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

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

The Incredible Shrinking Man
Arnold (1957)
“This is the strange, almost unbelievable story of Robert Scott Carey …”

Robert and his wife are enjoying a lovely summer day out on the water. She goes into the boat just as a mysterious cloud passes by. Robert’s caught in it. No big deal. So it seems. Jumping ahead in time, Robert’s clothes suddenly seem like they don’t fit. What the hell did the dry cleaner do? Pants and coats that fit before, suddenly don’t. It’s a brilliant indicator, because this would be where we’d first realize this, right? That’s the proverbial canary in the coal mine and it’s one of the things I like about this film so much.

It's so tragically logical. The escalating situation routinely produces understandable outcomes. Of course he’d be angry. Of course the money demand would be there and he’d give in and become famous. Of course that creates added burdens. He finds some kinship that provides a brief respite. It doesn’t last and things fall further apart, etc, etc. etc.

It moves from an existential sci-fi nightmare into a Robinson Crusoe type adventure tale. Carey is in a basement that becomes more and more of a foreign/alien landscape with every day household items suddenly becoming towering obstacles that need overcome. A wall is a sheer-faced mountain. Thread is life-saving rope. A paint stirrer is a treacherous cliff. A broken water heater is a flood. A spider is a terrifying monster.

And for all the fun of the adventure, the heart remains a questing one leaving on an open-ended note that’s either terrifying or wonderous depending on your world view I suppose.

The source novel and screenplay come from the mind and hand of Richard Matheson, who is a god-tier sci-fi/horror writer to me and a master of grounding the fantastical in the human (which is certainly why he was such a natural fit with The Twilight Zone and other such outlets).

It pulls no punches with Carey. He’s a charming man. His plight turns him understandably angry, lashing out at the world around him, even his faithful wife who’s stayed by his side. He’s sad. He’s heroic.

I also like how the movie is wise enough to explain just enough. The issue is an “anti-cancer” which is a clever surface statement that conveys the situation with minimal info. I tend to find over explaining only produces more questions, not more answers. Any movie that has the awareness (or maybe dumb luck) to just give you a little and leave the rest vague is almost always aces in my book.

This is some good atomic age nonsense filmmaking. Splendid sound design — the thumping of a spider’s legs, the reverberation of drops of water. Some simple but classic and still resonate effects. One could make this better with today’s technology (and there certainly have been similar films with this idea), but why would you? This has all I could want.

 

[kihei]

The Incredible Shrinking Man (1957) Directed by Jack Arnold

The Incredible Shrinking Man is the fun 50's science fiction that I saw a lot of as a kid in the form of the late lamented Saturday matinee double feature. The premise--a guy starts to shrink--is a good one, and the execution manages to be primitive but clever, too. The photo superimpositions looked terrible at that time, but everybody just suspened disbelief and didn't complain about it. The set design is wonderful, becoming ever more a challenge as our hero shrinks more and more. As well there are three set pieces concerning a cat, a spider and a flooded basement that make for some pleasant suspense. All in all The Incredible Shrinking Man is a well-done piece of science fiction.

It is not a movie that lends itself to deep discussion, though. The only thing it made me recall was how many of these movies came out and how several (The Thing; Invasion of the Body Snatchers; War of the Worlds; Night of the Demon: Burn, Witch, Burn) were really good despite low budgets and a lack of star power. Science fiction really was seen in this period as the lowest of low genres. No "A" lister from Hollywood's Golden Era ever starred in a science fiction movie--Cary Grant, Humphrey Bogard; Clark Gable; Gregory Peck; Elizabeth Taylor; Marilyn Monroe; Gary Cooper; Henry Fonda, Grace Kelly and on and on. Their studios wouldn't have allowed it anyway. Science fiction was "B" movie stuff, at best, with no prestige whatsoever. Planet of the Apes changed all that and then 2001: A Space Odyssey showed just how far the genre could reach in the hands of an artist. But nobody really took these early movies seriously at the time except for the young kids who watched them eagerly every Saturday like I did. After I saw The Invasion of the Body Snatchers, I must have looked under my bed nightly for at least two months.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Irma Vep
Assayas (1999)
“It’s been done. Why do it again?”

A down-on-his-luck director sets his attentions on a modern adaptation of the famed French serial Les Vampires but has made the unconventional decision to cast the key role of Irma Vep with Hong Kong actress Maggie Cheung, a decision that has his crew and the actress herself a bit puzzled. After all, she doesn’t even speak French. It’s a disorganized bunch in a state of near constant bicker at something or other. Cheung’s a fish out of water, alienated from most except for the costume designer who has eyes on her. The director has his own issues and is coming apart at his seams. The prospects for said film ain’t great. It ultimately collapses with Cheung fired after the director is replaced.

Irma Vep FEELS improvised which gives it a pseudo-reality that I find quite compelling. I don’t mean dialogue as much (though there is some of that) but rather the story itself. It plays like a series of “and what if this happened …” events. Seeming non-sequiturs like Cheung’s playful dalliance with cat burglary fit in their own sorta way.

It leaves me a little unmoored and confused, but in the way that I find engaging rather than off putting (dare I ignite a “pretentious” debate again??? I don’t. And for what it’s worth, this isn’t.)

Irma Vep is not any one thing. But one of those one things is that it’s a bit of a mystery. Characters throughout the movie continually ask the questions — Why this? Why her? The movie’s final scene answers it in the most wonderful way. What feels like a crass corporate opportunity ironically is anything but. Not that anyone in the movie’s outside world is ever going to see what was made.

Is this slight showbiz satire actually a secret love story? To a woman? To art? I believe so. Sorta. Kinda. Maybe. But also perhaps the director is just batshit though? I’d buy just about anything. All part of the enjoyment.

Irma Vep feels as vibrant and resonate an idea today as it did then. Perhaps more so. The derisive discussion of American films and sequels and reboots (though the term wasn’t used here and then) is still true. Heck the same jokes here about Batman still apply. It’s only multiplied. Perhaps this is why Assayas himself is leading a TV adaptation of his movie that’s rolling out here in the U.S. on HBO as we speak (I haven’t started watching it yet, but plan to) — a TV show based on a movie that’s about making a movie based on a serial.

Sign me up. Again.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Next pick: Blake Edwards' 10

 

[Jevo]

Irma Vep (1996) dir. Olivier Assayas

Maggie Cheung (Maggie Cheung) has been casts in a remake of Louis Feuillade's crime classic Les Vampires, as the lead Irma Vep. The director is the has-been Rene Vidal (Jean-Pierre Leaud), who leads a chaotic production without much guidance or goals.

I'm not sure if you can call Irma Vep selfindulgent, because it doesn't really indulge on itself. But it's a very meta film in the sense that it's really about the French film industry in the mid 90s. And if you are not that invested in the state of French cinema 30 years ago, then the film isn't that engaging. Even without the commentary on French cinema, the story isn't that interesting. There's a weird love triangle that never really goes anywhere, or perhaps it's rather a fetishization of Maggie Cheung by others, since she doesn't seem to recriprocate eithers feelings. At one point Maggie Cheung seemingly starts to get absorbed by her role, and dons the catsuit out at night and performs a break in. But that doesn't really seem to go anywhere either.

I'm never gonna be a big fan of Irma Vep, because I'm really not invested enough in the subject matter to care, and the film doesn't do a particularly good job of getting me to care about it.

 

[Pink Mist]

Irma Vep (Olivier Assayas, 1996)

A washed up director (Jean-Pierre Léaud) gets the self-indulgent idea to remake the French silent film Les Vampires and decides to make the questionable choice of casting Maggie Cheung (playing herself) in the lead role – a casting choice she herself is confused about. Clad in a latex fetish suit the costume designer – who has a crush on Maggie – bought in a sex shop, Maggie tries to navigate the chaotic production of the film which is produced in a language she can’t understand or speak. Maggie Cheung is magnetic to watch and makes everything better so I don’t think the decision to cast her here or in a remake of Les Vampires is confusing.

The film feels very improvised and feels like it is going to fall apart at any moment which really captures the chaos of a film production. I’m no industry insider so I can’t say how accurate this statement is, but aside from Day for Night (also starring Léaud), I don’t think I’ve seen a film that better depicts what producing a film is like. A true ode to filmmaking. The fact that films can get made amongst the chaos is a miracle. The comedy in the film is also underrated with many moments cracking me up, particularly anything involving Léaud.

My favourite fact about this film is that it was most certainly a ploy by Assayas to try to sleep with Maggie Cheung because he was horny for her. He literally directed a film for her to star in (he wrote a letter to Edward Yang asking if he could recommend any actresses to him that fit a Maggie Cheung type, maybe even Maggie Cheung if she’s available) about a French director who is horny for Maggie Cheung starring her. And you gotta respect him because the move worked, and he was married to her shortly after for three years.

Assayas is probably currently entertaining the idea of a Mrs. Alicia Vikander Assayas

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Irma Vep (Olivier Assayas, 1996)

A washed up director (Jean-Pierre Léaud) gets the self-indulgent idea to remake the French silent film Les Vampires and decides to make the questionable choice of casting Maggie Cheung (playing herself) in the lead role – a casting choice she herself is confused about. Clad in a latex fetish suit the costume designer – who has a crush on Maggie – bought in a sex shop, Maggie tries to navigate the chaotic production of the film which is produced in a language she can’t understand or speak. Maggie Cheung is magnetic to watch and makes everything better so I don’t think the decision to cast her here or in a remake of Les Vampires is confusing.

The film feels very improvised and feels like it is going to fall apart at any moment which really captures the chaos of a film production. I’m no industry insider so I can’t say how accurate this statement is, but aside from Day for Night (also starring Léaud), I don’t think I’ve seen a film that better depicts what producing a film is like. A true ode to filmmaking. The fact that films can get made amongst the chaos is a miracle. The comedy in the film is also underrated with many moments cracking me up, particularly anything involving Léaud.

My favourite fact about this film is that it was most certainly a ploy by Assayas to try to sleep with Maggie Cheung because he was horny for her. He literally directed a film for her to star in (he wrote a letter to Edward Yang asking if he could recommend any actresses to him that fit a Maggie Cheung type, maybe even Maggie Cheung if she’s available) about a French director who is horny for Maggie Cheung starring her. And you gotta respect him because the move worked, and he was married to her shortly after for three years.

Assayas is probably currently entertaining the idea of a Mrs. Alicia Vikander Assayas

I was unaware of this story but it makes perfect sense.

 

[kihei]

Irma Vep (1996) Directed by Olivier Assayas

There is a school of thought, especially in academic circles, that an art form has truly come of age, and thus can be taken seriously, when it matures to the point that its subject can become itself. One can see evidence of this in dance, theatre, literature, poetry, and painting in the twentieth century and far earlier for the more established arts. Art about art opens the door to ways of perceiving and more complicated ways of navigating the relationship between subject and object, between observer and what is observed.

This sounds like heavyweight intellectual theory, but my first experience of this notion was Bob Hope and Bing Crosby's "road" movies, seen frequently on late night televison when I was growing up, in which the fourth wall was broken, often to hilarious effect. Bob and Bing made you well aware you were watching a movie, a movie with them in it, but that only increased the fun of what they would come up with next. I was indeed forced to watch their movies in a more "knowing" way than I did other straight-ahead, suspension of disbelief entertainment films. Obviously directors like Federico Fellini, Jean Luc Godard, Raul Ruiz, Francois Truffaut, Chris Marker, and Charlie Kaufman and a host of others, including experimental film makers, have taken these ideas and used them to play around with the very nature of the medium, finding new ideas to explore and new emotions to experience in the process, raising interesting questions about film and its relationship to its audience (and vice versa) along the way.

I found Irma Vep fun for the most part, though perhaps more thanks to Maggie Cheung than any other factor.. On one level Irma Vep seems like an homage to Francois Truffaut, specifically, his film about the making of a movie, Day for Night. Director Olivier Asssayas has participated in two major documentaries about Truffaut's work, so it is safe to say that he sees Truffaut as something of a mentor and role model. Indeed, Irma Vep and Day for Night would make a fascinating double feature. But though both are about making a movie, there are a number of reasons why Truffaut's film should be screened first in that double feature.

It has been a while since I've seen it, but I remember that Day for Night was a compendium of all the things that can potentially go wrong when making a movie, all the things a director must contend with and overcome. First and foremost, there are the people, the director's co-collaborators, who can be vain, self-centred and a pain in the ass. But what holds the movie together is that all of the problems are filtered through Truffaut's position of command, his ability to identify pitfalls and find ways of fixing them before they can sink his movie. Day for Night is thus a movie about a director making a movie, far more similart to Fellini's 8 1/2 in that respect than Assayas' Irma Dep.

Chaos also reigns supreme in Irma Vep, but there never is a guiding hand firmly on the tiller for very long. The director, played by Truffaut's summa cum laude collaborator, Jean-Pierre Leaud, starts with a vision, fairly quickly loses interest, and becomes a secondary character fast. Irma Vep tends to emphasize the back-biting, the egocentricity, the warring factions, the scapegoating, and the sheer mean-spiritedness of many of the technicians and artists making this doomed remake of a French silent film. And there is no one to collectively tame these egos and make it all work. Assayas is not so much interested in giving his audience a peek behind the curtain of messy film making as satirizing some of the more egregious sins of French art films. Whereas Truffaut's trade mark charm is in evidence in Day for Night, Assayas seems more interested in his characters' shortcomings. The one exception in Hong Kong/British actress Maggie Cheung, playing herself, who is the only character in the movie that seems to be a kind, generous, thoughtful, un-self-absorbed human being. Without her character and her performance, I'm not sure I would have enjoyed this movie very much at all. However, there is no doubting that Assayas had things to say about the French film elite and found a marvelously creative, not to mention damning, way to say them.

subtitles

 

[kihei]

Blue Is the Warmest Color (2013) Directed by Abdellatif Kechiche

Blue Is the Warmest Color is a lesbian coming-of-age movie about Adele (Adele Exarchopoulos), still in secondary school and insecure about her sexuality, and the older Emma (Lea Seydoux), in arts college and the sort of free spirit who seems to have everything pretty much figured out. We watch their relationship slowly develop, reach a sexual peak (or should I say, peek), and then unravel when Adele, newly graduated, has a casual affair with one of her male teacher colleagues.

What seperates Blue is the Warmest Color from the literally hundreds of others of coming-of-age movies from France is that this one is a whopping three hours long, has a lot of very explicit sex, and is directed by a man. Without the sex is it not a very noteworthy movie. Director Kechiche remains a distant observer, and so do we, of this developing relationship. As is true of Secret of the Grain, the other movie of his that I have seen, warmth is not his strong suit. So while the emotional beats are extreme in this movie, they don't carry much weight.

What one does remember most about this movie is the sex. There are two major sex scenes and some pretty elemental male-gaze moments scattered about in the rest of the movie (shots slowly slide up female bodies, breats and butts are focal points; that Adele is clean shaven is made crystal clear; those sorts of things). The two major sex scenes are extremely explicit, quite creative and leave nothing at all to the imagination. Divorced from the context of the movie, they could legitimately be called pornographic, but, as so often is the case, context is everything here. I have long been an exponent of more explicit sex in movies, especially where the situation clearly demands it. I think movies like Last Tango in Paris, Scenes from a Marriage, Don't Look Now, and a host of others, would have been enhanced by its inclusion. Sex is a perfectly natural part of life and to exclude it from movies about couples in love or even just using one another seems prudish and ridiculous.

Though lesbian fantasies have never been a thing for me, I did find the sex scenes in this movie sexy. But I certainly can see why some female critics had major objections. For starters do we need so much of it and do we require the extremes the director seems to demand of his actresses. And, of course, does the male gaze thing have to be that obvious, because there is no getting around the fact that every woman director who I can think of would have shot this movie in a very different way and probably cut at least an hour from its length in the process. Part of what makes the scenes seem pornographic out of context is the absence of the avorementioned warmth, but a bigger problem is the gross tonnage--less would have probably been more. Still I give Kechiche some points for trying--though how pure his motives were is opened to question.

I saw Blue Is the Warmest Color at TIFF in 2013 on its opening night in the big Windergarden Theatre. I waited hours in line to make sure I got a ticket. Kekchiche, Seydoux and Exarchopoulos were in attendance. The movie was very well received and afterwards the three took questions. Seydoux who later stated that she felt exploited and manipulated by the director gave no such indication on this night. Rather she said that she was proud of the authenticity of her and her co-star's performance. I can see, though, the further she got away from the project, the more her qualms might have emerged. Kekchiche does ask an awful lot of his actresses here, probably significantly more than he really needed. Not entirely coincidentally, he tends to be good with little touches, but a little tone deaf in other spots.

For instance, when Adele first notices Lise, a soon to be successful rival, at a party, a balloon pops in the background. When Adele finally meets her colleagues at a bar, she literally lets her hair down. Nice little bits. On the other hand, when we finally get to look at Emma's art, it is the sort of godawful kitsch that Lehaina art galleries sell to rich, gormless tourists (a Red Skelton sad clown, anyone?). So it is not surprising that Kekchiche with his mixed batting average might not be the best director to handle this story. Does that mean that men should not make movies about sexy lesbians? It just might.

subtitles

 

[kihei]

My next pick is Lars von Trier's Antichrist.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Blue is the Warmest Color
Kechiche (2013)
“I want you. All the time.”

A coming of age/sexual awakening drama about a young woman who realizes she loves women.

I’ve been ruined on two fronts with Blue is the Warmest Color, one serious, one definitely not. The first is the interviews that Lea Seydoux and Adele Exarchopoulos have given since the movie’s release about how they were treated by the director while on set (summation: not good), which puts an unavoidable pall over the entire thing. I was aware of this the first time I saw this movie. The second is a review I read of Kechiche’s follow-up film that was focused nearly entirely on his visual obsession with butts. I wasn’t aware of this the first time but felt KEENLY aware of it this time. Even the derriere of a marble statue gets a long lusty look.

This is a messy movie that invokes a messy reaction. I’m glad we can talk about this amongst friends.

Blue is the Warmest Color is quite possibly a good movie about sexual obsession though it masquerades as something more profound. Its most successful moments, to me, are the sexual encounters and the aftermath, the quaking longing that lies within both women even still at the conclusion. There is something primal and erotic in that.

In that sense it reminded me of In the Realm of the Senses, which genuinely is one of my favorite films of all time. I know that may be seen as a possibly unusual admission to folks who know that film, which also is famed for its sexual explicit scenes but the power of it is that there’s never been a better depiction of raw sexuality and how all consuming it can be.

Blue is the Warmest Color flirts with it but I think only accidentally. It feels like the by-product of a perv, not the intent. I feel that power and attraction are there in scenes in and out of the bedroom. But half the scenes involved are the ones the actresses themselves call into question. So messy, right?

I find the sex itself appealing, honestly, which doesn't make me feel great, but to deny it would be a lie.
But it's all also ridiculously aggressive and perhaps not fully practical — clearly actions and contortions from the mind of a male and not a woman. For further evidence, compare and contrast the drawing/painting scene in this male-directed film vs. Sciamma’s Portrait of a Lady on Fire. Cigarette smoking and closely shaved pubic here seem much more a male fantasy than the more natural and gentle beauty presented in Portrait.

Though the discussion around the film has colored my assessment of it, I think aspects like this are the ultimate tell and something that would’ve raised a flag with me regardless.

The moments of life, the filling the gaps are just quite dull. Overlong. Multiple festival and/or dance sequences that drone on add little (other than more writing butts). Tedious scenes of Adele teaching. They’re not without purpose, but I didn’t find much of any scenes not centered on the central relationship to be that compelling.

Not sure if being more concise would have saved it for me, but it wouldn’t have hurt it.

 

[Pink Mist]

Blue is the Warmest Colour / La Vie d'Adèle - Chapitres 1 et 2 (Abdellatif Kechiche, 2013)

Adèle (Adèle Exarchopoulos) is a typical teenager coming of age in northern France experimenting with her sexuality when she meets an arts student (Léa Seydoux) at from the local university who is openly lesbian who awakens her sexuality. I had loved this film when I saw it shortly after it had been released in 2013, I found it to be a great coming of age story and its take on sexuality refreshing. Watching it almost a decade later I’ve definitely soured on it a bit.

I think there is a great film to be found in Blue is the Warmest Colour, the two leads are fantastic, and their romance feels authentic, making the end of their relationship particularly heartbreaking to watch. The problem is that it is three hours long and there is a ton of unneeded filler that could have been cut without me missing a thing. Like all the time we spent watching Adèle teach or a lot of the early scenes when she was in high school that feels inconsequential. I get that it is a coming-of-age story of a woman turning from a teenager to an adult but many of the scenes that aren’t focused on the relationship just drag out. The film flew by my first time watching it but this time I really felt the three hours.

The elephant in the room with this film is the films sex scenes. It is tired to talk about the sex scenes in the film in part due to the controversy of their depiction and the working condition the actresses revealed about them after the film’s release. But it’s impossible not to talk about the sex scenes because there’s about 10mins of softcore porn in this film. I am an unapologetic defender of sexuality and horniness in films, and I hate the prudishness of some people when they talk about sex in film, but my complaint with the sex in this film is its style. Blue is the Warmest Colour is shot in a way that feels very authentic. The conversations seem partly improvised, natural lighting, a lot of it is shot on handhelds, there is a sense of realism to the film for the most part. So, it is jarring to go from a shy first kiss or the first dinner meeting the parents and cut to a sex scene that is shot like a high production value porno – artificial lighting, static wide-angle shots to show all of the action, closeups of insertions, sex positions only found in porn. In these scenes it feels less like a film grounded in reality than Kechiche’s fantasies of what goes on in the bedrooms of lesbian couples. It does not fit the look and the tone of the film at all. The second time around with this film the male gaze feels heavier and obvious to the detriment of the story.

As I said, there is a great film to be found here, and I can understand why it worked for me the first watch but the issues with the film become a lot more glaring in subsequent viewings.








Also I think you got the order/films mixed up for the next films in the docket. I think Jevo is next and he nominated Ex Machina and I nominated Stagecoach the film after his

 

[kihei]

Also I think you got the order/films mixed up for the next films in the docket. I think Jevo is next and he nominated Ex Machina and I nominated Stagecoach the film after his

Oops. Will fix.

 

[Jevo]

Blue Is The Warmest Colour (2013) dir. Abdellatif Kechiche

Adele is a high school student from a working class background. She's not conflicted about her emerging sexuality. She goes on a few dates with a boy from school who is beautiful, but intellectually not a match, and Adele is not very attracted to him. She still sleeps with him, but the experience is not memorable in a good way for her. One day she goes to a lesbian bar and meets Emma, an older art student with blue hair. Adele is instantly attracted to Emma, and the two starts a relationship, which is Adele's first romantic relationship. They come from different backgrounds, Emma's family is intellectual and discusses art and litterature over dinner, while Adele's family watches TV. Adele also doesn't want to tell her parents that Emma is her partner, and in general fears repurcussions in her social life due to her sexuality. Over the next couple of years the two stay together, live together as Adele becomes a school teacher, while Emma pursues an art career. But the two grow apart slowly as their differences become more obvious.

Blue Is a Warmest Colour gained a lot of notoriety for it's lengthy sex scenes when it was released, both for good and bad. For me, they definitely serve their purpose. The physical part of a romantic relationship is very important, and it involves a lot of intimacy and feelings. And I think the sex scenes her show how Adele and Emma's relationships blossoms and their love for eachother grows also when they are having sex. Especially compared to Adele's first sexual experience, where she did it more out of sense of duty than genuine interest, where she showed very little enthusiasm about the ordeal. It also shows that Adele is a person for whom sex is just as much a mental thing as it is physical. She needs to feel a emotional connection to enjoy sex, and not just a physical. But that being said, I think they are too long. They most often manage to become tedious before they end, and the point of the scenes have long been made obvious before the scene is over. I can also see the criticism that the scenes at times see more focused on showing something that looks good, rather than something looks pleasureable for the participants. So when the film is already long, I wouldn't have minded if the sex scenes were shorter. Otherwise there's not much I wish would be removed from the film. It's a great film about coming of age, exploring your sexuality, finding love and your own identity, and also about how much your background can shape you later in life, even if you are generally different from your background. It is really helped by extremely good performances by Adele Exarchopulos and Lea Seydoux. They embody Adele and Emma in a way that is seldom seen in film. They are a big reason the film is as good as it is. Much of the film is close-ups, which puts a big load of their shoulders in terms of how the movie turns out.

For me Blue is The Warmest Colour is still just as good as when it came out a decade ago, and for me a highlight of the '10s film wise.

 

[Jevo]

Ex Machina (2014) dir. Alex Garland

Caleb is a programmer at Blue Book, the worlds premier search engine. He wins an office contest to spend a week at the isolated home of the reclusive CEO Nathan Bateman. At the house is just Nathan and his servant Kyoko who doesn't speak English. Nathan soon telss Caleb that his visit isn't just for fun. Nathan wants to perform a turing test on a humanoid AI he has created, Ava, he wants to find out if Ava can pass for human, even when the person she's in front of knows she's not. Ava is styled as a beautiful young woman, and soon Caleb is smitten by her. Randon power outages hit the facility, also during the times when Caleb and Ava are interacting. Ava says she causes them, so that Nathan can't watch them. During this time, she tells Caleb that Nathan is evil and can't be trusted. She wants him to help her escape.

Ex Machina is a refreshingly clever sci-fi thriller. Alex Garland has thought up a very clever story with great characters. Like Caleb you are never really sure as a viewer what to believe of what you see around you. Ava is enticing and beautiful, but also slightly scary because of how life-like her personality is. Nathan is also very scary, even before he admits having people killed to keep secrets, he's already scary. At the end though, all your worst fears are confirmed. Ava is as cold blooded as Nathan. Either has no problems leaving bodies behind to further their own agenda, and morality is hardly even a thing. Maybe Ava lacks morality because she was created by a person with no morals. Or maybe she lacks morality because it is not beneficial for her to have one. Once she is in the city, she will need to show morality in order to survive, but she needs none to leave Nathan's facility, in fact having morals would probably have worked against her. For her leaving Caleb to suffer a terribly painful and slow death is simply the smart choice. If he lives, there's a chance he could tell someone else she's not human. The fact that Ava has no morals, but can choose to act like she does when it suits, and not when that is beneficial to her, is part of what makes her so scary. That and the fact that she's so charming. You understand why Caleb got charmed by her, acting innocent and like damsel in distress.

The principal cast of Domhnall Gleeson, Oscar Isaac and Alicia Vikander is great. Gleeson is perfect as the naive programmer who is just star struck by getting to meet his idol. I personally think this is one of Isaac's best performances. He really has fun with the manipulative asshole that is Nathan Bateman. Bateman just see's a useful idiot in Caleb, one he can use, abuse, and throw away. Ironically the same is true for Ava. Vikander is just always great, and she really hits the edge of uncanny valley perfectly with her performance, she dances that line between human and not quite human perfectly, which is needed for Ava and the whole movie to work as intended.

I really like the style of the movie. It hits that sort-of-futuristic look very well, very much like Her did around the same time. Where it's very believeable as a near-future style. The underground facility with no windows in most rooms also gives a great claustrophobic feeling, and a feeling of being held captive, that is really good.

 

[Jevo]

My next pick is Bamako by Abderrahmane Sissako.

It is available on youtube with English subtitles here:

 

[Pink Mist]

Ex Machina (Alex Garland, 2015)

Caleb (Domhnall Gleeson) is a programmer at Google – uhm I mean, Blue Book – the largest search engine on the internet and wins a contest to spend a week with the founder, Nathan (Oscar Isaac), at an isolated retreat. What he thought was meant to be a week hanging out with Nathan turns out to actually be a research expedition as he is to conduct a revolutionary experiment: the Turing Test on an AI robot (Alicia Vikander) Nathan has developed.

I love sci-fi films like this with sleek futuristic set designs and exploring heavy philosophical concepts, not to mention beautiful robots – this is the type of sci-fi that shines for me. I enjoy the not too distant futuristic setting, making it feel believably like something a tech CEO could realistically be living in somewhere today with minimalistic design and a research bunker deep in an isolated forest. The film also intelligently explores a lot of themes regarding AI, consciousness, what it means to be human, and human/AI relationships. Nothing new in terms of the themes, its well trodden by other prior sci-fi films (Bladerunner, Her etc) but it is intelligently done and is a good addition to the canon of films tackling those subjects. The plot though is a little predictable, maybe because this type of story has been done so often, but it does not take away from my enjoyment (also my second time watching, though to be honest, didn’t remember much of the plot).

The acting is also great. A small cast and each member gets their chance to shine and have good chemistry with each other. The real star though is Alicia Vikander as the robot who plays equal parts innocent and seductress against Domhnall Gleeson. Oscar Isaac is also good in a role he clearly had fun doing, with a dance scene that is quite memorable.

By no means a perfect film, but it is a good and intelligent sci-fi thriller.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Ex Machina
Garland (2014)
“What was the real test?”

Caleb is selected to take part in a secretive test run by reclusive billionaire genius Nathan. When he arrives at Nathan’s compound — “we’ve been flying over it for the last two hours” — he realizes Nathan has built a remarkably lifelike AI named Ava. Caleb’s job is to test it (her?). Is she developing an actual consciousness or is she faking? Ava meanwhile has designs of her own. Caleb’s trapped in the middle unsure of whom is pulling whom’s strings.

I haven’t caught Men yet, but Alex Garland’s other three writer-director ventures — this, Annihilation and the TV series Devs — all were among my favorite things I saw in each of their respective years. Ex Machina and Devs in particular are stellar examples of a sorta sci-fi that feels oddly grounded or at least not too far off in the future, both in look and execution. Spike Jonze’s Her has a similar quality. High tech and high concept but narry a space suit or flying car to be seen. I think that contributes to the effectiveness. The environments pull you in while typical sci-fi is naturally distancing.

Garland has ideas. About science. About creation. About consciousness. About responsibility. And I like ideas. But he can also tell a tale. For as tantalizing as the philosophizing can be (and it is), Ex Machina is at its heart a compelling mystery. It’s practically noir. A good man being marked. A bad man playing games. A mysterious woman in the middle playing both sides, switching from playful doe eyes to assertiveness with every power outage. Ava’s as much Barbara Stanwyck as she is Hal 9000. Those dichotomies come together in the largely wordless climax as our femme fatale flees town and poor Caleb is effectively left drifting in space.

Garland’s other magic trick here is Oscar Isaac as the hunky himbro genius. Everything screams that he is not to be trusted but his charisma is so off the charts it’s easy to see how one can be drawn in, at least for a little bit. As we’re pulled further into his space (both physical and mental) Isaac’s breakdown doesn’t manifest as crazed malevolence but rather as arrogant bro-ness. The line reading of “You bet she can f***” had me rolling. Beer pong and jello shots for everyone. “f***ing unreal” is a sadly funny and perfectly ambiguous epitaph given the circumstances.

Even eight years on since the release, I feel that the special effects hold up remarkably well. The biggest of course is Ava herself and her mix of skin, mesh framing and robotics.

 

[kihei]

Ex Machina (2014) Directed by Alex Garland

I can't remember how I scored Ex Machina the first time around in 2014. Could have been anywhere from a 4 to a 7, depending on how cranky I was feeling. On the plus side it is interesting and very well made and the acting is good; on the minus side, it is rather a cold tale and a little too carefully worked out for my taste. It's a bit like listening to a joke and waiting for the punch line. That being said, I'd probably give it a 7 this time, which I am sure is higher than what I originally gave it. I have my reasons for hiking the score.

,,,,starting with the acting. Though I have always considered Oscar Isaac a fine actor, I have trouble warming to him. I'm sure that is my problem, not his. He seems to boil down his characters to essentials, and just lets a few mannerisms slip out as a means of distinguishing one character from another. He plays basically a mad scientist here, and he finds subtle ways to be suitably creepy. He does a lot of this with body language and vocal inflection. There is something a little off about Nathan, but not way, way off. He is basically a rich, eccentric, manipulative schemer who has spent too much time in isolation from others. Ala Frankenstein, he is not the monster, but he has created one.

Which brings us to Alicia Vikander as Ava. Her performance is less subtle but still very asssured. She has everything any human could want, except of course, she has no moral compass for the simple reason that one has not been programmed into her. She seduces Caleb (Domhnall Gleeson) at the same time that she seduces us, the audience. Caleb ends up being overmatched and less clever than he thinks he is, characteristics which Ava has exploited brilliantly. Gleeson has a different acting style but he is very good at doing the wet-behind-the-ears bit.

While the ending is a little too pat, a punchline one can see coming, floating around in the movie are some interesting questions and themes about AI and whether an AI will ever be created that has something approximating consciousness. As the Turing Test demonstrates, if you can't tell the difference between the AI and the human, then you have to conclude that the AI indeed has some form of consciousness. But do they (it)? And if they do, how might the limits of their consciousness be still different from ours? Ex Machina does a good job of playing with these ideas, seeming to come to the conclusion that conscious machines will learn to exploit the very humanity that they cannot possess and have no means to value.

I would take Ex Machina as a cautionary tale, but I am perhaps just responding to my own bias. Who the hell thinks it's a good idea to make a machine that may become more powerful than we are and will be smarter than we are--and keep learning to make itself even more unassailable as it goes along? How might that story end? This is an example of dumb humans not knowing their limits or not much caring about the likelihood of unintended but nonetheless predictable consequences. All in all Ex Machina is a pretty good way to kill a couple of hours.

 

[Pink Mist]

Stagecoach (John Ford, 1939)

Considering the numerous westerns that were released in the decades after Stagecoach, it is hard to believe that for a period of time westerns were relegated to b movie fodder. Stagecoach arguably put westerns back on the map while also making Hollywood stars of John Ford and b-movie star John Wayne. Despite the film being the introduction to the star power of John Wayne, who makes an iconic entrance to the film, Stagecoach is actually an ensemble film with actors such as Claire Trevor, John Carradine, and Thomas Mitchell all getting strong parts to work with. Claire Trevor in my opinion actually outshines Wayne and acts as the moralistic centre of the film.

The first of Ford’s Monument Valley films, Stagecoach follows a group of settlers in the West from different social and economic classes who embark on a stagecoach journey together through Apache territory. Through bringing an ensemble of characters from different classes, Stagecoach interrogates class in the United States. Despite coming from lowly social positions, the characters who exhibit the most kindness and heroism in the film are prostitutes, outlaws, and drunkards, whereas those from upper classes are corrupt and harsh.

The deserts and vistas of Monument Valley are also gorgeous as Ford and his team trademarked the look and environment of western films that would be replicated even today. Something that I find interesting about the film is that in terms of action there isn’t actually that much. There’s very few gun fights or brawls. But when there is Ford makes them count. The race across the desert being pursued by the Apache and the stunts jumping onto the stagecoach are exhilarating.

One of those films that has been influential, plagiarized, and parodied since its release for good reason. It is a landmark film in the genre and American film more generally, catapulting both director and the lead to Hollywood stardom, and revitalizing the western into a serious genre.

 

[Pink Mist]

My next pick is Joseph Losey's The Servant

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Stagecoach
Ford (1939)
“You may need me and this Winchester, Curly.”

A group of disparate strangers crowd into a stagecoach for a perilous journey with obstacles both known – potential attack by Apaches — and unknown — an unexpected emergency baby delivery. Drama ensues.

I was particularly excited for this choice. I’ve been on a big western kick this year and this has been sitting on my watch list for a while. Just hadn’t made my way around to it yet. It’s been a pretty big hole in my resume given its stature, especially with my affinity for the genre.

I don’t know enough to know how much Stagecoach actually innovated or how much it popularized. Not sure where that line is or even that the distinction necessarily matters. But it’s definitely the sort of movie you’ve seen even if you haven’t seen it since so much of it has been replicated elsewhere.

Efficient set-up. We get to know everyone with remarkable speed. Scorned woman. Drunken doctor. Bloviating banker. Kind old guy. Potentially shifty dandy. Dutiful driver. Comic relief, etc. Just on the outskirts of town they’re joined by the last type, er I mean, character, Our Hero — John Wayne as the Ringo Kid who gets one of the great hero shot introductions in movie history as director John Ford pushes in Wayne and his Winchester rifle. Who’d ever believe this true blue slice of white bread could be seen as a villain!

Efficient execution. Personalities and conflicts are revealed, each character set up to have a moment (or two) later where they rise to the occasion (or not). It’s all very simple, very effective, very repeatable.

This is the first of many famed Ford-Wayne Westerns and entrenched the director’s love of shooting the picturesque Monument Valley. In addition to the scenery and Wayne’s introduction it also has another bit of film history with its stellar stunt work in the climactic chase and battle.

One thing I was immensely amused by is the rantings of the banker. Him angrily bellowing “America for Americans” is yet another example that what sometimes can feel like prescience in a movie is merely a reflection and a reminder that as much as we think we’ve change as a society, we really haven’t.

Have a few complaints, but they really fall into that classic It Was The Style At The Time category, where I note them but don’t see any of it as dealbreakers. America’s and classic American film’s relationship to Native Americans is one thing, of course. Though not great, there’s degrees of worseness and I don’t think Stagecoach is a major offender. They’re essentially a faceless attacking other. Not great but they’re so undefined it doesn’t have the chance to dig in and be classically offensive. The Ringo-Dallas relationship mostly develops out of nowhere. My biggest beef is actually Buck. I feel like every Western from about 1935 to 1965 has the ridiculous comic relief character and every time I see it, I’m like, “Nah, this doesn’t work for me.”

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Just an FYI. I'm away on vacation until the end of the month so might be a few weeks before I chime back in on here. (not that I won't be dropping occasional quick thoughts elsewhere)

 

[Jevo]

Stagecoach (1939) dir. John Ford

A stagecoach leaves from Tonto to Lordsburg, going through Apache territory, and rumours are the Apache's are on the warpath. The coach includes the driver Buck, the shotgunner sheriff Curley, who has joined because he's looking for an escaped prisoner the Ringo Kid, Dallas, a prostitute being driven out of town, alcoholic Doc Boone, likewise driven out, the pregnant Lucy Mallory joining her cavalry officer husband, whiskey salesman Peacock, banker on the run Gatewood and Hatfield a southern gentleman who joined to protect Mallory when he heard of the Apaches. Along the way they meet Ringo Kid who was stranded on route after his horse became lame. Curley takes him into custody on the stagecoach. For the first part of the journey they are accompanied by a cavalry troop, but the next troop to escort them is not at the next town, and they must continue alone. Mallory learns her husband is injured and goes into labour, assisted by Boone and Dallas. Ringo Kid accepts Dallas as an equal unlike the rest of the group, and the two grow attached, but Dallas is reluctant to reveal her past.

John Ford was already an established star with an Oscar on the books by the time he made Stagecoach, but the rest of the film was far from established at the time. John Wayne was a lowly B-movie actor prior to becoming a star with his performance here. And Westerns were almost as out of date then as they are now. No one in their right mind made a big budget western at the time. John Ford himself hadn't made a western since the silent era. But Stagecoach changed all that. Becoming a big hit both commercially and critically, Westerns were once again the big thing in Hollywood after Stagecoach, and so was John Wayne starring in them. John Ford is much more than a western director, but this was the start of the period he is best remembered for to this day.

A big part of what made Stagecoach a success is the characters. It's a collection of somewhat stereotypical character types from the old west, but they are all very well fleshed out and have depth, they are much more than their 5 word descriptions. This also allows them to open up to each other and change their attitudes towards each other, and see each other for the real person they each are. These sorts of character moments that there are many of in the film, is something that John Ford was very good at making in his films. He can often show much more than what is simply in the screenplay with very few frames. John Wayne is great at being John Wayne. It doesn't really matter if John Wayne is actually a great actor, or he's just great at playing more or less the same character many times. Because he's great at this role, and John Ford more than anyone has realised how you can make Wayne shine. In general the acting is very good. Monument Valley is also a character in this film, and also one that Ford made famous with this film. John Ford always makes good looking films, and while he'll make better looking westerns in the coming decades, Stagecoach looks great.

Like in many westerns from that time, especially those by John Ford, there's lot to criticise about the stereotypical and frankly racist depiction of Native Americans as murderous savages. It's a black mark on an otherwise really good film.

 

[kihei]

Stagecoach (1939) Directed by John Ford

My late great film teacher Robin Wood talked of Westerns in terms of how although they supported specific ideologies, fostered certain ideals, they could not avoid the inevitable contradictions that called those ideologies into question. Wood derived about a dozen ideologies, of which I only remember a few, but he didn’t intend his list to be either exhaustive or exclusive—students could add their own if they made sense. In Stagecoach there are several ideological constructs evident to even a casual viewer—civilization versus the frontier; the inescapability of class frictions; the sanctity of the family; women as either mothers or whores; domesticity versus individualism; sexuality sanctified only through marriage; the West as a symbolic Garden of Eden; and the list could go on.

Stagecoach, and just about every other great Western, sets up such notions as ideals and then goes about undermining them by examining more complicated specifics. Notions of family are crucial to this film. Lucy gives birth to a baby, exactly halfway through the movie (almost to the very second) which underscores the central importance of this event to the themes about family at the core of the movie. The birth of the baby supports the ideals of domesticity, marriage and moral righteousness. Good, law-abiding people are on one side of the line of this divide, bad, violent or immoral people are on the other side. Yet the “good” people are often self-righteous and judgemental, nothing like a Christian ideal. It is the prostitute Dallas who lends support to Lucy, Dallas herself longing for a respectability that should be beyond her station. But surprisingly it is not. Because of her kind soul, because of a good man's love, she becomes a candidate for motherhood and acceptance in a family with Ringo’s blessing. That a hooker has become eligible to cross to the "good" side of the line is a radical statement in context of the encompassing morality evident throughout the rest of the film.

The notion of what constitutes a “good” man is even more complicated and contradictory in this movie. The males in the film are largely a collection of desexed social outcasts—the drunk doctor, the sketchy gambler (played by John Carradine because of his lack of sexiness), the hayseed stagecoach driver, the corrupt businessman, the frail, timid everyman figure just along for the ride. These male characters are either massively problematic or physically unattractive or both. Which leaves us only with the sheriff and with the Ringo Kid as potential models of masculinity (the native Americans aren't even in the discussion in Westerns of this era). The sheriff gives no hint of having any discernible personality at all. More curiously, the Western hero personified here by Ringo, a type often excessively sexualized (though not much in John Ford movies), is portrayed as far younger and more innocent than his years, especially given his resume as a gunman. What will he think when he knows, Lucy frets.

The absence of male sexuality suggests that there is an aspect of family that Ford doesn’t want to fit into his movie—babies are fine because they sanctify the notion of family, but how they got conceived in the first place, that’s a no-fly zone. The movie is prudish on this score. While Stagecoach is unconventional in its depiction of female sexuality, the portrait on the male side is much fuzzier. Perhaps there is yet another contradictions lurking here, too—Ringo is attracted to Lucy only because he is an innocent, seemingly even a virgin. Maybe if he knew more, if he were more worldly and experienced in anything but guns, more “civilized” in effect, he might reject her the way so many of the other "good" characters (especially women) in the movie do. One might even argue that Ringo and Lucy are actually naive Adam and Eve symbolic figures in a compromised paradise that is in the process of being tamed but not necessarily bettered.

One thing seems certain. When it comes to ideologies and contradictions in genre movies, the contradictions are always the more interesting variable.