To the Pines and Beyond

*CONTAINS SPOILERS*

Towards the end of THE PLACE BEYOND THE PINES, I wasn't sure whether it was boldly sincere familial drama or just a complete disaster.  It certainly seemed like it was trying to make a comprehensive albeit slightly muddled statement on the nature of legacy and inheritance, the seeds of corruption we sow and the bitter fruit our progeny reap.  By the time the credits began to roll and Bon Iver chimed over the soundtrack, however, I knew that for all the films specious earnestness, it couldn't help but deflate itself entirely through willful narrative excess.  As I was walking out of the theater, it honestly felt like a disaster, like Cianfrance had taken a promising and wholly compelling first third of an exciting crime film and turned into one of the most overwrought pieces of filmmaking since Apatow's FUNNY PEOPLE.  I kept mulling over in my head - how could Cianfrance, a talented and seemingly shrewd filmmaker, start the film so terrifically and then overplot it to the point of pure exhaustion and frustration?  What was he thinking?  How did no one, at any point during the production of this film, take a look at the script and realize that it suffered from a hazardous case of narrative overkill?  As a story, it runs around so much to the point that it loses direction, and it even refuses to acknowledge its own advice:  it so desperately wants to ride like lightning but boy does it crash like thunder.

If I sound like I'm being harsh on this film, it's only because I respected Cianfrance's muted, naturalistic work on BLUE VALENTINE and found the first hour or so of PINES to be exquisite.  The first act of the film, following Gosling's troubled motorcycle bandit-come-newfound dad, is captivating in the way that made BLUE VALENTINE also seem raw and vital.  It's emotionally and forcefully told, while also seeming generous and sincere.  I sympathized so strongly with Luke Glanton's plight to the point that when he was torn off screen, I almost didn't care where they would take the film from thereon.  It's certainly an audacious move to kill off your film's star and central protagonist less than halfway through your run time.  I give Cianfrance mild credit for choosing to be so bold, but I can't give him much more credit than that because I don't think it's a choice that ultimately pays off.  Perhaps because I enjoy Gosling's charisma as an actor and find Bradley Cooper duller than a box factory (a little SIMPSONS, anyone?) I am slightly biased in thinking that the film looses a giant heft of steam once Cooper takes over the leading man role.  It certainly doesn't help.  But, I truly believe that the compelling arc of this narrative does not belong in Cooper's characters hands nor especially in the hands of their children's characters.  Once the children appear on screen together, the overwhelming sense of gimmicky, utterly contrived plotting sets in, and it only gets worse from there.  I've heard Paul Haggis' CRASH thrown around in describing the last third of PINES, and I can't say that it is a far-off-the-mark insult.  By the end of it all, PINES frustratingly feels like a contrived piece of generational melodrama, forcing its own sense of importance on us and itself through a brazenly, exasperatingly predetermined outcome.

PINES is overwritten, overlong, and overstuffed to the point that it feels bloated and saggy like sallow flesh.  The fact that it is nearly the same length as both THE TURIN HORSE and BEYOND THE HILLS and fits more plot into 15 minutes than either of those films throughout their entire run times, yet feels as if it is ten times longer than either one, is a pretty vicious sign of overreach.  As you all know, I have no problem with excessive run times or long, ponderous films as long as I know there is a purpose to it (BEYOND THE HILLS is long and deliberate but it builds tension, character, and tone beautifully through its careful use of time and space). What I do have a problem with is films that are long because they've been stuffed with too many climaxes, arcs, and plot shifts without enough sense of character motivation to justify our emotional investment in their constant fluctuations.  For instance, in PINES we are given no real sense of who Luke Glanton's son is or what he wants the way we knew what drove Luke so vehemently.  Towards the end of the film, there is a gorgeous overhead shot of the son riding his bike like his father through the tall trees and it feels like an ideal time to fade to black, leaving us with the idea that the son is searching for a connection to his past but still riding free because of the family he has around to support him.  Instead, we get a half hour more of obvious or insanely contrived character parallels that seem undercooked and forced without any insightful ideas or thematic purpose.  Someone should have warned Cianfrance early on in the process of making this film that sometimes less can certainly be more.

Quiz Kid Donnie Smith

Brandon, we all know you are the Dan Kois of Film Club, so just stop with the "I like long art movies" bit already ;)

Being serious though, I do know you can get down with plenty of lengthy films, so you don't really need to defend yourself in this regard (hell, you've sat through a plethora of long, deliberately paced 60s films that I don't have the remotest of attention spans for - so credit where credit is due).  I just like to pick on you for our TURIN HORSE discussion.  The fair warning I gave about BEYOND THE HILLS wasn't really intended for you, just anyone in this club or outside it who stumbles on the review and thinks they might like to watch it based on how much I loved it.  I'd hate to give them a glowing recommendation and then have them mad at me because they just sat through a two and half hour movie where everything seems to move as piecemeal as grass growing.

With that being said, I have pretty solid faith that you'll love BEYOND THE HILLS.  It's long and deliberate without question, but also driven with its narrative and loaded with tension.  I'm also aware that you might still tell me that it's 40 minutes too long, even if you do love it :)

Thanks for making the quiz, my dude!  Now onto some answers:

1. What are your top five Spielberg films (ranked)?

1. JAWS

2. JURASSIC PARK

3. MINORITY REPORT

4. RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK

5. E.T.

A.I. just misses the cut, but deserves to be mentioned because I love that film.  I agree with John, Spielberg’s a great director and a formidable executive producer (for the most part).

2. Have you ever been convinced by a member of Film Club to change your mind about a movie (tell us about it)?

I think it’s happened a few times.  Like John mentioned, whenever one of you registers a particularly passionate defense of a film, I feel compelled, even if its only slight, to rethink what I may not have liked or was disappointed by with it.  THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO and Brandon’s responses to it come to mind.  They didn’t exactly change my opinion, but I liked what he wrote.  He advocated well for it.  I also think Ben, Brandon, and John did a great job defending MELANCHOLIA.  Those posts made me rethink my initial disappointment and helped me see a lot of the maturity and beauty in the work itself.  Well done gang!

3. What is your favorite sub-genre and why?

Two subgenres spring first to mind:  haunted house movies and noir westerns.  I’m not sure why I like haunted house movies so much.  I’m not even sure why I like the idea of a haunted house so much.  I guess I just feel drawn to or fascinated by the supernatural and extraordinary that still seem within the realm of possibility.  I also tend to love the feeling of creeping dread that haunted house movies are inclined to produce.  That’s my kind of horror.  And noir westerns just combine two of my favorite genres into one complex and thrilling beast (e.g. PURSUED).

4. Do you enjoy violence in film and if so do you feel bad and if so why?

I do enjoy it, for the most part, and no, I don’t feel bad about it.  I fortunate enough to be able to have a clear distinction between the virtual and the actual when it comes to violence on film.  I ahbor actual violence, but enjoy and sometimes even laugh at virtual violence on screen - perhaps because I know someone put a lot of time into making the violent effect seem real and because it usually looks excessive and packs a visceral punch.  I tend to draw the line of my enjoyment at extreme gore or torture porn, but there are plenty of bloody, violent scenes that I’ve laughed at because of how outrageous they looked.

5. Tell us about a few of your strangest theater going experiences.

Seeing I AM LEGEND in IMAX in New York City was strange.  The first half of that movie is great, and the effect of making NYC look so desolate and deserted is downright staggering (the rest of the movie, not so much). Walking out of the Union Square AMC to see many of those same empty sites from the film teem with life was a bit disorienting.  Very cool though too.

Seeing SPRING BREAKERS with a bunch of vapid cretins was strange - and not in a good way at all.

The strangest has to be seeing THE DARK KNIGHT RISES the day after the Colorado shooting, though.  I just felt paranoid and depressed.

6. Name 5 films that you have been eager to re-watch, perhaps even despite your tepid response some of them.

L’AVVENTURA (didn’t get it the first time, would like to see it again)

DJANGO UNCHAINED (like it even less the more I think about it, but should give it another chance)

THE DECALOGUE (just would love to watch it again - amazing collection of films)

NASHVILLE (never gave it a fair watch)

ANDREI RUBLEV (loved it when I saw it, but can hardly remember it now)

7. Name 5 films that you absolutely love or respect that you have no desire to see ever again (going against John’s Letterbox’d rating system).

I can give you four:

IRREVERSIBLE

MARTYRS

ANTICHRIST

AUDITION

Do you sense a common theme with them? haha.

8. What are five films that you really want to see for the first time?

NAZARIN (Bunuel)

THROUGH THE OLIVE TREES (Kiarostami)

THE LONG DAY CLOSES (Davies)

BEYOND THE FOREST (Vidor)

DESIRE (Borzage)

9. Name 5 surprising “classic” popular films that you have not seen.

ROCKY

THE SOUND OF MUSIC

THE RIGHT STUFF

TERMINATOR

DIE HARD

The list goes on and on sadly.

10. Who are your top five directors of all time (hahahaha)?

I’ll give you a top six of all time and currently:

top six (all time)

Hitchcock

Bresson

Kubrick

Ozu

Bergman

Ford

top six (currently working)

P.T. Anderson

Malick

Kiarostami

Coen Bros.

Dardenne Bros.

Scorsese

A Pale View of Hills

Sorry I haven't been blogging much my friends.  It's been a slower film watching month than usual for me.  It's also been a pretty languid month, with work generally sapping the little energy I have for anything outside of it.  I'm sure the rest of you can relate.

I'm also sorry to Brandon for not responding to his revenge list post.  I think after writing that last revenge post I felt drained of anything more substantive to say on the subject.  I did really enjoy your list and write-ups though, Brando.  If I had to make a top five list of the revenge films that challenged me the most, it would probably include these:  FURY, UNFAITHFULLY YOURS, THE BIG HEAT, IN THE BEDROOM, and OLD BOY.  Honorable mentions would be: THE OX-BOW INCIDENT, STRAW DOGS, IRREVERSIBLE, and DOGVILLE.  I wouldn't include ONCE UPON THE TIME IN THE WEST either for the same reasons as you, despite how much I love that movie and its revenge subplot.  There's too many disparate narratives going on there to limit it to a simple revenge arc.  UNFAITHFULLY YOURS probably seems like the oddball of the bunch here, but it really is a great film about wanting revenge so mercilessly that it blinds and disorients you.  It's also incredibly hilarious.  I still need to see DESPERADO and THE MASK OF ZORRO.  I'm due for a solid Antonio Banderas revenge flick night one of these days it would seem.

----------------

Cristian Mungiu's BEYOND THE HILLS is instantly one of my very favorite films of 2012.  It recalls the best of Dreyer and Bresson - a stark and wholly riveting look at the complex and potentially devastating split between the spiritual and the corporeal, the desire for transcendence and the pull of the immanent life.  It's a serpentine tragedy of existence in the grandest of terms.  The world of this film is buried in muck and nothing will wipe it clear.  All that was previously hidden is revealed; all that was once distant seems infinitely near.

Shot in the easily the most beautiful and austere long takes since THE TURIN HORSE, BEYOND THE HILLS follows two orphaned girls, Voichita and Alina (lifelong friends and possibly former lovers), as they each head down unfathomably divergent paths.  Voichita has joined an orthodox monastery that stresses atavistic living and a complete disavowal of the carnal and material world.  Alina has been living in Germany, but has come to stay with Voichita at the monastery, hoping to eventually persuade her to join her for a new job prospect aboard a cruise ship.  Alina arrives at the monastery hoping that her relationship with Voichita will be unchanged, that the two can still share a bed together and feel as much need for one another as they did during their time in the orphanage.  But Voichita is a different person now; she has given herself entirely to God and stresses to Alina that no earthly person or thing can hold a higher place in her heart than the Lord.  Alina is wounded to the core by this; she needs Voichita and cannot understand how her friend could now be so aloof to her when she was once so tender and palpable for her.  For anyone who's ever experienced a change of heart from a loved one or an inflamed passion grown cold, this is truly devastating stuff.  Your heart aches for both of these young women.

(The opening shot of the film is a paragon of using visual imagery to delineate themes that will lay the groundwork for the story that will unfold.  Voichita walks in the opposite direction of a large crowd, following her own obdurate path, until she reaches Alina, who pulls her into an effusive hug that embarrasses Voichita.  Right from the first shot, we have Voichita at odds with the modern society around her and Alina's desires - themes that will unfold, bound, and constrict around everything throughout the film.)

Mungiu explores the heartbreaking relationship between these two women as it is being torn asunder, but also the uneasy relation this orthodox community has with the modern world that surrounds it.  These two antithetical spheres inevitably and irrevocably clash making an incredibly profound and moving portrait of miscommunication and dissociation that extends beyond the emotionally raw story of the two women.  The amazing feat is that Mungiu manages to charge both the modern society and orthodox community without utterly condemning either.  He just presents two structures that cannot coexist and lets us reflect on the tragedy of their philosophical and spiritual partitions.  They might as well exist in separate universes they are so disjointed.

Fair warning: this is a long, very rigid and deliberately paced film.  I can already hear Brandon bemoaning its excessive length and needless repetitions ;) (though hopefully he'll still love it).  It may require some patience, but I promise you that if you focus intently on the simmering conflict unfolding and the individual tensions of each scene, you will be enthralled.  This is austere but purposeful filmmaking with a profound sense of dread and an overarching sadness.  It's certainly not to be missed.  It's also a masterpiece.

With that all being said, here is my updated 2012 list (and my 2011 list).  I shuffled some things around to make them adhere to the John Owen-IMDB release date system:

2012

1. The Master (Anderson)
2. Like Someone in Love (Kiarostami)
3. Beyond the Hills (Mungiu)
4. Cosmopolis (Cronenberg)
5. Tabu (Gomes)
6. Zero Dark Thirty (Bigelow)
7. Holy Motors (Carax)
8. Lincoln (Spielberg)
9. Moonrise Kingdom (Anderson)
10. Amour (Haneke)

2011

1. The Turin Horse (Tarr)
2. The Tree of Life (Malick)
3. The Kid with a Bike (Dardenne Brothers)
4. A Separation (Farhadi)
5. Drive (Refn)
6. This is Not a Film (Panahi, Mirtahmasb)
7. Le Havre (Kaurismäki)
8. Take Shelter (Nichols)
9. Oslo, August 31st (Trier)
10. The Skin I Live In (Almodóvar)

On Revenge and the Breakers of Spring

Sorry it has taken me so long to respond to your revenge posts, Brandon and Jason.  I've hardly had a an entirely uncluttered moment this past week up until now.  Thankfully, it is now spring breaaak for all the schools around here, so I have a least a whole week off to catch up on posting and all things Film Club.  Let me kick things off with some more revenge thoughts and then some thoughts on Korine's SPRING BREAKERS.

Jason, I really admire your stance on pacificism and your committment to its practice.  We don't really share common ground on the religious imperative for non-violence, but ethically I'm right there with you.  You make many strong points on why non-violence is a courageous choice.  I'm sure there are many STRAW DOGS-esque points one could make about the unfortunate necessity of resorting to violence, and I don't know if I'd necessarily be able to refute them (I definitely do not consider self-defense to be all that inappropriate and certainly not immoral). However, for now, since I am fortunate enough to not be threatened with violence, I choose to remain peaceful and promote it as much as I can through kindness (the soccer field excluded haha- even if I am getting a lot more gentle in regards to sports as I get older).

Brandon, I'm sure being fairly weak and small in stature has influenced my desire never to get into a fight or really to use violence ever.  There's certainly very few people I could do any damage to using pure brute strength alone. But being weak and small can easily be overcome through the use of weapons.  I think that's pretty evident through what you find from school shootings.  The weak, ineffectual kids using massively overpowered guns to take down their tormentors and any random bystanders.  In addition to not wanting to fight anyone, I  have no desire to use a gun or join the army or partake in any other activity that results in the use of excessive force on someone.  There are horrible ways to overcome being undersized, but I am generally repulsed by all of them.

I wasn't trying to make point that all acts of violence are the same.  Just pointing out that I think it's fascinating how easily we all qualify violence.  Two identical acts of violence can be given entirely different social and emotional meanings based solely on how one rationalizes each.  There's nothing inherently wrong in rationally breaking down acts of violence, unless you are doing so hypocritically.  You should give an ethical evaluation to each action you make, violent or non-violent.  I only brought up these points because I'm interested in the way language manipulates reality.  This is one of many cases where two identical corporeal acts can be given divergent meaning through linguistic construction.

I agree with your points on high school comedies.  I basically have grown tired of any revenge narrative where the dice are completely stacked, forcing you to feel exactly what the film wants you to without room for ambivalence or uncertainty.  I recently watched Tony Scott's MAN ON FIRE with a friend.  To me, that's a great example of a revenge film that deploys archetypes to drive a point home instead of creating real people with nuance.  Dakota Fanning is the perfect, innocent little cherub and when we think she's dead, we are supposed to feel that Denzel Washington's brutal revenge streak is entirely justified.  The people who kidnapped her are all monsters deserving slaughter, and Denzel is just a hardened old soldier whose humanity has only awakened by the love of this perfect child.  Everything fits into a tidy box.  It's a rote revenge narrative.  It's also a film that wants to have its cake and eat it too.  At the end, it argues for self-sacrifice instead of righteous revenge (to borrow your turn of phrase) but only after having indulged in 45 minutes of righteous revenge.  It wants it all to the point that it doesn't know what it wants.  A lot of revenge cinema suffers a similar fate.

----------

Shifting gears a bit, I quite liked SPRING BREAKERS.  Though to be entirely fair, I would never refute any of the well-reasoned objections John and Jason have towards it.  It's a trashy movie with very little to say that isn't readily scraped off the surface.  It's purely disposable pop-art.  However, I found much of it fascinating, even as it made me feel uncomfortable and slightly dirty.  Brandon's point about it depicting the rampant nihilism of this modern youth culture is well taken.  These kids do not stand for anything other than bikinis, beer, big booties, dubstep, and being just another scrap in the trash heap.  Korine is undeniably guilty of enjoying his time digging through the trash (a staple of his it would seem).  He revels in it, meanders through it like he can't get enough of it.  But he's also smart enough to balance this indulgence with some much needed melancholia.  As Chris wisely put it to me, there's always an air of "hangover" in this rapturous party of a film.  Even the film's final inverted shot seems to suggest that not everything is idyllic in this fantasy world, but perhaps nightmarish.  This is excess driven to the point of a hollow extreme; the car has gone off the cliff but somehow its still floating in midair.  It's held in abeyance over its own nothingness.

I also appreciated that the film seemed to comment on a specific cultural reality while also seeming completely hyperreal.  There's rapture and rupture here, but also a spirit of (to burrow this word from John) mirth in its depictions of over-the-top characters and milieux.  The colors are excessively bright and glossy, the parties are excessively raucous, the final girls are excessively amoral and sexualized (and apparently invincible), and Alien is excessively adhering to gangster stereotypes (grillz, cornrows, an aspiring rap career, a house full of guns and money with SCARFACE playing 24/7, etc).  There's moments of realism here, but this is very much a fantastical netherworld where Korine has found himself encamped.  I can't blame those who would have rather stayed home.  I found it all withering with decay yet oddly alluring.

Vengeance is Mine

I feel slightly ambivalent about revenge.  I mostly see it as a hollow pursuit–an often physical act of destruction falsely signified as a positive act of fulfillment.  At its core, vengeance doesn't really correspond to a corporeal reality in-and-of-itself.  It's more an idea than a reality.  It's a belief that a spiteful action you are taking is laden with more meaning than it actually possesses.  It's an illusion, really, producing no substance in-itself.  This is why I find OLDBOY so ultimately effective.  It's a film about dueling notions of vengeance with no clear winners and only the hollowness of Pyrrhic victories.  It isn't a revenge fantasy, but a revenge nightmare.

But I also understand that revenge can manifest itself as raw emotional truth for someone.  To the parents from IN THE BEDROOM, I'm not sure the rational voice telling them that killing the man who murdered their son in cold blood and yet walks free is ultimately a shallow act would be much consolation to them.  In fact, it isn't.  They've mulled over the idea of living concurrently with this man and they find it unimaginable.  When the father gets revenge, I can't necessarily say that I blame him or that his action is meaningless.  Their son is still dead and will never come back, but the smiling, careless face of his murderer will also never come back to remind them of what they've lost.  I'm not saying their vengeance is ideal, but that I understand it, and I think the film does too, without glorifying it.  This is also not a revenge fantasy, but depiction of revenge as a unfortunate surrogate for emotional justice.  It is revenge taken painfully but efficiently–there is nothing gleeful about it.

I've mentioned this before, but in purely theoretical terms, I find violence and retribution repugnant.  But if backed into a corner and/or flung face-to-face with the reality of someone I love being hurt, I can't necessarily say I'd be the pacifist I want to be in my heart.  I don't know.  Thankfully, I haven't been put in that situation.  I'm at least enough of a pragmatist to realize that there is nuance to every reality and that vengeance, like everything else, is never purely one thing.  To me, it would be too simple to say it is merely 'wrong.'  Running with this idea, I suppose I like my revenge films to treat vengeance complexly–to engage in a reflexive conversation with their actions instead of driving one point or another home.  This isn't to say this is the only type of revenge cinema I like, but the kind that challenges and speaks to me the most.

There are at least a few distinct types of revenge cinema.  There's the post-DEATH WISH revenge fantasy film where vengeance is taken as a sort of macho, exuberant romp.  There's the purely moral revenge film that tries to remind us that two wrongs don't make a right.  And then there is the ambiguous revenge film–the one that seems to honestly portray the emotional desire for revenge while not shying away from its consequences.  I've found merit and enjoyment in all three types.  Tarantino and Leone have created some of the best seemingly guiltless revenge fantasies.  The old Hollywood system was full of great moral tales on the pitfalls of vengeance.  And it was even full of complex ones where vengeance wasn't just denounced but held up to the light and inspected earnestly (THE BIG HEAT and PURSUED are two great examples that come to mind).  I've enjoyed all types of films dealing with vengeance.  And I don't actually believe that a filmmaker has to take a moral stance against vengeance, or that he/she should feel always compelled to portray it in all its complexity.  I personally think the revenge films that have meant the most to me (or had the greatest impact) are the ones that have made me question my perhaps baser desires instead of granting me an easy release or instant emotional fix.  But this isn't to say I haven't dug plenty of films that are less introspective in their use of violence to solve vendettas (e.g. DOGVILLE).

I can't be sure if our fascination with vengeance on screen directly impacts our promotion of violence in this country (The United States' loving relationship with violence at this point is just a giant clusterfuck).  I will say that it is interesting how easily we qualify violence based on the notion of revenge in this country.  Random violence is seen as always wrong because unmotivated violence makes us feel like we are vulnerable as potential victims to said violence.  But violence that is attached to revenge is seen as appropriate because it puts us in the place of the aggressor and we feel powerful or in control.  We hate the idea of being attacked, but we love the idea of getting payback.  Therefore, violence is acceptable in one instance, deplorable in another.  This sort of relative stance on violence works its way into our film watching.  We hate to see the violence of villains in horror films or torture porn (because we imagine ourselves as the victims), but we cheer for the violence that is done back to them at the end of the movie (because we imagine ourselves as the righteous inflicters of the violence).  It's interesting how differently we treat violence, depending on the motivation we ascribe to it.

One quick final thought:  the film IRREVERSIBLE, whatever you think its merits or lack thereof, is actually quite moral in its stance on vengeance.  I can't exactly say I endorse this film or what it represents, but it's hardly the exploitative, immoral piece of thoughtless art you might all imagine. By opening the film with an act of vengeance, and an obscenely brutal act at that, any potential glory and emotional triumph derived from it is striped bare.  Towards the end of the film, when we see the horrific rape that set off the violence in the beginning of the film, we feel helpless.  There is no emotional payoff for us to look forward too.  All we are left with is the idea that violence destroys and that its carnage is, indeed, irreversible.

Anyway, that's all I got for now.  What are some of the rest of y'alls thoughts?  Thanks for getting the ball rollin', Brando.

My Quiz

1. Best use of Technicolor on film? (Best use of color, period, will work).

I wish I had a list of the best I’ve ever seen to choose from right now.  There’s been so many times when I've been watching an old Technicolor film that I've thought, “Wow.  That’s the most beautiful thing I’ve ever seen.”  Unfortunately, I haven’t been writing them down.  Based off of pure memory and what jumps out the most in my mind, some of the best are:  CANYON PASSAGE, DRUMS ALONG THE MOHAWK, LEAVE HER TO HEAVEN, and (though shot in EastmanColor) LOLA MONTES.

But the best has to be BLACK NARCISSUS.  Otherwordly color images.

2. What’s your favorite film score?  Favorite composer?

Good question, Jeff.  Also, a very difficult one.  I’d be lying if I said the STAR WARS score hasn’t meant a lot to me in my life.  I also think Bernard Herrmann’s score to VERTIGO is a thing of great beauty and ethereal melancholy.  My favorite film score at the moment, however, is Ennio Morricone’s from ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA.  It’s the one of the few purely aesthetic things in this world that might instantly bring me to tears.

Morricone is probably my favorite film composer.  Herrmann and Tiomkin are great too.

3. What’s your favorite film from the year you were born?

Claude Chabrol’s STORY OF WOMEN (1988)

4. Robert Mitchum or Dana Andrews?

Mitchum is one of my favorite actors of all time.  It has to be him.  However, I do really love Dana Andrews, so it isn’t a painless choice to make.

5. (In terms of acting) Frank Sinatra or Bing Crosby?  David Bowie or Tom Waits?

I do love Bing in the Road films with Bob Hope, but I have to go with Sinatra here.  He had the more varied acting career.  His work in something like SOME CAME RUNNING puts him over the edge, in these eyes.  And as much as I love both (as musicians and, oddly enough, in films) I also have to go with Tom Waits.  He’s just one of the coolest dudes to ever live.  DOWN BY LAW!

6. What’s your favorite film with a woman’s name in the title?

NINOTCHKA.

7. Who is your favorite foreign-language film director working today?  Who is your favorite foreign-language film director of all time?
Today: Abbas Kiarostami – with the Dardennes coming in second.  My favorite of all time could be one of these three depending on the day you ask me:  Robert Bresson, Ingmar Bergman, or Yasujiro Ozu.

8. If you could have written any screenplay, what would it be and why?

I would be immeasurably proud of myself If I had written THE BIG SLEEP.  It’s just got some of the wittiest one-liners ever written.

9. Name the character from a film that scared you the most as a child.  Name the film character, if any, that scares you the most now.

As a kid:  I was terrified of Edward Scissorhands (which, I know, made me as myopic and superficial as every suburbanite in the film).  I don’t remember watching the whole movie, but only the part towards the end where he retreats into the darkness of the mansion.  The image of him emerging from the shadows and attacking Anthony Michael Hall gave me plenty of nightmares.

Now:  there isn’t anything now, thankfully, that keeps me up at night like when I was a kid.  I guess if I had to choose, I’d say that I find those characters from THE STRANGERS scary.  Just the idea of masked home invaders who want to kill you for no reason is enough to give me the creeps.

10. What’s the first R Rated film you remember seeing?

Hmmm I can’t really be sure.  I remember seeing TERMINATOR 2 pretty young.  I also remember staying up late to watch Jean-Claude Van Damme in SUDDEN DEATH with my brothers and dad when I was a wee lad.  Let’s go with that one.

11. Name your favorite moment of vengeance in a film.  And which film has portrayed the  complexity of vengeance most accurately to you? (interpret that any way you’d like).

Charles Bronson gunning down Henry Fonda in ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST is probably my favorite moment of vengeance on screen.  Almost the entire narrative of that film builds towards this showdown, and when it happens it’s not drawn out histrionically, but remains as sanguine and efficient as Bronson’s character throughout the film.  It’s revenge exclusively on his terms.

There are a lot of films that I think have dealt with revenge in a complex and ambivalent manner.  Fritz Lang’s FURY is one of the best classic films about revenge.  It gives a highly effective moral argument against the flagrant self-interest of pursuing vengeance.  SHOTGUN STORIES is a great modern example of a film that also argues effectively against vengeance by utilizing the strength of familial bonds and showing the pointlessness of mutually assured destruction.

IN THE BEDROOM is fascinating because it convincingly seems to argue for vengeance.  It seems to suggest, even as it remains ambiguous, that to heal a wound, we must first remove the thorn.

These are all wonderful examples of complex treatments of vengeance, but I think the film that deals with it the most effectively (or at least stands out most prominently in my mind) is actually OLDBOY.  When the central antagonist (so we think) gets his vengeance at the end and then blows his brains out immediately afterward, the hollowness and futility of vengeance is revealed like some great, dawning chasm.  This man has made it his life’s work to get revenge, and when he finally has it, he realizes it has not filled the hole inside of him nor has it brought back to him the loved one he lost.  He is as empty as he ever was.

12. It is okay to depict a positive story out of something as horrific and destructive as the Holocaust  (e.g. SCHINDLER’S LIST).  Agree or disagree with this statement.

I included this question because I keep seeing it pop up in film discussions.  It’s a debate in cinephile circles that’s had basically anytime anyone even mentions SCHINDLER’S LIST.  I honestly don’t feel strongly either way on this issue because I don’t think it’s my place to say what is “right” to show on film.  I think it’s best to answer this question on a case-by-case study.  Look at the film and determine if it has done justice to the event it depicts.  Personally, I have no major problems with SCHINDLER’S LIST and think it’s one of Spielberg’s most effective and harrowing works.  Does that answer the question? Probably not.  Oh well.

13. Which war film, if any, had the greatest emotional impact on you?

THE THIN RED LINE - for juxtaposing the mystical beauty of nature alongside purely nihilistic acts of destruction (which is what war only ever is).

14. Name the five best looking films you’ve ever seen.

DAYS OF HEAVEN
BARRY LYNDON
BLACK NARCISSUS
THE SEARCHERS
THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS

15. Which film title would you use to describe yourself?  Which film title would you use to describe each member of film club?
Myself: THE PALEFACE
John:  JOHNNY GOT HIS GUN
Brandon: DRUNKEN ANGEL
Gentile: A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS
Adrienne:  VIVACIOUS LADY
Graham: WAY OUT WEST
Ben:  GENTLEMAN JIM
Jason: LITTLE BIG MAN
Lisa: GONE, BABY, GONE
Chris:  THE WOLF MAN

16. David Lynch or David Cronenberg?

Lynch.  Cronenberg is a great director, but I find myself gravitating more towards Lynch’s nightmares than Cronenberg’s.

17. Is there a book you would like to see made into a film?  If so, by which director?

Right now I’m reading D.H. Lawrence’s THE RAINBOW.  I keep thinking how amazing it’d be to see Terrence Malick’s version of this on film.

18. What’s the most overrated film of the 90s?

THE USUAL SUSPECTS.

19. You are a guest programmer on Turner Classic Movies.  You get to choose any four movies
to play.  What are they?

WHILE THE CITY SLEEPS
LE PLAISIR
FOOTLIGHT PARADE
PHANTOM LADY

I don’t know why these four exactly.  Why not?

20. It’s ark time.  You are only allowed to save films from one country (excluding the United States).  Which country and why?

It has to come down to France or Japan.  Russia and Italy are both uniquely important to film history, but have no where near the wealth of world-renowned directors like France and Japan.  This is a difficult choice to make, but I’ve got to go with France.  Here’s why:  Vigo, Renoir, Carné, Bresson, Clouzot, Becker, Tati, Melville, Varda, Chabrol, Truffaut, Godard, Rohmer, Akerman, etc.

One could certainly offer a formidable rebuttal to this, however, with:  Ozu, Mizoguchi, Kurosawa, Naruse, Ichikawa, Imamura, Kobayashi, Teshigahara, Miyazaki, etc.

quizmaster

So, Brando's quiz was fun.  I've been asked by him to create the next set of questions.  I'll do my best to make it extra difficult/exclusive with questions like "name your fifth favorite Ray Enright film."  Should be a blast :)

For now, I'll also do my best to respond to some of the quiz answers that caught my eye.  I don't think I could respond to everyone's answer for each.  I'll probably just limit myself to a defense against Brandon's outlandish attacks on me ;).  Just you wait until I make and grade the quiz, buddy boy.

OVERRATED

haha Ben.  You're right.  I thought SHAME was polling at like 92–94% on Rotten Tomatoes.  I just checked it and it's only got a 79%.  Hardly overrated by any stretch of the imagination.   I really thought critics were loving it more than that.  Mea culpa.

I guess I should have picked something like THE ARTIST instead.  Thought that'd be too easy though.  I don't really have a pick that will shame me like Brandon picking A SEPARATION.  I'd have to start lying in order to do so.  I guess I'd agree with Adrienne that AMOUR is overrated.  It's definitely not Haneke's best, yet it has gotten the most acclaim/attention of any of his films.

MIDNIGHT IN PARIS is pretty overrated.  Woody's been making decent, charming films just like it for years and they've been completely ignored.  MELANCHOLIA - also overrated, though I've come to really appreciate it within von Trier's oeuvre.  I can't think of any others right now.

In response to Brandon's A SEPARATION choice - first of all, a bold and brave pick and I commend you for it.  Second of all, I disagree immensely.  In some ways, it is just as complex as LIKE SOMEONE IN LOVE in terms of its ability to suggest the various ways we are disconnected from one another.  It's a lot less ambiguous and intellectually exhausting as Kiarostami's film, but it still has tremendous power as a riveting social drama.  I'm not really a fan of this comment here: "It’s a good movie but part of me wondered what people would think of it if it was just another American indie film."  Again, I commend you for being honest and putting yourself on the chopping block here.  I understand where you are coming from.  You think the film is being overrated because it is foreign and therefore deemed more important than an American film.  I get the frustration.  But at the same time, that's such an arbitrary criticism to make and you know it.  You could literally apply it to every film ever made. Films are not made in a vacuum.  They can be very specific to a culture or historical moment.  A SEPARATION is a film that has universal themes but is tied very tightly to the culture of modern Iran.  Part of its appeal is in how well it depicts the ways people can be separated there.  It wouldn't be nearly the same film if it were set in America and directed by the Duplass bros. haha.

EMBARRASSED - FILM AND TV

Here's two better picks I'm ashamed to still really like - SUPERMAN RETURNS and BATMAN BEGINS.  I love both DC characters - even irrationally.

Brandon, you shouldn't be embarrassed to love AVATAR.  Get off the Internet, go out into the Oakdale mall, throw 50 rocks and hit 50 people who think it's the greatest thing ever made.

DIRECTOR PROBLEMS

I guess I'm much more of an auteurist than you Brandon (thumbs nose at you). If a filmmaker has a voice that I relate to and they are consistently expressing it, then I'm completely on board.  This is not me establishing objective rules of greatness, but merely finding authors I like and putting my trust in them.  I really like INLAND EMPIRE.  You know why?  Because it's pure David Lynch and I personally love David Lynch.  Anyone who hates him or is just mildly interested in him probably won't give a shit about it.  That's fine.

Tim Burton is a great choice for this category.  I completely forgot about him when I was thinking of directors with tons of problems (that's how bad he's fallen recently).  I would agree that he is a great director, but I've been sweating over some of his awful choices for years.  In a similar vein, I'm worried about Johnny Depp too.  A once tremendous performer who now seems more content to play dress-up than actually do any acting.  As I write this, he and Burton have probably just signed on to remake EXCALIBUR.

Terry Gilliam is also a great choice.  I wonder what the hell he's up to nowadays?

FILM ERA

I like the one we are in too.  There are some amazing films still being made.  I would never deny it.

The 50s are the ideal intellectual choice.  By that I mean, they clearly represent a point when world cinema and Hollywood reached a creative peak together.  I still choose the 30s or 40s, if only because I'm a sucker for the Hollywood dream factory.  I just want to crawl inside those films and live there forever.  Watching ROBERTA the other day confirmed that:



CRITICS - FAVORITES

I really like reading Fernando Croce, too.  He's got this highly poetic, somewhat bizarre, but fearless way of writing and describing things - like William S. Burroughs.  I notice a lot of younger writers trying to copy his style on twitter and letterboxd.  The results are fairly hazardous.

DIRECTORS WE ARE WORRIED ABOUT

I thought about putting down Tarantino.  If he hadn't made INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS, I'd be real worried.  But as it stands, I have enough faith in him that his next will be fantastic.  I'm hoping he moves away from the the whole historical-revisionist wet dream thing though.

I'm a little worried about Malick too.  I don't know how I feel about this new workaholic version of him.  Part of me wouldn't mind waiting another 5 to 8 years for his next.  They feel more like events that way.

Brandon, I'm assuming you haven't seen Green's THE SITTER?  No man could watch it and not be worried about its director's well-being/sanity.

One director I'm not at all worried about is Kiarostami.  Goddamn.  He's like the anti-Woody Allen with this world tour he's on right now.  He's actually making great films within a culture instead of just creating brochures (I kid.  I love Woody and have liked most of his world cinema films, but Kiarostami makes him look like Brett Ratner at this point).  I have complete faith in Kiarostami at this point.

ACTOR AND ACTRESS THAT MAKE US WATCH UNINTERESTING FILMS

I know you are fucking with me Brandon, but I'll defend myself anyway.  There honestly isn't a single actor or actress today that I'd see anything with them in it.  I really like Leo Dicaprio, but I had no interest in seeing BODY OF LIES.  That takes him off the list.  I really like Daniel Day-Lewis, but I couldn't even get through the first 20 minutes of NINE.  Also takes him off the list.  I really like Laura Linney and Bill Murray.  You couldn't pay me to sit through HYDE PARK ON THE HUDSON.  That takes them off. And so on.

Ginger Rogers on the other hand?  Would watch anything with her in it.  Have watched several bad movies she was in and would gladly watch several more just to catch a glimpse of her.

(Ok. Actually I'll bite.  I'd sit through a shitty movie with the sound off just so that I could drool over Melanie Laurent as well).

DIRECTOR THAT MAKES US WATCH AN UNINTERESTING PLOT

haha John's right.  Malick's BREAKING DAWN: PART I and II would be the film events of the decade.  They would just be shots of nature and shit while Pattinson and Stewart played with each other's hair.

INTIMIDATING FILM QUESTION:

I'm currently not a fan of L'AVVENTURA.  There I said it.  Haven't seen it since I was 17, but whatevs.

You all HAVE to love UNCLE BOONME.  Anything less is unacceptable.  Duh.

THE MASTER is intimidating.  It's also still a masterpiece.  We should revisit that one.

UNHERALDED DIRECTORS

F to Brandon for not being specific with this question.  Did you mean unheralded by the Slant crowd or unheralded by the Devin Faraci's of the world?  Either way, I still don't have an answer, so I'm keeping my F.

UPCOMING LISTS

Top 20 Westerns?  Let's do it!