Paranoid Park

•August 9, 2008 • Leave a Comment

Gorgeous, lyrical, and absorbing, Gus Van Sant’s latest film, 2007’s Paranoid Park, should appeal even to those who despised his so-called Death Trilogy—comprised of Gerry (2002), Elephant (2003), and Last Days (2005). Although I happen to be a fan of those three films (Gerry, in particular), they do sometimes feel more like formal experiments than anything else; it’s Van Sant exploring his influences, evoking and at times simply ripping off Michael Snow, Chatal Akerman, and especially Bela Tarr. Paranoid Park, however, is a film teeming with life. Whereas Elephant observed the lives of adolescents from a distance, suggesting a kind of realism (exemplified, of course, by his use of nonprofessional actors and lack of, well, plot), this film is closer to one of Robert Bresson’s 60s masterworks. Not quite Balthazar (1966), but probably Mouchette (1967). Van Sant continues to use mostly nonprofessional actors, but here he is creating a rarefied aesthetic object—as well as a work of fiction, so when people describe Paranoid Park as “Crime and Punishment with skateboards,” they’re not completely off the mark.

The story, adapted by Van Sant from Blake Nelson’s book, concerns the thoughts of a 16-year-old kid who was involved in a terrible accident resulting in the death of a police officer. Out of this rather dramatic situation, Van Sant and cinematographer Christopher Doyle fashion a lusciously expressionistic work of art; mixing magnificently lush 35mm sequences with footage shot on gritty Super-8, the film would be a joy to watch even if it weren’t half as engrossing. Van Sant’s use of music here is also his most ambitious to date; the soundtrack includes artists as varied as Fellini’s favorite composer Nino Rota and indie tragic hero Elliott Smith. All in all, Paranoid Park may be the director’s most accomplished film.

The Creek Drank the Cradle

•August 2, 2008 • Leave a Comment

Iron & Wine’s debut album The Creek Drank the Cradle (2002) is not particularly well-known, even among indie music fans, but, in my eyes at least, it’s simply the best music Sam Beam has written. The opener “Lion’s Mane,” for instance, sets up the mood of the album perfectly: it’s a folk album, but the vocals are elegant, as is all of the guitar work, to say nothing of the wonderful lyrics:

“Love is a tired symphony
To hum when you’re awake
Love is a crying baby
Mama warned you not to shake
Love is the best sensation
Hiding in the lion’s mane.”

The next track, “Bird Stealing Bread,” is even better; it resembles the songs of Nick Drake in that, on first listen, they appear to be at least marginally happy. Listen to the lyrics, though, and it becomes an achingly nostalgic song about lost love. Beam sings about the things he remembers—“I’ve a picture of you/On our favorite day by the seaside.”

Other highlights for me include “Promising Light,” a brief sketch of a song that, like “Bird Stealing Bread,” is about coming to terms with a breakup, or, on more general terms, accepting the loss of something one depended on emotionally. The album’s true masterpiece, however, is the centerpiece “Upward Over the Mountain,” a song of such haunting beauty that it basically renders all other folk music moot. The same could easily be said of this incredible album.

I’m Wide Awake, It’s Morning

•August 2, 2008 • Leave a Comment

Bright Eyes’ best LP, 2005’s I’m Wide Awake, It’s Morning, is not really an easy record for me to love; there are things about it that really annoy me. For instance, I find the opening monologue essentially pointless, and the only thing it really does convince me of is that Conor Oberst’s lyrics work so well (and keep in mind that, through most of this album, they’re nothing short of amazing) because they’re not, um, prose. The rest of that opening song, “At the Bottom of Everything,” is quite memorable, but the sour taste of that opening lingers. Thankfully, the wonderfully maudlin “We’re Nowhere and It’s Now” follows, with its simple melody and barely audible vocals. In its four minutes, the song manages to evoke something as deep and melancholy as a Linklater film—think Waking Life (2001) but without all the philosophy stuff, just Wiley Wiggins’ character talking about walking around Austin. It’s a song, as Coberst makes clear in that last verse, about the things that come to mind late at night, as you sit in a restaurant, alone, looking at the people around you, hoping that a friend (anyone, really) will come along and make it all a little better. “Old Soul Song (For the New World Order” is next, and it follows the same vein as “We’re Nowhere,” talking about a certain kind of unspecific dissatisfaction and search for meaning—“On the way home held your camera like a bible/Just wishing so bad that it held some kind of truth,” Oberst sings. “Lua” is the first song to explicitly mention Manhattan (“Julie knows a party at some actor’s West Side loft”), and it does a good job at conjuring up images of the city; the country-tinged “Train Under Water” is interesting, if a bit too long, but nothing matches its opening couplet: “You were born inside of a rain drop/And I watched you falling to your death.” “First Day of My Life” features some of the nicest guitar work on the album, but I hate that it reminds me of that awful video they made for it. Yuck. “Another Travelin’ Song” is, I imagine, Oberst doing Dylan, something along the lines of “Tombstone Blues” or “Highway 61 Revisited,” and he pulls it off pretty nicely. “Landlocked Blues” joins “We’re Nowhere” as the album’s other highlight, and it’s no coincidence that Emmylou Harris does backing vocals on both tracks. As far as I can tell, “Poison Oak” is about a family member involved in all sorts of trouble—“And you wrote bad checks/Just to fill your arm”—and it fittingly has some of the most distressing lyrics and vocals. The album closer, “Road to Joy,” is perhaps the most playful track of the record, if also the angriest. From the opening verse, which includes the album’s title, Oberst sounds pissed off. It reminded me of the Lennon part of “A Day in the Life,” except Lennon would have had to already be in Primal therapy, as this is the only song where the singer screams, and, boy, does he ever. As hard as it for me to like some of the things about I’m Wide Awake, It’s Morning, it would be even more difficult for me to deny its brilliance; and if I can get over how much I hate that damn monologue, you sure as heck can give it a try.

Starsailor

•August 2, 2008 • Leave a Comment

There’s nothing quite like Tim Buckley’s 1970 masterpiece Starsailor. You could call it folk music, I guess, and songs like the brilliant “Song to the Siren” would certainly fit that description, although there’s something that permeates through all of Buckley’s music that makes it impossible to pin down. In this album especially, he uses elements of jazz, rock, and blues to create his most formally astonishing collection of songs. Starsailor opens with “Come Here Woman,” one of the album’s best (and most sensual) tracks, wherein Buckley sings to a nameless woman, “Give me broken lies/When you don’t feel pain/Let me smell your thighs, mama/Let me drink down a little rain.” After the opener, things calm down a bit; “Moulin Rouge” is one of album’s lightest tracks, but Buckley’s impassioned vocals give it the emotional weight it needs. Next up is my personal favorite, the aforementioned “Song to the Siren,” which contains some of Buckley’s best lyrics:

“Did I dream you dreamed about me?
Were you hare when I was fox?
Now my foolish boat is leaning
Broken lovelorn on your rocks,
For you sing, ‘Touch me not, touch me not, come back tomorrow:
O my heart, O my heart shies from the sorrow.’”

Experimental, gorgeous, and dazzling, Starsailor remains every bit as intoxicating almost forty years after its initial release. There’s nothing else like it.

The Black Saint and the Sinner Lady

•August 2, 2008 • Leave a Comment

Nothing is bigger than Charles Mingus’ The Black Saint and the Sinner Lady. Listening to it for the first time, you come to face with god; its orchestrations roar like a typhoon, freeing your bottled-up emotions through endless depth and intensity. Sheer enthusiasm aside, however, there’s an inherent challenge in writing about jazz. The music is sometimes so personal that fans of it don’t need some critic telling them why Charlie Parker and Duke Ellington are great, while most people who don’t have the inclination to seek out the music for themselves might never be persuaded to do so by a 500-word review. And, unlike with rock or pop music, it’s hard to recommend a particular musician based on someone’s preference for another, being that the differences between, say, John Coltrane and Miles Davis are almost mind-bogglingly astounding. With that said, the one jazz album I am not the least bit hesitant to push on every single person I know is Charles Mingus’ 1963 magnum opus The Black Saint and the Sinner Lady, a landscape so gorgeous, a forty-minute stretch of music so life-affirming, and a work of such rich textures that it’s simply miraculous someone was ever able to conceive of the thing.

The Black Saint could not have been made at any other time in American history. It is irrevocably a product of its time; a bookend and reminder of the Eisenhower era and the McCarthy hearings, but also the prime example of what we now know as the cultural revolution of the 1960s. The truth is, The Beatles and Woodstock had very little to do with any actual call for change; it was Beat poets like Allen Ginsberg, avant-garde filmmakers like John Cassavetes (whose 1959 film, Shadows, was scored by Mingus), and jazz musicians like Mingus that exemplified and lived the new social and sexual freedom.

A tour de force if there ever was one, The Black Saint and the Sinner Lady consists of a single six-part suite performed by an eleven-piece band. Mingus gathered a wonderful group of musicians, but what goes on in the album far exceeds just great musicianship; listening to it, one gets the sense of people delving deep not only into their own souls, but also to those of everyone around them, and to the listeners’ by extension. From the opening—a six-minute piece titled “Stop! Look! and Listen, Sinner Jim Whitney”—to the even more baroquely-named climax, “Of Love, Pain, and Passioned Revolt, then Farewell, My Beloved, ‘Till It’s Freedom Day!,” Mingus draws on an array of subjects, themes, and motifs, some political, some personal, all profoundly emotional. He beautifully evokes both his time and that of a long-gone era by biting Stravinsky and Schoenberg, in the end fashioning what the man himself deemed as “ethnic folk-dance music.”

All of the historical reasons aside, The Black Saint and the Sinner Lady is simply the most sensual and luscious music you’ll ever hear. The title here is not just a label but the introduction of two protagonists. The Sinner Lady, both maiden and vixen, strokes our Black Saint’s ego, whispering sin in his ear with her tender voice as the music plays faster and faster, clutching his heart with a stone cold hold. “Urgent” doesn’t begin to describe it.

Ga Ga Ga Ga Ga

•August 2, 2008 • Leave a Comment

“She made my heart soft, wore an aiguillette on her arm.”

If there’s a band in recent memory that’s made a better straight-up rock album than Spoon with Ga Ga Ga Ga Ga, I haven’t heard it. The White Stripes and The Strokes may come to mind, but neither makes music that sounds anything like this. Spoon, an Austin band now on their sixth album, opens their latest with “Don’t Make Me a Target,” which is reminiscent of their earlier work while still doing a perfect job in setting up the brilliance to come. Next up is “The Ghost of You Lingers,” the most experimental track on the record, with Britt Daniels’ vocals finding their way around while an incessant keyboard plays on. The results, needless to say, are amazing; the lyrics, structured mostly as a series of short phrases, work beautifully (“I had a nightmare nothing could be put back together”). “You Got Yr Cherry Bomb” is among the loveliest track on the album, as well as the easiest to sink into, with Daniels sounding both heartbroken and hopeful. “Don’t You Evah” is a cover of a Natural History song, but you wouldn’t know it from the band’s spot-on delivery and playfully aggressive lyrics (“Bet you got it all planned right/Bet you never worry never even feel a fright”); it’s now a Spoon song now, no doubt about it. Following the theme of misspelling certain words, “Rhthm and Soul” has both and plenty to spare. The next two songs are, for me, the highlight of the album. “Eddie’s Ragga” is simply one of the coolest tracks I’ve heard in a long long time. Jim Eno’s drumming is perfect, as is Rob Pope’s bassline, to say nothing of Daniel’s cheekily fragmented lyrics—“Someone that I knew but I hardly met/Told me, it’s hopeless I’m a slut for the New York Times.” “The Underdog” is likewise essentially perfect, but for somewhat different reasons. The song is most notable for its use of horns and some light percussion in the background. Also, the last minute or so of the track may be the best in the entire album. For some, “My Little Japanese Case” is the album’s only true error, but I think its singular sound adds plenty to the album’s unique texture. “Finer Feelings” is upbeat yet restrained, longing yet reserved. Ga Ga Ga Ga Ga closes with “Black Like Me,” which, along with a somewhat misleading title, also has some of the album’s softest melodies. And after 35 or so minutes of staggeringly luminous music, we couldn’t really ask for more.

Nouns

•August 2, 2008 • Leave a Comment

Carrying on the legacy that John Cale cemented during his time with the Velvets, experimental rock duo No Age (guitarist Randy Randall and drummer/vocalist Dean Allen Spunt) arrive with their incredibly assured sophomore release Nouns, a tightly-crafted collection of songs set against layers and layers of sound. To be perfectly honest, this particular type of rock or experimental music has never exactly been my cup of tea, but I decided to give it a try based on a few convincing recommendations. And while the opening track, a barely two-minute song with indistinguishable lyrics called “Miner,” did prepare me for the worst (though I’ve actually grown to like that song), there’s actually quite a bit of loveliness in what follows. I was even able to make out some of the lyrics after a while. The best of these songs—“Keechie,” for instance, which has more than its share of Enoesque ambiance—work wonderfully as part of the album, making Nouns as a whole quite a compelling listen, if not a collection of tracks that all stand out.

Anywhere I Lay My Head

•August 2, 2008 • Leave a Comment

The first time I saw Terry Zwigoff’s 2001 film Ghost World (an indie classic if there ever was one), I was rather taken by this Scarlett Johansson. I mean, Thora Birch is fine and all, but she’s always been annoying, and Johansson is prettier. Since then, she’s gone on to star in some fairly decent movies—2003’s Lost in Translation and 2005’s Match Point—if not in an outright masterpiece. But, chick’s 23, so I’m sure she still has it in her. Who knows? Woody Allen might even pull a fast one and remake Manhattan (1979) with Johansson as Mariel Hemingway’s Dalton senior. All of this is to say that I had no idea what to expect from Johansson’s album of Tom Waits covers, released last month under the name Anywhere I Lay My Head. I’m not exactly a big Waits fan (I own Rain Dogs [1985], but haven’t really taken it upon myself to seek out much else), but I was intrigued enough to give the album a listen. The eleven tracks on display here (the album opens with an instrumental titled “Fawn,” appropriately, I might add) are charming enough. Johansson’s not the best singer in the world, but she’s never boring to listen to either; let’s say she’s much more Nico than Joni Mitchell. The album’s title track is rightly cathartic, with Johansson delivering Waits’ brilliantly offbeat lyrics (“My heart is in my shoe/I went and set the Thames on fire”) with a considerable amount of force. “Song for Jo,” the album’s sole original song written by Johansson and producer David Andrew Sitek, finds our singer’s vocals buried under several walls of sound (some nicer than others). AILMH’s highlight, however, might very well be “I Wish I Was In New Orleans,” not least for the music box melody playing behind Johansson’s heartfelt vocals. So, then, even if this album doesn’t mark the beginning of a stunning musical career for this lovely actress, it’s also as far away from a vanity project as any of us could have hoped. If nothing else, Johansson will make you want to listen to Tom Waits again; and how could that ever be bad, really?

Yoshimi Battles the Pink Robots

•August 2, 2008 • Leave a Comment

The Flaming Lips’ 2002 release Yoshimi Battles the Pink Robots has to be one of the nicest and most honest albums in recent years. That might sound strange for a record whose cover makes its science fiction title quite literal, but somewhere behind all of the talk of black belts defeating robots is an emotional core not unlike that which is all too present in John Lennon’s seminal album Plastic Ono Band (1970). Yoshimi opens with “Fight Test,” a lovely track whose childlike sense of the world does not keep it from being achingly beautiful and disarming. Wayne Coyne’s vocals have rarely sounded more wounded than when he sings, “I don’t know where the sun beams end and the star/Light begins it’s all a mystery.” The title song is likewise interested in the melancholy shadings of the world as seen through the eyes of youth; how else could one explain the poignancy that lyrics like “Oh Yoshimi/They don’t believe me/But you won’t let those/Robots defeat me” gain from the Flaming Lips’ treatment? As good as all of these songs are, the greatest track, for me, has always been “Do You Realize??” Over the span of three and a half minutes, Coyne crafts one of the most enchanting evocations of mortality and the wonders of life that I’ve ever heard. Elsewhere, the band plays on, and we swoon.

Vampire Weekend

•August 2, 2008 • Leave a Comment

Vampire Weekend’s self-titled debut is, at this time of writing, my favorite album of the year. Its eleven tracks (spread out over 34 minutes) are so compulsively listenable and cheery that it’d be hard to imagine someone not falling in love with them. Most reviews of Vampire Weekend have focused on the band’s world music influences—particularly from African pop—and certainly VW’s marvelously catchy use of percussion is one the album’s highlights, but there is also much more in store here. For one, lead singer Ezra Koenig’s wonderfully odd voice engages from the first track, “Mansard Roof,” a perfect opener that introduces the listener not only to the band’s unique sound, but also to some lovely and fragmented storytelling (“The Argentines collapse in defeat/The admiralty surveys the remnants of the fleet”). Next are “Oxford Comma” and “A-Punk.” The former is one of the album’s truly great songs, an offbeat ditty about the importance of being honest, but most notable, perhaps, for name-checking Lil’ Jon—“he always tells the truth,” Keonig sings. “A-Punk,” a short vignette about finding something to do after college, leads to “Cape Cod Kwassa Kwassa,” possibly the album’s most fully-realized track, as well as the most characteristic of the band’s sound. “M79,” with its lush string section and talk of “coronation rickshaw grab,” highlights the band’s quirky interests, as does “Campus,” a more straightforward narrative about awkward college romance, which also contains the album’s most memorable use of alliteration: “Walk to class/In front of ya/Spilled kefir/On your keffiyah.” “Bryn,” the next track, has the prettiest lyrics on the album, and Koenig’s delivery and Chris Tomson’s percussion perfectly accentuate the three short verses, culminating in the conclusion that “no Kansas-born beetle could ever come close to that free.” “One (Blake’s Got a New Face)” is infinitely cute, but I think I would like any song that points out how “English breakfast tastes like Darjeeling.” The next song, “I Stand Corrected,” is not as good as what follows or preceded it, but even as the album’s only true misstep, it allows the band to try out some pretty interesting stuff. The penultimate track, “Walcott,” the song that most directly addresses the band’s privileged background (although most of these songs do touch on that theme), urges the titular character to leave Cape Cod, given that “The Bottleneck is a shit-show/Hyannisport is a ghetto.” Not since Walt Stillman’s Metropolitan (1990) has self-aware preppiness been so endearing. VW’s closing track, “The Kids Don’t Stand a Chance,” with its forceful rhythm section coupled with some truly great guitar work (some strings, too) ends the album in very much the same way that it began: beautifully. Pondering the possibility of Vampire Weekend becoming one of the best bands in recent memory, I’d say they stand a pretty good chance.

Apologies to the Queen Mary

•August 2, 2008 • Leave a Comment

Wolf Parade’s 2005 LP Apologies to the Queen Mary still stands as one of the best debuts of the decade thus far. What set them apart in the beginning was their two-singer dynamic, which guaranteed that everyone would find something to love in these intense and beautiful songs. On one side is Spencer Krug, the more unconventional vocalist, who sounds a bit like Tom Verlaine by the way of David Byrne; then there’s Dan Boeckner, whose voice is more easily enjoyable. The pair split up the songs on the album fairly evenly. Apologies opens with Krug’s “You Are a Runner and I Am My Father’s Son,” giving us our first taste not only of his unique voice, but his fragmented lyrics—“I was a hero/Early in the morning/I ain’t no hero/In the night.” Boeckner’s “Modern World” is also pretty great, even if it pales in comparison to Krug’s next track, the amazing “Grounds for Divorce,” whose opening verse will probably sum up the song’s (and the album’s) charm better than I ever could:

“You said you hate the sound
Of the busses on the ground
You said you hate the way they scrape their brakes all over town
I said pretend it’s whales
Keeping their voices down
Such were the grounds for divorce I know.”

Other highlights include Boeckner’s “We Built Another World” and especially Krug’s “I’ll Believe in Anything,” easily the album’s best track, which continually builds its tension, and even after listening to it countless times, it’s every bit as chilling. Rock doesn’t get much better than this.

Lie Down in the Light

•August 2, 2008 • Leave a Comment

Will Oldham’s latest album as Bonnie “Prince” Billy,” 2008’s Lie Down in the Light, is a wonderful collection of songs, possibly his best since 1999’s I See a Darkness. In contrast to that album’s, well, darkness, we get a series of exquisite tracks focusing on the many things there are to love about life, the best of which have Oldham singing alongside Ashley Webber, whose bittersweet tone perfectly compliments his. Particularly on “So Everyone,” my favorite song on the album, they turn what, as sung by any other artist, would have been a standard love track, into an elemental vision of the relationship between two people. Elsewhere, on “You Want That Picture,” another of their collaborations, they sing about a breakup, but in such a way as to capture all of the complexities of the experience, that it’s probably only rivaled by something like Dylan’s “Don’t Think Twice, It’s All Right.” Put another way, if Oldham and Webber had been the stars of Once (2006), it might have actually been as good as everyone thought it was.

If You’re Feeling Sinister

•August 2, 2008 • Leave a Comment

Belle & Sebastian’s 1996 LP If You’re Feeling Sinister has to be one of the great albums of the 1990s. This was the Scottish group’s sophomore release, and the one they will be remembered for. 2006’s The Life Pursuit is great, yes, but the fact is that Stuart Murdoch hasn’t written anything better than the ten songs on display here. From the opening lines of “Stars of Track and Field,” through the iconic title track, right down to “The Boy Done Wrong Again,” there’s a sense that what’s on display here isn’t just great musicianship; it’s something more akin to a spiritual experience. The songs are witty (“Me and the Major”), melancholy (“Seeing Other People”), and finally transcendent (“If You’re Feeling Sinister”). Belle & Sebastian may never make another record as beautiful as this—although we should all at least agree that it’s too early to assume as much—but Van Morrison never made another Astral Weeks (1968), and that’s okay; most bands don’t get to make albums like these.

The Mysterious Production of Eggs

•August 2, 2008 • Leave a Comment

I don’t really know how to categorize Andrew Bird’s music. The multi-instrumentalist from Chicago makes music that is so ridiculously enjoyable that it almost asks you to not think about it too much. His melodies are so lovely, his lyrics so engaging, and the overall effect so cozy that it would seem almost indecent to respond to it from anywhere but the heart. His best release to date is 2005’s The Mysterious Production of Eggs, one of my very favorite albums in recent memory. It opens with a wonderful untitled instrumental which leads into “Sovay,” the track that introduces Bird’s imaginative songwriting (“I think I’m gonna sack/The whole board of trustees/All those Don Quixotes in their B-17s”). “A Nervous Tic Motion of the Head to the Left,” one of the album’s highlights, is more heavily orchestrated than the first two tracks, as is the next song, “Fake Palindromes,” a song of such verbal inventiveness that it makes me forget that I’ve no idea what the singer is talking about. “Measuring Cups” appears to be about a certain tendency in our society to diagnose personality disorders at an early age—“Measuring cups/Play a new game/Front of the class/Measure your brain/Give you a complex/Give it a name.” The theme is also reprised in the penultimate track, “Tables and Chairs,” wherein Bird sings of a semi-apocalyptic future where people will “trade butterfly knives for Adderall.” Every song in The Mysterious Production is a winner, and it stands as Bird’s most complete artistic statement to date. But don’t think about that too much; just enjoy the music.

Young Prayer

•August 2, 2008 • Leave a Comment

Listening to Young Prayer, the 2004 LP by Animal Collective member Panda Bear (Noah Lennox), after all the buzz surrounding his 2007 release Person Pitch is something quite out of the ordinary. Whereas the latter used layers upon layers of sounds to create incredibly dense musical environments like those in the magnificent “Take Pills” and the lengthy centerpiece “Bros,” Young Prayer is little more than Panda Bear’s vocalizing (which is, to say the least, magical), some acoustic guitar, and a few handclaps here and there. As for narrative context, there’s very little go by, given that none of the album’s nine tracks have a title. Nevertheless, the effect of the emotions on display here can’t be overstated. Out of a few brief sketches—some, like the unforgettable eighth track, more accomplished than others—Panda Bear fashions a timeless, unforgettable, and expressionistic folk album that only gets better with repeated listens.

Waking Life

•July 13, 2008 • Leave a Comment

Interesting to revisit Richard Linklater’s Waking Life (2001) only a couple of days after Chris Marker’s Sans soleil (1982), given that they are probably two of the most enjoyable meditations on different issues relating to perception that I’ve seen. To this list I would add Alain Resnais’ Mon oncle d’Amerique (1980), most notable, perhaps, for its humorous investigative aspect. Of these three films, however, it’s fairly certain that Linklater’s is the most famous, if not quite as heralded by critics as the other two.

Waking Life, for the few who haven’t seen it, is a series of sequences wherein different people discuss things they feel are important—philosophy is perhaps the most important, as are physics, art, and psychology. Most of it was filmed in Austin , and a few of the “characters” here are professors at the University of Texas. The fact that Austin is perhaps my favorite city on the planet certainly adds to my inclination to love this film, and it’s absolutely remarkable how Linklater captures the inconspicuous feel of the town, setting many of his scenes in cafes, or as his characters walk around outdoors.

On a first viewing, people are perhaps most surprised by the film’s inventive animation—consisting of first filming scenes and then animating them in post-production. Needless to say, it was one of Linklater’s brilliant decisions to use this technique in a film that is about the looseness and ambiguousness of the dream state.

The dreamer at the center of Waking Life is Wiley Wiggins, who for most of the film is merely an observant, listening to the various people whom he encounters. In this sense, he is the audience of the film, and his experiences parallel our own. Just as he is disoriented by all the information thrown at him in such an unconventional fashion, we try to make sense out of it to varying results. But, alas, after a few of these short scenes, you just kind of lose yourself in the film; it washes over you.

Linklater’s films—from 1991’s Slacker to 2006’s A Scanner Darkly—always involve a great deal of talking anyway, but what sets Waking Life apart is the fact that it doesn’t even pretend to be a narrative film. It is what it is. What’s the one thing we know for sure about Wiley Wiggin’s dreamer? Why, of course, that he’s a fan of Linklater’s films. Enough of a fan anyway for two of the director’s characters—Before Sunrise/Sunset’s Celine and Jesse—to work their way into his dreams. Makes perfect sense to me.

The Sweet Hereafter

•July 13, 2008 • Leave a Comment

Atom Egoyan didn’t exactly disappear after 1997’s The Sweet Hereafter—he premiered a new film at Cannes this year—but it’s safe to say he’s yet to match the haunting beauty of films like this and Exotica (1994). And while I haven’t seen that film in quite a while, I’ve always preferred The Sweet Hereafter, which seems to be a perfect encapsulation of Egoyan’s narrative themes and visual motifs.

In depicting a small Canadian town in the wake of an accident that took the lives of many of its children, Egoyan brilliantly explores the emotional longing that permeates through his best work. Ian Holm, as the lawyer trying to get the town to file a negligence suit, delivers the best performance of his career, as do Sarah Polley and Bruce Greenwood.

What makes The Sweet Hereafter truly essential, however, is the way Egoyan structures it. I don’t think there’s ever been a better use of screen chronology; couple that with Paul Sarossy’s utterly gorgeous cinematography and Mychael Danna’s Renaissance-inspired score and you’ve got something pretty close to perfect.

In the City of Sylvia

•July 12, 2008 • Leave a Comment

I don’t know that I’ve ever seen a film like José Luis Guerín’s In the City of Sylvia (2007). The director himself mentions F.W. Murnau as an inspiration, which is true, as this film has the emotional purity of a masterpiece like Sunrise (1927). But Guerín’s film also recalls more avant-garde filmmakers like Chantal Akerman. The opening sequence of Sylvia, showing a few objects around a hotel room, all of which carry a great deal of weight simply by the way Guerín films them, recalls a short film Akerman made in 1972 titled La chambre, consisting entirely of a single shot of a room not unlike that of our hero here.

Alas, however, the most important point of reference for Sylvia may be Alfred Hitchcock’s Vertigo (1958). Hitchcock’s film, like Guerín’s, is about male obsession, although let’s remember that the former had to distill his extremely sophisticated ideas regarding time, memory, and the effect both have on the mind into a narrative Hollywood film. Guerín, however, has no such limitations, which allows him to develop his somewhat different aims in a wholly original way.

Guerín’s Jimmy Stewart here is Xavier Lafitte—Él (he) in this film, yet another nod to Murnau—an actor who wonderfully embodies the mysteriously good-looking artist he is playing. As the film opens, he goes to a café in Strasbourg, where he is looking for a girl he met six years ago. So, then, picture Richard Linklater’s Before Sunset (2004), except Celine doesn’t exactly remember Jesse, or she may not be Celine at all. This, however, makes Sylvia sound much more plot-oriented than it is. The film, instead, unfolds at a beautifully deliberate pace. The first extended sequence takes place at a café. After establishing the scene with a medium shot, Guerín begins his exploration of the gaze—both our hero’s and a more objectively subjective cinematic gaze. He sits, drawing an assortment of young women in his sketchbook, all of whom are oblivious to the excruciating amount of attention he is giving them. This particular scene has to be one of the most hypnotic I’ve ever seen. The director, through his otherworldly photography and brilliant editing, does something not completely unlike building a Gothic cathedral using only Legos.

After drawing several women (though none really distinguishable), he spots the unspeakably beautiful Pilar López de Ayala—the Ella (she) of the film. Although we can’t be certain, she could very well be the Sylvia whose city this is. She walks out of the café; he follows her, and so begins the real film. For the better part of thirty minutes, he follows her around Strasbourg, completely unaware that she realizes what he is doing and begins trying to lose him. At one point, he calls out to her—“Sylvie”—but she doesn’t respond. Apparently not registering this, he follows her still.

It would be impossible to write the “meaning” of these scenes. What they mean, for one thing, is the sound the actress’ shoes make on the cobblestone streets; they mean the way Guerín films it all in such a knowing way, turning their chase into a series of Tatiesque gags. With that said, though, I suppose it is clear Guerín is speaking out against our hero’s actions—losing yourself in the male gaze—and as someone who fell for the actress long before she even spoke, I guess I’m guilty of it, too.

In the City of Sylvia casts a spell. All you can do is turn yourself over to the experience.

Masculin féminin

•July 12, 2008 • Leave a Comment

“It wasn’t the movie of our dreams. It wasn’t that total film we carried inside ourselves. The film we would have liked to make, or, more secretly, no doubt, the film we wanted to live.”

It is perhaps this line—echoed once more in I’m Not There (2007), Todd Haynes’ ode to Bob Dylan and the 1960s—that most stands out in Jean-Luc Godard’s Masculin féminin (1966), a film that, despite (or perhaps because of) its flaws, is at once one of the director’s most enjoyable and most tragic works.

At the center of the Masculin féminin is Paul (Jean-Pierre Leaud), not the typical Godardian hero of films like Breathless (1960) and Pierot le fou (1965)—made explicitly clear when his girlfriend, pop singer Madeleine (Chantal Goya), points out he’s not Pierrot, who “would steal cars for his women.” In retrospect, the film, too, seems closer to something like one of Rohmer’s Moral Tales, especially in the way Godard deals with the relationships between men and women in the modern world, although Rohmer would have never inserted a title card that read, “This film could have been called ‘The Children of Marx and Coca-Cola.’”

Some critics, especially modern ones who reevaluated the film when it was released theatrically a few years back, have pointed out how sexist some of Masculin féminin’s elements are. And certainly Godard can at times appear to be a bit of a chauvinist, but I don’t necessarily think it’s because he sees women—or the idea of women—in a negative light. Instead, given that his films tend to be unambiguously free-form, aggressively experimental, and decidedly Brechtian, they don’t always try to approach gender issues with a sociological point of view. The men in his films are, at the very least, viewed as critically as the women. And let’s not forget this is the director that made My Life to Live (1962), a majestic film that echoes, most of all, Carl Theodor Dreyer’s The Passion of Joan of Arc (1928).

Watch Masculin féminin for its inventiveness, its photography (by Willy Kurant, whose blacks and whites are more subdued than Raoul Coutard’s, Godard’s DP through most of the 60s), and, of course, for Goya, who gives the film its playfully tender atmosphere. Her songs here aren’t bad, either.

Rushmore

•July 11, 2008 • Leave a Comment

Has it really been ten years?

It was in 1998 that Wes Anderson gave the world Rushmore. Not since Mike Nichols’ The Graduate (1967) was released did a film so fully encapsulate the feelings of a generation. Some brought up that film a few years ago in discussing Garden State (2004), but I don’t think I need to get into why that film failed. Instead, let me get on with the task of explaining why Anderson’s intricately delicate, delightfully subtle, and ultimately beautiful coming-of-age story may be the greatest film of the 1990s.

As Rushmore opens, Max Fisher (Jason Schwartzman) is daydreaming he’s solving the world’s hardest geometry problem, receiving a great deal of praise from his classmates at the titular prep school. The problem is: Max isn’t the type of kid that gets recognized for his academic achievements; he is, in the words of his headmaster, “one of the worst students we’ve got.” But it is clear Max would rather be known as the president of the beekeeping society, editor of the yearbook, and member of the fencing team than a braniac.

Already on thin ice due to his horrible grades, Max’s fate at Rushmore is further complicated by his burgeoning infatuation for a first grade teacher named Rosemary Cross (Olivia Williams), whom he approaches after seeing something she wrote in a book by Jacques Cousteau. Their first meeting should be Exhibit A for the awkwardness of being a teenager. After hearing that Rosemary’s doctorate dissertation at Harvard—his “safety school”—was on economic policies in Latin America, he mentions how they’re discontinuing Latin courses to teach Japanese. She corrects him, and he tries to blow it off (“Moving on…”).

For a while it all works beautifully. If this were Terrence Malick’s Days of Heaven (1978), what follows would be the scenes where all four characters play in the expansive landscapes of the Texas Panhandle, before, of course, they find out it’s all being built on a terrible lie. The loss of Eden in Rushmore, then, comes when Max is expelled from Rushmore for trying to build an aquarium on the school’s baseball diamond, all while Herman Blume (Bill Murray), a Rushmore parent Max has befriended, falls for Rosemary, whom Max now admits he’s in love with.

This being a Wes Anderson movie, the plot develops with a beautiful ease, and if I won’t spoil the way it all works out, suffice it to say that it’s one of the best—and most literate—narratives in recent memory. Anderson also has the marvelous ability to craft incredibly deep human characters out of where other directors would fashion only caricatures. Forgot for a moment how amazingly Schwartzman, Murray, and Williams inhabit their roles, and focus on the way even relatively minor characters like Margaret Yang (Sara Tanaka), Max’s charming classmate and eventual love interest at his new public school, and Max’s father (Seymour Cassel) stay with you long after the film has ended. And that’s not even mentioning the undercurrent of class envy that permeates through many of the film’s scenes—this is, after all, a film where a poor kid (“a barber’s son”) tries to find his way into a world of privilege—which Anderson handles with a great deal of care.

For its originality, honesty, and humanism, Rushmore is a film I will always cherish.

Stop Making Sense

•July 10, 2008 • Leave a Comment

I’ve been a Talking Heads fan for some time now—both 1979’s Fear of Music and 1980’s Remain in Light are favorites of mine—but I’m ashamed to say that, prior to today, I had only seen bits and pieces of their legendary concert movie, Stop Making Sense (1984). As directed by Jonathan Demme, the film certainly deserves all the praise it gets, but no amount of superlatives could ever really explain what’s so enigmatic about it, nor the way it made me happier than anything I’ve seen in a very long time.

In Stop Making Sense, Talking Heads—David Byrne, Chris Frantz, Jerry Harrison, and Tina Weymouth—play with an extraordinary amount of confidence, not to mention precision (many people believe to this day the soundtrack had to be overdubbed), but there’s no ego on display here. The band shares the stage with an assortment of musicians, including keyboardist Bernie Worrell of Parliament-Funkadelic and guitarist Alex Weir of the Brothers Johnson.

The film opens to a shot of Byrne walking up to the microphone, cassette player in hand. He puts it down. “I’ve got a tape I want to play you,” he says. What follows is a wonderful rendition of the classic “Psycho Killer,” after which he is joined on stage by Weymouth to play “Heaven,” one of the loveliest performances of the concert. Little by little, the rest of the band—and the adjunct musicians—take the stage, and we see the crew set up the equipment, turning what originally was a bare stage into an elegant theater, the perfect arena for Talking Heads’ religious celebration by the way of conceptual art.

To put it more pungently, Stop Making Sense is everything there is to love about music (and, by extension, the world) distilled into 88 minutes of pure, unadulterated primal joy. I think it’s safe to say this is the most electrifying performance ever committed to film. Nothing, absolutely nothing compares to the sight of Byrne singing the inimitable chorus of “Once in a Lifetime.” This, my friends, is what the cinema was made for.

Sans soleil

•July 9, 2008 • Leave a Comment

Is it possible to love a film one is completely puzzled by? That may be the best way to describe my response to Chris Marker’s utterly magnificent essay-film Sans soleil (1982). I’ve seen it twice—the first time something like two years ago, so I was probably nowhere near ready to appreciate its brilliance, let alone grasps its concepts—and I’m even more interested now; I can’t imagine what it would have been like to see it back when it was released, but twenty six years after the fact, it seems as fresh and potent (more so, actually) than most of the films made since.

Sans soleil is a collection of striking images, thoughts, sounds, clips, and artifacts set to the letters of a filmmaker named Sandor Krasna (Marker, presumably) being read by Alexandra Stewart, whose voice is virtually the only one heard in the film. Marker, however, uses his camera in such a knowing way to capture the world that you have to wonder if he’s not some kind of magician. His editing is no less expressive—some of this footage, most notably that of a dying giraffe, is not his, but he weaves it into the rest of the film with such finesse that it becomes as quintessentially Markian as his beloved cats and owls.

“Eclectic” doesn’t begin to describe the amount of subjects, ideas, and dreams that Marker tackles in this film. He opens with an image of three Icelandic kids, mentioning that he’s always thought of it as the opening for a film, before plunging head-on into his meditation on Tokyo, history, memory, philosophy, politics, Tarkovsky, and Hitchcock’s Vertigo (1958). It is the segment dealing with this last work which most comes to mind now. Marker (or Krasna, I guess), who has apparently seen the film nineteen times, revisits all of the major sites Hitchcock used—the flower shop Jimmy Stewart follows Kim Novak in, the museum where she sits and stares at the painting of Carlotta Valdez, the Golden Gate Bridge, and even the Spanish mission where the climax unfolds.

Beautiful and unforgettable, Sans soleil is a work so dense—but never alienating; this is easily one of the most intellectually thrilling films ever made—that I haven’t even come close to unearthing all its mysteries. In order to do that, however, I may need to watch it some nineteen times.

Syndromes and a Century

•July 8, 2008 • Leave a Comment

As far as contemporary art directors go, it’s hard to think of anyone more inventive and original than Thailand’s Apichatpong Weerasethakul, whose latest film, 2006’s Syndromes and a Century, casts a spell on the viewer from its opening shot, observing the interview of a new doctor for a rural clinic. It’s been said that the film is based on the director’s parents, both of whom were doctors, although it’s obvious that Joe (as he is affectionately known by his fans) has much more on his mind.

Syndromes is divided into two equally ravishing parts. The first is set in a rural clinic and assumes the point of view of a female doctor as she goes through her day and at one point remembers an encounter with a horticulturalist. If all of this sounds a tad, well, boring or uninteresting, it’s only because words can’t describe the breathtaking way Joe manages to capture the quotidian, turning a simple static shot of a green field into a transcendent moment.

The second part of the film, in contrast to the opening hour, takes place in modern Thailand, once again in a hospital where a doctor (the same actor from the opening) is applying for a job. This time around he will be the focus of these sequences, giving way for Joe to draw parallels, even going so far as to re-stage several of the first part’s scenes, while making a few key changes.

The film, like the director’s previous work, Tropical Malady, 2004’s lovely rumination on the romance between a country boy and a soldier, eschews the modus operandi of traditional narrative filmmaking in place of something altogether new. Syndromes and a Century borrows from the avant-garde, especially in the enigmatic final sequence in which we observe several objects at the modern hospital with an almost Kubrickian sense of wonder. It’s obvious that Joe is thinking of the comparisons between the old and the new, the rural and the modern, but none of these themes are ever hammered. He is nothing if not an extremely subtle filmmaker, getting his point across more by the feel of a particular scene—whether it be of an orchid on a tree, two girls sitting by a pond, or a dentist singing to his patient—than Brechtian didacticism. Engaging in equal parts as a spiritual and intellectual experience, Syndromes of a Century is an outstanding achievement and, in every sense of the word, a masterpiece.

Army of Shadows

•July 8, 2008 • Leave a Comment

There are two ways to portray war on film. A director like Steven Spielberg naively comforts the audience with one-dimensional cartoons like Oskar in Schindler’s List. Then there are those brave filmmakers like Jean-Pierre Melville, whose 1969 film Army of Shadows premiered in the U.S. last year but is only making its way to Houston this March. Melville’s epic about the French Resistance understands the horrors of war, where there are no heroes or villains, only men forced to make difficult decisions at the hands of a cause they themselves can never fully understand.

It is best to enter Army of Shadows through its cracked walls and rain-soaked, foggy streets; the film is so atmospheric you can almost taste the air of paranoia. The narrative is sometimes disorienting, but the audience is never more confused or troubled than the characters. At the heart of the film is Philippe Gerbier (Lino Ventura), a middle-aged engineer and one of the Resistance’s chiefs. As the film begins, he finds himself in a German prison during Hitler’s occupation of France. He manages to escape, but for the duration of the film, he is never truly secure.

Melville’s narrative hops from France to England, with several prisons and detention camps in between. Torture plays a role in the film, but it is never shown on screen. For both Melville and the audience, no amount of blood would be as disturbing as seeing Philippe order the murder of Mathilde (Simone Signoret), a fellow Resistance member who gives up information about the organization after the Gestapo threatens her daughter but who has also helped Philippe escape from the Germans.

Like the existential fiction of Albert Camus and Jean-Paul Sartre—two writers whose metaphysical discomfort hovers over this film—Army of Shadows is as familiar as it is terrifying; it’s less a dull history lesson than an unsettling, present tense account of WWII’s psychological toll. To discover the film for the first time 38 years after it was made is not only a testament to its brilliance, but also to the staggering amount of valuable films made in the late 60s.

Through the film’s 135-minute running time, we see the failures of the Resistance, but none of its major achievements (short of a few rescues, though those seem more futile than anything else). But maybe this is Melville’s point. By the time Army of Shadows ends, title cards announce the fate of the characters, all revealing they died within a year; this isn’t stark nihilism, but a tragic worldview that can bring one to tears.

Magnolia

•July 8, 2008 • Leave a Comment

In Paul Thomas Anderson’s Magnolia, characters meet, connect, and run into each other in unexpected ways, all contributing to a wonderful approximation of the tapestry that is the human experience. It takes place in Los Angels, presumably just before the year 2000 (the film itself was released Christmas 1999), and there is really no better example of the millennium-inspired Y2K anxiety than the heightened and frantic scenes of this film.

There is a dying TV producer, his trophy wife, his nurse, his lost son, the host of one of the shows the dying man produces, the host’s distressed wife, their cocaine-addicted daughter, the noble police officer in love with her, and even a kid genius who is a contestant on the show, along with an ex-kid genius who is now a 30-something misfit. All of these threads come together in a climax of biblical proportions, raining frogs included.

But yet, the film does not end with that big spectacle. Instead, it chooses a more startling and intimate final image. It is a close-up of Claudia, the drug addict with whom we have spent only a mere fraction of the film’s three hours, but we know enough about her to make this last moment poignantly beautiful. She is certainly troubled, resorting to the use of drugs to mask the scars from her past, including the fact that her father, the talk show host, molested her when she was little. This in itself would make a pretty conventional, if a tad melodramatic, narrative, but Claudia’s story is surrounded by that of eight or nine more people who are also stunned by life, so to speak, if not in exactly the same way as her.

This last image is of Claudia looking to the camera, half-smiling, not in a sarcastic or ironic way, but in a rather sincere manner, and it is the first moment of real human happiness in this most moody of films. She smiles, there are tears running down her cheeks, and it is a thoroughly heartbreaking moment. To top it off, Aimee Mann’s “Save Me” plays on the soundtrack (another reason my choice could not be described as solely a picture), wherein a girl who could very well be Claudia sings, “If you could save me/From the ranks/Of the freaks/That could never love anyone.” She might be singing to Jim, the kind-hearted police officer that asked her on a date after coming over to check on a disturbance that Claudia’s neighbors had reported. In a film where human interaction appears to be mostly negative, where people almost always do the wrong thing by their own nature, he seems to be the only one capable of saving anyone, making the image of Claudia a fitting ending to Magnolia.

After giving the audience a full three hours of movie magic, cinematic almost to a fault, all climaxing in the most unrealistic, if undeniably sensational, way possible, Anderson pulls it all back. He strips the film of everything but the essentials—a character looking straight at us—leaving an image that is at once full of naked distress and disarming beauty, asking us to acknowledge that life can sure be difficult, almost staggeringly so, but also that a moment, a swath, a single frame of human vision can cut right through all of that. This last image, then, saves not only Claudia, but the audience as well.

My Blueberry Nights

•July 8, 2008 • Leave a Comment

When I first heard that Wong Kar-wai was making a film with Jude Law and Natalie Portman—yeah, Norah Jones is in it, too, but I didn’t really care about that—sometime in the weeks preceding Cannes 2007, I can’t say that I wasn’t intrigued. Both actors are known for their marvelous screen presence, so I knew that Wong wouldn’t let me down. At the very least their project would be an artfully luscious, if a tad perplexing movie like 2046 (2004). Now, having just finished watching My Blueberry Nights I can say that, despite the lukewarm reception it has gotten from most critics, it certainly lived up to most of my expectations. Not only that, but the film is even more beautiful than I could have imagined.

The best way to enter My Blueberry Nights is to, as I did, expect to be won over by the little pleasures, such as the way Wong perfectly frames every shot and holds it just long enough to savor it before going on to the next lovely image. Once you adjust your mindset to consider that those details that make the film such a delight to watch are the main attraction, you’ll be able to enjoy the whole package, which in addition to an endless array of striking compositions coupled with brilliant sound design, also includes a lovely and moody narrative about heartbreak and longing.

Elizabeth, Norah Jones’s character, walks into the film as a young woman looking for her lover in New York. She calls a diner, where the owner, a guy named Jeremy (Jude Law), tells her he hasn’t seen him. Eventually she makes it to the diner, again looking for the unseen man, but this time she finds herself babbling on and on about this and that to Jeremy. Their relationship soon turns into a series of late-night conversations over blueberry pie and ice cream

Soon thereafter, Elizabeth is in Memphis working in a diner during the day and a bar by night; she sends Jeremy postcards telling him she’s saving up to buy a car. He tries to write back, but apparently can’t find the name or address of the place where she works. Meanwhile, Elizabeth meets a guy named Arnie (David Strathaim), an alcoholic cop that has tried quitting many times and carries the white chips to prove it. His wife, Sue Lynne (Rachel Weisz), has left him, but he’s not willing to accept that. Strathaim plays Arnie with such affection and sympathy that his is the film’s most memorable and heartbreaking performance.

Elizabeth decides to continue her Kerouac trip across America, her next stop being a casino near Las Vegas, where she meets a poker player named Leslie (Natalie Portman with a hideous dyed blonde hairdo). Still saving up to buy her car, Elizabeth decides to give the $2,200 she’s saved up so far to Leslie so she can keep playing. If she wins, she’ll give Elizabeth a third of the profits. If she loses, Elizabeth gets Leslie’s convertible.

After making her way across thousands of miles, Elizabeth returns to New York, where Jeremy still keeps a blueberry pie just in case she walks in one day. She does, they talk for a while, and they share the most beautifully cinematic kiss since Anna Karina and Jean-Paul Belmondo stuck their heads out of their respective convertibles for a peck in Pierrot le fou (1965).

Sure, My Blueberry Nights may not have the thematic weight of Wong’s best work, but I doubt a more gorgeous film will come around this year.

I’m Not There

•July 8, 2008 • Leave a Comment

As far as movies about real-life musicians go (that is, at least semi-narrative films, not concert movies), I can’t say that there are many good ones. Sure, everyone loves Richard Lester’s A Hard Day’s Night (1964), but the only real reason I cherish it is because of its stylish cinematography and the fact that the Beatles are mildly funny, not because I consider it a landmark or a great film. Bob Rafelson’s Head (1968) is even more mired in ‘60s culture than Lester’s film, but it doesn’t particularly have anything to do with the Monkees or their importance (for the record: they’re not important), it’s just a series of increasingly surreal sketches. Rafelson, it would seem, was only preparing himself for his masterpiece, 1970’s Five Easy Pieces. Now, more than forty years after Robert Zimmerman broke into the folk scene—before leaving it all behind in order to pursue his own personal mythmaking—comes Todd Hayne’s I’m Not There, a brilliant film on all counts and one that I have been obsessed with ever since I saw it last December.

Since that first revelatory viewing, I have probably seen I’m Not There close to ten times. Sometimes I just watch the first hour, sometimes the latter part, depending on what sort of mood I’m in. The fact that it’s not strictly a narrative film, but instead a series of engaging vignettes that somehow add up to more than the sum of its parts, make it a perfect film to watch at home, not unlike Chris Marker’s Sans soleil (1983) and Jean-Luc Godard’s Histoire(s) du cinema (1998), both films which share a lot in common with Hayne’s portrait of an artist as a shifting personality, most notably a Brechtian essay-like structure.

The film works wonderfully as a tribute to Dylan, so it probably helps that I’m a big fan of the man’s music. (His Blonde on Blonde [1966] may be my favorite album of all time). However, Haynes is not only exploring one particular person’s career, he’s more interested in how he can use Dylan’s fascinating life to tell us something about the historical importance of the ‘60s. I’m Not There opens with a black-and-white shot in which letters slowly appear on the screen, calling to mind Godard’s Band of Outsiders (1964). Afterwards, we hear a series of gunshots while first getting a look at all the characters, a reference to another Godard film, 1966’s Masculin Feminin, which will also be quoted later during the Heath Ledger/Charlotte Gainsbourg sequences. The first Dylan we spend time with is Marcus Carl Franklin’s Woody Guthrie, a young black troubadour riding the rails with hobos. It’s 1959 but he’s still writing about the Dust Bowl. The highlight of these opening scenes is a rendition of “Tombstone Blues” performed by Franklin and Richie Havens, one of the first of many transcendent moments the film will provide. Next up is Christian Bale’s Jack Rollins, the Dylan of “The Times They’re A-Changin’” and “Blowin’ in the Wind.” Formatted like a documentary in the vein of Martin Scorsese’s No Direction Home (2004) and featuring a hilarious Julianne Moore as a Joan Baez-like folk singer, this section is considered by many critics to be the weakest in the film. But while it certainly doesn’t match the film’s most scintillating moments, it has its own lovely integrity and is never boring to watch.

In between different scenes in I’m Not There we get to hear a couple of things from Ben Whishaw’s poet-on-trial, a young man who introduces himself as Arthur Rimbaud. As he is being interviewed by police officers or authorities of some kind, he drops some of the film’s best lines. Some of my favorites are “I’m not fatalistic. I’m a farmer. You ever heard of a fatalistic farmer?” and “I accept chaos. I’m not so sure it accepts me.”

The next Dylan is Heath Ledger’s Robbie Clark, an actor who became famous for playing Christian Bale’s folk singer in a film titled A Grain of Sand. A bit confusing, I know, but stay with me. Watching these sequences after Ledger’s untimely death, it’s clearer than ever what a marvelous actor he was. His scenes with Charlotte Gainsbourg (who plays his wife, a painter named Claire) are my favorite of the film. However, if you’ve read any review of I’m Not There, then you know that everyone’s preferred Dylan is Cate Blanchett’s Jude Quinn, and not without reason. She gives the most thrilling performance, to be sure, but I have my own personal reasons for loving the Ledger/Gainsbourg sequences so much, namely the fact that I thought the story about a disintegrating marriage set against the backdrop of the Vietnam War was genuinely interesting, especially as carried out by a director as smart as Haynes. A moment where Gainsbourg stands watching Nixon on TV announcing the end of the Vietnam War as “Visions of Johanna” plays brings me to tears every time.

Blanchett’s scenes are at the center of the film. She swaggers into I’m Not There playing “Maggie’s Farm” at the 1965 Newport Folk Festival, thereby alienating most of her early supporters (“I think he’s evil,” one of them says). Jude Quinn heads to England, where he will be even more aggressively leaned on to explain why he left the folk scene and what his lyrics “mean.” Blanchett, a brilliant actress who inhabits every role she plays, looks more like Dylan circa 1965 than even Dylan himself. This part also features remarkable performances from Michelle Williams as an Edie Sedgwick-like debutante and Bruce Greenwood as a BBC journalist—the Mr. Jones of “Ballad of a Thin Man”—that question’s Quinn’s every move.

If many critics think Bale’s sequences are the worst in the film, they also agree that Richard Gere’s Billy the Kid segment is the most confusing. I certainly didn’t think so. Dylan, as you may know, starred in Sam Peckinpah’s 1973 western Pat Garret and Billy the Kid, although he didn’t actually play the Kid (Kris Kristofferson, I’m Not There’s narrator, did). But even disregarding any interest the viewer may or may not have in western mythology, these scenes’ emotional light shines through, most notably during a heartbreaking funeral scene set to “Goin’ to Acapulco” as performed by Jim James.

Perhaps Hayne’s most important decision in the making of the film was the use of so many different and distinct visual styles. The Heath Ledger scenes are modeled after both ‘60s Godard and ‘70s Cassavetes; think Pierrot le fou (1965) meets A Woman Under the Influence (1974). The Billy the Kid segment not only borrows from Peckinpah and other genre directors, but also from Federico Fellini, whose 8 ½ (1963) is likewise interested in the troubles an artist faces against an increasingly annoyed audience—that film is about a director unsure of what movie he’s going to make next. The Blanchett, swingin’ London part is filmed as cinéma-vérité in the style of D.A. Pennebaker’s 1967 documentary about Dylan, Don’t Look Back.

I’m Not There is a film of such rich textures and emotional weight that it doesn’t matter if you don’t know the first thing about Dylan. At its core, the film is a story about figuring out who you are and the necessity to reinvent oneself. That it’s set to some of my favorite music of all time was only an added bonus. See it then see it again. This is a film to fall in love with.

Breathless

•July 8, 2008 • Leave a Comment

All discussion regarding Jean-Luc Godard’s Breathless (1960) must begin and end with Jean Seberg’s miraculous performance, one of the most affecting in all the cinema. Sure, Jean-Paul Belmondo gets all the attention, and nobody looks cooler imitating Humphrey Bogart or reading a newspaper than he does, but it’s Seberg that gives Godard’s feature-length debut its emotional weight; she is what separates the fun from the fundamental.

In typical Godard fashion (before we knew it to be Godard fashion, of course, given that he lays all the groundwork with this film), Breathless opens with a crime. A charming hoodlum (Belmondo) with a penchant for talking to himself while driving around the Marseilles countryside kills a cop and heads to Paris to meet a lovely New Yorker (Seberg) he met in Nice a few weeks earlier. Belmondo’s persona is pretty well-established from the get go; he’s channeling not only Bogart, but also James Dean and possibly Godard himself. The film, then, is merely enjoyable until we see Seberg strolling down the Champs-Élysées selling copies of the New York Herald Tribune in a t-shirt, capris, and flats. She likes Belmondo, but also appears to be either too wise or too refined for him. He wants them to go to Italy; she wants to enroll at the Sorbonne.

In talking about this film, many people get caught up in the formal elements of its cinematography—most notably Godard’s liberal use of the jump cut, in which he literally splices the film in the middle of a scene, sometimes even while his characters are speaking, giving it all an air of gritty discontinuity. And while Raoul Coutard’s inventive photography is definitely one of the film’s many strengths, one should also note that even this early in Godard’s career, most of his verbal affinities are there, which may be even more startling than his structural decisions. Seberg quotes Faulkner, tells Belmondo about her new Renoir poster, and interviews director Jean-Pierre Melville at a press conference near an airport. People may not give Godard much credit for these lovely asides because they just figure he was making it all up as he went along (which he probably was), but nobody else was able to play around with the elements of a film while still keeping a swing like this. The only comparable example in American cinema up to that point would have to be John Cassavetes’s Shadows (1959), which, like Godard’s film, was heavily improvised. But Cassavetes was always more interested in naturalistic portraits (culminating with 1976’s The Killing of a Chinese Bookie). Godard, on the other hand, wanted his audience to know his films were just that, making his use of Brechtian techniques that possibly alienated a lot of people—including the jump cuts, as well as his innovate use of sound design coupled with the fact that his actors always appear to be quoting—integral to his purpose.

The 1960s would prove most fruitful for Godard. He went on to make more melancholy (My Life to Live, 1962), more playful (Pierrot le fou, 1965), and more political (Weekend, 1967) films, but none would be as revelatory as this one. Breathless is a tragic love story for the ages.

Astral Weeks

•July 8, 2008 • Leave a Comment

James Joyce aside, Van Morrison was the best thing to come out of Ireland in the 20th century, and his Ulysses was 1968’s Astral Weeks, a gorgeous song cycle that weaves a fractured narrative not completely unlike those of his compatriot. Probably known to American audiences solely as “that guy that sings ‘Brown-Eyed Girl,’” Morrison is surely one of the most underrated artists of the 1960s, a time of such an embarrassment of riches when it came to music that it’s not too difficult to see how he got lost in the shuffle, caught somewhere in between the baroque orchestrations of the Fab Four and the poignant lyricism of Robert Zimmerman.

Nevertheless, Astral Weeks is an accomplishment to be ranked alongside Revolver and Blonde on Blonde, if only for its complete originality; whereas The Beatles and Bob Dylan drew on the legacy of rock music and improved on it, Morrison was influenced by R&B, folk rock, and jazz (his guitar player, Jay Berlinger, appears in Charles Mingus’ The Black Saint and the Sinner Lady), resulting in a sound that is more varied and startling than that of his contemporaries.

Astral Weeks opens with its title song, a 6-minute ballad that begs to be listened to; the lyrics are at times unintelligible (“Standing with the look of avarice/talking to Huddie Ledbetter”), but the passion is crystal clear. The song, like most of the album, eschews the traditional verse-chorus structure, replacing it with a more loose form that better suits Morrison’s style, which is about the beginning and end of emotions, not strict chronology.

The second song, “Beside You,” introduces the most important aspect of Astral Weeks: a set of verbal tics that permeate through the music, remaining with the listener long after the song has ended. “Beside You”, a sparse and otherworldly melodic song, sounds like it’s being sung by someone who’s in an awful lot of pain, someone trying to stretch the syllables as far as he possibly can, as if through that he’ll be able to grasp these ideas more firmly. Morrison sings, “You breathe in, you breathe out, you breathe in, you breathe out, you breathe in, you breathe out, you breathe in, you breathe out,” with such fervor that it takes your breath away, and then this happens: “You turn around, you turn around, you turn around, you turn around, and I’m beside you.”

We get to the next song, “Sweet Thing,” and things calm down a bit; it’s a more straightforward declaration of love but all of the unbound passion of the previous two tracks is still there. It’s all, however, a build-up for the album’s first high point, “Cyprus Avenue,” a complicated tale that appears to be about a man infatuated with a fourteen-year-old girl; he watches from a distance, “conquered in a car seat,” all too aware that he can never have her.

“The Way Young Lovers Do,” Astral Week’s sultriest and jazziest track, is as playful as Morrison will get in the album, remembering the days he “strolled through fields all wet with rain/and back along the lane again/there in the sunshine/in the sweet summertime/the way that young lovers do.”

“Madame George,” my favorite song of the album, is even more troubled than “Cyprus Avenue” and possibly more feverish than even Dylan’s “Sad-Eyed Lady of the Lowlands.” It’s a song of such vivid detail that it wouldn’t be out of place in a Fitzgerald novel, telling the story of a lovelorn drag queen as he is teased by the boys in town, including the narrator, who, thinking he has seen humanity at its most wretched, knows “he has to go/on the train from Dublin up to Sandy Row.”

“Ballerina,” like “Sweet Thing,” is a more easily enjoyable song on the surface, though Morrison sings lines like, “Crowd will catch you/fly it, sigh it, try it” with such emphasis that he turns his obscure love letter into an archetype for something that we’ve all experienced.

Astral Weeks closes with “Slim Slow Slider,” the album’s shortest song at 3:17, but also seems to the densest in terms of subject matter. The opaquely poetic lyrics let you know it’s not all resolved; Morrison has explored a great deal about his relationships with other people, especially women, in these eight songs, but by the end, only five seconds before the album ends, all he can say is, “Every time I see you/I just don’t know what to do.” Attraction has never been summed up better.

Five Leaves Left

•July 8, 2008 • Leave a Comment

Sooner or later, everyone interested in music comes around to Nick Drake. His influence on popular music may not be as pronounced as, say, Bob Dylan’s, but Drake’s premature death in 1974 at age 26 gives his three wonderful albums—Five Leaves Left in 1969, Bryter Layter in 1970, and Pink Moon in 1972—a kind of biblical importance that nobody, not even Dylan, has been able to match.

As great as Drake’s latter two albums are, his seminal work is unquestionably Five Leaves Left. Skipping lectures at the University of Cambridge (where he was studying English literature), the 20-year-old traveled back-and-forth to London to record the album. What came out of those sessions is a work that is terribly difficult to write about; it is so self-consciously reverential and all-encompassing in its aims that any comments about it seem superfluous. Five Leaves Left takes its name from a little-known O. Henry story titled “The Last Leaf,” which concerns two artists living in Greenwich Village, one of which has pneumonia and believes she will die when the leaves on a tree finish falling. At one point in the story, she comments on how death must not be far off, as there are only five leaves left on the tree she can see from her window. The melancholy mood of O. Henry’s story is never too far from Five Leaves Left’s autumnal, elegiac songs.

The ten songs that make up the album are simple in their melody, but deeply profound in the atmosphere they create. Drake was either 20 or 21 years old when he wrote these songs; there are lifetimes behind them. Five Leaves Left opens with “Time Has Told Me,” a perfect example of Drake’s sparse and poetic lyrics:

“Time has told me
You came with the dawn
A soul with no footprint
A rose with no thorn.”

“River Man,” the second song of the album, introduces the first of many characters that live within the walls of sound of Five Leaves Left. The mysterious River Man gives the narrator (and, presumably, Drake) some sort of spiritual refuge, as he “tells them all he knows/about the way his river flows.” Next is “Three Hours,” a more sensual song than the first two, with its resonant congas always in the background, flawlessly complementing Drake’s searching lyrics and perfectly understated guitar-playing.

Following the three opening songs are “Way to Blue” and “Day is Done,” each with its own string arrangement by Robert Kirby, although thematically, they are complete opposites. The former is about trying to find grace in the form of another person (perhaps the nameless female force that hovers over all of Five Leaves Left), whereas “Day is Done” is more defeated and its cyclical lyrics highlight the grief: “When the night is cold/Some get by but some get old/Just to show life’s not made of gold/When the night is cold.”

The next three songs, “Cello Song,” “The Thoughts of Mary Jane,” and “Man in a Shed,” are the ones that seem to be most directly referring to a woman. Drake has a talent for writing achingly romantic lyrics without seeming to try. He swaggers, loves, sighs, loses, aches, pleads, swoons, and that is just in “Man in a Shed,” where the protagonist tries to convince a girl of the merits of his measly abode: “So leave your house and come into my shed/Please stop my world from raining through my head/Please don’t think/I’m not your sort/You’ll find that sheds are nicer than you thought.”

“Fruit Tree” may well be the highlight of Five Leaves Left; its lyrics are the most feverish, its imagery the most troubling. More importantly, however, it is the only song in the album that addresses Drake’s fears of becoming famous. For all of Dylan’s stated contempt for the media, he was a much better celebrity than Drake, who avoided the limelight at all costs. All we have to remember Drake by are his albums; no Behind the Scenes-type movie, no famous live performances, not even very many photographs. This, of course, only adds to the mystery surrounding both the man and his music.

The album closes with “Saturday Sun,” a lovely and beautifully-composed piece of music, with lyrics about the wonders of the earth in general and the sun in particular. As the last song on the album, it serves as a final heartbreaking testament to what it means to be alive in the world, and as such, it is nearly unparalleled in its blissful depictions of life.

For me, Five Leaves Left occupies a very special place in the tapestry of music. More than that, however, I often find myself associating it with artworks from other disciplines rather than with the music of Drake’s contemporaries (to the aforementioned Dylan I would add Van Morrison and Scott Walker). A Nick Drake album, like, say, a movie by Terrence Malick or a painting by Velázquez, completely elevates us to a more elemental vision of the world, wherein, if only for a short while, we can forget the hassles of everyday life and focus on what is really important: what time has told us, the thoughts of our lovers, and how we will enjoy the Saturday sun the next morning.

L’eclisse

•July 8, 2008 • Leave a Comment

Art is always and everywhere the secret confession, and at the same time the immortal movement of its time.
–Karl Marx

I think filmmakers should always try to reflect the times in which they live; not so much to express and interpret events in their most direct and tragic form, but rather to capture their effect upon us, and to be sincere and conscientious with ourselves, to be honest and courageous with others.
–Michelangelo Antonioni, “Making a Film is My Way of Life,” Film Culture, spring 1962

July 30, 2007 was a dark day for the cinema. Not only did Swedish director Ingmar Bergman pass away at age 89, but Italian master Michelangelo Antonioni died at age 94 in Rome, the setting of many of his films, including L’eclisse (1962). It was a particularly depressing day for me because these two men were among the first I discovered as a burgeoning cinephile. I still remember encountering Bergman’s The Seventh Seal (1957) for the very first time and being shocked by its relentless audacity; after all, I had never seen anybody tackle such subjects as death and the meaning of life with such fascinating imagery as that of Death playing chess with a medieval knight. And then there was my introduction to Antonioni’s L’avventura (1960), a film so startling that I still find it terribly unfair that it is not mentioned alongside Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho (1960) in discussions about famous narrative twists.

As the years went by, I came to identify more and more with Antonioni’s films and less and less with Bergman’s. The latter is a master storyteller, if a tad bland, but each and every one of Antonioni’s films is an historic event, a time to reconsider everything we know about the cinema and to have all of these naive assumptions challenged. There is no better example of this than his 1962 modernist masterpiece L’eclisse, arguably Antonioni’s greatest work.

Two years after saying the last word on ennui with L’avventura—so much so that in the aftermath of the film, the term “Antoniennui” was coined—Antonioni decided to tackle the subject yet again, but with a slightly different perspective. Whereas L’avventura concerns itself with the inane activities of a group of affluent people and their world of yachts and spontaneous outings, L’eclisse is a somewhat more down-to-earth tale of a woman, played by Monica Vitti (who also portrayed the central role in L’avventura), trying to find some sort of human connection in the material world she inhabits. This emotional sickness, albeit less severe than the one at the center of L’avventura, is the heart of Antonioni’s endeavor.

L’eclisse opens to the morning after an argument between a distressed couple, Vittoria (Vitti) and her boyfriend Riccardo (Francisco Rabal). In classic Antonioni style, it is shot from a distance, completely detached, more concerned with the compositional framing of the scene than with capturing the emotions of its characters. This technique (often called being a photographer-director, something Antonioni has negatively been called) would be off-putting were it not for the fact that the characters in an Antonioni film are just as detached from their own feelings as Antonioni’s camera. This remarkable scene, in which every cut signals a disorienting shift from the two characters to random objects around the room, ends with Vittoria leaving Riccardo’s apartment; he follows her, but both of them know it is futile. At her door, he has nothing left to say but, “Take care.”

Upset over her breakup, Vittoria goes to find her mother (Lilla Brignone) in Rome’s financial district, but she is too preoccupied with the money she has made that day to listen to her daughter. “So, you’re having lunch with Riccardo?” she finally asks. “Yes… with Riccardo,” Vittoria replies calmly. As the backdrop for this personal agony is the frenzy of the stock exchange, where traders practically fling their hands away buying and selling bonds. Amongst these is Piero (Alain Delon), who works for Vittoria’s mother and seems to get an incredible amount of enjoyment from this environment; in fact, he appears to be the only one smiling in the whole room. A particularly astonishing moment comes when everyone on the floor decides to have a minute of silence for their recently-departed colleague; as the hundreds of men in expensive suits stand there for a whole minute, silent, phones ringing in the background, Piero turns to Vittoria to explain that “a minute here costs billions.” As soon as the minute ends, it is back to the madness, and Antonioni’s camera, positioned on a corner where it can observe everything, captures it all beautifully. It is important to note here that scenes like the one described above are what make L’eclisse such a wonderful film. The sum of its parts does not exactly add up to a coherent narrative; instead, it is a work that breaths in deep silences, more interested in the spaces between its characters than the characters themselves.

After the stock exchange scene, Vittoria encounters Piero time and time again. She welcomes him, but warily, perhaps because she is still wounded by her last unsuccessful relationship, although she never overtly expresses any such feelings. She is certainly out of sorts, but this seems to be caused more by her general disposition and nature than by her failed relationship with Riccardo. Vittoria maintains this air of overwhelming distress and uncertainness through most of this film, with the exception of two satisfyingly blissful scenes.

The first comes when Vittoria and her neighbor Anita (Rossana Rory) go visit Marta (Mirella Ricciardi), a woman from Kenya. Her apartment is adorned with such objects as rifles, elephant trucks, and bearskin rugs; Vittoria suddenly finds herself covered in paint, wearing African jewelry, dancing frantically to tribal music. Marta watches from a distance, somewhat troubled by the entire spectacle. Vittoria seems truly ecstatic for the first time in the film, until suddenly Marta stops the music and says, “Okay, that’s enough, let’s stop playing Negroes.” She herself, however, goes on explain that she considers the 6 million “monkeys” in Kenya unable to expulse the 60,000 whites who also live there (Marta’s family among them, of course). The second harmonious scene is less guilt-ridden than the first; Anita’s husband, a pilot, lets them tag along as he delivers a plane to a nearby town. In the air, Vittoria seems happy and calm; she asks questions about the clouds and looks out of her window wide-eyed and amazed. After they land, she continues to look up to the sky and to the planes that are departing. It is a lovely moment which, in retrospect, only highlights the profound grief of the rest of the film.

The latter part of L’eclisse concerns itself with the burgeoning courtship between Vittoria and Piero. These scenes are clearly the highlight of the film, as Vitti and Delon exhibit the kind of on-screen magnetism that the cinema was made for. Her breathtaking beauty and his energetic movements give their scenes a musical lift quite unlike anything else in L’eclisse. Vittoria and Piero are alike in that they are both trying to reach out and touch something, not just in the physical sense (although erotic attraction does drive all of the scenes between them) but also on another, metaphysical level. They ultimately find it unable to do this, as they are both constrained by the shackles of a materialist world, more so Piero than Vittoria in this respect. There are, however, scenes as tinged with sweetness as the one where they are kissing on the couch, and they find doing this charmingly difficult because of the size of the couch and the length of Vitti’s arms. In these scenes, the corporal movements of the actors are as important, if not more so, to what Antonioni is trying to say as the words his characters use.

Perhaps Antonioni’s most brilliant move in L’eclisse is ending it on the most unsettling note imaginable. The last time we see Vittoria and Piero they promise to meet at their usual place, a street corner where we have seen them together several times throughout the film. Suddenly, the audience is thrown into an iconographic account of the nearly two hours that precede the film’s closing montage. It is a series of 57, mostly static shots that track the progression of the narrative. We see the desolate street corner, the park where Vittoria and Piero walked around, Vittoria’s apartment, and even people who remotely resemble Vitti and Delon; this is Antonioni toying with his audience, challenging what we all expect from the movies. The film ends with a streetlight flickering, looking almost like an eclipse (the film’s English title). It is worth noting that, throughout L’eclisse, objects seem to overshadow all human aspects of life; now, at the end of the film, even something as cosmically unsurpassed as an eclipse is replaced by a streetlight, and it is a striking image and the best way Antonioni could have ended this most materialist of films.

The Italy portrayed in L’eclisse is one of a growing, post-Marshall Plan economy. It is telling that at the beginning of his career, Antonioni found himself at the center of the neorealist movement, wherein a group of directors tried to come to grips with the devastating physical and psychological effects of World War II. Most of these works often recognize material wealth (or lack thereof, more appropriately) as the source of their characters’ misery, but, ultimately, they all find that the good in the human heart is worth all of the money in the world. This is not to say Antonioni’s films from the 1960s abandon this idea completely, it is just that, now that Italy was on its way to being a wholly developed, first world country (it was one of the founding members of the European Union in 1957, five years before the release of this film), it was up to filmmakers to tackle other issues such as, in Antonioni’s case, the impossibility of love in an increasingly money-driven world. Using the city of Rome as the backdrop for his startlingly modern film, Antonioni echoes Marx’s response to the claim that he “turned Hegel on his head.” Hegel was already on his head, and Marx, like Antonioni, is only turning him, and the world, right side up again.

The Night of the Hunter

•July 8, 2008 • Leave a Comment

Exquisite and frightening, hilarious and unforgettable, Charles Laughton’s The Night of the Hunter is the kind of mysterious object that could have only been made in the 1950s. Laughton’s only film as a director remains a work that is impossible to pin down. It is a wonderful film, to be sure, but what is it exactly? Is it a fairy tale of the Hans Christian Andersen type? A Biblical account of God’s wrath as told from the perspective of two children? Or a character study of a depraved soul?

In reality, The Night of the Hunter is all of these things, but the spiritual forefather of Laughton’s vision is Friedrich Wilhelm Murnau, the great German director whose Sunrise utilizes the obtuse angles, expressionistic framing, and high contrast lighting that are clearly the aesthetic inspiration for this film.

The film begins with Ben Harper (Peter Graves), husband to Willa (Shelley Winters) and father to John (Billy Chapin) and Pearl (Sally Jean Bruce), murdering two people and stealing $10,000. Shortly before being arrested, he makes his son swear that he will take care of his sister and that he won’t tell about the money, which he has hidden in little Pearl’s doll. Meanwhile, we also meet Harry Powell (the brilliant Robert Mitchum), a deranged and self-proclaimed “preacher” who interprets the Bible as a violent manifesto to justify his crimes (“You don’t mind the killings, Lord, your book is full of killings,” he explains.)

After being found at a strip club with a stolen car parked outside, Preacher Powell ends up in the same cell as soon-to-be-hung Ben Harper. In his sleep, Ben murmurs something about the money and Harry figures his kids must know where it is, so, without delay, he sets out to the nameless West Virginia town.

Harry tells the townspeople (including Willa) that he met Ben while he was working as a preacher for the jail. They all buy it, of course, and soon enough everyone succumbs to the infinite charm of the Preacher, whose tattooed hands ominously read “LOVE” and “HATE.” At the insistence of the town busybody, Willa weds Harry; Pearl loves his quirky stories, but John approaches him warily. Harry constantly hounds the kids about the money. One night, he takes Pearl down to the parlor and Willa overhears him threaten her daughter if she doesn’t tell him about the money. Lying in bed that night, she refuses to believe that he married her for the money. The next moment, however, he gets a switchblade out of his coat pocket and slashes her throat—this grisly incident makes for what is probably the most stunning shot in the entire movie: Willa tied to a car at the bottom of the river, swaying slowly to the flow of the water.

With the mom out of the way, Harry only has the kids to worry about. John and Pearl, infinitely sharper than their mother, run away on their father’s raft, and, in a lovely scene, we see them go down the river as Pearl mouths the words to a song playing in the soundtrack. In moments like these, as with the complete and stark artificiality of his sets, Laughton risks absurdity to achieve the sublime. The kids travel far enough down the Ohio River and end up with Mrs. Cooper (Lillian Gish), a Mother Goose of sorts that takes care of estranged children. The Preacher reappears, but Mrs. Cooper, equipped with faith and a shotgun, keeps him far away from John and Pearl.
As written by James Agee, author of Let Us Now Praise Famous Men (an intricate portrait of life in the Depression era), the screenplay to The Night of the Hunter is as poetic in its use of dialect (phrases like “My whole body’s just a-quiverin’ with cleanness” and “Horse hair will pull up a lumpin’ whale” go a long way in establishing the setting of 1930s quaint, small-town America) as Laughton’s expressionistic imagery.

Though a film which certainly meets all the requirements of a horror story (menacing villain, check; frightened children, check; overbearing musical score, check), The Night of the Hunter is a lot more. There is as much to love about Laughton’s intricate set pieces and sophisticated use of black-and-white as of his charmingly-told narrative. Unlike most modern horror films, which are grounded in a nihilistic view of humanity, Laughton eschews that sort of negativity in place of something far more life-affirming: he accepts that horrible things do happen quite often (“It’s a hard world for little things,” Mrs. Cooper says near the end of the film, referring to her kids), but he also has the compassion and grace to imagine shelter from the storm. If nothing else, The Night of the Hunter is a testament to the wonderful world of children. “They abide and they endure,” Mrs. Cooper explains with tears in her eyes.

The Young Girls of Rochefort

•July 8, 2008 • 1 Comment

Every so often, a film critic makes the case that the movies are an escapist art form, usually referring to a summer action flick like Armageddon or the latest installment in the James Bond franchise. And while these movies certainly help people forget their woes, more often than not these films deal with a very serious problem rooted in real life: violence. If we are looking for true escapism, why not turn to musicals instead? These delightful movies filled with catchy songs, bright colors, and beautiful people are not as highly regarded as the more prestigious genres—the historical drama, the war film, the psychological character study—but do, in fact, much more to create an alternate universe, a place that highlights the lovely aspects of life.

Jacques Demy’s 1967 masterpiece The Young Girls of Rochefort is at once one of the most cerebral and enjoyable films of all time. Ostensibly the story of two sisters trying to find their way out of the titular city, Demy turns it into a stunning series of missed opportunities and, conversely, fulfilled desires rivaled only by Shakespeare.

The film weaves its delightful songs—scored by the brilliant Michel Legrand—into its complex narrative, juggling the lives of at least a dozen characters. What they all have in common is their incessant search for love (this is a musical, after all), but none of them have managed to figure out that the person that completes them is right under their noses. The Young Girls of Rochefort lays all of this down quite early, and the rest of the film consists of Demy toying with his audience and their expectations. For instance, just before one of the young girls walks into her mother’s café, the sailor who is madly in love with her steps out through another door, missing her by a fraction of a second, all of which is captured by Demy’s lingering camera, always observing the action from a distance. Likewise, the young girls’ mother, Yvonne, has no idea that the man she was once married to, a certain Simon Dame, but deserted because she could not bear to be called Madame Dame, has actually just opened a music shop only a couple of blocks away from her restaurant.

If all of this sounds precious, it is because Demy is working in fantasy, slowly building a microcosm for human interaction. And though all of the characters eventually end up with their respective soul mates, Demy suggests that things do not always turn out like that. The Young Girls of Rochefort successfully builds two separate worlds. One is the world of missed opportunities—reality—as exemplified through the scenes with dialogue. The other is of fulfilled desires—fantasy—which inhabits the film’s many, many songs. Not only does Demy succeed in presenting a lovelier universe for strictly dramatic and emotional purposes, but also in dissecting our own for intellectual and ethical ones.

Contempt

•July 8, 2008 • Leave a Comment

1963 was a good year for movies about the movies. While Federico Fellini was hard at work on his phantasmagoric and surreal masterpiece, 8 ½, Jean-Luc Godard was crafting a postmodern film fantasy of his own; Contempt was, in fact, made in Fellini’s old playground, Cinecitta. Although both of these films are arguably equally eloquent statements about varying aspects of the cinema, I tend to side with Godard’s, not only because it’s more interesting as pure cinema (for all Fellini’s audacious choices, his films are never all that visually startling) but also because I think he has more to say about film as an art form, whereas Fellini is just reworking his childhood fantasies within a new context, to fascinating results, mind you, but Godard’s films are ever pulsating, they are, in every sense of the term, works in progress.

If I spent the last paragraph debating the differences between two highly-regarded art directors, I shall now spend as much time making the case that Contempt, arguably Godard’s finest film to date, is also quite a departure from the director’s work up to that point. Prior to this film, Godard had made several exciting features, all of which commented on the cinema in one way or another. If there’s a common thread among these early films—1960’s Breathless, 1961’s A Woman is a Woman, and 1962’s My Life to Live, in particular—it’s that they all display a very deep love for the cinema, whether it be through the idolization of Humphrey Bogart, the imitation of a Hollywood musical, or even the exhibition of cinema’s power on the individual (referring, of course, to the unforgettable scene in My Life to Live wherein Anna Karina’s character watches Carl Theodor Dreyer’s The Passion of Joan of Arc [1928], utterly stunned). So, then, what sets apart Contempt from the aforementioned exercises in pop mythology? It’s that, unlike in the previous films, Godard now sets out to tackle the logistics of making a film through the eyes of a disillusioned screenwriter (Michel Piccoli). Being that this is new territory for Godard, he adopts a new modus operandi; instead of reveling in the opportunities of the cinema, he shows a great deal of restraint, borrowing from the deliberate pace and desolate compositions of Michelangelo Antonioni, an Italian director whose influence is much more pronounced than that of Fellini’s.

Contempt, in complete contrast to Godard’s own usual structural decisions, has a three-act form. The first part introduces a distressed couple, portrayed here by Piccoli and the stunning Brigitte Bardot (itself a change from Godard’s routine, being that the Girl here is not Anna Karina). An American producer played by Jack Palance offers him a job adapting Homer’s Odyssey for a film set to be directed by Fritz Lang, who plays himself here with plenty wit and charm. After this expository section comes what is my favorite part of the film and possibly the greatest sequence in all of Godard. It takes place in the couple’s flat and lasts roughly a third of the film’s 103-minute running time. As the two of them talk, walk around, fight, and eventually exit, Godard observes from a distance, rarely giving us any close-ups or any psychological insight into the minds of these characters. We can tell from the get-go that they’re unhappy, but figuring out why is one of the film’s great mysteries; one that, even after repeated viewings over the span of many years still troubles me. Though, if nothing else, I can say that I am almost certain that Godard is every bit as interested in the primary colors of his compositions—to say nothing of Bardot’s luscious black wig, fetching green dress, and poofy gray skirt—as in the narrative weight of his story, but the film is no worse off for any of that. As far as it can be deduced, Godard is using Contempt and the very experience of making the film as a way to deal with a lot of themes that pertain to him personally, including the cineaste’s responsibility to do work that he himself is proud of. But Godard takes it a step further, delving into issues questioning what all of these things—the cameras, the actors, the sets—are good for in the end. Godard has a lot to say on the subject, but his film, whatever its motives, is never less than ravishing.

As much as Godard owes to Antonioni in Contempt, it can be said without a doubt that the end is pure Godard, if there ever was such a thing. And, like everything else in the film, it’s sensational.

Playtime

•July 8, 2008 • Leave a Comment

Lights dim, a projector starts, and images are shown to an audience at 24 frames per second. Although it is more than obvious that the cinema, in all of its marvelous complexity, should give way to a wide range of works, people inevitably harness a great deal of expectations about the movies. Some of these are positive and allow us to put a film in a cultural perspective, judging its ability to exhilarate and thrill an audience; other such biases, however, including the idea that a film has to adhere to a dramatic structure, do much more to limit the possibilities of what the cinema can do.

Jacques Tati’s 1967 masterpiece Playtime does nothing less than destroy any and all of these limitations. It runs over two hours, features no memorable dialogue, and contains no close-ups. While this makes the movie sound more than unbearable, it is infinitely fascinating if only for the fact that it is so different, a work of a singularly inventive genius.

I discovered Tati’s film at a time when my burgeoning cinephilia was finally beginning to shape up. After two years of watching every notable movie I could find, I thought I had my ideas on films figured out. A great film, I thought, was very much like a great novel—it should have an interesting narrative, which can be unconventional only insofar as it still manages to tell the story, or at least provide insight into the mind of its protagonist. If something had worked for Dostoevsky and Sartre on the page, why shouldn’t it work for Scorsese and Coppola on the screen?

The thing is: film could not be further from literature. As a purely visceral experience, film tackles aspects of the human psyche that are completely foreign to the written word. Film, then, represents a hybrid medium, caught between the narrative purposes of the novel in its modern state and the more aesthetically-driven aims of the plastic arts. Sure, a movie can work as a fine way to tell a story, but it can also have as much to do with the textures and physical qualities of its frames.

It was not until I saw Playtime on the big screen, at a rare showing of its original 70mm print (a type of film stock that allows for much higher resolution than the traditional 35mm), that all of this came into focus. The film involves a group of tourists visiting Paris, although it is not necessarily the city as it was in 1967, given that the entire film was shot in an expansive set called Tativille. As I said earlier, the scenes are shot from a distance, allowing the audience to discover many different things just by looking at another spot on the screen. Playtime is, in every sense of the word, a panorama, not a portrait.

For all of its intellectual and historical importance, however, discovering Playtime also represents a very emotional and personal experience for me. It was the first time that an artist had so beautifully explored the idea that the modern world, with all of its shiny contraptions and structured lifestyles, is actually quite a wonderful place. Tati paints humans as participants in a lovely cosmic dance, complete with refreshing coincidences and unexpected encounters with the people dancing along with us.

In my pre-Playtime mindset, the cinema (and life by extension) had a lot to do with an individual coming to terms with the society he finds himself in. What Tati challenged me to accept was that the very act of living—walking around, observing things, marveling at the beauty of it all—is an end unto itself. And for that I will always be thankful to him, and to the endless source of beauty that is the cinema.

Death Proof

•July 8, 2008 • Leave a Comment

If you want proof that the annual awards season is a joke, look no further than the fact that Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino’s dizzyingly exhilarating pastiche from the otherwise disappointing Grindhouse, was not awarded a single Golden Globe nor was nominated for the equally-meaningless Academy Awards. Death Proof represents a departure for the director, who seems to no longer be interested in telling chronologically-altered stories. Whereas Reservoir Dogs (1992), Pulp Fiction (1994), Jackie Brown (1997), and Kill Bill (2003) succeeded in engaging the viewer through verbose characters inhabiting bizarre, intermittently violent narratives, Death Proof eschews any such aims, choosing instead to let the audience in on the joke. And it’s about time. Tarantino knows there is no “story” to be found inside his feverish, deliberately paced passages set in bars around Austin or in the imposing wasteland of Lebanon, Tennessee—but that’s very much the point. The film is, I dare say, a masterpiece precisely because of its loose feel; most of the fun, the two “big” scenes notwithstanding, comes from listening in on the random conversations of the characters, enjoying Tarantino’s pitch-perfect music choices, and, most importantly, trying to figure out just what that creepy, jacket-wearing man with the scary car is up to.

Insofar as Death Proof is about anything, it involves a stuntman (Kurt Russell) with an affinity for running girls over with what is, in his own words, a death proof automobile. Tarantino, being the visionary that he is, divides the film into two delicious slices, giving the audience two different sets of girls, both of whom will come in contact with the maniac. The first group includes a local radio DJ (Sydney Poitier) and her friends, who drive around Austin not knowing that Stuntman Mike is on the prowl. Although I don’t particularly think plot details matter in a film that has none to speak of, I won’t spoil this part, suffice it to say that our dear villain gets to verify his claims about the car. The second, and what I consider to be the better, segment takes place 14 months later, and this time the girls are, strangely enough, two stuntwomen (Tracie Thoms and Uma Thurman’s Kill Bill stunt double Zoë Bell), a hair dresser (the lovely Rosario Dawson), and a young actress in a cheerleader outfit (Mary Elizabeth Winstead). The dynamic is very much the same, but, believe it or not, it’s all even more thrilling the second time. To say that Death Proof ends on a high note is to do Tarantino’s brilliantly-conceived object d’art a disservice; it is a gorgeous reminder of how much fun the movies can be when a director is willing to take a risk or two.