Brazil

Brazil (Terry Gilliam, 1985) [8]

I really don't know how much I actually like this; I may be too easily swayed by the positive accolades over time and there's no denying how fully immersed into its own world the film is. For me, this is by far Gilliam's most accomplished film, at least in terms of what you think of a Terry Gilliam film to be. All that being said, I tend not to care that much about the film when it was over. It's certainly an achievement on a visual level and I found the story to be compelling but the complete lack of a concrete opinion about it bothers me. That doesn't mean I didn't like it, it's well made, but I just have the feeling that if I were to watch this a couple of years down the road, either I will completely get it or lower the grade.

Gilliam treads into Orwellian territory with a story about an omnipresent totalitarian society enslaved to technology and corporate brainwashing. What is impressive was how much this film is on the mark in terms of technology and computers controlling peoples' lives. Against all the jackbooted thugs and endless bureaucracy, a lone man is fighting to regain his imagination. What I find most weak about the film is the story of Lowery. The entire situation with him and his dreams and his relationship feel weak compared to the menacing presence of the world that he occupies. This appears to be one of the themes of the film, as Sam is trying to break free of the deadening control of his life and fulfill his dreams. The less personal, man against the system story here is better in my opinion. In regards to the much publicized trouble of ending the film, Gilliam's original ending is really the only logical one. The system in which Sam lives in is just way too big and powerful for one person to have any success in changing it. It may be downbeat but it really does fit the world of the film.

As with all Gilliam films, there are memorable images and effects. Much of my admiration for the film centers on how complete the world Gilliam created for the film works, especially the scenes dealing with the giant, never-ending bureaucracy of the monolithic state. And there was sly little Battleship Potemkin homage towards the end.

The Intruder

The Intruder (Claire Denis, 2005) [7]

On the narrative level, this film is extremely difficult. There really is no linear narrative in this film. On a purely visual level, in terms of images, it is riveting and typical Denis. Her filmmaking has always been about the sensory experience of images, of letting the camera linger over bodies and landscapes. This film really has to be appreciated on a visual level with an almost complete disregard for plot. That's not to say there isn't one, but it is there. What story there is basically comes down to is a man living in rural France needs a heart transplant which soon his body begins to reject. The man then goes on a travelogue to Tahiti to make amends with his long lost son. Denis does not spend that much time on explaining anything and instead captures the happenings. It's this lack of explanation that makes the film difficult to follow in narrative terms. On a more abstract level, it is a much more rewarding experience. As with all her films, Denis captures numerous captivating images and they themselves speak of the important elements of this film: the man's loneliness, his need to make amends with his son, and the themes of intrusion. There are numerous intruders in the film, from the unexplained psychical intruders on the man's property to the man's other son and family to the heart itself. Who or what are the intruders are never really concrete. The distinction between dreams and actual existence are never really defined. It all creates a baffling experience. However, if the viewer can detach themselves from the constrictions of narrative and experience the film as a sensory experience and interact with it on the emotion of its images, it can be appreciated.

Closely Watched Trains

Closely Watched Trains (Jiri Menzel, 1966) [5]

For its time, this film could have been considered on the cutting edge of addressing sexuality in a real and frank manner on celluloid. Unfortunately, it hasn't aged particularly well and is definitely a product of a different place and era. The plot centers around Milos, an apprentice train dispatcher who becomes wrapped up into losing his virginity to his conductor girlfriend. Initially, he has some, um, difficulties, and compensates by trying to commit suicide. The rest of the film concentrates on Milos getting some practice before finally consummating his relationship with Masa. That description sounds fairly crude but Menzel handles the material with enough wry humor and respect for his characters that it comes off as harmless and sweet. This isn't some raunchy numbskullery like American Pie. The film has a poignancy to it that isn't often seen in American cinema dealing with this subject matter. But the operating world of the film is weirdly disjointed, as the film is so engrossed in Milos and his quest that everyone is completely oblivious to the fact this is occurring during World War II and the Nazi occupation of Czechoslovakia. The war and its effects pop up sporadically, especially the end, but it feels like the reality of the world at war is being repressed. Sex is probably one of the only topics that could supersede war in a person's mind. It paints a quaint story for this film, but something, that sadly doesn't translate particularly well over the years.

The Lives of Others

The Lives of Others (Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck, 2007) [7]

After viewing this, it's no real surprise that this film has been so critically acclaimed and received Best Foreign Language film at the Oscars. It's the same type of middlebrow, safe picture like Mystic River that can appeal to critics and a general American audience. I don't mean to say these are bad films, they're not. A film like this is so stringent in its narrative and what it wants to say that it really leaves any room for anything else. On one level, that's appealing in that everything is being spelled out for the viewer but it's also a bit disappointing that it leaves no room real risk-taking. What saves this film here is that von Donnersmarck has superbly crafted this film in terms of tone and images that take away from the aggressive thematic and plot elements. He overdoes the entire art triumphing over strict ideology too much, as the characters of Wiesler and Dreymen are too easily encased in their roles. As the film progresses towards the end, it appears to me that the film is riding too much on getting to its pre-determined ending, which ends up being its bittersweet resolution. All this sounds like I didn't like the film, but there's something about it that makes it palatable. von Donnersmarck's direction is solid and the look he has created for the film, especially the contrast of the cold, darker world or Wiesler the stodgy ideologue with the more vibrant, light look of Dreyman the artist. It brings out the argument being made by the film that totalitarian socialism, by restricting and monitoring art, hurts the very same ideals that it supposedly stands for.

Battle In Heaven

Battle In Heaven (Carlos Reygadas, 2006) [6]

Reygadas's film is about many things (the urban landscape of Mexico City, the immense social stratification of that nation, sexual attraction, religion) and really not about anything. This is an extremely rigorous film, a film that needs strict attention to the visuals. Reygadas has stripped any normal sense of plot away from the film, as the film meanders from scene to scene, taking its time. What makes it difficult is trying to decipher just want to take away from this. You can read into the religious angle, the social commentary (the whole subplot of Carlos and his wife kidnapping the baby), and of course, the sex. The film itself never really gives a strong toehold into any of them, only to mention them and then move on to something else. It has been a couple of days since I've seen this and I'm still not sure exactly what to make of it. By stripping his film of so many filmic elements viewers take for granted, it's hard to say I like it in terms of plot and character. But I'm also a person very interested in the visual aspects of cinema, and here with languid, meditative shots, it is something I can really appreciate. Overall, I'm still puzzled by it but know underneath my mental haze, there is something worth being said underneath.

Monthly Listening Post - August 2007

A fairly busy month for new releases, a mix of new artists and old favorites. I don't know how many of these will be on my final top ten but this is a strong group of contenders.

1) Josh Ritter - The Historical Conquests of Josh Ritter
2) Rilo Kiley - Under the Blacklight
3) Jason Isbell - Sirens of the Ditch
4) Okkervil River - The Stage Names
5) Augie March - Moo, You Bloody Choir

Also, after a lousy summer for concerts, the fall concert season is definitely heating up, especially in Upstate New York. Syracuse has Bob Dylan/Elvis Costello and Phil Lesh in October while the Magic City Music Dump here in the Binghamton area has Gov't Mule, and Umphrey's McGee. The biggest surprise is that Bright Eyes will be playing Magic City in November which is completely unbelievable that an "indie" artist is playing Binghamton. Plus I'm heading out to Portland, Oregon in November to see The Hold Steady (more on that later.) It's definitely going to be an eventful fall.

Spectres of the Spectrum

Spectres of the Spectrum (Craig Baldwin, 2000) [7]

I'm a big fan of Baldwin's work, especially Tribulation 99 and this film treads much of the same ground as that film. Baldwin is a collage or found footage filmmaker, which means he uses images from other sources to create his films. This film as well as Tribulation 99 use mostly old science fiction footage to create what appear on the surface to be paranoid psuedo-documentaries but do have a critique of American political and business policies. Spectres focuses on a father and daughter who are out to show that a corporate/government monopoly on communications and radar technology to control the population and destroy the natural ionosphere of the earth. It's incredibly complicated exaggeration Baldwin has come up with, the father and daughter having to travel back in time to save the world. This plus while taking tangents into Tesla's alternating current, the creation and subsequent monopoly of radio and television, and political commentary. The first 30 to 45 are difficult to grasp but once the father and daughter get down to actually carrying out their task the film becomes much more streamlined and easy to follow. As with any Baldwin film, there are an overload of images, from everything to 50's science television programs to more modern films like Gremlins. On the surface, this all seems rambling and incoherent but the underlying message of Baldwin's films are its most important points. Baldwin is urging the public to take back their media and ways of getting information. The media conglomerates have for far too long has a stranglehold on determining what information that people can hear. Baldwin makes the point that media like radio and television initially belonged in the public arena and that corporate control is bad for the earth as a whole. It may be hard to grasp from the density of images assembled, but it's there to be found.

The U.S. vs. John Lennon

The U.S. vs. John Lennon (David Leaf & John Scheinfeld, 2006) [6]

An interesting at times documentary on the Nixon administration's failed attempts to silence and deport John Lennon for his political views and associations. What's interesting more than Lennon the person are the issues being raised of celebrity, using celebrity for voicing dissent, and the role of the U.S. government in monitoring those individuals. Leaf and Scheinfeld interview numerous people, some like Gore Vidal and Noam Chomsky, who have no tangible relation to Lennon. It doesn't work formally because it creates tangents but what they say would be a much more interesting documentary than this one. My main issues here is that this is well covered ground and the filmmakers are bringing nothing that enlightening to Lennon himself. The only real interesting facet that gets revealed but not covered enough is that Lennon's message of peace was extremely naive and that the radicals he associated himself with became more and more confrontational and even violent as the 70s wore on. The film shows that Lennon's power of celebrity was what people like Jerry Rubin and Abbie Hoffman were really after, not so much the ideas. The actual details of Lennon's immigration case are relatively boring but it is interesting to see how paranoid the Nixon administration was in their belief that one entertainer could have that much sway on public opinion. The sad reality, over the years, has become that no famous person (0r group of celebrities) has any real power to influence the political establishment or stop a war. It sure hasn't been successful with Iraq. What this film shows is that John Lennon was really the last entertainer that has had a broad impact on the culture at large but even he never had the influence to make change.

Strange Brew

Strange Brew (Rick Moranis & Dave Thomas, 1983) [5]

It's hard reviewing this film so many years later because it's basic structure, the adventures of two dim-witted men, has been aped by Wayne's World, Tommy Boy, and almost every Will Ferrel movie that it's hard to remember that this was pretty much the first one. Moranis and Thomas the McKenzie brothers made famous on SCTV and now so more for their beer commercials. They're basically two dim-witted brothers concerned with drinking beer and calling one another hoser and telling everyone to take off. Their Canadian white bread routine is funny for a while (about the length of a skit) but the repetition of eh's and hoser only can get so much laughs. Still, there were moments throughout that made me laugh out loud, especially the scene with the two brothers fighting in straight jackets. That's more that can be said for most comedies today. The plot, loosely based on Hamlet, has no real importance to the film; it could have been anything as long as it propels Bob and Doug along and gets them to act stupid. The film also suffers like most comedies of its era from cheesy 80's syndrome, highlighted by not very effective effects and the corny opening credits song. Some credit has to go to Moranis and Thomas for breaking down the fourth wall, clearly addressing the audience and letting them know that they know they're making a movie, something Wayne's World would copy and make seem like new years later. Also, for being two dim bulbs, the McKenzie brothers are completely likable, something that the smugness of Ferrel's characters lack. Strange Brew isn't great and it shows its age but it certainly has more laughs than Rush Hour 3, which I guess passes for comedy nowadays.

Exterminating Angels

Exterminating Angels (Jean-Claude Brisseau, 2007) [4]

It's hard to get people to pay attention to the message of your film when all people are going to remember is hot girls masturbating. Brisseau has always been a director that's going to push the envelope in terms of sexuality, but here he goes so far overboard that he ends up drowning his film. This treads some of the same ground as Secret Things, his previous film (which I happened to like). That film, however, dealt more with the issue of power in relation to sexuality and had campy elements that made it much more enjoyable to watch than this one. Exterminating Angels and especially the character of Francois take themselves way too seriously. Francois especially, since he acts as a vessel for these women to bring out their desires and taboos, which is just a little too convenient for what Francois is looking for. Francois doesn't say or make anything profound out of what he's doing; he comes across as being underhandedly manipulative and eventually, his transgressions (real or imagined) result in tragedy at the end. The only thing that really comes out of the film, mostly because it's repeated, is that Francois doesn't realize what he's getting into. The meeting with Julie at the end reinforces this idea even more. Besides that, Brisseau doesn't offer up anything more. The angels themselves appear haphazardly and don't take on any significance until the end. Brisseau aims for provocation and there's no doubt the sexually explicit scenes here will both intrigue and offend people. The real problem with this film is that there's a lack of anything worthwhile about the sex that's shown beyond titillation.

Live Free or Die

Live Free or Die (Gregg Kavet & Andy Robin, 2007) [3]

The quirky indie comedy is starting to go the way of the studio romantic comedy, so full of standard archetypes and characters that it's hard to make it good. This film, from two former Seinfeld writers, should be a lot funnier but falls back into the pitfalls of quirky just for the hell of it characters and a plot that doesn't really go anywhere. The plot issue isn't that big but the characters here are so unlikable and treated with such indignation by the writers that the end result is completely homeless. Kavet and Robin are so concerned with their convoluted plot and character quirks that they forgot to make a comedy with laughs in it. Granted, there are a few but they mostly involve the hilarious comedian Judah Friedlander, who sadly, isn't in this film enough. The two main characters are treated with such disrespect by the writer/directors by having so little intellect that it's insulting to the viewer as well. Aaron Stanford plays a two-bit loser that tries too hard to be a hardened criminal. Besides being stupid, his character is so over the top in his wannabe macho nature that he's completely unlikable and lacks any real personality. The other, played by Paul Schneider, is even worse. He plays the dim bulb and is there to be laughed at and nothing else. There's something wrong with playing a character's lack of intelligence purely for laughs and not giving him any humanity. I may be a cynic at heart but I like my films to have some human qualities in them and these two walking cartoon characters are so blatantly offensive to my sensibilities that I wanted to strangle the ones responsible for them. It's too bad because the story itself does have some funny moments but the down ending is completely off base for the rest of the film. This film's lack of consistency makes it a muddled mess that doesn't work at all.

Zodiac

Zodiac (David Fincher, 2007) [8]

I've never been that big a fan of Fincher's work, finding the queasy opulence of films like Seven and Fight Club not to my taste. Here, he tones it down and plays his hand relatively straightforwardly about the notorious serial killer who terrorized the Bay Area in the late 60s/early 70s and vanished, never to be solved. This film on one hand contains the standard procedural drama, laying out the facts of the case which have been well covered over the years. What makes this film work and how Fincher differentiates it from banality is the thread of male obsession that runs through. Obsession and compulsion can be used to describe the killer himself, as the Zodiac claims in the film. But the obsession of knowing the truth is what really drives this film. The three other main characters, the boy scout cartoonist, the hardened, boozy reporter, and the earnest detective at some point become all consumed with the details of the case and are unable to let it go. The performances of the three, Jake Gyllenhaal, Mark Ruffalo, and Robert Downey Jr., perfectly embody the determination and obsession that come with wanting to know what happen. They perfectly stand in for the audience as everybody wants to know who the Zodiac was and why he did what he did. But Fincher also succeeds in not really answering anything. The film wants to tag Arthur Leigh Allen as the Zodiac but all the psychical evidence in the case cannot be linked to him. The film doesn't have any more answers by the end than when it started. The strength of the film is that it can still be effective even though the entire course of it was a search for answers and it turned up nothing.

Fincher as the director here is a near perfect match. Someone who is notoriously detail obsessive as he fits the overall theme of the film perfectly. No detail in matching the period of the early 70s is spared all the way down to the studio cards at the beginning of the film. I've found Fincher's style to be a little overbearing in the past, but with this film, it fits consistently with the theme of the film.

Letters from Iwo Jima

Letters from Iwo Jima (Clint Eastwood, 2006) [6]

I always have an issue with people making movies about a foreign culture. Not to get all theoretical but the idea of "the other" always pops up in American cinema when addressing other cultures. This is always more true about the Orient (see Edward Said). While I don't begrudge Eastwood for tackling the battle of Iwo Jima from the Japanese perspective, I was wary of this film to say the least. I have no real interest in seeing Flags of Our Fathers so I have no counterpoint to compare to this film. It's well made and is certainly stronger in its first half. By the end however, it becomes too repetitive in its themes. Everything always comes back to the Japanese fighting to their death, the honor of dying coming above survival. We get the character of Saigo to be the argument of this point. The problem with him is that I think Eastwood and Haggis are making him the rational, and therefore American voice in the film. From a Western way of thinking, no soldier would would think of committing suicide on the battlefield. Even though they may not have intended for him to be this way, Saigo is there to show this idea of the other. It just seems to emphasize this displacement of thinking between American and Japanese thought of warfare. Eastwood has made a good standard war film but these ideas keep poking around my head as I watch it. Other critics say that the Americans are the enemy in this film but not really. Outside of Saigo and General Kuribayashi, there is no strong identification with the Japanese side. Even though the film is of the Japanese fight of Iwo Jima, Eastwood can't keep an American perspective out of it. He may be reverential to the Japanese, but he still makes the viewer question why they would fight the way they did. It's not something that makes the film bad, but it leaves some holes that are never really filled.

Death of a President

Death of a President (Gabriel Range, 2006) [4]

Contrary to what the right wing would want you to believe about this film, there really isn't anything that sensationalistic about it. It's not a venomous screed against Bush but is rather trying to be a sober piece of what if alternative history. The problem is that it's a pretty boring film bogged down by too many cloying characters and themes. The history that Range and his collaborators throw up is lazy and pretty far-fetched; it's a kind of wish fulfilment for these Brits of what America should do. Well, most people in America are lazy and apathetic, so even though they say they don't like the war in Iraq, there's not going to be mass protests in the streets anytime soon by ones other than those who already have. The situation with the protesters doesn't ring true all the way down to the loony anarchists that are supposedly leading this. Even worse are the interviews with actors who are clearly trying too hard to be dignified. I found out afterwards that these actors were not told the entire plot of the film which explains why nothing involving the talking head pieces flows smoothly. The only part of the film that has any true resonance is in the aftermath of the assassination, where a President Cheney preys on the fear and mourning of a nation to pass even more draconian laws and the real truth of what happened is never explained because of political expediency. By that point this rolls around the film had no chance to redeem itself. That and its told in such an blunt way that it saps all the drama out of the film.

The Good German

The Good German (Steven Soderbergh, 2006) [5]

For all the technical and aesthetic savvy Soderbergh uses in this film, the story, characters, and the film itself still ring hollow. There's no doubt Soderbergh is an expert director, and the template he lays down stylistically here is impressive. The film was shot the exact same way film noirs of the late 1940s would have been shot, from the sets, lighting, fixed lenses and even the matte screen for driving sequences. While it's an achievement with an impressive amount of work and detail put into it, to me it seems to be all flash and no substance. The story, while following the meandering film noir template, is too convoluted and utterly boring. The film limps its way towards the conclusion, with only temporary bits of interest to me. For a film so heavily indebted to its style, there is a clear lack of strong or lasting images. It all looks good but beneath its exterior shine is a hollow core. The images and the characters pass by without creating a strong bond with the viewer. No performance here stands out, even though Clooney's character personally fits the style of his acting, which is never very good. Tobey Maguire and Cate Blanchett disappoint for the most part. Classic film noir is not really about story or even images that much, even though they're important elements. What makes film noir great are characters and this film sorely lacks any of conviction. Grit is always better than glitz and this film lakes the former.

The Treasure of the Sierra Madre

The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (John Huston, 1948) [9]

What is so refreshing about this film even after so many years have past is that , for a film considered the equivalent of a blockbuster for its time, it is so dark and dour. Of course time has made famous two elements of the film that really aren't its most important aspects: the "We don't need no stinkin' badges" line (which is incorrectly quoted) and Walter Houston's much parodied dance. These are celebrated more than the film, which in itself, isn't really something to be. For a major studio picture of the era, it's certainly an anomaly, with actual location shooting and a completely unlikable protagonist. It's a film that could only be made because of who was associated with it. John Huston wrote and directed and doesn't spare the bleak nature of the novel. His direction is exceptional, capturing the harsh, desolate landscape as easily as the harsh emotional nature of the film. The adventure/treasure aspect of the story only sets up the real crux of the film: what materialism and greed do to the true nature of man. Bogart's Fred Dobbs is the ultimate example of the poisoning of greed. As the film progresses, Dobbs becomes more and more paranoid and irrational until he meets his untimely end. He is a completely unlikable character, full of flaws and awful character traits. It plays so completely off of the archetypes of films of that era that it's no wonder the film was a commercial disappointment. It's an overwhelmingly impressive performance by Bogart and proves he an actor beyond being the tough guy type. What is also impressive is that the good guys don't save the day; the film ends on failure on one level. It's this failure of material fortune that finally makes the characters reveal that their happiness exists outside of the treasure. It's a mixed ending, but Huston sells it by his near flawless direction.

The Passenger

The Passenger (Michelangelo Antonioni, 1975) [7]

Camus' The Stranger kept running through my mind while viewing this. They both take place in the overbearing desert of North Africa, both are overtly existentialist, and in each the protagonists make choices with no real explanation much beyond they did what they did. I'm a fan on Antonioni (L'Avventura being one of my favorite films) but his films always raise questions and never really answer them. Here, Jack Nicholson plays David Locke, a reporter who assumes the identity of a man he befriends in a remote hotel. He proceeds to be caught up in the man's profession of an arms dealer and attempting to avoid his old journalism colleagues and government men who want him dead. What is never really explained why David Locke makes this decision. Nicholson throughout the film plays it the same each way; he's not any different as an arms dealer than he was a reporter. More than likely that's the point Antonioni wishes to make, that identity cannot overtake the true soul of a man. But then again plot has never been the focus of his films. They always deal more with the relationship between man and the spaces he occupies, and the quiet gaps held within. That's no different here as there are tremendous shots of Nicholson alone against the desert, and the final scene. Even that being said, the questions left unanswered still eat at me afterwards. The Maria Schneider character, while being sort of an enabler for Locke, has just as many questions. My wanting to know the answers and not getting much, like in The Stranger, leave me conflicted on just how to feel about this.

Swimming to Cambodia

Swimming to Cambodia (Johnathan Demme, 1987) [9]

Spalding Gray is a fantastic storyteller. That's what makes this film successful. A filmed monologue more than not would be pretty boring unless the person talking can keep your attention. Gray does this not by being over-dramatic but by being able to blend the various threads of his monologue into something that is funny, entertaining, and enlightening. He can go from the somber history of Cambodia and the Khmer Rouge genocide to his own self-aggrandized film role to the seedy sexual underworld of Thailand as cleanly and easily as anyone could. What also works in this film's favor is that Demme doesn't attempt to do too much to punch up the film. It doesn't need anything beyond some occasional lighting and sound effects. The power of the film rests entirely with Gray's words. He places just the right amount of reverence and somber remembrance of the horrors that occurred in Cambodia with his own humorous personal experiences. Overall, it creates a film that while no means aesthetically adventurous, is something that was well worth viewing.

Tokyo Olympiad

Tokyo Olympiad (Kon Ichikawa, 1965) [8]

With the Olympics now becoming such a media saturated and commercial highlight reel, it's incredibly refreshing to see this film, which treats the games and the games themselves, are treated as something more reserved than the bloated spectacle it now has become. If someone wanted to do what Ichikawa did for the games in Bejing next year, it would be on deaf ears. Any artistry that were in the Olympics have long been replaced by cheating, professionals, and massive capitalism. This film shows the games as what they're original intention was: as pure sport. Ichikawa isn't focused on winners or losers; sometimes the winner of the event covered is never even mentioned. Missing that doesn't really matter here as the power of the images on the screen trumped individual achievement and medal counts. There are moments here of pure gold in terms of images in all their CinemaScope glory. The Criterion transfer, as always, is flawless. While the images stand on their own, Ichikawa also has an underlying story of how the Olympics are the true bastion of peace for the world, being especially sure to mention the games that were cancelled by war. Tokyo Olympiad is a true celebration of the positive competitive nature of humanity, win or lose. The images find all the right things: the kinetic energy of the 100 meter dash, the pure artistry of gymnasts, and in the film's greatest strength, the psychical and mental agony of running a marathon. The only thing that brings this film down (just slightly) is the manic narration. It's just not necessary with the craftsmanship the images show.

Little Children

Little Children (Todd Field, 2006) [5]

There are points in this film where it really moves along and I think to myself, this is a pretty good film. And then there are times when it all comes crashing down into sanctimonious babble and sledgehammer symbolism. I get it. Sarah and Brad are little children themselves, behaving on the same selfish level as their kids. Brad's wife makes PBS documentaries hence the Frontline style narration which is smug and should have been cut out completely. Everyone talks of castrating the pervert so he does it himself. These points, for lack of a more eloquent term, piss me off, more than any film I've seen since Crash. In his review, the Hack takes this film to task as being moralistic and reactionary but I don't know if I really see it that way. I don't find Field to be condemning these characters even though I must admit that I find them fairly unlikable for the most part. That seems to be the m.o. for the film; none of these characters have their heads in the right place. They're supposed to be looking after their children but I don't think Field and Perrotta place any moralistic hierarchy on anyone. They appear to be just as critical as the stereotypical suburban moms in the park as the selfish main characters. The problem is that the entire story comes across as Todd Solondz light, a film harshly critical of mundane suburbia but with not enough balls to be completely venomous as Solondz or as disarmingly funny as American Beauty.

What saves the film enough for me to give it a respectable grade is that I think that Field formally constructed a film that isn't that bad. It's a bit long but when the narration goes, it becomes a film that is worthwhile in little bits. Kate Winslet as Sarah rises above the lazy suburban moms around her and shows a character that realizes she's in losing situation. There are still times I don't like her character but she makes it go down easier than the others. And the character I ended up having the most sympathy for is Ronnie, who portrayed by Jackie Earle Haley, has a childlike vulnerability (get it?) underneath a truly creepy exterior. He's a man at the will of his own troubling psychology and the hysteria surrounding him. The end loses me completely but up until that point he could be seen as the only character I could actually have sympathy for. And I don't know if that's what Field was going for.

Monthly Listening Post - July 2007

Having Bonnaroo on the mind for the whole month of June keeps me from compiling a thorough listening post for that month, so July's is a bit early. On the festival front, it's been announced that Rage Against the Machine will be one of the headliners for Vegoose Halloween weekend in Las Vegas with another rumor from Britain's NME.com saying that Smashing Pumpkins and Red Hot Chili Peppers will be the other headliners. As someone who's been to both Vegooses so far, I think that rumor's pretty unlikely seeing that there are three headline caliber acts for a two-day festival. Plus, I think the other headliner would have to be from the jamband universe, a la Widespread Panic or maybe The White Stripes seeing how big a crowd they attracted at Bonnaroo. I would be interested in seeing Rage but the other two bands don't interest me at all. That's all beside the point; here are my choices for this month:

Ryan Adams - Easy Tiger
The White Stripes - Icky Thump
The Avett Brothers - Emotionalism
Blitzen Trapper - Wild Mountain Nation
Moby Grape - Listen! My Friends (In my opinion, they could have been a legendary band but they got screwed over with crazy marketing by their label and Skip Spence did have a nervous breakdown.)

Not Enough Rocketsauce

Tenacious D & the Pick of Destiny (Liam Lynch, 2006) [4]

Tenacious D's shorts on HBO were near perfection, capturing all the ridiculous subplots and self-reference in little tiny bits. Sadly, that's where the strength of the D lies. In short intervals it's funny but it never translates into consistency over the 90 plus minutes of this film. What works about Tenacious D is that both Jack Black and Kyle Gass commit themselves so much into the cheesy stereotypes of metal and all its pre-occupation with Satan, sex, and self-grandeur that it borders on irony. With this film, in trying to create an entire back story for the band and the mythological quest for the pick of destiny, they lose a lot of the loony energy and kind of WTF?! moments that make their shorts and their album so funny. Another bad choice was not using any of the songs that were on their 2001 release in the film. On one level, it would seem to be filler and regurgitating old stuff, but songs like 'Tribute' and 'Rock Your Socks Off' give a better idea of how funny they can be more than this film did. It seems lost in a stoner haze, all the way down to the sound system parody at the beginning. Their earlier work seems more focused and thought out, which makes it funnier.

Al Franken: God Spoke

Al Franken: God Spoke (Chris Hegedus & Nick Doob, 2006) [5]
Entertaining but not very insightful and preaching to the choir. Those are my main thoughts about this documentary. It plays out as an over-enthusiastic portrayal of Franken, someone who I do happen to think is very funny. The filmmakers are playing to a particular audience and why not?, political documentaries more than ever drawn down ideological lines. What this film does show that Franken, a brilliant satirist in print, comes off as a hothead and a little egomaniacal in person. And not as funny. That's not really all bad; Franken has the nerve to stand up to the conservative bullies in the film (Coulter, Hannity, O'Reilly) and operate on the somewhat crass level they do. It may not be pretty but someone on the liberal side of things should fight as dirty as the conservatives do. Franken isn't as dirty as them but he is relentless in calling out lies and misquotes. What is telling is how people like O'Reilly and Hannity take offense at being attacked as someone like Franken giving his opinion on them when their entire careers are built on the same ground. The left needs more smart attackers like Franken but even he gets too full of his idealism. The film slides as Franken descends more and more into exploring a run for Senate in Minnesota, realizing he'll have to defang his persona. That and the film is just too scatter shot to really be effective.

Pan's Labyrinth

Pan's Labyrinth (Guillermo del Toro, 2006) [7]

If I were have written a review right after viewing this film, it would have been gushing with praise. But as I've thought a little bit more in depth about it, the film, while still very good overall, has lost some of its luster. Reason number one is the genre: I've never been a big fan of fantasy and/or movies overloaded with special effects. Even with that being said, del Toro has created a world so convincing and emotionally relevant to the real world of the film that any apprehensions I would have had went away by the end. Pan's Labyrinth is a exceptionally constructed film in how it blends the real world of fascist Spain of 1944 and the fairy tale world Ofelia finds, and how they are one and the same. del Toro does draw a direct distinction between the horrors of the Franco regime and the monsters and fear Ofelia meets on her journey. The point I want to nitpick is that del Toro really hammers this home too blatantly. I'm not one to defend a corrupt fascist regime, but the sheer brutality and blind loyalty shown by Captain Vidal begins to border too much on cartoonish villainy by the end. It's too easy to have such a characterization of him as pure evil, even though I know that's del Toro's intent. This leads into the violence, while handled carefully by del Toro, begins to descend into overuse by the end also. For me, it's too much (I can handle graphic violence in cinema but here it's overkill).

What works to the film's benefit is its reliance on Ofelia. When del Toro keeps the focus on her and her tasks in the fantasy land, the film keeps grounded despite being in a fantastical realm. For fantasy to work for me, I have to believe there's characters with depth occupying those worlds. It's all too easy to forget about this when crafting the creatures and images in this world, but del Toro makes it work because the entire time we can still remember Ofelia is a young girl, often afraid of the world(s) she's in. That, and the fantastical visuals blend perfectly into the film. While no means the masterpiece some critics have been calling it, there's still a lot I like in Pan's Labyrinth for a film I could have found many reasons not to.

Notes On a Scandal

Notes On a Scandal (Richard Eyre, 2006) [6]

Dench and Blanchett's performances carry this film, and they have to, mostly because a lot of the story rings hollow after all is said and done. It's not that the situation that I find these characters in are unbelievable; by the end, the whole situation feels unearned to me. My main point in regards to this is the screenplay, which comes off as too heavy-handed and wordy. This is especially the case with all of the Dench character's narration; it just becomes too much. I always like actions and images to propel a film along more than words and this film really doesn't do that. The two main performances are strong enough that they cover up enough of the issues that the rest of the film raises for me. Dench does a great job at keeping Barbara restrained early in the film only to let her become less and less rational as the scandal grows and festers. I initially found Blanchett's performance a bit underwhelming, but after thinking it over a bit it's just as strong. Her character has to have an emotional nakedness that allows Barbara to be able to get to a point of manipulation. This leads me back to the ending, for whatever reason feels off the mark a bit from where the film had been going in terms of character development. There's no true punishment outside of losing a job or so on. What I really wanted was some kind of emotional punishment for these characters self-centered actions and that never really factors into the film at all.

Bonnaroo Report

Bonnaroo was beyond great, in terms of music; other things, not so much. It was hot especially Sunday, which the sun felt about three feet away all day. Couple that with the ever-present dust clouds being kicked up by 80,000 pairs of feet and it made conditions less than ideal. But that didn't stop me from enjoying what may have been the best lineup Bonnaroo has offered yet. The only headliner I was interested in was The Police and just as I expected, it left me ambivalent. They just didn't seem like a right fit. But there was plenty of other great music to catch, with these five performances highlighting my weekend:

5) Mavis Staples - She opened Sunday playing a set heavy on standard Staple Singers songs and classics like 'The Weight' and 'Will the Circle Be Unbroken'. She and the crowd were clearly enjoying the atmosphere before the heat really became unbearable.

4) Gillian Welch - The most reserved set of the weekend but it was highly enjoyable. John Paul Jones joined David and Gillian for three songs to rowdy applause. It's tough in a festival atmosphere to keep a rapt audience but she somehow managed.

3) Wilco - They could have been performing in heat that was close to 100 degrees but that didn't stop Jeff Tweedy & company from looking like they were actually enjoying playing, a big difference from their '04 performance. Tweedy remarked that he usually hates festivals but was enjoying himself and the crowd. Plus, the Sky Blue Sky material sounds really good live.

2) The National - This was one of the truly impressive performances of the weekend. They played Thursday night, which usually draws a more curious than die-hard type of audience. I admit I didn't know much outside of the new album, as probably much of the crowd didn't either. But the passion of their performance quickly won over a somewhat surprisingly big and enthusiastic crowd.

1) THE HOLD STEADY - I've been to every one of these since '03 and I never had a more enjoyable experience at one performance than this one. Opening with 'Stuck Between Stations', they had everyone won over in fist-pumping glory for the entire set. I was ten feet in front of stage right and it was infectious excitement all around, with everyone singing the choruses to 'Chips Ahoy' and 'You Can Make Him Like You'. I couldn't really see what was going on behind but from what I've read, it seems like the band won over more than just the rabid fans near the front. This, like the Flaming Lips in '03 or My Morning Jacket in '04, could be one of those breakthrough performances that Bonnaroo can be known for. For that portion of Saturday afternoon, The Hold Steady were the best rock & roll band in the world. And they just may be still.

I know I said I would try to post pictures but my camera's batteries died before I could even get a picture. Besides, no one was being allowed to bring cameras in because Tool were being pricks about photography. I'm glad I didn't catch their set.

Off to Bonnaroo

I head out early tomorrow for Bonnaroo so there won't be much action on the review front. I just finished Michael Chabon's new novel and will attempt to give my ideas on it when I get back. Right not, it's just Bonnaroo on the brain. I've got a pretty hectic schedule for the weekend and there looks like a chance for some rain but the chance to see so many bands really trumps lack of sleep or being dry. I hope to be able to get a recap going with some pictures on the site since I now have a digital camera. I'll just have to see what happens and get caught up when I get back.

Documentary Double Feature: Six Days in June/Shut Up & Sing

Six Days In June (Ilan Ziv, 2007) [6]
This is a well researched, with much in-depth analysis and interviews but it still leaves out the consequences of the war. Now this wouldn't really be a problem but in the beginning of the film, it states what consequences Israel's victory and occupation have wrought, but then never does explain them. What I find most interesting about the historical impact of the Six Day War was that it probably has done more to hurt the Israel-Palestine peace process than help it. The occupation of the West Bank, Gaza, and the Golan Heights and their population by Zionist settlers has been one of the main problems and one of the biggest consequences of Israel's victory but is never touched upon. Another major consequence was by the humiliating defeat of the Arab armies in 1967, it can be directly linked to the rise of Islamic Fundamentalism as the main voice of the Arab people, not the pro-socialist pan-nationalism being championed by Nasser. Again, mentioned in the beginning but never covered. Those ideas interest me just as much as the war itself, which is thoroughly covered and explained in the film with no bias towards any side. Ziv did just about as good as he could on the war, but I felt addressing the aftermath was just as important.

Dixie Chick: Shut Up & Sing (Barbara Kopple, 2006) [6]
What's most amazing is that Natalie Maines made a statement that was essentially a joke and had no real anti-war ideas in it but somehow all the rednecks in this country went apoplectic. I could see how what she said could be offensive to Texans but how one simple statement made them pariahs is hard to believe. Kopple plays it safe too much at times, especially as the film progresses and the events in Iraq seem to vindicate what Maines had said. The one aspect that Kopple handles subtlety but I feel is the most important aspect of the Dixie Chicks' entire situation is the gender issue involved here. I don't find it surprising that most of the people shown protesting in the film are male. There's something about conservatives in general, not just men, that can't stand to here a woman actually have strong opinions. It's not surprising to me to see men being the most upset and names like 'Dixie sluts' being used. A conservative world like country music preaches conformity and when someone, especially a woman that' s supposedly part of that movement happens to disagree, it sets those people off. Freedom of speech obviously doesn't apply to country music.

Regular Lovers

Regular Lovers (Philippe Garrel, 2005) [8]

I have been eagerly awaiting this film to be out on DVD and kudos to Netflix for actually getting it out there. There has been no film in the last couple of years I've been waiting for, mostly on the basis of The Hack's glowing review. While not as big of a fan, this film does paint a vivid picture of a certain time and place (Paris, May 1968) and does it with equal parts reverence and disappointment. It's a picture of big ideas and revolutionary zeal that ends up taking a back seat to a more personal struggle of a relationship. The film begins with a extended sequence of the May '68 upheaval, and Garrel lets the camera do all the talking, panning and meditatively focusing on the events. It's not trying to explain ideology; it comes across more as an intense study of that time. While Garrel wraps up a lot of thought into these events, it drags a bit. The film for me really finds its foundation in the aftermath, when the young idealists' revolution has been squashed and the main characters fall back into opium and broken dreams. This film works when the focus goes to Francois and Lilie as they grow deeper in their relationship as well as attempt to reconcile their failed dreams of revolution. For Francois, his relationship has for the moment, staved off he and his comrades inability to change the system. It's the sad reality that the old system won in 1968 and by the end of the film, those who tried to make change come to abandon all thoughts of anything positive occurring. Francois's support system is gone; Antoine, the friend he's staying with goes to Morocco, and even Lilie leaves for New York, leaving him exposed against his failures. Regular Lovers is a film of a filmmaker looking back and seeing the sad reality that begat the ardent ideology of youth.

The physical look of the film, shot in black and white is remarkable in that it looks like it was actually shot in 1968, not 35 years later. A lot of this could be credited to the lighting and aspect ratio, which give the film the look of being shot on old 16mm. It certainly adds to the overall effectiveness of the film.

A Change In the Works...Hopefully

I know this site is for the most part irrelevant. Reviewing films that have been out for months before doesn't really have any positive benefits, mostly it causes a backlog in my viewing seeing that I have to get everything through Netflix. Hopefully, that will all change. The Art Mission here is Binghamton has finally opened their Art House theatre but the bad news is that they still don't have any projectors. According to the article in the Press & Sun-Bulletin, projectors should be arriving soon, and that means I will be able to review films within a relatively close time of their U.S. theatrical release date. It's been a long time coming and hopefully, the Art Mission will actually get the projectors (it's never a safe bet to assume around here.) So, hopefully, some more relevant reviews will show up here in the near future, though I know no one really visits here anyway.

On a completely unrelated note, Bonnaroo is two weeks away and I got my tickets today. I'm always psyched about the trip, especially since I'm going VIP, but this year's scheduling leaves a lot to be desired. I know some of it is out of Superfly's hands, but there seems to be a lot of similar bands playing against each other, most notably being the Decemberists/Wilco/Feist clustef*&k on Sunday evening. I've been every year since '03 and I can't remember having as many serious conflicts as this year. Still, even though I said last year was going to be my last, I just can't keep away from the best music festival in the country.

Half Nelson

Half Nelson (Ryan Fleck, 2006) [7]

A lot has been made of Ryan Gosling's performance here, and while very good, the film for me really hinges on the subdued yet nuanced performance of Shareeka Epps as the student struggling to find a kind of father figure in her teacher. (Side note: Epps happens to go reside here in Binghamton, and sadly, the film was never shown in theatrical release here, nor did any media pick up the story until she started to receive awards. Just goes to show how culturally inept a place Binghamton still is in regards to film.) Anyway, the film really succeeds in that it offers no real redeeming ending. A film of this nature, heavy-handed at times in its liberalism, all too easy could have made an uplifting ending to make everyone feel good that these characters were able to rise above their struggles. But it goes much beyond that. The film talks a lot about dialectics and the struggle for change, and it leaves us with these characters still struggling. It's refreshing to see this film portray the white teacher in a inner-city neighborhood not as a savior but as someone going through as many problems as the students around him. Gosling as Dan Dunne is someone who while talks of change is someone who is caught in his own struggle. He has no willpower to bring about change. This brings out a theme that Dunne's kind of liberalism hasn't really done much to help or empower the situation of the inner-city. It would have been all too easy for him to clean up his act and help Drey in her situation, but life in these situations is rarely that clean-cut. Epps, in her performance, goes much farther in her character, raising it out of a simple caricature, as a young girl wrestling with her place and where her future lies. Half Nelson doesn't go for simple answers or resolutions. It succeeds in that it doesn't fall into the cheap manipulation that films with a similar message all too often do.

The Last King of Scotland

The Last King of Scotland (Kevin Macdonald, 2006) [5]

The string of mediocre films continues with this over-praised one. All talk gravitates towards Forest Whitaker's performance as Idi Amin but I'll admit I didn't find it overly spectacular. I had seen Barbet Schroeder's documentary on Amin before this, and the man's performance in that as himself trumps Whitaker's imitation. Unlike Helen Mirren in The Queen, Whitaker never really embodies the role of Amin and give it any dimension; it feels more like simple mimicry. Beside that performance, the James McAvoy character of the Scottish doctor really pissed me off. At the beginning, he comes across as an over-eager boy just wanting to do good only to get wrapped up in a situation going steadily out of control that he had no idea of anticipating. My main issue with this (and I'm sure it's been mentioned in other reviews) is that we see all this violence and chaos in Africa through the eyes of a white man, who is justifiably horrified by the savagery of "the other." I don't want to get into a deep discussion on race and viewpoint, but while not done overtly or on purpose, the whole idea of this film has a hint of racism. Not derogatory racism, but there is clearly a difference in the thoughts and morals of the Garrigan, the educated white, and the savage and frankly, black society around him. Telling this story through the eyes of an (white) outsider doesn't feel right. What saves this film partly is Kevin Macdonald's direction, which while being unable to decide if I really like it, is definitely interesting. His use of extreme zooms and herky-jerky style are reminiscent of 70s era film, appropriate for the era of the film. Something similar was done in his documentary, One Day In September. The interesting aesthetics, however, don't outweigh the questionable choices Macdonald made in storytelling.

American Hardcore

American Hardcore (Paul Rachman, 2006) [5]

First off, let me state that I'm not a fan of punk rock or hardcore in particular. I am, however, a huge fan of music documentaries and I will watch one no matter what musical genre they happen to be covering. The problem with this film, while it tries its best to cram the entire hardcore movement that sprouted up in the 1980s, its scatttershot history doesn't really reveal anything to those not familiar with the scene. A lot of time is focused on Southern California and Washington D.C., the two epicenters of the movement, but it never goes really in depth with any particulars. Black Flag could be the exception but then again, I don't remember much more than a couple of segments on them. The film briefly mentions bands like Husker Du and The Replacements, both out of Minneapolis, but never goes in depth. While musically this isn't my particular taste, the one facet of the film I found interesting is the sociological context of the movement. Hardcore was more or less a direct response to the Reagan revolution, and while most music of the era was glossy and frivolous, the hardcore scene was one of the few effective counterculture groups of the 80s. I would have liked to seen a little more of that than footage of concerts where teenage boys jump and wail on each other.

Monthly Listening Post - May 2006

With Bonnaroo only three weeks away, this month's listening post is going to be heavy on the bands that are appearing there. Still, this month has seen some highly anticipated releases on my part. Here they are:

Wilco - Sky Blue Sky (I've posted on Stereogum, Jambase, etc. that I think this album is being overlooked in
its so-called "straightforwardness" and "simplicity." Simply, I really like it.)
Feist - The Reminder (Right now, appears to be frontrunner for best album of 2007.)
The National - Boxer
The Black Angels - Passover
Black Rebel Motorcycle Club - Baby 81 (Not quite what I hoped for considering I thought Howl was the best
album of 2005, but it still has some good moments.)

On an unrelated t.v. note (again), I thought that the Gilmore Girls finale was well-done in its subtlety, and it makes me realize how much I'll miss that show. It was so refreshing to see something that had humor but also addressed its audience with a respect and thoughtfulness that too few television shows do. Also, NBC renewed Scrubs for a seventh and probably last season. I may almost have to take back all the bad things I've said about NBC in the past.

The Notorious Bettie Page

The Notorious Bettie Page (Mary Harron, 2006) [5]

This film is a valiant effort, but still left me unfulfilled and/or questioning the choices being made. Gretchen Mol gives a stand-out performance of Bettie Page but the story itself leaves me wondering where the story is. It's not really that interesting. What is interesting is the stylistic choices that Mary Harron uses. The film succeeds in re-creating the look of a 1950s film, from the black and white that composes most of the film, down to the Super 8 footage and splashes of bright Technicolor of the era. I'm not sure if I like this though; I'm certainly impressed with the detail and effort put into creating the look but I find no real strong aesthetic reason why Harron chooses to do what she does. But let's get back to the story. The film isn't so much about Bettie Page herself as a film about sexuality in the 50s. The film plays into the thought of how ridiculous and obsolete sexual mores in the 50s would become with the sexual revolution, as well as all the overblown censorship issues. It comes as a last gasp of innocence and naivety before a more realistic portrayal of sexuality becomes the norm. At least that's how I see it. Bettie herself is the living embodiment of this: a naive (this could be debated) Southern girl willing to do bondage pictorials because it will make somebody happy. That appears to be the outgoing message of the film, but Mol, by her performance makes more of it. She plays Bettie as innocent and just wanting to please, but there's an underlying slyness in her performance in that Bettie seems to know what she's doing is much more than that. The film also makes a point of Bettie's spirituality but another dichotomy lies here to. While no means promiscuous, Mol as Bettie certainly knows how to use her new found sexuality and power to enjoy herself. It's only at the end when everything comes crashing down around her that Bettie finds her true way to me. That very well be true in essence but in the world of the film, it feels unearned. A good performance by Mol almost gets wasted by the confusing nature of the rest of the film.

On a very special Hannity & Colmes...

I know I'm breaking two rules I made for this site by posting on politics and television, but this is too good to pass up. Knowing that Jerry Falwell, who was always a shining figure of compassion, had just passed away, I just had to see how the fair and balanced "journalists" at Fox News would canonize him. I happened to catch Hannity & Colmes at just the right moment, as the Irish gorilla and Colmes were interviewing Christian toady Ralph Reed and noted prick and anti-theist Christopher Hitchens about Falwell. What transpired may have been the single most gleeful television event I've ever seen. Hitchens, who normally I'm no fan of, teared Falwell apart. While some make scoff at treating a recently deceased man so poorly, there's probably no one that deserved it more than Jerry Falwell. Hitchens then destroys an indignant Hannity by arguing (rightly) that he was invited on the program to give his opinion on the man, which he certainly does. Hannity then dissolves into babbling incoherently until Colmes finally gets his nerve up to go to commercial. Watch it here. Television gold.

The Queen

The Queen (Stephen Frears, 2006) [6]
I have the belief that sometimes a great performance of an actor or actress can sometimes obscure the flaws of the film in general, my feelings about Zooey Deschanel in Winter Passing for example. Helen Mirren's performance as Queen Elizabeth in Stephen Frears' much lauded docudrama plays the same way for me. It is a little surprising to see such a restrained, inward performance such as the one Mirren gives receive so many awards since the Academy especially seems to award over the top performances. This film clearly rests on Mirren's shoulders and she completely carries it to being watchable. Her turn as Elizabeth never borders on mimicry; it goes well beyond that as she embodies both royal stoicness but all the while letting little pools of her character's real emotions bubble up. The issue for me is that there's nothing much anywhere else in this film that rises to Mirren's level. The rest of the royal family is portrayed as less than assertive or downright clownish; James Cromwell as Price Phillip gets some points on the unintentional comedy scale. I think why I don't like this that much is that it is essentially dealing with a subject that I could care less about. Frears and screenwriter Peter Morgan take a media-saturated event and dissect even more, making a discourse on the role of the monarchy in the modern world, how out of touch they became with Britain over Diana, and how the young, charismatic Tony Blair came to save the day as well as to be there to re-enforce that Britons still love their Queen. I say, so what? That doesn't mean the film doesn't have some merit. But it rests squarely on Helen Mirren's shoulders.

Volver

Volver (Pedro Almodovar, 2006) [7]
This film somehow manages to continue and break with the darkening path that Almodovar has taken with his last two film, Talk to Her (fantastic film) and Bad Education (solid, but not great). It is much more light-hearted and affectionate in tone, but it still has darker undercurrents laying underneath its glossy exterior. Incest, abuse (psychical, mental, and sexual), and murder all play a role here but they never are as menacing as they could have been. Almodovar uses these themes to help underscore the strength of the woman in the film, and like all Almodovar films, he writes fantastic parts for his actresses (even though I could make the argument that Talk to Her focuses more on its male characters, but that's here nor there..). Almodovar's films always contain somewhat trashy or taboo themes, but this is the first film that really plays those off as almost inconsequential. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't be taken seriously; even though Raimunda, expertly played by Penelope Cruz, murders her husband, it comes across in a way that makes her a stronger woman. Of course there's the parallel between her and her mother, but that acts as a bonding between the two, an attempt to mend their fractured relationship. It is the character of Raimunda that holds the film together, as its doesn't really succeed in the scenes where she is not present. Cruz's portrayal defines the film, not so much the story, which is why I still feel a bit underwhelmed by it. The visuals still are strong as always in Almodovar films, the bright colors and his construction of images are nearly seamless. There were just times it seemed like Almodovar removed all the sharp commentary that I really enjoy. While not a throwaway by any sense, I would have liked to see this film be just a little more daring.

The Useless Film Snob Talks Television (Somewhat Reluctantly)

I never talk about television much because simply, I don't watch that much television. I'm not one of those people that like to brag that they never watch television; the simple fact is that there isn't much that I find interesting. When I say this, I mean network television; there's always something to be found on cable that I would probably like. But there are other things that I do with my evening, mostly watching films, that are infinitely better than a good majority of television.

The main reason I'm writing about t.v. now is that one of the few shows I do happen to watch is ending after seven years. That show is Gilmore Girls, and yes, it took me a while, but I'm finally ready to admit that I watch Gilmore Girls. And I thoroughly enjoy it. I will admit that I started watching it after stumbling upon it during Season 2 for purely superficial reasons but I ended up getting sucked into the storylines, which were much more clever and better written than 99% of what was on. Over the years, it has been one of the few shows that I never miss and I will be sad to see it go. But the show had clearly been hit or miss for that last 2 or 3 seasons, not just this year. I will say that I was never a huge fan of Amy Sherman-Palladino's over-caffeinated, look-how-clever-I-am-referencing-so-many-hip-indie-references writing but she always put enough emotion with a connection to real world that always made it worth watching. I will be in the minority that says this season isn't that bad, especially the last few episodes, even though it looks like the series will end on the same tired cliches of marriage and birth that t.v. shows always lazily fall into (it's one of the main reasons I don't watch network t.v.). Even so, a good show will be going off the air, but unlike Arrested Development, Freaks & Geeks, or Undeclared, it had time to show that good t.v. is out there. And while I'm babbling about t.v., here's the short list of what I regularly watch:

Scrubs - Another show that's perpetually in danger of cancellation, it's another show whose, sadly, its best days are behind it. This show has fallen into the marriage/baby laziness for a while, but even so, I'm going out on a limb and saying that last week's episode was the best Scrubs episode maybe ever. There isn't a sitcom that mixes comedy and melancholy any better, and they even though it's a sitcom, it has more grounding to medical and emotional reality than trite garbage like Grey's Anatomy or House. I hope it comes back next year.

The Simpsons - Who are we kidding? It's been at least five years since this has been consistently funny. I never thought I would ever say this, but I think it's time that Matt Groening & co. hang it up. For the past couple of seasons, every episode has only one or two laugh out loud jokes. Man, I miss seasons 5 & 6. At least I have my DVDs.

Good Eats/No Reservations - Cooking can be interesting if you have more personality beyond yelling "Bam!". No Reservations is interesting because Anthony Bourdain is basically a dick, and the locales he visits but at times it feels too scripted. Good Eats works because it goes beyond cooking into science, which is surprising since I don't really like science. The problem is saturation overload; it's on too much.

Mythbusters - See Good Eats.

South Park/The Daily Show/The Colbert Report - When I remember it's on, I'll watch but it's not like I never not miss them. The first ten minutes of Stewart and Colbert are always the best.

Family Guy - The strangest thing: I don't think Family Guy is that funny and it's structure is pretty stupid and a cheap way to fall into jokes (see the South Park episode), but for some reason I never miss an episode. I'll even watch the repeats on Adult Swim. I don't know what's wrong with me.

The Office - Simply, the best show on television. Nothing is more consistently funny. It's amazing a network as inept as NBC didn't cancel it after season 1 and now it's it flagship show.

Side note: congratulations for Ithaca on naming today Grateful Dead Day in the city on the 30th anniversary of the band's epic show at Cornell University. If you're interested, it can be downloaded here. It's been called one of Bob Weir's best shows, but Jerry's on fire during 'Not Fade Away.' That's the difference between Ithaca and Binghamton: Ithaca has Grateful Dead day and Dark Star Orchestra re-creating the show (I wish I could go) while Binghamton gets Larry the Cable Guy and Ted Nugent. I hate this city.

Old Joy

Old Joy (Kelly Reichardt, 2006) [9]
This film has been much praised in the cineaste community, and if anyone has been coming to this site with any sort of regularity, they should figure this would be right in my wheelhouse. Well, you're all right, as this short, lyrical gem is one of the few films I've been yearning to see lately that hasn't let me down in any way. Reichardt's debut is lyrical and minimalist in its flow yet still has a depth and meaning that goes well beyond its relatively short running time. For a film that's only 76 minutes with relatively no action, it captivated my attention for the entire time, making it feel like a half hour, leaving me wanting more. But what is most refreshing about this film is that Reichardt has the nerve to let her simple setup go and work and either you're going to get it or you're not.

The premise is simple enough: two friends, one yuppieish, one hippiesh, head out into the forest in Oregon searching for some hot springs and hopefully to re-kindle a friendship that seems frayed with years and minds apart. The film captures the simplistic beauty of the the woods with simple landscape shots that are allowed to speak for themselves. The biggest key to the film are its silences, something that seems antithetical to most moviegoers. There is little interaction between the two main characters, Mark and Kurt, other than some quick blurtings and explanations. The silence between these passages reveal more about the two than any lengthy conversation could. While to many this silence seems like nothing is happening, it really focuses on the mannerisms of people, their reactions, and the way that time and distance can strip a friendship. It appears that time has caused a rift between Mark and Kurt, in the way they live, they way they think, etc. that cannot be repaired, something far beyond a couple of days camping and visiting hot springs. Daniel London and Will Oldham give subtle yet nuanced lead performances, especially Oldham as spacey, needy Kurt (it's hard to remember with his music career, but Oldham was an actor first). Their jagged, mostly awkward interactions, while sparse, show all that needs to be said between the two. The landscape shots, prolonged and meditative, help to enforce the distance that has crept their way into their friendship. Old Joy is a film filled with silence and minimal action but that should not be taken as this is a film where nothing happens. It's lack of action is its most important feature.