f for fake truly is an oddity. prior to seeing the film i had often wondered what it actually was. given what i knew about orson welles, and the way his work was heading towards the mid 70's i was expecting a video essay of sorts, something along the lines of jean-luc godard's ''l'histoires du cinema" (1989), and while i wasnt exactly correct in my assumptions, i wasnt exactly wrong either. welles' himself, both in the press for the film and the picture itself, proclaims f for fake to be "a new kind of movie".
the "film" tells the story of elmyr de hory, the famous hungarian art forger, and uses de hory's story as a means to explore the idea of the truth. in doing so the film explores the myth of howard hughes, the author clifford irving (whose questionable autobiographies connect both de hory and hughes) and welles himself, when the famous 'war of the worlds' period is examined.
f for fake is considered to be welles final complete film, despite being released 11 years before his death. the film was recieved terribly in the united states, perhaps due to the ambiguous nature of the film when looked at from the outside, but great appreciation was recieved from europe, which by this point had become welles' spiritual home artistically.
viewed initially as a look at avante-garde and unique editing (an area of exploration for myself at the moment) i found the film to be a great success. thirty years on it may not be as unique as the day it was originally released, but it remains a charming and interesting film, and one that stays in the mind long after the credits have rolled (a cliche exclamation no doubt, but for a film as unique as f for fake i have no qualms in using it).
the follow up to casino royale, a film reviewed below and enjoyed immensely by this viewer, is perhaps best viewed with its predecesor fresh in the mind. as i had only seen casino royale for the first time two days prior to seeing this i appeared to enjoy it much more than the person i attended the screening with, who hadnt seen casino royale since its theatrical release two years ago. the story follows on literally one hour after the previous film ended. herein lies the first major difference between previous bond sequels, as its the first genuine- continuity driven sequel in the series. the concept works a charm, with quantum of solace feeling more like casino royale part 2 than a stand alone film. while many people have been quite vocal about this not being the direction that they personally would like to see the bond films going in, i have to disagree entirely. alongside the benefit of adding real emotion to the bond films, this new wave of bond flicks has added depth (although emotion and depth are largely the same thing, especially in this context). that is to say that i genuinely care about seeing the next film in the series, in fact i would hasten to add that im actually looking forward to seeing it, which is a first for me, as prior to this recent experiment in bond viewing i had little experience with the series. its worth pointing out that while i have enjoyed my brief flirtation with bond i still consider them to be very much throw away entertainment, and cant see myself ever taking them too seriously or being a real fan.
"why is it that chinese girls taste so different?" asks sean connery as bond, james bond in his opening line. a line that tells of the tone of the film perhaps like no other. first things first. as a boy i did not like james bond. i couldnt sit through a whole one and its only in the last couple of weeks that iv finally gotten around to exploring them properly. despite this lack of interest in the series there was strangely always one film that i enjoyed, with that film being "you only live twice". im not sure exaclty why i enjoyed it, im presuming it was the location of japan and the cool little helicopter that bond flies, coupled with the architypal bond villain HQ in the shape of blofeld's volcano inner-sanctum. since watching the film as a wide eyed ten year old and a cynical twenty five year old i appear to have outgrown it greatly. what once i wouldnt even have noticed i know find incredibly offensive, especially the bit where bond is made up to look asian. its just bizarre that it worked even then, the concept of a 6foot-plus scotchman wandering around japan trying to fit in.
the film that not only breathed life into a dead franchise, but actually made the franchise in question much more interesting, martin campbell's ''casino royale'' (not to be confused with the david niven film of the 1960's, although admittedly that would be fairly unlikely) may draw many lazy comparisons to the bourne films, but i feel that its much closer in tone to the french connection (1971). gritty reinvention is nothing new, but with the bond franchise it actually opened up one of the largely ignored aspects of the original source novels, at the same time as serving a major plot purpose - the concept of a wet behind the ears bond, that would sooner kill than slow down and react ''properly'' to a scenario is one that not only makes perfect sense structure-wise but also conceptually applies to a large number of the intended audience. the emotional engine that the previous films lacked is front and centre in casino royale, gone are the over the top gadgets and the carry-on style humour, a necessary sacrifice in this post-austin powers universe. put simply the bond series couldnt carry on as it had been doing prior to royale, the concept had dated so badly, and had been pastiched to death. it is the aforementioned emotion that is the narrative string that i look forward to following through this new generation of bond films.
it has been said that rian johnson's ''the brothers bloom'' his follow up to 2006's ''outstanding debut ''brick'' represents a genre that is largely ignored in this day and age, in the shape of the con-artist expose, and i would largely be inclined to agree, although i would possibly argue that this film is more reminiscent of the sort of deceit seen in a more emotional form in a film like wes anderson's ''the life aquatic'' (2005) than in something like ''the sting'' (1973). of course the plot conceit is that of one of the literal sort of cons and the accompanying storytelling, but a big part of me left the film under the impression that the central line of the con was intended more as an emotional or pure target, explored blatantly throughout in the relationship of the central characters (the brothers bloom of the title).
visually the film was pitch perfect. it comes across as a more developed and cinematic version of that of wes anderson, and very similiar to that of hal ashby. the use of slow motion was surprisingly refreshing, an age old technique that felt modern and interesting.
the whole way through the film the truth was kept one step ahead of the audience, quite a feat considering the savvy of modern viewers. this structure meant for a tense journey throughout the film, as we didnt know what to believe at any one point. the ending of the picture was genuinely moving, again reminiscent of the work of wes anderson. its worth pointing out that the comparisons to anderson are in no way derogatory, nor do i want them to be considered lazy. as a huge admirer of anderson i have long found it difficult to enjoy the slew of post-anderson pseudo-quirky american dramadies, films such as the dreaded napoleon dynamite or little miss sunshine, so for me to actively enjoy the brothers bloom is something of a major seal of approval.
adrian brody, an actor whom i consider to be one of the most consistent performers working in cinema today is a true delight as the eponymous bloom, with mark ruffalo lending credible support. rachel weisz is outstanding as the ditzy millionairess, a genuine revelation and im surprised there hasnt been more awards talk. production wise the film is a strong evolution for johnson, apparently hes turning his hand to a studio-backed science fiction film next, which will be an interesting experiment if nothing. johnson was on hand for a question and answer section afterwards and proved to be a genuinely nice guy. he sheltered from the rain outside of the cinema just several feet away from myself afterwards too, my girlfriend wanting to pester the poor guy into explaining why tom cruise was thanked in the closing credits.
im not sure when the film is actually out in the uk, its probably sometime in the new year.
and now for a few days away. the missus and i attempt a brief getaway during half term (the better half is a teacher), and this year it just so happens that the london film festival is showing"brick" director ryan johnson's follow up "the brothers bloom" while were about so were heading to that. a full appraisel shall appear here as soon as possible, but needless to say im incredibly excited about seeing it. after the success of "brick" i trust johnson greatly, and his most recent efforts look just the right side of wes anderson.
mark millar and myself have never quite gelled. a comic book loving friend of mine has encouraged a deep hate of the guys work and it appears to have stuck, so wanted passed me by on its original theatrical release this year. as it was a dirt cheap price on pre-order and and im a sucker for a summer blockbuster on a cold winter night i decided to pick this one up last week. as the actual concept of the comic book (loser finds out his father was a magneto/dr octopus/green goblin style super villain and he is his expected heir) i was kind of disheartened to discover that the film deviates from the original plot quite significantly, despite the story being appoved of by millar himself. add to this the macguffin that holds the whole film together is known as the loom of fate (it does exactly as it says on the tin) and i figured i would i'd pretty much hate the whole thing. alas i was surprised to fid that i really enjoyed wanted. mcavoy was an apt leading man, jolie performed as expected/required and morgan freeman added the usual gravitas to the elder role, with surprise of the day coming in the form of director timur bekmambetov's fellow night watch-alumni konstantin khabensky as the rat utilising bomb expert.
stylistically i felt as tho bekmambetov held back slightly. the film wasnt as over the top as night watch, tho thats not to say that wanted isnt bonkers as all hell, its just not as visually innovative as bekmambetov's previous work.
the second in my bond season of sorts, goldeneye, was the one that was most anticipated by myself. like most of the series i hadnt seen the film prior to this screening, aside from the occasional section here and there, but was aware of the tone of the film.
the pre-title sequence was perfect. in fact i wouldnt hesitate to presume that there isnt an opening sequence quite as good. at some point in the future i'll explore the concept of the pre-title sequence, alas it is practically eleven thirty and i have another review to write tonight!
sean bean as borderline-generic bond villain number 314 is a charm too, easily the most effective of the villains iv seen so far, and the strongest element of the film. the concept of a rogue double-O agent is presumably the injection of originality that the series needed, although my relative lack of knowledge of bond etc means that i cant be sure of this. as a concept alone tho, it is fairly post-modern, and definately telling of the time it was produced. theres a part of me that cant help but feel that this film was actually a much more successful attempt at relaunching the bond series than casino royale was. the tone and charm of the series was retained, without neglecting the areas that casino royale arguably did. casino royale was a much more successful film and an all-round better picture, but as a james bond film, goldeneye was the greater success.
with the release of ''quantum of solace'' now just under a week away the decision has been made to trawl through a bit of mr. bond's back catalogue. aside from the obligatory bank holiday semi-viewings with my father i have little history with 007. despite the fact that the decision to pick up all of the films in the last round of the annual "buy bond - get bond free" offer was made, i only managed two films (''moonraker'' and ''you only live twice''), after realising half way through the second film watched ("you only live twice") that bond films really werent my thing, the dated views on certain topics being the main culprit to our lack of connection. anyway, since then i have seen casino royale, enjoyed casino royale and as a result of casino royale decided to give him another chance.
first up is goldfinger, one of the archetypal bond flicks. aside from the disturbing use of women as shields, and occasional punchbags, i managed to get through goldfinger and enjoy it very much. the ending was fairly anti-climactic and i don think i will ever really get on with sean connery, but nonetheless it was a rather painless experience. and the theme has remained in my head ever since.
having seen night watch upon its theatrical release back in 2004 i knew exactly what to expect, and that was to expect to not understand what was really going on. what was originally found the film to be confusing beyond belief (and this is coming from a fan of guy maddin) and unenjoyable for the that reason, was enjoyed much more the second time and 4 years later.
while the story is at least comprehensible second time around, the story still plays second fiddle to the visuals. the film looks great, albeit in a slightly overwhelming manner on occasion. it suffers from the problem of looking a bit too much like a music video at times, perhaps this is a product of the influence of american popular culture after the wall fell.
i picked up 'night watch' as part of a double pack containing 2006's sequel 'day watch', a film i ignored upon release.
perhaps the greatest silent film of all time, sunrise - a song of two humans is a product of two very different minds. creatively, the film was masterfully conceived by german filmmaker friedrich wilhelm murnau (f.w.murnau for short), who was lured to america with the promise of a blank cheque by william fox. together they crafted what would go on to be described by influential film periodical cahiers du cinema as "the single greatest masterwork in the history of the cinema".
the film opens with the premise of - "this song of the man and his wife is of no place and every place; you might hear it anywhere at any time" a fact that rings true in many ways. despite the fact that the film is over 80 years old, it proves, much in the same way that a text by shakespeare might, that love is a universal and recurring truth. the pain of remorse and longing is felt in an incredibly jarring and naked manner. the emotion is laid bear and genuinely effects, which when you consider that the tools at hand to murnau didnt actually include conversation, arguably the most emotive form of communication, then the execution is all the more impressive.
the film follows the story of a man and his wife, peasents on a farm in a town over-run by tourists during the summer, who's relationship is thrown into turmoil upon the arrival of a young city girl. the man embarks on an affair with the girl, a bold action and major taboo to be explored on screen in the nineteen twenties, when, blinded by love and pursuaded to do so by the girl, the man plots to killl his wife. in the midst of attempting to commit the act of murder the man realises he cant go through with it and his wife escapes to a neary city. the rest of the film follows their journey through the alienating and culturally polar city, where they encounter a fun fair, a barber shop and fruitful traffic.
the city girl is a very early protege of the archetypal femme fatale. the fact that she uses the concept of her sexuality (prevalent heavily in almost all of her scenes through the choice of clothing the character wears) to lure and manipulate the man, again in an extremely bold manner for the time of the films production. the effects of the affair caused by the city girl are seen throughout the film, the emotional effects are not forgotten and lend to a fairly complex psyche for the lead characters, something seen most prominently in the scene in the barbers where both the man and his wife are overcome with serious cases of jealousy when each interact with the opposite sex.
while the film deals with some pretty heavy subjects it still lends itself a sense of humour. one scene in particular brought a smile to this viewers face like no other in recent memory. a piglit escapes from one of the fairground attractions, causing all manner of havok, before our protagonist can lend himself to the story and step out of the scenario as the true hero. as neanderthal as it may be, few sites can make a grown man laugh as much as that of a small pig drinking red wine and subsequently tumbling over.
the magnificent ambersons, orson welles' follow-up to citizen kane (1941) came just a year after its predessor. with kane failing to light up the world of film, welles was left with a comparitive failure, and as such lost most of the creative control that he was given upon his arrival to hollywood. as legend tells it, as with most of his post-kane work welles lost the right to final cut of the film, with rko themselves taking over the final film and delivering to audiences a far different picture from the one intended. its a considerable injustice, as the magnificent ambersons starts out so well. the opening narration (read by welles himself) leads the viewer to believe that we are on the verge of a story as wide scoped and epic, as magnificent if you will, as the title itself suggests. instead we are left with an often charming, yet fairly flat cinematic experience. hollywood-lore suggests that somewhere exists a directors cut of the film, that will one day emerge from the shadows, as if to save us all, although a more realistic theory is that the original negatives of the removed footage were destroyed to clear space in the vaults of the fledgling studio. although in 2002 a version was made for tv that was shot to the specs of the welles script and released in the edit that welles aimed for.
the character of george minafer is one of the cinema's great bastards. hes manipulative and sly and possibly responsible for the old adage that the children of rich folk are spoilt brats. it would have been great to see welles tackle this role himself, its not clear exactly why he didnt, but to see welles take on such a role would have been a real treat. there are echoes of macbeth in the character, yet minus the heroics.
the casting of agnes moorehead in the role of aunt fanny is just about the worst this viewer has ever seen. all scenes utilising her skills bring the film down to a level of amateur dramatics or soap opera. this is among the worst example of the theatrical stylings of 1940's over-acting. thank god for the method.
in the first 25 minutes or so mel gibson utters something along the lines of the following -
"call it what you like, it still smells like shit to me..."
that about sums up my feelings towards mad max - beyond thunderdome. which is a shame really, as i actually kinda enjoyed the first two (which i watched yesterday and will henceforth file under "guilty pleasures").
universal obscenity laws dictate that, and i quote "copious amounts of richard gere are not good for nothin'.", yet tonight i found myself at a first, a new experience if you will - i actually enjoyed a richard gere film. a lot. not that its going to send me on the usual spiral of devouring everything i can find by a particular actor/filmmaker/distribution label (thats happened before) that usually happens, pretty woman dictates that i stop while im ahead.
"days of heaven" is elusive american filmmaker terrence malick's follow up to 1973's "badlands", and was to be his final film for almost 20 years. the exact reason for such a hiatus has never really been explained, with rumours of madness countered by stories of a man who wanted to raise his kids, but either way it makes for an interesting and unique filmmaker. throughout the film we trace the story of blue collar worker ant, bill (gere), as he flees chicago after the murder of his boss. in hand he takes his little sister (linda manz, with one of the most unique voices iv ever heard come out of a child) and girlfriend abby (brooke adams), and they head to work seasonal routine at a farm (presumably texas). to avoid gossip abby and bill maintain the guise that they are siblings, not lovers. under this impression, the farmer (known simply as "the farmer") played with amazingly judged skill by playwrite sam shephard, falls for abby.
the film was largely shot during "the witching hour", a period of time that malick deemed perfect for the look of the film. the photography of the film is the highlight of the piece, where the term beautiful doesnt even begin to do justice to what we see on screen. this combines with the ennio morricone score, leaving us as if we are privy to a feeling of eternal storytelling, a fairytale almost, a battle between good and evil. this is enforced further by the biblical nature of the climactic confrontation between the two men, with swarms of locust laying their own personal attract on a different aspect of the farmer's personality.
the final scenes of the film evokes memories of godard's "a bout de souffle" (1959), a film which gere would later go on to lead the remake of (and thus providing me with enough ammunition to explain my disdain of the guy). the concept of a man running away from responsibility, accompanied by a lover that no longer loves them is reminiscent of the great tragedies, and the concept of a pointless conflict (what is the reason for the farmers death if it maintains that abby still no longer loves bill) resonates with the viewer far more than a traditional "happy" ending can do. the concept of a waterside shootout also reminds of malick's own badlands, with the establsihing scene to both scenes being practically the same (hunter sees prey from afar etc).
sam shaw is foremost known as a playwrite and artist, but it is for his roles in "days of heaven" and "the assassination of jesse james by the coward robert ford" (2007) that i know him best. despite the fact that little is known about the character of the farmer (as mentioned before, he doesnt even tell us his name) he is the character that i felt most empathy towards. here is a man who is faced with the grim reality that his bride holds very little regard for him, and where the typical response would be for the character to fire off in the face of such a scenario, he plays it slowly and in a paced manner, lending the film its emotional and literal structure. this compared in the mind to daniel day lewis's performance in "there will be blood" (2007) albeit in a polar opposite frame of mind. in both films the judgement of the pace follows the pattern of a character, with the characters of the farmer and daniel plainview respectfully delivering.
as a final point, for some reason this viewer was reminded by richard gere's bill of griffith's "musketeers of pig alley', which will hopefully be embeded below this post.
as an exercise of my dedication i have decided to produce a running list, in order of quality, of every film i ever see. a similiar endeaveur was started over at empireonline but after 2 months i was waylaid by one hundred things or another. so yes, i am declaring that tonight i will be starting again. the only rule is that films must be watched from today onwards. i cant put a film on the list that i have seen in the past, unless i watch it again.
The Cineastes are a not-quite-so elite internationalcoalition of the cinematically inclined whom convene once a month.
Together they hope to assist in the spread of film enthusiasm like a disease, debilitating the already infected and attacking the healthy with relentless vigor.
Possessing of what Ernest Hemingway referred to as ‘aficion’, The Cineastes are concerned with the general analysis of features both new & old, studio-made & independent, local & foreign, as well as comprehensive film criticism instigating and encouraging discussion on the roots of cinema history.
as an exercise in my dedication i have decided to produce a running list, in order of quality, of every film i ever see. the only rule in this endeavour is that the film in question must be watched specifically to earn its place on the list, i can not put a film on that i have only seen in the past, unless i watch it again of course.
this blog celebrates film. i am a 26 year old cinephile from the UK, and i use this online journal to keep track of my viewing habits. i hope that you find it interesting, and please let me know your thoughts.
