Sunday, February 29, 2004

YAWN



Oscars are today.


Do I care?


Not really.


It's taken me awhile, but I finally realise the Oscars having almost nothing at all to do with Artistic Merit or anything I really care about at the movies. I mean, come on. Scorsese has zero of them. Kubrick got zero. Hitchcock, zero. Hawks, zero. Sure, Spielberg has two, but they're for the wrong movies. (Now if he had won for Jaws, E.T., and maybe A.I., Minority Report, or Catch Me If You Can....) It's a popularity context, rewarding people who have "earned it" regardless of whether the film in question is at all good. And no matter how many times the Oscars "get it right", it doesn't change the fact that the system is fundamentally flawed.


How can the results of an award for "Best Cinematography" be valid if Elephant wasn't even nominated? Or an award for "Best Director" that doesn't include Kevin Macdonald's work in his documentary-drama hybrid, Touching the Void? Or no nod to Finding Nemo for "Best Picture"?


And it's not this year. It happens every year, in virtually every category.


I mean, just today I was watching Terence Davies' The House of Mirth, and I couldn't help but be struck by how really great Gillian Anderson was. There's nothing of Dana Scully in her performance, which I think is a difficult trick for TV actors making the leap to features. And then I wondered, was she nominated for an Oscar for this? And then I started to try to remember who was nominated for Best Actress in 2000. But I couldn't. Not one name. I couldn't even remember who had won. I suppose I could have done a quick google search and come up with a whole list of nominees, but I had better things to do. And so I just enjoyed the rest of the movie.

Friday, February 27, 2004

NOTES ON THE PASSION



Gibson's The Passion of the Christ opened on Wednesday at the Cumberland. I haven't had a chance to sit down and watch it from start to finish, but I've seen bits and pieces of it while at work.


Firstly, it really is quite violent. Nothing you wouldn't expect, just more extreme than you've probably imagined the Stations of the Cross. Some critics are calling it the most violent mainstream movie ever made (I think it was Roger Ebert who said something to that effect), but I think that seriously underestimates what else is out there.


Despite the high gore content, the film looks absolutely beautiful. I was surprised but not shocked to learn it was shot by Caleb Deschanel, and it may be a better looking film than even Scorsese's Last Temptation of Christ. Regardless of the controversy, it's highly deserves an Academy Nomination for Cinematography. Deschanel, Zooey's father, by the way, is certainly one of the most gifted cinematographers working today, although he rarely seems to work on projects that push his talents far. Even if Gibson can't match Scorsese (or Pasolini) conceptually, he still gives Deschanel a great opportunity.


Despite my misgivings from the previews, Jim Caviezel is a great looking Christ. There's one scene as a flagellated Christ is carrying the Cross where Gibson cuts to a part of the sermon on the mount. Caviezel is shown in close-up with the sunlight flaring the lens behind him, and it's a startlingly beautiful image. Caviezel looks wise, and loving, and well, beautiful.


There's a genius to casting Monica Bellucci, probably the most desirable woman in film, as Mary Magdalen, but she doesn't belong. Bellucci's proving herself to be a real talent, and there's nothing wrong with her performance as she suffers watching Christ's tortures. But her face just doesn't seem to fit in. She looks too modern, or even too old--her sharp features and angular lips sometimes make her look more aged than the actress playing the other Mary, Jesus' mother. And from what I've seen, Gibson totally mutes her sexuality, even in the flashbacks where it might have been appropriate. There are no scenes of her tarted up, like Barbara Hershey's Mary in Scorsese's film, and I think that's a mistake, too. I mean, you go out and cast Monica Bellucci, and then do nothing to convey her sensuality? That sounds bad, but it's Mary Magdalen for Pete's sake. It's not that I just want to see more of Bellucci. I can buy Maxim magazine for that. If you weren't already familiar with the story, you'd never know she'd ever been a whore.


And I also objected to the fact that Jesus isn't naked on the cross. Gibson can show him having his flesh scourged to the bone, and yet a penis (or even some pubes) are out of the question? I found the fact that Scorsese had Dafoe naked quite moving to suggest the depth of his humiliation.


I know, you're shocked. No sex in a Christ movie?


As for Pilate and the Pharisees, it's understandable why people are a little nervous about how those scenes play themselves out. Dramatically speaking, this wise, just Pilate trying to undermine the whims of the vegenceful Pharisees is certainly compelling. I think it's clear what Gibson's saying, and I don't think it's anti-Semitic. Christ clearly represented a threat more to the Pharisees and the Temple than to the Roman, and I think he's suggesting how institutional religion of all stripes are often at odds with real spirituality. It's just a shame that in this case it comes with so much baggage, and is bound to stir up debate about the Jews' role in Christ's death.


Anyways, I'll write more when I've seen it finally. Nothing I've seen convinces me that it's a great film, but it's much more intriguing than I expected.


Speaking of great films, go and check out Touching the Void. More on that later.

Friday, February 20, 2004

THEY ARE ALL EQUAL NOW



I just discovered an impressive Stanley Kubrick website (actually, it's four websites, but go see for yourself).


For those of you who don't know, Kubrick was the first director who made me consciously aware that film and filmmaking could be an art (in retrospect, I suppose Spielberg was the first to make me unconsciously aware...). 2001: A Space Odyssey, A Clockwork Orange, Barry Lyndon, Paths of Glory, and Lolita have all been at one time or another in my All-Time Top Ten.


More than any other person, Kubrick is most responsible for my current situation in life: a passion for movies that lead to working for minimum wage as a projectionist in a movie theatre. (How's that for deflecting my own personal responsibility?)


Speaking of which, two new movies at the Cumberland tomorrow: the exciting-looking mountaineering docu-drama, Touching the Void, and another Academy nominated documentary the replace the outgoing The Corporation, My Architect.


I wasn't able to see The Fog of War on Tuesday, but I'm still hoping on seeing The Dreamers tomorrow.

Saturday, February 14, 2004

"You can do almost anything on film now."



Another great interview, this time with Dogville master eccentric Lars von Trier, from the good people over at the Guardian Unlimited Film (for my money, the best general interest film site on the net).


This quote, at once ridiculous and profound, helps explain what von Trier was really trying to get with Dogma 95, and why he's seemingly ventured so far from its first principles in order to achieve it:


With the help of computers, I can insert a herd of elephants into a scene, or create an earthquake. But that doesn't interest me. I'd rather draw the shape of a dog on the studio floor to mark that there is a dog there, or put a crate of beer in a corner to indicate a bar.

I'm still miffed that it doesn't open in North America for another month. Lucky Brits.


Anyways, hopefully I'll have something posted about The Dreamers, or at least The Fog of War by the end of the week. I'm supposed to see the Erroll Morris on Tuesday with my dad, and the Bertolucci with Anne-Marie on Thursday.

Sunday, February 08, 2004

QUICK HITS



I promised a review of Monster, but I never got around to it and now it's no longer fresh in my mind. I can say that Theron does give a great performance, though. I'm still not sold on the prosthetics, and I think the filmmakers go overboard in details like when they show Aileen dressed in the worst ensembles when she goes job-hunting (and the predator motif on her regular clothes is maybe a little much), but there's a real soul at the core of what Theron's doing. Writer-director Jenkins isn't a great filmmaker right out of the gates, but she's better than most first-timers. Anchored by Theron's performance, and good supporting work by Christian Ricci, it's a good, good movie. ***1/2


Vadim Perelman's House of Sand and Fog, however, isn't a good movie. It's the melodramatic equivalent of a "one-joke" film. While that sounds like a criticism, I don't think the concept is the problem. Lacking in breadth, Perelman struggles but fails to give the depth such a concentrated story could have generated. (Consider how much Zwigoff gets inside Billy Bob Thorton's character in the similarly "one-joke" Bad Santa as comparison.) It's the execution, not the premise, that's the problem. By the end of the film, the character's actions bare almost no reasonable resemblance to the reality of the situation, a problem further exasperated by Perelman's lack of the kind of ironic humour that a Kubrick or Fassbinder might have brought to the tale. And what's with the lighting? If you want the "searchlight through the fog" look of Ridley Scott's work, why hire Roger Deakins, better known for creating the subtle effects for Coen brothers and Martin Scorsese? Ben Kingsley is very good within each of his scenes, but the script and Perelman's direction doesn't create a convincing arc through-out the movie. Jennifer Connelly, her derriere in prominence, fairs even worse. I'll give former commercial director Perelman credit for wanting to make his first feature a work of real substance, but he has some ways to go in his development as a narrative filmmaker. **1/2


And finally, City of God, resurrected by some surprise Oscar nominations, is crackerjack entertainment. The story of the rise of small-time hoods from the Brazilian slums to ganglords of the city, it's told in the fractured, non-chronological method of the last Latin American break-out hit, Amores perros. Unlike Amores perros's Inarritu, directors Meirelles and Lund aren't content to more or less remake Pulp Fiction. City of God instead jumps in time and place to build a novelistic vista linking characters and their stories into its grand narrative. It's deeply impressive, and a hell of a lot of fun. ***1/2

Monday, February 02, 2004

INSPIRED



Inspired by Jonathan Rosenbaum's appreciation in the Guardian (and out of a desire to keep posting new content), here's my list of the ten greatest films ever made:


Sunrise (Murnau, 1927)

The Passion of Joan of Arc (Dreyer, 1928)

M (Lang, 1931)

Bringing Up Baby (Hawks, 1938)

Ivan the Terrible, Parts I & II (Eisenstein, 1942-44)

Seven Samurai (Kurosawa, 1954)

Vertigo (Hitchcock, 1958)

L'avventura (Antonioni, 1959)

Jules and Jim (Truffaut, 1961)

Weekend (Godard, 1967)

2001: A Space Odyssey (Kubrick, 1968)


Well, I'm not sure which to cut. I'll get back to you.


By the way, I recently saw Monster and City of God, so hopefully I'll have reviews of either of them up soon.