing is heart breaking

 

[kihei]

@kihei I loved 45 Years. It made me extremely uncomfortable with how real and raw it was, particularly to two elderly and highly vulnerable characters. I'm not sure if your review was guarded for spoilers, but I felt quite different about the characters almost the entire way. To me, the husband hid some deeply personal secrets from his wife, and while such information certainly CAN BE taken to the grave, it clearly impacted his entire life and relationship, thus making the last 45 years with his wife a lie. The whole thing is heart breaking

Yup, I can see that interpretation as a reasonable one. But it still seems a very human error, not so much deliberately concealing things from her as not wanting to complicate a situation that was over and done with. I thought Kate already had insecurities about the relationship and this new information just ultimately reinforced all her doubts. That seems very human, too. I certainly don't see her as the fall guy or anything. I don't think there is one. And I don't see their time together as a lie by any means. The past only has the power that we give it. Character depth in this movie is as deep as an ocean.

 

[TD Charlie]

Yup, I can see that interpretation as a reasonable one. But it still seems a very human error, not so much deliberately concealing things from her as not wanting to complicate a situation that was over and done with. I thought Kate already had insecurities about the relationship and this new information just ultimately reinforced all her doubts. That seems very human, too. I certainly don't see her as the fall guy or anything. I don't think there is one. And I don't see their time together as a lie by any means. The past only has the power that we give it. Character depth in this movie is as deep as an ocean.

now i wanna see it again. I was glued to the screen the first time through

 

[Jevo]

45 Years (2015) dir. Andrew Haigh

Kate (Charlotte Rampling) and Geoff (Tom Courtenay) are about to celebrate their 45th wedding anniversary when Geoff gets a letter in the mail from Switzerland. 50 years prior Geoff's then girlfriend Katya perised in an accident when she fell into a deep ravine in glacier. Now the glacier has melted so much that she has emerged from the ice. Kate knew about Katya, but Geoff might not have been entirely truthful about just how serious his relationship with Katya was. The arrival of the letter makes Geoff reminisce about Katya much to the displeasure of Kate who becomes quite jealous of Katya, and starts feeling she was the consolation prize for Geoff instead of the first price.

The last couple of years the conversation about underrepresented groups in cinema have become a lot more mainstream. One group who isn't talked about a lot in this conversation however is old people. But old people is a group you rarely see represented in leading roles in cinema, and that's basically consistent across all cultures. There are some very good examples like Amour and Tokyo Story. 45 Years is another addition to that list. Kate and Geoff are very well written characters with a lot of depth to them, and we are given a lot of insight into their emotional space, both through dialogue and through Rampling and Courtenay's performances. Although the age of the main characters makes 45 Years standout compared to similar movies with similar themes, it isn't a good movie because they are old, it is a good movie, and they happen to be old. It could just as easily have been called 5 Years without changing very much about it. But it would probably have been a movie we'd seen many times before. Beautiful young people having sex and getting jealous is quite common in film. Old people having sex and getting jealous over long lost lovers is not quite so. But 45 Years is a very good piece of filmmaking. Geoff is largely oblivious to the effect him talking about Katya has on Kate, at least in the beginning, and Charlotte Rampling is extremely good at showing the growing jealousy inside her every time Geoff mentions Katya. It's often blink and you'll miss it, and Geoff misses it. The movie is extremely good a showing these little moments that fuel Kate's jealousy, and sometimes it's something that otherwise looks quite innocuous. But that's the thing about jealousy, once you get it, you easily start looking for things to confirm your jealousy. Like when Geoff loses his erection after opening his eyes. Was it because he was picturing Katya, and seeing Kate made him lose his erection? Or was it because that's what happens sometimes, especially as you get older? We don't know, but we know what Kate suspects happened. Her feelings however are not unjustified, and Geoff doesn't handle the situation particularly well either, although we don't have the same exposure to what is going on inside his head. Tom Courtenay is very good, but Charlotte Rampling is on another level. Kate couldn't have been played better by anyone.