Thursday, December 25, 2008

The Green Berets

Roger Ebert criticized this film for being "heavy handed and old fashioned." Considering the movie's egregious glorification of a widely unpopular war, its simple vilification of the media for speaking out against the conflict, and its deeply racist representations of the Vietnamese people, history, culture, and political context, I'd say it's a fair critique. I also would place this movie on my list of most hated, but mostly because it's loud and sort of uninteresting. Normally I would try to comment more extensively on the film's plot, characters, etc., but I feel much more compelled to comment that my Christmas break was pretty hectic, that I disappointingly left my knitting needles at home, but that happily my step-mom made corn casserole, so things pretty much evened out. George Takei is in this, and the new Star Trek movie is going to be so unspeakably cool. Also, you wouldn't know it from looking at me, but I have really low blood pressure.

In theory I'd like to be interested in The Green Berets. I watched the National Geographic documentary with attention, and expected to do the same here. The most I got out of this, however, was another wow level and a downloaded mp3 of the green berets theme song to set as my brother's ring tone. Since my brother is the only special forces member I know I trust his evaluation of the film: "This movie is to other movies as the Vietnam war was to other wars." He's right, it's long, convoluted, and (judging from my family's experience) popular mostly with patriarchs. [photo: yawn]

Friday, December 19, 2008

Milk

On Wednesday, instead of the usual ritual viewing of Heroes and TUF on Charlie’s DVR, Kristin and Charlie and I went to Gus Van Sant’s new biographical movie about Harvey Milk.

Milk was SO GOOD. It was really interesting and compassionate and beautiful. The acting was good, and that seems to be what everyone is talking about, but what I really liked about it was the way the story was constructed. I mean, there are TONS of historical documents about these events (and a lot of the people involved are still around and aware of the movie). The movie uses the historical record – lots of old footage, including this amazingly moving scene of the candle light vigil after Harvey Milk died – but it totally avoids feeling like a documentary. There’s tons of framing: stories inside of stories, levels of narration, and distortions – I lost count of how many times what we’re watching is not the action but a reflection of the action, in a window or a mirror or a TV screen or even in an extreme close-up of one of the whistles gay men used to carry in the Castro in case they were attacked. I am pretty sure several of these shots didn’t even make sense physically, and it was these odd angles and unlikely perspectives that for me made Milk less a movie about a life than a movie about how hard it is to make a movie about a life.

It had a lot of the SUPER cheesy stuff that usually makes me indifferent to these big Oscary biopics, but it justified even those moments somehow, in part because of the constant assertion of credibility* and in part because of the corniness of Harvey Milk himself - without unfailing and doomed optimism, he would not have been the hero he was.

*One of the corniest scenes in the movie is when, in the final moments of Milk’s life,he stares out the window at the Tosca posters across the street. Well, it turns out there's a lot of good reason to believe that he was actually staring out the window at the opera house when he died.

Nazis!

Which of This Fall’s Oscar-Baiting Holocaust Movies Is Right for You? (from Vulture). Please post your decisions below so we can arrange rides to the theater.

Tuesday, December 16, 2008

Twilight--David's Initial Response

My partner and I finally saw twilight today, which inspired me to make the following game. I'm going to show you pairs of pictures, and you're going to try to figure out which one is Marlon Brando looking young and sexy, and which is Robert Pattinson. I claim that this is impossible. To make the game harder for me, I picked only pictures off of the first page of Google Images:

Ready?

Here we go:





ANSWER: Actually, Brando's on the right.


Here's an easy one:




ANSWER: There's a trick to this one. I didn't have time to airbrush the cigarette.



Okay, one more:



ANSWER: I don't remember any more which is which in this one. Sorry. But does it really matter?

My partner notes that Pattinson is much skinnier than Brando in each of these pictures, and while I agree, I observe that age will fatten his jowls, but won't do anything to decrease his eyebrows, his pouty lips, his beauty, or his troubled manly gaze.

Monday, December 15, 2008

Awards Season: Handmade Edition

I have all sorts of ranty feelings about awards and awards seasons and awards predicting and awards shows. I sort of hate the Oscars, but I guess I sort of hate them in the same way I sort of hate Buffy. I mean, I own the whole series, and I've watched it a lot of times, and I have so many opinions about niggling details, you might think I'm some sort of a "fan" or whatever. Like a lot of people who Hate The Oscars, I cannot seem to help paying a fair amount of attention.

I hate many things about The Academy. They usually reward movies I find more or less unbearable. They perpetuate the homogenization of the movies and the star system which deprives us of access to lots of talent. And there is something weird and wrong about the idea that what is supposed to be art can be lined up in order, worst to best, with exactly one movie at the top. The main thing I hate is this idea, that there is one "best." It prevents comedy from ever being recognized, of course. And it excludes other good movies too. I would prefer a diversification of awards, which I guess is a direction we're heading in (with the addition of animated feature, foreign language, shorts, etc), but I want to go further. Much further. I would like to see a category for Best Performance By An Established Actor Playing Against Type, or Best Movie That You Wouldn't Expect To Be Good, or Best Non-Condescending Writing of a Slangy Teen. And rename the "best picture" what it really is: Best Very Dramatic, Moderately Politically Movie Set In The Past With At Least One Hard-to-Place Accent and At Least One Main Character Who Dies Unpleasantly.

Anyway, it is in this spirit that Not That Critical presents the first annual HandMade Awards, honoring the films of 2008 (that I happen to have seen) that best capture the spirit of hand crafting and/or promote crafts, especially fiber arts.

5. Wanted


What could be better than an action movie, based on a comic book, full of sexiness and weaving? Well, Wanted doesn't answer that question, because it was pretty much none of those things. But I still give it a place on the list, for trying to make weaving edgy.








4. Twilight


We've already written a fair amount about Twilight. But we haven't talked about Bella's lovely mittens, which have inspired a lot of fan crafting. They are very pretty, in a muppety sort of way.








3. Role Models

Role Models was a pretty good movie, and I found its portrayal of nerdy LARP/SCA culture pleasantly affectionate (if probably inaccurate). The crafty high point of the film is the arrival of the four main characters decked out in homemade KISS costumes. Homemade!

Also: McLovin sews!












2. Dr Horrible's Sing-a-long Blog

http://community.livejournal.com/weloveamigurumi/344530.html

Dr. Horrible
deserves a hand-made award for several reasons. First, Joss Whedon has inspired TONS of fan crafting over the course of his career. Dr. Horrible was produced independently and released free online (and now it's free on Hulu) which is in itself very much in the DIY spirit. Finally, Joss Whedon graciously granted an interview to Kim Werker of crochetme.com, in which he took the idea of craft seriously and gave good answers to good questions.


1. Happy-Go-Lucky

Mike Leigh's lovely improvisational comedy Happy-Go-Lucky gets the award, largely on the strength of that ridiculously wonderful sweater vest.

Friday, December 12, 2008

Twilight (Lydia's response)








(Edward and Bella try very hard not to make out)


First, I would like to get out of the way some of my political response to this movie:

1. Twilight should be part of an abstinence-only sex ed
curriculum. Again and again, the following message is reiterated: if you lose control of your natural desires, if you pursue the pleasure you want for even a second, you will quite literally die a horrible death.

2. It is a textbook abusive relationship:
  • Bella overlooks Edward's bad behavior because she loves him so much.
  • Only she can see how beautiful he really is (because he only shows his glitter-paint on the top of the mountain to her).
  • He isolates her from her family (and says it's best for them if she ends her relationship through painful lies).
  • He blames her (and her attractiveness, and how much he loves her) for his desire to physically assault her.
  • He shyly admits that he's been sneaking into her room because he likes to watch her sleep. In real life, this sort of behavior is categorically NOT cute or endearing.
  • When she says she's not afraid of him he replies "You shouldn't have said that" and proceeds to do his best to scare the shit out of her. How sweet.
Deep breath. So Twilight might be a dangerous film, because it enforces some really terrible lessons about humans in relationships with each other, but I would not quite say it's a bad film. There's an undeniable authenticity about the teen drama of this movie that I love. (Undeniable because, for one thing: look at the box office. Something about this movie--and the books it is based on--succeeds with teenage girls).

If you look at Catherine Hardwicke's career, you will notice that directing is not her biggest credit. She has been production designer on about three times as many films as she has directed. Look at what CH has directed though: the powerful and hard to watch Thirteen, which she co-wrote with then-thirteen-year-old actress Nikki Reed who plays (unfortunately few scenes as) this bitchy/hungry vampire in Twilight. Between Thirteen and Twilight, Hardwicke directed two other teen movies I have not seen, with two other, very different stories of teen life: The Lords of Dogtown, which is about California surf culture in the 70s, and The Nativity Story, which is...the nativity story. (I did not see this movie, and now I kind of want to. I think the only reason I remember it at all is because there was some understated controversy around the fact that Keisha Castle-Hughes -- you remember her from Whale Rider -- was herself a pregnant unmarried teen during the time she played pregnant unmarried teen Mary. Irony? Or something...?)

Twilight captures a sort of absurd, sincere emotion that exists only in impossibly intense teen relationships. The endless gray background, the modest overacting, and the simplicity of the characters all contribute to this honest excess. Kristen Stewart's performance comprises mostly earnest lip-biting and sullen-but-mature voice over narration, while Robert Pattinson as Edward reminds me a little of Danny Zuko, asserting his masculinity with every swaggering step. The supporting characters, while they lack dimension I suppose, refreshingly refuse to conform exactly to the age old dichotomies of high school life: nerd vs jock, rebel vs princess. I give Twilight credit for surrounding Bella with a group of friends each of whom is some degree of nerdy, athletic, clever, likable and self-possessed.

I love the way symbolism is slathered all over the surface of this movie. There is nothing subtle about Twilight (just as there is nothing subtle about being seventeen and hopelessly and tragically in love in ways no one else could possibly understand). Bella's first interaction with Edward takes place in front of a convenient fan, a fan that blows her hair back as if she were in a music video. In much of this scene, Edward's face is perfectly framed by the outstretched wings of a stuffed owl: cherubic and nocturnal.

I have only read the first twenty pages of the Stephanie Meyers novel on which Twilight is based; it is exactly the sort of book (best-selling, plot-driven and extremely long) I tend to avoid for fear of having to explain why I hated it to likable smart fun people who loved it. But actually, from the beginning of the book, I suspect Twilight may prove to be an exception. Maybe the first person narrative justifies the sloppy writing in this case? Bella lacks self-awareness and while this is probably not craft (a couple of interviews have convinced me that S Meyers lacks any pretense of being interested in, you know, words or whatever), but it works. Sure, I am disappointed that Meyers (like JK Rowling) achieves celebrity while Jaclyn Moriarity remains unheard of, even among avid kidlit readers, but it is unfair to judge a work by what it is not.

p.s. I enlightened a lot of people by making (less elegantly) this connection after (okay, and during) the movie. I love the internet!

Wednesday, December 10, 2008

Paris, je t'aime

Jardin State.



In the spirit of the film, my review will be in a series of short reviews.

“Place des Victoires”: This is a standard grief-piece: a mother is quickly revealed to have lost her son and is fixating on little details while her husband and daughter urge her to come to terms. While this is to all appearances the dullest of the shorts (though by no means the worst), it features a magic cowboy at the end (Willem Defoe!) and accordingly it really just works.

Bob Hoskins: This guy is great. Like the best character actors he captures the utter cartoonishness necessary to make acting watchable without overstepping into whatever bad comedians are. In many ways he is a better summation of the human experience than a whole funny drama about love and loneliness: he is just too absurd to be believable, just too convincing to be a joke and just too likeable to be criticized.

“Quartier de la Madeleine”: PJT’A doesn’t qualify as eighteen short films since this one is really just part of Sin City. Short. Noir. Ambient. Black-and-white-but-for-stylized-blood. Elijah Wood is even in it. However you felt about Sin City, here’s part of it again but with a heart wipe to black so it doesn’t feel out of place.

(It feels a little out of place.)

Colgate Tartar Control Whitening: I brushed my teeth with this after the movie. It has a granular quality that I find unpleasant. It’s as though in staving off the erosion of my teeth by sugar and age it is in turn eroding them the traditional way. This is an unnerving thing to consider, especially during the only five minutes a day you spend in front of a mirror. I’m not sure toothcare providers realize uniquely introspective window of captive audience.

“14e arrondissement”: The final section is a journal entry by a middle-aged American tourist, narrated aloud in obviously amateurish French. While this is a film about Paris that ends on an American’s experience, it avoids coloring the film as strictly American; in fact ending with a foreigner’s experience of the city feels like a fitting way to give it an identity. The difficulty with this section is the intentional superficiality of her commentary. Lines like “I wish that I had someone with me. Someone to say to, ‘this is beautiful,'” would stand out awfully from an earnest character, but clearly meant to be meaningful and self-aware from a simple, bewildered one. Since the movie knows she is simple it is either being ironic or celebrating it. The former would be mean-spirited and contrary to the presentation of Paris as a beautiful, wonderful place while the latter would embrace all experiences as equally deep, contrary to the idea of Paris as complicated and layered (a problematic thing to suggest about the subject of your movie). I doubt Alexander Payne finds cinematic value in actual tourist slides, yet has seen it in fabricating and producing one. In all, it seems to rest between irony and sincerity: one must simultaneously understand and condescend this poor wonderful woman, or feel not taken the correct amount of seriously.

The Idaho State Quarter: I don’t understand what is going on here. There is a monstrous hawk, giving the entire state of Idaho (disturbingly severed from the rest of the continental 48) the hungriest look. If anyone can come up with a more reasonable reading I’d be glad to hear it but for now I’m going to stay out of Idaho.

Paris, je t’aime: In many ways this movie is exactly what you would expect. It is likeable, funny, sad and visually cool. It is strange that there is a prevailing feeling of optimism in a drama where half the shorts are tragic. There is a sense that the movie wants to make loneliness beautiful simply by showing it, which I don’t fully understand. Any movie about a city is called a love letter to that city, and a brief survey of online reviews show Paris je t’aime no different. In its ambivalence about the relationship of joy, sadness, heatbreak and quirkiness beyond their constant presence it perhaps is a love letter. Of course, a love letter is almost always one of two things: a happy affirmation of the obvious or untimely, unwanted, and unread. To make a film of one seems odd.

Twilight - Kristin's Review

Though it pains me to write this, the time has come (why was I not prepared?) for Angel to step down. I never thought I would say this, but yes, Joss Whedeon's "billowly coated king of pain" has absolutely been out-brooded. Where Angel peers mournfully from beneath his inhuman brow, Edward forces a vicious seethe from an impossible brow *and* chin. Where Angel's dialogue breaks off dramatically to highlight his unspeakable sadness, Twilight's characters stammer and choke, forcing themselves through dialogue so broken and unthinkable no one can bear to complete a sentence. It's like Mamet, but with one-way angst in place of meandering pretension. The critic who called Edward's character "overly Byronic" is to be recognized for what must be the understatement of the century. Never before have I seen a monster stand in the sun and demand that his love look upon his loathsomeness only to twinkle and glisten so fabulously in the light. Traditionally, vampire narratives explore a beast with two natures--a thin veneer of irresistible beauty that barely stretches to conceal the unhinged monster beneath. The audience is almost always treated to a moment in which the film or novel indulgently pulls back the curtain, showing the viewer what fine clothing and exotic pretense are cultivated to conceal. Not so with Twilight. Each step we take into the Cullen's world reveals them to be more lovely than we previously thought. Their life is the ultimate civilization of the beast, and thus at every stage a more noble enterprise. By contrast Jacob, the only character who exhibits any actual kindness or thoughtfulness, appears increasingly animalistic the more he steps up to be Edward's only rival. In the end, I predict a battle between dick hipster city kids (their clothes so colorless, their hair so finely gelled) and the earthy hyper-spiritualized Native Americans (in every scene accessorized with dreamcatchers and airbrushed wolf imagery). The film will insist the battle is epic, and no doubt Edward will yet again (perhaps many times) stand over Bella's beaten body and rage about how her injuries hurt him more, that he'd have spared her exposure to this world out of love, but well, you know how he gets when he smells her. Bella will cling to Edward with an attachment that is more accurately desperation, and theirs will be a love for the ages, torn directly from the pages of a handbook on how to identify an abusive partner. Ultimately, Twilight is very much like the Cullen family--I know it will be my undoing, but I enjoy it. I know it's monstrous to look upon, but I cannot tear myself away. For the rest of these movies I'll be sitting near the front, demanding more angst, more melodrama, possibly a mix tape. [Photo: Excuse me, I believe you dropped your thinly-veiled metaphor.]

Note: a *lot* of the experience of watching this movie is an excruciating exercise in trying to figure out where you've seen all these actors before. If you want to save yourself the pain, imdb it beforehand. A large number of them have never been in anything I've heard of, so I suspect they're simply bred to look familiar. B list celebrity spotting is fun though, and there are some pleasant surprises (NINA MYERS, WILL YOU NOT DIE?!).

Monday, December 8, 2008

Ho Ho Horror: Silent Night, Deadly Night

Much has been made about the controversial nature of a killer dressed as Santa Claus. Perhaps it is my wizened historical perspective, but I just don’t see the problem. It’s not like Jesus is on a rampage here, and the film bends so far over backwards to present a psychologically compelling reason why a man in a Santa suit my go on a killing spree that the average viewer (read: Lydia, Chris, myself) forgets after the first half hour that they’ve rented a horror movie and not a tragic character drama about the results of too much exposure violence, nipples, and a catholic education. Did we need a reason to believe seasonal Santas might go berserk? I’ve heard David Sedaris’ Santaland Diaries, and I firmly believe that madness is a tragic but inevitable side effect of the season. Sadly, this Christmas special has no consumer commentary at all—it’s more a morality tale on the power of sex and violence to turn even the sweetest strapping young milk-drinker into an axe-wielding murderer. The psychology is delightfully hysterical, more so the more the nun and the cop insist that Billy’s hatchet spree has “a logic to it!” Really? Logic? I understand that naked babysitters get a beat down, but did the kindly shopkeeper and his assistant have to die? Does the tiny jammied tot who swears she’s been good all year really deserve a bloodied box cutter? When you rent Silent Night, Deadly Night, you enter a world where illogic reigns king, and your only hope for survival lies in a roomful of friends willing to suffer through this screening with you. I am happily anticipating our upcoming screening of its sequel. [Photo: Billy lives for just two things: MILK! and to PUNISH!]

Tag lines released with the movie:
* You've Made It Through Halloween, Now Try and Survive Christmas.
* He Knows When You've Been Naughty
* He's Dreaming of a Red Christmas
* Shocking... Disturbing... the Movie They Tried to Ban
* If A Nightmare On Elm Street gave you sleepless nights, or if Halloween made you jump in every shadow, or if Friday the 13th was more frightening than others... THEN BEWARE! [I assume this is a warning that these movies will produce sequels?]

Sunday, December 7, 2008

Ho Ho Horror Part 1: Gremlins (1984)


Last night Kristin, Lydia, and I decided to celebrate the season with a night of "ho ho horror." With Silent Night, Deadly Night (1984) and Black Christmas (1974), all we wanted was the classic Christmas horror comedy Gremlins (1984) to complete the trio. At nearly every video store we received the same dire news: "Gremlins is out," before locating a copy at the Cinemat. Of course, it was a popular movie. What child of the eighties could forget Gizmo's adorable chirping, cruel Mrs. Deagle propelled out of her bedroom window, or the Gremlins' taste for, well, just about anything (as Lydia pointed out, never before had "yum yum" been uttered so menacingly). But watching to movie as an adult, I soon came to realize that Gremlins was a remarkable sign of the times, consciously referencing the early 1980s recession, the booming film industry, the normalization of Sino-American relations and the consequent fear of an invasive, rapidly multiplying hordes of technologically-oriented Other.
The economic plight of the ordinary residents of Kingston Falls, contrasted sharply with Mrs. Deagle's pursuit of money for money's sake ("The bank and I have the same purpose in life - to make money"), centers around scenes of the aptly named "Savings & Loan" bank, in an almost painfully obvious reference to the savings and loan crisis which began with billion-dollar losses from 1980 to 1982. As Mrs. Deagle tramples upon her less-fortunate neighbors, the lovable, middle-class, boy-next-door hottie Billy Peltzer (Zach Galligan - who now has a blog) is threatened with unemployment. His father, Randall Peltzer, is an inventor who spends much of the movie tinkering in the basement, peddling his wares, and attending an inventors' convention where his "bathroom buddy" is one-upped by a real-life time machine and a humanoid robot. The family simply cannot afford not to work during the holidays.

The economic disparity between Mrs. Deagle and "the bank" and the ordinary residents of Kingston Falls is mise en abyme when Billy returns home to find his mother slaving away in the kitchen while watching It's a Wonderful Life. While Frank Capra's film is such a holiday standby that it does not seem at all out of place in a movie that takes place at Christmas, who can resist comparing Bedford Falls and Kingston Falls? Mr. Potter's disregard for human life and Mrs. Deagle's equally revolting treatment of others? I don't want to force the comparison; what is more striking is that Mrs. Peltzer is watching the television in the kitchen. Television and cinema is so ubiquitous that one might be tempted to argue that the truly pervasive threat in Gremlins is not an army of little green men, but the omnipresence of visual media. From the kitchen screening of It's a Wonderful Life to Billy watching Invasion of the Body Snatchers to the gremlins' Snow White sing-along, the movie is, as Kristin put it, "so meta." Nowhere is the film more meta-cinematic than in the gremlins' appreciation and appropriation of Hollywood. At the movie theater, the gremlins are captivated by Snow White. But their fascination is not that of a foreigner looking in, but of a dyed-in the wool cinephile: they sing along with the seven dwarves, feast on popcorn, and request Milk Duds (does anyone eat these things outside of the theater?). Earlier, at the town bar, one gremlin stands out as he so consciously embodies film noir: brooding in a corner surrounded by smoke and sporting a fedora. In more than once instance, film seems to become reality. The gremlins' transformation is foreshadowed by the hatching pod scene from Invasion of the Body Snatchers. At the theater, when Snow White ends, the shadows of the angry gremlins are projected onto the back of the movie screen before they literally tear through it. During the final confrontation in the toy store, Gizmo hops into a hot pink Barbie car to save Billy and Kate from head gremlin Stripe and cruises through the store as we here Clark Gable's voice entone: "It takes a certain kind of guy. And that guy needs a certain kind of dame" in a reference to Clarence Brown's To Please a Lady (1950), where Gable plays a race car driver. Gizmo, like the noir gremlin at the bar, imagines himself in a fictional role. As perfect consumers of media, could the gremlins be a criticism of the public's thirst for film? At the end of the movie, Mr. Wing notices Gizmo's attention to the television and asks, astonished: "You let him watch television? Aiiiee yah! (Gremlins does not want for caricatures of Asian people)."

Or is the film critical of the public's thirst for movie merchandise, the mass-produced t-shirts, lunchboxes, action figures, stickers, etc. that followed in the wake of Star Wars and E.T.? Could the gremlins' menacing "yum yum" mean to echo our own gluttonous consumerism? In some ways, the gremlins resemble Romero's uber-consumer zombies in Dawn of the Dead (1978), indulging an insatiable appetite and leaving a wake of destruction. A quick glance at the Wikipedia entry for Gremlins reveals that more than one critic has noted satirical elements in the gremlins' gluttony. Maybe I am giving the film more credit than it deserves, but the constant references to film represent its best, albeit heavy-handed, satire. It is just as easy to watch the gremlins guzzle beer, stuff themselves with candy, and smoke packs of cigarettes and safely judge their adolescent misbehavior as it is to watch Romero's zombies gorge themselves on the living and frown upon mindless consumerism. It is much harder to pass judgment on a medium in which one is directly implicated.

But if Gremlins succeeds in commenting upon America's love-affair with cinema, it uncritically reproduces the most upsetting stereotypes of Asians and ultimately vindicates Mr. Futterman's xenophobia. From the outselt, Mr. Futterman decries the worthlessness of foreign cars ("they always freeze up on you") and seethes at the sight of subtitles ("Goddamn foreign TV"). Gremlins, as legend would have it, are mischievous and technologically-savvy creatures with a penchant for sabotaging aircraft. For Mr. Futterman, they are the hallmark of foreign technology: "You gotta watch out for foreigners.They plant gremlins in their machines. The same gremlins brought down our planes in the big one." The "big one" is WWII and the gremlins in question Axis sympathizers. For Mr. Futterman, the war continues as German and Japanese cars invade the American market. His fears are realized as gremlins toy with his TV antenna, bringing French (who can think of a more un-American culture?!) into his living room, and then take the wheel of a snow plow and run over Mr. and Mrs. Futterman. In 1979 Deng Xiaoping visited Washington D.C. and later that year China and the USA established bilateral relations after years of shaky diplomacy. For xenophobes like Mr. Futterman, this must have amounted to sleeping with the enemy. Gremlins would soon overrun the US. And how. The gremlins adapt perfectly to American culture. Like a modern-day Trojan Horse, Randall Peltzer's gift to his son allows the enemy to attack from within. Falling back on the narrative of consumerism, Randall insisted that he had to have the mogwai, whatever the cost. Mr. Wing's grandson made the deal behind his back because they "need the money." And so a back-alley financial transaction between an American businessman and a Chinese shopkeeper results in the realization of Mr. Futterman's gremlin nightmares.

What puzzled Kristin and me was the appeal of Gremlins today. Perhaps, tied as it is to the recession of the 1980s, viewers in 2008 can project their own economic worries onto the movie. "With mogwai comes much responsibility!" admonishes Mr. Wing at the beginning and end of the film. I cannot help but see in the little green (like the dollar) monsters the horrors of financial deregulation (capitalism run amok). Born of an illicit financial transaction, the gremlin invasion thrives on unscrupulous handling. Of course, much of its appeal may also lie in its kitschiness. Like other eighties blockbusters, Gremlins produced enough box-office revenue and enough merchandise to earn itself a place in the annals of American pop culture.
Despite the dull acting, the bad special effects, and the cheesy synthesizer theme-song, Gremlins is a great movie, at once representative of the 1980s zeitgeist and sufficiently "meta" to entertain cinephiles and armchair film theorists.

Thursday, December 4, 2008

Caterpillar ad

Ok, I've been trying to resist posting this, but it's late and I'm tired and most of all, I'm weak. Uzumaki anyone?

Paprika

Paprika is set in a future where technology, the "DC mini," has enabled psychologist to share dream space with their patients, witnessing and participating in their dreams firsthand. Atsuko Chiba practices legally under her given name, and illegally with unofficial patients under the persona of "Paprika," a sort of rogue dream handyman (not unlike Robert DeNiro's rogue electrician in Brazil?). When the technology is stolen, her lab must attack directly what they dub "dream terrorism," a chaotic world in which anyone can invade another's mind and dreams function like bacteria--infecting anyone who is exposed. The movie is strange--not because of the surreal dream sequences (I liked the parade of household appliances and felt it didn't clearly constitute terrorism), but because it was fun but somehow didn't grab me at all. Attempting to classify it is extremely fun--my best stab is something like psycho-cyber-noir, not quite cyber punk, but not...not if you know what I mean. Noir is usually a genre that's really interested in psychology as it relates to stock characters--jungian archetypes in psychological terms. This movie expands the tendency a bit, exploring the notion of fractured selves and contradictory impulses as what makes us fundamentally human. It also raises some interesting questions about what aspects of our identity might be sacred, a common and compelling question in science fiction. In spite of these fun tendencies, all of which are exactly the sort of thing I love, I just never felt quite attached to the movie itself. It feels like something fun but not really engaging, the sort of movie that might later be shot live action with Keanu Reeves, woodenly fretting about seemingly innocuous childhood experiences and looking about intensely at yet another dystopian future set. I loved the music and a few aesthetic moments, but in the end it just didn't take me in. I'm meeting with the friend who lent me the movie for dinner tomorrow--she will certainly be horrified to see me so non-commital. [Photo: Why didn't I like this movie more?]

Wednesday, December 3, 2008

del Toro Double Feature

Last night at Bears the attending audience (and by that I mean Raina, Chris, the projectionist and myself) were treated to a Guillermo del Toro double feature: Pan's Labyrinth and The Orphanage. It was an excellent excuse to drink hot toddies and eat cheese fries, but it was also an excellent pairing of two of the director's best films. In a fairly significant lapse of attentiveness on my part, I had failed to notice previously how intricately these two movies overlap one another. Both tales of motherhood, madness, and murder, Pan's Labyrinth and The Orphanage are films that continue to amaze me in their ability to affect the feeling of total peaceful resolution with endings that cannot be read as anything but profoundly tragic. We watched Pan's Labyrnith first, for which I was grateful as without it fresh in my mind I don't think I could have left The Orphanage with the same level of satisfaction that I had last night. The protagonist, Ofelia, is so name not solely to frame each scene with the inevitability of the young girls death (the visual with which del Toro frames the film); it seems rather that the whole film is a re-staging of Hamlet in Franco's Spain. The film has all the elements of Hamlet (the clear the usurpation of a rightful father by an ambitious political criminal), but retold from Ophelia's perspective. Ofelia is young, virginal, plagued by coming sexual maturity, and driven by external pressures to retreat into a fantasy world, a kind of madness. Pan is the film's Hamlet, the eponymous hero whose half-love, half-cruelties, and gaming half-truths contribute to the overwhelming instability of the world Ofelia inhabits. Pan is the perfect figure to stand in as Hamlet; his relationship with Selene in classical literature is one of seduction, as we read in some texts he's know not only for bedding shepherdesses, but for mercilessly hunting those who rejected him. The shift of the narrative to Ophelia's perspective is an interesting choice on del Toro's part, and sets the stage for what appears to be the dominant theme of the movie: the systematic victimization of women. Pan's Labyrinth is very clear: women are uniformly abused, by structures domestic and political, biological and narratological. Examples of this are inescapable; at home women suffer under the boot of a domestic tyrant, in war women are unable to fight openly, and in narrative action is centered around female sacrifice, of a woman to madness, love, or politics, of mothers at the hands of their children (the film offers us two examples: both Ophelia and her mother die to save her brother). The art direction brilliantly reflects these themes in Ofelia's book, where the intricate appearance of forest figures and Pan's face always follow the same pattern as the later painting of her mother's blood soaked ovaries and uterus.

This ongoing exploration of women and sacrifice is inverted in The Orphanage, where a mother sacrifices her son and seek to redeem themselves for their wrongdoing. For all its beautiful cultivation of a horror aesthetic, The Orphanage is the same tale as Pan's Labyrinth: a woman's retreat from the horrors of reality into her own fantasy world. I know many would argue that it is not until the very final conclusion that Laura is confronted with the knowledge that she locked her son in a basement to die. I wholeheartedly disagree. After discovering the truth about Tomas, Laura watches a film of the young boy drawing in his basement cell. She sees living footage that proves the house has a level she has never seen--that the basement in which Tomas lived, the place her son begged her to visit just before his disappearance, exists just below her. Never once does she attempt to find its entrance in an effort to seek out her son. Even after finding the doorknob to the basement, a doorknob that perfectly matches the first floor closet, she explores every door and space in the house except the closet. Laura knows, but isn't yet ready to confront what she's done. Instead, Laura adopts Beninga's clothing (thus identifying herself with a murderer who locked her son in the basement) and Simon's coping mechanism (she retreats into a world of imaginary friends, eventually writing herself in to the novel her son reads upon their first arrival at their new home). The Orphanage is only the story of a haunting in as much as Laura is haunted by her conscience, in every other way it's like Pan's Labyrinth--a story of the fragile line that divides fantasy and madness.

I love both of these movies, though I left the double feature feeling that del Toro's project fell short of what it could have done. Much of Pan's Labyrinth feels to me as though it's interested in critiquing from a feminist perspective the role women play in myth and classical literature. But ultimately, in both films the moral that women must sacrifice or be sacrificed prevails. Their deaths are tragic, but they're also beautiful, satisfactory, and deeply necessary. Watching them back to back was a little like reading Poe's short stories and poems all in one go--after a while you suspect the author lives in a world where all the beautiful women are dead and the landscape is just brimming with ominous aged hags and young men dedicated to the full time occupation of calculating and lamenting their losses. With both of these movies del Toro participates in a grand tradition of mythic story-telling, and he does it very very well. His critiques of the genre, however, unravel slightly in his deeply traditional endings. Tradition is what carries the pieces. Like the original Grimm tales, both movies are terrifying. Like most folkloric traditions, both are extremely beautiful. [Photo: I don't want to claim that Pan's Labyrinth is full of visual ovarian metaphors, but once it occurs to you it's impossible to see anything else.]

Sunday, November 30, 2008

California Split (1974)

Gambling movies tend toward fable: The Cooler, Intacto, The Cincinnati Kid, even Alfred Hitchcock Presents and the goulash that is Rounders--all tacitly accept that Fate and Chance and Luck are real, primal forces, or agents to be angered, appeased, and bullied. The struggle against fortune (good or bad) is broad and dramatic rolls/parleys/hands mark the plot like a metronome (I have convinced myself that the poker scenes in Casino Royale are acid parody). These films pair the gambler's superstition with the gambler's degeneracy: The willingness to wager everything (the only stakes worth making a film about) is the mark of an action junkie, someone eager to burn his house down if he has a bet on fire department response time. Altman's California Split puts these two parts together in a way that avoids cliche: we settle into an immersive, barely plotted character study of two degenerate gamblers and only very late in the film do we realize that they are in the middle of a gambling fable that cannot end well.

Charlie (Elliot Gould) and Bill (George Segal) meet among accusations of cheating in a chaotic LA cardroom and bond over drinks, silly prop bets, and a mugging. Bill--an actual, productive member of society and only a casual gambler--is both fascinated and horrified by Charlie's life, with his call-girl roommates, petty ripoffs, and morning beer. Soon of course he's hiding from his boss, joining Charlie at the track, and getting in bad with his bookie. Two things really carry this movie through its desultory plot: First is Gould's great Altman chemistry--he owns the screen as a colorful, slightly menacing whirlwind, playing a character that is apparently about 80% Gould. Second is the sense of euphoric claustrophobia: Altman accomplishes this in part through his blanket of dialogue (in eight-track stereo!), which captures the non-stop and even oppressive hubbub of casinos and similar places; but he also puts together some great shots (Bill, giddy as if he's calling a new crush, gets off the phone with Charlie and gets a little tangled in the cord; Bill and one of the girls try to get undressed on a couch), where excitement, cramped quarters, and slightly oppressive close-ups combine into a great representation of the discomfort and thrill of out-of-control gambling.

Eventually, Bill is in deep enough that he gives it all over to a hunch: he has a "special feeling" and hocks all his possessions, and he and Charlie head to Reno for a high-stakes poker game. Bill goes on a heater and crushes the game (including Amarillo Slim); he takes his winnings to blackjack and roulette and craps; and we find ourselves watching the fable and wondering how it will crash down around them. A comedy (less for its laughs than its temperament) about the absurdity and pathos of gamblers becomes, in a matter of seconds, an understated, tense meditation on chance, expectation, and superstition.

This is a neat film to remind you what you like about "major" Altman--the bemused horror at Americana, the crush of people and lives, the setting as character. It is also a good film to remind you about the difference between confidence and luck, and the dangers of confusing the two.

[Photo: Egyptian Femme! EGYPTIAN FEMME!]

Wednesday, November 19, 2008

I will see Labor Pains, no matter what you say

So Lindsay Lohan's been in the news again. I'm not here to defend her choice of words, which though odd was probably not racist in any traditional sense. I'm here to defend my fondness for her, which has not died despite her terrible behavior and her even worse movies.

First, let's take a minute to remember her charming and delightful early days.

Behold the precociousness of her in the remake of The Parent Trap:



That uppercrusty English accent is totally recognizable!

Really good child actors with few exceptions (Jodie Foster, um...I can't think of any other exceptions...Scott Baio? Dean Stockwell, I guess) grow up to be...really good child actors. Think of Macaulay Culkin in Party Monster. He is perfect in the role, but only because he is a terrible over-actor playing a terrible over-actor. Christina Ricci has carved out a fairly respectable carreer almost entirely made of camp. But speaking of Jodie Foster, the first thing I remember seeing Lindsay in was the remake of Freaky Friday, in which she plays a Rebellious Teenager (or the Disney version of one). Freaky Friday isn't an important movie, and it does nothing new, but it is exactly what it sets out to be: cute, fun, competent, predictable. This is what I want from a PG/PG-13 teen comedy.

Which brings me to Mean Girls, a movie that slightly exceeds expectations on almost every scale. It's smarter than it should be. The cast is better than it looks. The jokes are funnier than you would expect -- people often point out that Tina Fey, who wrote the screenplay, was the first woman head writer on Saturday Night Live, which is probably true, but she was the head writer during one of the show's least funny eras. And yet.

I was dragged to Mean Girls (by Anna, who is my reliable date for lame movies, from Uptown Girls to Mamma Mia. So far). Before it left the theater, I had seen it two more times. Lindsay Lohan plays Cady, a high school junior transplanted from Africa, where she was home schooled, to a public school in suburban Evanston, Illinois. She is befriended by "art freaks" Damien and Janis Ian (hm), then betrays them on a climb up the social ladder of high school. Sounds like a boring cliche, and it is a cliche, but the script is so neatly crafted, the characters just three-dimensional enough, that the movie overall succeeds where it could very easily have failed. Mean Girls isn't flawless (it could be a little less homophobic, for one, and after repeated viewings the "Asian hotties" are truly cringe-worthy) but it's close.

LL starred in a few other fine-but-forgettable teen movies (Confessions of a Teenage Drama Queen, Herbie the Love Bug). And she was in I Know Who Killed Me, a movie almost but not quite absurd and unsatisfying enough to be entertaining as an example of How Not to Make A Movie. Then there was Georgia Rule. Garry Marshall has directed a fair number of my least favorite movies, but Georgia Rule is in a category of its own. It feels like it was written for the Lifetime network, but it's rated R. It is sappy yet brutal, naive yet loveless. I really really hated it.

Still, on the strength of my Mean Girls affection, I decided to give Just My Luck a chance when I noticed it in the grocery store DVD rental box, and I thought it was fine. It was cute and fun and competent and predictable, just like I wanted it to be. And she was in Robert Altman's last movie, A Prairie Home Companion. For me, the PHC movie was just like the radio show - awesome when it's people performing songs and kinda pointless otherwise.

Anyway, I guess I would just like Lindsay Lohan to ignore Roger Ebert's advice that she "move on to more challenging roles." It seems clear that she can neither choose nor carry a heavy movie. But that's okay! We need more charming fun predictable character actors, and she can totally do that.

Oh, one more thing. Kristin provided the only plausible explanation of the weird line in LL's Access Hollywood interview. Turns out, she never said "our first colored president." Turns out, she said "our first unicorn president." Go watch it again. Now. She totally says unicorn. UNICORN.

Monday, November 17, 2008

Puppy

Puppy is a weird movie in that it wasn't great, but I wanted to write about it. The narrative wasn't particularly compelling, but I'm compelled to give it more consideration than I felt it warranted after my first viewing. In its heavy handed attempt to defy expectation, the plot unfolds fairly predictably. A young woman taken hostage, Liz, finally seizes her freedom only to linger around her kidnapper's home for a while, making friends with his dogs and rummaging through his CDs. Soon she is manipulating him and everyone in his life--pushing his guilt such that he automatically trusts her, and blames everything that seems amiss on his own psychosis. By the film's conclusion, Liz is the raving lunatic--murdering her abductor's wife so that she might take her place, and forcing herself on Aiden emotionally just as he once forced himself on her physically. This shift can be seen coming early on--Liz is needy, suicidal, and Aiden is too young and good looking to be cast as a committed villain. What surprised me about Puppy is the total moral ambiguity of the film's conclusion--an ambiguity brought about by something more than a simple reversal of roles. In her final assessment of Aiden's life, Liz is correct. His wife did not love him, and most likely did abandon him hoping that his inevitable breakdown would allow her to inherit his home. Both Helen and Liz abuse and take advantage of Aiden, but unlike Helen, Liz is willing to share the space she steals, and in her desperate attempts to blame her own actions on Aiden's illness, she all but shines with the virtual of incidental forgiveness. I should have hated Liz by the film's conclusion, in which it's made clear that she is the perhaps the highest functioning form of parasite known to innocent and unsuspecting kidnappers, but by the credits I had only just grown to love her and her utterly irrational behavior. There is absolutely no need to blame Aiden for the car she crashed, the dog she murdered, or the dead doctor she's buried in the yard. Honesty about the circumstances in which she came to live with him would completely absolve her of these actions, for they were committed in her many attempts to escape. She is, however, totally uninterested in blaming or even mentioning to Aiden the time he held her hostage. Rather, her focus is entirely on nesting into her new environment and explaining away wounds that are visible rather than those that are actually significant. What anger she does express for Aiden's treatment of her is directed not at his actions but at his inability to be honest about the total lack of love between them. Ultimately, Liz can't be read as a victim--not because she herself is a criminal, but simply because she has no expectations of innocence in others.

Much has been made comparing this film to Black Snake Moan, though the only parallel I can see is the basic outline of the plot--the abduction of a young woman by a man who will quickly be revealed to possess depth and complexity that exceed our expectations for a psychopath or common criminal. But assuming two films to be linked based on their plot outlines is kind of like comparing Solaris to Solaris. It just isn't a great idea. I much prefer the comparison that Chris suggested: to Audition. As he put it: Audition begins with an intolerably trite love story, and ends with the lover shackled and fed like a dog. Puppy takes the exact opposite arc: it begins with dog collars and debasement and evolves into a love story. Despite the inverse narrative structures, Puppy brought to mind the uneasiness with which i first watched Audition and realized that something, not love, but a kind of kinship is established through violence and degradation. Puppy is, if nothing else, very well titled.
[Photo: Like Audition, Puppy has a few weird moments with feet.]

Wednesday, November 5, 2008

Brick

When it comes to crime novels, I'm usually for Cain over Hammett, though I love them both. Cain's greasy diners and disreputable insurance agents are the rough company I prefer to unease me into bed at night, but Hammett's novels have style, and it's style that carries Brick every step of the way. Johnson's movie is a clever and faithful adaptation of the genre; detailing its loving throw backs to noir would require all but a cut and past of the script into this text box. Every convention translates to the high school setting, so seamlessly it feels like quickly shot afterthought to 10 Things I Hate About You. The use of classic crime and horror genres to renew our metaphors of adolescence is becoming a convention itself (noir is a perfect visual fit for the teen and twenty-something love of vintage fashion that's held strong since the 90s), but somehow Brick is not Rob Thomas and it's not Joss Whedon. The thing about Brick is they play it straight, from "She knows where I eat lunch" to "don't come kicking in my homeroom door once trouble starts." Veronica and Buffy have their share of sorrow, but so deftly gauzed up in humor that even something so unrelenting as season 6 of Buffy is, at its heart, a musical. Brick doesn't break for a dance number; it's already dizzying Astaire and Rogers with its dialogue, and there's no time to recognize your audience's laughter when the joke relies entirely on a consistent game face. It's a difficult balance, jesting a genre such that every joke venerates its source material, and here the commitment pays off. Noir is funniest at its most tragic, if it's ever funny at all. Conversely, every beat of Brick is pure comedy, played so straight it feels like an honest tragedy. The tragedy, of course, is never really present. Just as we do in noir, we indulge the characters their melodrama because it flatters the stylized aspects of their personas we find pleasing: the underdog's uncanny ability to manipulate circumstance, the fatale's bewitching affectation of innocence, the victim's helpless slide into a sorrowful, yet necessary demise. Character is the most advanced stage of style, and it must be thorough to be successful. In that way, it's just like high school.
[photo: you can't see it very well here, but I'm totally knitting her scarf]

Saturday, November 1, 2008

Baby Blues (a rant, not really a review)

[Photo: mommy dearest psychotically chops tomatoes while her husband pleads with her to be reasonable. God, women are so unreasonable.]

Look. No one would claim I don't like a good exploitation flick as much as the next person. And as someone who watches *a lot* of horror movies I'm pretty accustomed to rampant sexism. My rental habits cross a lot of lines, but apparently the translation of postpartum depression into a low-grade slasher in which a mother stalks, tortures, and kills all of her children, for whatever reason, strays into an area I'd prefer not to go. I don't mind seeing mothers go crazy (Psycho), I don't mind seeing them torment their children (Carrie), and I don't mind movies that assume we all know pregnancy = crazy (Rosemary's Baby). So what exactly is it that I mind about Baby Blues? If you're up for a rant, I've made a list:

1. The not-openly-stated but clearly implied moralization of Andrea Yates' story. "True Events" and "Pray these horrors don't befall your family." Tacky is fine with me; after all, I rented this movie because I thought it was about an evil baby. But this seems a bit....tacky.

2. Some vague and thinly veiled allegorization of violence and farm animals makes it clear that motherhood is a duty to protect, any action to the contrary is a perversion and indefensible. So far I'm bored, perhaps annoyed at the triteness, but not offended.

3. The emphasis on masculinity as a foundation for any family My limit for the phrase "man of the house" lowers in direct proportion to the child's age. This kid is maybe 7 or 8, so I lost patience quickly here. My nagging annoyance notes how the eldest son embodies every christ-like trait imaginable while his sister bickers over dolls and cries through the whole movie. I tell myself I'm being too sensitive.

4. The aggressive means by which the absent trucker father is set up as a hero with strong values (he wants more children, works only because he loves them so much, is deeply faithful while he's gone, sacrifices times together to bring home the literal bacon*), while the mother is petty, jealous, and neglectful (she assumes infidelity on her husband's part, envies a local weather reporter for her flattering job, barely glances at the picture her daughter draws of their happy family). Here I'm irked. It's not just trite. Do we really want to vilify mothers for wanting a job, or not wanting a fifth child? The most recent edition to the family is, after all, about 6 months old.

5. The child killing begins with the drowning of the baby in the bathtub--a scene that feels accurate, tragic, and suffocating. This scene is sad, and it leaves the viewer a little shocked and traumatized when so real a tragedy is immediately followed by a series of slasher deaths worthy of the Halloween movies. Unconventionally, the children are killed on screen, chased by wheat threshers, skewered on pitch forks, hacked with mirrors.** As I watch postpartum depression evolve from a real tragedy to a level of deranged psychosis known only to the wizened horror viewer, my annoyance morphs into real offense. This is sensational, which is fine, and manipulative, which is dangerous.

6. This is already long, so I'll jump to the end, in which the surviving child watches in horror as his pregnant ("it's a miracle!" the tearful father rejoices) mother is released from a mental institution by a villainous band of doctors ("with therapy she's cured") and lawyers ("the law protects women with mental illness") to torment and butcher her next brood. The possibility that attentive medical treatment would have helped her is presented as an outrageous lie perpetuated by anti-family organizations that worry too much about "women's health" (McCain's air quotes, not mine), and I am straining every nerve not to call up Brooke Sheilds and ask her if we can go trounce whatever Tom-Cruise-loving hack of an executive okayed this thing.

What I resent most is being driven to take Cruise seriously, even for a moment.

*In the first ten minutes Chris commented "Personification of a pig so early on does not bode well." It doesn't. For the viewer, or for the pig.
**I don't like spoilers, so I put those in the wrong order

Friday, October 31, 2008

Non-horror non-review: Black Orpheus (1959)

Marpessa Dawn and Breno Mello both passed away this year, which is too bad, but does provide an opening to bring up the one big film of their lives. ("Bring up," not "review," 'cause I spent two days not being able to find my copy in a garage full of boxes and being too cheap to rent something I already own; so I didn't get to rewatch it, but what the hell I love this movie anyway, and at least that means I'll keep this mercifully short.)

Black Orpheus is not horror, but it is a fable about our greatest fears (death and loss). And actually the film sort of divides neatly into two different horrorish films. The first features Death (in a fantastic skeleton/spiderweb/luchador costume) stalking Eurydice during Carnaval: Death is persistent and (despite costume-switching) not easy to fool; the scene where Death pursues Eurydice during the samba competition, and Orfeu chases both of them to the trolley station, is both suspenseful and garishly outsize, all Hitchcock pacing and Fellini visuals. The second, after Eurydice's death, is about the disorientation, the existential confusion of loss: Orfeu first attempts to find the dead Eurydice at the Bureau of Missing Persons; the Tiresias-like (he's blind, maybe? there's someone blind in this film...) janitor tells him where he can find his love--through a medium in a candomblé ceremony. 'Cause she's dead, right? From here, it's the great tragedy of the fable--Orfeu is not only unable to bring Eurydice back, he is even incapable of not causing her loss again.

The movement from natural suspense (someone stalking Eurydice) to supernatural terror (freakin' Death stalking Eurydice) to existential horror (you and everyone you have ever loved will die) is basically all the horror content Black Orpheus offers, but that's quite enough. Not to mention the wonderful songs, bold colors, classical allusions, and the most achingly sweet scene of children dancing that ever closed a movie.

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

When a Stranger Calls (1979)

"Why did someone make two movies, then make a movie sandwich?" -Kristin

We watched When a Stranger Calls last week. It starts Carol Kane (I had no idea when I rented it -- also, this movie was, in 1979, her fourteenth movie, says imdb. She was in Dog Day Afternoon? And Annie Hall? I guess I don't remember either of those movies as well as I think I do). Anyway, I liked When a Stranger Calls. It's always fun to see a familiar actress in a surprising role, and even without Carol Kane, it would have been an average tense scary movie.

Carol Kane is Jill, a young babysitter who receives harassing phone calls. She calls the police, who do not seem concerned and at any rate can do nothing unless she can keep the stranger on the phone while they trace the call. When they do trace the call, it is coming from...inside the house! Up to this point, the pace of the film has been slow, but now things happen fast: a shadowy figure at the top of the stairs, then the police are at the door, the children have been brutally slain in their beds, and the killer is arrested.

Years later, Jill is happily married with two adorable children of her own. Two way too adorable children, by the way: "Mommy, come closer. I have to tell you something." "What is it?" "I love you." We watch Jill act out domestic bliss, putting her children to bed, calling a babysitter for the evening. Meanwhile, the killer has escaped from a mental hospital, and he's up to his old tricks. Perhaps having lived through the trauma of finding you sat quietly downstairs while two children in your care were murdered in their beds would give you pause before leaving your own children with anyone, ever, but rational realistic behavior is not the point of a movie like When a Stranger Calls. The point of a movie like this one is to experiment with pacing and building tension. Well, that and laughing at this dude's hair. I'd say the movie is well worth seeing, except for that one thing...

Unfortunately, When a Stranger Calls is only about 4o minutes long. And in the middle of it, inexplicably, there is another, much more boring movie, comprising scene after scene of Colleen Dewhurst looking sort of washed up and slutty (yes, that Colleen Dewhurst) while walking fast down dark streets in heels. Charles Durning makes a valiant effort to weave the two stories together, but it is at best a tenuous connection.

p.s. Does anyone recognize the waiter at 0:22 - 0:26 in the clip above? Just curious.

Saw Marathon?

For those of us who still refuse to tolerate a Saw movie, Sam Adams at the Onion's AV club has done it for us and chronicled his reactions in real time. I, for one, am willing to overlook the sentence "I'm going to get that crocheted on something" in order to completely bypass this movie franchise and adopt his responses as my own.

What a productive day!

Monday, October 27, 2008

When a Stranger Calls (2006)

Horror movies are, in so many ways, exactly like children's literature. Full of monsters and fabulous imagery, most are didactic--they warn us of the dangers of premarital sex, drinking, and generally being out late at night. The babysitter narrative usually falls into this category: if you were paid to watch someone's children, for the love of god don't go out drinking. Some horror movies, however, fall into the category of wish fulfillment, and this remake of the standard teen-in-charge tale is one of them. Jill's parents, cruelly, have grounded her with no phone or car and have forced her to babysit for a wealthy couple that lives in a dangerously remote location. It would totally serve them right if she were butchered with no way to escape or call for help. Actually, even better, it would be great if she were *almost* butchered, the only brave soul left standing after an evening of bloodshed. Then they'd see not only their error, but how unbelievably mature she is, even if she went 800 minutes over on her cell phone. The movie tells us immediately that this is a survival narrative; the opening shot of the movie follows her diligent laps around the school's track. This girl is a runner. There's no way a wheezing yokel hunched over a phone is taking her down--if he were in shape he'd spend more time attacking and less time calling from one of the family's luxuriant couches. My only question is if she'll ever actually check the children. [Spoiler: She does. They're fine.] The movie is a pretty standard suspense job, very little slash. For the most part, the movie feels like a medium budget excuse for a really killer set. The mansion is huge and rambling, full of mysterious sounds caused by the usual: ice makers (ominous vapor), pets (a whole room of free range exotic birds...what?!*), shitty postmodern art, and maids (why the babysitter?). There's a great moment where she calls the police only to be told that most of their units are having fun at the party she was forbidden to attend: "sounds pretty wild!" "....yeah." Things go somewhat badly for a while, until Oh Snap! You can dial 911 on disabled cell phones! Take that parents, she's going to talk for like 3 hours. [Photo: she has, at this moment, like 5 phones at her disposal]
*Do not keep birds in your home. Only you can prevent bird mites.

Friday, October 24, 2008

The Outer Limits S1E2: The Hundred Days of the Dragon

Our impending election has, for a couple of weeks now, far out weighed murder, haunting, or monsters in its ability to keep me up at night with fear, so I thought I would return to reviewing with an episode of The Outer Limits whose subject is the political fears that drove us in the 1960s and that continue to drive us today. The Outer Limits is never really scary, but it's about things that are, and usually those things are far more mundane than the frights that stalk the protagonists of most of the movies I watch. I won't ever be drugged and paralyzed such that I retain consciousness while my girlfriend slowly pierces my eyes with acupuncture needles, or chops off my foot with wire sharpened to slice through bone. Those things exceed the horizons of my social life. I am, however, deeply afraid of who sits behind the desk in the oval office, and if the media is any indication, many many people are afraid that this person could soon be a terrorist. As the title of this episode so subtly indicates, "The Hundred Days of the Dragon" plays on our fears of a communist Asia, and the slow infiltration of communists into the jobs and even bodies inhabited by those we love. It's invasion of the body snatchers for the conservative fringe: if our enemies possess **science** how will we prevent them from injecting our leaders with a substance that turns their bodies into malleable plastic for a duration of exactly two minutes? The episode proceeds pretty much as you expect it to, except for two moments. Dictator Li Kwan surveys the white house, gloating that he will conquer the West (or at least the West Wing) without firing a shot. Later, in the film's triumphant conclusion, the new American president opts to prosecute those involved in the systematic infiltration of the US's highest political and economic positions, but to waive his right to go to war. The film concludes with a heavy handed meditation on the nobility of avoiding war, even in those situations in which we are baited beyond comprehension. No one in this episode, arch villain included, wants war. The Outer Limits didn't scare me, nor did it make me adjust my tv set, rather it made me NOSTALGIC FOR THE 1960s, which is so much worse.

Every year I gear up for Halloween by watching Holiday episodes of Buffy, Home Movies, etc. This year it's election tv, which basically keeps me sane while I frantically check the 538. I've stolen hours in Lydia's living room watching Tanner '88, and because she is awesome, she just linked me to an article that will keep me feeling warm and happy regardless of the ominous October weather. Go vote, and if you want to be terrified on Halloween, Fox News is the new Takashi Miike.

Thursday, October 23, 2008

Rear Window (1954)

"We're two of the most frightening ghouls I've ever known."
While this is probably the most technically beautiful movie I can remember seeing, to talk at length about Hitchcock’s camerawork would be like going to the Antarctic and reporting on how very, very cold it was. If you’ve been there you know and it can obscure its subtler features, like the native subcutaneous parasites. For the sake of everyone’s hypothalamus gland, this would be a mistake.
By confining us to Stewart’s perspective, Rear Window does not only implicate us in his voyeurism, it also invests us in its world. Loneliness and isolation are as major a part of the feel of the film as the guilty delight in watching, especially since its sounds are mostly ambient. It is not until the dog is killed that the leads act on the plot directly, meaning it is the killer who first breaks the neighborhood’s silent taboo. While the broach of privacy isn’t portrayed as less moral than the wife’s murder, it is the one that provokes an interaction. Compare the dog-owner’s denouncement of her neighbor’s indifference to Mrs. Thorwald’s scream the night of the murder. Every window turns to hear the dog-speech, but even our hero, who is watching the Thorwalds when the scream happens, responds by falling asleep.
Situated in this narrative world, Stewart and Kelly’s relationship is what I find most interesting. Even before anything is afoot, we witness Stewart’s neuroses over his “too perfect” relationship. The film’s discomfort with intimacy seems to stand in as their real problem, especially since Stewart’s version of the problem is inconsistent (he tells his nurse she’s too good while telling Kelly they’re too different). She’s a career-minded socialite; he’s a free-spirited adventurer who can’t be tied down; these would be the hallmarks of romance if they weren’t presented by complete absence. Unlike how a romantic comedy tends to show characters struggling to find a balance between their public and private lives, Rear Window ignores the public side and obsesses with the private while its lead characters begin the film by doing just the reverse. The mean, weird indifference of love is overcome by their engagement in the plot. If the two have nothing else in common they’ve found someone to share their perverse fascinations, which is, I think, as good a definition of happiness as any.
Stewart’s confrontation with Thorwald is remarkable, and Halloween-appropriate. While the film tends to confront the morality of voyeurism by having the characters flatly ask each other about it, this scene is probably the most useful to the discussion. It has signifiers of horror- the heavy steps up the stairs, Throwald’s now-obscured and surprisingly large figure looming in the doorway. While the terror of the scene is mostly based on our identification with Stewart’s character, Thorwald’s reaction is interesting. Upon entering to find a seated silhouette of a man Thorwald says, “Say something… anything,” before advancing. We are offered only the slightest glimpse of the murder’s terror: confronting a faceless man after days of being privately observed, to all appearances calm enough to stay in his chair when a murderer breaks into his door. A reversal made all the more chilling by its transience.

Sunday, October 19, 2008

There's always room for giallo

The Psychic, 1977
(a.k.a. Sette Note in Nero, Murder to the Tune of the Seven Black Notes)
dir. Lucio Fulci


I am no expert on Italian horror. I really love Phenomenon and some other Dario Argento movies, and I’ve seen a few of Lucio Fulci’s movies (including Zombie at least three or four times). But I don’t really have a sense of what to expect from Fulci, except these things: terrible special effects, weird inappropriate sexual content, interesting new kinds of gore, and characters who behave in ways that make no sense at all (the classic example of this last being the delightful shit-I-forgot-to-shoot-fritz-in-the-head plot of Zombie). When I rented The Psychic, I thought I would enjoy it for occasional surprise kills and an entertaining absence of logic or plot, but apart from some decapitations or falls-from-a-great-height or maggot-infested corpses, I thought I would be…well, kinda bored. I did not think I would genuinely enjoy the visual aspects of the film. I was pleasantly surprised. The utterly unsubtle use of color, especially red (another alternate title could be The Red Lampshade) puts this movie in a category—with Suspiria—of just plain beautiful movies.

Lisa and the Devil, 1973
(a.k.a. La Casa dell'esorcismo, The House of Exorcism)
dir. Mario Bava
(n.b. I was confused by Lisa and the Devil, and I didn't follow every minute of the plot, but I'm pretty sure there is no exorcism in this movie.)

I have no idea what this movie is about.


The eyes, Leandro, what color are the eyes?
Changeable my lady. But by candlelight they are blue.


Lisa is an American tourist. She sees a weird fresco of the devil, carrying a body of some kind, and looking a lot like Kojak. Then she gets lost in the narrow streets and alleys of Some Foreign City, meets Telly Savalis, and gets creeped out. Somehow, she ends up staying in an ancient house where Telly Savalis is, um, what, the butler? I guess? I’ll admit I probably did not pay as much attention as this movie requires. It seemed like every time I looked away from the screen for a minute, then looked back, a pair of completely new characters are making out in a different location, then the camera focuses on a statue nearby. Eventually, the blind matriarch of the strange ancient house reveals what everyone (except the audience) has been thinking: Lisa is the reincarnation of the dead bride of the blind woman’s creepy son.* Therefore, the son must chloroform Lisa, and have sex with her in the bed where he still keeps the skeletal remains of Elena, his first bride. Obviously.

Lisa and the Devil is surreal and confusing, but in a good way. The cast, especially Telly Savalis (looks like the devil, is the devil, eats many lollipops, sings about flowers), give memorable performances, and I found the final scene genuinely creepy and interesting.

Let’s just say this: Lisa and the Devil is my favorite movie about necrophilia and lollipops.

*It might be overstating it to say that Psycho invented the modern horror movie, but seriously what percentage of the last half-century of scary movies have not been about nutty sons and their overbearing mothers? Ten percent? Twenty? (Alien, Friday the 13th, Dead Alive are the first three that spring to mind…)