What Films Are We Watching?

[jenkins]

vibing. cinematic purgatory is a great description. there is this scene that touches upon what this movie might offer though. it's true that it doesn't offer hope, resolution, or catharsis. it's true that this movie says life doesn't offer that. but here's the scene i mean, it's Bruce Greenwood talking to Sarah Polley in a car at night

Sarah: Do you consider my dad a friend?
Bruce: Why?
Sarah:  J-Just asking.
Bruce: Does he consider me a friend?
Sarah: I don't know.
Bruce: Why not?
'Sarah: Cause he always seems different when you're around.
Bruce: Different in what way?
Sarah: J- Tense.
Bruce: Is that bad?
Sarah: Well, I don't really like to feel tense around my friends.
Bruce: Well, sure, yeah. I didn't like to feel tense around my friends when I was your age either.
Sarah: But you do now?
Bruce: No, it's not a question of liking it or not. It's just something that happens.
Sarah: Why?
Bruce: Um...well... as you get older…you become aware that the people you meet and the person you are... um, as carrying a certain amount of baggage. And, and that baggage creates tension. So what do you do about it? Well, you can pretend it's not there... or you can choose not to have friends... or you can acknowledge that it's there and have friends anyway.
Sarah: Like my dad?
Bruce: Right.
Sarah: I don't think that I like my dad when he's around you.
Bruce: Hmm. Well, that's...because your dad doesn't like himself when he's around me. But that's okay. That's... part of what friends do to each other.
Sarah: Good night.
Bruce: Good night.

[wilder]

That’s a quality exchange. Actually makes me want to go back and watch it, again.

Exotica makes me think about what movies should be about, if a movie like Exotica, for all its depressive tendencies, has worth (it does, but for argument’s sake…) and that movies, or scenes, are fundamentally about people connecting or not connecting. Not if they do or do not, from one scene to the next, but how they do or how they don't.

When movies like Exotica, or Amour, or Solondz’s comedy-tempered works err towards the more disappointing answers to those questions when pursuing the brighter answers in so much earnest, they become hard pills to take. In those films specifically, effort expended to connect is not necessarily matched in favor, and coping mechanisms that might help alter the character's behaviors seem to be beyond their grasps. It’s the fearless gaze on the answers found to how they don't connect that give these types of films “worth”, I think. They don't. We know they don't. But these movies see the moment-to-moment how, and that’s what I want movies to be.

[jenkins]

outside The Silence of the Lambs (special category), Melvin and Howard remains my favorite Jonathan Demme movie. and Paul Le Mat remains an actor i treasure, from this, Aloha Bobby and Rose, and Citizens Band.

so i was sitting around wondering whatever happened to Paul Le Mat. and it turns out he's a writer now, with a YouTube Channel



i was going to say more about Melvin and Howard, which i just finished rewatching, but i became distracted by Paul Le Mat as a writer. i wouldn't call it a bad distraction btw, as in i'm not like "look how far he's fallen," if anyone is thinking that, rather i'm thinking "look how human he is"

[Something Spanish]

been wanting to see Exotica long time now, Felicia's Journey too. only significant Egoyan I've seen is The Sweet Hereafter.

over the weekend I saw Miami Blues, a film that got on my radar nearly four years ago when BAM was having a film noir series ahead of Inherent Vice's release. not certain if this falls into film noir, it's way too batshit and off the rails to be categorized there. if not for baldwin and jason leigh and fred ward i don't think i would have made it all the way. it's awesome to see baldwin so untamed , his eyes glint animal primacy the entire time. he's a great actor, but no role he's had in the past 25 years compares to the lunacy of career criminal Junior. the movie is fucking out there, in the cheesiest of bad good movie ways. at one point baldwin attempts to stop a convenient store stick-up using a large jar of pasta sauce to fend off the gun toting robber. also, he somehow has the preternatural  abilities to place himself smack in the middle of criminal activity, be it a drug deal or robbery. if you're looking for something kitsch, completely unbelievable yet fun, you could do much worse.

also saw The Ballad of Jack and Rose last week for the first time, knew i was in for a good one the second 'i put a spell on you' plays at the start. a few good Dylan tunes come later. it's a very good, slightly disturbing, portrait of a father-daughter relationship.

[eward]

I saw Miami Blues on 35 at The Roxy a few months back and found it similarly enjoyable. Jennifer Jaaon Leigh stole it for me.

[Something Spanish]

Yeah, she’s very sweet in it. A bit naive for a prostitute, but we’ve seen those type before (in movies, that is). Never been to the Roxy before, any theater that plays 35 is a blessing.

[jenkins]

it's beach noir, in this case Florida noir, stemming from Floridian writer Charles Willeford, the first in his Hoke Moseley series.

Willeford also known for Cockfighter, which he adapted for Monte Hellman, and this memoir of his youth

[polkablues]

been wanting to see Exotica long time now, Felicia's Journey too. only significant Egoyan I've seen is The Sweet Hereafter.

All three of those are so good. Ararat is another one I'd recommend seeking out.

[jenkins]

Down Terrace took me seven days to watch (the longest i've spent watching a single movie?) and i almost gave up on it at least twice, but eventually i finished it and was glad i did. was that my second or third time watching it, i'm not sure, but i'm sure it's been seven years since i last watched it. i think Ben Wheatley has a fascinating career. the co-writer for Down Terrace is one of its lead actors, Robin Hill. the writers for Sightseers are listed as its two main actors, along with additional material by Amy Jump, who wrote the High-Rise script, and co-wrote Free Fire with Wheatley.

Down Terrace has an overall rubbish logic, i believe. as in i don't think its logic aligns with realworld possibilities. but its self-contained nature, its logic within itself, its logic as a movie, works fine. all you have to do is listen to the characters, and feel what they feel. now i'm realizing that i don't have much to say about this movie. why am i glad i watched it? i like how it keeps its narrative near the hearts of its characters. it reminds me that when you do that you can do anything.

[Robyn]

I watched Win It All last night. it wasn't as enjoyable as Drinking Buddies, and I am not exactly sure what the point of it all was, but it was entertaining enough. joe swanberg and jack johnson is a good match. 

[jenkins]

a conversation about Scorsese's worst movie would be just as interesting as a conversation about his best movie, maybe. it's almost kind of obviously Boxcar Bertha innit, but then isn't it maybe Who's That Knocking at My Door actually, and after that is when it gets interesting. for example, i almost want to rewatch The Aviator and Gangs of New York now, to compare them to each other, and compare them to what i watched tonight, The King of Comedy. Scorsese himself is imdb trivia quoted as saying "I thought the movie was just a one-line gag: You won't let me go on the show, so I'll kidnap you and you'll put me on the show." as in, it's not a very dimensionally complex movie. there isn't really a lot of character material, and that's almost kind of silly coming from Scorsese.

at the same time i think De Niro plays it to a perfect pitch. his mania reminds me of life choices i don't want to make. he pushes me back from the ledge because i see how crazy the ledge is. although he almost explains his entire outrageousness with a great line, "Better to be king for a night than schmuck for a lifetime." that's a pretty good point. it's also a pretty crazy point and i think it's what all the crazy people say. the movie doesn't tell me much more than Don't Be Crazy.

the fashion and interior design are atrocious, but 1982 owes some blame for that. Sandra Bernhard does fine enough but her character is rather startlingly flat, well below Scorsese's scope--what can i tell you about her? nothing. i'm not even sure why she's crazy. what can i tell you about Jerry? nothing.

it's the Rupert Pupkin show. yet somehow still i'm glad i rewatched it, for the reason i stated, about being reminded to step away from the ledge, which i do sometimes walk toward, to be frank. perhaps in fact i should watch this movie whenever i feel myself headed toward the ledge. i'm not sure why i'm calling it the ledge but i think you all know what i mean.

[BB]

a conversation about Scorsese's worst movie would be just as interesting as a conversation about his best movie, maybe. it's almost kind of obviously Boxcar Bertha innit, but then isn't it maybe Who's That Knocking at My Door actually, and after that is when it gets interesting. for example, i almost want to rewatch The Aviator and Gangs of New York now, to compare them to each other, and compare them to what i watched tonight, The King of Comedy. Scorsese himself is imdb trivia quoted as saying "I thought the movie was just a one-line gag: You won't let me go on the show, so I'll kidnap you and you'll put me on the show." as in, it's not a very dimensionally complex movie. there isn't really a lot of character material, and that's almost kind of silly coming from Scorsese.

at the same time i think De Niro plays it to a perfect pitch. his mania reminds me of life choices i don't want to make. he pushes me back from the ledge because i see how crazy the ledge is. although he almost explains his entire outrageousness with a great line, "Better to be king for a night than schmuck for a lifetime." that's a pretty good point. it's also a pretty crazy point and i think it's what all the crazy people say. the movie doesn't tell me much more than Don't Be Crazy.

the fashion and interior design are atrocious, but 1982 owes some blame for that. Sandra Bernhard does fine enough but her character is rather startlingly flat, well below Scorsese's scope--what can i tell you about her? nothing. i'm not even sure why she's crazy. what can i tell you about Jerry? nothing.

it's the Rupert Pupkin show. yet somehow still i'm glad i rewatched it, for the reason i stated, about being reminded to step away from the ledge, which i do sometimes walk toward, to be frank. perhaps in fact i should watch this movie whenever i feel myself headed toward the ledge. i'm not sure why i'm calling it the ledge but i think you all know what i mean.

No way, man, it's not King of Comedy, man. And it's not The Aviator or Gangs of New York neither. I'd rewatch any of those right now and so would you. But would you rewatch New York, New York right now? Would you rewatch Hugo? Even Bringing Out The Dead or Shutter Island, granted I still think they're pretty good, but would you rewatch them over The Aviator or Gangs? No way, man.

But none of em are bad movies. I don't think Scorsese could make a bad movie.

[jenkins]

it's cool because this is that interesting conversation i suspected.

Hugo is flames, as far as i remember. i was a big Hugo fan, saw it twice. only kind of because of the order in which i first saw them did i actually in fact watch Bringing out the Dead recently enough. my most recent with Scorsese goes Bringing out the Dead -> Mean Streets -> King of Comedy, all following falling back in love with him via Silence. King of Comedy expresses being crazy, but Bringing out the Dead expresses feeling just way fucking bummed, so i actually experience closer emotional identification with Bringing out the Dead. plus it's just insane when that one guy is stuck on that spike at the top of the roof and they're using that whatever-it's-called to free him, and sparks are flying, and you can see the same famous NYC building skyline you see in Mean Streets. that's a nice touch.

ultimately we overall fully agree on top of New York New York and Shutter Island being definite contenders. the funny thing about Shutter Island is i've only seen it once, in theater when it came out, and i didn't like it, and i still don't want to see it again, because i want to preserve my memory of it. i want to preserve my memory of not liking it?? hm, well i was positive one time someone pointed at a graph and it was hilarious, so i guess i mean that.

[BB]

I saw Hugo twice too. It's a good movie. But Scorsese has never made a bad movie. Except for maybe New York, New York and Boxcar Bertha, you're right. I haven't seen either of those in ages. Silence I've watched a few times and will revisit soon. Up there with his absolute best.

Tonight, I watched Requiem for a Vampire. Seen a few Jean Rollin movies in the past couple years. Him and Jesus Franco. They're very strange films but really nice and psychedelic. Like, that super deep cut psychedelia that almost isn't even good but still manages to be great.

[jenkins]

a course of events unrelated to the main point of this post led me into reading The Melancholy of Resistance.

now that i have finally read that, after i was all the way finished, i went back to its cinematic adaptation, Werckmeister Harmonies.

Werckmeister Harmonies now makes total sense to me. and you know what, i'm not sure it can make total sense without the book. i do have an example, yes. when the movie's protagonist, János Valuska, is reading a journal. it is of course a long shot, it begins on the other side of a room, pans across the ceiling, and lands on János while he sits on the floor reading. in the movie no other person is in the room with him, while in the book he's where people are being interrogated, he's around other people, and it's quite clear where he gets the journal from, whose journal it is, and what it's talking about. in fact the journal has gorgeous lines ["a moment's victim in an infinitely vast arena"] relating to philosophical concepts being developed by the book. in the movie it's contextualizing the previous scene's violence, that's all it's doing, and i only know it's doing that because i read the book. how could someone just watching the movie know that?

the title switch makes sense because you see, The Melancholy of Resistance is in fact a literal title. to rephrase it, the book is about Life's Fight Being Sad. it sees this concept through to the end, in that acceptance is reached by both central characters at one point, and acceptance is how movies often end, but actually there are about 100 pages left after acceptance is reached in the book, i admit i had been wondering what would happen, and it's almost as if the movie ends republican, funny enough. it's kind of calling everyone a snowflake and saying the best possible course of action is to look at things from a practical perspective. i shall side mention that all characters, including the "republican," find love impossible, and it is a cynical book, in that the "republican" is in some ways not the ideal character, for even with an ideal perspective the absence of spirituality in their life is apparent.

this philosophical perspective is not represented by the movie. rather, the formal idea of Werckmeister Harmonies is indeed worked upon, in terms of the movie's tonal structure, and it is mentioned in the book too. Tarr's long shots parallel Krasznahorkai's long sentences, it's funny how much more sense his long takes make now. frankly as i said, i don't think the movie's logic works independently, but the movie is not trying to convey logic. the movie is conveying a feeling. and, oh: the feelings of the movie find foundation within the filmmaker's logic, that is how that is possible.

in terms of cinematic grammar, it's absurd how impressive Tarr is. that's just really impressive. i read that some shots took a month to put together and i thought, wow, only a month. again, the shots parallel Krasznahorkai, but i believe Tarr had to invent the parallel. i read Tarr described as Tarkovsky without the spirituality.