Movies: The Official "Movie of the Week" Club Thread III
- Thread starter TP
- Start date
- Status
Cria Cuervos (1976) Directed by Carlos Saura
I don't know why the title wasn't translated into English in NA because it is a rare good one. "Cria Cuevros" means "raise ravens," and it refers to a Spanish saying "Raise ravens and they will pluck out your eyes." The story is supposed to be an allegory related to the era of Franco and Fascism in Spain, but if I hadn't read that somewhere I would never have figured that out. The movie focuses on Anna, an eight -year-old girl with homicidal impulses who thinks, quite placidly, that she has murdered her philandering father whom she blames for her mother's illness and subsequent death. She carefully washes the murder weapon, a glass of milk that had been spiked with poison--or so she thinks. When, near the end of the movie, she tries to eliminate her aunt in similar fashion, the same trick doesn't work. Unbeknownst to her, she has not been putting poison in any drink, just baking powder. What sounds like the makings of a horror film on "the bad seed" model is simply a study of childhood and how children see things from a different perspective than adults do, often a clearer, less compromised perspective. The main thing that the film accomplished for me was to demonstrate just how great a film The Spirit of the Beehive was. Anna Torrent, a remarkable child actress, plays the six-year old in Victor Erice's film and the eight-year-old in Carlos Saura's work. It is interesting to note that Saura was once Erice's film mentor, and he almost seems like he is competing with his student here. Anyway Erice gets the better performance from Torrent because in The Spirit of the Beehive he taps into her internal feelings in a way that is remarkable in a movie that is both about a child struggling to understand the world of her father and an allegory concerning Franco's Spain. After all, in the movie it is a Frankenstein/Franco figure that she has to contend with and resolve in her own child's mind. Saura's work is more literal--we just observe this child who is too young to know of the gravity of her acts. Her homicidal tendencies are not psychotic--there really wasn't a horror movie here--they are simply a child's attempt to control a confusing world. While that is a worthy theme, I found the movie dull and rather boring in comparison with the perfectly judged Erice work. Saura gets decent line readings from Torrent, but he really is only interested in her stillness and the deep pools of ambiguous feeling that she can communicate with those dark eyes. Saura is on the outside looking in; Erice got on the inside looking out.
subtitles
Last edited:
KallioWeHardlyKnewYe
Hey! We won!
- May 30, 2003
- 15,845
- 3,956
Peeping Tom
Powell (1960)
“Come on sonny, make us famous.”
Mark is a special boy. A shy boy. A loner. Sound familiar? He is focused on his two jobs — by day he’s a member of a film crew, while on the side he shoots pornographic pictures. Oh, and he’s a murder. He likes to film women. To scare them while they’re being filmed. And then he stabs them to death, fittingly with a kinfe concealed within the leg of his camera. He meets a nice girl, but can she save the monster or will his compulsion not just to kill, but also to watch doom him ...
The movie that ended the up-until-then revered Michael Powell’s career. Censored and slammed only to later gain new life and prominence rediscovered by critics and the movies brats (Scorsese, most vocally though also DePalma, most obviously). Rich with arm chair psychiatry and visual verve you can see why many a self-respecting film nerd would be taken by this. Myself included.
Carl Boehm is cool and creepy as Mark. We know he’s the killer from the jump so it’s hard to see any good or innocence in him. Helen allows him to show bits of humanity, especially as he confesses his troubled childhood where his own disturbed father terrorized him in a series of experiments in fear. This monster may have been made, but it doesn’t quite make him sympathetic.
The centerpiece is a prolonged sequence where he films the actress Vivian on the set (Movie title: The Walls are Closing In, har har). It’s a masterclass in the famed Hitchcock (we’ll get to him in a second) adage about surprise vs. suspense. We know Mark’s a killer, a cat playing with a mouse but the mouse doesn’t know he’s a cat. He arranges the scene, directs her as she happily stretches and preps and he films right up until her horrific end. Her body later resurfaces in another great use of drawn tension. I can’t believe Powell would do this to Moira Shearer!
On it’s own merits Peeping Tom is precise and chilly chiller. But of course, we’d be remiss to not talk about Psycho as well. Released just two months after Peeping Tom, well, we all know it got a completely different immediate reception and acceptance. What an odd bit of prince and the pauper timing. Two innocents profoundly damaged by a parent. Both voyeurs to boot. Two prominent actresses murdered in a showpiece segment mid-movie(ish). Two broad psychological explanations/discussions. It’s funny that it’s Hitchcock’s that relies more on shock.
As sacrilege as it may be to say, Peeping Tom is a more visually alive movie than Psycho. The POV shots, the playing with focus, the use of different film stock. A lot of this has since been ripped off since. As much as I like Halloween, it gets credit for many things Peeping Tom and Black Christmas, in particular, already did.
Powell puts us in Mark’s head consistently. Makes us complicit one could rightly argue. I can see how that is unsettling. Hitchcock’s interest in such things only came in the closing moments. Both effective in their ways, but I have to say Peeping Tom is a more lingering mental experience whereas Psycho is dark, twisted fun. No need to pick a winner between the two, but an interesting and unavoidable compare and contrast.
Powell (1960)
“Come on sonny, make us famous.”
Mark is a special boy. A shy boy. A loner. Sound familiar? He is focused on his two jobs — by day he’s a member of a film crew, while on the side he shoots pornographic pictures. Oh, and he’s a murder. He likes to film women. To scare them while they’re being filmed. And then he stabs them to death, fittingly with a kinfe concealed within the leg of his camera. He meets a nice girl, but can she save the monster or will his compulsion not just to kill, but also to watch doom him ...
The movie that ended the up-until-then revered Michael Powell’s career. Censored and slammed only to later gain new life and prominence rediscovered by critics and the movies brats (Scorsese, most vocally though also DePalma, most obviously). Rich with arm chair psychiatry and visual verve you can see why many a self-respecting film nerd would be taken by this. Myself included.
Carl Boehm is cool and creepy as Mark. We know he’s the killer from the jump so it’s hard to see any good or innocence in him. Helen allows him to show bits of humanity, especially as he confesses his troubled childhood where his own disturbed father terrorized him in a series of experiments in fear. This monster may have been made, but it doesn’t quite make him sympathetic.
The centerpiece is a prolonged sequence where he films the actress Vivian on the set (Movie title: The Walls are Closing In, har har). It’s a masterclass in the famed Hitchcock (we’ll get to him in a second) adage about surprise vs. suspense. We know Mark’s a killer, a cat playing with a mouse but the mouse doesn’t know he’s a cat. He arranges the scene, directs her as she happily stretches and preps and he films right up until her horrific end. Her body later resurfaces in another great use of drawn tension. I can’t believe Powell would do this to Moira Shearer!
On it’s own merits Peeping Tom is precise and chilly chiller. But of course, we’d be remiss to not talk about Psycho as well. Released just two months after Peeping Tom, well, we all know it got a completely different immediate reception and acceptance. What an odd bit of prince and the pauper timing. Two innocents profoundly damaged by a parent. Both voyeurs to boot. Two prominent actresses murdered in a showpiece segment mid-movie(ish). Two broad psychological explanations/discussions. It’s funny that it’s Hitchcock’s that relies more on shock.
As sacrilege as it may be to say, Peeping Tom is a more visually alive movie than Psycho. The POV shots, the playing with focus, the use of different film stock. A lot of this has since been ripped off since. As much as I like Halloween, it gets credit for many things Peeping Tom and Black Christmas, in particular, already did.
Powell puts us in Mark’s head consistently. Makes us complicit one could rightly argue. I can see how that is unsettling. Hitchcock’s interest in such things only came in the closing moments. Both effective in their ways, but I have to say Peeping Tom is a more lingering mental experience whereas Psycho is dark, twisted fun. No need to pick a winner between the two, but an interesting and unavoidable compare and contrast.
Pranzo Oltranzista
Registered User
- Oct 18, 2017
- 4,034
- 2,949
Peeping Tom - Powell (1960) - What's very unique about this film is the way it looks today like it made everything obvious. It screams from start to finish that it should be analyzed, it points to the tools that should be used to do so with fanfare, and still everybody missed it at the time. Though it's an absolutely brilliant film (in my Best horror films of the 60s poll, I noted: "Almost voted for Peeping Tom, a personal favorite."), and I'm sure everybody here had a thought for me while (re)watching it, I've watched it again yesterday and felt it didn't aged all that well. It's still a great film and a very important one, if only for the influence it had on most of the postmodern directors that followed with reflexive and self-reflexive films.
Of course, I enjoy these elements from the film, and put in relationship with the voyeurism of the character, and the character as spectator, they open the door for a really effective critic of media (the character saying "Oh, it's only a camera" and the other answering "Only?!" makes it obvious that the recording of reality is presented as dangerous beyond the allegorical rape performed with the device itself). The importance of the mirror is fascinating too, the victims are terrified by a deformed reflection of themselves, as the spectator should be terrified by Mark, clearly presented as the spectator's own reflection in the diegesis. In a very clever way, it's ultimately our gaze that's presented as dangerous.
There's also a lot to say about authorship in the film. Mark is a film director, he works for a film director (pulling focus, welcoming another analytical fanfare with the psychoanalyst noting that it's what he does too), and the father is a film director (with another clever twist: by casting himself as that director - the creator/maker of Mark as a psychopath - Powell brings forth his own authorship and the creation of the very movie we're watching (in which we're watching ourselves as spectator watching another movie directed by Powell as character)).
There is so much material in there, so many ideas that were recycled throughout the 80s and 90s, and by some of my favorite directors, that this film should rightfully be considered as visionary and essential. Still, it feels today like there's an important lack in it - and maybe that's really the angle psychoanalysis should come in.
I know there's no ratings in here, but this is a 9/10 film for me.
(edit: one thing that's lacking for sure is Peeping Tom's presence in Zizek's Pervert Guide To Cinema... this was meant to be and the fact it didn't happen is very frustrating)
Of course, I enjoy these elements from the film, and put in relationship with the voyeurism of the character, and the character as spectator, they open the door for a really effective critic of media (the character saying "Oh, it's only a camera" and the other answering "Only?!" makes it obvious that the recording of reality is presented as dangerous beyond the allegorical rape performed with the device itself). The importance of the mirror is fascinating too, the victims are terrified by a deformed reflection of themselves, as the spectator should be terrified by Mark, clearly presented as the spectator's own reflection in the diegesis. In a very clever way, it's ultimately our gaze that's presented as dangerous.
There's also a lot to say about authorship in the film. Mark is a film director, he works for a film director (pulling focus, welcoming another analytical fanfare with the psychoanalyst noting that it's what he does too), and the father is a film director (with another clever twist: by casting himself as that director - the creator/maker of Mark as a psychopath - Powell brings forth his own authorship and the creation of the very movie we're watching (in which we're watching ourselves as spectator watching another movie directed by Powell as character)).
There is so much material in there, so many ideas that were recycled throughout the 80s and 90s, and by some of my favorite directors, that this film should rightfully be considered as visionary and essential. Still, it feels today like there's an important lack in it - and maybe that's really the angle psychoanalysis should come in.
I know there's no ratings in here, but this is a 9/10 film for me.
(edit: one thing that's lacking for sure is Peeping Tom's presence in Zizek's Pervert Guide To Cinema... this was meant to be and the fact it didn't happen is very frustrating)
Last edited:
Pranzo Oltranzista
Registered User
- Oct 18, 2017
- 4,034
- 2,949
Main reason I wrote in here was to put back in line a pick of mine that was toss aside before for not being available. So I'd like you guys to watch and comment Windows On Monday, now that I know how to send it to you. 
Peeping Tom (1962) Directed by Michael Powell
A naive young woman falls for a potential serial killer who lives in her apartment building. She finds redeeming qualities in him. He really doesn't want to kill her, but, jeez, what's a guy to do? Peeping Tom has now reached the point where its reputation is best sustained if you don't actually watch the movie. Not that it isn't an influential film and an entertaining one--it scores high on both counts. It provided a loose template for a certain kind of horror film and introduced the notion of the serial killer to the screen--well, there was Jack the Ripper but for the longest time he appeared to be a one-off madman. Peeping Tom is well edited and acted, but no longer all that scary, the pioneering film having been bettered numerous times since its inception. However, there are two things I found really intriguing about Peeping Tom, the first being how gloriously middle-class British it is. There is a fish and chips, kippers and bits, bangers and mash sort of ambiance throughout the film as though the entire mise en scene was fried in bacon grease and smothered with Marmite. The clothes, the attitudes, the faces, the accents, the slightly embarrassed caviling toward salacious pictures, all contribute to a slightly seedy but otherwise superficially normal portrait of British life. During the '40's and '50s, Michael Powell and his frequent collaborator Emeric Pressburger were noted for their elaborate fantasies that spoke directly to the values of their middle-of-the-road British audience. On his own here, Powell comes up with an subject that is not so comfortable and homey as the ones he focused on in the past--Peeping Tom created significant controversy at the time. But the fact that the movie is so thoroughly British might have actually increased the shock value for its initial audience. The expected and familiar was mixed with something to fear, something a stiff-upper lip might not see you through.
The second aspect of the film that stands out for me is how Powell uses Peeping Tom to make us all feel like voyeurs. Often this is done very directly as the audience is frequently placed in the position of looking through the lens of a camera that is filming the action. But more broadly, Powell seems to suggest that part of the appeal of cinema is prurient, a voyeur-like fascination with spying on people, people who can have no comprehension that they are being watched. Thus, movies become just another form of those naughty girly pictures that people look at surreptitiously under the counter or under the cover of privacy. One isn't expecting an insight like that in a horror film, certainly not a Micheal Powell film, either. But the war is long over, and things aren't returning to the way they used to be. Powell never was interested in peeking behind the curtain before, but now he seems to be. And what he finds is maybe something that was there all along.
Criteriion Channel
Last edited:
KallioWeHardlyKnewYe
Hey! We won!
- May 30, 2003
- 15,845
- 3,956
Forgot my pick. Apologies that my mind is still on the election but I hearby put forth The Candidate, a Michael Ritchie-Robert Redford jam.
Jevo
Registered User
- Oct 3, 2010
- 3,509
- 413
Peeping Tom (1960) dir. Michael Powell
A man uses a hidden camera under his coat to film a prostitute who's services he pretends to want. They walk back to her flat, and once inside the man murders her all in view of the camera in his coat. Later that same man, Mark Lewis, watches the footage back in his private film showing room. This is not the first time he's done something like this. The next morning he films the police working at the apartment of the murdered prostitute. Mark is a reclusive aspiring filmmaker and photographer of pornographic pin-ups. He lives in the house owned by his father, and he rents out several apartments in it to pay his bills. Downstairs lives the young Helen with her blind mother. Mark is intrigued by the young woman, and she is intrigued by the strange man living upstairs. Helen engages Mark on the eve of her 21st birthday, inviting him to join the festivities. Mark refuses, but Helen manages to get him to invite her into his apartment. The two become friendly, probably the first time Mark has been friendly with a woman, and Mark reveals how his father abused him by doing psychological experiments on him as a child, with the aim of creating fear. While the relationship between Mark and Helen develops, Mark continues work on his "documentary" with women.
Peeping Tom to me is the Hitchcock film I couldn't see Hitchcock making. I think the inspiration is Powell took from Hitchcock is quite evident in Peeping Tom. Films like Rear Window and Vertigo seem like clear inspirations for the film, particularly in how it is filmed. It feels like a Hitchcock, and then not quite. It seems even hard to believe that Peeping Tom even predates Psycho by a few months. Because there's a peculiar list of similarities between them. The murderer with weird parent complex, the chair bound mother, Mark Lewis and Norman Bates even seem to have the same type of manerisms. Peeping Tom is Psycho, but with more posh accents, but there's something about it that feels off, at least in terms of being a Hitchcock film, which of course it isn't. I think it's the sexuality of it, the sexuality and the deviance is much more aggressive and pronounced than in any Hitchcock film I can remember. Now that's not bad in itself, and it's great that Michael Powell is also putting his own mark on the film despite obviously taking a lot of inspiration of Hitchcock. And I don't even think this is the reason why, but to me Peeping Tom feels very cold. I have a really hard time finding something in the film to connect with. Mark Lewis is hardly sympathetic. If a serial killer shouldn't be sympathetic, he should at least be interesting, but I don't find him very interesting either. Hans Beckert from M is sympathetic, Norman Bates is interesting, and those films as a whole work a lot better for me than Peeping Tom. Watching the movie I feel more like an idle voyeur watching Mark kill, rather than someone interested in what's happening. Now the movie is trying to say something about voyeurism of the film audience, but that's hardly an excuse for make an unengaging film.
I could say a lot of good things about Peeping Tom, I like the cinematography, I like the way it uses sound. Michael Powell obviously had a vision for he wanted to do, and as far as I can see he suceeded very well in doing that. But when the film doesn't engage you, it just feels like it isn't the sum of its parts, so those things become much less interesting to talk about.
A man uses a hidden camera under his coat to film a prostitute who's services he pretends to want. They walk back to her flat, and once inside the man murders her all in view of the camera in his coat. Later that same man, Mark Lewis, watches the footage back in his private film showing room. This is not the first time he's done something like this. The next morning he films the police working at the apartment of the murdered prostitute. Mark is a reclusive aspiring filmmaker and photographer of pornographic pin-ups. He lives in the house owned by his father, and he rents out several apartments in it to pay his bills. Downstairs lives the young Helen with her blind mother. Mark is intrigued by the young woman, and she is intrigued by the strange man living upstairs. Helen engages Mark on the eve of her 21st birthday, inviting him to join the festivities. Mark refuses, but Helen manages to get him to invite her into his apartment. The two become friendly, probably the first time Mark has been friendly with a woman, and Mark reveals how his father abused him by doing psychological experiments on him as a child, with the aim of creating fear. While the relationship between Mark and Helen develops, Mark continues work on his "documentary" with women.
Peeping Tom to me is the Hitchcock film I couldn't see Hitchcock making. I think the inspiration is Powell took from Hitchcock is quite evident in Peeping Tom. Films like Rear Window and Vertigo seem like clear inspirations for the film, particularly in how it is filmed. It feels like a Hitchcock, and then not quite. It seems even hard to believe that Peeping Tom even predates Psycho by a few months. Because there's a peculiar list of similarities between them. The murderer with weird parent complex, the chair bound mother, Mark Lewis and Norman Bates even seem to have the same type of manerisms. Peeping Tom is Psycho, but with more posh accents, but there's something about it that feels off, at least in terms of being a Hitchcock film, which of course it isn't. I think it's the sexuality of it, the sexuality and the deviance is much more aggressive and pronounced than in any Hitchcock film I can remember. Now that's not bad in itself, and it's great that Michael Powell is also putting his own mark on the film despite obviously taking a lot of inspiration of Hitchcock. And I don't even think this is the reason why, but to me Peeping Tom feels very cold. I have a really hard time finding something in the film to connect with. Mark Lewis is hardly sympathetic. If a serial killer shouldn't be sympathetic, he should at least be interesting, but I don't find him very interesting either. Hans Beckert from M is sympathetic, Norman Bates is interesting, and those films as a whole work a lot better for me than Peeping Tom. Watching the movie I feel more like an idle voyeur watching Mark kill, rather than someone interested in what's happening. Now the movie is trying to say something about voyeurism of the film audience, but that's hardly an excuse for make an unengaging film.
I could say a lot of good things about Peeping Tom, I like the cinematography, I like the way it uses sound. Michael Powell obviously had a vision for he wanted to do, and as far as I can see he suceeded very well in doing that. But when the film doesn't engage you, it just feels like it isn't the sum of its parts, so those things become much less interesting to talk about.
Black Orpheus (1959) Directed by Marcel Camus
Black Orpheus is an adaptation of a Brazilian play that combines the myth of Orpheus and Eurydice with a Carnival setting in Rio de Janeiro. Orpheus and Eurdice were two star-crossed lovers. In the myth, Orpheus, a musician and poet, is about to marry the love of his life, Eurydice, when she is stung by a viper and dies. Stricken with grief, Orpheus descends Into the “underworld” intent on finding his love and bringing her back to life. The movie takes clever liberties with this tale—there is no viper, but a Carnival figure of death—but refashions the myth in a very pleasing manner. The setting, costumes and the music are everything in this movie. Rio may possess the most photogenic setting of any city in the world, and director Marcel Camus makes full use of its beauty. As well, the movie takes place during Carnival in Rio so there is a constant explosion of dance, rhythm and music that along with spectacular costumes fills the screen with vibrant colour and near constant movement, virtually from start to finish. While the actors need to do nothing more than look beautiful and dance well, it must be said that Marpessa Dawn as Eurydice, the young country girl who comes to the city during Carnival only to immediately fall in love with Orpheus, has a transcendent beauty that makes her a perfect choice for the role. (edit: turns out she was born in Pittsburgh)
There is so much music and dance in this film that one could almost call it a musical. Camus plunks the audience down smack dab in the middle of the festivities to the extent that several times I caught myself tapping my feet to the rhythms in the movie while I was watching the tragedy unfold. In fact, even tragedy can’t dampen one’s feeling too long in this work. The movie is as well known for its music as it is for its drama. While most of the movie consists of drum-heavy samba, the life’s blood of Brazilian culture, Black Orpheus introduced an emerging genre of music, bossa nova. Beautifully melodic, harmonically delicate songs by Antonio Carlos Jobim and Luis Bonfa play a significant role in the movie, providing moments of loveliness amidst the raucous celebration. While Joao Gilberto created bossa nova, it was Jobim who perfected it. Most of his songs in this movie have become timeworn staples of Brazilian music and have been covered by jazz and pop musicians around the globe. The movie did a great deal to take this fledgling genre and introduce it to an audience that soon would make it world renowned.
There really is no other movie like Black Orpheus. Just filming it during Carnival must have been an incredible challenge. The end result now seems timeless. A little bit of me wonders about the European perspective here on Brazilian culture—the movie’s exoticism can’t be denied. I wonder whether a French film that focused on Black Americans celebrating Mardi Gras in similar fashion might not have drawn the ire of some critics. That being said, I’ve never read a Brazilian commentator who was offended by Black Orpheus. Rather the movie seems to be seen in Brazil much the same way it is seen elsewhere, as an extraordinary watershed work that celebrates Brazilian culture and music.
subtitles
Criterion Channel
Last edited:
Pranzo Oltranzista
Registered User
- Oct 18, 2017
- 4,034
- 2,949
You skipped mine!
Main reason I wrote in here was to put back in line a pick of mine that was toss aside before for not being available. So I'd like you guys to watch and comment Windows On Monday, now that I know how to send it to you.
Zut alors! A thousand pardons. I'll put it in the queue ahead of The Last Wave. If you were a surfer you'd thank me.....for being ahead of the last wave.
Pranzo Oltranzista
Registered User
- Oct 18, 2017
- 4,034
- 2,949
KallioWeHardlyKnewYe
Hey! We won!
- May 30, 2003
- 15,845
- 3,956
Black Orpheus
Camus (1959)
“Death is cheap here.”
The Orpheus tale: Boy meets girl. Girl dies. Boy goes to hell to save her. Boy can’t follow basic instructions. Girl is doomed for eternity. Boy dies horribly.
Camus’ retelling actually takes a bit of time to get to the meat of the story (roughly the last third). The first two-thirds are a couple of necessary meet-cutes between the fated Orfeo and Eurydice interspersed with almost travelogue-like stretches of street scenes and music. Characters in this story know the Greek myth (though Orfeo and Eurydice do not seem to be aware of it in an added bit of meta-tragedy).
It’s a clever transposing of the tale. The Brazilian Carinvale season is the backdrop for this particular telling and as much as I hate this cliche that setting is almost a character itself. Colorful and chaotic. Exuberant and menacing. A hopeful surface masking despair down in the depths. But there was another dichotomy too — effective and also almost annoying.
It’s a good and effective setting no doubt. But at times I felt like I was watching a slice-of-life documentary by Camus and I found that a little tedious. I respect the moments showcasing cultural and musical moments, but I’d be lying if I said I also didn’t admit I was getting mildly irritated by those side steps. Yeah, yeah I know Orfeo is a musician. (Even weirder for me these are atmosphere-adding touches that I’ve absolutely enjoyed in other movies but for whatever reason here, I struggled. Maybe I was just grumpy).
I only grumble because I much preferred the more dramatic elements. Death stalking Eurydice. The descent, that rather ingenious use of a government building with its cavernous hallways and a massive, curling spiral staircase as the stand-in for hell. The tension in the eerie moment when Orfeo hears his love’s voice and inevitably wants to look ... Orfeo’s own frantic death. And finally, the kid’s dancing at the end. (Did David Byrne steal his moves from this movie? Seriously, watch one of the kids in that last scene again and imagine him in a big suit).
Oh and one more thing — the truly stunning Lourdes de Oliveira as the spurned Mira seems to have double the teeth of a normal human person when she smiles. Another duality: Alluring and a bit scary.
Camus (1959)
“Death is cheap here.”
The Orpheus tale: Boy meets girl. Girl dies. Boy goes to hell to save her. Boy can’t follow basic instructions. Girl is doomed for eternity. Boy dies horribly.
Camus’ retelling actually takes a bit of time to get to the meat of the story (roughly the last third). The first two-thirds are a couple of necessary meet-cutes between the fated Orfeo and Eurydice interspersed with almost travelogue-like stretches of street scenes and music. Characters in this story know the Greek myth (though Orfeo and Eurydice do not seem to be aware of it in an added bit of meta-tragedy).
It’s a clever transposing of the tale. The Brazilian Carinvale season is the backdrop for this particular telling and as much as I hate this cliche that setting is almost a character itself. Colorful and chaotic. Exuberant and menacing. A hopeful surface masking despair down in the depths. But there was another dichotomy too — effective and also almost annoying.
It’s a good and effective setting no doubt. But at times I felt like I was watching a slice-of-life documentary by Camus and I found that a little tedious. I respect the moments showcasing cultural and musical moments, but I’d be lying if I said I also didn’t admit I was getting mildly irritated by those side steps. Yeah, yeah I know Orfeo is a musician. (Even weirder for me these are atmosphere-adding touches that I’ve absolutely enjoyed in other movies but for whatever reason here, I struggled. Maybe I was just grumpy).
I only grumble because I much preferred the more dramatic elements. Death stalking Eurydice. The descent, that rather ingenious use of a government building with its cavernous hallways and a massive, curling spiral staircase as the stand-in for hell. The tension in the eerie moment when Orfeo hears his love’s voice and inevitably wants to look ... Orfeo’s own frantic death. And finally, the kid’s dancing at the end. (Did David Byrne steal his moves from this movie? Seriously, watch one of the kids in that last scene again and imagine him in a big suit).
Oh and one more thing — the truly stunning Lourdes de Oliveira as the spurned Mira seems to have double the teeth of a normal human person when she smiles. Another duality: Alluring and a bit scary.
Jevo
Registered User
- Oct 3, 2010
- 3,509
- 413
Black Orpheus (1959) dir. Marcel Camus
The classic greek Orpheus and Eurydice myth set in Rio during the carnival. Orfeo is a tram conductor, heartthrop, singer and star dancer in his dance schools carnival performance. Mira is Orfeo's girlfriend, and takes him to the courthouse to get a marriage license just before the carnival so they can become engaged. Although Orfeo goes along with her, he's less than enthusiastic about the prospect of settling down with Mira. Eurydice is new to Rio, and rides Orfeo's tram to the end of the line, where station manager gives her directions to her cousin Serafina's house. Eurydice is fleeing her home town because of a strange man who she thinks wants to kill her. Serafina happens to be Orfeo's neighbour. Unsurprisingly since this is an adaptation of the Orpheus and Eurydice myth, Orfeo and Eurydice start a romance in the middle of the carnival.
Black Orpheus has absolutely fantastic energy. There's samba rythms, dancing and happy people abound in this film, at least at the start before things start to get more dark as Eurydice dies and Orfeo has to go to hell and bring her back. The cinematography fits the energy of the film very well, very saturated colours, lots of bright costumes to go with it as well. So much of the film just oozes fun and happyness. And while the movie has this energy during the happy times of dancing and flirting, it changes completely as Eurydice is chased by both Death and Mira, and as Orfeo descents into hell to bring back Eurydice. The samba rhythms disappear, the saturated colours are replaced by dark and grey colours instead, dancing and happyness are forgotten past times. It seems like a big tonal change, which it is, but it works flawlessly, and didn't seem contrived at all to me.
Black Orpheus is hardly social realism, and Camus' portrayal of life in the Favela probably couldn't be farther from the truth. It's as mythical as the story he's adapting. And you can criticise the movie for being a sort of white european exotic fantasy about life in Rio, and many probably have. For me, I don't have a problem seeing the whole film as a sort of mythology, and I can also look past he sometimes stale acting, and the sometimes weird comedic moments that don't really fit much of the rest of the film. It's by no means a perfect film, but I think it's great. I have os much fun watching it, the energy is fantastic, it encompasses both the happy and the tragic parts of a classical myth. It is a classical myth set in a contemporary society, and that's what it feels like.
The classic greek Orpheus and Eurydice myth set in Rio during the carnival. Orfeo is a tram conductor, heartthrop, singer and star dancer in his dance schools carnival performance. Mira is Orfeo's girlfriend, and takes him to the courthouse to get a marriage license just before the carnival so they can become engaged. Although Orfeo goes along with her, he's less than enthusiastic about the prospect of settling down with Mira. Eurydice is new to Rio, and rides Orfeo's tram to the end of the line, where station manager gives her directions to her cousin Serafina's house. Eurydice is fleeing her home town because of a strange man who she thinks wants to kill her. Serafina happens to be Orfeo's neighbour. Unsurprisingly since this is an adaptation of the Orpheus and Eurydice myth, Orfeo and Eurydice start a romance in the middle of the carnival.
Black Orpheus has absolutely fantastic energy. There's samba rythms, dancing and happy people abound in this film, at least at the start before things start to get more dark as Eurydice dies and Orfeo has to go to hell and bring her back. The cinematography fits the energy of the film very well, very saturated colours, lots of bright costumes to go with it as well. So much of the film just oozes fun and happyness. And while the movie has this energy during the happy times of dancing and flirting, it changes completely as Eurydice is chased by both Death and Mira, and as Orfeo descents into hell to bring back Eurydice. The samba rhythms disappear, the saturated colours are replaced by dark and grey colours instead, dancing and happyness are forgotten past times. It seems like a big tonal change, which it is, but it works flawlessly, and didn't seem contrived at all to me.
Black Orpheus is hardly social realism, and Camus' portrayal of life in the Favela probably couldn't be farther from the truth. It's as mythical as the story he's adapting. And you can criticise the movie for being a sort of white european exotic fantasy about life in Rio, and many probably have. For me, I don't have a problem seeing the whole film as a sort of mythology, and I can also look past he sometimes stale acting, and the sometimes weird comedic moments that don't really fit much of the rest of the film. It's by no means a perfect film, but I think it's great. I have os much fun watching it, the energy is fantastic, it encompasses both the happy and the tragic parts of a classical myth. It is a classical myth set in a contemporary society, and that's what it feels like.
Jevo
Registered User
- Oct 3, 2010
- 3,509
- 413
Interstella 5555: The 5tory of the 5ecret 5tar 5ystem (2003) dir. Kazuhisa Takenouchi
On a distant planet inhabited by blue humanoids, the popular band Crescendolls, their name on earth, is playing a succesful concert when the planet is invaded by a force from earth, who kidnaps the band and brings them to earth. Shep, a starship captain who's in love with Stella, the bass player, manages to follow the kidnappers through the wormhole to earth. On earth the band is taken to secret facility where their memories are downloaded onto a disc, and they are fitted with mind control devices as well as made to look like humans. Their captor the Earl of Darkwood posses as their manager, and the band quickly takes the world by storm and becomes a world sensation. Until Shep flies into a stadium concert with a jet pack and removes the mind control devices from the band. Together they escape but Shep is mortally wounded in the process. Now the band has to try and reclaim their memories and return to their home planet.
Taking an album and turning it into a film is not something this movie invented. But Discovery is hardly a story when you listen to it, unless you have a really good imagination. So you probably needed to have made the album to think there was one, and apparently there was, or atleast a story that fit the music. The story is hardly groundbreaking, but it's thematically strong, and Daft Punk are writing about stuff they know about. The music industry, fame, and celebrity culture. Neither of which I think they are particularly fond of, and that shows in how they portray it in the film. Each song on the album represents one scene in the film, and that creates some rough transitions along the way when two songs are quite different in tempo and emotion, which the movie has to match immediately as well. And there are points in the movie where an interlude of sorts would have been nice to bridge the gap between songs and give the film a better flow. But I guess that was the premise of the film.
A lot of the music in the film has a lot of disco and funk vibes, and is very 80s inspired, and the band claims it's based on the music of their childhoods. Similarly the film is stylistically very much like an anime show, and thus carries that theme of it all being a sort homage to their childhoods. I think the film looks really good. There's lots of very cool "sets", if you can call them that in an animated movie, which really helps bring this sci-fi world to life. Since there's no dialogue, bar a couple of songs which are presented as being from the perspective of a particular character, almost all the communication in the film is non-verbal, and that puts extra pressure on the animation, since it needs to convey emotions very succinctly without overdoing it. And they do that very well, it of course puts a limit on emotional complexity, but I don't think it's something that you really notice while watching it. No dialogue also puts extra pressure on the visual storytelling, and while the story is fairly simple, it's made very easy to follow.
I really like Daft Punk, so I quite like this film, and I'm vibing with the music the whole as well. But I don't really know how it is to watch if you are not into Daft Punk. It would be hard to call it a bad film, it's technically well made, it's a good story and it's told well. But it might be hard to get into what is basically an hour long music video if you don't care much for the music. I also really like that it's someone getting a bit of a crazy idea and then making it happen, it's always more fun when things happen that way, even if they don't always work out.
On a distant planet inhabited by blue humanoids, the popular band Crescendolls, their name on earth, is playing a succesful concert when the planet is invaded by a force from earth, who kidnaps the band and brings them to earth. Shep, a starship captain who's in love with Stella, the bass player, manages to follow the kidnappers through the wormhole to earth. On earth the band is taken to secret facility where their memories are downloaded onto a disc, and they are fitted with mind control devices as well as made to look like humans. Their captor the Earl of Darkwood posses as their manager, and the band quickly takes the world by storm and becomes a world sensation. Until Shep flies into a stadium concert with a jet pack and removes the mind control devices from the band. Together they escape but Shep is mortally wounded in the process. Now the band has to try and reclaim their memories and return to their home planet.
Taking an album and turning it into a film is not something this movie invented. But Discovery is hardly a story when you listen to it, unless you have a really good imagination. So you probably needed to have made the album to think there was one, and apparently there was, or atleast a story that fit the music. The story is hardly groundbreaking, but it's thematically strong, and Daft Punk are writing about stuff they know about. The music industry, fame, and celebrity culture. Neither of which I think they are particularly fond of, and that shows in how they portray it in the film. Each song on the album represents one scene in the film, and that creates some rough transitions along the way when two songs are quite different in tempo and emotion, which the movie has to match immediately as well. And there are points in the movie where an interlude of sorts would have been nice to bridge the gap between songs and give the film a better flow. But I guess that was the premise of the film.
A lot of the music in the film has a lot of disco and funk vibes, and is very 80s inspired, and the band claims it's based on the music of their childhoods. Similarly the film is stylistically very much like an anime show, and thus carries that theme of it all being a sort homage to their childhoods. I think the film looks really good. There's lots of very cool "sets", if you can call them that in an animated movie, which really helps bring this sci-fi world to life. Since there's no dialogue, bar a couple of songs which are presented as being from the perspective of a particular character, almost all the communication in the film is non-verbal, and that puts extra pressure on the animation, since it needs to convey emotions very succinctly without overdoing it. And they do that very well, it of course puts a limit on emotional complexity, but I don't think it's something that you really notice while watching it. No dialogue also puts extra pressure on the visual storytelling, and while the story is fairly simple, it's made very easy to follow.
I really like Daft Punk, so I quite like this film, and I'm vibing with the music the whole as well. But I don't really know how it is to watch if you are not into Daft Punk. It would be hard to call it a bad film, it's technically well made, it's a good story and it's told well. But it might be hard to get into what is basically an hour long music video if you don't care much for the music. I also really like that it's someone getting a bit of a crazy idea and then making it happen, it's always more fun when things happen that way, even if they don't always work out.
Jevo
Registered User
- Oct 3, 2010
- 3,509
- 413
My next pick is The Cook, The Thief, His Wife and Her Lover.
KallioWeHardlyKnewYe
Hey! We won!
- May 30, 2003
- 15,845
- 3,956
Interstella 555
Takenouchi (2003)
“I have all these lights in my head.”
(The cited quote was in a live action interview at the start of the version of the movie I watched, but I concede I don’t know if it’s part of the actual movie. Might have just been added to this stream, but not part of the original movie)
On a distant, alien plane populated with blue-skinned people a band is straight rockin’ out. Then some masked bad guys show up to kidnap them. They’re shuttled off to Earth — memories wiped, skin turned a more acceptable white or brown. An evil mastermind (the clothes and hair give him away!) is using them to sell records and gain acclaim. Meanwhile one of their fellow countrymen(?) and big admirer of the comely lead singer is off to the rescue. There’s a nice “success” montage, then the rescuer shows up and frees most of the band. He’s wounded in the rescue attempt. He eventually dies and is buried by the band, who goes on to challenge their kidnapper and save the universe and return to their home planet. In the end we learn it’s all the dream of a young boy playing with toys, spinning his Daft Punk record.
Kinda like a candy-colored Jacques Demy movie musical but trippier!
Not that you need something like this to make “sense” per se, but the kid coda really was a nice touch to me. There’s an innocence and child-like straightness to the story that’s really codified in those closing moments. It’s not needed, but I liked it.
I’m a fan of Daft Punk so that’s half the battle here. As an aural/visual experience I found it quite enjoyable. Looked and sounded great in my house and I’d be real inclined to throw it on again in the future. The anime pairs nicely with the spacey/etheral nature of a lot of the group’s work. Despite the lack of any dialogue save whatever’s sung in the songs, the story is conveyed fairly clearly.
A nice creative melding of music and film.
Takenouchi (2003)
“I have all these lights in my head.”
(The cited quote was in a live action interview at the start of the version of the movie I watched, but I concede I don’t know if it’s part of the actual movie. Might have just been added to this stream, but not part of the original movie)
On a distant, alien plane populated with blue-skinned people a band is straight rockin’ out. Then some masked bad guys show up to kidnap them. They’re shuttled off to Earth — memories wiped, skin turned a more acceptable white or brown. An evil mastermind (the clothes and hair give him away!) is using them to sell records and gain acclaim. Meanwhile one of their fellow countrymen(?) and big admirer of the comely lead singer is off to the rescue. There’s a nice “success” montage, then the rescuer shows up and frees most of the band. He’s wounded in the rescue attempt. He eventually dies and is buried by the band, who goes on to challenge their kidnapper and save the universe and return to their home planet. In the end we learn it’s all the dream of a young boy playing with toys, spinning his Daft Punk record.
Kinda like a candy-colored Jacques Demy movie musical but trippier!
Not that you need something like this to make “sense” per se, but the kid coda really was a nice touch to me. There’s an innocence and child-like straightness to the story that’s really codified in those closing moments. It’s not needed, but I liked it.
I’m a fan of Daft Punk so that’s half the battle here. As an aural/visual experience I found it quite enjoyable. Looked and sounded great in my house and I’d be real inclined to throw it on again in the future. The anime pairs nicely with the spacey/etheral nature of a lot of the group’s work. Despite the lack of any dialogue save whatever’s sung in the songs, the story is conveyed fairly clearly.
A nice creative melding of music and film.
Interstella 5555: The 5tory of the 5ecret 5tar 5ystem (2003) Directed by Kazuhisa Takenouchi
So I was watching the video, wishing we had things like this to play with back in the day when acid was in vogue, but getting tired of Daft Punk which is not my favourite duo. What to do; what to do? So I turned down the sound completely and played Kraftwerk's Man Machine album instead. It worked perfectly, many times actually seeming in sync with the visuals. Sailed on that for a while. And then thought, what else might work? So I tried Phillip Glass' Metamophosis, extended piano pieces, and that worked just great, too. Next stop was John Coltrane's A Love Supreme. Maybe the best yet. Tried to find something that didn't work as this was getting sort of weird. Haydn Piano Trio wasn't terrible, but it wasn't all that great either. Radiohead's A Moon Shaped Pool was iffy, seemed too elegant somehow. Chuck Berry didn't work at all. I was relieved. So you can't play this trick with just anything. But it is still surprising how practically random chosen music can shape the mood of a film on which it doesn't belong. Ended up watching Interstella the rest of the way with Kraftwerk once again. Quite enjoyed the experience.
Last edited:
KallioWeHardlyKnewYe
Hey! We won!
- May 30, 2003
- 15,845
- 3,956
The Candidate
Richie (1972)
“Marvin, what do we do know?”
Starting at the end — the Candidate has won. Overwhelmed with the moment, he wonders what comes next. One of the classic last lines in movies. Bill McKay is a liberal idealist pulled from the relative obscurity of a crusading legal aid job to serve as potential cannon fodder in a California senate election that his party doesn’t expect to win. But McKay has potential. He’s got name recognition as the son of a former governor and he happens to look like Robert Redford. We spend a year with McKay campaign from its reluctant start as an underdog to a victorious winner. But for what reasons exactly did he win and does that even matter?
The wrestling match here is how much of this is genuine and how much is cynical? Is this timeless or has time changed it? (I am sure I can research this and find answers to the thinking at the time, but I am equal parts lazy and intrigued with how this plays in this moment so I'm not looking anything up).
On some fronts it’s hard not to notice how little some things have changed. The Republican talking points — pandering with religion and politics, preaching a disingenuous “bootstrapping” message are every bit as active today. Meanwhile McKay is a bit of a strapping Kennedy-esque liberal wet dream. But what to make of the handling of Bill McKay? Is this a hopeful film because he overcame the odds and won or is it a darker-tinged qualified victory because he allowed his more freewheeling edges to be sanded off in the process? The movie certainly likes winning better than the alternative, but is it good?
Ritchie has a borderline documentary approach at times, especially as the camera makes its way through events, speeches, glad-handing, etc. It’s on the ground and in people’s faces. It's comedic but not a comedy and dramatic, but not really a drama. More than anything this is a movie star movie though and while I don’t think this is Redford’s best performance (it’s still very good!) I feel like it’s almost the most Redford performance. An idealized Redford performance. If you (or I) imagine Redford I feel like this is what he looks like and sounds like. Certainly not his most famous role, but again maybe his most Redford role. There's such a natural ease here.
I posted this in the Marvel thread but I had a recent sleepless night and tried to occupy my mind by thinking of all the Oscar winning actors in Marvel movies (an impressive 18 across 23 movies! Plus 23 other nominees). In double checking my work I learned Redford has been nominated for just one acting Oscar (The Sting), a tidbit that really stunned me. He actually has more director nominations (and a win). Undoubtedly a movie star, but perhaps an oddly underrated actor penalized for his ease and good looks.
FWIW I think my favorite Redford performance is in his previous movie with Ritchie — Downhill Racer — but that’s also a fascinating early career role that’s very un-idealized-Redford. Interestingly, Bill McKay is almost an inverse of his Downhill Racer character.
Richie (1972)
“Marvin, what do we do know?”
Starting at the end — the Candidate has won. Overwhelmed with the moment, he wonders what comes next. One of the classic last lines in movies. Bill McKay is a liberal idealist pulled from the relative obscurity of a crusading legal aid job to serve as potential cannon fodder in a California senate election that his party doesn’t expect to win. But McKay has potential. He’s got name recognition as the son of a former governor and he happens to look like Robert Redford. We spend a year with McKay campaign from its reluctant start as an underdog to a victorious winner. But for what reasons exactly did he win and does that even matter?
The wrestling match here is how much of this is genuine and how much is cynical? Is this timeless or has time changed it? (I am sure I can research this and find answers to the thinking at the time, but I am equal parts lazy and intrigued with how this plays in this moment so I'm not looking anything up).
On some fronts it’s hard not to notice how little some things have changed. The Republican talking points — pandering with religion and politics, preaching a disingenuous “bootstrapping” message are every bit as active today. Meanwhile McKay is a bit of a strapping Kennedy-esque liberal wet dream. But what to make of the handling of Bill McKay? Is this a hopeful film because he overcame the odds and won or is it a darker-tinged qualified victory because he allowed his more freewheeling edges to be sanded off in the process? The movie certainly likes winning better than the alternative, but is it good?
Ritchie has a borderline documentary approach at times, especially as the camera makes its way through events, speeches, glad-handing, etc. It’s on the ground and in people’s faces. It's comedic but not a comedy and dramatic, but not really a drama. More than anything this is a movie star movie though and while I don’t think this is Redford’s best performance (it’s still very good!) I feel like it’s almost the most Redford performance. An idealized Redford performance. If you (or I) imagine Redford I feel like this is what he looks like and sounds like. Certainly not his most famous role, but again maybe his most Redford role. There's such a natural ease here.
I posted this in the Marvel thread but I had a recent sleepless night and tried to occupy my mind by thinking of all the Oscar winning actors in Marvel movies (an impressive 18 across 23 movies! Plus 23 other nominees). In double checking my work I learned Redford has been nominated for just one acting Oscar (The Sting), a tidbit that really stunned me. He actually has more director nominations (and a win). Undoubtedly a movie star, but perhaps an oddly underrated actor penalized for his ease and good looks.
FWIW I think my favorite Redford performance is in his previous movie with Ritchie — Downhill Racer — but that’s also a fascinating early career role that’s very un-idealized-Redford. Interestingly, Bill McKay is almost an inverse of his Downhill Racer character.
Pranzo Oltranzista
Registered User
- Oct 18, 2017
- 4,034
- 2,949
The Candidate (1972) Directed by Michael Ritchie
Random thoughts:
The more things change, the more they remain the same. Amazing how durable the notion is that Democrats are naive bleeding hearts who do more harm than good and that Republicans are self-serving hypocrites who hate change. You think in half a century that would have altered somewhat, but it is one of the reasons why The Candidate seems so familiar. It is like America's two political parties are permanently trapped in their own version of Groundhog Day while everything deteriorates around them.
Despite its cautionary tale approach, the movie is distinctly more pro-Democrat than Republican. Not even close. No question who the good guy is. Though what is interesting is that public relations types are presented as the fall guys when really they are just filling a perceived need by both parties. In reality, they are less the disease and more the symptom.
The Candidate takes a pretty shallow, stacked deck approach to point making and it gets tiresome after awhile. But again, the fact that in half a century things have only gotten worse is depressing.
The most interesting thing about The Candidate is how cleverly the movie suggests subtly but doesn't dwell on the fact that the Robert Redford character McKay is having an affair with a cute hanger-on with glasses. Despite the fact that nothing is said or mentioned, the short scene in the bedroom late in the movie with McKay and his wife is the last and most obvious clue. And just why is he late for that meeting, looking a little rumpled, too? Still, it is all so understated that the whole affair could be easily missed. Though the movie was made way before the rise of Bill Clinton (no pun intended), this bit of the movie seems like an homage to something that will happen in the future. Prescient, at the very least. But why does the movie choose to add an affair but virtually hide it? That's a good question.
Robert Redford wears a brown, green and red striped tie in one scene and much later on the same tie appears on one of the union leaders. I don't know why that bugs me but it does.
The movie has clever ways of disguising how relatively short Redford is. With exceptions, of course, why are most actors and rock performers shrimps? Is there some sort of genetic code that accounts for such predilections?
Here's a thought: What must have it been like to be Robert Redford, say at 28 years-old, and walk into any singles bar on the planet? I mean, damn, the mind boggles.
Last edited:
Little known fact: Redford started out as a theatre actor in New York. As a teenager I actually saw him on stage in Neil Simon's Barefoot in the Park, though, of course, I had no idea who he was nor any inkling of what he would become. I remember him, rather vaguely, as being quite funny, though that might have had more to do with Simon's writing than anything else.
I would have considered nominating him in the best actor category for the following films:
Downhill Racer
The Sting
The Way We Were
The Horse Whisperer
All Is Lost
Our Souls at Night
Very few movie stars have had a career as distinguished as his.
I would have considered nominating him in the best actor category for the following films:
Downhill Racer
The Sting
The Way We Were
The Horse Whisperer
All Is Lost
Our Souls at Night
Very few movie stars have had a career as distinguished as his.
Once Jevo posts your movie is up next, so anytime soon is fine.
KallioWeHardlyKnewYe
Hey! We won!
- May 30, 2003
- 15,845
- 3,956
I really almost picked Downhill Racer instead, which I think is both a better performance and a better movie, but I couldn't resist the political relevance.
- Status
