Nobody Else But You (Poupoupidou, 2011)

Poster for Nobody Else But You

This is a strange little film from France that is mostly an old-fashioned mystery that also has aspects of comedy and psychological study. It’s set in a small town in the frozen French Alps, which perhaps explains the comparison to Fargo (1996) in the poster, but although it does poke fun at small town ways, it doesn’t have the air of satiric caricature of the Coen Brothers film. It’s more whimsical than that, despite the wells of human cruelty it discovers. It’s also a very odd meditation on the cult of Marilyn Monroe. It’s kind of hard to explain how this all fits together.

The main character is David Rousseau — a hack writer of detective stories who returns to his hometown in the French Alps after his mother dies. This opening is played as a pure joke, as we see that all he inherits is the old household pet, who has been preserved by a taxidermist. He then drives by a crime scene where a body has been pulled from the snow. This turns out to be the corpse of Candice Lecoeur (née Martine Langevin), who was a local TV celebrity as a sexpot model in cheese commercials and weather forecasts. Her death is pronounced a suicide, but Rousseau suspects foul play and begins to investigate. Once he finds Candice’s diaries, we see her story from her own point of view, and thus she becomes the other main character. Indeed, she’s been one  all along, it just isn’t clear at first.

The similarities with Laura (1944) are perhaps obvious enough, with a detective who falls in love with the dead woman whose murder he is investigating and the discovery of all the frustrated desire and jealousy that surrounded this beautiful woman in life. But here the beautiful woman is deeply damaged and unhappy, because what the world desires from her is the alienated persona called Candice Lecoeur, leaving Martine Langevin’s own desires unknown and unanswered. That’s where Marilyn Monroe comes into the picture, and it gets very weird indeed. But in a whimsical way, at least if you can ignore the tragedy.

And then there’s the fact that David Rousseau is a popular writer whose novels Candice Lecoeur read and adored. Or she adored the characters he wrote about anyway. Well, things get complicated, in a whimsical way. The town is full of eccentric characters, as remote towns in these kinds of stories always are. The story flirts with becoming a thriller, but it really doesn’t go very far down that path. Perhaps more interesting is the way it quietly subverts or contrasts the cheesecake on offer in Canidice’s dimpled curves with a generous sample of unerect male genitalia and a completely nonchalant attitude toward male homosexuality.

It all seems strangely low-key, if not off-key, for all the clever structural bits and revelations within revelations. In many ways it is the story of how this story came to be, or perhaps simply the story of how a writer breaks his writer’s block. A strange little film, with a nice soundtrack of mostly American songs. The poster compares it to Lynch and the Coens, and I guess that gives you some sense of the oddball terrain it inhabits, although for better or worse it’s missing the grotesquerie and violence.

Posted in Film | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

The Avengers (2012)

Japanes poster for The Avengers

Even when I was an avid Marvel-Comics-reading adolescent in the 1970s, I never got into the Avengers, whom I thought of as The League of Characters Whose Individual Titles I Don’t Follow. I was more of an X-Men fan, although maybe it was only because by the time I started collecting comics the X-Men had better artists. But again, the main characters in the Avengers didn’t interest me much (I liked some of the secondary ones like the Vision), and this has continued into the movies. I’ve seen both Iron Man movies, because, hey, Robert Downey Jr (and Jeff Bridges in the first one), but I’ve skipped Thor, Captain America, and the Hulk reboot. (On the other hand I’ve become a devoted fan of Ang Lee’s idiosyncratic Hulk, which I didn’t like at first.) So it must be said at the beginning that I wasn’t particularly looking forward to this film.

All that said, I found the film a lot of fun. The dialogue is great, the humor is funny, and the spectacle is state of the art. I still don’t give a damn about any of these characters, or about the team, or about the threat to The Entire World (ho-hum), but there’s no denying the flair and savoir faire on display. Maybe my favorite scenes in the film are the two interrogations by the Black Widow, although I liked all the other big crowd-pleasing moments too, including the Hulk’s already famous flourishes. I also enjoyed the science geekery between Tony Stark and Bruce Banner.

But this is the kind of film it’s pretty easy to nitpick and second guess and reimagine, too. Despite the passing attempt to give a 9-11 feeling to the post-battle wreckage of New York, a breezy film like this just cannot do justice to the tragedy these events represent to hundreds, if not thousands, of bystanders. I also find myself wondering about the girlfriends of the various superheroes. We see Gwyneth Paltrow as Tony Stark’s girlfriend and business partner, Pepper Potts, but the only other one referenced that I recall is Thor’s girlfriend, Jane Foster, who he is assured has been protected. So I’ve started imagining the movie about what all the girlfriends were doing while their muscle-headed boyfriends were beating each other up and clear-cutting completely innocent forests in the process. Okay, all I’ve got so far is a lot of eye-rolling over cocktails, but I’m sure there’s a movie in this. Perhaps a new supervillain called Lysistrata?

Posted in Fanzines | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Damsels in Distress (2012)

Poster for Damsels in Distress

Whit Stillman has quite a reputation amongst cinephiles, but this is the first film of his I’ve seen. It’s definitely an odd duck, which makes it harder to write about than the genre films I typically watch. It’s a comedy about four young women — all named after flowers — at the fictional Seven Oaks College. Three of them greet the fourth as she arrives on campus and recruit her into their group. They run a suicide prevention effort that seeks to alleviate emotional trauma through tap dance and aromatherapy. But the leader of the group, Violet, seems to have some mental problems of her own. (“I don’t like the word ‘depression’,” says Violet. “I prefer to say that I’m in a tailspin.”)

At times this reminded me of The Fairy, in the way that it’s very mannered, droll, and precious. But this is a much more verbal film than The Fairy, and its characters more bourgeois, and at times it felt like a Woody Allen film in the way that it delves into and parodies the philosophical preoccupations of its overly-intellectual characters. Half the humor is in the way the characters try to rationalize their irrational behavior. If the humor is hard to pin down, it’s not just that it’s drier than a straight gin martini, but also because it walks a fine line between mockery and empathy. Violet is a nut, but she knows it. There’s something winning about the way she bravely battles on with her nutty theories despite the fact that she is a deeply damaged soul.

There isn’t a story so much as a situation and a large group of characters that keep swirling around in new configurations caused by new revelations. None of the characters is really developed much. Some aren’t even revealed much. There isn’t really even any central conflict. It’s more lyrical than narrative, perhaps, spinning around the emotional states of the group of women as they fall in love and are betrayed or disappointed or otherwise distressed. There are comic riffs, like Rose’s constant concern about “playboys and operators,” that function like motifs. Thus it’s something like a musical too, and it does court the comparison, in its use of music, it’s Fred Astaire references, and its dancing finale.

It’s a very strange tone it strikes. I’m not sure I’ve seen anything else like it, for better or worse. Maybe it feels a little like Wes Anderson, too, in the way it mixes deadpan satire with eccentric, whimsical behavior. Is it good at what it’s trying to do? I’m not sure. I laughed a lot, so there’s that. There was a lot of laughter in the crowd I saw it with, but all of us seemed to be laughing at different things, like we were each laughing alone at our own private jokes.

Posted in Film | Tagged , , , | 3 Comments

The Pirates! Band of Misfits (2012)

Poster for The Pirates! Band of Misfits

This is a film for children, as you could tell by the (largely tedious, for this adult) trailers that showed ahead of it. (Shouldn’t a “trailer” actually follow something else?) There were, however, no kids in the audience of the noon showing that I saw. There were three or four very quiet adults. Why, you could hear a rat dancing!

Well, anyway. So this is a lot of light-hearted, goofy fun, as you’d expect from Aardman (purveyors of Wallace & Gromit and such). There are many funny quips, and the action sequences are exciting and funny too. The kid-friendly message of the movie — that if you make a bad decision and do something selfish, you can make up for it by doing the right thing — isn’t very interesting, but neither is it actively annoying. What counts for more is that the story is well-constructed, with one thing leading to the next and resonating back to the beginning, so that we move from the Pirate Captain entering the Pirate of the Year contest, which leads him to an encounter with Charles Darwin on the Beagle, which leads him to London for a scientific contest, which leads him to Queen Victoria, which leads him back to the Pirate of the Year contest, with unexpected results.

Still, the most interesting thing about this other than the funny one-liners and slambang action set-pieces is the way that Queen Victoria is used as the villain of the piece (and she really is a monster!) and that Darwin is a cad who can’t get a girl. The treatment of these legendary figures as despicable people and sadsacks (although Darwin ultimately redeems himself) is cheeky and refreshing. It seems like a very typical British attitude toward claims to greatness. Taking the piss, I guess.

There are a lot of clever names in the film, too, as with the pub called the Hook Line and Sinker. Stoners will have a field day with the end credits, which are teeming with textual and visual jokes that will no doubt repay close attention on home video. The one that stuck in my mind was a sign for Brown Slop Food (or maybe it was Brown Food Slop). I’m not sure what this means, but I took it for mockery of British cuisine of the era.

Finally I should note that it is a sad commentary on the decline of American (and apparently Australian) culture that the original title of this film is The Pirates! In an Adventure with Scientists, but this was considered somehow unacceptable in the US (and apparently Australia). Is it considered too risky to mention science? Do American kids not appreciate the humor of throwing pirates and scientists together? I’m afraid that “a band of misfits” is a far blander, safer image altogether.

 

Posted in Film | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Fairy (La fée, 2011)

Poster for The Fairy

Well, this is an oddball film. Quirky almost to a fault. I became interested in it because of the trailer and went in knowing almost nothing else about it or its creators. Now having done a precursory bit of googling, I’m still somewhat in the dark. The Fairy was written and directed by a trio who also play the main characters. They are Dominique Abel, Fiona Gordon, and Bruno Romy. Variety refers to them as a “Belgo-Canadian-French trio”. IMDb says Fiona Gordon was born in Australia. Her French accent certainly sounded non-French to me. I found an interview regarding a previous film (The Fairy is their third feature film) indicating that Abel and Gordon came out of contemporary burlesque theater.

So what is this strange film? It’s about a hotel night clerk (Abel) in Le Havre who gets involved with a goofy woman (Gordon) who claims to be a fairy who can grant him three wishes. As they fall in love, they become embroiled with the efforts of three illegal African immigrants to get across the channel to England, ultimately with the help of an Englishman who is staying in the hotel with his illegal dog and a nearly-blind barman (Romy) whose bar is called L’Amour Flou (translated as Blurred Love in the subtitles). (Apparently this pun on amour fou — mad love — is an old one, but I love it!)

It’s actually difficult to describe how this movie works. A lot of people compare it to Buster Keaton and Jacques Tati. The comedy is very deadpan and absurdist. A lot of it is physical, although not necessarily (or solely) slapstick. There are dance sequences, for example, that are both goofy and oddly beautiful. There’s a plot of sorts, but it feels very episodic and digressive. Things are thrown in just for the hell of it, and sometimes it feels overly precious and other times the gags are just not that great. But then again, some of the sequences are absolutely hilarious and heart-warming and wonderfully weird.

I haven’t seen any Jacques Tati movies yet (I will, I will!), but I can see the Buster Keaton connection. Still, because it’s set in Le Havre, and because I recently saw Aki Kaurismäki’s Le Havre (2011), that’s what I was reminded of repeatedly. It has that same kind of funny-looking, gawky cast (Fiona Gordon even reminded me a little of Kati Outinen — another odd-looking beauty speaking French with an odd accent), it features similar lumpen proletarian characters wandering similar working class streets and semi-industrial areas. It has a similar whimsical, gentle, humanist humor. Both films have illegal African immigrants trying to make it to England. All that said, I think Le Havre is the better movie, even if the two films are trying to do somewhat different things in the end.

To be honest, I wasn’t quite sure how I felt about The Fairy by the time it ran Fin. I absolutely loved parts of it, but other parts really didn’t work for me (for example, a man whose wish to fly is apparently granted, sort of, but whose prolonged shtick is almost painfully unfunny). I wasn’t sure if that was because I just didn’t fully get the sense of humor on offer (maybe the joke is that the guy’s shtick doesn’t fly), or whether it truly was flawed in places. I give it credit just for being so unusual in tone, despite the similarities to Le Havre. It’s good to be presented with something that hasn’t already been predigested for me. It’s good to feel stumped and hesitant to make a judgment. “Prends ton temps,” as the fairy Fiona keeps saying when Dom can’t think of a third wish. Take your time. Blurred love!

Posted in Film | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Lady (2011)

Poster for The Lady

Last week it was the Luc Besson written & produced science fiction action movie, Lockout, and this week it was the Luc Besson directed political biopic, The Lady. What a difference a week makes!

The Lady is an intensely moving account of the Burmese democracy and human rights activist, Aung San Suu Kyi. That’s a name I’ve seen in the newspapers for many years without knowing how to pronounce it, let alone much of the story attached to it. I knew she was the leader of the democracy movement in Burma/Myanmar and that she has often been under house arrest, but that’s about it. The most recent headline this year was that she had finally been allowed to be elected to the parliament, but this movie ends in 2007, long before that happened.

The film is almost completely focused on her political career, and we don’t see much of her life before 1988, when she returned to Burma from the UK, where she had gone to study at Oxford in the mid-’60s. She returns to Burma to take care of her dying mother, but she is quickly swept up in the democracy movement that the military government is violently suppressing. Suu is the daughter of Aung San, who was a key figure in Burma’s independence from Britain and who was assassinated by political rivals in 1947, which is where the movie starts.

So the most effective parts of the film for me were the parts about Burma and the attempts of Suu and the democracy movement to displace the military dictatorship. But this is a film aimed at Western audiences, and the way it is structured is to focus on Suu’s relationship with her British husband and children. In fact her husband, Michael Aris, is just as important a character as she is in this story, and I think it’s to give a Western audience somebody to identify with. The personal dilemma that Suu and Michael face is that she has to stay in Burma, under house arrest, or she will never be allowed back in, but after 1995 they won’t allow Michael or the children back in to visit her. She has to choose between her family and her country.

I have to admit that at times I got a little tired of this part of the story, even though it humanizes the cost of political struggle. The political is personal, to reverse the old saying. Maybe there’s one too many shots of Suu crying on the phone because she has to make this extremely difficult choice. Maybe there’s one too many scenes of Michael flailing around as a single father. For the most part, however, I found it all very riveting, and Michael is the key figure in making the appeal to a Western audience that they should care about Burma too. He explicitly states that he’s willing to sacrifice his personal happiness for the cause of Burmese democracy.

Still, it is the depiction of the sacrifices that the Burmese people make in the cause of political change that are the most harrowing. The film does not flinch from showing horrific acts of violence on the part of the military junta, although it doesn’t dwell on that aspect of things. Equally moving are scenes of Suu giving speeches to vast crowds or visiting villages in remote areas of the country to spread the word of non-violent resistance to all the people. I was reminded again and again of the Arab Spring as well, and of how long it takes for real political change to happen, now much organization, persistence, and dedication. The democracy movement in Burma has been pushing for decades and have only this month been allowed a small seat at the table of governance.

This is not the kind of movie I would normally see (typically I prefer politics in non-fiction form), but I was attracted by the combination of Luc Besson and Michelle Yeoh, who plays Aung San Soo Kyi. Yeoh is a Malaysian-born ethnic-Chinese actress best known as the star of many Hong Kong martial arts and action films. Here she gets the dramatic role of a lifetime and really gives it everything she’s got. I’ve been a huge fan for a long time, and it was wonderful to see her rewarded with such a terrific part. For me the movie was worth it for that alone, but it ended up being a lot more besides. You might want to bring a hanky or two.

Posted in Film | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Desert Fury (1947)

Screencap from Desert Fury

If you can find David Ehrenstein’s essay, “Desert Fury, Mon Amour,” you should read that instead of this (although you might still want to look at the screencaps here). It’s the definitive analysis of this strange film, treating it as exemplar of Hollywood studio technique practically devoid of the usual points of interest, such as, oh, a well-structured story or a painterly visual style. He also delves into the one thing that makes the film a minor cult item: the unusual sexual subtext. In fact, maybe it makes it more than a minor cult item, because I find myself coming back to Desert Fury again and again, despite the fact that, as Ehrenstein says, it is in many ways the very model of a mediocre movie.

Screencap from Desert Fury

(Hop in, loose end.)

Posted in Film | Tagged , , , , | 4 Comments

Lockout (2012)

Poster for Lockout

This science fiction action film from Europa Corp (written and produced by Luc Besson) is similar to Colombiana (2011) in relying greatly on the charisma of its star but much different in the way that the film seems to be aimed directly at an American audience rather than at a global audience. Guy Pearce plays Snow, a CIA agent who is implicated in the murder of another agent. His chance to redeem himself comes when he’s tagged to rescue the President’s daughter from a high security prison in space that has been taken over by the inmates.

This is absolutely a cookie-cutter genre film made from the pieces of other genre cookies– which I guess is another thing it has in common with Colombiana. There’s even a futuristic motorcycle that looks like something out of Tron. The action scenes aren’t anything special, the story background doesn’t make a lick of sense, and the special effects mostly look cheap. Yet I thought it was a lot of fun. What keeps it going is a sense of humor and Pearce’s engaging performance as the cocky bad boy protagonist, which is helped along by good chemistry with Maggie Grace as the President’s spunky daughter. On the other hand, Peter Stormare is largely wasted as a quasi-evil National Security agent cum red herring.

What more is there to say? People run around hitting each other, shooting each other, knifing each other, and blowing shit up. The big science fictional idea is that the prisoners are put into a state of suspended animation, and the process can cause physiological and psychological damage. Nothing much comes of this idea except a tossed off revelation of political corruption. Really, nothing seems to add up in any logical or meaningful way. Instead story elements are designed to propel the action along, which is the point of the whole exercise.

The weirdest element of the film is probably the evil brothers who lead the prison outbreak and speak in an incomprehensible Scots accent. I mean, why the accent? Well, it’s different, I guess. It doesn’t matter much in the end. Just beware the Glasgie Kiss.

Posted in Film | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Technicolor noir

Screencap from Desert FuryScreencap from Desert FuryScreencap from Desert FuryScreencap from Desert Fury

Desert Fury (1947)

Posted in Film | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Michael Chabon on John Carter

io9 has a good interview with Michael Chabon about Edgar Rice Burroughs and Chabon’s work on the screenplay for John Carter. It makes it clear that Chabon was brought in to work on character and dialogue.

Posted in Film | Tagged , , | 2 Comments