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

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Programming alert. I'm going to be traveling for the second half of December and am unlikely to post anything longer or more thoughtful around these parts than a few sentences will allow during that time.

Don't wait up for me!

I'll catch up when I return.

 

[Jevo]

Riceboy Sleeps (2022) dir. Anthony Shim

After her boyfriend gets put in psychiatric hospital due to his schizophrenia, and ultimately commits suicide there. So-Young decides to move from Korea to Canada with her six year old son Dong-Hyun. So-Young gets a job in a factory where she gets sexually harassed by some coworkers, but also gets a community with the fellow immigrant women working there, korean and otherwise. Dong-Hyun speaks no English but still goes to a suburban elementary school, where he gets relentlessly teased by the other kids, who seemingly haven't seen a non-white person before and for whom mayo is an exotic food, for being asian, for the food he eats, for his name. As he gets older he actively tries to surpress his korean heritage.

Riceboy Sleeps doesn't shy away from showing the ugly parts of moving to another country. Dong-Hyun has a terrible time facing racism almost constantly throughout his childhood. But direct and systemic racism. So-Young tries her best be a good mother for him, but often comes up short compared to what his emotional needs are. It doesn't help him that she doesn't want to talk about their past in Korea, which further alienates him from his heritage, leaving him without roots. Anthony Shim lets the camera roll, even when things are uncomfortable, and it works well to put the viewer in the same state of wanting to get away from the situation, that the characters are no doubt feeling.

I worried that the movie would take a turn for the melodramatic when So-Young got her cancer diagnosis, but I am happy that it didn't. It stayed grounded. Even the end felt emotionally genuine, even if it was a bit on the nose.

I really liked the first half of the movie. I feel it's a great piece of social realist cinema from an immigrant point of view. It shows the hardships of the immigrant experience, both from an adult and a child point of view. The second half I didn't feel was quite as strong. I can see why Anthony Shim made it like that. He gave himself a very hard task of showing a young person rediscovering their heritage, living it, taking pride in it, as a way to gaining self confidence and finding out who you are as a person. It's something that's very hard to show on film. But I think he makes it work quite well, even though it's slightly contrieved. But to me it doesn't flow as naturally as the first half. But I also can't see how Shim could have told this story in a better way. I'm interested to see where his career goes from here. I hope his next venture will be just as inspired as this one.

 

[kihei]

Programming alert. I'm going to be traveling for the second half of December and am unlikely to post anything longer or more thoughtful around these parts than a few sentences will allow during that time.

Don't wait up for me!

I'll catch up when I return.

I don't know. A Christmas break seems like a pretty good idea to me. Enjoy your travels and season's best.

 

[Jevo]

The Lives of Others (2006) dir. Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck

1984. East Berlin. Stasi is key compenent of the state's repression of the people, and it keeps growing every year, now spanning several hundred thousand employees and informants. Gerd Wiesler is an experienced Stasi officer, skilled in both surveillance, interogation and teaching of new Stasi operatives. He is ordered by his friend and superior Grubitz, to spy on playwright Georg Dreyman. A man who seems a model East German citizen. No known history of ever saying anything controversial about East Germany or communism. Wiesler is intrigued by the case, and wants to do the surveillance personally. He is however diasppointed, when he learns the real reason for the surveillance is not any concrete suspicions towards Dreyman. It's however ordered directly by the minister of culture, Bruno Hempf, who is interested in Dreyman's girlfriend, the actress Christa-Maria Sieland. This knowledge leads Wiesler to gain sympathy for Dreyman and Sieland. Which at first leads him to orchestrate that Dreyman discovers the affair between Sieland and Hempf, but he also convinces Sieland to return to Dreyman. Later it causes Wiesler to conceal Dreyman writing an anti-East German article, which is published in a West German paper.

In a morbid sort of way, I find Stasi very interesting. It's an organisation which grew very fast in few years, and was an ever growing bureaucracy, and often Stasi itself, was what was fueling it's every expanding bureaucracy. It's seems to be me, that it was an organisation which had an ever growing internal paranoia. It saw anti-communist behaviour and dissenters everywhere. It was only a matter of catching them in the act. This paranoia required more surveillance, more informants, more agents. This caused more arrest which caused more paranoia etc. I was in Berlin last fall, and visited the Stasi museum in their old headquarters. It was a scary and enlightening experience, and I would recommend it to anyone who ever goes to Berlin. I couldn't imagine a better movie about the topic than The Lives of Others.

The Lives of Others show the difference between two principal types of people working in this sort of system, and what happens when they clash. The true believers so to speak. Those who believe that the surveillance is of great importance, and always righteus and justified. That's Wiesler. Then there's the politicians. Those who see it for the political tool that it is, and how it can be used and abused for their own gain. That's Grubitz and Hempf. At the begining of the film Wiesler can almost be considered a worker bee who knows only how to execute the Stasi handbook and the law. But being confronted with the political reality of his assignment forces him to reevaluate what it is he is doing. It causes him to gain a conscience. Seeing this change is Wiesler is impressively powerful. Often it wouldn't be a compliment if one of the most tense moments of a film was a character writing two sentences on a typewriter. But here that's the case, and it's a great compliment to the filmmakers. Seeing Wiesler write an incorrect report for the first time is a great moment in the film, and shows the change he has been undergoing.

I doubt The Lives of Others is gonna leave my mind any time soon. It's a very powerful movie, which never overplays it's hand. The story and direction is underplayed, it allows the story to develop slowly, and for the viewer to develop their own ideas concurrently with the movie.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

The Lives of Others
Henckel von Donnersmarck (2006)
“Are you still on the right side?”

A dedicated German Stasi member has his beliefs and loyalties challenged while on assignment listening into the life of a playwriter. Ever the good solider, Wiesler realizes he’s not listening in because the man is a potential dissident but rather because a higher up is interested in the writer’s girlfriend. This is the initial crack that grows into a full-blown fissure driving Wiesler to put his skills to use to protect his target(s) rather than condemn them. I love that the more that Dreyman, a fiction writer, bends his writing toward fact, the more the cold facts party solider Wiesler becomes the fiction writer. It’s a clever, effective inversion. But the ruse can only last so long. Too much collective paranoia and mistrust abounds. Tragedy looms.

There is a very methodical unfolding to this. Like a detailed report. Is are dotted. Ts are crossed. It’s a disciplined style that fits the subject perfectly.

Ulrich Muhe exemplifies this approach as Wiesler. I learned in some reading after this most recent viewing that he himself was spied on by the Stasi (as many were of course), but the informers against him included his then-wife as well as co-workers. When asked about how he prepared for the role he reported said “I remembered.” A history not far removed. He died of cancer at 54 one year after this movie came out.

There is one thing I wrestle with here and that is the time-hopping coda. Every time I have seen this it throws me off. The point it makes certainly has some resonance, but it also hits me as oddly warm given the tragedy that proceeds it. Bittersweet is probably the right reading but it just doesn’t play like that to me. Loved ones died, but it’s nice to be memorialized in a book? Also it’s a bit jarring when 95% of the movie is very methodical and deliberate and the last five percent shifts to a faster, choppier rhythm. I’m making my issue here sound way worse than it actually is. There’s important information and revelations here, but it feels almost tacked on.

 

[Pink Mist]

The Lives of Others / Das Leben der Anderen (dir. Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck, 2006)

The Lives of Others is a gripping and deeply human exploration of surveillance, power, and redemption in the shadows of 1984 East Berlin. Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck’s (great name) debut feature is a cinematic triumph, capturing the pervasive dread of life under an authoritarian regime while uncovering the fragile, unexpected humanity that can emerge even in the bleakest of circumstances.

The story centers on Stasi Captain Gerd Wiesler (Ulrich Mühe), a loyal and meticulous servant of the East German state. His task: to surveil celebrated playwright Georg Dreyman (Sebastian Koch) and his partner, actress Christa-Maria Sieland (Martina Gedeck), for signs of dissent. Initially cold and unemotional, Wiesler is the embodiment of the system—obedient, efficient, and devoid of personal sentiment. But as he becomes more entrenched in the lives of Dreyman and Christa-Maria, his detachment begins to erode. Their passion, vulnerability, and quiet defiance awaken a dormant conscience within him, leading to small but profound acts of rebellion.

Ulrich Mühe’s performance is extraordinary. With minimal dialogue, he conveys Wiesler’s transformation through subtle expressions and physicality—every glance and pause brimming with unspoken emotion. His journey from enforcer to silent protector is heartbreakingly real, and by the film’s conclusion, his sacrifice feels monumental despite its quiet execution.

Thematically, The Lives of Others is rich and multilayered. It explores the suffocating effects of surveillance on both the watcher and the watched, the moral compromises of living under oppression, and the redemptive power of art and empathy. The contrast between the cold, gray bureaucracy of the Stasi and the warmth of human connection in Dreyman’s world is stark, highlighting the resilience of creativity and love in the face of totalitarianism.

Technically, the film is a marvel. The muted color palette reflects the bleakness of East Berlin, while the tight framing reinforces the sense of entrapment. The sound design is particularly brilliant, with the hum of surveillance equipment and the click of typewriter keys creating an almost claustrophobic atmosphere. Gabriel Yared’s subtle score amplifies the emotional undercurrents without ever overshadowing them.

That said, the film is not without its imperfections. The film's ending may lean too heavily on sentimentality, offering a resolution that feels slightly too neat for such a complex story. While this is a valid critique, the emotional payoff is so well-earned that it’s hard to fault the film for seeking closure in its final moments.

The Lives of Others is ultimately a story about humanity in its most profound sense: the capacity for change, for courage, for quiet defiance. It reminds us that even within the cold machinery of authoritarianism, there is room for empathy and redemption. This is not a film that glorifies grand gestures; instead, it celebrates the power of small, silent acts of resistance and kindness.

Haunting, thought-provoking, and deeply moving, The Lives of Others is a testament to the enduring strength of human compassion. It’s a film that stays with you long after the credits roll—a poignant reflection on what it means to truly live, even under the weight of oppression.

 

[kihei]

The Lives of Others (2006) Directed by Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck

This story of a Stasi agent assigned to monitor a possibly subversive playwright in East Germany likely finds a place in Germany's all-time Top Ten movies. It is one of the rare subtitled European films that received virtually unanimous respect and acclaim in North America. Everybody loved it. And I can still see why. The story is a compelling one, the atmosphere suitably gray and oppressive, and the suspense has a nice steady build to it. If there is a flaw, I would say it is Sebastian Koch as Dreyman, the playwright, who communicates stress with the same all-purpose squint. At the time, I ranked The Lives of Others as the third best movie of 2006 behind two absolute masterpieces that rank among the best movies of the century, Tsai Ming-liang's I Don't Want to Sleep Alone and Jia Zhangke's Still Life. In other words, high praise in a great year.

Re-watching The Lives of Others, the plot development seems a little clunkier than I remember it, which only might indicate how emotionally invested I was in the film while seeing it for the first time. Part of the problem might have been inexperience on the part of von Donnersmarck whose editing is not the smoothest that I have ever seen in his first feature film. (He only directed two more movies, including his wildly unlikely follow-up four years later The Tourist, which I was one of the few to like even a little bit). What did surprise me, though, is how much less readily did I take to the Stasi Agent Wiesler's conversion, his recognition of his own moral culpability in trying to find evidence to destroy a good man. This is no fault of the actor Ulrich Muhe, who gave a very persuasive performance despite knowing at the time that he had a terminal illness. What bothered me a little during this viewing is that the conversion seems absolutely necessary as plot development but not as flawlessly executed as I remember it the first time that I saw the movie. Is there really enough there to believe Wiesler's massive change of heart? This unexpected realization on my part isn't close to being enough to compromise my estimation of the movie's worth, but it does show how a powerful film can influence one's emotions to the extent that it becomes difficult to see potential blemishes.

subtitles

 

[Jevo]

I received Gulag Archipelago for Christmas, and there's a passage in it which made me think about Wiesler and his change of allegiance. Solzhenitsyn writes about the interogators and prison guards he and others faced before they were sent of to camps, who he describes as almost entirely evil. Because they do their jobs with no moral qualms, often with joy, even though they know that most prisoners are not guilty of what they are accussed of. But he also writes that he doesn't believe they were born that way. Every person has some good and some evil in them, and how much of each changes throughout their lives. He also believes that it's perhaps by coincidence that he himself did not become evil. While in university NKVD was recruiting among him and his fellow students. If he had ended up in NKVD, he finds it likely that he would have turned almost fully evil, perhaps as a coping mechanism. Wiesler has in many ways become this person who fully embodies the Stasi. He sees no evil and hears no evil, but he's probably purposefully blind. Then having to spy of Dreyman forces his good side to come out more, and Wiesler also chooses to let it.

My next pick is Mustang by Deniz Gamze Ergüyen

 

[Pink Mist]

Uptight (dir. Jules Dassin, 1968)

Jules Dassin’s Uptight is a searing, overlooked masterpiece that captures the raw emotions of the late 1960s with unflinching honesty. Set in the immediate aftermath of Martin Luther King Jr.'s assassination, this film is not only a reimagining of John Ford’s The Informer but also an intensely personal exploration of betrayal, guilt, and the fractured reality of the civil rights movement. It takes the struggles of a movement and distills them into a human tragedy, one that feels as relevant today as it did in 1968.

The film centers on Tank (Julian Mayfield), an unemployed steelworker and former activist whose life is crumbling under the weight of poverty, despair, and alcohol. When he betrays his militant friend Johnny Wells (Max Julien) to the police for $1,000, his decision sets off a domino effect of consequences that ripple through the revolutionary community. Tank's torment and ultimate downfall become a powerful allegory for the sacrifices and moral dilemmas faced in the fight for justice.

What makes Uptight so remarkable is its unapologetic focus on Black militancy and the divisions within the movement. It doesn’t sugarcoat the tension between those advocating nonviolence and those who see armed resistance as the only path forward. The film grapples with the complexities of revolution—what it demands from individuals, what it destroys, and what it leaves behind.

The performances are exceptional, particularly Julian Mayfield’s portrayal of Tank which is heartbreaking, capturing the agony of a man who knows he’s crossed an irreversible line.

Visually, the film is gritty and intimate. Cleveland’s industrial decay becomes a metaphor for the eroding hope of the civil rights era. Dassin’s direction ensures every frame carries emotional weight, while Booker T. & the MG’s haunting score underscores the film’s urgency and sorrow.

Uptight doesn’t pull punches. It’s an uncompromising portrait of a movement at a crossroads, where solidarity fractures under the pressure of systemic oppression and personal ambition. It asks hard questions about loyalty, morality, and survival, refusing to offer easy answers.

Despite being underappreciated upon release, Uptight is a vital piece of American cinema that deserves a much wider audience. It speaks to the specific struggles of its time but also to the universal human experiences of betrayal and redemption. Dassin created a film that feels timeless in its honesty, tackling political and personal themes with equal fervor.

This is not just a film about the civil rights movement—it’s a film about people caught in the whirlwind of history, making choices that define them and their communities. Uptight is haunting, thought-provoking, and devastatingly powerful. A true hidden gem of 1960s cinema.

 

[Pink Mist]

My next pick will be Fellini's Juliet of the Spirits

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Uptight
Dasin (1968)
“Don’t talk to us about being killed. We know about that.”

An updated of The Informer (both book and movie), moved from Ireland into a a then-current US/blaxploitation backdrop. We start with a group of radicals led by Johnny planning to steal a shipment of guns, but the alcoholic Tank leaves his colleagues in a lurch. He’s distraught over MLK’s death. The job goes belly up resulting in the death of a security guard, which puts Johnny on the run. Tank, now effectively exiled and on the skids, is recruited/blackmailed to be an informant. Feeling betrayed he eventually rats out Johnny, which leads to Johnny’s death and Tank’s spiraling. The revolutionaries catch him and hold a trail. Found guilty, they order his execution.

The thing I cannot shake is that this was shot and released directly in the wake of the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. I can’t fathom another film that could have been so immediate, so relevant. You feel the anger because it is obviously very fresh and very real. Jules Dassin, a certified Hollywood lefty, famously fled to Europe after being blacklisted during McCarthyism. Knowing that, you can feel some of his anger too.

I think it’s a truly brilliant piece of political filmmaking, at least to my tastes in that it never loses grip on its message, but it simultaneously works as a piece of entertainment. It’s remarkably well balanced between polemic and pulp. Tank carries the burden of needing to be both sympathetic and frustrating. He’s right and he’s wrong. That’s another tough balance to maintain, but the movie does well. This pulls no punches with the complexity of the issues and people it’s dealing with. By any means necessary has a cost. The movie, wisely, shows, but doesn’t judge.

And Dassin directs with verve from the opening robbery to Tank’s drunken funhouse bender to the makeshift courtroom trial.

 

[kihei]

Uptight (1968) Directed by Jules Dassin

For a movie with a lot of flaws, Uptight sure remains powerful. In effect a remake of John Ford's The Informer (1935), with the revolution shifted from Ireland to the black population of Cleveland during the turbulent days after Martin Luther King was assassinated, Uptight is about the only movie I can think of that shows the anger and outrage from a militant black perspective. Doesn't pull any punches either: the ending is perfectly consistent with what has come before it. There is no sugar coating the situation or giving it a hopeful, white liberal spin. That said, the movie is almost the very definition of "uneven," a mix of things that work beautifully or don't work very well at all.

Let's start with the script, which is co-written by Jules Dassin, himself a victim of an informer during the McCarthy witch hunts, and actress/activist Ruby Dee and writer/activist Julian Mayfield. For once the dialogue seems to be written without compromise, which has its benefits, but there are scenes, usually the scenes where a crowd of people are talking, where the dialogue suddenly turns bluntly oratorical rather than natural with a fair amount of speechifying and point making going on. Most of the great collection of black actors (Ruby Dee, Raymond St. Jacques, Roscoe Lee Browne, Frank Silvera) are excellent. However, Dassin made a mistake in giving the lead performance to scriptwriter Julian Mayfield, who had only one minor acting role ten years earlier. He gives a very broad performance as Tank, often chewing up the scenery in the process, and he never manages to get at the heart of his character who betrays his friend based on motives that remain sketchy as to why Tank would go to such extremes. To me, he was a sweaty (too much sweat, too) distraction except for a few moments of genuine power somehow mixed in probably because he was trying so hard.

Then there is the uneven nature of the direction, both in style and sometimes in tone. Part of the movie looks like it is set on a soundstage for a musical like Guys and Dolls with exaggerated staginess and colourful costumes. Other exterior scenes have a vibe that closely resembles neo-realism. Oddly, these exterior scenes are some of the most eye-catching in the movie, especially when they focus on the strange geometry of the dockyards of Cleveland. Other landmarks show a city in massive decline. (Generally speaking, I think Cleveland, in this period anyway, was considered pretty much to be Buffalo minus the glitter). This mishmash of styles somehow doesn't hurt the movie much if only because its message that blacks must go it alone and make their own destiny is conveyed by all concerned with such fervour and passion. One element I thought worked perfectly was the score by Booker T and the MGs, a nice mix of soulful and atmospheric.

I could not find any information about how well Uptight did at the box office when it was initially released in December of 1968. I doubt it made more than a pittance in white communities. The message would be seen as too direct, too radical, too black (in all possible senses). Having survived the assassinations of Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King just two months apart earlier in the year, there would not be much appetite to watch a movie that Black Panthers could identify with. I'm sure it would do much better in black communities, but, in any case, there seems to be no financial record of that either. To me, though Uptight is sometimes definitely on-the-nose, its bluntness is one of its principal strengths. It forces the viewer to confront a reality most white Americans were very good at ignoring at the time. Or scared to death of. For all its flaws, Uptight still grabs you by your lapels and shakes you.

 

[Jevo]

Uptight (1968) dir. Jules Dassin

On the eve of Martin Luther King's murder as protesters riot in the streets. A group of militant black rights group are undertaking a gun heist. One of the members, Tank, is still a fan of MLK, and has fallen on the bottle again. This leaves the group a man short. This results in them being spotted leaving the heist, and a security guard gets killed. The leader of the group, Johnny, is now wanted for murder. Tank finds himself excluded from the group, as the others deem him to be untrustworthy, and also they doubt that he truly believes in their cause. Tank gets approached by Daisy, a police informant, who tries to coerce him into giving up Johnny in return for a reward, and for an incriminating picture of Tank to go away. Later Tank runs into Johnny, who asks for his help to visit his mother in safety, before running away. Tank goes to the revolutionary group and tells them about Johnny's message asking for help. Here Tank is told that Johnny was the one who wanted Tank excluded from the group. Disillusioned by this news, Tank goes to the police to tell them what he knows about Johnny.

Uptight slaps you in the face and doesn't let you go until it's finished. It has a message and it's not the least bit apologetic about it. It's on the nose at times, but that seems by design. Few movies are this unapologetic about what it is, and it's kind of refreshing to see it done like this. Uptight has a message that wasn't well received in mainstream American society in 1968, and it's shouting it from the top of its lungs. You have to question though if the message was ever heard outside of its own circle.

The biggest problem with Uptight is Tank. Partially because Julian Mayfield isn't a great actor. There's no subtlety to his performance, and unfortunatly we spend most of the film with him in the scene. But also because Tank's motivations aren't really clear. It's hard to see why he suddenly makes such an extreme turn, that he gives up his friend to the police, ensuring his death. The betrayal that he feels isn't sold as a big enough event, that it seems logical for Tank to go to the police. Following Johnny's death, is Tank spiraling in remorse. But here again the characterisation of Tank isn't as good as you could have hoped, and it again comes down to Mayfield not being a good enough actor to pull off the role, since he's being tasked with doing most of the characterisation of Tank.

Uptight is a flawed film. But it's also a very authentic film. You can feel that it's a film made with a clear goal, and a clear mindset that it sticks to all the way. And that makes up for a lot of the flaws in the film, and helps make it better and more important than the sum of its parts.