Let me tell you about My Night at Maud's

Eric Rohmer was one of those lesser known of the French New Wave directors. He found his niche and stuck to it. He is also one of the most prolific -- still making films today. Comparatively, today his films may be reminiscent of those from Woody Allen and Richard Linklater, both of whom probably owe a great deal to Mr. Rohmer. Rohmer, unlike Godard, is less concerned with direct politics and less concerned with the deconstruction of the medium. Unlike Truffaut, he is not concerned with the trials of childhood. He also had little interest in working within genre (the gangster film being a favorite of the New Wave directors). His films are set in the present and usually are about a handful of people talking their way through relationships and ideas. The stories are unimportant, but the people are very important. In many ways, his films look very bland, usually photographed by the great, Nestor Almendros, however, upon later reflection they tend to conjure up pleasant memories of a warm, summer day in the countryside. I have been waiting for this film ever since I started watching Rohmer's films. It is the first that I can really call a great film. Don't misunderstand me, I like his works and hope to watch even more, but this is the first that affected me on both an emotional and intellectual level. It stars one of my favorite French stars of the era, Jean Louis Trintangnaut. He is a Catholic and most of the film is dedicated to he and few of his friends talking about religion, Pascal, relationships, and themselves very openly and honestly. It acheives a kind of unusual truthfulness about human behavior and beliefs, especially those within Christianity. Rohmer has a knack for creating characters that seem completely real. They have real beliefs and act real, and like real people, rarely adhere fully to any one set of beliefs. In many ways it makes the film difficult to write about because you can't neatly catagorize the characters into a typical movie stereotype -- they have complexities and depth. Anyway, I wouldn't hesitate to call this one of the great "Christian" films of all time. Also, on a technical level, Nestor Almendros's beautiful black and white photography reminded me of Gordon Willis' work in Woody Allen's, Manhattan. I can't call this one of the consummate works of the French New Wave, but it is an excellent film filled with well-realized characters and the kind of ideas that makes movies worth watching.

The Young Girls of Rochefort

Director Jacques Demy basically had a monopoly on the fledgling genre of the European musical. First, he made the memorable, Umbrellas of Cherbourg which was interesting for three reasons: (1) There was no spoken dialogue, every word in the film was sung, (2) Michel Legrand provided an excellent and memorable score for the film, and finally (3) it is the film that introduced Catherine Deneuve to the silver screen, and for that, I will be eternally grateful. However, this with this film he surpasses his earlier success. In fact, I might go so far as to say that this ranks within my five favorite musicals of all time. This time around there is dialogue, Michel Legrand returns to provide another excellent score, and we get a double whammy, not only does Catherine Deneuve return, she is joined by her real-life sister Francoise Dorleac, who was equally as beautiful. Together they play the young girls of the title. On a side note, unfortunately, Francoise Dorleac died in a car crash a couple of years after this film, but was in the process of making a number of memorable impressions with her performances in such films as the underrated Roman Polanski classic, Cul-de-Sac. Demy creates one of those great, fantasy musical worlds with bright, vivid colors, in which people spontaneously burst into song and dance, and two beautiful, young, musically talented sisters dream of nothing more than finding the man of their dreams. Also in the film, we meet the girls younger brother, their mother who owns a diner, a couple of guys looking for a new carnival act, a kindly music store owner, a love-struck sailor whose painting of the girl of his dreams looks suprisingly like Catherine Deneuve but of course they don't know each other yet, and an American composer in town for a few days. Demy masterfully weaves these characters together in such a way that you know that, by the end, they are all destined to meet each other. One of the most pleasant surprises in the film is the introduction of the American composer who is played by none other than Gene Kelly (with his voice being criminally redubbed for most of the film). This is the kind of film that is immensely entertaining and is guarunteed to leave you with a smile on your face and a song in your heart.

I'm dreaming of a Black Christmas

In the mid-1970's, Bob Clark, famed director of such films as Porky's, A Christmas Story, and Baby Geniuses made this little horror film. In it's only L.A. screening in over a decade, I got a chance to see it at a midnight showing at the Nuart. Turns out, this film is one of the best of its kind. It pre-dates Halloween as being one of the first of the slasher genre, and one of the most influential (John Carpenter was reportedly a big fan of this film). It primarily takes place at sorority house on a college campus as the students are gradually leaving for their holiday break. The snow is falling outside, but inside... It begins in a similar fashion as Halloween with subjective camera and a distorting lens as the killer makes his way into the attic of the house. I guess I shouldn't give away too much because that's much of the fun of these movies. I will say, however, that this is one of the scariest movies of its kind. It's well directed and paced and has a strong cast including, Olivia Hussey, Keir Dullea (Dave from 2001: A Space Odyssey), Margot "Lois Lane" Kidder, and the always great, John Saxon who was there for a Q&A after the show along with Bob Clark. The atmosphere is always tense and it never strains believability. One of the better death scenes cross cuts between someone getting killed upstairs while someone else is at the front door downstairs listening to carolers sing, "Silent Night". A death scene with a christmas classic in the background: priceless. Like Halloween, the emphasis is less on gore and more on atmosphere and suspense. In many ways it's as much a mystery as it is a horror film, because for most of the movie, no one is even aware that there is a killer in the house. People begin to mysteriously go missing, but then again, it's time for Christmas break, so why would anyone think of murder? I highly recommend this rare, little-known gem.

singing Notre Musique

I sleep better at night knowing that Jean Luc Godard is still out there making films. I have no trouble calling either him or Ingmar Bergman the world's greatest living director. But times have changed. Once a Godard film was as anxiously anticipated as the next Tarantino film might be for this generation, and dissected just as much. Now, however, his latest film has been relegated to a mere three theater's in the entire country. His films no longer have mass appeal. I don't know how one can call themselves a film student and not have an effective working knowledge of Godard and his films. No one has influenced filmmaking more over the past 50 years, and few have had more of an influence throughout the entire history of the cinema. I learn more about film technique and form by watching a Godard film than from any class or text book, and this film is no different. His films contain more ideas than a years worth of American films. Notre Musique is divided into three parts: Hell, Purgatory, and Heaven. The first part is a montage of images from wars throughout histroy -- some actual footage, others recreations (mostly from other movies). He strings them together in such a way that would make Godfrey Reggio proud, but then again, Reggio probably learned all he knows from Godard in the first place; so, you see, it all comes full circle. The longest segment, Purgatory, takes place in Sarajevo. Godard, himself, is there to give a lecture on the political and philosophical aspects of cinema. He is asked why humane people don't start revolutions, "human people don't start revolutions, they start libraries." A Palestinian man is being interviewed by a Jewish reporter, "We are only famous because Israel is our enemy." The film is about political exile. There are even two Native Americans in the city for the conference. During Godard's lecture, he examines the shot-reverse shot technique, specifically for Howard Hawks' His Girl Friday where one shot was of Cary Grant and the reverse is the same shot, only of Rosalind Russell. Godard suggests the sameness of the images is because Hawks saw no difference between men and woman. Therefore, in Godard's world of politics, truth is to be found in the sameness of opposites. Finally, only Godard would portray Heaven a beautiful, fenced in, pastor landscape guarded by the United States Marines. I guess there's just no place we won't occupy. Call me pretentious, it may well be true, but this easily the best film of the year, and probably one of the best of this (relatively) new decade.

We all need to get a little bit Closer

Mike Nichols' Closer is one of, if not the best film of the year so far. Based on the play by Patrick Marber, the film benefits from the strenghts of the stage, and, at also, for the most part, doesn't suffer from mediocre adaptation to the screen. Stage to screen can be difficult, but Nichols manages it successfully. The story, to the degree that there is one, consists of four people Jude Law/Natalie Portman and Clive Owen/Julia Roberts, who, towards the beginning, meet each other and fall in love. Somewhere in the middle, they meet one from the opposite couple, fall in love, and leave their original partner. By the end, they're back together -- sort of. Alright, so there is no story, just four very interesting, very intelligent people trying to be happy. For each of the characters, both their strengths and the weaknesses is their honesty and desire to know the entire truth. It is a strength because they seem to recognize that deceit is bad. A weakness because they often utilize the truth in order to hurt or gain emotional power over another person. In that regard, Clive Owen's character is the most cruel and manipulative. He is a doctor and the most perceptive of the lot, and he uses that to excercise control over those he is in contact with. Jude Law wants to be honest and truthful, but he's not very good at it, and he recognizes his own inconsistencies. Like Paul in the Bible (I'm not comparing him to Paul), he chooses to do what he does not want to do. He recognizes the pain his deceit will cause, but does it anyway. Julia Roberts is a theif -- of people. She says she's not, but we know she is. And Natalie Portman, it would seem, is the most sympathetic of the lot. But then again, she's a stripper a perhaps understands human nature a good deal better than anyone gives her credit for. Thanks to Marber's dialogue, these character truly come alive as some of the most intelligent and human characters I've seen in any movie from the past few years. They aren't dumbed down for the sake of us simple audience folk. Neither is its depiction of sex. Here is a point that I would like to harp on for a few moments if I may. It is a film about sex and relationships and there is no sex in the film. There is a scene in strip club where you see a little bit of skin, but there is no sexual intercourse in the film. Pauline Kael once famously wrote that Last Tango in Paris was a revolutionary film because of its mature depiction of sex as an emotional outlet, and not merely titilation. I might argue that this film is similarly revolutionary its truthful depiction of sexual, and even pornographic dialogue. There is one scene in particular that takes place on a cyber-sex chat room between Clive Owen and Jude Law who is pretending to be a woman. He even pretends to climax online. It's a strangely hilarious scene. Unfortuantely, I don't specifically remember any of the dialogue well enough to do just with an example. My point is, they talk about sex they way people talk about sex -- a combination of detailed description and the language of internet porn. By the end of the film, you're not sure which, if any of the characters, you want to feel most sympathetic towards. However, as you're watching it, there are moments where you find youself liking each of the character and moment when you find yourself disliking them. These are not the cookie cutter characters that you start out disliking and then by the end you discover that they really have a heart of gold, because life rarely works that way. A time we like a certain person, then they go off and do something which lowers our opinion of them. Then they'll come right back and do something almost noble. The film works in that kind of wave-like pattern and succeeds because of it. The last thing I wish to mention are the performances. Yes, the dialogue is impressive, but each of the actors manages to give the character the qualities they deserve. It features some of the finest performances all year within the four leads. I now know that Clive Owen can act after that King Arthur debacle. Jude Law continues to impress me. I've never been a huge fan of Julia Roberts, but here she turns in a strong performance and even manages to be reasonably attractive. But the kicker, for those of you who know me, of course, is Natalie Portman who give probably the finest performance of her career. In fact, for the most part, she manages to steal the movie (and I'm not just saying that because I find her heartbreakingly gorgeous). She's incredibly natural and when she smiles, it makes you want to melt in your seat. The Oscar for best supporting actress is hers if there is any justice in the world. Alright, that said, this is more than just a movie about deceitful people, but a movie about why people deceive. At times the damage has been done the person does not desire (or recognize the need for) forgiveness. Yet at others, to err is human, to forgive devine. Yep, I liked it.

The Lady Eve

Preson Sturges is something of a phenomenon of the studio system from which he worked for his entire career. He got more things past the censors in his comedies than just about any other director that I can think of at that era. But not only, his films are uncannily intelligent. They stand out as having a unique quality to them that you can't quite put your finger on. They are simultaneously fun, studio films that one has come to expect of the 1940's, and yet strangely personal works. Sturges was the first screenwriter allowed to direct his own script, later paving way for the likes of Billy Wilder, John Huston, Sam Fuller, and Joseph Mankiewicz. He was an auteur before anyone even knew what an auteur was. That said, The Lady Eve is one of the finest and funniest screwball romantic comedies ever made. Henry Fonda and Barbara Stanwyck do some of their finest work as the unlikely couple. Fonda is a naive scientist who is traveling on a boat after a year long expedition in the Amazon to study snakes. He also happens to be the heir to fortune from the family ale brewing company. Stanwyck is the conlady who intends to weasel out a portion of that fortune. A priceless scene occurs early on, as she watches him through a compact mirror as he sits alone at a table reading a book and a number of girls around him are trying various methods of getting his attention. As they try, Stanwyck provides a running commentary in an almost MST3K manner. She excels in the role and the film really belongs to her, but Fonda is its anchor to reality. He is level headed and a bit naive, she is adventurous and forthright. The perfect balance for the best laughs in any good screwball comedy. It turns out that she falls in love with him while on the boat (as he does with her), and she doesn't want to con him. There are some truly excellent and sensual scenes that you really have to wonder how it managed to pass through the censors. Heck, even her dress is unusually sexy. I don't want to give too much away, but as the film progresses Sturges adds both layers of plot and thematic material. The film has some interesting insights into human nature and how "the best people aren't as good as you think and the bads ones aren't as bad." That may sound a bit simplistic, but it turns out to be unusually insightful as the characters a developed. Sturges is writer first and a director second, which is most noticeable in his excellent screenplay's. He had a knack for good dialogue. That's not to say that he was a bad director, because nothing seems superflous and nothing seems left out, but it is less impressive than his scripts. If comedy is what you are looking for, then this might be the perfect the choice. It's one of the greats.

Camera Buff

I was actually hoping that I wouldn't feel obligated to write about this Kieslowski film, but it turns out that it was too damn good. In fact, I may be willing to call this his finest non-Decalogue/Three Colors film. A man buys an 8mm motion picture camera to film his new born daughter. Soon, his company is asking him to make films on behalf of the company. As he makes them, the boss of the company begins to give him "suggestions" on how to re-edit his films, eliminating certain shots that may not make sense or do justice to the company. He begins to develop as a filmmaker and even sends some of his short documentaries to film festivals where he receives feedback and meets other filmmakers and critics. As he begins to enjoy filmmaking more and more his relationship with his wife becomes strained, and the company isn't always keen on his choices of subjects. The may be the finest film ever made about the (film/documentary) artists' dilemma. Questions arise such as whose films are they, the filmmakers or the company who pays for them. What moral obligations does the filmmaker have. He makes a short documentary on a dwarf that works at his factory -- a positive piece about a productive member of the company who has been accepted in his surroundings. But when the film goes public, the dwarf is fired due other ramifications of the films success. A film is never just a film and there may be consequences even when it sets out to praise its subject. Many claim that the documentary is, by its very nature, and exploitive art, and that concept is clearly shown in this film. Kieslowski himself started out as a documentarian, but quit for that very reason. Many of the questions that filmmaker (should) invariably find themselves asking are asked in this film. You never know what damage your camera can do until you turn the lens on yourself and experience it as your subjects do. I don't feel that this synopsis does the film justice, because it made me realize many ways in which even I feel that I have lost touch as a filmmaker. The simplicity and poignancy of some of the short documetaries he makes reminds me of in the Soviet innovators during the silent era. And it also helped me to recognize the true purity of moving images with no sound or even music. We have lost many such concepts today, and in a big way. It's also worth mentioning that this is one of Kieslowski's most lighthearted films, in the same vain as Decalogue 10 and Three Colors: White. I found myself laughing a number of times throughout -- a rarity for his films. I highly recommend this film for any camera buff.