Gleaming the cube (1989)

My friend entrusted me with a bunch of old VHS's a few years ago. I admitted Gleaming the cube into my shelf only half-heartedly, but believe me, this is the quality stuff of cheesy action movies from the 80's. Fun all the way. Be prepared for horrible music, "groovy" stunts and bad fashion. And Christian Slater as a skate kid who becomes involved in sorting out the messy details of his brother's death - i.e: "a young man awakens to adult responsibiity" - a great philosophical tale indeed (look at that hairdo!). Could it be any better? HELL NO! I must say I really enjoyed this, even the extremely long car chase.

The Banishment (2008)

Andrei Zvyagintsev’s The Return is one of the best films of the 00’s. In comparison with that film, The Banishment is a much weaker accomplishment that doesn’t hold up to the strong emotional and cinematic quality of the earlier film. For all its visual beauty, this does not come across as an expression of personal film-making the way The Return did. I would rather say that beauty here is used in a confused way that does not have much to do with what exactly the film is supposed to show. Somehow, the style of the film was a bit derivative: the use of long takes and meticulously composed images of empty landscapes started to feel calculating after a very short while. Slow camera movements don’t guarantee a good film. If the film doesn’t give us any hints about what we are supposed to see, if it doesn’t bring about a new way of seeing, no matter how meditative the images are, I’m afraid there is not much to learn from them. Afterwards, I was left with a hollow feeling: so that was it? Story-wise, there is not much to talk about, either. Tough guy with tough business – tough guy moves to the countryside with his family – tough guy is confronted with some news from his wife – tough guy acts in the only way tough guys can act – T-r-a-g-e-d-y. So: we’ve seen this before, haven’t we? I just couldn’t move beyond the story, I couldn’t make anything of it, and, more importantly, the style of the film and the story were intertwined in a way that seems keen on creating aesthetic impressions, but little more than that. I found myself both lost in details and unmoved by the turns of the story. Even the music feels contrived. Arvo Pärt's music is of course very beautiful but when used in this setting, his music was reduced to wallpaper. Which is not very nice if you happen to like this particular composition. And lastly, the structure of the film was muddled, too. The air of mystique created out of flashbacks and the holding back of information just didn't work. – Well, this was surely a disappointment. 

To Kill a Mockingbird (1962)

To kill a mockingbird (dir. R Mulligan) has the visual style of Italian neorealism and plenty of time to explore the warped aspect of American life. As you can probably tell, I liked this film (I haven’t read the book yet). The story takes place in Alabama during the poverty-stricken years of the Depression. Interestingly, the protagonists are children, and for all the mannerisms of child actors, these make quite an impression (which means that I didn’t spend the entire film moaning about poor acting). The acting of these children exudes a kind of bold energy that is a quite rare occurence on mainstream film. Scout and Jem live with their father, who is a lawyer. Their life take a sudden change as their father defends the case of a black man, accused of having raped a white woman. The film chooses an exemplary path in not going for the big drama, but rather focusing on the everyday life of its young character, their play, their fights, their fears. This is all-important for the emotional resonance of the film: the characters are contextualized; they are not just mechanically acting out the essential turns of the story and uttering some dramatic bunch of lines. In distinction to many Hollywood films, the locations play an important role, it is not only the backdrop of action, but rather we come to understand the characters through the way they interact with the surrounding world (a tree, a spooky house, a wheel, a busy street, the trusting father). And I mean, this is all the more rewarding if we compare the film to most adaptations of books into the big screen. This film breathes with its own lungs. Of course, what the film and the book are remembered for is the depiction of racism. Admittedly, this is more a film about white people’s reaction to racism than it is a film about what effects racism has on those primarily affected by it. Of course, complaints can be made: Atticus, the lawyer, is idealized into the gentle white man with a robust sense for social justice. Or is it fair to talk about idealization here? Well, that, I think, depends on how the story is interpreted. One main point of the film is to show how the protagonists mature into social awareness, exchanging eerie bogeymen for real evildoers and bigots. But still, the portrait of Atticus runs the risk of becoming gratifying, of smouldering its subject with praising the Just White Man for doing his best. The black actors in the movie seem an excuse for Gregory Peck's Atticus to shine. I cannot help think this to be a bit disturbing. A problem that seems related to this is the tendency to make caricatures out of the Southern bigots.

Never let me go (2010)

As much as I like Kazuo Ishiguro, Never let me go turned out to be a quite bad film with interesting ideas. The story had some potential, but a better film would have required some drastic changes in how this film was made and what choices were made in terms of material and character development. The story revolves around three persons, Kathy, Ruth and Tommy. In the beginning of the film, we see them in a boarding school. Even though the film takes place in modern time, the clothes and settings made me think of the forties. Gradually, we understand something fishy is going on. It turns out these children are destined to become donors – to function as a set of spare part for other people (this is a world where most people live to be 100 years old). From early on, they seem to be aware that their lives will be short, that they will live in isolation from the world, and that its main purpose is to function as a body, rather than as a real person. – Were this to be developed in the direction of a full-blown Sci-Fi story, I wouldn’t have minded much. Some aspects of the story present a chilling – and disturbingly familiar – outlook on a society diverged between those who are to live and those who are to serve, if only with their bodily parts. The characters live in an eerie state of subordination, yet without any sort of external power to hold them back. This is perhaps the most unnerving aspect of the film: why don't they rebel? What does it mean to accept one's misery as normal and ? But: of course the director (who made One Hour Photo) opted for the grandiose Love Story. And there the trouble begins. The result is fully orchestrated, saccharine and very conventional love scenes.  Many scenes are too predictable, too one-dimensional – the emotional quality of the images lack a necessary dimension of – yes what? I was going to say: ambiguity, but that is certainly wrong-headed. Rather: it is as if the film didn’t believe in its own story, so it has to augment it with emotional material that is supposed to make us “care”. 

Symptomatically, it is the quieter scenes that work. These are the moments when we become aware of how empty the world of the characters is, how it lacks the stuff and bustle of everyday life. In one scene, when the children have grown up, two of them as donors, one of them as “carer”, we see Kathy, the carer, pushing Ruth, who is a donor, in a wheel-chair through a desolated hospital corridor. There is no music, and the dialogue is sparse, too. Here, at last, the film hints at the unsettling nature of the content of the story.

eXistenZ (1999)

As soon as one starts to interpret eXistenZ, the film falls to the ground as an utterly silly attempt at criticizing some sort of world-alienation. Provided that one does not go into that at all, one can still enjoy the film for what it is (despite Cronenberg's intentions): a funny, perhaps a bit tedious, story about levels of games, and, most of all, bodies that matter-as-matter. The seedy surroundings and Cronenberg's affection for eerie bugs make eXistenZ a quite entertaining film. As a meditation on the state of postmodern society - forget it. In the films, games have been developed so that they make out existences of their own. In the film, we see a process of entering games and exiting games. Gradually, the distinction between the game and "reality" becomes blurred. --- Well, Willem Defoe is fun. eXistenZ presents us with Cronenberg's post-human universe: a blend of technology and flesh, determinism and is-not-morals-only-a-surface (and what's-real-anyway-huh's). As I already said, let's not go into that territory. But, honestly: if I have to choose between the games versus reality-themed Matrix and eXistenZ, I'd rank eXistenZ as a better film simply because it is far less self-important and pompous than Matrix. Plus the bugs. Actually, despite their stupid quasi-philosophical mumbo jumbo, I like the way his films create claustrophobic atmospheres by means of a cinematic style that is rooted in the drab and the ugly.

The Draughtman's Contract (1982)

I am glad I took the chance to watch Greenaway's The Draughtman's contract a second time. What infuriated me the first time around (about ten years ago) I know found both ingenious and charming. It is an exquisitely beautiful film that follows the rules of the period drama with a tasteful grin on its face. The story starts off with a proposition to a self-indulgent artist. The artist is commissioned to make drawings of an upper-class estate. He complies, but makes his own additions to the contract: sexual services. As he starts his work, he takes painstaking measures to free his landscapes of all extraneous elements - with unexpected consequences. Gradually, we find out that the artist is not really the one who controls the situation. The film has as many layers as the characters have charades. On the surface, it is a story about a crime that was or was not committed - on another level, it is a story about what images tell us and the complex relation between the painted image and its context and purpose. It is a great achievement in studying artificiality, beginning from the domesticized garden to sophisticated social games.

Michael Nyman's music provides perfect augmentation of the story without being in the least an attempt to create "emotions". Because if there is anything this film is not, it is a film about realistic emotions. The dialogue is a further example of how Greenaway approaches his own type of formalism with wit and style: these fluffy characters talk in elaborate, long sentences that are complete immersed in the stylized social relations of the 17th century English upper class. What impresses me the most about this film is how it manages to integrate all levels of cinema into one cohesive structure of images, dialogue and sound. 

V toy strane (1997)

Lidia Bubrovka's V toy strane ("In this country") has the hazy cinematography of Sokurov's Mother and Son but rather than elegiac meditations on life and death, the film opts for the quietly burlesque. It is a funny little film with a strong sense for characters and drastic, unexpected humor. The story takes place in a not-so-modern village in the North. Life is grim & people are poor; most people, at least the men, drink as often as they can. One day, the "director" of the village tells one of the villagers, who suffers from a stomach ulcer, that he has been granted a place in a kurort by the sea. This event leads to feeling of disbelief, envy and malaise. From there, the movie dwells on the life of the villagers, and their cattle, by means of a string of loosely connected scenes. I can't really explain what is going on here, but I don't think the film is a mere caricature of the uncivilized ways of the backwoods - the film is too tender to be a caricature. As I said, the style of this film, and the cinematography, bathing in eerie and dreamy light, is really something. There is a peculiar dissonance between content and style which really .... works. I liked this film and it is a shame it is not more well known.

The Scent of Green Papaya (1993)

As I was a few minutes into The Scent of Green Papaya, I was quite sure I’d seen some of the director’s (Tran Anh Hung ) other films. And yes – the visual style is easily recognizable: the slow, fluid camera panning across rooms and yards and walls, a strong sense for the sounds of nature. Even though The Scent of Green Papaya was a good film, it was not as good as Cyclo and Vertical Ray of the Sun (the initial scene of the latter film is sheer beauty). Even though several scenes of the present film made a real impression on me, I couldn’t stop thinking that the film’s aesthetics is too predictable, too pretty, and perhaps a tad contrived. How am I to swallow the obvious nostalgia of the film? I felt that I’ve seen this before: an attempt to capture the past through glowing, tranquil images and sounds, a mildly experimental score, hauntingly beautiful surroundings. Certain images are repeated: ants, frogs, papayas, and start to take on an almost-symbolic meaning. The film starts off with a child who gets a place as a servant in a richer family in Vietnam during the 50’s. The quiet storms of family life is seen from the young servant's perspective: a boy torturing ants, a wife saddened by her husband's infidelity, a grandmother mourns her husband. Rather than scrutinizing colonial structures, The Scent of Green Papaya follows its characters in their joys and miseries, in the routines of work - and all this is evoked in a very sensual way. In the second part of the film the child has, as Ebert puts it, “flowered into a beautiful woman”. Well, you know the rest, you know the score. From here one, I can no longer take this film seriously. My description of this film might sound negative, but for all its compromises and indulgence, this is a captivating cinematic experience where the visual stands in the centerfield.

Beloved (1998)

It’s good to be wrong. A scruffy DVD with the names Danny Glover and Oprah Winfrey didn’t seem to promise much, I mean: Oprah. Contrary to my prejudiced conception, Beloved was not a bad film at al. The film is based on a novel by Toni Morrison. What was striking about it was how the trauma of slavery was interpreted. This film wasn’t at all the sugarcoated and sentimental tale I expected it to be. Beloved is not the typical Hollywood adaptation of a novel: it is too bold for that, the solutions are too independent (I think I can say this without having read the book). Instead of the regular type of condensed and well-behaved Wisdom, I was confronted with a harsh, sometimes idiosyncratic, story about wounds that will not heal, ghosts that will always reappear, and the open-ended character of history. The main character of the film is Sethe, a woman who fled from slave-owners. She now lives with her daughter Denver in a house in which a ghost seems to live. One day, an old acquaintance, Paul D, comes to visit. They have not seen each other for many years. Paul and Sethe become lovers. Another visitor arrives, a girl who seems to be in a trance-like condition. The girl stays with them and somehow she seems to know all about them. Even though there were some things in this film that I did not understand, I appreciated its means of storytelling, the contrast between a past remembered primarily through emotions and the way emotions from the past and of the past are ever-present in the present.  

Drugstore cowboy (1989)

Whether we want it or not, many of us nurse our own special mythological images of the US and A, inspired by music, film and literature. For me, this mythological landscape consists of drab streets and cafes in Portland, Oregon. Gus van Sant, of course, is to blame. I first watched Drugstore cowboy as a kid, and it was an interesting experience to see that it did not feel that dated, though it is many things that make it a film of the 90’s. In other words: I still like this unglamorous, dreamy portrait of what life as a drug addict is like. Van Sant feels no need for moralism. He just tells a story about these people who rob drugstores and engage in dull conversations about strange things (the bad mojo of hats on beds, for example). He doesn’t make their lives appear particularly romantic. Even though the film can be seen as fusing elements from classic outlaw films, we are never tempted to think that wow, these folks are dangerous and cool. Instead, the four main characters roam through their mundane lives in which paranoia and superstition plays no minor part. These characters are not very likeabe, but we accept them.

I don’t know how he does it, but despite its mundane character, I never fail to engage in this story. Rather than being evil, or Fiends of Society, van Sandts anti-heroes are lost, frail and bored. Already in the beginning of the film, we sense that things will go downwards from here, but van Sandt never titillates the viewer with Destiny and how things are bound to Happen. Stuff just happen and something gruesome  situations have to be dealt with. Boredom is one of van Sant’s dearest themes. In scrutinizing the tics of boredom, restlessness and empty time, he manages to show several forms of existential dread that doesn’t really look dreadful, but, precisely, bears the expressionless face of Matt Dillon in this film. – Don’t miss the small role played by William Burroughs.

Visually, Drugstore cowboy mixes the ultrareal with dreamlike sequences. The languid pace of the story and the camera never stands in place of observation. Van Sant is obviously a director that does not need sunsets and shit to create stark moments of beauty. All he need is the woozy view from a train window or a sun-lit motel. - And of course I liked the use of Desmond Dekker's music. Yay for this film and yay! for Gus van Sant.