Archive for June, 2009

Julien Donkey Boy (1999)

Ten minutes in and i knew i wouldn’t be enjoying or even liking this film.

No narrative arc (as the film critics like to say) to it. Incomprehensible mostly. Unintelligible manic distracting discomforting energy to it.

That’s the delusional reality schizophrenics live in is saying Harmony Korine. I’m getting you right into this donkey boys mad head. Give you the crazy cut up world from his whacked out perspective. Feel his discomfort as yours, inhabit your repulsion as his, gouge out this film worlds eyes with your antagonism (see, i’m getting into Korine’s head too!)

Apparently Korine has a mad schizo uncle this film is supposed to be doing homage to. Ewen Bremner is totally convincing; he doesn’t even seem to be impersonating or mimicking – ala Dustin Hoffman – mad man mannerisms; he is that man, he is that mad.

The film adheres to Dogme aesthetics: handheld video camera, no artificial light, no superfluous props,  no manipulated musical emotionality, no narrative arc (Lol), no pleasure-seeking cheap thrills. And yet mega post-production editing has gone into it. It’s like they had thousands of hours of digi vid to cut and shape -  and then gone mad to make it’s production seem unglossed up, wilfully unsmooth, provocatively unbeautiful: cus in crazy psycho-land, ugliness equals truth, grotesquerie authenticity.

At first i was, if not enjoying, at least admiring the aspiration to make the film formally challenging – to appropriately stylistically match how difficult the subjective material is. But before long it got tiresome. Very tiresome. Stop melanging it through opaque filters. Stop slow-moing! Stop jagging the edges! Stop jarring my senses. Stop jiggling my eyeballs. Stop fracturing the narrative! Stop all this self-conscious technique! Start making sense! Keep the camera still for christ-sake. Lets just watch something simple without all this manic fiddling and farting about contriving to make it all look so maddeningly mad, strangely estranging, complicatedly complex.

Korine grosses out on whacked out weirdnesses. Ewen donkey-boy Bremner is saying “He (Hitler) ate my mothers titties“; he’s stamping on the head of a turtle; he’s reading out a repetitious poem “Midnight chaos, noon chaos, eternity chaos etc” which papa Werner Herzog hates, and tells him is “too artsy-fartsy. I like the real stuff” (intended in-joke irony here i think) Herzog is hopelessly miscast; just because he’s reputedly a maverick bonkers film-director doesn’t mean he can act batty or bonkers; he’s made to do and say bonkers things: drink cough syrup out of a shoe; humiliate his grown-ups  kids; lie on the bed with a stupid fucking gas mask on his head distractedly smoking a fag listening to bluegrass.

God this film got tiresome!

And there was more whacked out weirdo weirdness: a masturbating nun; a black rapping albino and an armless drummer; Herzog wanting his wrestler wannabe son to put on his dead wife’s summer dress; bowling with retards; a hapless-looking magician regurgitating lit ciggies. Why? Don’t ask why. Wanting to know why is too normal. There is no why can explain this crazy fucked up ugly mad world. That’s why.

I just can’t take it any longer” says Herzog about an hour in.

Neither could i

Dir: Harmony Korine, USA

3/10

With a name like “Harmony Korine” i suppose you’re doomed to be an unusual somebody special sort of guy. In the DVD interview he says: “We’re at the end of 100 years of cinema where film should be getting more complex – instead it’s going the other way; films are so simple now” I can kind of agree with that. But there’s complex which aspires to something eventually clarifying, essentially  lucid. And there’s the chaotic confusing self-conscious complex that this mad mess of a film is.

And anyway Harmony, you look too young (and too sweet) to be making perplexing, complexing, films. You need to grow up a bit son.

Leave a Comment

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000)

First thing to say is: this film isn’t as good as i assumed it would be. Maybe i got caught by the hype and the hoopla when it first came out. No, i don’t think so. To be honest i can’t even remember watching it.

Quest to find a stolen sword with legendary magical properties “The Green Destiny”. The story is silly and slight. In this version voices have been overdubbed into American. I’d have preferred to hear in its original Mandarin with subtitles. Big Chinese cheesy soundtrack. The kind of epic romantic melodrama i rarely want to buy into. I don’t do grandiose spectacular blockbusters. (It’s probably cus i never got read to as a child – not even fairy stories)

Granted there are incredible action set pieces – as in “in-credible”; meant to be mythical, metaphysical, miraculous. Much whirling swirling super swordery and supernatural gravity-defying chasing and leaping about up walls, through trees, flying over rooftops.

Apparently the fight sequence “effects” had minimal CGi manipulation; all done with invisible wires and pulleys; and the fighting is less Martial and more like Art; like doing super-fast balletic dance on Whizz. You kind of marvel at the physical dexterity.

There’s about 5 or 6 of these choreographed scenes that grabbed my attention; the rest of the film was way above my head (Lol) – as in floating around somewhere that defied my English logic to comprehend. Far too comic-book, far too much super-duper derring do to be believable in any small-scale psychological sense i’m ever likely to encounter.

Dir: Ang Lee, Taiwan/USA

6/10

Leave a Comment

Solaris (1972)

A ponderous film. Tarkovsky gives plenty of ponder time. Cus there’s never very much plot or action-narrative going on.

Tarkovsky’s beginnings are always visually compelling: here we start with greening and blueing nature, the earth exhaling mists, dandelions puffing off white heads, cuckoos, saturations of wateriness, miracle-seeming rain through sun, horses, humming bees; it all creates the effect of the Earth – planet earth that is – being a living being, a sumptuous sensual marvel.

At 40 minutes we finally lift off into Space; with minimal special effects we get transported into the strange and estranged world of Solaris ocean, somewhere distinctively Not-Earth.

Kris – the psychologist – has been rocketed up to find out what strange goings on have been going on. No space-suit.  None of that astronaut malarkey. He turns up in black leather jacket and tight fitting leggings.

On board the space-satelite is Snow – or “Snout” as it’s said in Russian; he’s also wearing a leather jacket (brown) and Sartorious;  he’s got the white jacket of a nutty Scientist on; Gilbarian has already topped himself. “This is all meaningless” he’s saying posthumously to video camera; but “it’s not madness, it has to do with conscience”.

The Solaris Ocean – being a thinking substance – has been emanating “disturbances”, materialising thoughts. Kris is soon having in existence his dead wife Hari (she killed herself 10 years ago) “Do you love me?” she’s immediately asking Kris. “Don’t say silly things” he replies. But it’s not silly. Turns out he’s resurrecting,or more precisely, replicating, her into life with (his) love.

Perhaps we’re here to perceive, for the first time,  humans as a purpose for love“  – which seems to be one of the central messages of the film.

What Man needs is man” seems to be another message. Not explorations into Deep Outer Space “out there” – but the Deep Inner Space within what it is to feel and be an earthly being.

Another message could be: “We need secrets to preserve simple human truths. The secrets of happiness, death, love” In other words there have to be necessary moral limitations to rational scientific “discovery”.

On some critics lists this one of the best Sci-Fi films ever made. Probably cus of it’s seriously committed tone, its exploration of ideas rather than robots blowing one another up. And of course you’ve got all of Tarkovsky’s spiritual iconery: beautifully seraphic women levitating like angels, sonerous use of J.S Bach, the watery world of lakes, rain, mists, the slow lingering of the camera searching significances of the natural world, sudden illuminations of light…etc blah….

But i got bored. Again. There’s always times in Tarkovsky’s films when i’m profoundly bored, and fast-forwarding through the many slow bits, the repetitive bits, the dead bits.

You’ll have to be in a state of devout meditative concentration – for 2 hours! – to watch this. Believing it to be seriously meaningful, spiritually significant.

I don’t have that belief anymore about Tarkovsky. Think i’d prefer to meditate on and in my own world. Listen to those birds outside my bedroom window.

Dir: Andrei Tarkovsky, Russia

6/10

Leave a Comment

The Double Life of Veronique (1992)

When i first saw this back in the 90’s I wanted to like it; it was Kieslowski, director of Decalog, it was gonna be great.

But it wasn’t. And isn’t. Not even now. I’m just as disappointed by it as i was then. I even feel mildly irritated.

I think its something to do with how precious it is. And while we’re at it – being precious – lets throw in specious too. All wafty visual tonery. And flopping about in expensive Parisian flats looking ethereally lost.

I don’t know if this is Irene Jacobs fault or how Kiewslowski’s directing her. It’s probably him. He sticks the camera onto her face and follows her lovingly around like a devoted doggie. The critics seemed besotted by her “ravishing” beauty too.

I’m not. She’s too pretty, too bloody angelic! Too much vague vacuity going on in lieu of expressive feeling, or even explicable feeling. She doesn’t say alot. Does lots of wan-looking, as though she’s lost her virginity somewhere but can’t remember when or with who.

I have a strange feeling. I feel that i’m not alone in the world” says Polish Weronika to her dad. No, cus there’s a French doppelganger that looks just like her living in Paris called Veronique. Who also happens to be musically gifted, have a heart condition, have lovely teeth.

Weronika is getting giddinesses. Collapses dead on stage while singing her beautiful song. 27 mins in. The rest of the film is taken over by Veronique, and how she’s sensing the possible presence of Weronika around somewhere in tantalisingly vague ambiguous presentiments. Or maybe not. We can’t be sure what she’s experiencing cus she never really says anything. Just this lifted up longing in her face, beaming into beatific.

Its all far too slow, cooked on a slow simmering heat of semblence and seeming significance; spiritual speciousness.

And that “haunting” faux meaningful music of Zbigniew Preisner (used to irritating effect by Kieslowki in other films) makes my skin itch; its like listening to Polish pan-pipe music for the cerebrally inebriated.

Dir: Krzysztof  Kieslowski, Poland/France

5/10

Leave a Comment

Simple Men (1992)

The Deadpan Po-Mo School of film-making. That’s where Hal Hartley belongs, along with directors like Jim Jarmusch, Aki Kaurismaki

Oddly punctuated dialogue, peculiar pauses; as if characters are talking with comic book style speech bubbles hanging ironically over their heads.

It’s all deliberately contrived to be cod-philosophical, cod-comical.

Mocking serious pretension with knowingly mockingly serious pretension.

There’s no such thing as adventure or romance. There’s only trouble and desire. And the funny thing is when you desire something you immediately get in trouble. And when you’re in trouble you don’t desire anything at all

Says Robert Burke. Is that meaningful? Or is it simply something clever to say? Or is it something so clever it’s winking at itself with inverted commas at how “meaningful” it’s supposed to be being?.

Who knows. The characters seem to be saying things that might be meant to be meaning something else. Fraught with implications. Or maybe just fraught for the sake of being fraught (cus its a film, and films are meant to be “at you”)

It’s contrived melodrama shorn of melodramatic cliches or clinches, but also drained dry of plausible emotional engagement by virtue of this deliberated deadpan detachment.

There’s a funny oddball dance about an hour in (in the pic above); i can imagine film graduate oddball-wannabes dancing it in a line in the living room when they’re getting warmly pissed together on wet communal Saturday afternoons.

Its cool man. We’re taking the piss out of bad dancing. But there’s no need for an exclamation mark. We know we’re cool. We’re deconstructing our idiosyncrasies.

You have to be in the mood – or a mood – for this kind of film. A mood of sincere bullshitlessness.

Dir: Hal Hartley, USA

7/10

Leave a Comment