Little Children

Todd Field's Little Children (2006) focuses on the lives of two families, a registered sex offender and an ex-cop. Their lives are tied to each other throughout the film in the "true" mosaic fashion a la Magnolia and Short Cuts. And because it's set in the American suburbs, there has to be dysfunctional families - of course. This film had all the potential to be a lot, but it becomes completely nuts at some point. One scene made me think of it as a parody, but that seems simply weird in other scenes. The narration is so off-beat, obnoxious and distracting that I really had to detach myself from the film to get through it. This detachment doesnt really fit to the film because it tries hard to be heavy drama, or so I assume. There is nothing certainly pointing at satire/parody other than the narration which - on the other hand - seems out of place. The drama had a few interesting things that could have made the film awesome, but especially the last 30 minutes just fall apart. The ending itself is weird because it doesnt feel like a closure point at all. Its form is fine though: cinematography is calm and beautiful and editing is OK. What I really have to mention, though, is Jackie Earle Haley's performance as the pedophile. He seriously nailed that role like no one else would have. What a fascinating performance!

Score: 6 out of 10

Children of Men

Alfonso Cuarón's Children of Men (2006) is a grim take on the future of humanity. Babies havent been born in 18 years and the world is almost completely in chaos. Only the United Kingdom is a safe country, and millions of refugees try to get there all the time. The story focuses on a man (Clive Owen) who by chance meets and then decides to protect a miraculously pregnant woman (Clare-Hope Ashitey) in this cruel world.

Children of Men gives us an uncompromising and unflinching vision of the future. The humans have gone mad and the youngest living person is a celebrity. The story actually begins with the death of the youngest living person, which causes a lot of sorrow all over the country. The mourning is abruptly interrupted when a bomb explodes in a cafe killing a lot of people - and almost the main character too. After that the film rushes towards the ending, and even the short periods of rest are intensive.

Death is always present in the film. Life is very fragile, and that is part of the reason why Children of Men is truly exhilarating - unlike many other films. The film offers such a detailed and deep vision of a possible future that I would claim it is hard to NOT get into this film. It catches you off-guard and doesnt let you exhale before the ending.

The film is mostly built of long takes - some of them are digitally altered to seem like ones, though. In any case, these long takes are a perfect way to tell this story and reflect the mood for the viewer. The narrative is very, very tight and some of these long takes are necessary for the film to develop so fast. It also makes it easier for the viewer to watch this film because everything happens so fast, and the calm camerawork gives us a clearer sense of what is going on.

The use of sound is extremely important in Children of Men. Sometimes there is a huge background noise, but sometimes you can barely hear anything: this is used for the best effect possible. The soundtrack is something you wouldnt at first come up with for an apocalyptic film, but it is used very well. My only problem is the superficial choice for the ending credits that feels a little forced and silly.

The acting in Children of Men is extremely fascinating. The whole cast gives pitch-perfect performances. Clive Owen is surprisingly good, but the most honorable mention goes for Michael Caine. To cast him in an eccentric role like is a ballsy idea, but his performance is unforgettable.

Children of Men is a genuinely admirable film that deserves all the praise it has received - and even more.

Score: 9 out of 10

The First List of Scores

I thought I should make a list of all scores I've given on this blog now, and I was thinking of continuing this tradition from time to time.

The List (16 movies in total):

Goodbye, Dragon Inn (2003) 10/10
In the Mood for Love (2000) 10/10
Visitor Q (2001) 9/10
Ichi the Killer (2001) 8/10
2046 (2004) 8/10
Downfall (2004) 8/10
Ghost in the Shell 2: Innocence (2004) 8/10
Hero (2002) 8/10
Antichrist (2009) 8/10
Half Nelson (2006) 8/10
Little Miss Sunshine (2006) 7/10
The New World (2005) 6/10
House of Flying Daggers (2004) 6/10
Tales from Earthsea (2006) 5/10
Dogville (2003) 4/10
A Conversation with God (2001) 2/10

The New World

Terrence Malick's The New World (2005) is a take on the story of how Europeans met and fought with the Native Americans when they found American and tried to establish settlements. Terrence Malick is known for making only a few movies during a long period of time so The New World is at the moment his latest film. The film mostly follows an American Indian girl who at first falls in love with an Englishman, and then struggles to live among the newcomers.

The New World flows like a poem, an epic poem that touches on various subjects and themes. The poetic structure is certainly admirable. The film abandons and takes on so many different things that it becomes a little disorienting to watch the film - and it never seems to fully grasp anything. It does try hard to properly handle its content, but the result is utterly uneven. The inner monologues are probably the biggest offender in the film. When you are just about to be enthralled by some other aspect in the film, the monologues come up and slap you in the face to wake you up. Sometimes they work, but mostly they are just pretentious and shallow attempts to be more "intelligent".

While watching the film I was wondering if the film ends properly due to the charming poetic structure - because I remembered that when I watched the film for the first time the ending came abruptly. This time I felt the film ended on a satisfying note - "the poem faded out".

It is no surprise that Emmanuel Lubezki worked as the DP on The New World: the cinematography is beautiful, intense and captivating. There is simply no better way to glorify nature than the way Lubezki portrays the film's world. The musical score of the film is subtle and sometimes a bit weird. It left me cold sometimes - especially when it should have NOT done that.

The acting in The New World is more or less phenomenal. Kilcher makes a great debut and Farrell performs nicely in a subdued way (yet again). Christian Bale is the big star again - his performance is simply breathtaking.

All in all, The New World is a calm and poetic film that suffers from being a little too uneven.

Score: 6 out of 10

Tales from Earthsea

Earthsea is originally a fictional realm created by Ursula K. Le Guin. Hayao Miyazaki once offered her to make a film adaptation of it. She rejected the idea at first, but later wanted him to do it because she loves his films. Unfortunately, Miyazaki was working on Howl's Moving Castle (2004) at the time and couldn't begin working on the film so his son, Goro Miyazaki, decided to direct it. Tales from the Earthsea (2006) is a loose adaptation of Le Guin's books. The film follows Arren, a prince running away from a crime he committed. Eventually he runs into Shadowhawk, a powerful wizard, and thus the "true adventure" begins.

As usually, Ghibli's animation is visually breathtaking. The background art is vivid and marvellous. The character design does not differ at all from Ghibli's other films - and that is fine because it always works well. The beginning of the film is roughly paced because it doesnt succeed well in introducing the characters. The ending is also a little weird and doesnt feel like the logical closure point. The last 15 minutes drag on for quite long and the ending left me cold. Luckily everything in between is paced satisfyingly enough.

The content is more or less a failure in my eyes. Because the beginning doesnt let the viewer easily into characters, I became more and more distant to them as the movie went further. It seemed as if all the "depth" - from characters to themes - is simply rushed in a silly way. The main character is the poor man's Shinji with such weird character development that I was disappointed. There is a girl, Therru, who was handled pretty well though (I'm not going into more detail to save you from spoilers). Tales from Earthsea certainly uses most of the cliched fantasy tropes, but that is only because the original book series made them famous in the first place, so that shouldn't be seen as a flaw.

Tales from Earthsea is usually regarded as the worst Ghibli movie by far. I agree because I can clearly see why. It is an uneven film with only a few redeeming qualities.

Score: 5 out of 10

A Conversation with God

I happened to find Tsai Ming-liang's rare short film, A Conversation with God (2001), on YouTube. I decided to watch it because I'm very interested in Tsai's filmography. He made this short film while working on What Time Is It There? (2002), and I guess it is about religious rituals. The short film is put together from documentary footage that Tsai has shot on his own, it seems. There is hardly any coherency in the film. We have shots of a religious ritual, a stripper's performance, lots of dead fish and yet another religious ritual, the purpose of which couldnt be understood. I'm not wondering why Tsai hasnt put a lot of effort into this film because it seems to me that he simply took his camera and wanted to shoot something and experiment with it. All these different scenes/sections/sequences are separated by shots of white tunnels. It gives the film a clear structure and rhythm so that it is a little easier to follow. There is nothing redeeming in the form either. It is a simple point-and-shoot film, with no effort put into the form. The rating might sound horrible, but it wasnt a waste of 30 minutes for me though. Whatever Tsai does, I'll do my best to watch it.

Score: 2 out of 10

Antichrist

I finally watched Lars von Trier's Antichrist (2009) which has ignited a lot of discussion. Its controversial content turned Cannes upside down. Roger Ebert called it the most despairing film he had ever seen. The film opens with an unnamed couple's (Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg) passionate love scene that almost reaches the levels of hardcore porn. That is crosscut with their child's accidental death. The woman feels guilty of this naturally: they were making love while they should have been with the child. The man's initial reaction is grief, but then he begins to "treat" his wife like a cold psychoanalyst. To deal with this problem, they go to their remote cabin (called Eden for some silly reason) and the shit literally hits the fans there - even to the point of complete sexual mutilation.

After I had watched the film, I spent AN HOUR only reading about the film because I couldnt decide whether the film's content was actually good or not. There are too many distracting moments in the film. In the end the film is about the man whose mind is in chaos although it seems the film is about the woman. The film makes more sense that way. When you take into consideration that this film was developed during von Trier's depression and it was his way to get rid of it, it makes sense to interpret this way. And as such, it is actually quite good, but the distracting moments in the film just rub me the wrong way. I'm not talking about the violent and controversial scenes, but there are hints that give the viewer the wrong impression: non-sense Christian references and weird conclusions about the "nature of women", for example.

For the first time in almost two decades, Lars von Trier finds the right form his film. The Dogme films have been more or less messed up attempts at creating a form that actually fits the film. I've only seen Europa of his pre-Dogme films and that is a better example of good form than any of the Dogme films. In Antichrist, he saves sweet slowmotion and B&W photography (occassionally awesome color photography, too) for the right moments. Even though the rest of the scenes are clearly shot handheld, the shaky camera movement isnt excessive - and that is perfect for the film.

The performances are simply breathtaking. Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg have taken a risk by performing in a von Trier film, but they make the most of it in Antichrist. Their relationship is so intimate and intensive on the film that it is unbelieveable for it to only happen in front of the cameras. The courage of the actors is certainly put to test here.

The film is certainly controversial, but shouldnt be dismissed only as a film attempting to shock: it has a lot more going on under the surface.

Score: 8 out of 10

Goodbye, Dragon Inn

Tsai Ming-liang's Goodbye, Dragon Inn (2003) is the director's tribute to cinema. A movie theater is about to be closed and for the last day a special screening for old films is held. We see vague characters wandering around the silent, ugly and trashy theater.

There are two characters that the narrative follows most of the time. The first is called "Ticket Woman" (in the credits, at least) who takes care of the theater along with the projectionist seen at the end of the film. She limbs along hallways and climbs up and down stairs very slowly. Some sort of a romantic relationship is suggested between her and the projectionist, but it is never directly implied. The other "main character" is a shy man who tries to make contact with the other people watching films, but to some degree fails in the end. There are also a few other people often seen in the film. I would like to mention two elderly men who shed tears at the end of the screening. I interpret that as them mourning for the loss of cinema.

I think it tells a lot about the "nature" of this film that there is almost no dialogue. If you dont count the dialogue coming from the film(s) they watch, there are roughly 10 lines spoken- in fact, it might actually be less than 10 lines. The ticket woman's slow movement and the silence emphasize the "death of cinema" (or the death of cinema-going experience) Tsai tries to portray in this film.

The film lingers on carefully framed shots for minutes and there isn't a lot that happens onscreen. For example, there is a 5-minute shot of an empty theater which felt like Tsai's true moment of respectful silence for cinema. The camera never moves and the few cuts set the film for a really calm and slow pace that annoys some viewers. This is why there are people who criticize the film for being "too boring", but for me it is the complete opposite. The respectful and honest take on a nostalgic subject kept me glued to the screen. Even the 30's Mandarin pop song at the end of the film is closely tied to the idea of "dying cinema" because it's a song about how hard yet bittersweet it is to let go of the past.

Despite being so calm and silent, there are a few moments that are absurdly hilarious. It is Tsai's trademark to have these moments of comedy gold in middle of a quiet film. Most of these funny bits come from the lack of communication (or failed attempts to communicate) between the characters in the film.

Goodbye, Dragon Inn isn't easy to watch by modern blockbuster standards. But if you are willing to give it a chance, you will find a bittersweet and caring tribute for cinema. It is a truly stunning film.

Score: 10 out of 10

Ghost in the Shell 2: Innocence

Mamoru Oshii's Ghost in the Shell 2: Innocence (2004) is a sequel to his massively popular film, Ghost in the Shell (1995). The story continues sometime after the first film, and that's why I won't give a plot outline so that I can avoid spoilers. The film is set in a future world where cyborgs have become very common. The profound themes of the first film are yet again under analysis. This time, though, the characters ponder on them through ridiculous amount of quotes from Confucius to Milton. The quotes are so forced and distracting that they really bothered me. That is the film's major flaw - seriously. The film is visually very beautiful and stunning; it combines cell animation and CGI seamlessly. The form in general works very well, and I can't recall any flaw that is worth mentioning. I strongly recommend to watch the first film if you havent seen it yet.

Score: 8 out of 10

Double Review: "Hero" and "House of Flying Daggers"

(all the snapshots are of Hero; VLC couldnt open my House of Flying Daggers DVD for some reason)

This I'm reviewing two films by Zhang Yimou: Hero (2002) and House of Flying Daggers (2004). Both of these are wuxia films he directed in a row. Hero tells a Rashômon-like tale of assassins (Jet Li, Tony Leung, Maggie Cheung, Donnie Yen, Ziyi Zhang) who try to murder a powerful warlord in pre-unified China. House of Flying Daggers takes a look at the rivalry between the authorities and a rebel group; in middle of this battle there is a story that involves a triangle drama and LOTS of twists. The latter film is dedicated to the memory of Anita Mui, a famous Hong Kong singer who was supposed to have a role in the film. Instead she died of cancer at the age of 40, and Yimou decided to write her character out of th film and dedicate the film to her memory.

Hero's Rashômonesque content means that it is told in a bunch of stories which arent necessarily true. Nameless (Jet Li) has killed all of the assassins threatening the warlord, but is that the whole truth? Is there something beyond his silly, yet simple and believeable story? What does the warlord know? These are the questions that are played around with until the very end of the film. We see similar locations and situations reused a few times because they are used for every story. When I rewatched the film, I didnt remember at all how silly the first story is. Combined with the eccentric form and acting, it was a rather odd experience. The further I got into the film the better I realised why it was so. There is a good reason for it, but I'm not going to spoil it for you. All the stories deal somehow with love, betrayal and strong beliefs. Surprisingly I realised that I actually enjoyed Hero's content more than its form because I expected it would be completely vice versa.

House of Flying Dagger's narrative is less ambitious and less ambiguous. It does have its own share of complicated twists that keep nicely changing the perspective to the relationships of the character. These twists actually work well. These changes of perspective do bring problems too: how do you describe the film? It has a lot of different elements that are put together with its martial arts combat so the only decent category would be wuxia, naturally. These twists appear so swiftly throughout the film that it left me a little uneven. The characters are also a little flat and you get the feeling they are only used as insignificant devices for these twists, but the climax saves them. The beautifully shot climax is simply wonderful. It is such a poetic cinematic moment that even only for that scene I would recommend this film to anyone.

Hero's cinematography focuses on using extremely strong colors. Everything from clothes to locations are covered in one strong color. Sometimes this is used well to portray the emotions going on in the film, but sometimes it feels rather random. It gives the shots a strong sense of harmony and that is combined with carefully controlled (and mostly calm) camera movement. The first story is full of awkward editing, special effects and even acting. I felt that this is used to show the absurdness of the story, but Yimou goes really over-the-top with it at some points. The film does luckily get a lot more serious in its content and form in the later stories. As you might except from this harmonic form, there are a couple of dreamy landscape shots that are used in between a few scenes. Sometimes it feels like that Yimou just wants to show that a lot of money was put into the film. There are scenes so ridiculously massive that I could only be impressed. There is no CGI used for literally hundreds of thousands of extras in many scenes. You really have to see the shots full of those extras in motion to understand how great they are.

Yimou consciously changed the form for House of Flying Daggers although it does have one very Heroesque scene with the focus on one color. This time it is actually poorly handled and the scene ends up being rather horrible because of that. The fights mostly have clever and great camerawork and editing, but there is one terribly painful aspect to the fights. Those FREAKIN' FLYIN' KNIVES. In middle of this serious films we occassionally get these ridiculous slowmotion shots that follow flying knives that fly in the most abstract ways. Those shots are so silly that they ruin the complete flow of the film. Even the beautiful climax is a bit ruined by one extremely shot of this sort.

The acting varies a lot in both of these films. Ziyi Zhang has a role in both of them, actually. In Hero she does a decent performance although her role is rather insignificant. In House of Flying Daggers she gets to flex more of her acting muscles, and she makes a rather good performance. Jet Li's performance in Hero is stiff beyond what is good for the character. Tony Leung and Maggie Cheung are both phenomenal in Hero, as expected. These two should be together more often because it worked even better in Wong Kar-Wai's In the Mood for Love. Takeshi Kaneshiro performs very well in House of Flying Daggers. His performance kept me interested in the film. Andy Lau, on the other hand, was both stiff and felt very forced all the time. His performance really stood out horribly.

Zhang Yimou's films are interesting to watch, but the quality isnt guaranteed to be awesome. These two films are essential for fans of his films and wuxia, though.

Scores:

Hero (2002): 8 out of 10

House of Flying Daggers (2004): 6 out of 10

Double Review: "Ichi the Killer" and "Visitor Q"

Here's yet another double review for today: two Takashi Miike's films, Visitor Q (2001) and Ichi the Killer (2001). Both of these films are extremely controversial, and especially Ichi the Killer has become known as one of the most disgusting and violent films ever. Ichi the Killer focuses on three central characters. The title character, Ichi, is a mentally damaged young man; Kakihara is an extremely sadistic and masochistic yakuza boss; Kaneko is an ex-cop who has become a criminal. All of these three characters are engaged in a complicated plot that involves a LOT of cartoonish violence and gore. Visitor Q, on the other hand, is a lot rougher. It is the story of an extremely dysfunctional modern family. I wont reveal a lot of details, but I'll warn you by saying this: it touches on almost every possible controversial topics. It involves - for example - incest, necrophilia and lactation.

Ichi the Killer is often misunderstood as glorification of violence, but Miike inteded it as quite the opposite. It has a mixture of cartoonish, horrible CGI and physical, raw gore. The CGI bits will probably have you laughing out loud - and that's what Miike wanted as well. But he skillfully merges it with shocking gore that makes us really ponder why we actually laughed at the violence. It makes fun of exploitation, yet it seems to laugh at itself too. It is a refreshing and brave take on violence. Although it partly seems that Miike enjoys disturbing the audience, Ichi the Killer really does have a strong message. The story is carefully crafted and the characters are well-developed. Even though it is clearly a parody, the dramatic bits work well too and if the screenplay was slightly altered, it could be interpret as a completely serious film. The climax is one of the best I have ever seen - it is simply fascinating. As funny as it may sound, you can also interpret the film as a tragic story. It just happens to include sadomasochism.

Visitor Q is certainly more controversial than Ichi the Killer. At first it seems a lot more serious than Ichi, but in the end it becomes more like a farce. I understood it as a wild and weird exaggeration of modern families. The dad is only focused on his job and not on his family; the mom tries to take care of the family and accepts anything, both good and bad things; the son is very violent, isolated from others and on top of it all, spoiled. But once a mysterious guest enters the house, the family begins to change gradually. There is also a daughter who lives elsewhere and she is a whore. Seriously. It makes a valid point of modern society although it goes so ridiculously over-the-top - but that is luckily on purpose. The last half of Visitor Q erupts so hilariously that I laughed through the last 25 minutes. Although all of these controversial topics reach their culmination points, it is funny as hell. And even more absurd is the effect on the family. At first I thought Visitor Q was going to be a silly and onesided social commentary, but the end made me change my mind because it was so brilliantly farcical.

Ichi the Killer's form is intriguing and a little pulsating. Mostly it has shots that have great compositions, but then there are a few oddities in the editing, like the beginning of the film. Miike uses slowmotion and fastmotion very absurdly, especially the latter. His use of slowmotion in the climax was a little distracting because it reminded me of Snyder at first, but luckily he didnt overuse it. As you might have guessed, every bit of violence is as juicy as possible - to silly extremes. Miike proves himself to be a talented director as well by being able to do that for 2 hours without any problem.

Visitor Q is the opposite of Ichi in form. It has a calm - and sometimes even documentarian - feeling to it. The camera rarely moves and when it moves, it is slow and smooth. Even though there arent significantly long shots in the film, it feels like there arent many cuts because it moves on such a calm pace. When the shit hits the fan - the farce becomes dominant - the camerawork becomes a bit more lively and more interactive. The farcical climax is something everyone should feel although the content is highly disturbing, but is presented in such a great way that it is impossible not to laugh.

Ichi the Killer's acting is fascinating. Even though Kakihara is one of the strangest and most unsympathetic characters ever, Tadanobu Asano makes him so damn interesting and human that I became actively interested on how he developed and what he was going to get next. The same thing goes for Ichi who isnt really anything *that* special as a character. In Visitor Q, Kenichi Endo's performance as the father is so unbelievably towering that I still havent fully recovered from it. He is SENSATIONAL.

If you can stand cartoonish violence and controversy, you should totally watch these films. I insist.

Scores:

Visitor Q (2001): 9 out of 10

Ichi the Killer (2001): 8 out of 10

An announcement and Little Miss Sunshine

I have to make a compromise at least with Little Miss Sunshine because I was rather exhausted by the review of Dogville. It was a tough writing process. In any case I want to continue the project so I'll write a lot shorter review for LMS which wont be so great because I will briefly tell what was good and what was not. I might do this with a few upcoming films aswell because I want to return to a better state of mind before bursting it all into a longer piece of text like with Dogville. You can PM me on Evageeks (Oz) or IMDb (OzymandiasJL) if you want to discuss about the film I review only briefly.

Little Miss Sunshine (2006)

Little Miss Sunshine tells the story of a big family (Kinnear, Collette, Carell, Arkin, Dano, Breslin) who decided to drive across the country in a VW bus to take their young daugther to a beauty contest. The story is a nice look at modern and dysfunctional families. Every character is wonderfully colorful and a nice study on certain kind of people: a stubborn man who sticks to his principles, a modern (in terms of upbringing) mom, an angsty teen (this one is one of the best portrayals of the type, seriously), a suicidal gay, a heroin-addicted grandpa who is overly enthusiastic and rude about sex and the energetic young girl. The film has an easy structure in which the family faces one problem after another and try to cope the best they can. In the end all of these problems pile up and turn into a feel-good ending which works well. It has intriguing compositions here and there to set the mood; the editing works just fine; the music is sometimes great, sometimes only decent. None of these aspects is necessarily great, but they work satisfyingly enough. The content is simple, but it has been executed well enough.

Score: 7 out of 10

Dogville

Lars von Trier's Dogville (2003) is a pessimistic study of human behaviour. It tells the story of a woman who decides to hide in a small town after being chased by gangster. Eventually she finds out that the town isn't what it seems to be. My introduction to the plot might make it seem like a run-of-the-mill thriller, but it is not like that. As Lars von Trier's film often are, Dogville is a controversial film. There are American critics who hate it because it's "anti-American", while others say von Trier is extremely misogynistic. I can easily say it is neither, but it isn't a great film either. Dogville can be seen as a part of two von Trier trilogies. First of all, it is part of his so-called America trilogy - which also includes Manderlay and not-yet-made Wasington (apparently without 'h') - and secondly, it can be considered a part of his unofficial trilogy of films where women are treated badly. There is one thing I guarantee: you'll be a lot more paranoid about small towns after you have seen Dogville.

Lars von Trier uses one of the easiest tricks I know: at first he builds something really beautiful which he then boldly destroys slowly and painfully. And he is able to do that in one of the most offensive ways I can think of. It is one of the most common ways to approach "evilness" as a theme. The film's view of humans is naturally pessimistic because of that. However, the thematic depth feels ridiculously forced most of the time. There is no redeeming quality for any character in the end, which is an insultingly one-sided and childish take on evilness. In the end we realise there is nothing we can compare these evil actions to because even the nice beginning is full of people who lie and pretend to be kind. On the other hand, I have to admit it does satisfyingly explore variations of what 'evil' means.

Dogville features a lot of characters that are given almost equal attention. The major storyline does focus on Grace and - to some extent - Tom, but the people of the village are given more attention than you would expect. That is why Dogville is almost 3 hours long: each character is handled carefully. While they might be colorful and nicely varying characters, all of them are dumbened down to be extremely egocentric in the end. Maybe von Trier was trying to tell everyone is egocentric these days, but it falls flat when human behaviour is portrayed in a dumb way like in Dogville. One hides his true, obsessive and egocentric self behind fancy words, and the main character is submissive beyond human limits. Her character made me think of Dogville's plot as similar to an idiot plot. According to Dogville, von Trier's view of humans is that we deny and fight against everything unfamiliar to the point of being utterly silly and dumb. Well, that might be the case for some people and some oddities, but it is far from a general rule. This sort of thinking left me feeling disappointed and empty. Von Trier doesn't handle this perspective with enough care.

Dogville relies a LOT on the narration. Character's inner thoughts, the themes and some of the events are completely told through narration that dominates a lot of Dogville. Maybe it's von Trier's attempt to be literary - the film is even divided into clear chapters with headings for each - for shit and giggles, but the narration shows von Trier's weakness in writing. He seems unable to portray his thoughts otherwise in Dogville. While von Trier apparently wants to draw viewer's attention from things other than the content, narration certainly gathers more attention than the actual core of the content, which I see as a weird "paradox". The narration also forces the viewer to submit to one view instead of interpreting the content on his - or her - own. It sometimes simply narrates the thematic side to each scene, which is a failure in my opinion. If you are so desparate to get your message across, you'll lose the point of film as a way of expression.  With narration, von Trier totally forgets the most important rule of screenwriting: don't tell, show instead.

There are also random moments in the dialogue that really jump at the viewer as forced and silly. For one, von Trier wants to use the definition of 'stoicism' for some reason as a relevant factor in one relationship between character and it really comes out of the blue. There is also a similar moment to this when Grace changes sheets for a bed and she suddenly lets a thought slip. Even the narrator says something along the lines of "-- she suddenly thought --", which served no purpose of any kind. It left me even frustrated with the film.

Dogville has been criticized for being anti-American. Even though it is a part of "America" trilogy, von Trier's attempt is not to aim at American - Dogville is meant to be universal. Von Trier simply chose America because it is such a well known country. The universality is even addressed in the film's own dialogue. Tom is writing a story of a small town and when Grace proposes that it should be Dogville, - because it is influenced by Dogville - Tom rejects the idea. He wants the story to be universal so he wont name it the country he lives in. Von Trier has never visited the USA because of his many phobias so it is fair to say that he isnt passing judgment on the country in Dogville.

There are also people who call von Trier a misogynist, but that is not the case either. This shouldnt be said just because he doesnt treat his main female characters well and he doesnt get along with his female leads. In his films, he always portrays men as the most disgusting and worst humans. Women are mostly frail, innocent and sympathetic - with a few exceptions of course.

In Dogville's form, the most notable and famous aspect is the fact how von Trier made the whole film very theatrical. The whole film relies on one huge setpiece which has almost no props or buildings on it although it is supposed to be a complete town. Instead, the buildings' walls are marked by chalk drawings on the mat, spots are named with text on the mat and only a few important props actually exist in the film. Even though there are no doors or walls, the actors behave like there are such: they open invisible doors and dont see anything outside when they are inside a building. These theatical aspects can be seen only as a gimmick, but it is von Trier's way to make the viewer focus on the story - but it works the other way around. Now everyone only talk about "the ridiculous sets" when Dogville is brought up. You could interpret it in many thematical ways, but I think von Trier primarily thought about it this way. 

Lars von Trier is one of the founders of the Dogme 95 movement, the members of which shoot their films on hand-held digital cameras. Von Trier's use of this camera is terribly shaky most of the time so there is really no change in editing no matter what kind of a scene is going on. This of course weakens the impact of the form and makes form itself a little more meaningless. There are also a few odd details about the cinematography when viewed under the context of the "paradox" I mentioned earlier. There are a few shots that are edited heavily by CGI and these shots really STAND out from the film. They seem to serve no obvious purpose and simply mess with the form even more. There is also one scene that is sped up: this is very silly even though it fits the scene somehow, but it stands out as a silly choice rather than a good one. Von Trier's editing is quite intensive and chaotic because he likes to play with continuity - not only in the form of jumpcuts. This approach to editing is actually fitting for the film - luckily.

The quality of acting in Dogville varies a lot. Kidman is fascinating as the lead actress; she really captures the frailty of her character. Paul Bettany also gives a brilliant portrayal of his character. The rest of the cast ranges from 'irritatingly forced' to 'at least satisfying'.

In overall, Dogville isnt even a decent film, but it has been criticized for completely wrong reasons. I would only recommend you to watch it if you are willing to waste 3 hours of your life for simple controversy - or if you're a Lars von Trier fan. Wait, is there a difference between the two?

Score: 4 out of 10

Double Review: "In the Mood for Love" & "2046"

I watched two films directed by Wong Kar-Wai today: In the Mood for Love (2000) and 2046 (2004). These two films share the same main character, Chow Mo-wan (Tony Leung), but you can watch them on their own because they dont rely on each other a lot, but it gives you a wider perspective when you watch In the Mood for Love before 2046. In In the Mood for Love, Chow and Su Lizhen (Maggie Cheung) become neighbours after they move into neighbouring apartments with their spouses. It is not a spoiler to reveal that their spouses become lovers and most of the film is spent on studying Chow's and Su's relationship after they become aware of the affaire. In 2046, Chow earns his living as a writer who surrounds himself with a lot of women. The film focuses on stories of each of these women. Both of these films share love as a major theme, but they focus on quite different aspects of it. Wong's earlier film, Days of Being Wild, is also connected with these films as it is the story of Su Lizhen before the events of In the Mood for Love.

In the Mood for Love focuses on cheating and vulnerability of love. Chow and Su are uncertain and in doubt of how they should act after finding out about the affaire. They certainly begin to feel something for each other, but they aren't easily willing to admit and embrace it so that they wont be like their spouses. The vulnerability is visible in nearly every scene and it is cautiously examined by the director.

2046 - on the other hand - takes a wider look at love. Chow's playboy-like life serves as the basis for different storylines. The three main storylines are focused on a) an aggressive prostitute who is looking for a long term relationship, b) the daugther of the owner of the hotel who is in love with a Japanese man, c) a mysterious woman gambler who is also called Su Lizhen, like the woman in In the Mood for Love. There are also a few substorylines that revolve around love, but arent given a lot of attention. 2046 is truly a scattered story of love which is able to handle a lot of different aspects, but all these aspects are handled quite hazily. The story bounces between these different stories and in the end you might not remember all of them because you lose track, and that weakens the impact of the content. It seemed to me that none of these aspects were properly handled and the film would have worked a lot better if Wong had left something out.

Both of these films emphasize how love is only a matter of right timing. Chow even mentions this in one of his many monologues in 2046. He also handles it in the story he is writing that is heavily influenced by his own life. The story - which is called 2046 - takes a deeper look at the storyline of the hotel owner's daughter. For me, the scenes of this story were dragged on for too long and it doesnt quite fit in to the atmosphere of the rest of the film. While they are certainly interesting and the content benefits from the story, I would have rather cut a lot of it and I would have told it in a lot shorter way. Wong also uses this as a way of commenting on the process of writing itself.

In the Mood for Love also has a few other things going on while the relationship between Chow and Su is under observation. Similarly to 2046, all of these storylines have something to do with love. Chow's friend, Ping, is constantly looking for new women and he's a regular customer for the local prostitutes. Most of the time we see Su at work, she is more focused on handling anything concerning the lover of her boss. It is intriguing to tweak the thematic depth a little by these minor details.

The beginning of In the Mood for Love has a really tight narrative. It goes through events so quickly that it is a little disorienting on the first time, but it is OK because then the film takes a lot calmer pace when the actual subject of the film is brought up. I would go as far to say that the film is nearly perfectly constructed. The pace of 2046 keeps changing all the time, partly due to the changing story arcs. While the editing masterfully keeps the viewer satisfied, the construction of the film is a little uneven - maybe on purpose. The film is so full of ups and downs that you dont really understand whether it is ever going to build up for a climax (or follow an easier pattern) - which it does not. This "poetic narrative" is fascinating yet a little frustating sometimes. Luckily Wong handles it quite well.

Wong uses slides of text during both of these films. In 2046, the slides are there to tell the viewer how much time has passed. There are also a few peculiar moments when events of history are focused on in the movie although they seem to have no relevance to the content at all. In In the Mood for Love they are used for quotes that strenghten the content of certain scenes.

In terms of cinematic form, Wong Kar-Wai is a madman. In In the Mood for Love and 2046, he is a bit more restrained than usually, which is a better choice. He likes to use precise and clear compositions to affect the mood cleverly. His films in general use a lot of closesups, slowmotion and fastmotion shots, and God knows what else. In the Mood for Love uses the apartments' hallways to create a little tension. The slowmotion shots are well used in In the Mood for Love where they seem to have greater resonance than in 2046. The lighting in both of these films is carefully handled and extremely beautiful. Wong likes to hang on certain moments in all of his films, and these two aren't exceptions to that "rule". The peculiarities in his form are often combined with strong musical choices to create unforgetable scenes.

There is one special formal method in In the Mood for Love that deserves to be mentioned. The faces of the spouses are never shown. We either see the back of their heads or hear their voices, but they are almost always outside of the shot. That makes the viewer even more alienated from them, which is necessary for the viewing experience. 2046 concentrates on framing with walls and a lot of other things. There is a huge number of interior shots that are framed with some object. It gives a nice touch to the beautiful shots.

There is a great example of Wong's form in In the Mood for Love. It combines the brilliance of his camerawork, editing and music. Chow and Su sit down for a discussion that is a huge turning point. The camera's movement totally reflects the mood of the whole situation. Switching from casual to tense by simple camera movement and/or cut. Even the background music is killed at the right moment which strengthens the impact of the scene.

Tony Leung's performance as Chow in these two films is brilliant. The character changes remarkably between the films, but he is able perform all aspects of the character flawlessly. His charisma easily carriers 2046 which is certainly used. Maggie Cheung manages to be at least as great as Leung in In the Mood for Love. Her subdued performance is a vital factor in setting the film's mood. In 2046, Zhang Ziyi's wild and overenthusiastic performance somehow fits although it might at first seem very over-the-top. Casting Faye Wong was a nice tribute to Wong's Chungking Express - even her character reminds of her character in Chungking Express.

In overall, In the Mood for Love is the film I prefer of these two. It is a lot more solid experience and doesnt falter in any aspect. 2046 is a little uneven in many aspects that the entirety is inevitably worse.

Scores:

In the Mood for Love (2000): 10 out of 10

2046 (2004): 8 out of 10

Downfall

Oliver Hirschbiegel's Der Untergang - aka Downfall - (2004) is an account of Hitler's (Bruno Ganz) and Nazi Germany's last days. The story is told mostly from the point of view of his final secretary (Alexandra Maria Lara). The film was nominated for the Best Foreign Language Film Oscar. Bruno Ganz' mad performance as Hitler was widely recognised by critics.

The film seems like a valid account of its subject, but it has been altered a little for a better narrative. The film is a shocking: it isn't afraid of telling what actually happened back then. There are people who were offended by how warmly Hitler sometimes acts in the film, but all of those moments have been officially proved true - with one minor exception, but that's not relevant. Naturally, Hirschbiegel doesnt pick sides when it comes to the war, but instead he focuses on each person individually. At the beginning and end of the film, there are clips of a real interview with the secretary, and by that Hirschbiegel reminds us of the fact that the film is a true story.

The beginning of the film is harsh because we are introduced to so many characters at a wild pace. Only Hitler and the secretary are given a proper introduction, but after that it becomes a little hard to remember who's who and where everyone is at the moment. That flaw is partly explained by the fact that the story tries to stick to the truth, but it is a minor flaw in any case. The screenplay uses the huge amount of characters for a benefit: the point of view rapidly changes and it gives a wider perspective for the viewer. For example, when an officer tells Hitler how to shoot himself, we see the scene through the eyes of another officer who eavesdrops on the conversation from the other end of the hallway. It gives the moment a colder and more terrifying atmosphere.

I didnt realise it when I watched Downfall for the first time, but sound is used well to set the atmosphere for each scene. We are constantly reminded of the chaos that is going on outside the bunker by a lot of sound effects. Combine this with cruel and cold sets which radiate a claustrophobic vibe, and you'll have a rather intense cinematic experience.

The film's pace is quite fast although you might not realise that at first. With the long (2,5 hours) running time it becomes a little exhausting by the end of the film. Luckily the camerawork is rather smooth despite its undeniable energy, and that helps the viewer get through the film. The cinematography is almost "clinically clean" which is certainly fascinating: even some of the "action" scenes are quite cleanly shot. It alienates you a little from the events and makes you evaluate the content from a safe distance.

The acting is great in overall. Bruno Ganz simply delivers a riveting performance that really makes the most out of Hitler as a character. Alexandra Maria Lara's performance is a little uneven: she's great when her character is more restrained, but when she becomes more hysterical, Lara "lost the grip" on the character and it feels a little silly. Other notable performance from the great cast is Ulrich Matthes as Joseph Goebbels.

Although the events on their own cause a lot of discussion, the film manages to provoke questions in the viewer. Der Untergang is a solid film of a tough subject, but it is certainly the portrayal that will be remembered.

Score: 8 out of 10

Half Nelson

Half Nelson (2006) tells the story of a teacher (Ryan Gosling) who is addicted to drugs. After one of his students (Shareeka Epps) finds about his addiction, they form an eccentric friendship. The film was directed by Ryan Flec. It features Ryan Gosling's breakthrough performance which led to an Oscar nomination. It was praised by the critics and became so popular that you could call it THE indie film of 2006 along with Little Miss Sunshine. Ebert named it one of the best films of the decade. You can listen to his and Roeper's thoughts on the film here. 

Why is the film called Half Nelson? It is a wrestling term that serves as a metaphor for the main character's situation: it is extremely difficult to break free from it without putting up a fight.

The film carefully studies its two main characters. As a character study, the film certainly prevails. Although the camera is very interactive with the characters, we are given an honest image of them. We see Gosling's character both as a good teacher who inspires his students, yet we are also there to witness his horrible actions when he's down on his luck. Both of them are in middle of all kinds of "opposing forces" he talks about during the lessons. The characters slowly crumble towards the ending which is a finely constructed climax. The development of the characters reach a fascinating point which works well as an ending.

Half Nelson might work as a character study, but partly because of that it lacks thematic coherency a little. The presentations on civil rights break the rhythm of the film and feel completely forced and separate from the film, which - in turn - makes the film a little uneven.

Half Nelson's form attempts to create a strong emotional bond between the viewer(s) and characters through many aspects. It emphasizes the feeling of each scene and shot. It is obviously shot with hand-held cameras because the camera trembles most of the time, but it actually works a lot better than you would expect. I can't recall a single long-distance shot from the film; it is constructed mostly of close-ups and a few medium-distance shots. The focus is sometimes awkwardly changing, but that is done on purpose. There are a lot of scenes that actually benefit from this "nauseating" camerawork. It has a better impact on the viewer than any other method would have had, for example this is the case in the scene when the student discover the teacher's drug addiction. It creates a truly agonizing atmosphere for the scene. There are also a few scenes which add music with the same intention, and those scenes also worked quite well.

The film features a few scenes that use juxtaposition in a peculiar yet clever way. I won't give you an example because it is a lot more fun to spot them on your own. The film's pace is very lifelike: it never rushes onwards with only leaving the essential shots, but it never hangs onto a single moment. This is the result of proper editing that is worth mentioning. All in all, the form works very well most of the time, but it isnt necessarily perfect.

Ryan Gosling's performance is simply phenomenal. It is one of the best performances of the decade. He delivers a tour de force with unbelieveable authenticity. Yet Shareeka Epps isnt overshadowed by Gosling's towering performance. Her performance never seems forced - which is the opposite of a lot of other young American actors - and she can sometimes even rival Gosling. The other members of the cast are good too, but they arent worth mentioning here.

In overall, Half Nelson is a very good film which deserves the appreciation it has received.

Score: 8 out of 10

Introduction

This blog was created for one sole purpose: it will be the diary for me while I watch a lot of films from today to the end of January. I'm preparing to make a Top 50 list of my favourite films in the 2000's. For that reason I'll rewatch a lot of films and try to watch as many new* films as possible.

The first review - that I will write for this blog - will be of Half Nelson.

*new as in films I have never seen before