Buster Keaton's Short Films (Part 1)

Because I bought the Masters of Cinema's Buster Keaton box set I am going to review all of his short films (1917-1923) during the next few weeks in 4 parts (one DVD at a time from the 4-DVD box). In the first part all of the films might be directed by Roscoe Arbuckle, but Buster Keaton has a strong presence in each film. 

The Butcher Boy (1917) shows the core structure of what Arbuckle's films revolve around: the director's "greedy but lovable" character tries to win the love of a beautiful girl who is also courted by Al St. John's antagonistic bastard - and the whole story is full of slapstic comedy. In the first films Buster Keaton "only" gets unforgettable supporting roles. Even though the two setpieces of The Butcher Boys are funny and interesting the transition between them is ugly and some of the humor is unfunny because it is so lowbrow.

In The Rough House (1917) the same elements are mixed in a significantly more incoherent way that is worthy of a chuckle at best. The setting has changed from a general store to a big household which disappointing in comparison. The gags are still similar, but they come out of nowhere and don't add up into a hilarious sequence, which makes them cold. Or so it seems in comparison to other films Arbuckle and Keaton made. Nevertheless The Rough House is an enjoyable short film.

His Wedding Night (1917) is a tad slower than the other films in a way: the gags are more sparse and they are saved for the final third that is full of visual gags that are more or less funny. It's not exactly a great approach since the film doesn't work that well apart from its gags, but the comedy kicks more punch when you have to wait for it a bit longer than in the other films.

Oh, Doctor! (1917) follows a doctor who is seduced by a thief, but as the situation becomes more complicated a vicious amount of slapstick comedy dominates the film. For some reason the film is surprisingly dry even though it had the potential to be a lot better. It reminds me of The Rough House because my reaction was rather similar despite a superficially better screenplay.

Coney Island (1917) is clearly one of the better short films Arbuckle ever made. The amusement park section provides a bunch of classic and unforgettable gags. It is a shame the film takes a turn for more lowbrow humor in the end when it could have done so much more than that.

Out West (1918) is an interesting film for its time: it has (possibly accidental) anti-racist ideas that come through the parody of cliched tropes of the western film genre. This effort is more unified than Arbuckle's other films since it constantly makes fun of westerns in a refreshing way.

Out of the films I've seen so far The Bell Boy (1918) is the brightest result of the collaboration between Keaton, Arbuckle and St. John. The refined gags, top-notch acting and awesome setpieces guarantee success. There are moments that feel almost like subversion of established tropes in Arbuckle's films (such as St. John being one of the protagonists this time).

The final short film of this part, Moonshine (1918), hasn't completely survived to this day: only 6 minutes of the film have been found and released on DVD. As a result of that the short is more or less a mess that barely has the sort of brilliance you could expect from the makers.

In all of these films Keaton and Arbuckle perform magnificently in their heavily physical roles. Formally the films are stable and never distracting so I consider them successful in that regard as well.

Scores:

The Butcher Boy (1917): 8 out of 10

The Rough House (1917): 6 out of 10

His Wedding Night (1917): 7 out of 10

Oh, Doctor! (1917): 6 out of 10

Coney Island (1917): 8 out of 10

Out West (1918): 9 out of 10

The Bell Boy (1918): 9 out of 10

Moonshine (1918): 5 out of 10

Mystery Train

(image source)

Jim Jarmusch's Mystery Train (1989) consists of three storylines that have two things in common: all of the characters end up in the same cheap hotel and Elvis Presley is present in some form in each one. The first segment (Far From Yokohama) deals with two Japanese tourists who have come to Memphis to visit the home of Elvis Presley. The second one (A Ghost) is about a foreigner stuck in the city due to flight problems - and she eventually spends time with an incredibly talkative woman. The last segment (Lost in Space) focuses on a fascinating triangle dynamic between three guys who are in deep trouble.

Even though these segments are heavily interconnected their quality varies surprisingly lot. While the first segment offers a pitch-perfect piece of deadpan comedy the other two are only amusing at best. The Japanese couple of Far From Yokohama form such a great chemistry not only between the characters but also between the two performances that overshadows the rest of the film. Even though it is notably the "driest" part of the film in terms of direction the other two segments can not possibly rival it because Jarmusch's lack of exaggeration sometimes diminishes the impact of the comedy. Luckily none of the segments is bad, but there is a troubling inconsistency in quality that distracted me a little.

Jarmusch's form isn't exactly minimal because it uses a variety of techniques - especially in cinematography - but instead I would call it "calm". It lets the screenplay unfold at its own pace and the subtle humor is never pointed at. Most of the camera movement is subtle because it is done so slowly and smoothly that the viewer doesn't easily notice it - apart from a few scenes where the movement is obvious from the editing patterns. The soundtrack of the film is almost the complete opposition with its neverending charm and energy delivered by Presley, Orbison and other similar musicians. It's at least a fascinating and functional contrast so it doesn't hinder the film.

Mystery Train is a disappointing film in its own way: after a brilliant beginning the comedy falls a bit flat and even when Jarmusch gives the film more energy afterwards it never fully recovers. Nevertheless it is a rather funny and well executed film.

Score: 7 out of 10

Special Write-up: LOST

This "review" is spoiler-free until the point I add the actual spoiler warning.

ABC's TV show Lost began airing in 2004. My first glimpse of the show was in 2005 when its pilot was aired on Finnish TV for the first time. Its premise was interesting enough for me: a bunch of castaways being stuck on a mysterious island that kept revealing new secrets all the time. I found interesting characters and the flashbacks to their background stories made the show a particularly rich experience. Lost caught me at a time when I had just got into movies more seriously - even though back then I was a helpless newbie.

I became a hardcore fan of the show almost instantly. I bought the DVD boxes and rewatched the episodes countless times. I was initially intrigued by the mysteries and I spent time a lot of time reading theories and giving my own input to them in a fan community. I admired the show blindly for the first three seasons, but my exploration of cinema eventually opened my eyes. At some point during the first half of the 4th season I realised that the series' writing was rather faulty. After the wonderfully character-centric first season that teased us with mysteries, the second and third seasons had an unforgivable amount of filler episodes, frozen character development and more ridiculous mysteries. But then I thought it was too late to stop so I just kept watching the show and I actually found interesting nuances and details that made me gradually more interested in the show again. The 4th season was a solid effort and I found out that I truly cared about the characters instead of the mysteries - the latter became irrelevant for me.

And that is how I ended up with the opinion I have in regards to the debate whether Lost is character-driven or plot-driven. I have become to hold the plot and mysteries merely as the framework for the characters and themes because the complicated story doesn't work on its own. There are tons of inconsistencies in writing and relying on simple "wow" factor of the mysteries is just cold and dull. And Lost did reward my patience with it because it gradually became better and better. Apart from the messy time travel section of the 5th season it only improved all the time. The series finale was not a disappointment either - it was probably the best 2 hours American TV has ever offered.

Yes, there are plotlines that go nowhere or were treated badly. Yes, there are useless mysteries that were never even addressed afterwards. Yes, most of the characters are rather one-dimensional, but they are still rather fascinating even after 6 seasons (a few of them are utterly terrible though, such as Sayid). And yes, there are only a handful unified themes in the show and some of the motifs remain unused despite repeated use. I don't know what exactly it is among these flaws that makes the show so intriguing - I guess this show is extremely holistic then.

The direction in general is rather messy. The shaky and "edgy" camerawork is dominant in the show and sometimes it is used well, but there are so many times it failed in a miserable way. There are a few notable exceptions when the camera is strictly under control and the results are glorious - the finale is a prime example. The same thing goes for editing as well - there are times when it is terribly random and distracting, but it isn't thoroughly bad. What the show always got right was its set and location design that were simply stunning.

Michael Giacchino's score deserves its own paragraph. Even though it is too sentimental, blatant, heavy-handed and schmaltzy it still works so well. There are times when it is misused or used way too much, but in overall the music keeps the form together. The suspenseful compositions have lesser effect when they are used for pretty much every scene to emphasize a superficially dramatic reveal that is obvious way before we even see it. However, haunting tracks like Life and Death (and the different arrangements of it) prove that Giacchino's score is at its best when it tries to affect your emotions deeply.

From now on there will be spoilers. SPOILER WARNING!

What will I remember about Lost? It will be the characters. You might say that one will naturally develop an emotional bond with the characters after 120 hours, but it's still amazing how the characters are so fascinating and lovable despite the actual character development being so minimal. The show's most tortured characters, Locke and Ben, were the most thoroughly explored characters in the end. Their search for redemption and clarity formed the heart of the show. Then there were great surprises in the last season, surprises which opened the characters for me.

Jack was the character the writers utterly lost after his admirable usage in the first season. However in the last two seasons they created such a clear and affectionate phase of character development as he began to carry the weight of his guilt in different ways. His actions became more and more awesome as the show went on and the logical conclusion was to become the new Jacob - even if it was a brief role that ended with his heroic sacrifice that brought tears to my eyes.

Then there was the comic relief in the form of Hurley and Miles. While Hurley was the lovable genre-savvy character who also had his own drama, Miles was the guy to make cynical remarks that worked surprisingly well on their own. Richard was a mysterious figure for a long time, but once we found about his past he became a tragic character that was even more interesting in the end. Sun & Jin mostly dealt with their own relationship and yet their sweet reunions managed to be touching - and their cruel demise was one of the most heartbreaking moments in the entire show. There was also a bunch of side characters like Frank "forget me for a few episodes" Lapidus that were rather random and useless in the end (or killed off spontaneously like Ilana, that was an epic failure).

The series finale proved me wrong when I thought it couldn't possibly be an emotionally satisfying ending to a show that dragged me along for years. The ultimate moments of redemption and happiness made the show worth watching as the writers showed us just how much they respected and loved the characters as well. And I found it truly incredible that the flash sideways timeline was a sort of an afterlife the main characters had created for themselves - it gave the show a life-affirming tone that enforced the message of "moving on" as Christian Shephard put it. It reminded us fans of the fact that there is a life outside of Lost to which we should return to eventually. I hope I can do that by completing this review. I grew up with the show and even with all of its flaws I can't avoid the fact how much I love it.

Lost (2004-2010): 6 out of 10

The series finale 'The End': 10 out of 10

Kill Bill (Volumes 1 and 2)

(image source)

Quentin Tarantino's two-part action masterpiece Kill Bill (2003 & 2004) is probably one of the most famous cinematic efforst of the noughties. It is a wild story of a woman taking revenge on a group of assassins who put her into coma and took her baby. Whereas the first film is an outrageous, tongue-in-cheek combination of Japanese pop cultural references, the sequel mixes that pattern with spaghetti westerns and somewhat serious drama.

The plot itself is rather simple as the main character, The Bride, eliminates each assassin one by one before going after Bill, the biggest bad guy of them all. The films are ridiculously full of references to other films and cultures. The weird mixture of yakuza, samurai myth and God knows what else can be found in the Crazy 88's, a group of sword-wielding gangsters The Bride slaughters in a famous action scene. The epic setpieces are entertaining on their own and this one in particular is one of the finest achievements of the genre. And the best part is the climax of the whole setpiece: an elegant duel in a Japanese garden covered in snow. There is also an entirely animated sequence for the origin story of one of the assassins, O-Ren Ishii, which fits surprisingly well into the film.

The sequel is a bit rougher in tone although it manages to be funny at the same time. Although occasionally it is indeed a bit confusing as the balance between actual drama and silly entertainment does not work smoothly. However it's not a drastic hindrance when the film still features great action scenes (none of them rival the Crazy 88's sequence, though) and an interesting flashback storyline.

The form is a triumph in both parts. Tarantino's slick use of music is refined here - although the 2nd Volume pales a bit in comparison to the 1st one. That does not mean it is bad at all. The editing switches between intensive/kinetic and relaxed to create a funnily "charistmatic" tone at all times. Charismatic in the way that it makes the film easily entertaining and never lets the viewer fall into boredom.

Above all, Kill Bill is top quality entertainment that never pretends to be anything else - even I was easily sucked into its violent and simple-minded world.

Scores:

Kill Bill Vol. 1 (2003): 10 out of 10

Kill Bill Vol. 2 (2004): 8 out of 10

(image source)

Brother

Takeshi Kitano's Brother (2000) has an interesting premise: Kitano mixing yakuza and American organized crime through his deadpan comedy. He plays a notorious Japanese gangster who has to go to USA in order to avoid being killed. There he intends to gain power for his brother's small and pathetic gangster group.

Kitano avoids focusing on the details of how he rises to power and instead focuses on the humor and what comes afterwards. The rougher-than-sandpaper comedy simply does not work here. It is only amusing on a few occasions because Omar Epps is able to lighten up the silly English dialogue. Characters come and go quite chaotically. Sometimes it seems like Kitano is trying to establish an emotional connection with the audience, but he utterly fails because he either lets the humor run wild or the sentimental bits fall apart due to horrendous writing.

Kitano's "offbeat" cinematography and editing work in a satisfying way, but Hisaishi's musical score is awfully used because it does not fit to the dry comical tone at all. Kitano's and Epps' performance are fine, but they are the only actors given proper roles - the other characters are so uncharacterized or distracting that the actors can't do anything to save the script.

Brother could have become a fine film, but Kitano lost himself along the way.

Score: 5 out of 10