Bullhead (2011) dir. Michaël R. Roskam

This week I finally got around to watching a movie that's been on my list for a while.

What's my list, you ask? Here it is:

Stalker

Le Samourai

Bliss

Heart of Darkness: A Filmmaker's Apocalypse

Saving Private Ryan

The Diving Bell and the Butterfly

Through a Glass Darkly

Persona

Three Colors: Blue

Three Colors: White

Three Colors: Red

Wings of Desire

Safe

Werckmeister Harmonies

Millenium Actress

The Player

Human Nature

Bulitt

Brazil

Breathless

Stranger than Paradise

Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!

Solaris (1972)

Farenheit 9/11

The Magdalene Sisters

Fat Girl

Being There

Mind Game

A Simple Plan

2001: A Space Oddessy

Amadeus

Hard Eight

Naked Lunch

Lost Highway

He Who Gets Slapped

Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives

Pierrot le Fou

5 Centimeters per Second

The Girl Who Lept Through Time

5 Easy Pieces

Wild Strawberries

Amelie

Cries and Whispers

Ikiru

City of God (rewatch)

Raise the Red Lantern

Crimson Gold

Benny's Video

The Cremator

The Exterminating Angel

The Idiots

Crimes and Misdemeanors

Black Moon

Berbarian Sound Studio

Black Pond

What's Up Tiger Lily?

Everything You Always Wanted To Know About Sex (But Were Too Afraid to Ask)

The Spirit of the Beehive

The Double Life of Veronique

The Quiet Family

The Holy Mountain

MASH

Tokyo Story

The Rules of the Game

The Adventures of Baron Munchausen

Funky Forest: The First Contact

Daisies

Come and See

Little Otik

That Obsure Object of Desire

Collateral

Chungking Express

Taxi to the Dark Side

Twist of Faith

Pixote

Stroszek

Arrietty

Taste of Cherry

Delicatessen

Mouchette

Kwaidan

In the House

The Element of Crime

Walkabout

La Haine

Bad Day at Black Rock

The Third Man

The Illusionist

Playtime

The Lives of Others

Capturing the Friedmans

Populaire

Vivre sa vie

Pauline at the Beach

L'avventura

The Virgin Spring

Women On the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown

A Sunday in Hell

The Passion of Anna

Shoeshine

The Garden of the Finzi Continis

Repulsion

White Dog

My Sassy Girl

Days of Wine and Roses

Pather Panchali

Taxidermia

Hamlet

Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter...and Spring...

2046

Fantastic Planet

Eyes Without a Face

Onibaba

The Face of Another

The Hourglass Sanitorium

Possession

Sweet Movie

House

Valerie and Her Week of Wonders

El Topo

Election

Shaitan

Goodbye Lenin

That Girl In the Yellow Boots

The Andromeda Strain (netflix)

Forbidden Planet

Seconds

Soylent Green

Shark Skin Man and Peach Hip Girl

Babel

Welcome Back Mr. Mcdonald

We Are What We Are

Jean de Florette & Manon des Sources

The Station Agent

The Snowball Effect

Day for Night

The Stepford Wives

Heavenly Creatures

The Limey

Cure

Les Diaboliques

Cat People

Deep Red

La Ronde

The Earrings of Madame de...

Le Plaisir

The Conqueror

The Lost Weekend

Schlock

It's my insanely long list of movies that I want to see. Some of them are pretty obscure and some of them are so well known that it's surprising that I haven't seen them when I claim to be such a devoted film lover. I saw Saving Private Ryan (1998) for the first time less than a month ago. The only Karate Kid movie I ever saw all the way through was The Next Karate Kid (1994). It's the least successful and most critically panned of the series, but it did provide the breakout role for Hilary Swank. Incidentally, this movie is what put me in the "hot" camp of the eternal debate over whether Hillary Swank is hot or not.

I had trouble finding a flattering picture, I must admit

But I digress...

I finally got around to seeing a movie that's been sitting on my list for a while, which is the fairly recent Belgian drama, Bullhead by Michaël R. Roskam.

More On the Director

Roskam is pretty much brand new. There's not a lot to say about him because this is his only feature film to be released so far. He's got a new movie, Animal Rescue, coming up, and interestingly, it is the late James Gandolfini's last screen appearance. So far he's been working in the crime drama genre, but that is no trifling statement. From the looks of Bullhead, he's got a lot of talent and insight. It was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Foreign Picture, but lost to the Iranian film, A Separation (2011).

Uhhhh...yeah. That's pretty much all there is too say. There isn't a whole lot of background on this movie or the director, which is a shame because the movie was pretty good. Prett-ay, prett-ay, prett-ay...pretty good.

The Movie

I only really had one major problem with the movie, so I'll just get it out of the way now. The major flaw of the movie, for me, is that it was way too dark. I don't mean mature and solemn themes, dark. I mean like I couldn't see anything. Maybe it was my TV, maybe Netflix was having a problem, but it appeared, or rather didn't appear (ha), that nearly 80% of the movie was underexposed. 

What am I looking at?

 I feel like a really old man even complaining about it. It's a little baffling because it's a € 2 million film done by a professional director and screenwriter. It has a major star (for Belgium) and there's nothing amateur about it. I mean, I get why they wanted a darker aesthetic, it just didn't need to be so dark that you couldn't see anything. I spent most of the movie looking like Jaden Smith.

Some more minor complaints were that sometimes the film got needlessly technical and complex in the story. They included a few subplots and dialogue heavy scenes that were hard to follow. The movie overall wasn't confusing, though.

A third thing I should mention is that the movie had a very de-saturated aesthetic when it came to color, and it's something I notice a lot in European films. I put this last because I'm not sure that it's a complaint. I should point out that the  entire film isn't like this, just most of it. I find it really interesting. We have that kind of look in films in the US, too, but not as often. It's pretty big in movies like Road to Perdition (2002) or No Country for Old Men (2007). It's just an interesting pattern I've picked up on, but I might just be making that up in my head.

An example of the low-intensity color pallet

 The film revolves around several characters but one character in particular, Jacky Vanmarsenille, is in the middle of it all. What drives the story is this deal he gets into with the Belgian mob to sell illegal cow hormones and the consequences that arise from that. What the film is really about,  though, is Jackie as a character. Jacky is one of the most irredeemably sad and broken characters ever written. He reminded me of Dawn Wiener from one of my favorite movies, Welcome to the Dollhouse (1995). The two have nothing in common, of course, but what links the two in my head is how completely terrible their lives are and how little hope we as an audience have for them.

Quick shout out to Todd Solondz, one of my favorite filmmakers

 Due to a childhood tragedy (which is shown through a series of flashbacks, and contains one of the most disturbing scenes I've seen in a long time), he has become mentally scarred and fallen into a debilitating addiction to steroids and hormones. He has huge muscles, a caveman like walk, and stone face. Behind it all is an incredibly insecure and shameful man. To give credit where credit is due, Matthias Schoenaerts does an incredible job of maintaining a character that is constantly aggressive, abusive, and reactionary, but still remains sympathetic because he is so insecure and traumatized from the abuse he suffered as a child.

The movie does a really great job at showing the far reaching consequences of abuse and child trauma as well as the things we don't see behind people. Jacky is essentially a completely unlikeable character, but because of how he is written, performed, and conceived he becomes tragic. His aggression and hot temper is the result of his suffering as a child that still plagues him in the present. Needless to say, things don't turn out great for him.

The movie is valuable because of the way it presents its themes and the struggles of its characters. Technically, it's very well made, aside from the complaint I had earlier. The story and structure is good enough, but I wouldn't expect everyone to agree with me on that. Jackie's backstory is introduced a little late in the film, so his actions start out as very hard to understand. This didn't really bother me too much, but I can see it bothering others.

Now that I've watched it, though, I'm curious what the Academy Award competition had over it. Looks like I've got more movies to add to my list.

Movies I Also Saw This Week

Lincoln (2012)*, Movie 43**

*My second time watching. I think I liked it better the first time. Daniel Day-Lewis really holds it together. Otherwise it's a little schmaltzy. Still good, though. I like the scenes with James Spader.

**I finished it. That's all I have to say about that

Gravity (2013) dir. Alfonso Cuarón

Since I watch a lot of movies, I've obviously seen the movie Children of Men by Alfonso Cuarón. If you consider yourself by any means a self respecting cinephile and haven't seen it, drop what you're doing and get it at V-Stock. It's an amazing movie. Clive Owen is like a British George Clooney with a better range. The film is stunning to look at and has not one, but two iconic long takes. It's a brilliantly crafted and, more importantly, persuasive and compelling story. Pretty much everything is great about it from the title cards to the awkward boner inducing Ghana boobs. 

So I was pretty excited to see his most recent movie, Gravity (2013)
 

More On the Director

Alfonso Cuarón is a Mexican director that actually has worked in just about every major position in the industry, from DP to editor. Funny thing about him is that I've seen all of his movies. The reason that's funny is because it was completely by accident. A lot of movie buffs will boast about seeing every movie from a certain director. I've seen every one of Alfonso's films and didn't even know it until I did research for this blog, and the reason is because he's managed to both make very few movies and also be incredibly diverse.

The most surprising entry in his filmography is A Little Princess (1995). When I was little, this movie was my shit. I watched pretty much this, The Lion King (1994), Big Rock Candy Mountain (1991 [good luck finding this, it was a glorious straight-to-video classic]),  and Geppetto (2000 [yes, the shitty Drew Carrey musical]). I had no idea he directed it, and if you watched it, you would never know it was by him. 

Then he did an independent film, Y Tu Mama Tambien (2001), back home in Mexico. He wrote it with his brother, Carlos. This, again, I had forgotten was directed by him. I'm not crazy about it. It was a more slow paced, character driven drama. It's not that I don't like those kinds of movies, it's just that very realist, cerebral movies either hit or miss depending on the person. Two things I can say I really disliked about the movie was the narration, the audio of which seemed intentionally louder than the diagetic sound, which was jarring, and the sheer amount of man-ass in the film. 

He also did the very well received Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, which is often credited with giving the series a darker aesthetic, and had werewolves and shit.

So Alfonso Cuarón is a pretty remarkable filmmaker, and quite frankly it's Baby Back Bullshit that when people say how Paul Thomas Anderson, the Coen Brothers, David Fincher, etc. are the best filmmakers today, they don't also mention Alfonso. *

So now we can talk about Gravity for real. 

The Movie

Let me go ahead and answer the question on everyone's mind. Yes, it is worth it to see this in 3D. Maybe even in IMAX if you're a big spender. In fact it's almost not worth it without the 3D. Let me be clear, almost. It's still a good movie on its own, but it's kind of like vanilla ice cream. It's good by itself, but why would you even get it without toppings? Not even some fruit? Get a fucking life.

The 3D made it a truly stunning visual experience. There's a little confusion as to whether we can credit that to the cinematographers or the special effects artists (sort of like Life of Pi [2012]). Let's just say it was the cinematographers, the SFX people are getting screwed anyway**. It sounds dumb to say this, but it really did feel like you were floating in space. It really was a gorgeous film. Much like Days of Heaven (1978), the movie will be remembered for how awesome it looks. Seriously, it's an optical wet dream. That's enough of a reason to see it. 

Days of Heaven (1978)- Seriously. Hnnnnnng

 It's got a good story going for it as well. The thing is, it's pretty much just a good story. There's been a lot of buzz around this film, a lot of it being due to the 3D, which is well deserved, but there's also talk of it being "amazing science fiction" and one of the greatest tales of the decade. I think we all need to take a step back. Take a big step back, say, seven years, and then we can talk. I'm talking about Children of Men. I know, I know. It's my first review and I'm already rambling about the wrong film. It's important though, so listen. Children of Men was Cuarón's masterpiece, not this.

The story is pretty simple and everyone's been talking about it, so I'll spare you a long winded summary. It's really just about Sandra Bullock and George Clooney trying to get themselves out of what NASA defines in the astronauts handbook as "The Shittiest Space Disaster Ever". It's a really clean, accessible conflict-solution-more conflict type plot. It isn't super complex, but that's what I like about it. It's got heart pounding tension and action, but the plot is so clean and simple, avoiding complexity or subplots, that the entire experience becomes pretty serine. Another thing that helps is the fact that they have no sound effects in the outer space scenes. I love that. Neil DeGrasse Tyson can complain all he wants about the scientific inaccuracies, but the whole sound in space thing is finally coming to an end. That's a pretty big milestone.

The interesting thing about this movie that I don't think people are questioning enough is the symbolism. There's all this natal and womb symbolism going on that I'm not sure that I'm buying. Here's where I spoil the movie, so stop reading if you haven't seen it. Sandra Bullock's character, hereafter referred to as Dr. Ryan Stone, once had a daughter who died in a tragic accident. She has not yet gotten over the guilt and sorrow of losing a child, and the "what ifs" that go along with this kind of loss are still weighing on her. She's sort of a broken soul, and this is the touchstone of her character. Overall, this makes her sympathetic enough and we do end up rooting for her. The only problem is that this characterization is delivered pretty clumsily about a third of the way into the film. Since the whole film requires a sense of real time to work, there was no way to deliver that exposition other than pretty much outright saying it. Flashbacks (or scenes not then and there) would have taken us out of the movie, so it was a greater challenge to develop the characters. I respect Cuarón for taking the challenge.

Anyway, once Stone's backstory is established, that's when the symbolism comes in. There's one scene in particular which I wasn't sure if I liked or found annoying. By this point, (spoilers) Stone is all on her own. She arrives at an abandoned Russian space station and is rapidly running out of oxygen. She needs to move fast, and once she gets in, she must move even faster to get home alive. After an extremely intense sequence where she barely makes it into the station, she finally breathes, takes off her space suit, and curls into the fetal position. Keep in mind, the clock is ticking. Nevertheless, she slowly curls into the fetal position while her tether floats in the atmosphere to look like an umbilical cord. She does this for apparently no other reason than to look symbolic. She must have recently seen 2001: A Space Odyssey. It was a neat image. The only issue I took with it was that it was a little heavy handed, and potentially a little derivative as well. That's being a little too picky, though. 

See what I'm saying? This isn't really a fair argument, though. Just an interesting coincidence

 The only other problem I had with the film was, I hate to say, George Clooney. Don't get me wrong, I like Clooney despite the fact that he doesn't have much range. The character, however, could have been better. At times he was a really great character, but his excessive dialogue brought him down. His actions and relationship with Stone were extremely well written, but his words were not. It seems like whenever he did something, it was very carefully thought about and compelling. Whenever he said something, it's like somebody just wrote cheap "eccentric veteran" dialogue. He kept telling these really "amusing" and irrelevant stories. I get what they were trying to do, it's just that whenever they did it I just couldn't buy that someone would actually say that when they were trying to escape the hellish vacuum of space...

But enough of the negative. Let's delve into one more positive.

Sandra Bullock was simply amazing in this movie. I recall her saying something like, this was the best work she's ever done, and I'm inclined to agree with her. I'm actually surprised because I've never been a Bullock fan. She's in this really terrible movie called Practical Magic which plays at least once a week on ABC Family. It has the most maddeningly annoying score ever written. But in Gravity, she sells it and she sells it well. It's weird. She almost starts off as a damsel in distress, but if the prince gets sucked into the cosmos and says "fuck it, you're on your own". She was a really likeable, sympathetic, and intriguing character. I really can't say enough of how good she was in this movie. She struck this perfect balance of at once being a strong and level headed character while at other times being completely consumed by fear and panic. She came off as very human. Not only that, but the look of her character was well conceived. Her physical appearance, movements, and expressions had this very watchable and charming, tomboyish quality to them. There was an attractive mix of femininity and masculinity that one can only find in a Thai ladyboy.

So Gravity, I can confirm, is pretty much as good as everyone says it is, just for different reasons.

Fun fact, Cuarón is currently making a TV show about a girl with mysterious powers and her escaped-convict guardian. It sounds very del Toro-y.

Movies I Also Saw This Week

Modern Times (1936), Lords of Salem (2013), Movie 43 (2013)***

*Nothing against those other directors. It would be true to say they are some of the greatest modern filmmakers.

**Seriously, google that shit. The SFX industry is a nightmare.

***I saw half of it. It was getting late, so I had to shut it off. I'll have to finish it another time. It was frighteningly awful, to the point where I got physically uncomfortable trying to figure out why this movie ever happened.  

Too Many Movies to Watch

Greetings
 Who am I? A guy who goes to Film School and watches movies. Here is my mission: To review and discuss films as I see them, and to chart what will likely be a progressive change in tastes, scope, and attitudes towards films, genres, actors/directors, and the medium as a whole. I am inviting you to take this journey with me. 

So what am I reading? 
This is first and foremost a review blog. I watch a lot of movies and have focused my eduction to discussing them, so I figure what's the point of checking out a movie on Netflix if I don't talk about it?

In addition to all that, I may or may not post a few opinionated, rant-like submissions. If I feel like something needs to be said, well hey, I might take a crack at it.

I guess it's also valuable to point out that I have a few other minor interests here and there. Maybe I'll shake things up and do a book review (if I can remember how to read).

Importance
If you skim everything I just said and only decide to read one thing in this post, make it this. There's gonna be hella SPOILERS in this blog. I'll do my best to protect the naive public by posting before each review that it will contain spoilers. I can't help anyone other than that. To really talk about the movie I have to divulge plot details, it's just the nature of the beast. This isn't just to tell you whether or not to see it, it's to work through my thoughts on the film and offer a point of view to anyone curious. Sure, I'll post a little something about whether or not I liked the film and who I would recommend it to. That will come first. Otherwise you'll have to learn to scroll, and scroll fast.

That's all you need to know.

The posts may be long.

The posts may be short.

They will be infrequent. 

I have yet to watch a lot of the greats, the many classics that shape the way story telling and film grammar is done today. There are many genres, time periods, and directors that I am completely unfamiliar with. I plan to change this.

To wrap things up, I'll leave you with some quotes.

The First is by Jean Renoir, one of the filmmakers whose filmography, time period, and genre are ones I am completely unfamiliar with. I saw this quote in a homemade textbook that one of my entry level film studies professors made for us.

"You have a frame. The frame is a scene in a movie or the frame of a painting. You must fill this frame" -Jean Renoir

I am more of a movie watcher than a movie maker. I am far too impatient to make movies. I love this quote nonetheless. It's strays a little from the point of this blog, but I'll ignore that because I think what Renoir is saying is very important. I think all of us, who love film, recognize this at a fundamental level. That the camera is never just placed there. The cut is never made arbitrarily. Every film we watch is an accumulation of ideas we see on a large rectangle. A great film, both from shot to shot and as a whole, demonstrates a certain fullness that can be acquired technically and through talent.

The second is from Roman Polanski.

"Cinema should make you forget you are sitting in a theater" -Roman Polanski

 This one is pretty simple. I wanted to add some contrast to the last quote as well. Not every movie is a detailed, nuanced, brilliant work filled with symbolism and metaphors. Some films are just entertaining*. That's why most people start getting interested in film. I like to think that, if a movie is really good, you will forget about your numb, flattened ass.

*entertaining is loosely defined here.

And here is the third.

"I like tits and ass. Mostly tits" -Paul Verhoeven

I just like this quote.