It’s clear what the issue is here, an apartment complex that is bereft of pets is clearly the spawn of the devil!

Written By: David Cronenberg
Directed By: David Cronenberg

Shivers is often credited as David Cronenberg’s feature film debut, but that is not actually the case. 1969’s Stereo was Cronenberg’s first feature film, but it was an independent film that was barely seen at the time and is still an unknown today even among pretty hardcore Cronenberg fans. Shivers was Cronenberg’s first chance to make a feature with some decent money behind it, and the first chance for Cronenberg to explore his two favorite topics, sex and human flesh.

There was a fair bit of controversy behind Shivers upon its release, enough to get Cronenberg kicked out of his Toronto apartment and cause him trouble in finding Canadian funding for his following directorial efforts. The content was deemed lewd and lascivious at the time, but having seen the picture it’s amazing how much restraint Cronenberg employs. Unlike his later efforts Shivers functions on the unseen glimpse principal, meaning that we see glimpses of blood and hints at the sex that is taking place but we never actually see any of it full force. The sex and gore in Shivers rests in the mind and the mind alone and this is a a very smart move by Cronenberg, it stops Shivers from turning into an exploitative movie.

It shouldn’t surprise you when I tell you that the impetus in Shiver’s plot is some sort of parasite poking out of human flesh and causing problems, this is a Cronenberg film after all. Similar to John Carpenter’s The Thing, the parasite only functions in service of greater messages or themes. Shivers was made at a turning point in human culture, this was the point when people realized that sex had consequences. Because of this the way Shivers deals with sex can be viewed any number of ways. You can watch Shivers and view it as a precursor to the AIDS scare to come, or as Cronenberg’s attempt to punish society for its sexual excess, or any of the other ways the movie can be interpreted. I watched Shivers and saw something else, I saw a warning against the puritanical ways of Western society.

The sexual deviancy we see in Shivers comes about because of a society repressed, and when you really boil it down we don’t see much sexual deviancy in Shivers so maybe that isn’t the right word. We do see some promiscuity, and there are a few obvious cases of rape, but think about what happens to the people who are taken over by the parasite for a second. They enjoy themselves for the most part, they do go too far in most cases, but they do enjoy themselves. I believe Cronenberg wants us to look at that part, at the part of our brain that enjoys sex and revels in our sexuality. It’s only when the sex is repressed that the most violent acts occur. Maybe I’m wrong, maybe I’m reading the film the wrong way, but at the very least Shivers makes you think about sex and how society views it.

There isn’t much polish to be found in Shivers, it is a raw movie with blemishes to be found. Some movies can get away with that however, their rawness adds to the overall experience. Most times in a multi-million dollar film you don’t want those blemishes, but in a near rookie effort with limited funding trying to say the things Cronenberg is interested in saying the gritty nature of the film adds to the overall experience. If you are a Cronenberg fan and you haven’t seen one of his earliest works then you owe it to yourself to give Shivers a chance. Maybe you’ll like it, maybe you’ll hate it, but at the very least it should make you think and that’s all Cronenberg ever wants.

Rating:

****

Cheers,
Bill

Any movie that lets me see Asia Argento’s bare ass is bound to be worth something!

Written By: Gus Van Sant
Directed By: Gus Van Sant

I think it’s obvious to everyone that Blake is Kurt Cobain and that this is Gus Van Sant’s ode to Cobain’s final days. It’s not a retelling of his final days mind you, but an ode to the myth and burgeoning legend that was Cobain. I guess I should preface with the fact that I am a huge Nirvana fan and I do view Cobain as a musical genius. That being said, I was never under Cobain’s spell, I came into Nirvana too late in the game and I’ve never been a fan of the cult of personality mentality. Genius he may be I always viewed Cobain as a man, a man who ultimately made the wrong decision and paid the price for it.

I’m not sure if Van Sant was a Cobain fan and I don’t think that really matters. Last Days is about a man, not the person on stage with Nirvana. Blake as Cobain isn’t someone we are supposed to understand and I don’t believe Van Sant is trying to make us understand anything. Don’t get me wrong, Last Days is a movie full of messages and subtext, and there are certain understandings that will be found, but just like with the killers in Elephant Van Sant doesn’t try to apply any motives to the actions of Blake. We aren’t meant to understand why he chooses to die, how he comes to be the way he is or what his each and every action means.

Speaking of that subtext, there are a few examples of subtext that piqued my interest. Early on we see a couple, I believe it is Asia and Luke, in bed oblivious to the actions of Blake currently framed in their window. It’s possible that this speaks to America being asleep to the true nature of Kurt Cobain. The house Blake lives in may be large and palatial, but it is dirty and grimy, possibly representing the unseen truth behind the myth of Cobain. The camera pulls away from Cobain while he plays his guitar in one scene, and stays a stationary safe distance in another guitar scene. These are possibly the two most poignant moments in all of Last Days for me, showing how personal Blake/Cobain’s relationship is with his music. No matter how hard we may try, no matter how many interpretations we may place upon his music we will never understand it the same way that he does. To get even more meta, those scenes turn around and apply the same logic to the film. I can write and write all day long about Last Days but I will never understand the film as much as Van Sant does, that is how personal the film is to him.

I didn’t have a favorite aspect of Last Days, however among the many trinkets that wowed me the way Van Sant played with time, space and dialogue had the most impact. The movie comes in fractured scenes or different viewpoints of the same scene, the viewer is never able to get a solid grasp on what is happening or when and where. The dialogue can be understood at times but for the most part it is unintelligible. Van Sant doesn’t want to give us any excuses or reasons for what we are seeing, hearing those utterances won’t give us a deeper understanding of Blake’s life. We are meant to take in Blake’s life, not to try to apply meaning to it or attempt to decipher his actions. The movie is in a constant state of well crafted chaos, the lives of the characters lack any real shape, the time, space and dialogue reflect this.

Last Days is the final film in Van Sant’s minimalist trilogy, and while I don’t think it quite reaches the heights of Elephant, it certainly comes close and is a fine film in its own right. Last Days features a director at the top of his craft, constructing a film that is under his complete control at every second and should speak to its audience on numerous levels. Last Days is about thinking, it is about the lack of meaning behind most things, it is a personal work that seeks not to grant more understanding but to bring to our eyes and ears the personal take of Gus Van Sant on the subject at hand.

Rating:

****

Cheers,
Bill

Herzog’s first American film, I wouldn’t be surprised if someone on the crew tried to kill him!

Written By: Werner Herzog
Directed By: Werner Herzog

This is the part where I warn you not to read this review if you don’t want the end spoiled. I am going to begin by discussing the ending of Rescue Dawn in particular and the main complaint I have heard levied against the end. If you haven’t seen Rescue Dawn and don’t want to be spoiled then strop reading right now.

The ending of Rescue Dawn is unbelievable and implausible, even if it did actually happen that way as I have been led to believe. At first I was upset at the ending, wondering why a great movie had been marred by an ending that didn’t fit. The more I thought about it the more I came to the conclusion that the ending Werner Herzog provides is the ending Rescue Dawn needs. It doesn’t fit with the gritty and fatally realistic tone of the rest of the movie, but it does fit with the way Dieter looks at life and that is all that matters. Dieter’s madcap escape from the CIA agents validates the upbeat character of Dieter. Without that ending I don’t know if I would have walked away from Rescue Dawn as fulfilled as I did.

The case can be made for all kinds of subtext in Rescue Dawn, it wouldn’t be a Herzog film if it wasn’t full of subtext. However I didn’t spend much of my time thinking about man versus nature, man versus himself, the politics of the Vietnam war, and so on and so forth. I knew that many interpretations were present, but as I watched Rescue Dawn I remained entrenched on the surface story being presented to me. For me Rescue Dawn was about Dieter Dengler’s time spent in Laos and the eternal hope he carried with him throughout that time.

I found that hope and Dengler’s somewhat odd nature to be the framing device Herzog opted to use for the movie. Rescue Dawn doesn’t follow traditional beats, it is bereft of the typical action or comedic moments, it’s even bereft of the typical dramatic moments. By framing the beats around Dieter’s odd personage Herzog finds comedy in moments where there appears to be none, avoids the action cliches and maintains a dramatic pulse from moment to moment.

In a way Rescue Dawn was like a beacon of hope for me, when I say this I am referring to Christian Bale. After a series of subpar performances in The Prestige, Batman Begins, Terminator Salvation and The Dark Knight I began to doubt his earlier work. Maybe he wasn’t as skilled of an actor as I had thought, maybe he burned through a few good roles and had nothing left to offer? Seeing Bale deliver a great performance during the same time he made the aforementioned films reinstated my faith in the man as an actor. I’m not referring to the weight loss either, it’s not a bad thing but making yourself look the role physically is not a major part of acting for me, I’m talking about the honest emotion he brings out of Dieter. I’m not the best when it comes to discussing acting, but I do know that Bale completely immersed himself in the role of Dieter and it shows.

Rescue Dawn is a beautiful film, yet another that falls into the category of ugliness made gorgeous, with Jeremy Davies and Steve Zahn providing excellent supporting acting. It’s not a traditional war or prison escape movie, but Herzog is far from a traditional director. It is painful to watch at times, but it is realistic and gripping, playing out like a tome to one man’s survival. Do yourself a favor and check out Herzog’s first American production if you haven’t already done so, Rescue Dawn is worth it.

Rating:

****

Cheers,
Bill

Mentioning judo almost saved your character Peter Sellers, but not quite!

Screenplay By: Stanley Kubrick & Vladimir Nabokov
Directed By: Stanley Kubrick

This was my first exposure to Stanley Kubrick’s Lolita, although I had seen the 1990’s remake and quite enjoyed it. There are marked differences between the two, but the biggest difference is the cold and austere aesthetic Kubrick opts for. It creates a much different experience, while the subject matter is still taboo it’s not a lurid movie as much as it is a possessive one. Instead of being about the lust of an older man for a fourteen year old girl, and the eventual sexual relations between the two, Kubrick’s Lolita is about the possessive tendency of man as displayed through the three men we see in Lola’s life.

Humbert does love Lola, I think that is obvious. It doesn’t begin as a bad love though, if you remove the age factor and simply look at the love he shows towards Lola you are left with a standard romantic longing. Humbert makes his own actions lurid and taboo because of the possessiveness he brings to the relationship. It’s not freaky that he is in a relationship with a fourteen year old, what takes him over the edge of accepted normalcy is the way he wants to control her. He wants to be both lover and father to Lola, that is the taboo notion that Kubrick stresses. In a lot of ways Lola’s age is an afterthought the more the movie progresses, Lola herself is an afterthought next to the downward spiral Humbert experiences in his efforts to control Lola.

The other two men in Lola’s life play a smaller role, but each are also possessive in their own way. Quilty only wants Lola when he can control her and mold her into his own desire, once she rebels against that he casts her aside. Dick wants the typical housewife and as long as Lola is willing to conform to that idea he is a happy man. The deeper I broke down Lolita the more the theme of control and possession grabbed a hold of me. People who look at Lolita as only a taboo tale of pedophilia are missing the boat on the larger ideas Kubrick wanted to explore.

The true strength of Lolita is in its acting. James Mason is wonderfully mannered as Humbert, his descent into a crazed man works because Mason paints a man who should be above such a fall. Sue Lyon is delightful as Lola, she find that place in between child and sexual adult and rides it for all its worth. Shelley Winters is the true gem amongst the cast, her Charlotte is absolutely boorish and loud yet full of sympathy and a desire to just be happy.The lone drawback to the cast is the one role most people rave about and that is Peter Sellers as Quilty. The movie isn’t supposed to be about Quilty, he is but a bit player to the larger picture but in every scene Sellers tries to make the film about him with his overacting and voice tricks. I could have done with a lot less of the annoying Quilty and his scene hamming.

Lolita is a cold film, it doesn’t present its subject matter in a scintillating manner and that helps it seem all the more brazen and alluringly taboo. But underneath the astringent formality rests the story of a man possessed with a young girl. His slow demise under her spell is well worth a watch and the moment near the end when he realizes that truth be told he was nothing more than a happenstance occurrence in her life shatters him at the same time it shatters the generally possessive outlook men have on women, or at least did in 1962. I’m sure others will like it even more than I did because I appear to be in the vast minority when it comes to my dislike of Peter Sellers’ performance. It’s not major Kubrick, but it’s still Kubrick tackling a subject most others would shy away from and that alone makes Lolita a movie that is easy to recommend.

Rating:

***1/2

Cheers,
Bill

All things considered Forrest lived a heck of a life, and by stating that I just became Captain Obvious!

Screenplay By: Eric Roth
Directed By: Robert Zemeckis

I’ve never understood the criticism’s levied against Forrest Gump, it isn’t promoting the message that stupidity is somehow redemption nor does it handle the character of Jenny with kids gloves. Forrest is stupid because he is stupid and because that allows him to be an impartial observer to the American history taking place around him. Jenny is put through the ringer, she is offered no sympathy from the screenplay or from Robert Zemeckis, at every turn she is painted as a misguided and ultimately destructive individual. She does get some small redemption at the end, but it’s important to note that just like every other character her redemption is tied into Forrest. Jenny serves as the representative of the audience in a way, she accepts Forrest from the start, but she won’t completely buy into him and she is only happy in those few moments when she does fully buy into Forrest and accept him wholesale.

Stupid is as stupid does may not be something you want to hear, but in Forrest Gump that also translates into magical will happen as magical will happen. Roger Ebert called Forrest Gump a magical movie, and there’s no way for me to improve upon that spot on analysis. I’ve talked in the past of movies that you either go along with for the ride or you decide it isn’t for you and check yourself off after a few turns. Forrest Gump is that type of movie, the ride it wants to take you on is a magical one, and it is way out there, but if you are willing to stay on for the whole ride you will be treated to a wonderful and engaging story.

You can look at Forrest Gump as the simple story of a simple man, that’s how I often tend to look at the movie. Some stories want to be more than they are, I believe Forrest Gump does as well, but often those stories present all you need with their surface story. The adventures of Forrest, the struggles of Lieutenant Dan and the downward spiral of Jenny are intriguing without any subtext added to them. I have a blast doing nothing more than watching this world unfold, I don’t need any deeper meaning or greater purpose behind it all and that is often the sign of the greatest stories.

If you happen to dig a little deeper Forrest Gump does have a subtext to it, it is the story of America. Forrest is the silent observer of American history and we are there for the ride, he suffers hardships but his are purely on a personal level. Through his friends we get to see the events, both small and large, that shaped America into the country it is today. There’s nothing wrong with a slice of good old fashioned Americana, there’s nothing wrong with taking an interest in your own history. Forrest Gump doesn’t take a jingoistic slant, it doesn’t clean up our history, it presents America for all to see, warts and all. It is sentimental and schmaltzy from time to time, but as I often say when done right there is nothing wrong with a movie becoming sentimental or schmaltzy.

There are two elements of Forrest Gump that are essential to its success yet I find myself without much to say about them because they are so obviously perfect. What can I say about the effects that the film itself doesn’t say? No matter how many times I watch Forrest Gump I never once realize that the historical scenes are effects shots with Forrest digitally added in, that’s how well done they are. The same holds true of the acting, when every performance is pitch perfect, what am I supposed to write about the acting? Tom Hanks, Gary Sinise, Robin Wright (maybe it’s Penn this week, who knows), any actor you want to name fully inhabits their character and a single beat is never missed.

Over the years for one reason or another people have begun to turn against Forrest Gump, taking it out of classic status and into more of an overrated status. I don’t understand that, doubt I ever will. This is probably the ninth or tenth time I’ve seen Forrest Gump and every time it remains utter brilliance in my eyes. Every once in a while you need to go on a magical ride that is full of sweetness, innocence and a bunch of historical significance. Allow the magic of Forrest Gump to wash over you like I did, it’s a movie that is well worth the immersion.

Rating:

****

Cheers,
Bill

I’m happy I don’t have a twin, I’m weird enough by myself I fear for how weird two of me would be!

Written By: David Cronenberg & Norman Snider
Directed By: David Cronenberg

I’ve remained on the outside looking in of the nature versus nurture debate for most of my life. My view is a simple one, the truth resides somewhere in the middle. We are a product of our experiences, our make-up is formed by the people we interact with and how we choose to interact with them. David Cronenberg has always been fascinated by how people choose to define one another and Dead Ringers is yet another entry in his search to find some sort of resolution to the mystery of mankind. I take that back, I don’t believe resolution is Cronenberg’s ultimate aim, he wants to explore because only through exploration can we come to a better understanding and understanding is his ultimate aim.

If, as I said, we are a product of our experiences what happens to us when every experience we have isn’t ours alone? It is true that we share all of our experiences, but after the experience has been shared the reaction is ours and ours alone. What if that wasn’t the case, what if our reaction to the shared experience was shared as well? The greater theme I found in Dead Ringers was of that loss of individuality, if we truly do define ourselves by how shared experiences affect us then how do we define ourselves when we have lost any sense of individuality?

Beverly and Elliot Mantle are not individuals, they are a collective. What one experiences the other is sure to experience as well. It is even worse for Bev, he struggles to find a reason for his existence, his every social interaction is found through his brother. I can’t imagine being in that situation but if you stop and think about it isn’t that what we strive to do with our lives? We spend our time on this planet searching for people that we can share with, for people who have the same experiences as us or who can go on to share experiences at the same time we do. We always define ourselves as individuals yet we spend our time trying to join a partnership. Elliot and Bev represent the worst that can come from that loss of individuality, through them Cronenberg explores the avenue most of us try to go down with our lives. It ends up not quite what we expected or hoped for, but that is possibly the one truth that Cronenberg is always trying to expose, what we end up with in life is often not what we thought it would be.

From the craft perspective Dead Ringers is a superbly made film, with only one moment feeling out of place. The movie adopts a cold and sterile aesthetic, an aesthetic that perfectly suits two men who are removed from humanity. Jeremy Irons is not an actor whose work I am very familiar with but I doubt he will be able to top his dual performance in Dead Ringers. He makes Bev and Elliot distinctly different yet the same and he never misses a beat when inhabiting one twin or the other. Geneviève Bujold is startlingly frank as Claire, at times I was more interested in her character arc than I was either of the brothers. Like usual Cronenberg takes all of these artistic elements and adds his distinct vision to create a densely layered movie that stimulates intellectually while drawing you in on the base level with its surface story.

For the first time ever I do feel the need to take Cronenberg to task for a viscerally gory scene. It’s not the finale, that felt justified to me, but it is the conjoined dream sequence. I have a better understanding of the meaning behind that scene after reading a different take on the film than my own from my friend Edgar at Between The Seats. Still, even with a better understanding of the destructive force Claire is supposed to represent in the relationship of Bev and Elliot I don’t feel that the gore found in the dream sequence is justified. I’m sure it isn’t a problem for most people, there is an interpretation that justifies it after all, but it didn’t sit well with me and took me out of the picture in that one moment and one moment alone.

Dead Ringers represents another great David Cronenberg film, albeit not one that is on the same level as his best works. Dead Ringers is provocative and further deals with Cronenberg’s long running theme of human definition. It features a great lead performance, and, uh, hold on a second. Look, it’s a Cronenberg film, I can’t give you a tidy last paragraph summing up why you should or shouldn’t see it. Like any Cronenberg film Dead Ringers is an experience, one that isn’t for everyone but an experience that may be for you if you give it a chance.

Rating:

***1/2

Cheers,
Bill

A great performance from Nicole Kidman comes along about as often as I have sex with Natalie Portman!

Screenplay By: Buck Henry
Directed By: Gus Van Sant

I am not a Nicole Kidman fan, I usually try to avoid movies that I know she has a part in, that’s how little I think of her skill as an actress. Eyes Wide Shut was supposed to be the movie to show me that she could in fact act, yet I found her the one major detriment to that film. Still, in the back of my head I kept thinking of some movie I saw with her in it in the late ’90’s that I really liked. Not being in any hurry to seek out Nicole Kidman roles I let that thought slide away. Then one day I was looking at what Gus Van Sant movies I hadn’t seen, ever or recently, and there sat To Die For with Nicole Kidman in the lead. Thankfully Starz was playing the movie and instantly it occupied a space on my DVR. It’s Nicole Kidman though, so despite my love of Van Sant I allowed To Die For permanent residence on my DVR for months, until today.

I was immediately taken with Ms. Kidman’s performance, she nailed Suzanne Stone-Maretto. Not only was she very funny in the role with impeccable comedic timing but she played Suzanne so fake and artificial that she was perfect for what Van Sant was going for. Kidman’s Suzanne is equal parts stupid and insanely smart, she may not have much floating around in her head when it comes to common sense but she is one of the smartest characters I’ve ever seen when it comes to reading people. Suzanne gives every person she meets exactly what they need, but only enough so that it’s like a tease, a tease that leaves the recipient always coming back for more. Kidman presents all of this in a heavily mannered style, and in any other movie it wouldn’t have worked. But, with Van Sant’s delivery of the material Kidman’s performance isn’t just good for her, it is one of the best I’ve seen in the ’90’s.

Most reviews I’ve read about To Die For focus on the satirical aspects of the film, specifically fame and the desire to be on TV. While I do agree that those aspects are present, I don’t believe they are the focus of Van Sant’s film. The entirety of To Die For is fake, with a campy and artificial sheen to it, there isn’t a moment where I thought To Die For was supposed to be real. I don’t believe Van Sant was going for a strict satire, although that is a part of it, rather I believe To Die For is about this fake woman. It’s really that simple, the various subtext found within its run time is an added bonus to the main thrust of the film, to chronicle the life of Suzanne Stone-Maretto in a harshly clinical and comedic light.

I was ready at one point to levy the complaint that outside of Suzanne none of the characters feel fully fleshed out. In thinking about To Die For I realized that wasn’t a valid complaint, none of the characters outside of Suzanne are meant to be fleshed out. She is the star of the movie, the movie only revolves around her and the rest of the cast exists only to further enhance her screen presence. That’s not to say that any of them give bad performances, Illeana Douglas is particularly sharp in her role, but they do easily shrink to the background, just as they are supposed to do.

I didn’t expect to like To Die For as much as I did, fond memories aside it is a Nicole Kidman movie and that means it should have at least one major strike against it before I press play. Yet I find myself singing its praises as much as possible. To Die For is funny in a dark and slickly fake sort of way while Van Sant’s steady hand is seen at all times behind the camera putting together this wonderfully shot film. To Die For hits all its marks in the music department as well, but the movie is held together by a brilliant Nicole Kidman performance. She owns every second of this picture, even when she isn’t on screen her presence is felt, and for that alone To Die For is one of Van Sant’s best pictures and a movie you need to see.

Rating:

****

Cheers,
Bill

I hate math, always have, always will, don’t know what this says about me!

Written By: Darren Aronofsky & Sean Gullette
Directed By: Darren Aronofsky

The need is within all of us to define every facet of our lives. For some reason we feel the need to compartmentalize and label all that we see, worst of all we try to provide rigid order where order doesn’t exist. I don’t know why I do this and I certainly don’t know why anyone else is so order stricken. I’m not an answer man, I’m the man always looking for answers to the questions that bounce around in my brain. I must take a look in the mirror though, because by seeking answers to every question I come across am I not applying more order where none exists?

Other films have tackled the idea of a life spent seeking order, in that area Pi doesn’t tread any new ground. Actually, Pi doesn’t tread any new ground in any area, but it asks questions that interest me. Pi follows through on the idea of definite order to a conclusion that is both satisfactory and startling. When Max finally lets go and stops caring about the numbers he is seemingly at peace, the frantic visual style calming down supports this theory. Where Darren Aronofsky really questions the lives we lead is through the serenity that Max appears to find. If Max can only find peace by giving up what drives his life then what does that say about our drives and desires?

The ideas put forth in Pi are interesting, but it is an interesting film in other ways. The information we receive is interesting on its own, the little tidbits we learn about Judaism and math are interesting in a “I never would have thought about that” way. Visually Aronofsky opts for a frenetic style to accompany an energized pace and souped up lead character. The three compliment one another throughout the film, creating an affecting meld between the two that kept my attention. It’s also nice to see that in his first film Aronofsky was just as thought provoking of a director as he was in his latest film, The Wrestler.

There are a few moments when Pi goes a little too overboard with its information delivery. It’s mainly near the middle, right before the breakdown in Max’s apartment where his neighbors arrive to help him. There’s a such a thing as too much information and in that moment, and a few others, I felt that Aronofsky tired to get across too much information in too fast of a fashion. That may be something that only bothers me though, as it still fits in with the tone and pacing of the film.

Pi is a very good thriller, but it isn’t a thriller about guns and chases, it is a thriller that seeks to thrill through brain stimulation. Pi succeeded in stimulating my brain and in captivating me from beginning to end. It’s not the best you will find from Aronofsky, but Pi remains a great first entry from a director who has gone on to make a series of splendid pictures. Take a chance and give Pi a shot, it will challenge how you view the world, but that’s the point of Pi isn’t it?

Rating:

***1/2

Cheers,
Bill

Let’s take a trip back in time for film #13 in the Filmspotting World War II Marathon!

Screenplay By: Masaki Kobayashi & Zenzo Matsuyama
Directed By: Masaki Kobayashi

I’m not going to mince words with my review of Ningen No Jôken, to do so would be a disservice to the film. I often talk about films that are straight forward, or simple, in their themes and presentation. That is what I most thought about Ningen No Jôken, yet underneath the straight forward nature there is a fair amount of complexity. I’m not going to delve into that complex side though, as much as I want to, because I believe to do so would overshadow the true strength of Ningen No Jôken, and that is its ability to present a world so matter of fact that it’s startling.

One facet of Ningen No Jôken that I will briefly delve into is the idea of “just this once.” Ningen No Jôken puts that phrase forth as its major theme, “just this once” controls the entire picture in a way, maybe even the entire world of the Japanese. Kaji is convinced that he need only tell people about human rights “just this once” in order to get his point across. The foremen at the mine are convinced that if they continually put up with Kaji’s behavior with the caveat of “just this once” that he will eventually come around to their way of thinking. For the military there is nothing beyond “just this once”, they will show you the way you need to act only once and that is all that is needed. Finally you have the prisoners, their entire lives are built around allowing for “just this once” over and over again. In a way that line of thought keeps them going, they may be tortured just this once, but it won’t happen again. They may be denied food “just this once” but they will never go without food again. To survive they build a wall of “just this once” around their very being, and surprisingly the non-prisoners do the same.

The characters in Ningen No Jôken blindly follow “just this once” and that plays into the larger theme of ignorance. Kaji is ignorant as to what is truly required of him, the prisoners are ignorant to the fact that there are good Japanese men, the military are ignorant as to what their actions are causing. But worst of all are the foremen, they are ignorant of what their actions cause, but mostly they are ignorant beyond the world they have built for themselves. With a little shedding of ignorance most of what we see transpire in Ningen No Jôken could be avoided, but that is the hardest thing for any living being to do and the characters in Ningen No Jôken are no different.

Even in the themes I discussed above Ningen No Jôken maintains a veneer of straight forwardness. Maybe it will appear that I am shortchanging other facets of Ningen No Jôken by only focusing on its straight forward nature. Rest assured, other elements of the film worked for me, but I do believe that in order to get to the true depth of Ningen No Jôken its straight forward way of storytelling needs to be highlighted. Once the simplicity of Masaki Kobayashi’s vision hits you the true power of Ningen No Jôken will be revealed to you and all the complexity of the film will come spilling out.

Rating:

****

Cheers,
Bill

Different name, same witch in movie #16 in the Filmspotting Disney Animated Marathon!

Story By: Milt Banta, Winston Hibler, Bill Peet, Erdman Penner, Joe Rinaldi, Ted Sears & Ralph Wright
Directed By: Clyde Geronimi

I doubt most people expected my first words about Sleeping Beauty to be disinterested and inoffensive. As I sit here having finished watching the latest film in the Disney marathon those are the words that immediately jump into my mind. There are many likable qualities in Sleeping Beauty, but for the good duration I found myself lacking interest in what was being shown on screen and ultimately I found the film more inoffensive than anything else. Sleeping Beauty lacks the sit up and take notice factor that accompanies the true Disney animated classics, and because of that it feels more like a leisurely stroll through the petting zoo as opposed to a trip to the lion’s den.

I will say that the ending sequence in Sleeping Beauty involving the Prince squaring off against Maleficent is quite a treat. The animation perks up during that sequence, as does the suspense and accordingly my interest. The title of the movie as well as its obvious fairy tale nature means that everyone and their mother knows from the opening frame what will happen to Princess Aurora. Until she touches that spindle needle there’s no draw to the film, but after that point what we see on screen makes us care again. Sure, it’s obvious that Prince Philip will save the Princess, but there is energy in accomplishing that goal. The sort of energy that was missing from the rest of the movie.

The final moments of Sleeping Beauty are bravura stuff, if only everything leading up to the spindle needle could have been more interesting. Still, as harsh as I may have sounded to this point, I will recommend Sleeping Beauty. It’s not among the best Disney, but even in its least interesting moments the animation gives you something to look at and the movie has its share of funny moments. Sleeping Beauty isn’t a case of the ending making the movie, but it surely helps, and at the very least you should enjoy your time with Sleeping Beauty, even if it doesn’t completely grab you.

Rating:

***

Cheers,
Bill