Mademoiselle (1966)

Director: Tony Richardson

Starring: Jeanne Moreau

After the recent passing of the great French actress Jeanne Moreau, I was keen to watch one of her old movies, and TCM delivered, once again. "Mademoiselle", from 1966, is an obscure British-French co-production, in English no less. I could not find a review of it anywhere, which is surprising, since it was directed by Tony Richardson, three years after winning an Oscar for "Tom Jones."

It is an undiscovered gem of a film, quite of its time. The theme is sexual repression, and when the hunky Italian immigrant logger asks the repressed French schoolteacher (Ms. Moreau) to touch his pet snake, you know this is a Sixties art film! The movie is cleverly constructed: it begins in the middle of the story, where the first few scenes lets the audience in on the schoolteacher's random acts of cruelty, towards nature and the small French village she inhabits. The clueless villagers never figure out what we know from the beginning (the culprit for the acts of sabotage), and instead choose a convenient scapegoat: the itinerant foreigners who work in the forest. It doesn't help that the Italian with the snake is also carrying-on with many of the womenfolk in the village.

Only when  the schoolteacher is offered said snake (well-into the movie), do we get to see what motivates her in her quest for destruction, via a 20-minute flashback of events leading up to when the movie begins. At this point, the movie drags toward its inevitable conclusion, when the pace should accelerate (we know what's going to happen, so get on with it already!) Perhaps that is also a hallmark of Sixties art films: enamored with mood at the expense of plot. Nevertheless, the story delves into thorny issues of xenophobia, psychological fixation (Mademoiselle has a clear case of Munchausen-by-proxy), and hypocrisy. And the Black and White cinematography is exquisite.

**Undiscovered gem!**

"mother!" is no "Mama"

mother!

Director: Darren Aronofsky

Starring: Jennifer Lawrence, Javier Bardem

I compare these two similarly-titled films: mother! (2017) and Mama (2013, starring Jessica Chastain), ONLY because you will find both listed in the 'horror' genre. (These two directors must have Mommy issues). As it happens, they are nothing alike, because mother! is not a horror movie at all -- it is something else altogether, something that should strike even greater fear in discerning moviegoers -- AN ALLEGORY!

And what a tiresome allegory it is! Aronofsky hits you over the head repeatedly with the blunt object of his rather obvious moral *see below for spoiler moral* much like he forces a very pregnant Jennifer Lawrence to endure being pushed, threatened and beaten throughout the endless last hour of the film. J-Law is a much better actress than this material warrants, plus she is miscast as the docile young wife who lets strangers walk all over her. Not our Katniss!

The cast credits at the end will explain much of what he is trying to get at (names are not used in the film) ... if you can make it that far.  The end credits are the best part of the movie, which is never a good sign.

Many will try to champion the film as Serious! Ambitious! and It Will Make You Think! A good test of whether you are up for the challenge is your reaction to Terence Malick's "Tree of Life." I was on the fence, but Tree's ambitions were thought-out and well-executed, if not always successful. mother! is a mess.

If you want to see a 2017 movie that tackles life-death-and-the-beyond issues on a human scale, with all the subtlety and grace that mother! lacks, see the underrated "A Ghost Story" by Texas director David Lowery (starring Casey Affleck and Rooney Mara). That movie will stay with you (for good reasons!)

*SPOILER CRITICISM!*

The moral I take from this two-hour, $40-million student-film experiment is (simply) that humanity ruins everything -- and true believers are the worst of humanity. 

I find this both simplistic and offensive: 1) Monty Python made the same point in a 15-minute segment of "Life of Brian"-- and did it with humor! 2) Why does every extra in the film (representing said humanity) have to be such a rude and/or violent 'dick'? Because you believe in something, that gives you the right to treat other people like shit? 3) The ending should be sickening to all Christians (esp. Catholics), if you haven't already realized that Aronofsky is willing to go all the way with his misbegotten 'allegory.'

I'm purposely ignoring the environmental message that we are destroying the planet, too, but please, go see "An Inconvenient Sequel" for that message.

DUNKIRK

This is not a review of the new Christopher Nolan-helmed blockbuster "Dunkirk" (you will have to wait for that), but rather a review of the various options one has for WATCHING the movie "Dunkirk." I spent much of the weekend researching this, BEFORE deciding when and where to see this epic war movie. At no other time in film history do I remember so many different formats for viewing one film.

This post was spurred by a conversation I had in San Francisco with a fellow film geek/nerd (self-described!) about the forced conversion in recent years of all U.S. movie theaters to digital projectors (fueled by Hollywood's bottom line, naturally). Film die-hards have not gone quietly, however, and more and more directors are utilizing 35mm, 70mm, and IMAX to enrich the look of their films.

With Christopher Nolan, he took it to a new level. I count six different ways to view DUNKIRK.
Here they are, from best to worst:

1. 70mm IMAX: This is the gold standard. Nolan filmed 80% of the movie with IMAX equipment, to capture the sheer vastness of the contemporaneous land, sea and air stories. The 70mm film adds to the richness of the images. Unfortunately for me, the only theaters in Texas showing the film in this format are 240 miles away (in Dallas and Fort Worth).

2. Laser-projected IMAX: You still get to see the film the way the director intended; the laser projection adds clarity and depth. (I would only have to drive 160 miles to Austin to see it in this format).

3. "True" IMAX (1.43:1 aspect ratio, using a 15/70 projector): fortunately, Houston has one of these screens showing "Dunkirk" (the Regal Marq-E). This was te format I chose to see it.

4. 70mm -- only in select theaters with 70mm projectors; this comes with all the depth and scope of, say, "Lawrence of Arabia", but they have to shrink the larger IMAX frame to fit on a smaller screen (70mm was last used by Quentin Tarantino in 2015 for "The Hateful Eight")/

5. "False" IMAX (or "LieMAX"): digitally-projected, with a 1.9:1 aspect ratio (but charging the same ridiculous price as "True IMAX" --- RIP OFF!)

6. In your regular multiplex, on a normal-sized screen, digitally projected -- you might as well wait for the ON DEMAND version!

Bottom line: you have got to see Dunkirk on a WIDE SCREEN.  The one thing I will say about the movie itself: the director of "Inception" and "Interstellar" still loves to play with time! In this case, it works brilliantly!

The 40 Best 'Arthouse' Films of All Time

UK's The Guardian made an initial stab at this near-impossible task back in 2010 (full list is here), but as in all work done by consensus, it had serious omissions and head-scratching inclusions. For example, I do not consider any of these picks true 'arthouse' fare: Citizen Kane, The Godfather, The Graduate, There Will Be Blood (excellent movies though they are). Of all the Ingmar Bergman classics to chose from, they pick "Fanny & Alexander"? The arbitrary 'one director-one film' rule is pointless. And why did they limit themselves to a mere 25?

I have set-out to correct these errors as only I can: through one man's opinion! Thus, my list leans heavy on foreign-language films (I have six in English and five silents), and they are admittedly Euro-centric.  I have excluded all comedies (too subjective), documentaries (even though I have seen some classics in art-houses), and animation (not my thing). Sadly, I can only agree with two of the list's post-1986 films ("Breaking the Waves" and "Mulholland Drive") but they just missed my (equally arbitray) cut.

In deference to The Guardian, I have kept the 15 titles I have no argument with (see *). Rather than declare one winner, however (the Brits selected Andrei Tarkovsky's Andrei Rublev (1966) -- no argument there), my list is Chronological. This is not a list of the greatest films of all time (or even the greatest directors: I had to leave off Hitchcock, Coppola & Scorsese!). Think of this list as essential art-house viewing.

1. NOSFERATU (Murnau, 1922)
2. BATTLESHIP POTEMKIN (Eisenstein, 1925)*
3. METROPOLIS (Lang, 1927)
4. La Passion de Jeanne d'Arc (Dreyer, 1928)*
5. Un Chien Andalou (Bunuel, 1929)
6. L'Atalante (Vigo, 1934)*
7. The Rules of the Game (Renoir, 1939)*
8. Bicycle Thieves (de Sica, 1948)
9. Rashomon (Kurosawa, 1950)
10. Tokyo Story (Ozu, 1953)*
11. La Strada (Fellini, 1954)
12. The Seven Samurai (Kurosawa, 1954)
13. Pather Panchali (Ray, 1955)*
14. The Seventh Seal (Bergman, 1957)
15. The 400 Blows (Truffaut, 1959)
16. Hiroshima, Mon Amour (Resnais, 1959)
17. Breathless (Godard, 1960)
18. L'Avventura (Antonioni, 1960)
19. La Dolce Vita (Fellini, 1960)*
20. The Virgin Spring (Bergman, 1960)
21. The Last Year at Marienbad (Resnais, 1961)
22. Contempt (Godard, 1963)
23. The Leopard (Visconti, 1963)
24. 8-1/2 (Fellini, 1963)
25. Band a part (Godard, 1964)
26. The Gospel According to St. Matthew (Pasolini, 1964)*
27. Andrei Rublev (Tarkovsky, 1966)*
28. Persona (Bergman, 1966)
29. Belle du Jour (Bunuel, 1967)
30. The Conformist (Bertolucci, 1970)*
31. A Clockwork Orange (Kubrick, 1971)*
32. Death In Venice (Visconti, 1971)*
33. Aguirre, The Wrath of God (Herzog, 1972)*
34. Spirit of the Beehive (Erice, 1973)*
35. The Passenger (Antonioni, 1975)
36. Days of Heaven (Malick, 1978)*
37. Berlin Alexanderplatz (Fassbinder, 1980)
38. Night of the Shooting Stars (Tavianis, 1982)
39. Blue Velvet (Lynch, 1986)
40. The Sacrifice (Tarkovsky, 1986) -- true confession: this is the sole entry on my list that I haven't actually seen, but this was Tarkovsky's elegy. I reluctantly left-off his other two masterpieces, Stalker and Solaris, I must include this one!!


Put a gun to my head, and I would rank these as my TOP TEN:
1. Andrei Rublev
2. La Strada
3. The Seventh Seal
4. The Conformist
5. L'Avventura
6. Metropolis
7. 8-1/2
8. Aguirre, the Wrath of God
9. La Passion de Jeanne d'Arc
10. Blue Velvet

The Edinburgh Lads are Back!

T2: Trainspotting

Directed by Danny Boyle

The lads are back and causing trouble again, in this delightful, rueful, and ultimately satisfying return to the lives of these four Scottish miscreants 20 years later. (Am I that old?).

The Nineties don't seem that long ago, yet much has changed since 1996 when the original foursome first exploded into our consciousness, courtesy of author Irvine Welsh and wunderkind director Danny Boyle. Edinburgh is demolishing its old apartment blocks and reviving depressed neighborhoods with EU grants (a key plot point, as it turns out). Even the lovely Scottish lasses greeting Renton at the airport on his return to Scotland are from Slovenia.

Much remains the same, however:
     Simon "Sick Boy" (the great Jonny Lee Miller from TV's "Elementary") is still a con man.
     Begbie (Robert Carlyle) is still a psychopath - a much older, heftier psychopath.
     "Spud" (Ewen Bremner) seems to have changed the least and matured the most: he's trying to kick the habit once and for all. And he has a son!
      And then there is Renton (Ewan McGregor) -- the smug, cocky protagonist of the story who everyone gravitates towards, but who cannot seem to get his act together.

The movie works as both a nostalgia trip (like the original, it is both outrageous and hilarious, even though much of the humor centers around heroin addicts!) and a reflective look back on missed opportunities and wasted lives. There is even a cameo by an unspeakably dirty commode (toilet) -- one of several winks to the earlier film.  Boyle brings the same dynamic energy to the sequel (sonically and visually) as he did to the original: he smartly weaves-in scenes from the first film (and even re-creates scenes with four young actors who look remarkably like the younger foursome), to both compare and contrast with the characters' present day selves.

The updated "Choose Life" rant Renton delivers halfway through the movie seems forced -- although I plead guilty to several of the modern, social media-obsessed critiques. It is too bad Kelly MacDonald's Diane was given only a token (and unnecessary) scene: it woud have been a nice counterpoint to have gotten a glimpse of her maturation process (she's a lawyer now).

But the point of the movie is that the four lads haven't truly grown-up -- they are older, somewhat wiser, but are still striving for the 'high' to prove they are alive. If you never saw or didn't love the original, much of the sequel will be lost on you, especially the invigorating closing scene, a rocking affirmation that 1) you can't escape your past, and 2) why would you want to if it was so much fun?

Remember these kids? They are all grown-up now!

My much-delayed Top Ten Movie List

Apologies all around for not posting this sooner (at least before the Academy Awards, as is my usual goal). While other critics have been saying there were more than ten good movie in 2016, I struggled to fill-out my list! All of the buzzed-about Best Picture nominees (that I saw) had one flaw or another that left me ambivalent.

I believe it is my shortest Best Movie list EVER. But more importantly, this is the first year in the last five that a Jessica Chastain movie does not appear anywhere on this list (the streak is over). I have high hopes for 2017.

TOP NINE MOVIES OF 2016
1. LION
2. MOONLIGHT
3. ARRIVAL
4. SILENCE
5. MANCHESTER BY THE SEA
6. HELL OR HIGH WATER
7. TONI ERDMANN (Germany)
8. JACKIE
9. LA LA LAND

Honorable mention:
Love & Friendship (UK)
Neruda

Saw & Enjoyed:
The Birth of a Nation
Cafe Society
Midnight Special
Suffragette (UK)
Sunset Song (UK)

AND TWO DISHONORABLE MENTIONS:
The Lobster & Nocturnal Animals (gag and gag!)

That's all, folks!

TONI ERDMANN

Toni Erdmann

Germany 2016

Director Marin Ade

It is rare for me to see an Oscar-nominated foreign film BEFORE the Awards are given out, but I had the pleasure of watching the German entry "Toni Erdmann" with my brother at the legendary Film Forum in Greenwich Village last week. I cannot think of a better venue or companion to see this extremely odd but never dull "German comedy" -- if you thought that was an oxymoron, this film proves that it is not!

To be honest, it is a 'squirmy comedy' (to quote A.O. Scott, New York Times) that leaves you sad and reflective.  But hey, I didn't go into this expecting an Adam Sandler-Will Ferrell vehicle  (those movies leave me sad, too ... for the state of comedy in America!)

"Toni Erdmann" has a pace and mood that belies the comedy label: it is as much about changing family dynamics, workplace gender prejudices and the down side of globalization as it is about making an audience  laugh.  In fact, I found myself laughing at certain episodes only hours after seeing the movie (at the time I was too much in shock to laugh). This movie will stay with you.

Father Winfried and his grown daughter Ines lead very different lives, but are cut from the same cloth. [Toni Erdmann, by the way, is the fictional guise Winfried dons to insinuate himself in the professional and personal life of his daughter, who is a consultant for a German conglomerate working in Romania.]  Her interactions with co-workers provides a biting satire of the minefield of office politics a professional woman has to navigate even today. But it is the unconventional father-daughter relationship that dominates the film, and is exquisitely rendered by the two leads: their love-hate, push-pull stubbornness towards each other convinces you they are indeed related. They keep upping the ante on each other, and you never know how each will react. That leaves the audience off balance throughout.

Both lead actors are brilliant, but Sandra Huller as Ines delivers as fearless a performance as you will see this year. Her sly, deadpan comic timing is impeccable. Plus, you will never hear a more emotional performance of a Whitney Houston song in any movie EVER! (including and especially "The Bodyguard"!!)

I recommend this movie to adventurous filmgoers only.

Oscar Live Action Shorts

Every year my favorite of the "Oscar Shorts" programs is the Live Action Shorts category: by contrast, the short docs program is always the longest (and can be a slog if every one is about death and dying); and I have given up on the animated shorts because the program is a RIP-OFF (35 minutes of actual nominees followed by 40 minutes of padding). 

But the Live Action Shorts consistently deliver, and this year is no exception. I will review them from weakest to strongest:

SILENT NIGHTS (Denmark) -- The weakest of this year's nominees (by far), the story of a relationship between a Ghanaian immigrant and a homeless shelter volunteer is far-fetched yet predictable. This short is short on nuance, and long on cliche, thus the emotional payoff it strives for feels unearned. GRADE: C

SING (Hungary)
LA FEMME et le TVG (Switzerland)
The next two are tied for third, both enjoyable, if slight, stories.
"Sing" is about a new girl in a Hungarian elementary school who joins the choir that teaches their cut-throat choir teacher (played by the lovely Zsófia Szamosi -- look for her in the new Hungarian Psycho-Thriller Strangled (A Martfűi Rém)) a lesson in fairness and solidarity. The two young girls who spark the protest are wonderful.   GRADE: A-
"La Femme et le TVG" is the more substantial of the two, with a stunning lead performance by the great British actress Jane Birkin. She plays against type, as a lonely, widowed senoir citizen, running a bakery in a small Swiss town. No Birkin bags in sight! She embarks on an unlikely, but true!, relationship with the train conductor who passes directly under her window twice-a-day for 15 years. It packs quite a bit of bittersweet whimsy in its 30-minute running time (And even has time for a climactice race to the Zurich train station). A dark horse for the Oscar. GRADE A-

ENNEMIS INTERIEURS (France) -- "Enemies Within" is the most-topical of the five nominees: an intense, compact story of a French-Algerian whose innocent interview to become a French citizen becomes an interrogation into his (supposed) terrorist ties. It confronts the issues of race, religion and 'homeland security' in a France that is more open to these debates than a lot of countries I can think of. Well acted and directed, I will not be disappointed if it wins the Oscar. GRADE: A+

TIMECODE (Spain) -- I have to give the edge to the shortest of the five shorts (15 minutes), because it uses the format most-economically: a precise story, well-told and filmed, that builds to a satisfying, and hilarious climax. The film it most reminds me of is 2014's excellent (and unfairly robbed of the Oscar that year) "Butter Lamp" (France-Tibet).

 The entire film takes place in the confines of a private garage, and is mostly revealed through security-camera footage. To reveal anything more is to spoil the joys of this small gem of a film. GRADE: A+.
I WANT & THINK it will win the Oscar!

OSCAR nominations 2017: THE (somewhat subdued) OUTRAGE!

Forgive me if I can't work up the same outrage as I usually do for the annual OSCAR nominations that dropped Tuesday morning in a pre-packaged infomercial (who came up with that bone-headed idea?).
Blame it on John Williams NOT composing a film score in 2016 (Actually, he did-"The BFG"!) Yet still, the Academy made THREE glaring omissions this year: 

Outrage #s 1 & 2: While the Academy didn't exactly SNUB Denis Villeneuve's excellent ARRIVAL (8 nominations), in typical fashion, they overlooked the two most-vital contributions to that film's success: Lead Actress Amy Adams (Hello!) and composer of the eerie, otherworldly score by JOHAN JOHANSSON (I am obsessed with Best Original Score nominations!) I don't want to nit-pick on the five Best Actress nominees who stole Amy's spot--but does Meryl Streep really need a 20th nomination?? I will gladly pick-on the undeserving composer, though: a likely formulaic, derivative Thomas Newman score for the forgettable "Passengers." (I say 'likely' because, full disclosure, I have not seen the movie nor heard the score).

Outrage #3: the (virtual) shut-out of Martin Scorsese's "Silence." With only a nod for Best Cinematography, it received the same number of nominations as "Trolls." Marty deserves better than this--he's a national treasure! I blame the studio and their crazy release schedule: the general public had no way to see it before January 13th. Thus, it has zero award-show momentum.

I recently saw it myself just last night: it is brutal and punishing for all of its 2 hour-40 minute running time. It is also a work of art.

#OscarsSoLame

My Big, Fat Polish Wedding?

DEMON (Poland 2016)

Directed by the late Marcin Wrona

After having spent a lovely weekend in the Polish countryside last August attending the wedding of my nephew, it was only fitting that when I returned home that I see this film from Poland about a Polish wedding in the countryside ... that, as you can guess from the title of this film, goes terribly wrong! 

Reminiscent of the last segment in 2015's "Wild Tales" from Argentina, this is a wedding reception from HELL! Literally, the groom becomes possessed by a demon. The movie gets off to a promising start by setting a creepy, ominous mood, before losing its focus in the never-ending reception.

Despite the committed performance from its cast, the movie never gets its footing: does it want to be a horror film, a black comedy, or a meditative look at recent Polish history towards its Jewish countrymen? It tries a little of all three, with varying degrees of success. 

The 'demon' of the title turns out to be a nice Jewish girl who just wants to get married. Nevertheless, she ruins a perfectly fine Polish wedding reception, so that by the end of the endless (and epically stormy) night, nobody returns for the 'poprawiny'! That's the real tragedy, for everyone knows the poprawiny is the best part! (For you non-Poles, that is the day-after party).

For the record, the events depicted in this film bear no resemblance to the wedding and reception I attended. That being said, I did notice these similarities:

- The groom's tie-toss went off without a hitch;

- Lots (and lots!) of vodka was consumed;

- One of the guests is a sullen, disturbed man named "Ronaldo"--in the middle of Poland? Go figure ...

This was NOT my nephew at his wedding (although he may have felt like this on the inside)