Feb 14: Lola Montes (1955--Max Ophuls)

★★

Ok…I’ll lose my lover-of-French-cinema card, but I didn’t like this movie.

I understand what the New Wavers liked about it. There’s the constant defamiliarization of cinema convention with the story fragmented into separate performances and presented in nonchronological order. There’s a ringmaster who talks to the audience (us?) about Lola's story and even appears as a character in it. There are multiple layers of self-conscious reality jumping among the circus frame and the bio episodes. There’s even defamiliarization of the circus, which has masks related to Lola’s story and bizarre characters like the faceless children. There’s soundtrack play with reverb in some dialogue to conjure the circus performance while the movie is running in a more conventional narrative vein, again highlighting the mechanics of the movie. Things like the sweeping crane shots that end focused on a chandelier and the over-the-top theatricality won't let us relax into a mimetic viewing mode.

And in all this self-consciousness, there’s a good story. Lola vogues with Franz Liszt, escapes exploitation by her mother, exits a terrible marriage, seduces a teenager, has a romantic affair with a King, escapes a revolution and lands in a circus. That’s an interesting story.

But as good as all this sounds, I was bored to tears by the movie. I disliked the circus that was the central vehicle for the story; in fact, I disliked it so much that I’m almost afraid to revisit the extravagant Fellini films from the 60s that I remember with such fondness. What if they’re as tedious and academic as the circus looks here? I got very tired of Peter Ustinov yelling at me in his limited, circus-barker, ladies-and-GENTlemen voice, and the stilted acting of Martine Carol (Lola) didn’t engage me in the least. I know she was faulted for her acting at the time, but given how self-conscious and idea-driven the film is, I’d point my finger at Ophuls, if not for the acting itself then for the casting. The only part of the film that engaged me at all was the segment with Anton Walbrook as Ludwig I of Bavaria, and having seen Walbrook in Red Shoes and Colonel Blimp recently, I suspect that this segment is good because he could play opposite a floating log and make the scene compelling.

Too much idea here and too little cinema. Count me among the Bavarian peasants when it comes to Lola.

Feb 11: Happy Together (1997--Wong Kar-Wai)

★★★★★

Second time watching this movie. Really liked it the first time around but thought it was depressing; this time, I just thought it was fantastic and feel like I missed a lot the first time. It’s not depressing at all, actually, though it’s not Hollywood happy. It has a frank, analytical view of psychology and relationships like I’ve been seeing in a lot of films, thinking especially of Techine.

So many things I liked about it. Its technique reminded me of the earlier Chungking Express and Fallen Angels: jump editing; music video cuts, lighting and camera movement; shifting film stock (grainy, normal daylight, b/w). Those two earlier films were mostly style, though, and didn’t seem to have a lot of heart beyond some quirkiness and, ultimately, cuteness.

Happy Together, though, knocked me down with the intensity and truth of Lai Yiu-fai and Ho Po-wing and their relationship. The responsible Lai Yiu-fai is the provider type who nurtures but wants control in exchange; the cute boy Ho Po-wing is an insecure, spoiled kid who needs nurture, in fact demands it, but can’t stand not being the constant center of attention. Both are insecure, and both become jealous of the other because of it. It’s a dysfunctional relationship that causes pain for both of them, and Happy Together documents the dysfunction as if it were Greek tragedy, complete with hubris and the fall. The intense inevitability of what happens to the two men is as riveting as it is painful…and true. This is the type of relationship I saw in good Techine.

That relationship would have been enough for me, but the movie offers so much more. First there’s the way that no setting is left to chance. Buenos Aires is an intensely-realized city seen from the POV of a foreigner who doesn’t have much money and is scraping to get by. The metropolis is a collection of garish clubs, restaurant kitchens and tourist bars with a decrepit boarding house (with its shared facilities) and a slaughter house thrown in. Interesting in itself, the hardscrabble setting also reflects the strife-filled inner life of the two protagonists. No accident that the two men can’t make it to the vast openness of Iguazu Falls; that dynamic, strong, bright setting would not have been the right analog to their relationship even though they constantly long for it while looking at their Iguazu motion lamp.

With setting reflecting inner workings, it’s to be expected that, when Chang takes Lai Yiu-fai’s love to release it at the southern lighthouse, that setting is bright, open and naturally lit, and when he finally breaks free, Lai Yiu-fai is able to make the trip to Iguazu alone (though, he says, still feeling that Ho Po-wing should be there). We last see Lai Yiu-fai in the clear, sunny, clean daylight of Taipei, carrying a photo of Chang an free of the darkness of his relationship with Ho Po-wing; we last see Ho Po-wing alone in Lai Yiu-fai’s old apartment, crying and trying to arrange cigarette packages as reminders of Lai Yiu-fai’s affection. Bittersweet, even heart-rending, stuff.

And there are other cinematic flourishes that I love in this movie. We see Lai Yiu-fai from interiors a couple of times, shots that, along with frequent lens flair, reminded me of the camera and of that shot of Clyde from inside the bank after the first robbery he does with Bonnie. All those scenes take me back to French New Wave and remind me how truly revolutionary that movement was. I wonder if Happy Together could even have been imagined without the editing and self-conscious camera of those films. And then there’s the surfeit in this movie. There’s one whole section that consists of close-ups of Lai Yiu-fai sitting on the back of an open boat as the boat shifts around the industrial docks outside the hotel. Nothing happens, and this segment doesn’t advance the story one iota. It’s a brief moment of impressionist filmmaking that is there simply for mood and inner psychology. Eliot: objective correlative. Like the settings. Like the shots of Iguazu, both the ariel nature shots and the close-up lamp shots.

I remember being impressed with The Kids are All Right and wondering where else a film like that could have been made, a film that talks about the difficulty of families and relationships but uses a gay vocabulary. Here’s an answer: Hong Kong. Happy Together, too, puts a universal truth about human relationships into a gay language, but the real focus here is on the intensity and difficulty of love. Cruising and acting straight are merely gay-specific embellishment on the central concern of this film: the dynamics of a hard relationship and how to deal with them. This film is both beautiful and true.

Feb 8: Bonnie and Clyde (1967--Arthur Penn)

★★★★★

Feb 06: The Tudors: Season 4

★★★★★

When I don't have time (or energy) to watch a whole film, I like to squeeze in a TV episode or two. That's how I've been watching my way though this last season of the Showtime series, The Tudors.

One of my biggest pleasures here is the way it lets me touch base with the European history classes I did as an undergrad and grad student. I remember a lot of the history, but some of the details are always vague, so I like half-anticipating what is happening. The part around the abolition of the monasteries was pretty clear; the Pilgrimage of Grace was almost new.

I’d have to say that the series has at least partly changed the way I think of European history, too: it’d never occurred to me that many of the monarchs were young, spoiled brats and that many must have grown up under terrible pressure and experienced terrible tragedy. Rys-Meyers plays such a character to the hilt with his Henry VIII, and his portrayal has a logic that makes sense to me; early Henry is self-absorbed and spoiled, while later Henry is resisting aging, trying to recapture his youth. As the series has gone along, it’s seemed the Henry character has lurched from one point to another sometimes, but the initial season certainly pushed me to think of how their childhood – and, later, youth – could have accounted for the ridiculous waste that monarchs inflicted on so much of Europe. I wouldn’t discount the impact of politics, religion and power as factors in the wars, but the personalities of the monarchs would certainly have had a major impact.

I refer to The Tutors as “Baywatch in the Renaissance” because of its emphasis on soft core sex, and I think some of the characters, unfortunately, get the depth of treatment that a character in Baywatch would get, too. Tamzin Merchant’s Katherine Howard, for example, would be best popped into a bikini and put on a beach in California; her flighty-young-thing act is annoying, not to mention her painfully anachronistic language and gestures. Suffolk (Henry Cavill) moves from playboy to brooder to lover with relatively little graduation in between. On the other hand, Natilie Dormer manages some depth and growth to Anne Boleyn. There’s a range of depth here, partly due to the acting and partly due to the scope that the series is trying to encompass.

I loved the set décor here, though, an engaging mix of Tutor with some contemporary taste for luxury. I want the sheers with embroidery that appear around the bed in several places; what a great idea for a mosquito net! Ditto for the costumes, which manage to be sexy on the handsome actors.

So this is a fun series, and the graphic nature of characters’ interactions, costuming and environments have left me with an image of some of these characters I’m apt to carry with me for awhile: Henry, Anne Boleyn, Anne of Cleves, Sir Thomas More, Catherine of Aragon, Cardinal Wolsey, Mary and Cromwell. I not only enjoyed the television, but I’m also glad for the sense of the time I got that I can carry around and modify as I learn more. And since this is the last season, I have to add that I’m going to miss seeing Mary and Elizabeth grow up (yeah, I know the HISTORY….would be interesting to see how the producers handle them, though).

Feb 01: Vivre sa vie (1962--Jean-Luc Godard)

Jan 29: Barocco (1976--Andre Techine)

* *

OK…I’ll say it. I didn’t like this movie. I didn’t get engaged in it because it felt so deliberate, almost schematic. As I watched the predictable, contrived plot crank though with its bookend parallel scenes, I wanted even a small surprise. This is early Techine, so I have to think he was working from some kind of theoretical prescription – why else the flat, uninvolving delivery by Isabelle Adjani? the casting of Depardieu as both killer and victim? (a Brechtian gesture?) the paired bad sets of guys? the flat secondary characters?

Despite the occasional visual quotes from other crime movies, Barocco isn’t Chinatown, which oddly enough, I kept thinking of. In fact, I came away with more appreciation for the Polansky film.

This film is nearly ten years from Rendez-vous, the film I first saw some character focus, and 15 years from his great run of mid-90s movies. Barocco helps me see those films in better perspective. Thanks to Barocco, I grasped the range of Techine’s evolution in filmmaking, from contrived, intellectual filmmaker here to the later, greater humanist; always skilled in his technique, Techine gradually develops the art of depicting life in rich, overabundant complexity. The best thing about Barocco is the perspective it gives on how far Techine traveled afterwards.

Jan 27: The Kids are All Right (2010--Lisa Cholodenko)

* * *

I thought this was a good movie with better-than-average acting. It's about a family that is threatened when an interloper tries to usurp the head-of-the-family role and fails.....but rather than the head of the family being a man, it's Annette Benning. If the film had been about a heterosexual family, and had some of the lesbian elements been reinterpreted as straight elements, it would have been a much more typical movie.

But that's what's interesting: this film is about a lesbian family. And that's enough to keep it from being cliche as it portrays -- in a very understated way -- tensions like those between lesbian partners, straight men/butch lesbians, straight men/femme lesbians. How often do you see THAT in a movie? I liked the way you Nic stomped down her analytical, controling, bossy path while the more sensitive Jules responded to what she encounters. That relationship is good writing.

I also think All Right is an interesting American film because as the viewer seeks a center of authority, that center becomes the kids. I felt ambivalent about Paul, who gives good advice to Laser and recognizes that Joni has grown up at the same time he is seducing Jules and undermining Nic; in fact, I half-felt sorry for him as an aging dilettante until I realized that his affair with Jules had hurt the kids. The kids' pain and anger gave me the moral center to judge (and ultimately forgive) Paul. In many ways, his is one of the more interesting characters. And his is the one that's left with the least closure in the film.

That's not to say the film doesn't seem a bit clunky at time. I thought I could reduce most scenes to a particular (and obvious) narrative or character purpose, and Moore was occasionally flat in her delivery. There were some nice editing flourishes, though, as when we had the departure to the second dinner nicely condensed. Overall, the film seemed more deliberate and controlled than rich in detail that might or might not be relevant to the main flow, detail that might have given us more uncontrolled depth. It felt more like Philadelphia than Brokeback Mountain to me.

But all the specificity about lesbianism aside, The Kids are All Right is about love and family, and that's enough for anyone to be able to enjoy this film. I loved the part where Nic finally tells Paul to piss off and find his own family rather than stealing hers; I could see myself in that role. As for the lesbian specificity of script, I enjoyed seeing a portrayal of the pressures a same-sex couple might face, done in its detail. This is the kind of insight that cinema can provide so abundantly. The film doesn't have the range or emotional depth of Techine at his best, but it's still a worthwhile watch.

And it made me wonder what other national cinema would be capable of producing a similar film.