Prometheus (2012)

At one point in the middle of Prometheus (dir. Ridley Scott), I actually thought it would take the following route: humans go to weird planet to look for anchestors. They come upon a few monsters and a bunch of corpses. They board the ship again, disappointed. So much for looking into the Grand Origin of Humanity. End of story. Of course, it did not turn out like this. Prometheus is not the Nietzschean culture critique it should have been... or something. Nor did it develop a critique of shady corporate interests going on behind the backs of everyone. Prometheus opts for the pompous, the quasi-religious. The thin storyline was augmented with just as cheap effects. Yes, some scenes look good, but there is no point to anything. We've seen plenty of the twists in the film in earlier Alien films, so there was really not much to write home about here; one may even speak about recycling, and not in a good way. My most positive judgment about the film concerns the design of the settings: great job there. Plus it was fun to see the familiar landscapes of Isle of Skye in a film. Another fun aspect of the film is the choice of role model for the sentient robot David - Lawrence of Arabia as the prototype of humanity! Do we sense cosmig significance? Not really, we sense tacky. By any means, this is not 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Tough Guys Don't Dance (1987)

oh God!
oh man!
oh God!
oh man!
oh God!
One can say one thing about Norman Mailer's Tough Guys Don't Dance and it's that this is one hell of a weird movie. Is that a good or bad thing? Well, you decide. The script seems a mess, and the acting is sure ... a league of its own. So is the development of the story. And oh, the lines - the LINES! This film was made in that glorious period in which the genre of film noir was revitalized in a sleazy, moody way. There are a few great examples of this version of 80's noir, but this is hardly one of them, even though I would say that it has its indubitable value as a bad-good film where one never knows what will come next. The main character, in a classical way, suffers from amnesia. Of course, gruesome things have happened and in its own very peculiar way, the film sorts out what has been going on. If you can follow this film without having read the book, my congratulations. As Ebert writes in his review - many scenes play out like comedy but when you think about the film afterwards, there seems to be some kind of sadness in it that no element of the narrative seems to explain.

Only Angels Have Wings (1939)

Howard Hawkes' Only Angels Have Wings explores a familiar theme. A group of alpha-male pilots stationed in a South American port city have to deal with the harshness of their job. In order to attain a contract, they are forced to venture out in bad weather, risking their lives. Colleagues die; they have to deal with it - somehow. This situation is explored with the mediation of a woman. This is a slightly typical move; it is the emotional reactions of a woman that sheds light on the situation. And yes, in this film, the gender patterns are almost exclusively shady. But still, the film also looks into variations within the group of pilots, some of whom try to appear as stone-faced Stoics, others show emotions more immediately. By no means was this a film that Opened my Eyes to Great Existential Issues - but it wasn't the worst film in the history of Hollywood either. Check out an elegant use of settings and a bunch of tight scenes. If you want a film that challenges ideas about emotional self-restraint, this is not bad at all.

The Woman in the Window (1944)

The Woman in the Window has some shallow similarities with It's a Wonderful life. It's just that Fritz Lang's film is better, less sentimental than the X-masy morality tale you all know. In the ouevre of Mr Lang, this is a minor film, but as a paranoid crime story, it works pretty well - it kept this viewer interested, at least interested enough to sit through the entire thing. The story is a simple one. A middleaged professor sits with his buddies talking about the way they are not in the Game anymore, no, the way of Vice is not... their way. A small tiny step and you're in hell. The professor, of course, ends up in hell. Or that's what we think. What keeps the film going is the elegant cinematography paired with the very stripped-down nature of the storytelling. - - The ending, I must warn you, makes the film a far sloppier affair than it could've been.

The Captive (2000)

Chantal Akerman made a Proust movie? I had to watch it (Jeanne Dielman is one of those movies I have on my mind all the time). I guess you will get something out of The Captive if you have actually read Proust, as some of the plot quite subtly hints at certain tensions that are not explored in the movie. Proust wrote two fat volumes about the catastrophy that was the relationship between jealous Marcel and 'secretive' Albertine. In the film, Albertine is Ariane and Marcel is Simone, but the theme is still there: poisonous jealousy. From the first few scenes onwards, we are thrown into the world of a stalker. But what does that stalker want?  What does he want from Ariane? Why is he so fixated with 'telling the truth'? Proust lets us into the world of this outrageous character, but he provides no comfortable psychological answers, and nor does the film. The film has a simple structure: the camera follows Simone in his pursuit of ... whatever. We see him walking restlessly around his big apartment, spying on his girlfriend and her friendds, interviewing people about Ariane's possible Vice. Even though Akerman doesn't follow Proust all the way (who could in a film like this?) The Captive still occupies a place pretty close to the text. I have to confess that this film did not blow my mind. Still, it was a good film about obsession - and a certain form of corrupted love where love is based on fantasy so that the only relationship the lover has is with a fantasy, not a human being. What made me a bit hesitant about how the film developed was that it made the 'mystery' of Ariane into a slightly different issue than in Proust's book. Did Akerman want to conjur up the image that we 'can never know one another, no matter how much we try'? If so, the film would fall flat. The big question is exactly what meaning it has to say that Simone/Marcel can not 'have' Ariane/Albertine.

Still life (2006)

I am trying to get rid of my prejudice about Chinese movies as big-budget boosting about ancient emperors. Still life (dir. Jia Zhangke) has nothing to do with this genre: no action-fuelled fighting, no pompous praising of China, no glossy images. The story of the film is a simple one. A man and a woman are looking for their spouses in the area where the three gorges dam is built. We get as much involved in the personal stories of the two main characters as the landscape in which they move about: demolition, demolition, flooding. Millions of people have been evicted from their homes. This is a world of almost post-apocalyptic measures, just throw in one or two sites of capitalist luxury in the midst of destruction. The film doesn't preach, it shows. Some have pointed out the links to Italian neorealism and Antonioni - which makes complete sense. This is a realistic film in a world which has stopped making sense. One of the characters takes a job while he looks for his wife. The other character meets her business man husband only to tell him that she has fallen in love with another. Their stories are told through understated scenes and silences, rather than big gestures and confrontations. Well, there are a few moments of confrontations in the movie, but not of the kind you expect. In one scene, we see a group of workers attacking their boss for irresponsible behavior - scenes like this, were political material seep into the story about family member, keep the film alive. This separates Still life from almost every other family drama. The film does not approach the family as a closed unit, a little world in itself. Here, our characters are all the time a part of an evolving, open-ended world. Jia Zhangke pays attention to details and not only the big patterns. He makes drama out of mobile phone ring tone, the facial expressions of ferry passengers or a sweaty performance in front of happy workers. Odd elements - UFO:s! - swoosh by in some scenes, and to me, these elements made it all to clear that this is realism but not realism - what the hell is realism in a world like this one?

One of the things that impressed me about this movie was its attention to place. The demolition areas and the grandeour of new projects were put on a par with the space of the home. The way the director keeps alive these both dimension made the rootlessness of the main characters all the more terrible to watch. - Even though the cinematography is elegant and beautiful, I never got the impression that the film aesthetisizes the wasteland shown in these images. 

If you have the opportunity to get a hold of this movie - watch it!

The Caiman (2006)

I liked Nanni Moretti's The Son's Room quite a lot, so therefore I was excited about watching another Moretti movie. The Caiman turned out to be very different from the aforementioned film, which is not necessarily a bad thing. I remember The Son's room as a serious film about grief - serious, but not sentimental. This film might be serious as well, but it is a far more whimiscal affair. A producer of B-movies has not been making any movies for a long time. Now he should be making a film for the big audiences but that doesn't happen. In this precarious situation, he gets involved with a project the political dimension of which he has not realized. The problem with the film is that it is plenty of things at the same time and that everything seems to be done a bit half-heartedly (in this case, the film-within-the-film trick doesn't work so good, because there is no real tension between the two segments). Yes, the film's satire is sometimes funny, but somehow making successful satire based on Silvio Berlusconi is a challenging endeavour, as the man seems to be a parody of himself. The Caiman has the heart in its right place but as a film - it doesn't really happen.

Greed (1924)

Sadly, the original 9 hour version of Greed (dir. E von Stroheim) was destroyed in a fire. We watched a 4 hour version that comprises original moving images as well as reconstructed stills. I read reviewers who claimed that this version is of interest for expert only. I believed them - well, how interesting can it be to watch a bunch of stills? Yes it can! It was surprisingly fascinating to look at these stills, that were zoomed in and out so as to be kept more "lively". I wasn't bored for even a minute: the film grabbed me by the guts even in this 'technical' version. Greed is an impressive film in many ways. Yes, one can complain that the story is overly dramatized and didactic (some of the characters are shamelessly one-dimensional). But to me, that didn't matter. The film's experimental, eerie approach to editing and images was simply stunning: the last scenes, set in Death Valley, two of the main characters chained to each other with handcuffs, are some of the most beautiful/desolate images I've ever seen on film. Overall, Greed is a dynamic affair. It goes from dreamy to realistic and back again. Especially the exploration of urban scenery managed to convey a realism-before-realism. It is not only moods that swing in this movie; in a very successful way, the story shifts from neutral account, to comedy (the intertitles are often very funny), to melodrama and then horror story. Greed certainly has it all, and doesn't lose its coherence in the course of these stylistic and emotional transitions. And do check out the colors - the use of coloration along with the addition of gold in some dreamy frames of gold coins and moving, scary fingers.

The story is a simple one. A poor miner, McTeague, learns the trade of dentistry from a charlatain. He opens his own practice. There, he meets his friend's darling, and falls in love. He makes a deal with his friend, and the girl is his. She wins the lottery, and here all hell breaks loose. Their world starts to revolve around money: to have it, not to have it, to gain it. The wife is portrayed as a greedy devil who takes any measure in order to get more money - she is even willing to sacrifice her husband. The husband, in his turn, is corrupted by his life, as he loses his practice (after he has been revealed as a charlatain) and hits the bar for consolation. - - A few more turns of the story, and bad turns into worse. On a psychological level, the film paints a gruesome portrait of how some unplanned events set others in motion. The film's only representations of goodness are a couple living in the same boarding house as McTeague. They are an elderly gentleman and an elderly woman who have been living in adjacent rooms for a lengthy period of time - and for many years, they have been in love with each other, without taking any steps to reveal it to one another. At last, they confess their feelings. This humble love is shown as simple and unproblematic - a striking moment of the film is the rendition of their mutual bliss in full color.

I have a hard time imagining what contemporary movie bosses thought of this movie. This is not exactly a pro-American cheery movie about the happy rich people with the future in their hands. This must be one of the darkest depictions of money ever made (of course it may matter that the money appeared in the characters' lives 'out of nowhere' but I am not sure how to interpret this.) The film has no happy end nor does it give any redeeming image of money (the carefree elderly couple seem completely uninterested in money.)

If you decide to watch a silent movie - give Greed a shot. The story might be dated, but the style is a thousand times more innovative than any 3D blockbuster produced in these days.

Edward Munch (1974)

Clearly, Edward Munch (dir. P. Watkins) aspires to be as artful as the painting's of the artist in the title. I am torn between regarding some of the segments of the film as preposterously pretentious and appreciating the film's sense for rhytm and adventurous stylistic jumps. One at least has to admit that this is not your common biopic trodding along the familiar path of an artist's life with predictable emotional peaks. Interestingly, the film has a a mostly Norwegian cast but the narrator is English. The life of Munch is contextualized by means of a dry voice enumerating historical events during the relevant years. Sometimes this technique works, at other times not at all (I am still not at all clear about what the director aims at here, what kind of contextualization). I was not familiar with the ouevre of Peter Watkins before watching the film, but now I would surely like to see his othe films (about the Paris commune for example, or The War Game). At least, Edward Munch fights against conventional cinema - it tries to rely on the cinematic form to create a new style of film, a new way of assembling material. Does it succeed? Sometimes. Some of the films convey how different forms of art intersect: it is fascinating to watch Munch scrape away at the canvas, you even hear a very detailed world of sounds in Munch's work on his paintings. - The film manages to capture the texture of the paintings in a way that was both thrilling and interesting. The lopside of the film is predictable enough: emotional artist who gains recognition late in life, but who stoically bears the spite of the reviewers and the audience. And: sexual frustration, always sexual frustration in the artist's life that is then of course transported right onto the canvas (one image: a girl's body from the point of view of the male gaze in coitus, yesyes).

Rusalka (2007)

Rusalka (dir.: A Melikyan) is clearly a film that follows in the footsteps of Lola rennt: restless cinematography, quirky story about fate and love - and a punky girl with odd hair (Amelie also came to mind). This is not really a complaint. Even though the story of the film is nothing to write home about, I was entertained (but not moved); it is fair to call the film a type of fairy tale (references to HC Andersen). Aliza grows up in a small town by the Black sea. The girl loses her capacity to speak and attends a school for the mentally handicapped. Her mother takes her along to Moscow and there she meets Sasha, a rich, self-destructive man with a flashy job. She decides that Sasha must be a part of her life. Aliza thinks she has a personal power to make wishes come true, so why not this one? It is the vivid documentation of surroundings that make Rusalka a memorable film. First, the breeziness of seaside Smallville, then the big, cruel city. The camera pans along anonymous skyscrapers, vibrant streets and traffic jams, only to keep returning to commercial texts all over the city. If we look at the actual content of the film, things get more shady - much more. The lively girl Aliza saves the guy's life two or three times and reminds him that he has a heart as well. You know the story: the simple girl and the rich boy, full of himself. The meaning of the end is puzzling, and I am worried that if I mull it over too much, I will like this film less (the big question: is it a terribly cynic ending or is it a critical gesture?). The film contains enough memorable scenes to make it a good film, despite some disappointing erratic scenes. Even though there are plenty of gender stereotypes here, the main character is surprisingly elusive and unusual - she is not our ordinary heroine. I hope I get to see more films directed by Anna Melikyan.