LOTS of movies, old and new
Have seen several movies recently, and while not all are new, they were all (save one) new to me and I felt like saying something about them. So here's six - SIX! - movies for you to read about, carefully LJ-cut so that you can skip the ones you don't care about. :P
Salò, or the 120 Days of Sodom
Based on the book (I refuse to call it a novel, because that would imply things like plot and characterization) by the Marquis de Sade, this movie transposes the action from 18th century France to WW2-era Italy. Young people are kidnapped and taken to a villa in the Republic of Salò, where they endure a veritable encyclopedia of horrors, debasements, and abuses over the course of five months. I'd heard about this film for years and, after seeing it available at the public library (a Criterion release, no less), decided to see if it was as soul-destroying and dehumanizing as everyone had said. It's not terribly shocking, but it is dehumanizing, mostly because of the way it's filmed. Most of the characters are given no names, and there's no one for you to identify with at all, not even the victims. The camera work is very detached, almost like newsreel footage, so that it's almost like you're watching everything through a window or binoculars (much like the tormenters in the film's final act).
It reminds me a bit of Goodbye Uncle Tom, in that the abuses are so extreme and repetitive that they eventually lose their power to affect you. Maybe the most horrifying thing about films like this and Goodbye Uncle Tom is that there's a point where you've seen things like people being raped so much that you no longer feel anything. On top of that, in this film, the nonchalance of the abusers translates to almost boredom for the viewer, despite the fact that some pretty awful things are happening. As such, the films feels more like an exercise than a piece of art. It certainly isn't entertaining, and it isn't (AT ALL) meant to be. I'm just not sure what I'm supposed to feel other than awful.
Sex and the City 2
And on the other end of the sex spectrum is Sex and the City 2, which I didn't find quite as horrible as most people did, but it still was not very good at all. Not much story, and the extravagance was an extremely poor fit for the cultural context. I think I'm going to have to literally divorce these movies from the television show, because they don't seem to contain the same characters at all. Even though the economics of the show were pretty laughable (I'd LOVE to see a spacious Upper East Side rent-control apartment for $700 a month, like Carrie had), there was at least an acknowledgment that things, you know, cost money and you have to work to have that money. The show used to make a big deal about how Carrie was irresponsible for buying all those $400 pairs of shoes (which are now more like $700-800 - why yes, I've made my pilgrimage to Manolo Blahnik like any good New York gal), but there's nothing left of that now that she's married to a rich financier. And Miranda quitting her job, in this economy, without having another lined up? Please.
There were a couple of good things about it, though. I kind of liked how Carrie felt about her encounter with Aidan. She says it was like she was trying to be who she was before, when who she was before was a very silly person who was running around trying to get this one guy (Mr. Big) to love her. And now she has him, and he wants nothing more than to sit on a couch with her and watch old movies, and she's stupid enough to complain about it. Also, I loved - LOVED - the little conversation between Charlotte and Miranda about how hard being a mother is. Her first thought after the paranoid suspicion that her husband might be having it off with the nanny being "I can't lose the nanny!" - PRICELESS! And man, I totally felt for her - and I'm not even a mother - when she just can't deal with her baby girl screaming and closes herself in the pantry and just lets her cry for a minute. This is the kind of stuff no one wants to admit to, because they think it makes them a bad person, but I cannot imagine that any parent, especially a mom, has never had one of those "Who are you and why are you more important than me?!" breakdowns.
Now, for the elephant in the room. I did not find the movie as blatantly anti-Muslim as some people did, but then I'm not Muslim, so my opinion on that means very little. I disagree that the entire movie is an insult to Muslims, though. That's just hyperbole. There are two scenes that I think would qualify, both involving Samantha. One is where she, um, handles a hooka pipe very suggestively and her date unties the back of her blouse in public. This is the most egregious, in my opinion. I know that the director thought it would be hilarious to put Samantha into such a sexually repressed setting, but there was surely a way to make that work without basically saying "You believe something different from us, and you're wrong to do so." I could not help laughing, however, at the other thing a lot of people found offensive - Samantha picking up the spilled contents of her purse in the souk and losing it when people stare disapprovingly at her condoms. She's been having hot flashes because she can't take her vitamins and she's just been thrown out of a hotel - wrongly, in her opinion - for kissing in public. And she has never, EVER been someone who is tolerant of being judged for her lifestyle choices. So while I could see how people might be upset at her screaming "YES! I CARRY CONDOMS! I HAVE SEEEEEEEEEX!" at religious men, it was totally in character and was one of the few things I genuinely thought was funny.
The other "ugly American" stuff, though? Dude, there is such a thing as culture shock. Also, all these critics who are talking about the anti-Muslim thing would make much more compelling arguments if they would learn the difference between a burqa and an abaya. Especially when one of the "stupid Americans" in the movie actually explains this to us and to the other characters.
One final thing - as I watched this movie, I "couldn't help but wonder" (as Carrie might say) what our friend, the Anonymous Abused Pakistani Sockpuppet Lady thought of all this. Because smut is empowering, don't you know. ;-)
The Best Years of Our Lives
This won Best Picture in 1946 and kicked off a trend of WW2 movies and "message" movies in the late 1940s and the 1950s. I resisted watching it for a while, because - well, I'm not sure why. I think the first time I heard about it in any detail was back when Saving Private Ryan almost fetishized WW2, and since I couldn't stand that movie I wasn't terribly interested in one that was made just after the war ended. But I finally saw it a few weeks ago, when Turner Classic Movies ran it as one of their "Essentials" over Memorial Day weekend. And I'm so glad I did.
It was made at a time when talking about the war or serving in the armed forces in an even slightly negative light was Just Not Done. I don't mean criticizing the war or the government or whatever, but even addressing the idea that fighting in a war changes a person, and usually not for the better. This film centers on three men who share a car back to their homes after coming back from the war, and the baggage they carry back with them. Perhaps most moving is the performance of Harold Russell, a real-life soldier and amputee who'd lost both his arms. Probably my favorite scene in the movie is when he asks his girl to come with him up to his room, not for a roll in the hay but so that he can show her how difficult living with him would be and how much help he requires just to get ready to go to sleep.
It also deals with things that just weren't dealt with in movies at the time. Most significantly, one of the characters decides to break up a marriage and steal the husband for herself. And tells her parents about it, which leads to a very frank discussion about the trials of marriage - again, the kind people don't often talk about even in real life, because they think it makes them bad people. So for a movie made in the 1940s during the Code era was pretty daring.
This is the kind of movie that is not really made anymore - a genuine, compelling human drama. There are no special effects, just scenes of dialogue and drama between characters. It feels weird to say that something that simple doesn't exist anymore except in film history, but ... look at what's being made now. It's the truth.
Micmacs
Oh, what a joy. I saw this at BNAT in December, but it screened at crap o'clock in the morning, so I missed chunks of it because I was dozing off. What a delightful little film and possibly the best argument for gun control and global disarmament I've ever seen. It's not preachy; it's just a cute quirky story about a guy whose entire life is ruined by two weapons manufacturers. One of them made the mine that killed his father; the other made the bullet that resides in his brain and which could kill him at any moment. Fortunately for him, he becomes adopted by a team of scavenger geniuses who live in the junkyard and help him get revenge. And it's a good kind of revenge - not bloodshed, because that means very little to these men who deal in death for a living, but utter humiliation.
Get Him to the Greek
This is a fun little comedy - again, the kind they don't make as much anymore. It's a simple premise - record company flunkie has to go to London, pick up his rock star idol, and get him to a show in 72 hours. Classic buddy road trip material and this movie delivers big time. If you loved Russell Brand in Forgetting Sarah Marshall and thought "Dude, I'd watch a whole movie just about this guy," then this is right up your alley, because that's pretty much exactly what it is.
Aaron (Jonah Hill) is really the star of the show, and this is kind of a different role for him, because he's actually got a pretty great life and is a responsible, together kind of guy, but he just needs the slightest tweak. His relationship with rocker Aldous Snow is kind of cool, because they both need each other in order to take the journey as characters that they each need to take.
There's some pretty awesome music in this, actually. It's still the cheeky, innuendo-laden stuff that we see a glimpse of in Marshall, but this is stuff I could listen to. And have actually bought from iTunes, to be honest. "Going Up", "The Clap", and "Furry Walls" are standouts. And speaking of furry walls, Aaron smoking a Jeffrey and stroking the furry walls is one of the most hilarious things ever.
Oh! And for you Harry Potter fans, Tom Felton has a cameo (he Tweeted about filming this several months ago). He plays himself, and it's just a brief encounter at a party in London, but he's got the blonde hair (because it was during one of the brief breaks on Potter filming) and Aaron asks him about Professor Snape. :D
Splice
I'd love to love this movie like most of the people on the movie geek sites seem to, but I can't. It's a great concept, and I do hope it makes money so that studios will hopefully want to do more original stuff like this in the future. However, it's one of the worst pieces of screenwriting I've ever seen. The main issue is that, while a lot of interesting things happen, characters usually forget about it immediately afterward, because the writers don't seem to want to actually deal with any of it.
I can get behind scientists behaving irresponsibly and being so obsessed with their own genius and their creation that they make huge, costly mistakes. But show me how they deal with it. Show me how all of this crap affects other characters. Don't just throw a bunch of stuff at the wall, pontificate about it for five seconds, and then move on and just let it slide to the floor. That's not a story, that's just a freak show. And please don't condescend to me with a backstory that's little more than an afterthought.
Also, I don't dig the whole subtext of females being innately good and made of flowers and rainbows while males are inherently violent and are made of anger and war and rape. That kind of pissed me off.
So, while I admire it's ambition, the execution of Splice leaves a LOT to be desired. I've heard people compare this to Cronenberg's body horror films. Psht. Just ... no. Not even close.
Salò, or the 120 Days of Sodom
Based on the book (I refuse to call it a novel, because that would imply things like plot and characterization) by the Marquis de Sade, this movie transposes the action from 18th century France to WW2-era Italy. Young people are kidnapped and taken to a villa in the Republic of Salò, where they endure a veritable encyclopedia of horrors, debasements, and abuses over the course of five months. I'd heard about this film for years and, after seeing it available at the public library (a Criterion release, no less), decided to see if it was as soul-destroying and dehumanizing as everyone had said. It's not terribly shocking, but it is dehumanizing, mostly because of the way it's filmed. Most of the characters are given no names, and there's no one for you to identify with at all, not even the victims. The camera work is very detached, almost like newsreel footage, so that it's almost like you're watching everything through a window or binoculars (much like the tormenters in the film's final act).
It reminds me a bit of Goodbye Uncle Tom, in that the abuses are so extreme and repetitive that they eventually lose their power to affect you. Maybe the most horrifying thing about films like this and Goodbye Uncle Tom is that there's a point where you've seen things like people being raped so much that you no longer feel anything. On top of that, in this film, the nonchalance of the abusers translates to almost boredom for the viewer, despite the fact that some pretty awful things are happening. As such, the films feels more like an exercise than a piece of art. It certainly isn't entertaining, and it isn't (AT ALL) meant to be. I'm just not sure what I'm supposed to feel other than awful.
Sex and the City 2
And on the other end of the sex spectrum is Sex and the City 2, which I didn't find quite as horrible as most people did, but it still was not very good at all. Not much story, and the extravagance was an extremely poor fit for the cultural context. I think I'm going to have to literally divorce these movies from the television show, because they don't seem to contain the same characters at all. Even though the economics of the show were pretty laughable (I'd LOVE to see a spacious Upper East Side rent-control apartment for $700 a month, like Carrie had), there was at least an acknowledgment that things, you know, cost money and you have to work to have that money. The show used to make a big deal about how Carrie was irresponsible for buying all those $400 pairs of shoes (which are now more like $700-800 - why yes, I've made my pilgrimage to Manolo Blahnik like any good New York gal), but there's nothing left of that now that she's married to a rich financier. And Miranda quitting her job, in this economy, without having another lined up? Please.
There were a couple of good things about it, though. I kind of liked how Carrie felt about her encounter with Aidan. She says it was like she was trying to be who she was before, when who she was before was a very silly person who was running around trying to get this one guy (Mr. Big) to love her. And now she has him, and he wants nothing more than to sit on a couch with her and watch old movies, and she's stupid enough to complain about it. Also, I loved - LOVED - the little conversation between Charlotte and Miranda about how hard being a mother is. Her first thought after the paranoid suspicion that her husband might be having it off with the nanny being "I can't lose the nanny!" - PRICELESS! And man, I totally felt for her - and I'm not even a mother - when she just can't deal with her baby girl screaming and closes herself in the pantry and just lets her cry for a minute. This is the kind of stuff no one wants to admit to, because they think it makes them a bad person, but I cannot imagine that any parent, especially a mom, has never had one of those "Who are you and why are you more important than me?!" breakdowns.
Now, for the elephant in the room. I did not find the movie as blatantly anti-Muslim as some people did, but then I'm not Muslim, so my opinion on that means very little. I disagree that the entire movie is an insult to Muslims, though. That's just hyperbole. There are two scenes that I think would qualify, both involving Samantha. One is where she, um, handles a hooka pipe very suggestively and her date unties the back of her blouse in public. This is the most egregious, in my opinion. I know that the director thought it would be hilarious to put Samantha into such a sexually repressed setting, but there was surely a way to make that work without basically saying "You believe something different from us, and you're wrong to do so." I could not help laughing, however, at the other thing a lot of people found offensive - Samantha picking up the spilled contents of her purse in the souk and losing it when people stare disapprovingly at her condoms. She's been having hot flashes because she can't take her vitamins and she's just been thrown out of a hotel - wrongly, in her opinion - for kissing in public. And she has never, EVER been someone who is tolerant of being judged for her lifestyle choices. So while I could see how people might be upset at her screaming "YES! I CARRY CONDOMS! I HAVE SEEEEEEEEEX!" at religious men, it was totally in character and was one of the few things I genuinely thought was funny.
The other "ugly American" stuff, though? Dude, there is such a thing as culture shock. Also, all these critics who are talking about the anti-Muslim thing would make much more compelling arguments if they would learn the difference between a burqa and an abaya. Especially when one of the "stupid Americans" in the movie actually explains this to us and to the other characters.
One final thing - as I watched this movie, I "couldn't help but wonder" (as Carrie might say) what our friend, the Anonymous Abused Pakistani Sockpuppet Lady thought of all this. Because smut is empowering, don't you know. ;-)
The Best Years of Our Lives
This won Best Picture in 1946 and kicked off a trend of WW2 movies and "message" movies in the late 1940s and the 1950s. I resisted watching it for a while, because - well, I'm not sure why. I think the first time I heard about it in any detail was back when Saving Private Ryan almost fetishized WW2, and since I couldn't stand that movie I wasn't terribly interested in one that was made just after the war ended. But I finally saw it a few weeks ago, when Turner Classic Movies ran it as one of their "Essentials" over Memorial Day weekend. And I'm so glad I did.
It was made at a time when talking about the war or serving in the armed forces in an even slightly negative light was Just Not Done. I don't mean criticizing the war or the government or whatever, but even addressing the idea that fighting in a war changes a person, and usually not for the better. This film centers on three men who share a car back to their homes after coming back from the war, and the baggage they carry back with them. Perhaps most moving is the performance of Harold Russell, a real-life soldier and amputee who'd lost both his arms. Probably my favorite scene in the movie is when he asks his girl to come with him up to his room, not for a roll in the hay but so that he can show her how difficult living with him would be and how much help he requires just to get ready to go to sleep.
It also deals with things that just weren't dealt with in movies at the time. Most significantly, one of the characters decides to break up a marriage and steal the husband for herself. And tells her parents about it, which leads to a very frank discussion about the trials of marriage - again, the kind people don't often talk about even in real life, because they think it makes them bad people. So for a movie made in the 1940s during the Code era was pretty daring.
This is the kind of movie that is not really made anymore - a genuine, compelling human drama. There are no special effects, just scenes of dialogue and drama between characters. It feels weird to say that something that simple doesn't exist anymore except in film history, but ... look at what's being made now. It's the truth.
Micmacs
Oh, what a joy. I saw this at BNAT in December, but it screened at crap o'clock in the morning, so I missed chunks of it because I was dozing off. What a delightful little film and possibly the best argument for gun control and global disarmament I've ever seen. It's not preachy; it's just a cute quirky story about a guy whose entire life is ruined by two weapons manufacturers. One of them made the mine that killed his father; the other made the bullet that resides in his brain and which could kill him at any moment. Fortunately for him, he becomes adopted by a team of scavenger geniuses who live in the junkyard and help him get revenge. And it's a good kind of revenge - not bloodshed, because that means very little to these men who deal in death for a living, but utter humiliation.
Get Him to the Greek
This is a fun little comedy - again, the kind they don't make as much anymore. It's a simple premise - record company flunkie has to go to London, pick up his rock star idol, and get him to a show in 72 hours. Classic buddy road trip material and this movie delivers big time. If you loved Russell Brand in Forgetting Sarah Marshall and thought "Dude, I'd watch a whole movie just about this guy," then this is right up your alley, because that's pretty much exactly what it is.
Aaron (Jonah Hill) is really the star of the show, and this is kind of a different role for him, because he's actually got a pretty great life and is a responsible, together kind of guy, but he just needs the slightest tweak. His relationship with rocker Aldous Snow is kind of cool, because they both need each other in order to take the journey as characters that they each need to take.
There's some pretty awesome music in this, actually. It's still the cheeky, innuendo-laden stuff that we see a glimpse of in Marshall, but this is stuff I could listen to. And have actually bought from iTunes, to be honest. "Going Up", "The Clap", and "Furry Walls" are standouts. And speaking of furry walls, Aaron smoking a Jeffrey and stroking the furry walls is one of the most hilarious things ever.
Oh! And for you Harry Potter fans, Tom Felton has a cameo (he Tweeted about filming this several months ago). He plays himself, and it's just a brief encounter at a party in London, but he's got the blonde hair (because it was during one of the brief breaks on Potter filming) and Aaron asks him about Professor Snape. :D
Splice
I'd love to love this movie like most of the people on the movie geek sites seem to, but I can't. It's a great concept, and I do hope it makes money so that studios will hopefully want to do more original stuff like this in the future. However, it's one of the worst pieces of screenwriting I've ever seen. The main issue is that, while a lot of interesting things happen, characters usually forget about it immediately afterward, because the writers don't seem to want to actually deal with any of it.
I can get behind scientists behaving irresponsibly and being so obsessed with their own genius and their creation that they make huge, costly mistakes. But show me how they deal with it. Show me how all of this crap affects other characters. Don't just throw a bunch of stuff at the wall, pontificate about it for five seconds, and then move on and just let it slide to the floor. That's not a story, that's just a freak show. And please don't condescend to me with a backstory that's little more than an afterthought.
Also, I don't dig the whole subtext of females being innately good and made of flowers and rainbows while males are inherently violent and are made of anger and war and rape. That kind of pissed me off.
So, while I admire it's ambition, the execution of Splice leaves a LOT to be desired. I've heard people compare this to Cronenberg's body horror films. Psht. Just ... no. Not even close.