FilmVomit

Ok, so I’ve seen it twice now. Appropriately projected on film once, projected on crappy crappy digital once. I don’t really remember much but Mr. Ledger’s performance. I don’t really need to remember much beyond that- the Joker will never be appropriately played again. The pacing, of course, because editing is Mr. Nolan’s forté, is exceptionally good, and surprising in ways that films don’t often surprise me any more. And there is a clever contrast between the limpid cinematography during the Joker’s ultraviolent escapades and the opaquely shot work of the Batman- enough of a contrast to bring Mr. Nolan’s own morality into question, though his other work has frequently done the same, so this is no surprise. The film also borrows a page from P.T. Anderson’s book (and, by proxy, David Lynch’s) in using, instead of overwrought tension-building music, an atmospheric whine at very appropriate junctures, and an utter lack of diegetic sound at others.
The film wants to be something more than it succeeds in being, unfortunately, though Nolan has gotten away with quite a lot. There is a choppiness in the last act- an inability to bring the story to a proper conclusion, that leaves me wanting. It is, by Hollywood standards, an exceptional film. But I prefer not to disrespect the celluloid by holding things up to such a short stick.
On a not completely related but certainly tangentially appropriate note, I would like to know how in g-d’s name they managed to control Mr. Ledger on the set, when he was not in front of the cameras. Had he lost his mind as thoroughly as it seemed? Or did he maintain control until the film wrapped, and then succumb to madness? Because he was mad, this much is clear. So very little of him was apparent in that role that I think he may have erased himself entirely. And that is the sort of thing from which one does not return.

Romantic comedies are terribly boring and terribly predictable no matter what language they are in.

Hors de Prix

Ben Kingsley is terrifying and beautiful. The film sags at points, but he never does.

House of Sand and Fog

I figured out, after much puzzling, what it is about this film that I like. It isn’t particularly good, and it’s essentially morally bankrupt. But it is the first film to take the classic Hitchcock formula and modernize it in a way that is truly effective. Rather than copying Hitchcock, Slade has managed to re-tool him, make his typical bad versus worse scenario into something that does not feel clunky and mis-directed. Even the opening credits, which remind me so much of Saul Bass, and the score are perfectly Hitchcockian. Which, by the way, was almost certainly completely by mistake.
So that’s why I like this awful little film.

Hard Candy

Pixar continues to put out adorable, morally upright, exquisitely animated films. I have nothing bad to say about the piece. Even the movie in-jokes were hilarious, though I was frequently the only person in the theater laughing at them- a position to which I am quite accustomed at this point. I especially appreciated the end credits, with their condensed history of art.

WALL-E

Santosh Sivan has made an almost note-perfect entry into the ever-growing compendium of third cinema inspections into the source, and subversion, of imperialist power in colonial states. The various power dynamics here- between British and Indian, between man and woman, between boss and employee, between man and wife, man and son- tell a tale of delicate balance, and of balance lost.
The primary power dynamic is between Henry Moores and T.K.; the English plantation owner and his Indian right hand man, a Western-educated man who has been occupied, as it were, by British ideals. The interactions between Moores and his wife; between Moores and Sajani, his housekeeper and illicit lover; between Moores and his wife; between Moores and the people of the village, and so forth, all serve to illustrate the same themes to different or lesser degrees.
The themes are, of course, familiar, but only because they must be. There is nothing else for them to be- the occupied colonies are, at a very basic level, all the same. And it is the variation on the themes that is interesting- in this case, an inspection of the damage wreaked by even the most benevolent power. Even a man viewed as gentle, and harmless, is rendered monstrous by his position of power.
And then, of course, there is the film as a visual thing. Sivan as a cinematographer is superb. While at times he is playful to the detriment of the work, generally the film is sumptuous and elegant- quite simply, utterly beautiful.

Before the Rains

I don’t want to analyze this one too hard, because I enjoyed it so much. I think I was in the mood for cute. There is a lot owed here to other directors and other films, of course- Wes Anderson springs to mind, as does The Dangerous Lives of Altar Boys- and the aesthetic is a familiar one, though not yet entirely worn-out. As a whole the film rests on spindly legs, the threads that tie the segments together are very thin. There is more fluff than substance, but it is rare that music video directors make it in feature-length without feeling a bit vignette-y.
The majority of the charm comes from the relationship between the two boys- Lee Carter and Will Proudfoot- as the rest of the characters are fairly broad caricatures. The moments of childish innocence, Will’s quirky habits most especially, are delightful; and the depiction of kids’-world creativity is dead on. There is something to be said for letting the sheer joy of making something, anything, overwhelm you. If only they had managed to let that joy show through elsewhere, or had gotten someone other than their own characters to write THEIR plot, the boys of Hammer & Tongs would’ve been a bit more on top of the game.

Son of Rambow

The stereotypes here are writ broad and large, but there is at least a bit of heart beneath and behind them. The performances of all of the women are quite stunning, and there are many opportunities for the cliché to surface that are not taken. Visually, however, the film is rather uninteresting- the focus is on storytelling rather than on aesthetic- which leaves me quite disinterested after a time. Things that could be taken advantage of, especially the out-of-frame space, are largely neglected. Overall, though, the story is engaging enough and the performances are compelling enough to make up for most of what is lacking in the aesthetic.

Casa de los Babys

I was so irritated that we left an hour in. I don’t do that, generally. I’ve only walked out of two other films- The Ring 2 and War of the Worlds- and War of the Worlds was only because the projection was so bad it was making me nauseous. Anyhow. Liv Tyler is being her usual dull self, the suspense is almost entirely music-based, the ’scares’ are all loud noises and nothing else. I don’t know when I’ve been so bored in a ’scary’ movie. And I’m usually the one watching through my fingers.

Yawn.

The Strangers

Wong Kar Wai is much more interesting when he is working in Hong Kong. Also, I hate conversations that sound normal but are occurring on the other side of a pane of glass. With that much effort to be visually interesting, shouldn’t the sound be interesting as well? The visual gimmicks are overdone in a way that makes me think he is hiding something… in fact, he is hiding something. He is hiding his discomfort with the English language, hiding that he cannot seem to guide his actors properly, hiding a story that is generally either unbelievable or rather drab. But the blueberry pie is awfully pretty.

My Blueberry Nights