Movies: The Official "Movie of the Week" Club Thread IV
- Thread starter hangman005
- Start date
Strangers on a Train (1951) Directed by Alfred Hitchcock
I haven't watched a Hitchcock movie in some time, so this turned out to be a real treat. Hitchcock is the antithesis of the "slow burn" school of suspense movie making, a style that has seemed to become all the rage because it doesn't take much sustained imagination. Strangers on a Train doesn't dole out a few late scenes of suspense, it is suspenseful all the way from virtually start to finish. We start out with a conversation on a train, a twisted villain named Bruno and a naïve patsy named Guy who realizes too late that this his new acquaintance is trouble in a big way--Bruno is serious about exchanging seemingly anonymous murders and getting away with it. It's a great premise--I'll kill yours and you kill mine and nobody will be the wiser--I kept wondering if this movie inspired anybody to actually try to do just that.
What separates Hitchcock from most other suspense directors is how expertly he builds suspense all the way through the movie. Scene after scene ratchets up the tension sometimes in little ways--we glimpse an incriminating lighter--but usually in beautifully paced and edited series of set pieces that really build to a climax: Bruno at the party demonstrating how to murder someone; Guy trying to implicate Bruno and so on. These scenes build to a climax where Hitchcock shows his skill and imagination--a brilliant cross cutting sequence between Guy rushing to finish a tennis match and Bruno trying to retrieve the already mentioned lighter before it falls down a gutter drain, followed by a thrill ride at an amusement park.
There is so much complicated business going on here in terms of building tension, but I always feel like I am in the hands of an absolute master. In some ways Hitchcock is a one trick pony, but he has mastered that trick better than anybody on the planet, anybody else in film history. It is no wonder that his works are still studied in film schools as superb examples of how to use sound, image and editing to build scenes and sequences. He has probably about two dozen watchable movies and probably a dozen of the best suspense movies ever made (39 Steps; The Lady Vanishes; Notorious; Strangers on a Train; Dial M for Murder; North by Northwest; Rear Window, Vertigo, Psycho, and The Birds, just for starters). He is one of the most popular directors in film history, and, ironically, probably one of the most underrated.
Some odds and ends: Hitchcock's disdain for actors is probably second only to Antonioni's distaste. He sure makes some curious choices along the way. Lots of icy blonds, for instance, and then there are guys like Farley Granger, who has the emotional range of a mannequin. Though Robert Walker, Jr is fine as Bruno, I keep recasting the movie with a younger Ben Affleck and Kevin Spacey. They would have done nicely in the parts, I think.
Hitchcock liked to make very brief appearances in all his movies. Here, he appears early and if you blink you miss him. He's the guy carrying a bass up the steps of a train.
The editing in the tennis game/gutter drain sequence is masterful beyond belief and involves very difficult cross cutting. Hitchcock liked to give himself challenges because he got bored with routine film making. So for instance, he shoots one movie with the illusion of a single take (Rope) and another he sets on a lifeboat in the middle of the ocean (Lifeboat). Ultra-tricky editing would be like a busman's holiday for him.
Last edited:
KallioWeHardlyKnewYe
Hey! We won!
- May 30, 2003
- 15,771
- 3,808
Strangers on a Train
Hitchcock (1951)
“We Planned it together. Criss cross.”
It’s a helluva set-up. Two strangers meet on a train. They both have problems. One of them offers a unique solution — mutual murder. Eliminate the other’s problem. They’re strangers after all. Who would suspect it? The smoothly psychotic Bruno is very committed to the idea. Guy, less so. Bad news for Guy.
I’d honestly never seen this Hitchcock before. Was well aware of the story, but that didn’t diminish any of the enjoyment. It’s such a sleek, well-crafted thriller. Not that Hitchcock is a bloated filmmaker by nature (though he sometimes can be), but this feels very lean and to the point. Nothing excessive. Guy is the wronged man and the screws get tighter and tighter. Robert Walker’s Bruno is a memorably slithery creation. He’s not a mastermind. He sweats when he makes mistakes. It’s that aspect that somehow makes him all the more threatening. When he’s cornered, he strikes.
I’ve been on a bit of a run lately with movies built around normal folks meeting what turn out to be total nutjobs on vacations. This isn’t far from that. One person is too inherently passive or non-confrontational or polite to nip the situation in the bud. They let the conversation and eventually the actions go far beyond what their insides are telling them to stop. It’s such a natural, human-driven tension. We don’t want to offend if we don’t have to. We’d rather just try to slip away. Potent stuff as text or subtext.
The final 20 minutes or so of this are on rails, baby. The cross-cut tennis match with Bruno’s attempts to get the lighter out of the sewer is masterful stuff. Then we move on to the carousel climax which is a thrilling cherry of action on top.
As I noted in another online review — this Hitchcock kid ... he just might have a future in this business.
Hitchcock (1951)
“We Planned it together. Criss cross.”
It’s a helluva set-up. Two strangers meet on a train. They both have problems. One of them offers a unique solution — mutual murder. Eliminate the other’s problem. They’re strangers after all. Who would suspect it? The smoothly psychotic Bruno is very committed to the idea. Guy, less so. Bad news for Guy.
I’d honestly never seen this Hitchcock before. Was well aware of the story, but that didn’t diminish any of the enjoyment. It’s such a sleek, well-crafted thriller. Not that Hitchcock is a bloated filmmaker by nature (though he sometimes can be), but this feels very lean and to the point. Nothing excessive. Guy is the wronged man and the screws get tighter and tighter. Robert Walker’s Bruno is a memorably slithery creation. He’s not a mastermind. He sweats when he makes mistakes. It’s that aspect that somehow makes him all the more threatening. When he’s cornered, he strikes.
I’ve been on a bit of a run lately with movies built around normal folks meeting what turn out to be total nutjobs on vacations. This isn’t far from that. One person is too inherently passive or non-confrontational or polite to nip the situation in the bud. They let the conversation and eventually the actions go far beyond what their insides are telling them to stop. It’s such a natural, human-driven tension. We don’t want to offend if we don’t have to. We’d rather just try to slip away. Potent stuff as text or subtext.
The final 20 minutes or so of this are on rails, baby. The cross-cut tennis match with Bruno’s attempts to get the lighter out of the sewer is masterful stuff. Then we move on to the carousel climax which is a thrilling cherry of action on top.
As I noted in another online review — this Hitchcock kid ... he just might have a future in this business.
Apologies, I will probably be a little late on this one. I'm about to go on a hiking trip until next week
Strangers On A Train (Alfred Hitchcock, 1951)
It's the perfect set-up for murder. Two strangers meet and agree to kill a stranger from the other person's life, leaving no obvious suspect or motive for the police to suspect. But what happens when one of the parties doesn't go through with their end of the deal - or if they weren't aware they agreed to it?
Strangers On A Train quickly sets up its premise within the first couple of minutes and doesn't stop its rapid pace there. A straight thriller through and through, there is very little excess fat on the story here as the film breezes through its 1 hour 40ish minute runtime, building and building up the tension with every scene until the climax. A remarkable exercise in how to pace a thriller.
What's remarkable too is, how well Hitchcock crafts this film with a cast that can only be described as adequate. Farley Granger is the clear weak link in the film. Playing his character extremely wooden, often threatening to grind the film to a halt when he has to do any emotional heavy lifting. Not hard to imagine someone like Montgomery Clift doing a lot better in this role. Robert Walker is good as a psychopath wanting to test out the perfect murder plot, but even he could easily be replaced by a better actor who would add more meat to the role (Orson Welles out of The Third Man, perhaps?). Yet somehow this doesn't get in the way of the plotting and the magnificent cinematography and editing that Hitchcock utilizes - particularly in the carnival and the during the tennis match. The true work of a master in being able to overcome the limitations of Farley Granger's acting ability.
My first time watching Strangers On A Train, and it certainly sticks out as a transition point in Hitch's career as he moves from his early career to the the astounding run he would go in the 1950s and early 60s.
It's the perfect set-up for murder. Two strangers meet and agree to kill a stranger from the other person's life, leaving no obvious suspect or motive for the police to suspect. But what happens when one of the parties doesn't go through with their end of the deal - or if they weren't aware they agreed to it?
Strangers On A Train quickly sets up its premise within the first couple of minutes and doesn't stop its rapid pace there. A straight thriller through and through, there is very little excess fat on the story here as the film breezes through its 1 hour 40ish minute runtime, building and building up the tension with every scene until the climax. A remarkable exercise in how to pace a thriller.
What's remarkable too is, how well Hitchcock crafts this film with a cast that can only be described as adequate. Farley Granger is the clear weak link in the film. Playing his character extremely wooden, often threatening to grind the film to a halt when he has to do any emotional heavy lifting. Not hard to imagine someone like Montgomery Clift doing a lot better in this role. Robert Walker is good as a psychopath wanting to test out the perfect murder plot, but even he could easily be replaced by a better actor who would add more meat to the role (Orson Welles out of The Third Man, perhaps?). Yet somehow this doesn't get in the way of the plotting and the magnificent cinematography and editing that Hitchcock utilizes - particularly in the carnival and the during the tennis match. The true work of a master in being able to overcome the limitations of Farley Granger's acting ability.
My first time watching Strangers On A Train, and it certainly sticks out as a transition point in Hitch's career as he moves from his early career to the the astounding run he would go in the 1950s and early 60s.
Paths of Glory (Stanley Kubrick, 1957)
After a botched attack to secure a few hundred meters of trenches in WWI, a commanding officer defends three of his men who have been scapegoated to be shot to death for cowardice. Part legal thriller, part war drama, Paths of Glory is often overshadowed by some of Kubrick's other works, but is considered one of his finest early works.
I went into Paths of Glory thinking that this was my first time watching this early Kubrick film, but as the courtroom scenes began to play in the 2nd act, I quickly realized that I had actually watched parts of it in a high school law class I took. Courtroom dramas can often get a reputation for being slow, stuffy, and dialogue heavy, however the scenes in this film are anything but as Kubrick injects a great bit of humour into court scenes and ensures that the scenes move at a lively pace. Kirk Douglas is of course a standout as the commanding officer turned lawyer, but he is equally matched by the three accused and George Macready as the villainous brigadier general.
Although Paths of Glory is a war film, it is notable for being an anti-war film, as it is clear that Kubrick does not have much respect for war or military power. I would say that this film is Kubrick at his angriest as he shows outright contempt to the absurdity and pointlessness of war. Particularly, he points to how much of war is driven by the self-interest and bloodlust of military leadership and how it comes at a cost to the soldiers who have to carry out their orders (or the innocent civilians who pay needlessly pay the price). A timely film to watch as the world yet again is engulfed in another war.
After a botched attack to secure a few hundred meters of trenches in WWI, a commanding officer defends three of his men who have been scapegoated to be shot to death for cowardice. Part legal thriller, part war drama, Paths of Glory is often overshadowed by some of Kubrick's other works, but is considered one of his finest early works.
I went into Paths of Glory thinking that this was my first time watching this early Kubrick film, but as the courtroom scenes began to play in the 2nd act, I quickly realized that I had actually watched parts of it in a high school law class I took. Courtroom dramas can often get a reputation for being slow, stuffy, and dialogue heavy, however the scenes in this film are anything but as Kubrick injects a great bit of humour into court scenes and ensures that the scenes move at a lively pace. Kirk Douglas is of course a standout as the commanding officer turned lawyer, but he is equally matched by the three accused and George Macready as the villainous brigadier general.
Although Paths of Glory is a war film, it is notable for being an anti-war film, as it is clear that Kubrick does not have much respect for war or military power. I would say that this film is Kubrick at his angriest as he shows outright contempt to the absurdity and pointlessness of war. Particularly, he points to how much of war is driven by the self-interest and bloodlust of military leadership and how it comes at a cost to the soldiers who have to carry out their orders (or the innocent civilians who pay needlessly pay the price). A timely film to watch as the world yet again is engulfed in another war.
KallioWeHardlyKnewYe
Hey! We won!
- May 30, 2003
- 15,771
- 3,808
Very cool. This has been sitting near the top of my "to watch" list for a while.
KallioWeHardlyKnewYe
Hey! We won!
- May 30, 2003
- 15,771
- 3,808
Paths of Glory
Kubrick (1957)
“The men died wonderfully.”
France, 1916. The Great War. Gen. Mireau wants his soldiers to take a piece of land called The Anthill. It’s an impossible task and when the men realize this and don’t forge on, he orders more men to open fire on those soldiers. Refused. The attack stalls out, unfulfilled. Hell hath no fury like a general scorned. He demands justice in the form of the court martial and execution of 100 soldiers from the unit … a figure “reasonably” negotiated down to three. One picked deliberately because he was aware of a friendly fire situation. One picked because he is disliked and generally trouble. One picked at random. Col. Drax knows it’s all a sham and sets out to defend his men.
Deeply cynical about man and systems, a theme that Kubrick wouldn’t waver much from in the future. This might be his most concise statement on the topic though. Similar to our recent experience with Strangers on a Train, which was Hitchcock before he shifted into a bigger, more epic mode, Paths of Glory catches Kubrick with his last gasps of briskness and (comparatively) smaller scale, which is saying something since this includes a pair of memorable battle sequences. Still, Kubrick would never be quite this contained again.
His skills are already evident both in the tense, harrowing combat scenes and within the cacophonous and literal halls of power.
Douglas gets to do some classic movie star crusading and the supporting cast all leave a mark from the angry and honorable Ralph Meeker to the squirrely Timothy Carey to the maddening duo of Adolphe Menjou and George Macready. Menjou particularly is a slippery devil here as a commanding officer playing to all sides but always in CYA mode.
This is by no means a “funny” movie but this time through I was struck with how some of the conversations between Gen. Broulard and Gen. Mireau could almost be ported over into Dr. Strangelove. There’s a dark, deadpan way in which they talk about the loss of life and the opportunity for promotion, that wouldn’t be out of place in more overt satire. Douglas’ Drax plays witness to some of this and is the shocked audience stand-in.
The only real false note is how un-French all these French characters are. It’s a small concession though to an alternative where all these tough Americans are forced into bad accents. But it’s a sometimes noticeable, though minor, distraction.
Kubrick (1957)
“The men died wonderfully.”
France, 1916. The Great War. Gen. Mireau wants his soldiers to take a piece of land called The Anthill. It’s an impossible task and when the men realize this and don’t forge on, he orders more men to open fire on those soldiers. Refused. The attack stalls out, unfulfilled. Hell hath no fury like a general scorned. He demands justice in the form of the court martial and execution of 100 soldiers from the unit … a figure “reasonably” negotiated down to three. One picked deliberately because he was aware of a friendly fire situation. One picked because he is disliked and generally trouble. One picked at random. Col. Drax knows it’s all a sham and sets out to defend his men.
Deeply cynical about man and systems, a theme that Kubrick wouldn’t waver much from in the future. This might be his most concise statement on the topic though. Similar to our recent experience with Strangers on a Train, which was Hitchcock before he shifted into a bigger, more epic mode, Paths of Glory catches Kubrick with his last gasps of briskness and (comparatively) smaller scale, which is saying something since this includes a pair of memorable battle sequences. Still, Kubrick would never be quite this contained again.
His skills are already evident both in the tense, harrowing combat scenes and within the cacophonous and literal halls of power.
Douglas gets to do some classic movie star crusading and the supporting cast all leave a mark from the angry and honorable Ralph Meeker to the squirrely Timothy Carey to the maddening duo of Adolphe Menjou and George Macready. Menjou particularly is a slippery devil here as a commanding officer playing to all sides but always in CYA mode.
This is by no means a “funny” movie but this time through I was struck with how some of the conversations between Gen. Broulard and Gen. Mireau could almost be ported over into Dr. Strangelove. There’s a dark, deadpan way in which they talk about the loss of life and the opportunity for promotion, that wouldn’t be out of place in more overt satire. Douglas’ Drax plays witness to some of this and is the shocked audience stand-in.
The only real false note is how un-French all these French characters are. It’s a small concession though to an alternative where all these tough Americans are forced into bad accents. But it’s a sometimes noticeable, though minor, distraction.
I think you do Robert Walker an injustice here. I thought he was perfect in the role. He is supposed to be shallow, but also clearly more clever than his lumpen adversary. Also he needs to exude charm without actually being charming--which I think is a tough trick to pull off. Otherwise, terrific review.
Jevo
Registered User
- Oct 3, 2010
- 3,500
- 394
Paths of Glory (1957) dir. Stanley Kubrick
French top general Broulard wants a decisive attack on the front during WWI, and he wants to tkae a strongley defended German position known as the Anthill. He asks his lower ranking general Mireau to execute the attack. Mireau refuses because it's a futile attack, but gets convinced when a promotion is mentioned. Mireau orders to Colonel Dax to perform the attack, Dax also protests citing the impossibility of the attack. But the attack must go ahead. Dax leads the first wave, which gets soundedly moved down by German guns, and no one gets very far, and the 2nd wave doesn't leave the trenches after seeing the results of the first wave. Mireau in anger orders an artillery barage on his own men, but the artillery commander refuses. Dax tries to rally the 2nd wave, but gets knocked by down by a falling French body. Broulard, Mireau and Dax meet to discuss the failure of the attack, to deflect blame Mireau proposes to court marshall 100 French soldiers for cowardice. The end up on three soldiers to be court marshalled, one from each company. The three men are, Paris who was chosen because his commanding officer accidentally killed one of his own men, and wants Paris to keep silent about it. Ferol who was picked because he was "socially undesirable". And Arnaud was picked at random. Dax volunteers to defend the three men, but it's quickly clear that the trial is purely a show trial.
Paths of Glory is based on real events, where a group of randomly selected French soldiers were executed after a failed assault during WWI. That perhaps only makes it even more terrifying to watch the film. WWI is of course known for it's huge assaults and enourmous number of dead soldiers to very little material gain. But the generals here show an even greater lack of respect for the lives of their own soldiers than you'd expect. In war soldiers die, and as a general you have to live with that. But here they aren't making hard decisions because it will mean winning the war. They throw away hundreds or thousands of lives because it will help themselves in the short term. That's a whole different level of evil. Broulard and Mireau are perfectly juxtaposed by Dax who is a moral man with dignity and honour. He is not in the war to benefit himself, unlike them. Kirk Douglas is the star in a very well acted movie. He steals every scene he is in. In the courtroom scene he perfectly shows the rising anger and frustration within Dax, which he can't get a release from, because the court works against him at every turn.
The reason that Paths of Glory works so well as an anti-war film, is that it shows that while there are good people in the trenches like Dax and Arnaud, they are dwarfed by those who have been forced into fighting, and are mostly concerned about their own skin. And at the top, everyone is completely self serving. They are not doing it for the good of the country or because of their upstanding morals. They are doing it because they crave the power. The upstanding guys, the Dax's, they can't compete with the self serving guys in the race for the top spots, because the Dax's are not concerned about accumulating as many promotions as possible.
Paths of Glory can perhaps be said to be the Kubrick fans' Kubrick. It's certainly one of his lesser known films. It doesn't have as much flash as his later movies starting with 2001 has. But it is one of his best. Thematically it's something he would return to many times, and I don't think his point comes across as clearly in any of his latter attempts as it does here. It's not without flash either. There's a great long take of the assault into no-mans land. And the court room scene is fantastic, and keeps you glued to the screen with equal amounts of frustration and awe.
French top general Broulard wants a decisive attack on the front during WWI, and he wants to tkae a strongley defended German position known as the Anthill. He asks his lower ranking general Mireau to execute the attack. Mireau refuses because it's a futile attack, but gets convinced when a promotion is mentioned. Mireau orders to Colonel Dax to perform the attack, Dax also protests citing the impossibility of the attack. But the attack must go ahead. Dax leads the first wave, which gets soundedly moved down by German guns, and no one gets very far, and the 2nd wave doesn't leave the trenches after seeing the results of the first wave. Mireau in anger orders an artillery barage on his own men, but the artillery commander refuses. Dax tries to rally the 2nd wave, but gets knocked by down by a falling French body. Broulard, Mireau and Dax meet to discuss the failure of the attack, to deflect blame Mireau proposes to court marshall 100 French soldiers for cowardice. The end up on three soldiers to be court marshalled, one from each company. The three men are, Paris who was chosen because his commanding officer accidentally killed one of his own men, and wants Paris to keep silent about it. Ferol who was picked because he was "socially undesirable". And Arnaud was picked at random. Dax volunteers to defend the three men, but it's quickly clear that the trial is purely a show trial.
Paths of Glory is based on real events, where a group of randomly selected French soldiers were executed after a failed assault during WWI. That perhaps only makes it even more terrifying to watch the film. WWI is of course known for it's huge assaults and enourmous number of dead soldiers to very little material gain. But the generals here show an even greater lack of respect for the lives of their own soldiers than you'd expect. In war soldiers die, and as a general you have to live with that. But here they aren't making hard decisions because it will mean winning the war. They throw away hundreds or thousands of lives because it will help themselves in the short term. That's a whole different level of evil. Broulard and Mireau are perfectly juxtaposed by Dax who is a moral man with dignity and honour. He is not in the war to benefit himself, unlike them. Kirk Douglas is the star in a very well acted movie. He steals every scene he is in. In the courtroom scene he perfectly shows the rising anger and frustration within Dax, which he can't get a release from, because the court works against him at every turn.
The reason that Paths of Glory works so well as an anti-war film, is that it shows that while there are good people in the trenches like Dax and Arnaud, they are dwarfed by those who have been forced into fighting, and are mostly concerned about their own skin. And at the top, everyone is completely self serving. They are not doing it for the good of the country or because of their upstanding morals. They are doing it because they crave the power. The upstanding guys, the Dax's, they can't compete with the self serving guys in the race for the top spots, because the Dax's are not concerned about accumulating as many promotions as possible.
Paths of Glory can perhaps be said to be the Kubrick fans' Kubrick. It's certainly one of his lesser known films. It doesn't have as much flash as his later movies starting with 2001 has. But it is one of his best. Thematically it's something he would return to many times, and I don't think his point comes across as clearly in any of his latter attempts as it does here. It's not without flash either. There's a great long take of the assault into no-mans land. And the court room scene is fantastic, and keeps you glued to the screen with equal amounts of frustration and awe.
Paths of Glory (1958) Directed by Stanley Kubrick
Paths of Glory is one of the greatest anti-war movies ever made, and certainly on the shortlist of Stanley Kubrick's best films. Compared the scale of his more famous movies, this one almost seems like a miniature, but it is the movie that Kubrick seems most emotionally invested in. Paths of Glory is a movie without frills--it has a story to tell about war and the people who fight in those wars, the officers and the enlisted men. In this case, the officers are vainglorious and corrupt and the enlisted men are simply the cannon fodder. Colonel Dax (Kirk Douglas) seems to be Kubrick's alter ego, a decent man appalled by the cavalier disregard that the senior offices display toward the troops over which they hold absolute power.
If anything, the deck may be a little too stacked. When it comes to condemning the upper class Paths of Glory certainly lacks the subtlety of Renoir's The Rules of the Game. Perhaps sensing this, Douglas gives an understated performance that avoids histrionics almost entirely. The movie has points to make and he need not overemphasize his character's task to deliver those points. It is one of his strongest performances precisely because it is so self-contained. The rest of the characters are fairly one dimensional, but that doesn't seriously impede the power of the film, nor the point that it wants to make. There is only one actual battle sequence in the movie and it is masterfully photographed and harrowing as hell. The real action isn't on the battlefield anyway, but on the cowardice and vanity of men who take other men's lives so much more lightly than their own. In terms of message, Paths of Glory hasn't aged a day really. Likely never will unfortunately.
The only serious flaw in the movie is its ending, which is way too hopeful and sentimental for what has come before in this film. I assume the studio that produced the film very likely demanded it. Kubrick must have known that he was serving up a bitter potion. I can't believe that he of his own volition would choose to dilute it at the last moment.
KallioWeHardlyKnewYe
Hey! We won!
- May 30, 2003
- 15,771
- 3,808
My Own Private Idaho
Van Sant (1991)
“I love you and you don’t pay me.”
Mike and Scott are friends and hustlers working the streets of Portland and the Pacific Northwest. Mostly aimless. Lonely. Looking for love in all the wrong places. Mike’s a narcoleptic, a dreamer. He wants family. He wants love. Scott’s a tourist, just passing through until his life is ready to move into its next stage.
My Own Private Idaho is a collage of a movie blending Western/Americana landscapes and musical themes, with long stretches of Shakespeare (several of the numerical Henry’s) and unrequited romance. There’s touches of David Lynch at his dreamiest (including a few Lynch regulars in small roles and Udo Kier doing a low-lit song and dance number). It’s a melancholy film, but Gus Van Sant has that flair so common with early directors (especially the 90s it seems?) — the sequence where Mike, Scott and their friends are all giving backstory while depicted as covers of gay men’s magazines, or the sex scenes which are depicted as posed tableaus. Live, not still images, with slight shaky movements. I’ve never seen this before or since.
But it often has the feel of literature. Maybe because Mike is so internal?
There’s a double-edge sword here with River Phoenix. I thought of an odd but time appropriate musical parallel with the likes of The Pixies and Nirvana bands that popularized the loud-quiet-loud song structure. That’s Phoenix here — bursts of spastic twitchiness followed by moments of gentle softness. But the formula doesn’t fully work for me. He’s heartbreaking in the quiet. The fireside scene with Keanu Reeves where he confesses his love is among his best work in his tragically short career. But the loud, the dancing, the theatrical narcolepsy, it lost me every time. There’s also an extreme passivity to him that made it a bit of a fight for me as a protagonist. He mostly goes with the flow rather than drives his own story. That is certainly part of the point, and it makes him sympathetic at times but also a tad maddening.
Reeves is more appreciated now than then. He’s not a strength here exactly, but he’s not an issue. Material like this isn’t his strong suit, but he acquits himself better to it than he’s often given credit for.
Idaho is a bit of a landmark, one of several films that helped mainstream queer culture thanks to the willingness of well recognized stars like Phoenix and Reeves to take these lead roles. So it’s got that going for it as well.
Van Sant (1991)
“I love you and you don’t pay me.”
Mike and Scott are friends and hustlers working the streets of Portland and the Pacific Northwest. Mostly aimless. Lonely. Looking for love in all the wrong places. Mike’s a narcoleptic, a dreamer. He wants family. He wants love. Scott’s a tourist, just passing through until his life is ready to move into its next stage.
My Own Private Idaho is a collage of a movie blending Western/Americana landscapes and musical themes, with long stretches of Shakespeare (several of the numerical Henry’s) and unrequited romance. There’s touches of David Lynch at his dreamiest (including a few Lynch regulars in small roles and Udo Kier doing a low-lit song and dance number). It’s a melancholy film, but Gus Van Sant has that flair so common with early directors (especially the 90s it seems?) — the sequence where Mike, Scott and their friends are all giving backstory while depicted as covers of gay men’s magazines, or the sex scenes which are depicted as posed tableaus. Live, not still images, with slight shaky movements. I’ve never seen this before or since.
But it often has the feel of literature. Maybe because Mike is so internal?
There’s a double-edge sword here with River Phoenix. I thought of an odd but time appropriate musical parallel with the likes of The Pixies and Nirvana bands that popularized the loud-quiet-loud song structure. That’s Phoenix here — bursts of spastic twitchiness followed by moments of gentle softness. But the formula doesn’t fully work for me. He’s heartbreaking in the quiet. The fireside scene with Keanu Reeves where he confesses his love is among his best work in his tragically short career. But the loud, the dancing, the theatrical narcolepsy, it lost me every time. There’s also an extreme passivity to him that made it a bit of a fight for me as a protagonist. He mostly goes with the flow rather than drives his own story. That is certainly part of the point, and it makes him sympathetic at times but also a tad maddening.
Reeves is more appreciated now than then. He’s not a strength here exactly, but he’s not an issue. Material like this isn’t his strong suit, but he acquits himself better to it than he’s often given credit for.
Idaho is a bit of a landmark, one of several films that helped mainstream queer culture thanks to the willingness of well recognized stars like Phoenix and Reeves to take these lead roles. So it’s got that going for it as well.
My Own Private Idaho (1991) Directed by Gus Van Sant
Time plays tricks. My Bloody Valentine's Loveless came out in 1991, but it doesn't seem that long ago to me. When I noticed that My Own Private Idaho also was released in 1991, it forced me to realize that my favourite rock album came out a third of a century ago. When she was a baby just able to stand, my younger daughter thought it was a dance album and did little gyrations to it on the living room. Now she is 32-years-old with a toddler of her own. A shocking amount of time has passed.
The world has changed a lot since My Own Private Idaho. A budding star, River Phoenix died two years after its release. His loss means I can never watch the movie the same way that I did in 1991. Death is too much a brute fact especially when it occurs to one so young and gifted. I'm not sure his is a great performance here, though. I get Mike is wounded, but a lot of the movie he just seemed blank to me. I suppose that is appropriate to the character. Still.... Perhaps because of the hair, I couldn't help but think of James Dean in Rebel without a Cause, also playing a lost soul but one with the resources available to become un-lost. There is a superficial resemblance physically, and, though Phoenix is riveting in a few scenes, his skill level seems to fall short of Dean's to me by a goodly margin. I kept thinking Van Sant would have probably used him later in the Keith Cobain pic Last Days. It seems a natural fit though I don't know if Phoenix is any better choice in that role than Michael Pitt who seems to have remarkably similar gifts.
I was much more aware of Keanu Reeves this time than when I first saw the movie upon its release. Time has certainly done him favours. I really liked his performance here, the gentleness of it, that is until he metaphorically assumes the throne. He would have made a good Prince Hal, I think. He had played Shakespeare before it will shock most people to know, Hamlet, yet, in Winnipeg early on in his career. Which if nothing else means he knows how to declaim, which comes in handy with the scenes with his Falstaff-like mentor Bob in this movie. I don't think Reeves is second fiddle in this movie at all; at worst, he is co-fiddle.
And what possessed Van Sant to throw in Shakespeare's Henry IV, part two, in such a central way anyway? Given the set up, If he was going to go for a classical literary reference, he could have used the lost boys from Peter Pan or even the Artful Dodger sections of Oliver Twist by Charles Dickens. But he chooses Falstaff. I don't think it really fit the movie, although it adds to Van Sant's credibility as a director who thinks outside the box, or, at least, he once did (he's been in a prolonged slump for about 15 years). Overall, My Own Private Idaho has a loosey-goosey feel to me. There is not really much of a plot--the experimentation seems for lack of a better term, New Wave-y. The subject matter would have been controversial in '91, too. And the movie is also unpredictable, one of those films in which the parts seem more memorable than the whole. Like many of Van Sant's less commercial films (Elephant; Gerry; Last Days), My Own Private Idaho deserves multiple viewings. For one reason, there is a lot that is elusive about it, a lot left up to the viewer to discover on his/her own. Ultimately, the film seems the furthest thing removed from a standard Hollywood movie.
Last edited:
KallioWeHardlyKnewYe
Hey! We won!
- May 30, 2003
- 15,771
- 3,808
KallioWeHardlyKnewYe
Hey! We won!
- May 30, 2003
- 15,771
- 3,808
My Own Private Idaho (1991) Directed by Gus Van Sant
Time plays tricks. My Bloody Valentine's Loveless came out in 1991, but it doesn't seem that long ago to me. When I noticed that My Own Private Idaho also was released in 1991, it forced me to realize that my favourite rock album came out a third of a century ago. When she was a baby just able to stand, my younger daughter thought it was a dance album and did little gyrations to it on the living room. Now she is 32-years-old with a toddler of her own. A shocking amount of time has passed.
The world has changed a lot since My Own Private Idaho. A budding star, River Phoenix died two years after its release. His loss means I can never watch the movie the same way that I did in 1991. Death is too much a brute fact especially when it occurs to one so young and gifted. I'm not sure his is a great performance here, though. I get Mike is wounded, but a lot of the movie he just seemed blank to me. I suppose that is appropriate to the character. Still.... Perhaps because of the hair, I couldn't help but think of James Dean in Rebel without a Cause, also playing a lost soul but one with the resources available to become un-lost. There is a superficial resemblance physically, and, though Phoenix is riveting in a few scenes, his skill level seems to fall short of Dean's to me by a goodly margin. I kept thinking Van Sant would have probably used him later in the Keith Cobain pic Last Days. It seems a natural fit though I don't know if Phoenix is any better choice in that role than Michael Pitt who seems to have remarkably similar gifts.
I was much more aware of Keanu Reeves this time than when I first saw the movie upon its release. Time has certainly done him favours. I really liked his performance here, the gentleness of it, that is until he metaphorically assumes the throne. He would have made a good Prince Hal, I think. He had played Shakespeare before it will shock most people to know, Hamlet, yet, in Winnipeg early on in his career. Which if nothing else means he knows how to declaim, which comes in handy with the scenes with his Falstaff-like mentor Bob in this movie. I don't think Reeves is second fiddle in this movie at all; at worst, he is co-fiddle.
And what possessed Van Sant to throw in Shakespeare's Henry IV, part two, in such a central way anyway? Given the set up, If he was going to go for a classical literary reference, he could have used the lost boys from Peter Pan or even the Artful Dodger sections of Oliver Twist by Charles Dickens. But he chooses Falstaff. I don't think it really fit the movie, although it adds to Van Sant's credibility as a director who thinks outside the box, or, at least, he once did (he's been in a prolonged slump for about 15 years). Overall, My Own Private Idaho has a loosey-goosey feel to me. There is not really much of a plot--the experimentation seems for lack of a better term, New Wave-y. The subject matter would have been controversial in '91, too. And the movie is also unpredictable, one of those films in which the parts seem more memorable than the whole. Like many of Van Sant's less commercial films (Elephant; Gerry; Last Days), My Own Private Idaho deserves multiple viewings. For one reason, there is a lot that is elusive about it, a lot left up to the viewer to discover on his/her own. Ultimately, the film seems the furthest thing removed from a standard Hollywood movie.
Not that you're asking but ... my favorite Phoenix performance and the one I'd argue is his best is in Running on Empty. Watched it in the last year or so and thought it was a fantastic little drama overall but was particularly blown away by Phoenix's depth and maturity in what otherwise could have been a standard conflicted teen role where his wants/needs clash with that of his parents. It's stuck with me ever since.
My Own Private Idaho (Gus Van Sant, 1991)
Convoluted. Meandering. Messy. Overstuffed. Hammy. These could all be descriptors of Gus Van Sant's seminal film of wasted youth. I wouldn't disagree with anyone who described the film as such (I groaned anytime it became Shakespearian or narcoleptic), and yet I think My Own Private Idaho is a fantastic film beautifully filled with creative experimentation and ambition. Van Sant picks utilizes techniques and ideas in single scenes that other directors would use to carry other films (Shakespearean iambic pentameter, magazine cover conversations, cinéma vérité like documentary) only to discard them. This experimentation feels very French New Wave at times, like some of Godard's work in the 60s, and in terms of subject matter it recalls Agnes Varda.
Some of this experimentation does feel a little gimmicky, like the quirks that indie films feel entitled assign to their characters (the aforementioned narcolepsy, iambic pentameter). But the one that I really loved is the documentary like focus on the characters and queer hustler culture. One scene in particular feels right out of a documentary as some of the bit characters tell stories in a cafe of how they got into hustling. You'd think they picked these boys right off the streets to tell their stories (maybe they did, I haven't looked into the background of the film). Ultimately it presents a fascinating portrayal of a subculture that was largely ignored by mainstream Hollywood films at the time, and certainly not staring two of Hollywood's up and coming actors - River Phoenix and Keanu Reeves.
Both of the young upstart actors are great in their roles, Phoenix as the sensitive boy filled with pathos, and Reeves as the rich kid larping as a street kid to get back at his parents. A lot has been said about Phoenix's performance, especially as it was one of the final films of his short career and the heroin-fueled set during the filming of My Own Private Idaho that feels like foreshadowing to his death. But it was Reeves' performance that really impressed me the most. I'm not a huge Keanu fan. He seems like a great human but his range as an actor is limited. But this is one of those roles where I feel he really shines in a role that I could never imagine the actor today doing.
Convoluted. Meandering. Messy. Overstuffed. Hammy. These could all be descriptors of Gus Van Sant's seminal film of wasted youth. I wouldn't disagree with anyone who described the film as such (I groaned anytime it became Shakespearian or narcoleptic), and yet I think My Own Private Idaho is a fantastic film beautifully filled with creative experimentation and ambition. Van Sant picks utilizes techniques and ideas in single scenes that other directors would use to carry other films (Shakespearean iambic pentameter, magazine cover conversations, cinéma vérité like documentary) only to discard them. This experimentation feels very French New Wave at times, like some of Godard's work in the 60s, and in terms of subject matter it recalls Agnes Varda.
Some of this experimentation does feel a little gimmicky, like the quirks that indie films feel entitled assign to their characters (the aforementioned narcolepsy, iambic pentameter). But the one that I really loved is the documentary like focus on the characters and queer hustler culture. One scene in particular feels right out of a documentary as some of the bit characters tell stories in a cafe of how they got into hustling. You'd think they picked these boys right off the streets to tell their stories (maybe they did, I haven't looked into the background of the film). Ultimately it presents a fascinating portrayal of a subculture that was largely ignored by mainstream Hollywood films at the time, and certainly not staring two of Hollywood's up and coming actors - River Phoenix and Keanu Reeves.
Both of the young upstart actors are great in their roles, Phoenix as the sensitive boy filled with pathos, and Reeves as the rich kid larping as a street kid to get back at his parents. A lot has been said about Phoenix's performance, especially as it was one of the final films of his short career and the heroin-fueled set during the filming of My Own Private Idaho that feels like foreshadowing to his death. But it was Reeves' performance that really impressed me the most. I'm not a huge Keanu fan. He seems like a great human but his range as an actor is limited. But this is one of those roles where I feel he really shines in a role that I could never imagine the actor today doing.
Jevo
Registered User
- Oct 3, 2010
- 3,500
- 394
My Own Private Idaho (1991) dir. Gus Van Sant
In the Pacific Northwest the two best friends Mike and Scott live on the streets and make money by prostituting themselves and various small hustles. Mike is a narcoleptic from a troubled family in Idaho, while Scott is the son of the mayor of Portland. Mike never had any better options in his life. Scott can at any minute go back to his cozy upper class life, and is very much cosplaying the street life, rather than actually living it.
My Own Private Idaho is a weird film. It's trying a lot of things, and seems to be throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks. It ranges from larger than life Shakespearean moments to down to earth honest moments about nitty gritty of life as a male street prostitute. I much prefered the latter to the former. There's a lot of heart in these moments. Especially a scene in a diner where various people tell stories about their experiences out on the street. It seems genuine and with a lot of sympathy and interest in these people. The Shakespearean moments on the other hand to me almost totally lack heart. They seem like a way for the characters to deny their reality, and you can't really blame them for this. Scott in particular seem to enjoy these moments and revels in them. But for him this life is also just a big game. He suffers none of the consequences that the others do, and as such he doesn't care about the consequences. For me the movie is best when it's down to earth and about the characters and their lives. Mike and Scott going to Idaho together, because it's mostly just them together and we really get to see their relationship one on one. It's also where we get to see Mike visit his father which is one of the best scenes in the film.
Keanu Reeves has a role that fits him perfectly. Reeves doesn't cast a wide net in terms of what roles he can play well, but the right ones he does well, and he's really good as Scott. It's not really fair to compare him to River Phoenix, because Phoenix has so much more depth in his acting, and Phoenix really is amazing. But the Scott character is also really shallow, so it would be wrong for Reeves to attempt to give him more depth. Phoenix in comparison is nothing but depth. Without saying anything Phoenix expresses Mike's emotions effortlessly, and you can feel the fear and uncertainty that Mike feels almost constantly.
In the Pacific Northwest the two best friends Mike and Scott live on the streets and make money by prostituting themselves and various small hustles. Mike is a narcoleptic from a troubled family in Idaho, while Scott is the son of the mayor of Portland. Mike never had any better options in his life. Scott can at any minute go back to his cozy upper class life, and is very much cosplaying the street life, rather than actually living it.
My Own Private Idaho is a weird film. It's trying a lot of things, and seems to be throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks. It ranges from larger than life Shakespearean moments to down to earth honest moments about nitty gritty of life as a male street prostitute. I much prefered the latter to the former. There's a lot of heart in these moments. Especially a scene in a diner where various people tell stories about their experiences out on the street. It seems genuine and with a lot of sympathy and interest in these people. The Shakespearean moments on the other hand to me almost totally lack heart. They seem like a way for the characters to deny their reality, and you can't really blame them for this. Scott in particular seem to enjoy these moments and revels in them. But for him this life is also just a big game. He suffers none of the consequences that the others do, and as such he doesn't care about the consequences. For me the movie is best when it's down to earth and about the characters and their lives. Mike and Scott going to Idaho together, because it's mostly just them together and we really get to see their relationship one on one. It's also where we get to see Mike visit his father which is one of the best scenes in the film.
Keanu Reeves has a role that fits him perfectly. Reeves doesn't cast a wide net in terms of what roles he can play well, but the right ones he does well, and he's really good as Scott. It's not really fair to compare him to River Phoenix, because Phoenix has so much more depth in his acting, and Phoenix really is amazing. But the Scott character is also really shallow, so it would be wrong for Reeves to attempt to give him more depth. Phoenix in comparison is nothing but depth. Without saying anything Phoenix expresses Mike's emotions effortlessly, and you can feel the fear and uncertainty that Mike feels almost constantly.
Decision to Leave (2022) Directed by Park Chan-wook
One's pleasure in watching Park Chan-wook's Decision to Leave depends a great deal upon what one makes of the style of the film, that is, the way the twisty-turny plot is revealed and played out because this is anything but a straightforward rendering of a standard police procedural. The basic plot is film noir-ish in an Alfred HItchcock sort of way. Hae-joon is an experienced detective investigating the suspicious death of a man who fell from a cliff. While the situation is ambiguous, he begins to suspect the man's beautiful Chinese wife Seo-rae (Wei Tang). There are any number of clues that point in her direction, but he becomes smitten by her and she seems equally smitten with him. Pretty soon he is compromising his career and his marriage, but he can't quite let go of the emotional bind that he is in--he is falling in lover with Seo-rae at about the same speed that he begins to becomes more and more certain that she is a killer. As events unfold, she is let off the hook but he realizes he has both spoiled any possible case against her and is heartsick to boot. He and his wife move away to a new town and soon he runs into Seo-rae again who has moved there as well. She has a new husband, but not for long as, guess what, he dies under very suspicious circumstances, too. Everything seems to be happening all over again. Our detective's life spirals even more spectacularly out of control.
The movie benefits immensely from the performance of Wei Tang as Seo-rae who though she has blood on her hands remains sympathetic, sexy, vulnerable, and, in her own way, well intentioned. The result of her performance is that the movie becomes more of a tragic romance (think Vertigo) than a detective story. The stakes are very different in this modern noir, far more emotionally charged than usual. Indeed, I felt a little like the detective, compromised by my attraction to the femme fatale. She seemed in her vulnerability irresistible.
However, in addition to the script and Wei Tang's performance, it is the style of the film that makes it dazzle. Park does not always make it easy for us to follow--we have to pay attention and the film rewards if not demands a second viewing. This is a puzzle movie with a structure to match. A viewer needs to be on his/her toes to catch all the little nuances and contradictions in what is often not a linear story. Park is one of the great natural talents among contemporary directors with a technique that is awesome to behold and a sense of the visual that is second to nobody else currently working in cinema, He can achieve effects that take one’s breath away. However, all this razzle-dazzle can get under a lot of viewers skin, too, and become a distraction that gives way to impatience and frustration. I think of Park as being similar to a great jazz musician who would find straight melody boring—modal harmonic development is more his thing. Which can be rewarding for the audience, too, but you can’t just sit back passively and watch the story go by. You have to create your own idea of what is going on.
For me, Decision to Leave is a sensual, visually exquisite and emotionally charged movie. A tragic romance/film noir that, though it pays homage to some of the great noir films of the past, can stand alone without reference to other films in the genre. As for Seo-rae, well, some women have to get away with murder, right? Might as well be her.
subtitles
Last edited:
KallioWeHardlyKnewYe
Hey! We won!
- May 30, 2003
- 15,771
- 3,808
Decision to Leave
Park (2022)
“The moment your love ends, my love beings.”
A man is found dead after falling off a mountain. Det. Hae-jun and his partner draw the case. Suspision immediately falls on the wife, Song. As the investigation moves along he gradually becomes obsessed with her. She convinces him that her husband actually killed himself after some sketchy business dealings. More than a year later, they cross paths. Song is remarried but soon that new husband also turns up dead (a famous Oscar Wilde quote suddenly comes to mind …) and all the while the Detective and his prey get closer …
It’s no secret Park loves Hitchcock. If you’ve ever read anything about him or seen any interviews, it’s often one of the very first things that comes up. This is by far his most Hitchcockian. It may be one of the most Hitchcockian thrillers that Hitchcock never directed. The twisty murder narrative, the deep and largely unconsummated romantic longing, the beautiful staging — it’s truly worthy of the such praise.
Park is a structural master and this is no exception to his prior work. Everything is in place when and where it needs to be. Nothing feels unnecessary.
But a lot of the credit for this movie’s success is to Tang Wei who is stellar as Song. Remarkable performance. You’re every bit on the same ride as Hae-jun – wondering if she is guilty, hoping she isn’t, thinking it might not even be a deal breaker if she is. Also, is she even wrong? She’s playing both female roles in the classic noir sense simultaneously. The romance and mystery is so intertwined. And that’s hard to pull off.
Park (2022)
“The moment your love ends, my love beings.”
A man is found dead after falling off a mountain. Det. Hae-jun and his partner draw the case. Suspision immediately falls on the wife, Song. As the investigation moves along he gradually becomes obsessed with her. She convinces him that her husband actually killed himself after some sketchy business dealings. More than a year later, they cross paths. Song is remarried but soon that new husband also turns up dead (a famous Oscar Wilde quote suddenly comes to mind …) and all the while the Detective and his prey get closer …
It’s no secret Park loves Hitchcock. If you’ve ever read anything about him or seen any interviews, it’s often one of the very first things that comes up. This is by far his most Hitchcockian. It may be one of the most Hitchcockian thrillers that Hitchcock never directed. The twisty murder narrative, the deep and largely unconsummated romantic longing, the beautiful staging — it’s truly worthy of the such praise.
Park is a structural master and this is no exception to his prior work. Everything is in place when and where it needs to be. Nothing feels unnecessary.
But a lot of the credit for this movie’s success is to Tang Wei who is stellar as Song. Remarkable performance. You’re every bit on the same ride as Hae-jun – wondering if she is guilty, hoping she isn’t, thinking it might not even be a deal breaker if she is. Also, is she even wrong? She’s playing both female roles in the classic noir sense simultaneously. The romance and mystery is so intertwined. And that’s hard to pull off.
Jevo
Registered User
- Oct 3, 2010
- 3,500
- 394
Decision To Leave (2022) dir. Chan-Wook Park
An insomniac detective catches a case of a retired immigration officer who died while mountain climbing. Although it looked like an accidental fall, his much younger chinese wife is suspected. The detective interviews her and watches her in her apartment at night. He grows increasingly infatuated with her over time, He eventually rules the death a suicide under protest from his partner. But this enables the two to start an affair. After a while he learns that she actually did kill him. This breaks him, he covers up the evidence of her actions, but leaves her. He moves out of the city to be with his wife in the small town near the nuclear power plant where she works. A year later however, his chinese affair suddenly turns up in the same town with a new husband.
Park no doubt loves a good twist. The twists in this not as big as in some of his other films, although the way Seo-rae kills herself in the end is quite a shock ending. But instead of having some big twists to throw off the viewer, this time Park seems to use the very way the film is structured. The film is relentlessly non-linear. Seemingly bouncing around between different times in the story, and some times it even blends two scenes at the same time, which really makes you question the where, when and what of it all. The film is in no way impenetrable. But it certainly rewards the viewer for being on their toes and paying good attention to what is happening. It doesn't always make sense when you see it, and a lot is still hard to figure out in hindsight. Another viewing would most likely help close a lot of gaps and details you might have missed the first time around. This way of telling the story is also helped by a visual side of the film that is very dense with details. There's almost always a lot of small details that add a lot to the whole setting, and Park does a lot of show, don't tell in the way he presents the story.
Tang Wei as Seo-rae is really good. She's both femme fatale and damsel in distress. And for a long time you are not sure exactly which one is her true self. Like Hae-jun you often hope it's the last, but deep down you feel it's the first. She's the most dangerous type of femme fatale, the one that makes you think she's a damsel in distress. A lot of it is really down to Tang Wei and her performance.
I don't think Decision to Leave is up there with Park's best movies. But it's still really good.
An insomniac detective catches a case of a retired immigration officer who died while mountain climbing. Although it looked like an accidental fall, his much younger chinese wife is suspected. The detective interviews her and watches her in her apartment at night. He grows increasingly infatuated with her over time, He eventually rules the death a suicide under protest from his partner. But this enables the two to start an affair. After a while he learns that she actually did kill him. This breaks him, he covers up the evidence of her actions, but leaves her. He moves out of the city to be with his wife in the small town near the nuclear power plant where she works. A year later however, his chinese affair suddenly turns up in the same town with a new husband.
Park no doubt loves a good twist. The twists in this not as big as in some of his other films, although the way Seo-rae kills herself in the end is quite a shock ending. But instead of having some big twists to throw off the viewer, this time Park seems to use the very way the film is structured. The film is relentlessly non-linear. Seemingly bouncing around between different times in the story, and some times it even blends two scenes at the same time, which really makes you question the where, when and what of it all. The film is in no way impenetrable. But it certainly rewards the viewer for being on their toes and paying good attention to what is happening. It doesn't always make sense when you see it, and a lot is still hard to figure out in hindsight. Another viewing would most likely help close a lot of gaps and details you might have missed the first time around. This way of telling the story is also helped by a visual side of the film that is very dense with details. There's almost always a lot of small details that add a lot to the whole setting, and Park does a lot of show, don't tell in the way he presents the story.
Tang Wei as Seo-rae is really good. She's both femme fatale and damsel in distress. And for a long time you are not sure exactly which one is her true self. Like Hae-jun you often hope it's the last, but deep down you feel it's the first. She's the most dangerous type of femme fatale, the one that makes you think she's a damsel in distress. A lot of it is really down to Tang Wei and her performance.
I don't think Decision to Leave is up there with Park's best movies. But it's still really good.
Decision to Leave / 헤어질 결심 (Park Chan-wook, 2022)
Decision to Leave was one of my most anticipated films going into TIFF last year, and it was also my most disappointing film that I watched in 2022. Hyped beyond imagine going through the festival circuits, from a stylish auteur director, and great word of mouth from people I respect, how could it go wrong? Well, apparently a lot of ways, to the point where I wasn't sure that I watched the same film as everyone else. So I was curious to revisit it a year later to see if my opinion has changed.
The short answer is: no.
Decision to Leave has a great basic set-up for a Hitchcockian thriller (its impossible to write a review about the film without mentioning Hitch or Vertigo): a detective, a murder, and an attractive and mysterious dame that you can't shake. However, Park takes this basic premise and overwrites the hell out of it to create an unnecessary convoluted and longwinded story. Its just a mess of a film as he throws every narrative, editing, and stylistic devices and tricks he has in his books onto the screen like a know-it-all freshman who wants to show off to his professor and classmates. I just want to shake him and tell him to relax, cool it, and stop trying to impress me.
This is a common complaint of mine with Park in that he lets his flourishes get in the way of effectively telling his stories. Of what I've watched by him, I've only loved The Handmaiden and liked Oldboy, everything else I find mediocre or outright bad.
I continued to be baffled by what people see Decision to Leave (outside of the performances, which credit to Park Hae-il, and Tang Wei in particular, are very good).
Decision to Leave was one of my most anticipated films going into TIFF last year, and it was also my most disappointing film that I watched in 2022. Hyped beyond imagine going through the festival circuits, from a stylish auteur director, and great word of mouth from people I respect, how could it go wrong? Well, apparently a lot of ways, to the point where I wasn't sure that I watched the same film as everyone else. So I was curious to revisit it a year later to see if my opinion has changed.
The short answer is: no.
Decision to Leave has a great basic set-up for a Hitchcockian thriller (its impossible to write a review about the film without mentioning Hitch or Vertigo): a detective, a murder, and an attractive and mysterious dame that you can't shake. However, Park takes this basic premise and overwrites the hell out of it to create an unnecessary convoluted and longwinded story. Its just a mess of a film as he throws every narrative, editing, and stylistic devices and tricks he has in his books onto the screen like a know-it-all freshman who wants to show off to his professor and classmates. I just want to shake him and tell him to relax, cool it, and stop trying to impress me.
This is a common complaint of mine with Park in that he lets his flourishes get in the way of effectively telling his stories. Of what I've watched by him, I've only loved The Handmaiden and liked Oldboy, everything else I find mediocre or outright bad.
I continued to be baffled by what people see Decision to Leave (outside of the performances, which credit to Park Hae-il, and Tang Wei in particular, are very good).
Jevo
Registered User
- Oct 3, 2010
- 3,500
- 394
Gosford Park (2001) dir. Robert Altman
A shooting party at an the country estate of William McCordle, a wealthy industrialist, collects McCordle's wife's family, some friends including Hollywood actor Ivor Novello together with a Hollywood producer. None of them seem to like each other, not even man and wife. Actually man and wife seem even more likely to dislike eachother in this group. Half of the invitees seem most interested in how they can use McCordle and his wealth for their own gain. Below stairs the house is being run by the two ruthless ladies housekeeper Mrs Wilson and the cook Mrs Croft, who have an intense dislike of each other. The visiting servants include the inexperienced Mary who is maid to the old and cheap Lady Trentham who hired her mainly because she was cheap. Robert Parks, a London orphan who is the valet for Lord Stockbridge. And Henry Denton, valet for the Hollywood producer Weissman with an unimpressive scottish accent. On the second evening of the party McCordle is found dead in his study, and half the visitors have a good motive for killing him.
Gosford Park is part Downton Abbey and part an Agatha Christie novel. Like Agatha Christie here the murder is another angle to examine the social dynamic between the upstairs part of the house. Contrary to Christie's writings here the downstairs part of the house plays a much bigger part of the social examination, and the relationship between the servants and the upper class is the primary interest of the film. It's hardly surprising that Julian Fellows wrote both this and Downton Abbey. The servants in this film, even in the 1930s, are basically property of their masters. They have no life of their own. Their life revolves around their masters and their needs. A family of their own is not an option. Affairs between servants are also looked down upon. In McCordle's time as a factory owner in London he found it his right to have the young women in the factory when he wanted to. And the effects on the women when they had to have risky abortions, give away their kids right after birth or have their life potentially ruined by a child out of wedlock, didn't bother him at all. The servants are thought so little off, that police inspector Thompson doesn't believe that motivations of their own, so they can not be suspects. It's fun to see the servants dancing and having fun while Ivor Novello plays and sings. But it's also sad to see that the only time they have fun is when they are living vicariously through their masters.
In typical Altman fashion he doesn't leave much time exposition and characters introductions. Who's who and their relations is often delievered as a secondary part of a throwaway sentence, and probably while the dialogue is overlaid with another conversation. It can make it hard to keep up with who's who, especially when half the servants are referred to by the masters name as well. But it's not always a big deal. Many of the upstairs characters basically have the same problems, they are broke, unhappy and desperately trying to keep up appearences. But there is a lot of great detail hidden in the dialogue, even when it seems like empty conversation, there's always a lot of characterisation and story elements hidden in every piece of dialogue. During the dinner and lounge scenes the camera can follow 2-3 conversations at the same time, and there's stuff to pick up in all of them, and often just as much or more in the body language of the characters. I don't think there's anyone who can make this type of scene as well as Altman.
Robert Altman has a very varied catalogue and many very good films. Generally I'm just a sucker for Robert Altman, but I think Gosford Park is perhaps his greatest achievement. The direction and editing is fantastic.
A shooting party at an the country estate of William McCordle, a wealthy industrialist, collects McCordle's wife's family, some friends including Hollywood actor Ivor Novello together with a Hollywood producer. None of them seem to like each other, not even man and wife. Actually man and wife seem even more likely to dislike eachother in this group. Half of the invitees seem most interested in how they can use McCordle and his wealth for their own gain. Below stairs the house is being run by the two ruthless ladies housekeeper Mrs Wilson and the cook Mrs Croft, who have an intense dislike of each other. The visiting servants include the inexperienced Mary who is maid to the old and cheap Lady Trentham who hired her mainly because she was cheap. Robert Parks, a London orphan who is the valet for Lord Stockbridge. And Henry Denton, valet for the Hollywood producer Weissman with an unimpressive scottish accent. On the second evening of the party McCordle is found dead in his study, and half the visitors have a good motive for killing him.
Gosford Park is part Downton Abbey and part an Agatha Christie novel. Like Agatha Christie here the murder is another angle to examine the social dynamic between the upstairs part of the house. Contrary to Christie's writings here the downstairs part of the house plays a much bigger part of the social examination, and the relationship between the servants and the upper class is the primary interest of the film. It's hardly surprising that Julian Fellows wrote both this and Downton Abbey. The servants in this film, even in the 1930s, are basically property of their masters. They have no life of their own. Their life revolves around their masters and their needs. A family of their own is not an option. Affairs between servants are also looked down upon. In McCordle's time as a factory owner in London he found it his right to have the young women in the factory when he wanted to. And the effects on the women when they had to have risky abortions, give away their kids right after birth or have their life potentially ruined by a child out of wedlock, didn't bother him at all. The servants are thought so little off, that police inspector Thompson doesn't believe that motivations of their own, so they can not be suspects. It's fun to see the servants dancing and having fun while Ivor Novello plays and sings. But it's also sad to see that the only time they have fun is when they are living vicariously through their masters.
In typical Altman fashion he doesn't leave much time exposition and characters introductions. Who's who and their relations is often delievered as a secondary part of a throwaway sentence, and probably while the dialogue is overlaid with another conversation. It can make it hard to keep up with who's who, especially when half the servants are referred to by the masters name as well. But it's not always a big deal. Many of the upstairs characters basically have the same problems, they are broke, unhappy and desperately trying to keep up appearences. But there is a lot of great detail hidden in the dialogue, even when it seems like empty conversation, there's always a lot of characterisation and story elements hidden in every piece of dialogue. During the dinner and lounge scenes the camera can follow 2-3 conversations at the same time, and there's stuff to pick up in all of them, and often just as much or more in the body language of the characters. I don't think there's anyone who can make this type of scene as well as Altman.
Robert Altman has a very varied catalogue and many very good films. Generally I'm just a sucker for Robert Altman, but I think Gosford Park is perhaps his greatest achievement. The direction and editing is fantastic.
Jevo
Registered User
- Oct 3, 2010
- 3,500
- 394
A recent trip to Berlin inspired me to want to watch Victoria from 2015 again. So that's gonna be my next pick.
Ad
Latest posts
-
-
-
Salary Cap: Pens '24-'25 Salary Thread: The Crosbicles Volume XIX- Latest: DesertPenguin
