im moving.

due to the ridiculous new changes to blogger.com i have decided to move over to wordpress. im in the process of moving the hopelies.com URL over their, which should take a few days to activate, so in the meantime i can be found at 

http://hopeliesat24framespersecond.wordpress.com/

it will no doubt take me a few days to get used to all the tools and whatnot, as the amount of features are overwhelming to say the least, but i have already backed up my archive there, and should have some new material up this afternoon. sorry for any inconvenience, but the changes to blogger are downright unbearable. 

Blue Collar (1978)

Paul Schrader's directorial debut, Blue Collar is a fairly typical spin on his own unique brand of morality tale and catholic tangent, that follows the dire straits of a group of Detroit auto-workers and their plot to embezzle money from the union that has failed them. The film is effectively an ensemble piece, and that how its billed, yet their is very much a "star-turn" in the shape of the performance of Richard Prior. 

An incredibly successful comedian, Richard Prior's turn as Zeke Brown is surprisingly rich and layered, and nothing short of amazing for what most would consider to be his "serious" debut. Its the perfect combination of drama and comedy, and actually fairly moving. The nature of his relationship with Harvey Keitel and Yaphet Kotto (as Jerry Bartowski and Smokey James respectively) is all the more impressive having heard since seeing the film that the core cast didnt actually get along in real-life). Between the three of them, and their slightly differing opinions on "the plight of the working man", you really feel for their cause. There's a satisfying amount of coverage, in terms of how the different stories are told, and though they are similar in nature, each man's tale is surprisingly different within the context of the overall story. It's incredibly subtle yet very effective. The characterisation proved especially powerful when the death of one of the characters was approached, lending itself a surprising amount of humility.  

The film is beautifully shot too, with the gritty locales (all filmed on location in Detroit) somehow managing to look as handsome as the wordplay is surreally poetic. It reminded of the early scenes set on the oil fields of Bob Rafelson's Five Easy Pieces, impressing upon the viewer the notion that even the most imposing of situations can look impressive given the right aesthetic decisions. 

I was very impressed with Blue Collar, despite having very little expectation. 

observe and report (2009)

observe and report, the second feature from apparently "hip" young thing jody hill, came with high praise indeed. i went to see it purely out of the comparisons to the work of paul shrader, but found nothing of any worth in the picture. it was boring, it said nothing and the comedy was appallingly judged. the really annoying thing was that if the film had been played completely straight, with a competent dramatic lead actor and without stupid wannabe-quirky asides (the sketch show-comedy drunk mother, asian twins and "gangsta" side kick especially) i think it would have been a successful attempt at a shrader-esque character study. the line towards the end spoken by the cop hiding in the cupboard along the lines of " i thought this was going to be funny, but its just sad" actually came very close to moving me, which is an incredible feat considering just how much i disliked the proceeding 90 minutes, and an indication of the direction the film could have taken. 

several online critics, well i say critics but im referring to the sort of folk that haunt aint it cool news and chud claim that observe and report is the sort of film that comes along every couple of years that slips through the radar of many, yet influences cinema in a deep manner (see fight club). this film wont be remembered, it wont have an effect on anything, it isnt clever in any way, its just a bad film. for the record, i didnt go expecting a judd apatow style comedy, i went because i heard it was a fairly removed piece of work, which was darker in tone and far more dramatic. had it been compared to apatow i wouldnt have gone near it, i hate that particular style of "comedy", and while i generally dislike seth rogen (although found him to be rather affable in monsters vs aliens), i gave everyone involved the benefit of the doubt upon hearing claims that it was the spiritual follow up to the likes of the king of comedy and even taxi driver! clearly i was wrong to do so. 

Muriel [ou Le temps d'un retour] (1963)

Having always intended to, but never actually doing so, it was my new years resolution of sorts to take an in-depth look at the work of Alain Resnais. Having taken a brief look at what most consider to be his masterpiece just last month (Hiroshima Mon Amour - here), it was with this new release from Eureka subsidy The Masters of Cinema label that I had a chance to have a look at one of his lesser known pieces. While Muriel, ou le temps d'un retour never fully reaches the levels of quality that its predecessors do, its still a very powerful look at a different side of a genuine auteur.

The film opens with an incredibly fast section of rapid cuts, accompanied by a strange soundtrack, provided by Georges Delarue, perhaps as much a part of the Nouvelle Vague as any filmmaker. This rapid editing proves incredibly cinematic, and as an encapsulated piece of film perhaps works better than anything seen in Hiroshima Mon Amour, at least stylistically, alas its just a shame that this level of visual level of interest isn't maintained throughout. Muriel reminds heavily of Michelangelo Antonioni's Red Desert.

What is immediately apparent with Muriel is the manner with which Resnais approaches time and memory. Whilst he doesn't respect time in the traditional manner, the way in which he does so could be said to be an appropriate one considering the direction the story takes. Whilst its a story deeply concerned with the prospect of time, it doesn't approach it in the usual or expected manner, that is to say that many a film dealing with this sort of subject would usually do so in the manner of using flashbacks. Instead we get a 'jumping' time scale, that flitters across time in a seemingly random manner, with no set rules outlining the length of time between scenes, or the length of a scene. Its rather confusing, or at least confused in the respect that its projecting the key themes of the story onto the screen. Its largely effective, but I would imagine the effect would work much better upon second viewing. To enforce the concept of the importance of time, clocks are seen in pretty much every scene. To add to this, whenever a clock isn't obviously nearby, a character is likely to ask another one if they know what time it is. The use of repitition is apparent on other occasions too, most notably in the way in which Helene is seemingly constantly asking to borrow money. Another example would be the way in which each of the characters declares their intentions to leave the contextual environment of the relevant conversation.

One of the other themes is that of deceit. From the outset, due to the privy, objective view that we are given to each of the characters we know that at least several untruths are being appropriated. Characters are contradictory throughout, lying on several different levels. At the same time the film remains purposefully ambiguous and confusing, but in an assured enough manner to remain authoritative as apposed to ridiculous.

This all ties into the core concept of memory in a powerful way, with it perhaps reaching a pique with Bernard's film about Muriel, revealing her true identity (that has been the subject of numerous untruths itself). The use of voice over, combined with archive footage reminded heavily of the opening sequence of Hiroshima Mon Amour, with the later burning of the slide being a fairly blatant comment on the role of memory with Muriel, ou le temps d'un retour.

The Cineastes - "a brave new endeavour...."

Earlier this month I formed a coalition of sorts with a couple of other blogs. Our intention is outlined by the following manifesto -

The Cineastes are a not-quite-so elite international coalition 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.

Effectively what this means for hopelies.com is that I will be taking part in a monthly communal screening and analysis of a particular film, with each of the writers taking turns to select a film. The first film on the list is Kenji Mizoguchi's Ugetsu Monogatari (1953), as selected by Mathias over at Framed. My compadre's within this endeavour are listed below.

Adam at Hope Lies at 24 frames per second…

Adam Cook at The Bronze

Amber at Nouvelle Vague Cinematheque

Crap Monster at YGG’noise

Doc Oz at Cine-diagnosis

Edouard Hill at Allan Gray’s Imagination

Jake at Filmbound

Joshua D. at Cinephile Cafe

Josh Wiebe at Octopus Cinema

Matthias Galvin at Framed

T at t.252.am

Tom Day at Serious About Cinema

Witkacy at Inertial Frame

Blood Work (2002)

What follows is the first in a series of occasional in-depth essays-

"An accident is fate. Murder is evil."

While it is universally accepted that Clint Eastwood dismantled the Western genre with 1992's Unforgiven, the way in we he has gradually deconstructed his other trademark genre, the Cop/Detective crime-drama has largely gone unnoticed. In a way it is this slow burning and complex method examination that is the far more interesting of the two practices, with the sheer scale of this subtle approach, that one could claim began in 1977 with The Gauntlet, being nothing short of a spectacular artistic achievement.

Gran Torino (2008) provided what should be seen as the immediate and appropriate conclusion to the deconstruction of the post-Dirty Harry detective drama within the context of Clint Eastwood's career. Based upon the fact that Unforgiven marked the final time (thus far) that Eastwood would step into the saddle I think its safe to assume that Gran Torino will provide a similar "full stop" to his use of the Detective vehicle. Although the recent renouncement of claims towards his retirement from acting have been proven false might suggest that Eastwood isn't ready to give up the mantle just yet. And while Gran Torino isn't technically a Detective film it does explore the notion of justice in a post-modern fashion when placed next to the right wing poster boy that is Harry Callahan.

So, between "The Gauntlet" and "Gran Torino" how exactly did Eastwood explore the genre and shape it into what it eventually became? The premise for the overall shift looks fairly simple in retrospect, be it in the simple addition of an untold element towards a familiar genre (the cartoony, borderline slapstick over-the-top nature of The Gauntlet) or the opening of new avenues with regards to telling the story (the "other side of the story" angle of Mystic River(2003); telling the story from the point of view of the victims community as opposed to that of a criminal investigation), but its the combination of these elements that gradually adds up to create a very successful character arc, with the arc label being attached to the genre as opposed to a single character. It's incredibly post-modern and very unique for a body of work created over a 40 year period in commercial American cinema. This attitude towards genre and the notion of working within genre is further displayed within the non-Western and non-crime work with Eastwood's oeuvre. Generally speaking Eastwood usually takes a genre and turns it on its head when working within it, take for example Million Dollar Baby and its take on the sports dram, the way in which he tells a love story in Breezy, or the fashion in which the intricacies and importance of exploring both sides of conflict are examined within the Iwo Jima films. He very rarely takes the easiest route, and contrary to popular belief strong women are rife within his work (see Million Dollar Baby, Unforgiven, Changeling).

Blood Work, Eastwood's first Post-9/11 effort marks his return to the crime genre with yet another spin on the conventions of the genre; his character Terry McCaleb is cursed with a bad heart, yet the drive in him dictates that he cannot give up on a case. Its very much a comment on the theoretical latter years of the Dirty Harry-archetype, and on paper sounds conceptually fascinating. While Blood Work doesn't necessarily suffer from any unforgivably (pun intended) poor elements, there are a few that let it down, predominantly in some of the performances, of which I shall get to later.

From the outside (be it promotional material or the like) Blood Work appears to be a fairly generic piece of work, but the opening sequence, which comes across as the bastard lovechild of Se7en (1994) and Narc (2002), by way of Eastwood's trademark style, dispels any notions of mediocrity. It wouldnt be an overestimation to say that the opening sequence to Blood Work is amongst the finest stand alone scenes that Eastwood has created. The introduction to not only our protagonist, but his professional ability, his professional reputation and his personal health issues are all forborne in this brief five minute scene, without ever feeling overtly patronising or pandering. Technically the scene is rather magnificent too, with a series of tracking shots interlocking to display to the audience the scale of the crime scene. At one point a neon-light-Latin-cross is seen way in the distance, and is the only means of diagetic lighting in the shot, foreboding the rather surprisingly downplayed issue of Resurrection in what is theoretically a biblical tale (a theme addressed across much of Eastwood's work, be it the notion of sacrifice in Gran Torino or mortality in Million Dollar Baby). The use of blood as both a narrative tool and a visual aid harks back to this religious thesis, although the overall effect of such metaphorical ideas are largely ignored. The tracking shot is notable for its use of lens flare, an effect that usually jars with this viewer, but for once worked incredibly successfully. As McCaleb is a celebrity of sorts, and therefore the subject of the media's attention, the light from the flashes of the paparazzi cameras is used to light the scene, creating an ensemble of lens flare that serves to accompany the scene and move it forward, rather than simply being aesthetically pleasing. It's a refreshingly mature use of lens flare, the likes of which a filmmaker like Michael Bay could only dream of.

Alas, whilst the opening scene is stunning in its execution I couldnt help but feel it set a bit of an unwelcome precedent for the remainder of the picture, in that the implausability of that particular situation opened the floodgates with regards to what followed. Call me a pedant, but i fail to understand why, or indeed how the initial chase could or would have come to being in any reasonably realistic situation. Eastwood's McCaleb is a man of a considerable age, surrounded by many a police officer (the majority younger and presumably fitter) at a major crimescene. When he gave chase why did the others not follow suit? The obvious answer would be that Eastwood wanted to display a particular trait within McCaleb's personality, he wanted to show his determination; the very same determination that would come to push him further and further into the case of Gloria Torres, but for me that just didnt fit into the quasi-realistic world that Eastwood grounds Blood Work in. Upon further examination I think that there is actually a reasonable and clever explanation for this situation, with it building upon the post-modern ideology; When taken into account alongside the scene that follows, the chase scene seems perfectly appropriate, if one takes the stance that the real, post-modern examination begins at the moment "2 years later" pops up on the screen. Eastwood deliberately sets the scene at the start of the film to feel like one of the stereotypical detective flicks of old, before bringing the audience crashing back to reality with the effects of the previous scenario; the heart transplant.

Gender is something that is almost always attached with Clint Eastwood. He is considered to be a figure of macho cinema, an icon of action movies and all round tough guy, so the way in which the portrayal of the role of women has evolved throughout work is a genuine revelation. If you look back to the likes of Bronco Billy (1980), and the way in which Sandra Locke's Antoinette Lily was physically manhandled, or to The Gauntlet where Sandra Locke's Gus Mally was physically manhandled and compare it to the way in which Anjelica Huston's Bonnie Fox speaks to Eastwood's McCaleb, you will see that the difference is incredibly drastic, and a sign of the way in which his filmmaking and even attitude has matured. This line has developed further, with incredibly strong female characters within two of Eastwood's most recent film's Changeling and Million Dollar Baby, a film which, incidently, dealt with the concept of the role of women head on. Blood Work contains several strong female characters, in the shape of Tina Lifford's Detective Jaye Winston and Wanda De Jesus as Graciella Rivers, the woman who employs McCaleb to investigate the death of her sister (and subsequently his doner). The interplay between McCaleb and Detective Winston is especially interesting, especially when the events of the third Dirty Harry film The Enforcer are taken into account, which sees a disgruntled Callahan teamed up with a female officer, much to his objection. The tackling of such subjects backs up the notion that Eastwood is a filmmaker that has maintained an ability to develop overtime, and call me sentimental, but a part of me would like to believe that Eastwood is actually answering for the mistakes of his past by approaching them within his work.

Perhaps its ironic then, that for a film so concerned with character and issues of personality, be it through the approach to gender that was outlined above, or in the traditional manner which many will associate with the work of Clint Eastwood, that the films biggest failings lie with several of the performances. Both Paul Rodriguez and Wanda De Jesus turn in embaressingly poor performances, that falter on more than one level. Not only are they both incredibly one dimensional, but theyre cliche ridden accents are borderline offensive. Rodriguez especially hams up the role, which would have worked much better if played subtler. De Jesus's soap-opera level of performance is uninspiring and bland by its very nature, made all the more confusing by a performance that doesnt seem to match that of the way the character was written. Jeff Daniels, an actor best known for his comedy work, shows up as the 'villain of the week' with all the subtlety of a Columbo-reveal, that pales in comparrison to some of the more memorable villains seen in Eastwood pictures (Little Bill Daggett being the obvious benchmark). Its a shame really, considering that the film holds up rather well at being everything it isn't supposed to be when you ignore these aspects, alas such ignorance is hardly likely considering the prominent position at least two of those three characters take within the picture.

All is not lost when it comes to the performances; Eastwood turns in a strong showing, in a muted take on the Dirty Harry persona, with Anjelica Huston projecting everything that the more negative support perfomers lack, in her brief but memorable role. Tina Lifford is great as the female character spoken of above. As the picture is very much "A Clint Eastwood Film", the reliance on supporting performances isn't as pivotal as a more ensemble-based feature such as Letters from Iwo Jima or Changeling (a film which, for my money at least, the strongest ensemble cast of this decade), so the film can afford to forgive a few of the lesser acts.

In terms of visuals Clint Eastwood has always been tagged with the "workmanlike-nature" label, and while im hardly going to argue that he isn't, its worth pointing out that Blood Work contains one of the most experimental pieces of visual cinema that Eastwood has ever commited to celluloid. The sequence occurs in the shape of a nightmare being experience by Eastwood's Terry McCaleb, and is shot in the style of a heat seeking camera. While the scene may not strike as being especially experimental when compared to the like of Godard or Makavejev, contextually and within the hollywood thriller genre it is quite the revelation, and totally unexpected. Eastwood has attempted to experiment on occasion in the past, with the overtly dark hues of Bird and the supernatural elements of High Plains Drifter provoking a more daring editing sensibility than the type usually associated with his work.

Politically Eastwood and I are at complete odds, and its with the politics of Blood Work that I jar the most. The offending incident is only a brief scene but it involves Eastwood teaching a small boy about how to respect a firearm. Not only do i disagree with the scene on a personal level, but i find its inclusion unnecessary and tacked. It doesn't drive the plot forward, it doesn't serve to back up a later revelation, its just there, seemingly in an attempt to promote the jutification of gun ownership. Saying that, with Eastwood a staunch republican i would have expected my own morals to have effected my own enjoyment of his work much more than it actually has, but this one scene was just far too explicit to ignore. As I mentioned before Blood Work was Eastwood's first post-9/11 production, but where it differed from the majority of Hollywood's immediate post-9/11 output was in that its antagonist was a person who was very close to home, in the shape of Eastwood's next door neighbour. Now I'm sure this was purely coincidental, and a reaction to the fact that the film was based upon a source novel that would appear to confirm this, but I find it a striking happenstance that this is the case.

Conceptually Blood Work is a great presumption, but some absolutely dreadful supporting performances let down the actual execution. I actually found the whole experience to be rather frustrating actually, as there isn't anything particularly wrong with the film but it feels as though its lacking in something, something which I can't quite put my finger on. The script is fine, as is the direction, and while there may be pacing issues I have actually found it difficult to single out any completely meandering moments (with the sole exception of the gun control advertisement), and while the actual investigation that makes up the backbone of the story is largely predictable I wouldnt say that the film is any less the successful because of it. I guess at the end of the day Blood Work is just an incredibly average film that happens to effectively display a number of the key elements which make Clint Eastwood films an appealing experience.

love on the run (1979)

The final movement in Francois Truffaut's Antoine Doinel cycle, Love on the Run is perhaps the most poignant and apt final part to a film series imaginable.

The film opens with a strange montage over the credits, accompanied by the famous title theme by Alain Souchon. i haven’t mentioned how great the soundtracks to the Doinel films have been, but throughout the series, each one has managed to be distinctive yet thematically apt and recognisable.

The use of flashbacks is immediately apparent. I found it strangely coincidental how the first of flashbacks is concerned with the cellar scenes, after mentioning them in my review of bed and board a few weeks ago. The addition of these flashbacks in particular adds immensely to the emotional kick of the divorce scenes, and I felt myself in a similar position to how I did when viewing the later scenes of bed and board. With that in mind, the replaying of the cab sequence reinforces just how powerful a scene it actually is, and I would like to further my original thoughts on just how prevocational that particular moment comes across. Love on the Run is a tribute to the character of Doinel, and actively celebrates the series unashamedly. Some would probably deem such an endeavor to be incredibly self-indulgent, but I would deem it appropriate in this case. Not only is it a celebration but its also examines the concurrent themes and devices. For example, the family politics that make up Antoine’s past and instruct his relationships is confronted head on by Antoine, whom openly admits that he “falls for the family, and not just the girl”. Its interesting to see the suspicions that I had confirmed by Truffaut, and adds to the satisfying nature of the final part of the cycle.

In order to achieve the “closed” nature of the film, Truffaut compares several of the events within the rest of the series with those in Love on the Run. For example, the use of the phone call as a dramatic device is used to comment on the way in which Antoine’s attitude towards relationships has developed. If one was to compare the phone call that brings to a close the narrative of Bed and Board with that of the one at the start of Love on the Run (whereby Antoine calls Sabine, his new girlfriend) they would see just how much his priorities have shifted, which in terms of Antoine’s past ties into ideas outlined way back in The 400 Blows (the way in which he treats his own child etc). On that note its interesting how Antoine has incorporated the events of his youth (which we, the viewer, have already seen in The 400 Blows and Antoine and Colette) into the novel that he has written, therefore giving Truffaut an interesting and relevant way in which to use the flashbacks. With that in mind, I like the way in which he has slightly adapted the events to fit the novel, no doubt for dramatic drive, and the way in which he has changed the name of he character based on himself to Alphonse, the name of his son. These points, added to the comment in the train carriage about how the novel is only slightly autobiographical, may be in response to Truffaut's claims for how autobiographical the films are with regards to his own life. It’s a solid use of post-modernism, refreshing in its approach.

Love on the Run ties up a lot of loose ends. We finally get to see Antoine from another point of view, which I would imagine to be the ultimate point of this film; we get to see the events concerned with the story but from the point of view of those involved, not just Antoine, which is a first for the entire cycle. It helps with the closure of the series, and seems to work a charm. One of the more unexpected issues confronted, is the appearance of Antoine’s mothers lover, a man only seen very briefly in The 400 Blows. I say unexpected simply because it is an issue that hasn’t been adequately discussed throughout the later films, but it was a welcome surprise when the man makes an appearance. The subsequent visit to Antoine’s mothers grave ties up their relationship nicely and makes an appropriate bookend to the series.

There is a great moment wherein Colette and Christine meet, which works well at book ending the relationship aspect to his life. Alongside his mother it is these two characters that have shaped his life more than any other, and the way in which their meeting ties in with that of Antoine and his mothers fate works in a very satisfying manner, while at the same time leading onto the final state of his relationship with Sabine, being that his relationship with Sabine is basically a combination of all of the previous ones. In addition to this, despite the apparent happy ending we know Antoine only too well to suspect that this relationship will probably end up the same way as the previous two.

The closing credits, incorporating the scene from The 400 blows of Antoine on the fairground ride morphing with the shot of the kiss seems like the perfect way to end the Antoine Doinel cycle. One of the key ideas that Love on the Run presents is of love being projected in its purest form; as hope incarnate, which coincidently enough is part of the credos of this website, and, in my eyes, one of the key and wholly universal cinematic themes.

milk (2009) DVD

sean penn's oscar winning role in milk served a second viewing last night, and proved to be even more an effective piece of cinema than upon even the first screening suggested. i wasn't intending to do a second write up, but there were a few moments that were noticeably more effective upon second viewing, so much so that it lent itself to a formal re-visitation in words. my original review is HERE.

the main thing that became clear this time around was the sheer power of the relationship between harvey and scotty (james franco). their final conversation, inter cut with scenes of dan white (josh brolin) making his way into the offices of the council stood all the stronger as a result of my knowing of the following events. harvey's final words to scotty (whom takes the mantle of lead of the picture for the final five minutes, post-murder) are so touching that no amount of cynicism can affect that scene. the intercutting of the conversation from the night they met adds a scene that reminded heavily of one of the final scenes of gus van sants good will hunting. the candle lit procession that brings with it the end of the picture serves well at comparing the earlier protest marches, and with it brings an added air of emotional backbone. perhaps the most effective point during the procession comes when the footage flicks from filmed-actor-starring-scenes to archive footage of the actual event, showcasing the sheer scale of harvey's effect on the people he set out to fight for.

in terms of the performances, alongside penn's obvious triumph james franco's understated performance steals the show. the way in which diego luna's jack is the complete opposite to franco's scotty works as a catalyst for the emotions, with the audience's desires played upon heavily. as i mention above, franco takes the mantle of protagonist for the final five minutes, showing just where the heart of the film rests.

in terms of borderline mainstream american cinema, milk rests very highly at the top of the years output so far.

goodfellas (1990)

as i will be looking at goodfellas on a larger scale in a few weeks im not going to say too much about the film at this point, but will admit that going into this screening the film was a long time favourite.

goodfellas has one quality in abundance that is severely lacking from many of the films that it is often compared to. it is incredibly watchable. i cannot think of a single film in my life that i have seen as many times as scorsese's understated epic, nor can i think of many that are as downright enjoyable. from the pitch perfect voice-over (something im not usually a big fan of), to the pitch perfect soundtrack, goodfellas marks the pinnacle of martin scorsese's cinematic achievements.

the story of wiseguy henry hill (ray liotta), and his rise to notoriety, goodfellas is a truly epic story, which somehow conveys it in an intimate manner, in keeping with the close-cut nature of the "family" that hill is so proud to be a part of. while the tale is grand, the telling of it isnt, its close knit and specificly focussed, therefore thematically matching the backbone of the film. jimmy conway (robert de niro), hill's surrogate father figure of sorts, lends a level of cinematic authenticity that gives the film the draw it needs in terms of tying itself to the crime-drama genre, with joe pesci, in the films only academy award winning performance lends terrifying believability to the role of tommy deniro, hill's brother-in-arms.

for me it is the films sense of style that holds it above its contemporaries and fellow gangster-flicks; its use of freeze frame and close ups being among the finest examples of such behaviour. its apt that goodfellas came out in the first year of the 1990's, prior to the use of such techniques becoming overtly commonplace, as it maintains an air of authenticity somewhat lacking in much of the 1990's mtv-cut cinema. the key use of the freeze frame comes for this viewer at the point where hill tells of the respect his mother received from local kids, due to his connections. the accompanying shot, of hill destroying a fleet of cars via force of explosion not only contradicts the nature of his converse, showing faults within his character that will become more than apparent later on in the film, but aesthetically the frozen frame attaches it so well to the words that it spins the story into something more than simple boasting. its the same with the use of close-ups; there's a particular moment whereby hill's wife karen holds a gun to his sleeping head. the way in which the key details of the gun are focussed upon, piece by piece, at a pace that is forthright but leisurely spells out the tone of the film in that one scene. its very assured filmmaking.

crank 2 : high voltage (2009)

the follow up to the 2006 trashy-action-classic, crank 2 : high voltage proved to be a less fruitful and indeed joyable experience than its surprisingly great predecessor. the problem lies in the fact that everything is amplified in the sequel, and not just the positive aspects. the casual racism of the first has been replaced by a torrent of racial hatred and abuse, although the fact that no single aspect of society has been left out may be seen as a plus to some. its treatment of women was not only disgusting, but shocking that this sort of attitude can be displayed on the cinema screen in 2009. it was horrifying, as were the accompanying laughs that came with it from the audience. saying that, jason statham is his usual semi-affable self, and the video game-esque aesthetics prove desirable once again. crank 2 is much longer than its swift predecessor, which proved just how apt the originals running time was, as halfway through i felt physically exhausted.

obviously this sort of picture was never intended to appeal to a cinemagoer like myself, but as i actually enjoyed the first film i dont think this is a case of me just not "getting" crank 2, it was simply a poor film.

Two Mules for Sister Sara (1969)

Overshadowed somewhat by the first in my series of larger scale essay's, please excuse the delay in the publication of this brief piece.

a road movie of sorts, shirley maclaine and clint eastwood star is this 1969 flick from frequent eastwood collaborator don siegel. the film is an entertaining couple of hours, but is ultimately a rather forgetful piece of work from relatively early on in eastwoods career. the film has its moments, namely in a wonderfully charming scene involving the demolition of a bridge, which could be seen as the emotional cruxis point of the film. its at this moment whereby eastwood is at his most affable, leading to some explanation as to how the events proceed as they do.

1969 was a great year for american cinema, but to me two mules for sister sara doesnt really reflect the change that was occuring within the industry at the time. the camerawork is occasionally effective, and the subject borderline-taboo, but its hardly cutting edge 40 years on.

while the film is perfectly appropriate late night fare, it misses the mark when it comes to being anything remarkable.

the beguiled (1971)

the beguiled marked clint eastwood's third collaboration with dirty harry director don siegel, and its very much a departure for eastwood in several ways. the film is set during the american civil war, with eastwood an injured confederate soldier that seeks solitude within the confines of a union-leaning all girls school. whilst within the walls of the school the effects of a male presence are felt in many a different way by each of the girls. some despise him due to his political leanings, while others fall at his feet in adoration, thirsty for the company of a bona-fide man. the film carried the genuinely awful tagline of -

one man.... seven women.... in a strange house!

it was apparently in an attempt to break free from type-casting that eastwood took the beguiled on, and ultimately its an experiment that i feel falls disappointingly short of the usual level of quality that one associates with the work of both eastwood and siegel. not only is the deceitful character of eastwoods mcburney incredibly unlikeable (to the point of an insatiable level), but the entire film is dogged down by horrendous characteristics. the portrayal of sexuality is very disturbing, and also very confusingly portrayed. in this respect it reminded heavily of powell and pressburger's black narcissus, although the beguiled never reaches the nadir that the archer's work does. to be perfectly honest the manner in which the topic of incest is handled and explained is just completely strange. it makes very little sense, and bogs down what could be a good basic story in strange and seemingly unrelated subtext.

the beguiled feels heavily biblical in the nature in which it examines its subject. each of the women represent a specific attitude or theme of humanity, and the way in which they react to the character of mcburney is actually fairly interesting. the manner in which each of the girls react and are placed during the amputation scene is wonderfully recreated too, if not a little too late in proceedings to be salvage the film. the film ends with perhaps the strangest death that eastwood, or indeed any other actor has ever had to experience; death by mushrooms. its all very odd, and not in a positive manner. i cant help but feel that the beguiled would have worked much better with more of a focus on the horror side of things, with an escalating psychologically disturbing pace being the successful route forward.

A Time To Love and A Time To Die (1959)

Douglas Sirk, the meister of melodrama, returned to his native Germany for this gem of a film from 1959. The story of a young man on leave from the Third Reich during the final months of World War Two, and his growing disillusionment with the cause he is fighting for, A Time To Love and A Time To Die is as epic a tale of love and death as the title would suggest.

While it is a fairly basic initial premise, the film offers a much deeper subtext than one would expect with such over the top fare, with the conceits explored being incredibly daring and somewhat controversial for its time. The mere fact that the film is seen entirely from that of the side of the German army is polemic in itself, yet within the bold premise there is an unflinching truth seeping through. My favourite scene, at least in terms of getting the conflicting point of the attitudes towards the role of war in international affairs is dealt with most articulately when the subject of a "honeymoon" crops up; as a young wife asks her new husband which countries would welcome them for their honeymoon vacation, the gradual revelation as to the huge impact that the war has had on their future is incredibly well portrayed through the performance of the bride.

John Gavin, who was perhaps best known for his role as Sam Loomis in Hitchcock's Psycho and would later go onto play french special agent OSS-117 in the 1970's (see here for my review of the characters most recent outing) puts in a fine performance as our hero, Ernst Graeber, if not being a tad too all-american for a germanic protagonist. Swiss actress Liselotte Pulver is strong as the women graeber falls for. By not using star names in either of the lead roles Sirk is able to maintain an authentic appeal to proceedings. The support cast carries many a memorable role, with special mention going to Kurt Meisel as Heini, the piano playing drunken officer.

The locations utilised are absolutely outstanding, with the film looking incredible in 70mm Cinemascope. The edges of the frames are lodged with the perfectly judged placement, proving each shot to be a showcase of master direction. Sirk really understood how to frame a shot. the worn torn streets of 1940's Germany have never looked so great, with the daylight air raid being of particular interest.

A Time To Love and A Time To Die was released in 1959, the same year in which the French New Wave commenced, the same year in which Ed Wood produced Plan 9 from Outer Space (showing that absolutely anyone could make a film!) and the very same year in which transvestites became the thing of commercial comedy in Some Like It Hot. A Time To Love and A Time To Die doesn't feel like a part of this period of cinema, it reminds of the sort of film that was produced en masse in the 1930's or early 40's, it harks back to a more innocent time, at least tonally. Yes, there is definately something very contemporary within the piece, mainly for the reasons mentioned, but by and large it doesnt feel like it belongs in the late 1950's. Yet this is not a criticism, more of an observation, but the picture definately feels like a product of another time.

the king of comedy (1982)

for some reason martin scorsese's 1982 drama has escaped my attention in the past, despite not only owning the film for nigh on 4 years, but also the fact that i consider myself to be something of an authority on scorsese. way back when, as a small boy studying media studies at 15 years old scorsese was the first "auteur" i came across, and the influence from then has stuck. as a young catholic (albeit now denounced), i found a striking point and relatability within his work that stll holds strong; the concept of the unshakable conscience most notably. having seen reference to the king of comedy an unusual amount of times this past week the choice was made to give it a shot.

robert de niro, scorsese's muse for much of the late 70's/early 80's section of his career plays rupert pupkin, aspiring entertainer and full time crackpot. much is made of the basic synopsis of the king of comedy, which is best/usually described as -

"rupert pupkin kidnaps talk-show host jerry langford (portrayed by jerry lewis) and holds him hostage in return for a shot at performing on his television show."

but for me the film is very much a character piece, with the actual plot serving only as a way to move things forward. de niro is on stellar form, in a role which reminds this viewer of his earlier work in the likes of mean streets, yet fell after raging bull. the scenes set in pupkins psyche remind just how versatile a performer de niro actually is, with the variation between the different types of pipkin on display great in difference. special mention must go to sandra bernhard as a stalker that makes pupkin's attitude toward celebrity look reasonable, in a performance that rivals play misty for me's jessica walter. having never been a huge fan of jerry lewis i must admit to being very impressed with his appearance, in a performance that countered that of de niro's really nicely. lewis toned down is indeed a welcome (and dare i say rare) treat.

i found the the central premise of the king of comedy to be highly relevent, despite the 26 years that have passed since its inception. its a tired old notion, but the role of celebrity in our culture is more prevailant than ever, with the meandering adventures of many-a-nobody reaching the national news in some cases. we live in a society whereby anyone can be famous for no apparent reason, which would perhaps be a mecca of sorts to the likes of rupert pupkin. saying that, perhaps pupkin would have despaired at the fragile and throwaway nature of the modern celebrity, besmirching the responsibility that he ties to such a role?

sleeping beauty (1959)

the cynic in me is going to remain quiet whilst i write this piece, with attention turned to the downright appeal of the archetypal disney films. sure i understand completely that theyre a shrewd front to sell towels and assorted fare, and that their sexual politics leave a lot to be desired, but there is something that appeals from disney on a level that is synonomous with childhood and innocence and pure joy.

sleeping beauty, largely based on the tchaikovsky ballet interpretation of the fairy tale was the first animated film to be shot using 70mm film, and as such has a very unique scale of scope within the frame. the remastered print is of an outstanding quality, complimenting the visuals in a way that i dont imagine has ever actually been seen. the film itself is far too familiar to warrant a formal introduction, with the films theme predominently dealing with the tome of "good versus evil", albeit in a relatable and accessible manner, appropriate for the films target audience. the films score is heavily inspired by tchaikovsky's ballet score, and features such fare as "once upon a dream", which would go on to be considered to be one of the most memorable of the disney songs. another first for the film was its use of stereoscopic sound, the first use of its kind. the brief running time was also welcome, alas not as a critique towards the piece, but moreso as a genuinely welcome compliment towards the way in which the film manages to be wholly contained and satisfying within such a brief period of time.

for a piece of cinema that celebrates its fiftieth birthday this year, sleeping beauty still maintains an appeal to even the most headstrong of viewers.

let the right one in (2008)

possibly the most highly praised film of last years festival circuit, let the right one in arrives complete with the sort of hype and expectation usually reserved for the summer blockbuster period. having anticipated this film for what seems like an age i felt somewhat let down with the final product. what an interesting premise suggests is let down by an unwelcome running time. the story doesnt feel big enough to necessitate the epic running time it is given, an act which isnt disguised by the tagged on ending, which follows a perfectly adequate conclusion anyway.

negatives out of the way and we are left with a satisfying experience, courtesy largely to a staggering pair of central performances and some beautiful photography. kåre hedebrant and lina leandersson are great as the two friends that map out the films direction. the character of oskar (played by hedebrant) actually develops in a very complex manner for a child performance, and is the highlight of the overall piece. prior to seeing the picture myself, a friend described it as ''a kitchen sink drama crossed with a horror film", and by and large this is what i too took out of it. the central premise is accompanied by a rather touching subtext focussing on childhood alienation, which i found to be genuinely affecting, especially at the point where i expected the film to actually finish.

crank (2006)

unashamedly over the top, co-directors mark neveldine and brian taylor's crank stars british thespian jason statham as gun for hire chev chelios. in retaliation for events so simple that it becomes instantly complicated the second one tries to write them down chelios needs to keep his heart above a certain level, in lieu of death. its like a human version of speed, complete with the poor acting. yes folks, the acting is terrible, with special mention going to jose pablo cantillo as the villain of the piece, verona, but to be fair to the film its perfectly apt for what is eventually a fairly satisfying (if not overtly tiring) piece of action cinema. the film actually feels like a really uninvolving video game, bringing the likes of the earlier grand theft auto games to mind.

we own the night (2007)

james gray has something of a reputation for having the ability to capture the sort of american picture that was prevailant in the 1970's. the likes of mean streets, the conversation and the french connection were all very much a product of an incredibly distinctive period of cinema, and gray seems highly influenced by it. we own the night, a cat and mouse-esque tale of brothers on either side of the law set (deliberately?) in the early 1980's manages to replicate the tone and pace of the influencing cinema in a manner effective enough to render the finished product a success.

the two brothers are played by mark wahlberg and joaquin phoenix, both very capable actors who suffer from a similiar problem in that they occasionally suffer from taking on terrible roles. wahlberg peaked somewhat with 1998's boogie nights, whereas phoenix had never actually stood out to me in any role until now, which is a shame as i have often seen him as a very interesting presence. with we own the night phoenix is given a role big enough for said presence, and is incredibly successful within the role. wahlberg's role is the subtler of the two, and in a way hes not supposed to be likeable, but again he pulls off the role auspiciously. robert duvall lends a sense of towering grandiose in the way that only a father caught between two sons can, and eva mendes comes off as likeable in the stereotypical girlfriend role, without ever seeming like too much of a cliche.

like the more successful of its influences we own the night looks stunning at times, with its mute palette and contradictingly accurate sweeping camerawork impressing highly. the rain soaked chase scene in particular stands out, proving to be one of the most memorable scenes in recent memory. the pace of the scene is perfectly measured, lending itself to a simulating climax. as you can probably tell i really enjoyed we own the night, and look forward to checking out more of james gray's work.

the list - april 2009

welcome to the monthly update of the list folks, which is now reaching great heights in terms of the number of films that make it up! its getting more and more difficult every month, as inserting films into the list is an incredibly time consuming task believe it or not. im going to aim to put the list up on the first monday of each month from now on. having watched some great films this month theres plenty of movement at the top, with a few additions at the bottom too.

1. pierrot le fou (jean-luc godard)
2. the 400 blows (francois truffaut)
3. the passenger (michelangelo antonioni)
4. au hasard balthazar (robert bresson)
5. sunrise (f.w. murnau)
6. hiroshima mon amour (alain resnais)
7. the outlaw josey wales (clint eastwood)
8. mouchette (robert bresson)
9. citizen kane (orson welles)
10. a man escaped (robert bresson)

11. the night of the hunter (charles laughton)
12. i've loved you so long (philippe claudel)
13. the wrestler (darren aronofsky) *
14. the last metro (francois truffaut)
15. se7en (david fincher)
16. hunger (steve mcqueen)
17. doubt (john patrick shanley) *
18. pickpocket (robert bresson)
19. stolen kisses (francois truffaut)
20. chinatown (roman polanski)

21. love on the run (franois truffaut)
22. milk (gus van sant) *
23. bottle rocket (wes anderson)
24. gran torino (clint eastwood *
25. bed and board (francois truffaut)
26. twelve monkeys (terry gilliam)
27. red desert (michelangelo antonioni)
28. mon oncle antoine (claude jutra)
29. bronco billy (clint eastwood)
30. faust (f.w. murnau)

31. l'argent (robert bresson)
32. unforgiven (clint eastwood)
33. shadow of a doubt (alfred hitchcock)
34. revolutionary road (sam mendes) *
35. antoine and colette (francois truffaut)
36. gomorrah (matteo garrone)
37. traffic (steven soderbergh)
38. che - part one (steven soderbergh) *
39. f for fake (orson welles)
40. changeling (clint eastwood)

41. five easy pieces (bob rafelson)
42. alone across the pacific (kon ichikawa)
43. the visitor (tom mccarthy)
44. western union (fritz lang)
45. lancelot du lac (robert bresson)
46. days of heaven (terence malick)
47. the brothers bloom (rian johnson)
48. the station agent (tom mccarthy)
49. synecdoche new york (charlie kaufman)
50. OSS 117 : cairo nest of spies (michel hazanavicius)

51. fury (fritz lang)
52. the element of crime (lars von trier)
53. the shining (stanley kubrick)
54. rear window (alfred hitchcock)
55. the dark knight (christopher nolan)
56. wall-e (andrew stanton)
57. the silence of the lambs (jonathan demme)
58. advise and consent (otto preminger)
59. slumdog millionaire (danny boyle) *
60. the electric horseman (sydney pollack) *

61. the shop on main street (ján kadár and elmar klos)
62. rosemary's baby (roman polanski)
63. frost/nixon (ron howard) *
64. man on wire (james marsh)
65. rome, open city (rossellini)
66. blow up (michelangelo antonioni)
67. the limey (steven soderbergh)
68. high plains drifter (clint eastwood)
69. che - part two (steven soderbergh) *
70. spellbound (alfred hitchcock)

71. before the devil knows youre dead (sidney lumet)
72. the adventures of baron munchausen (terry gilliam)
73. casablanca (michael curtiz)
74.the curious case of benjamin button (david fincher) *
75. the usual suspects (bryan singer)
76. lars and the real girl (craig gillespie)
77. how the west was won (john ford, henry hathaway & george marshall)
78. europa (lars von trier)
79. la ricotta (pier paolo pasolini)
80. blindness (fernando meirelles)

81. killer's kiss (stanley kubrick)
82.letters from iwo jima (clint eastwood)
83. out of sight (steven soderbergh)
84. jcvd (mabrouk el mechri) *
85. dirty harry (don siegal)
86. mad detective (johnnie to & wai ka fa)
87. the idiot (akira kurosawa)
88. in bruges (martin mcdonough)
89. tideland (terry gilliam)
90. play misty for me (clint eastwood)

91. hellboy - the golden army (guillermo del toro)
92. bolt 3D (disney) *
93. pale rider (clint eastwood)
94. breezy (clint eastwood)
95. the inheritors (eugenio polgovsky) *
96. the pianist (roman polanski)
97. time bandits (terry gilliam)
98. a. effect (mike ott) *
99. withnail & i (bruce robinson)
100. the terminator (james cameron)

101. the wizard of oz (victor fleming)
102. capturing the friedmans (andrew jarecki)
103. monty python's life of brian (terry jones)
104. gone baby, gone (ben affleck)
105. terminator 2 : judgment day (james cameron)
106. firefox (clint eastwood)
107. the chorus (christophe barratier)
108. hancock (peter berg)
109. iron man (jon favreau)
110. saboteur (alfred hitchcock)

111. the gauntlet (clint eastwood)
112. the day the earth stood still (robert wise)
113. rope (alfred hitchcock)
114. total recall (paul verhoeven)
115. wanted (timur bekmambetov)
116. the international (tom twyker) *
117. mallrats (kevin smith)
118. die hard (john mctiernan)
119. the dreamers (bernardo bertolucci)
120. magnum force (ted post)

121. casino royale (martin campbell)
122. monsters vs. aliens (rob letterman) *
123. carny (sheldon wilson) *
124. valkyrie (bryan singer)
125. personal services (terry jones) *
126. the reader (steven daldry) *
127. space cowboys (clint eastwood)
128. the young victoria (jean-marc vallée) *
129. watchmen *
130. body of lies (ridley scott)

131. solaris (steven soderbergh)
132. hancock (peter berg)
133. the trouble with harry (alfred hitchcock)
134. indiana jones and the kingdom of the crystal skull (steven spielberg)
135. the hunt for red october (john mctiernan)
136. the puffy chair (duplass brothers)
137. "the birds" (alfred hitchcock)
138. i am legend (francis lawrence)
139. the rock (michael bay)
140. quantum of solace (marc forster)

141. superbad (greg motola)
142. frenzy (alfred hitchcock)
143. transformers (michael bay)
144. the magnificent ambersons (orson welles)
145. speed (jan de bont)
146. goldeneye (martin campbell)
147. australia (baz luhrmann)
148. star trek - the motion picture (robert wise)
149. happy-go-lucky (mike leigh)
150. coogans bluff (don siegal)

151. the enforcer (james fargo)
152. joe kidd (john sturges)
153. spider-man 3 (sam raimi)
154. dear wendy (thomas vinterberg)
155. night watch (timur bekmambetov)
156. judge dredd (danny cannon)
157. robocop 3 (fred dekker)
158. terminator 3 : rise of the machines (jonathan mostow)
159. armageddon (michael bay)
160. strangers on a train (alfred hitchcock)

161. jamaica inn (alfred hitchcock)
162. robocop 2 (irvin kershner)
163. my bloody valentine (patrick lussier) *
164. OMG/HAHAHA (morgan jon fox) *
165. a nightmare on elm street 4 (renny harlin)
166. a nightmare on elm street (wes craven)
167. awaydays (pat holden) *
168. zack and miri make a porno (kevin smith)
169. goldfinger (guy hamilton)
170. a nightmare on elm street 2 (jack sholder)

171. you only live twice (lewis gilbert)
172. mad max - beyond thunderdome (george miller & george ogilvie)
173. die another day (lee tamahori)
174. a nightmare on elm street 3 (chuck russell)
175. a nightmare on elm street 5 (stephen hopkins)
176. a nightmare on elm street 6 (rachel talalay)
177. W. (oliver stone)

chinatown (1974)

chinatown, arguably roman polanski's finest moment is one of the key films of the ''new'' hollywood of the 1970's. jack nicholson stars as jake gittes, in one of his most memorable performances, with faye dunaway as the femme fetale and filmmaker john huston in a glorified cameo that is the literal description of a "scene-stealer". the film models itself on film noir, yet with a post-modern slant; most of the film is set in the heat rinsed desert city of 1930's los angeles, as opposed to the shadows of some claustrophobic tight wound city. as such the film is left with an interesting and unique perspective, and one that is removed deeply from its comparitive points.

nicholson is fantastic as the private detective of almost celebrity fame, in one of the key roles of his year. when put into the context of his larger career this is even more impressive, as chinatown and jake gittes sits comfortably beside the previously explored the passenger and five easy pieces (reviewed here alongside his later work in the shining), as well as the likes of the last detail (a personal favourite) and one flew over the cuckoos nest. to call that a 'good' run would be the greatest of understatements. with chinatown it is said (by none other than robert wise) that nicholson finally became a big enough name to carry a major commercial picture to great financial success. its also rather fitting that nicholson avoided roles similiar to that of gittes for the rest of his career, as a mark of respect by all accounts.

john huston, director of such greats as the treasure of sierra madre, the maltese falcon and the african queen makes a chilling, if brief performance as noah cross, the man who effectively "owns" the los angeles water supply, and is therefore involved in the surrounding investigation. his presence is magnificent, with noah cross being one of the most severely underrated screen villains of all time in this writers opinion. his final moments, wherein he snatches his daughter/granddaughter is akin to the likes of the max shreck nosferatu, or even to the demon in last weeks faust. its gloriously over the top villain behaviour, but entirely appropriate. as a result of huston's grandiose performance, the downbeat ending is largely overshadowed by the quick paced events that fill the finale, which successfully contradict the rather relaxed nature of the preceeding 2 hours.

chinatown was the final american picture made by roman polanski prior to the sex crime allegations that have plagued the last 30 years of his career. while he has had some success since (the pianist and the best director oscar that it brought with it being the most obvious benchmark for post-chinatown success) his career has never really reached the commercial highs of chinatown.

chinatown was the first part of a planned trilogy. the second film, the two jakes, was released in 1990 and was set in the murky world of the oil industry, with its commercial and critical failure sealing the fate of the third film, cloverleaf (set around the inception of the l.a freeway). almost twenty years on from the failure of the two jakes, there is a big part of this viewer that would love to see the trilogy capped off, with a ''later years'' take on the character of jake gittes set in the 1960s or 70's.