Change Your Image
arenn
Reviews
Sagrada: El misteri de la creació (2012)
Decent and Unintentionally Illuminating
You could be forgiven if you came away from this film thinking Franco destroyed Gaudi's models of Sagrada Familia. He did not. While the film doesn't explicitly say Franco did, it doesn't tell us who did. And of the Spanish Civil War era, it only mentions Franco and his suppression of Catalonian culture. This leaves the viewer to draw the conclusion that it must have been Franco's supporters who did it. Google the actual history for details.
However, this is a decent documentary about Sagrada Familia. I find it interesting to contrast the obvious stunning results of Gaudi (which I've visited in person twice) with the inferior results produced by the modern artists asked to provide their add ons.
One can lay the people in question out on a spectrum of sorts based on degree of religiosity:
Gaudi, the devout Catholic and the obvious creative genius of the bunch.
Etsura Sotoo, the current sculptor who is a Japanese Catholic convert whose actual faith is unclear (he explicitly linked his conversion to imitating Gaudi in order to continue the work as Gaudi would have done) and who obviously does not believe Christianity's claim to exclusive truth (hence his call for temples in other faith traditions).
Joan Vila-Grau, the stained glass artist who doesn't mention faith, and notes that he's guided by his own personal vision of art and a desire to create an "atmosphere" instead of symbols.
Josep Maria Subirachs, the contemporary sculptor and an avowed agnostic who nevertheless boasted of his appropriateness for a religious commission.
It shouldn't be entirely surprising that the artistic quality of the results fall largely along this spectrum as well, from Gaudi to Subircachs (whose work was described as "pitiful" even by one of his fellow original signatories of a manifesto against completing the church).
It's also worth noting that same spectrum charts how these people see themselves in relationship to authority. Gaudi the devout Catholic lived under the authority of God and the Church, and literally drawing his designs from what he saw as God's superior design of nature. Sotoo the imitator of man who sees himself himself under the authority of both Gaudi's vision and the stone he himself carves, one who produces the serviceable imitative infill which is his goal. Then there's Vila-Grau's pursuit of this own vision, which produces what I believe to be a beautiful end product, though one that nevertheless fails to touch the human spirit in a profound way. And then of course there is Subirachs. God is Gaudi's master. Gaudi is Sotoo's, and Vila-Grau and Subirachs answer only to themselves (though Vila-Grau at least took Gaudi's plans as input). Curious, isn't it?
The filmmakers arranged it such that most of the external commentators were somewhat critical of the Sagrada project. This is somewhat understandable given that the insiders are all in the tank for the project as it were. But it would have been nicer to get a wider range of views.
Yet these critiques, along with statements by Vila-Grau and Subirachs, are illuminating as they show that the people making them fail to understand the reason why the add on artwork doesn't resonate like Gaudi. It isn't just a matter of talent or genius, though obvious Gaudi was a singular talent. It's also that while espousing everything from pantheism to the universal brotherhood of humanity, most of their arguments are in fact anti-human, as they deny the essential human longing for transcendence.
For example, some claim the church either should not have been finished, or should have been finished via contemporary add ons. But the former would have left it as a monumental ruin to a particular time and place. The latter would have created a chimera of multiple styles that would nevertheless be anchored in those specific periods. Neither would have any transcendent connection beyond its milieu.
Gaudi by contrast was a genius in that while incredibly innovative and of his era in many ways, he also designed Sagrada Familia in a recognizably Catholic style. This creates a building that links it to the eternal, anchoring it not just in the 2000 year history of the Christian church, but also the grand story arc of God's creation from "let there be light" to the eschaton. It also functionally links to the transcendent in typical Catholic style, such as by literally drawing our eyes heavenward, or by imagery such as representations of the saints that stress the unity of Christians across all space and time and the mystic union with Christ.
Conversely, for all their universalist rhetoric, the critics, by demanding contemporary style, sunder us from any connection to the past or future, to the people coming before or after us. They limit us only to our present moment and experience. Vila-Grau talked about having to work within his own vision and style. How then is he supposed to offer us transcendent experience? He can't even transcend the limits of himself!
This humanism is thus ultimately anti-human, as we all clearly long for more than that contained with ourselves. Oscar Tusquets Blanca, one of the signatories of the La Vanguardia manifesto, hints at this 2011 essay in Domus called "In-finite Architectures" (google it). He repudiated his previous stance against completion of the church, but recognizes that completion will be a challenge given that the art world has fully gone over to what we might call the Subirachs mindset, saying, "The main Glory facade has yet to be built. Finding a contemporary artist anywhere in the world capable of taking on this task is the biggest challenge now faced."
I've argued elsewhere that Sagrada Familia may end up as modern mankind's last great artistic statement for God (google it). One need not believe in God to mourn (as Nietzsche did) what the loss of that faith implies.
Noah (2014)
Bad, But More Redeeming Elements Than Most Reviews Suggest
This movie isn't very good for reasons many have already said. But I'd like to highlight some things Noah got right from a Biblical perspective that I didn't see mentioned.
1. Contrary to what some are posting, the Biblical Noah was not a good man who deserved to live. Though highly lauded and touted as "blameless", looking at the totality of scripture this clearly doesn't mean he's sin free. Indeed, the Bible is elsewhere clear that "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." The drunkenness episode in the Bible shows Noah wasn't perfect. Rather, the Bible says "Noah found favor with God" which can be seen as a type of sovereign grace. And Noah "walked with God" showing that he continued in his pursuit of God despite any failings - the same thing we are called to do despite our own sins.
2. Noah in this light is correct that all men deserved to be destroyed via God's justice. His revelation of his own sin nature is a prerequisite for understanding his need (and ours) for God's grace. Where Noah goes wrong is that he assumes God must actually want him and his family dead. It never occurs to Noah that God might spare the wicked in his grace. Thus the film Noah's main error is his failure to understand God's gracious nature. As the Bible says, "God is merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abundant in loving-kindness" and "If you marked iniquities, O Lord who could stand? But there is forgiveness with Thee that Thou mayest be feared." This is where Noah goes wrong.
3. Although the fallen angels are clearly not Biblical, they illustrate the breakthrough that Noah doesn't make. When their leader asks God to forgive him, he's immediately set free of his prison and brought back to union with the Creator. This is what God wants, our repentance and seeking of his pardon, not to kill off all sinners (i.e., everybody). Note that as with the Bible, God's grace in this case is granted without conditions and without merit. (I'll admit the clear implication in the film is that by aiding Noah, the Watchers atoned for their own sin, however, which is not a Biblical notion). Think of Jesus story of the tax collector going into the temple to beat his breast begging God "Have mercy on me, a sinner" and coming away forgiven. Or how both Judas and Peter betrayed Jesus. The difference was in how they reacted afterwards.
4. By failing to understand God's gracious character, the film Noah goes horribly off the rails. He also erroneously assumes God's provision will take a specific form (wives for his other two sons). And when his expectations aren't met, this reinforces his misreading of God's intent. He has faith, but as Paul puts it in Romans, "not according to knowledge." This leads him to believe God must want him to commit horrible acts of which God might say, as he actually did at one point in the Bible, "They cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire to Molech, which I had not commanded them nor had it entered My mind that they should do this abomination." (Jeremiah 32:35). Also, unbeknowst to Noah, the evil bad guy had sneaked onto the ark. Nevertheless, God's plan of saving humanity succeeded, not because of Noah's choice, but because of God's sovereignty. Thus this film illustrates the sovereignty not of man, but God, whose will is done despite Noah's blunders and despite the bad guy's deliberate attempt to subvert it. "Many are the plans of a man, but the purpose of the Lord will stand." (Proverbs 19:21).
5. Ham's unwillingness to forgive his father dooms him to permanently alienated relationships and the end of his line. He and Japeth are very young and possibly could have married the twin daughters (albeit with a bit of an age gap and some icky incest, which was inevitable even in the Bible version). In effect, God did provide the potential for wives for the other sons, but Ham missed out on who knows what kind of blessings because of his inability to forgive. Another Biblical and human lesson to learn.
So while this is hardly an accurate Bible story and was a dreadful movie in many ways, there were more real Biblical principles at work in it than perhaps even Aronofsky is aware.
Melancholia (2011)
An Utterly Conventional, Unimaginative Film That Falls Far Short of Its Accolades
I'm a fan of both Lars von Trier and science fiction, so I was looking forward to seeing Melancholia after many false starts. Sadly, this film falls far short of what both are capable.
I can't understand the number of people who claims this film is "visionary". From an SF perspective, the plot conceits are standard issue and have been done many times before and much better to boot. Some to consider:
1. The boundary between sanity and insanity. Who is sane? What is truth and reality? Quality Example: George O. Smith's 1958 book "The Path of Unreason"
2. There are some truths too terrible for man to know. Knowing will drive you insane. Conversely, you have to already been insane to apprehend them. Quality Example: Darren Aronofsky's 1998 film "Pi".
Incidentally, both of the above are psychological thrillers, a genre that works well with this
3. Dualities or mirror images that are apparently different but are actually the same. Example: The Star Trek episode "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield"
There's nothing new here from an SF perspective.
What's more, the plot construction was so transparent that it was obvious well in advance where this was going. Less than five minutes into Claire's chapter, I knew exactly where this was going, both in terms of the events and thematic development. This can work in a tragedy, but this plot and these characters aren't tragic in the way of a MacBeth or Oedipus the King. This rendered the second half of the film ridiculously flat.
As for the plot being "Wagnerian", other than using Wagner's music to make the film seem cool, I don't see it. There's nothing mythic about these people or this film. The theme is from Tristan und Isolde, not the Ring Cycle. Those who draw a parallel to Gotterdammerung miss the key point that in Wagner Gotterdammerung is the beginning of the world, not the end of it (Gotterdammerung is Twilight of the Gods - not Humanity! It's the Dawn of Humanity!).
Though I suppose nearly anything could be so interpreted, I also didn't take away any scathing critique of capitalism or the modern world as some did, but if there was one, could there be anything more trite? Or ironic, given that capitalism is what made Melancholia possible, and enables Lars von Trier to produce his films.
I did love Wagner's music. The acting was great. The visuals I liked. The "artsy" style was good. But strip that away and what's left? Sadly, not a whole lot.
Le chagrin et la pitié (1969)
The Best World War II Film I've Seen
I bought the DVD version of THE SORROW AND THE PITY not so much because I wanted to watch it, but because, as with many other classic films, I felt I should. At 4 hours long, I could never quite muster the will to screen it, with the end result that this film sat on my shelf for months before I finally gathered the courage to watch it last night. My original plan had been to screen the first disc one night then watch the rest after a decent interval of recovery. I quite frankly expected to be bored to death watching hours on end of interviews in French.
Boy was I wrong. This turned out to be one of the most engrossing films I've seen. Yes, it is too long. But you're willing to forgive it that. This is simply the best film I've seen on World War II. Numerous interviews with French politicians, teachers, shop keepers, peasants, hoteliers, and more along with ones of Germans and Englishmen gave one of the most revealing and human portraits of World War II - and of the French people - I've seen. Combined with included archival footage from the war, this made for what is clearly one of the great all time documentaries and greatest WWII films I've seen.
TSATP draws you in right away and really never lets up. Almost every interview enlightens in some way. Everybody talking has their own agenda - spin in modern parlance - but the director is able to combine these in a way that exposes the most blantant of falsehoods and also paints a realistic composite portrait. The Nazi propaganda films were also chilling. One early example is a film of black and arabic French soldiers captured by the Nazis with the implication that racial impurity led to the French demise.
I could go on and on about this but I think I'm running out of room and need to talk about the DVD. I highly recommend this film for anyone who wants to go beyond history book versions of the war.
As for the DVD version itself, there are several flaws, starting with the $50 price tag. Beyond that, the print used was a poor one. The quality of the interview scenes was not much better than that of the archival footage spliced in. The subtitles were also not that great. Interestingly, much of disc two appeared to have a remixed soundtrack. For interviewees in English and German, the director dubbed over a partial French translation with the original language reduced in the background. This partial French translation was then subtitled in English (and not always well). On disc two, quite a few of the English sections did not have French dubbing or subtitles, which is where I suspect the sound remix comes in. The ending was also quite abrupt and choppy (Maurice Chevalier in English?) and didn't have the feel of being original, though let me stress I've no real knowledge to substantiate this.
Gong woo gau gap (2000)
A Good Mix of Comedy, Action, Stylism, and Genre
Jiang Hu: The Triad Zone follows the obligatory Hong Kong action genre formula - to a point. Yes, there's the warring triad gangs, vignettes on loyalty and betrayal, violence, and stylistic flourish. But this film also goes above and beyond on the comedy front. It manages to be one of the most humorous Hong Kong action flicks I've seen, without descending into farce. Perhaps that's because it does contain more serious moments as well.
Gang leader Jim Yam has ascended nearly to the pinnacle of power in the underworld, but it brings him few satisfactions. As he watches his peers drop dead around him - many of them amazingly from natural causes - he finds himself more and more soldiering on because that's just what bosses do. Reflecting back on his younger days in London, it is sad to contrast his current lavish - but empty - life as a crime lord in Hong Kong with the joys he experienced as a petty thief in England. These flashbacks and voice overs give us insights not only into Yam himself, but also his closest associates, whom we discover he in truth barely knows.
A good blend of the serious and the comic, Jiang Hu: The Triad Zone is not the peak of its genre, but certainly well worth seeing.
I'm Gonna Git You Sucka (1988)
Moderately Funny Gags, but Not Spectacular
Keenan Ivory Wayan's parody of blaxploitation, the film has the feel of an overly long In Living Color skit rather than a true feature film. The gags were amusing at time, but fairly predictable as well. I spent a decent amount of time laughing, but didn't really feel I'm Gonna Git You Sucka was in the big leagues, especially in light of the big name cast. More was expected. What I got was tasty but not filling. It was basically a black version of Airplane or the Naked Gun, and has the same strengths and weaknesses of those other films.
Injeong sajeong bol geot eobtda (1999)
Style Over Substance, What What Great Style It Is!
"Stylistic" is inevitably the word that comes to mind watching this film. Lee pulls out all the cinematic weapons in his arsenal in this humorous, almost deconstructionist romp through Hong Kong action cinema, film noir, comic books, and more. There are more homages, visual tricks, and musical gags than in almost any film I've seen. And that's a good thing because plot wise this is very generic. Some people are sure to decry the supposed glorification of police brutality. An alternate interpretation that is criticizing the police by showing their basic similarity to the bad guys is too facile to be taken seriously. But despite any possible qualms one might have with any messages being delivered, this film is just plain too fun and funny to not like.
Mes petites amoureuses (1974)
Charming but Uncomfortable
My Little Loves is a charming and at times troubling semi-autobiographical film detailing a year in the life of a stand-in for Eustache in the south of France. During the course of the film, we see him transformed from a bright but somewhat shy rural boy to a blossoming teenage hoodlum in a larger town. Ripped away from the comfort of his grandmother's home in the country, he finds himself sleeping on a cot in his mother's one room flat in town and working as a mechanic instead of attending high school. There is plenty of time for drifting, and he falls in with an older crowd of delinquents at a local cafe, much of whose activities revolve around groping girls and searching for that elusive score.
The molestation of women might be offputting to some. But it is supposed to be somewhat offputting. Becoming an adolescent is a painful process in the best of times, and Eustache's young self has more than his fair shares of troubles. He can't relate to women except in the most base sense of groping them. This essential failure is a metaphor for all of his youthful inabilities to cope. And despite what we might think of some of his behaviors, we certainly empathize with him. Especially any guy who is old enough to have gone through this experience will. The only weakness here is perhaps a bit of excessive audience manipulation to evoke sympathy for him, through bludgeoning us with his being yanked from school despite being a very bright student and the like. Still, I enjoyed this one quite a bit.
Two-Lane Blacktop (1971)
Quite Simply the Greatest American Road Movie
In a recent issue devoted to the millenium, Esquire basically said that their 1971 call of this film as movie of the year was one of their biggest flops. How wrong could they have been this year? Instead, Esquire was right in 1971 and the studio and American public were wrong. By publishing the script to this film, Esquire showed that it was still an important player in bringing new world class art to the American male mainstream. Their recent retraction only illustrates how far this once influential monthly has fallen, though I'll admit I'm a subscriber.
Two young men (Taylor - the driver - and Wilson) are driving someplace in their heavily customized 55 Chevy. In their travels, they stumble across brash Warren Oates in his brand new 70 GTO, who is likewise a cipher. The result is ostensibly a cross country race for pink slips from someplace in the west to DC. But this film ends up being much, much more.
This is a a true American film. Today we have action films, historical dramas, romance, SF, etc that are commonly viewed as mass produced American cinema, yet they seem to represent little more than cliched genre pieces. This film on the other hand represents America and themes of Americana in the early 70's. The open road, fast cars, competition, and a certain rough camraderie between strangers in our disconnected society. Highly recommended for non-natives.
Two-Lane Blacktop features more questions than answers. Obviously, the truth about GTO is unknown, as he invents one outlandish story after another, but likewise nothing is known about anyone else. What are they seeking? Where did they come from? Where are they going? Ultimately we find out little but what happens within the self-contained little world of the film. But that is in the end appropriate.
Oates acting as GTO is spectacular, though the actors gave solid performances all around. Wilson and his obsession with the carbeurator jets is also impressive. The 'Scope cinematography does a good job of capturing the feeling of driving a two lane highway across mid-America. The recent DVD is solid if unspectacular. It features an anamorphic transfer that looks good but still has that "video" feel about it somewhat. The limited edition is probably not worth picking up as it mostly just features a metal case that won't fit on your DVD rack.
In summary, highly recommended.
Ran (1985)
Truly Spectacular
Note: some SPOILERS for the first part of the film.
I just saw a new print of Ran showing as part of a 15th anniversary celebration of the film. I'd never seen it before, but because the name "Kurosawa" was on this it, my expectations were sky high. Well, I was not disappointed.
As you are surely aware by now, Ran is a Kurosawa's adaptation of King Lear, transferred to medieval Japan. An aging warlord named Hidetora attempts to leave his kingdom to his three sons and enjoy a happy retirement. Things immediately go awry. The youngest son Saburo, a brash, outspoken youth, challenges his father's decision, saying in so many words that the father had trained the sons too well. Raised to imitate their amoral butcher of a father, they would ultimately turn on him. This incensed Hidetora, who banished Saburo (along with a close advisor who dared speak up in agreement with young Sab) and went through with the plan.
Unfortunately, Saburo turns out to be right and the film proceeds to show the tragedy of Hidetora's decision. Not only do Hidetora's sons turn against him, his entire family has enemies who've been waiting years to avenge themselves against them for Hidetora's past brutal conquests.
Ran has the feel of a great Shakespearean tragedy. Many of the scenes could have been stage sets, or perhaps more accurately opera. Note the bright colors and lavish costumes set in contrast with the bleak storyline, the bigger than life emotions, the extremity of loyalty and betrayal, and the cataclysmic finale, all very reminiscent of a tragic opera. I was left emotionally drained by the time it was all over.
Visually, Ran is stunning. I mentioned the exceptional use of color and costumes already. But the shots of the landscapes, sky, and castles are likewise incredible. The characters often make reference to the gods and in Kurosawa's nature shots, you almost get the impression that they are close by, gathering to watch these sad happenings.
Additionally, Ran features the best - I repeat, THE BEST - battle scenes I have ever witnessed. The music, choreography, and cinematography combine to create two major battles so incredible I think I could just sit there and watch them in a loop for hours on end. The only problem with them (and one of the few weaknesses of the film in general) is the overuse of buckets of blood, much of which looks fake.
The acting was wonderful, especially Mieko Harada who stole the show as the ultra-manipulative Lady Kaede. Tatsuya Nakadai was also great as the animated Lord Hidetora.
There's an awful lot that could be written about this film, but with limited space, I'll leave it with this: watch this film, preferably on the big screen. FYI: Rumor has it that the DVD of Ran is complete garbage, so do your due diligence before buying.
Kôkaku kidôtai (1995)
Thinking Man's Anime
It found it interesting that so many people complained about the "slow pace" of this film. Quite honestly, I fail to comprehend how an 82 minute movie with as much action as this one could possibly be termed slow. Perhaps some people were just expecting 90 minutes of non-stop explosions or something.
The film does have its moments of introspection, which is part of its charm. This isn't just about a couple of hard nosed cops out to collar a criminal. Instead we're treated to classic SF themes such as: What does it mean to be human? Self-doubt about identity. The consequences of technological advance ahead of developments in ethics and philosophy. I wouldn't go so far as to say this film has anything particularly original or important to say as these are pretty standard SF/cyberpunk themes to people who read books in the genre. But compared to your average Hollywood SF product or the usual anime flick, this one is a standout.
I also appreciated a few scenes that perhaps dragged on the pace a bit, but ultimately added to the visual experience of the film. Such as the "Walking the City" chapter (track 8 on DVD) which is basically a music video which allows us to explore the city where the action takes place. This scene not only functions as eye candy, it also gives us a generally positive feeling about the future city (and perhaps the future in general). Why should we care about this place? That sequence is the answer.
The real "problem" with the film is its complexity, which will only become clear on repeat viewings. Even as a hard core SF fan, I really didn't get the whole film the first time through. It made a lot more sense the second time. For people who saw it in the theatre, this might have been a problem. Owners of the rather short DVD can easily see it twice. Heck, you'll even want to. This is one that will definitely get additional repeat viewings from me. Another brief nit is that the actors sometimes tell each other stupid things that are obviously meant to be informative lectures for the audience. I thought this could have been handled better.
I watched the DVD in Japanese with subtitles. The voice actors are generally good, though occasionally the pure white subtitles could be difficult to read.
Rear Window (1954)
Vastly Over-rated
I recently saw the restored print of this "classic" with some friends at the Music Box Theatre in Chicago. After it was over, we all kind of stared at each other with slightly pained looks on our faces as if afraid to say what we really felt. But none of us is truly that bashful about voicing opinions and it turned out we all shared the same one: namely that Rear Window was decent, but it was certainly no masterpiece and fell well short of our expectations. I suspect the entire audience felt that way as there was very little crowd reaction to the film throughout and only polite applause at the end. This is in marked contrast to the palpable thrill that the crowds at the Music Box's recent Kubrick film festival exhibited.
I thought the film was slow paced and rather dull, and was over-dominated by subplots. The suspense level was low throughout much of the film. There were a few interesting vignettes about the lives of the various people who lived in the apartment building on the far side of the Greenwich Village courtyard, but ultimately these weren't enough to put this one into the above average category.
I will confess that I've never been a big Hitchcock fan despite enjoying psychological thrillers. So maybe that accounts for part of my shoulder shrug of this film. Regardless, while I'm glad to have seen the film, I don't think I'll ever take the time to watch it again and I didn't come away impressed from my first screening.