Now that many cities in most of the country are re-opening with social distancing measures in mind I realized something very important about returning. There was nothing much to go back to. All my social life was extremely and very socially distant to begin with. Practically all social gatherings were based on consuming, they either had to do with buying food, buying alcohol or buying something to buy time. So it strikes me ironic when people say "it will not be the same" with social distancing. Although I always felt the same amount of distance from people as I do with social distancing measures put in place. All the times spent going to restaurants, shopping malls, retail stores and even bars there was always this cold distance from others in the building. The alcohol would sometimes mask it, or make one even forget about it, but the distance is there regardless. If you didn't have money, you wouldn't be able to go into the club. If you didn't have money, you would probably have to feel the embarrassment of having to "bum" off of your friends, or uncomfortably sit there saying no to the waiter when asked if you would like to order something. Just the idea that you need money to even hang out with people out in the public is coldly distant. I mean not all places, but how many people want to hang out at a library or a park? The parks in the past years leading up to the pandemic have been so damn empty. Often times there would only be people looking at their cellphones at the parks, creating this whole new bubble that you "should" not penetrate because all their socializing is in their phones now and don't you dare interrupt that. The only time the parks were full was when there was some sporting event, in which you would have to pay to create in the first place. The public space is by and large mostly non-social now thanks to consumer technology, consumerism and money as a whole. Almost all of my interactions with people when I went out (before the coronavirus) revolved around an exchange of money. Like we have all become walking talking products "you want my time and get to know me? buy me a drink or pay for my companionship online playing video games" and yes I just found about about e-girls not too long ago. Everything and everybody is a product and because of this it has created a social distance that has made us more distant than even a deadly pandemic had the chance to do.
Alternatively the pandemic lockdown has actually made us even more socially connected than ever before. For once, young people (who normally don't vote or are for the most part apolitical) are actually standing up for human rights. Yes human rights, that thing we forgot about because corporations kept throwing us electronics and telling us the only way to be social is here on the internet or consuming at a bar or brewery or whichever way you can keep making somebody money. Heck I'm here writing in desperation to connect with people under the Google umbrella, the corporate information monopoly. Or simply because you have to go to work. Let's not forget about that, the fact that everybody was so busy "working" that they didn't have time to protest or fight the system. But now that so many are out of work, at home forced to actually think outside of consuming/working; we actually have people fighting for human rights again. We actually get time to think and build our personalities and in turn become caring human beings again. The corporations are well aware of this. They are well aware that consumer/workers are becoming humans again, so they push the government to stop the pay checks and force these human beings to assimilate again. Force these products to fall back in line, ultimately to go back to work and go back to consuming. A return to the cold social distancing that was before.
30. Justice League: Flashpoint Paradox - The film that started my addiction to the DC animated world and it remains the best. One of the best stories of time travel and my favorite animation film of the decade. The one that Avengers Endgame took a lot of its ideas from.
29. High Life - It poses as a science fiction film, but really it's a philosophical film. It's a story about letting go of everything you once thought you knew and descending into the abyss of the unknown.
28. A Seperation - Quite possibly the best movie I've ever seen about divorce but also about family in general. It's as intense as it is meditative. An acting masterclass by all the actors involved. The characters are not good nor bad, not to be rooted for or jeered on, instead they are as flawed and nuanced as real life can present.
27. Sinister – We all have to face one thing. Bagul was the horror monster of the decade. And strangely enough this decade was a sort of new renaissance in great horror movies. So it’s even stranger that I must admit that there were many horror movies better than this one. But the truth is, this decade badly needed a memorable monster. The creepy nun and doll were okay, but those movies were not as good as this one. The twists are great and Bagul is actually pretty darn scary. Not really his appearance, but his motives and methods. It was one of the few movies that gave me the heebie jeebies both times I watched it.
26. Birds of Passage – There are whole tribes disappearing in the name of profit. But very few of them get to tell their story. And the stories they tell should be an omen to us all.
25. Wolf of Wall Street – I watched this movie twice. The first time I ended up intoxicated and the second time I ended up intoxicated. This movie is like a cocktail, I mean literally I can’t avoid drinking a cocktail while watching this. It is the ultimate “good times” capitalism critique possibly ever made. It is the story of the American dream, and why it is all a lie. But like selling something as ordinary as a pen, you have to believe it is extraordinary to sell it.
24. Upstream Color - If the coronavirus pandemic hasn’t revealed it enough, we should someday realize that we are all connected. This film is both poetic yet coldly calculated as if some science experiment. I’m still trying to wrap my head around it.
23. Portrait of a Lady on Fire – Some sites list this as a 2020 film but it came out in Cannes film festival back in May 2019 and has been showing across the world in countless festivals the whole rest of the year including a December limited release. So I’m counting it damn it. Do I really have to say much? This movie literally feels like a painting and it is of course an absolute pleasure to marvel at.
22. Pariah – Very much the precursor of Moonlight. This one is more subtle and modest but it drives the message home beautifully. A great story of female oppression and the ultimate sacrifice of accepting that one may never be accepted
21. Moonlight - Because men are oppressed damn it! Most people like to think of this movie as a love story, but I always thought of it as a critique of male culture. It is a story about oppression and about how men cannot be who they are for perhaps most of their lives.
20. Hard to be a God - This movie really challenged me. It’s as confusing as it is grotesque. It is three hours long too. Yet it is one of the biggest cinematic accomplishments in the whole decade. This movie made me re-think how to shoot certain scenes and has opened my mind to how a film can move that I never knew before.
19. Zama – Brilliant fever dream of Spanish colonial life in the Americas. Most films on colonialism stylistically take on the narrative of a stranger in a strange place. This story is more like a strange man in a strange place. It is Kafkaesque in its satire of colonial bureaucracy.
18. Prometheus / Alien Covenant – I consider them both one movie. A lot of great science fiction films this decade. Every year there was a great one. But for some reason Prometheus / Alien Covenant resonated with me the most. What better story than the one about humanity looking for their creator and a robot who wants to know his purpose in life. It’s the only science fiction movie that has me wanting more, and when I mean more, I mean much more.
17. The Raid: Redemption – Martial arts film of the decade. This one sparked a fire into the martial arts world and introduced to the mainstream the best ensemble martial arts filmmaking team of the decade. Action choreography doesn’t get much better than this.
16. 13 Assassins – This is perhaps my favorite Takashi Miike movie and he has made a lot. I have never had a better time seeing so much blood shed than with this masterpiece remake. From the lines, to the set up, to the beautiful shots and a story more relevant to current times than one might think. This film not only channeled the greatness of golden age Japanese cinema, but sparked the magic of classic Hollywood as well.
15. The Wailing – Let’s face it, this was the best horror movie of the decade. I watched it twice and both times I was perplexed by its overall weirdness and absurd turn of events. One of the few movies that left me both scared and confused. It is a great skill in filmmaking to suspend your imagination of the supernatural even if for just a moment after the film ends.
14. Roma – Mexico is both a wonderful and stark place at once. I should know because I used to visit every year to see family. One moment you’re in paradise with loved ones, then the next moment death is near. This story really paints the country very well and the overall feeling of what is Mexico. The country is acceptance and rejection, death and rebirth. Only in rejection can you be accepted and only in death can you be reborn.
13. Shoplifters - Neorealism at its best. Very similar to Parasite but much more grounded in the subtleness of living in poverty. What is family? The answer is in this modest yet powerful story.
12. Parasite – What more can I say about the movie phenomenon of 2019? It’s dark comedy, melodrama, suspense thriller, magical realism, part mission impossible set piece and a political critique on capitalism and Korean class struggle all rolled into one.
11. The Last Black Man in San Francisco – Not belonging is a hard feeling to explain and it’s an even harder fact to accept. This is poetic cinema. Amongst all the great histories and great cities of the United States, there are still many upon many who may have never been welcomed in its richness, no matter how long we’ve come to know the place.
10. Burning – My second favorite film of 2018. This movie really stuck with me in more ways than I can count. Every scene is meticulously laced with symbolism and meaning. It’s about so many things at once yet it is so limited and restricted to slow meditative shots. Masterfully directed and perhaps a worldly cautionary tale.
9. Batman vs Superman: Dawn of Justice – This was the blockbuster movie event of the decade for me. I’ve waited all my life for Batman to come face to face with the man of steel. But like all destinies, you must expect the unexpected. I did not expect a movie about Batman and Superman to be about destiny or to be metaphysical. To talk so deeply about what makes us human or how we give so much purpose to one name… a name is all we need to awaken our purpose in life. And that name is….
8. The House That Jack Built - This was my personal favorite of 2018. Incredible directing by Von Trier, and I argue it is one of his best. The symbolism is beautiful and it is an incredibly dark but funny parable. Evil is not simply racism, sexism or any of that, it is a person who thinks they are brilliantly special but they are not, and typically those guys encompass all of those things without even knowing it. It’s basically a movie about every guy I hate.
7. Timbuktu – Outstanding look into a city changing in Africa. From the invisible soccer scene, to the beautiful music played by its citizens, to the heartbreaking death scenes, it’s just a perfect movie.
6. The Perfect Dictatorship – This was comedy movie of the decade for me. I fell in love with Luis Estrada’s wit and vividly stark humor with El Infierno. But The Perfect Dictatorship appears to be Estrada’s masterpiece. From the cleverly inserted Beethoven selection, to the hysterical dialogue and every scene that does not skip a beat, this is the perfect dark comedy. The blueprint of Mexico’s manufacturing of consent.
5. Mad Max: Fury Road – Action movie of the decade, perhaps of the millennium. George Miller deserved best director that year by a million miles over everybody. Sadly his brilliant return to the mad world of Max was not fully appreciated. Its release was trampled by Pitch Perfect 2, because you know singing n stuff. Thankfully, Max will return again. But this time we should all bow down and pay the man his dues.
4. The Turin Horse – Simultaneously one of the most challenging movies as well as one of the most easy to watch films I’ve ever seen. Looking into it is like looking into life itself. It’s about nihilism, about meaning, and perhaps a great study on Sisyphus as well. Beautifully shot, sound production is incredible and it’s the last swan song from one of the great master directors.
3. Embrace the Serpent – Into the abyss, into the light. What a marvelous film. If any movie reaffirmed my belief in the afterlife, it is this one. Humanity’s hunger to make a perfect world is eternal. That is because the perfect world already exists; it’s the nature that feeds us. To enter this perfect world we must forever embrace the serpent.
2. Only God Forgives – This is Refn’s masterpiece. It is cinematically perfect. It is a reflection on humanity. Why can’t humanity ever forgive itself? Why must we live in a land of revenge, law and punishment? The answer… is that Only God Forgives and our only sin is that we can never forgive.
1. Inception – Because life is a dream. And the movies we watch are a dream within a dream. And our dreams are the limbo that Cobb is forever stuck in. It’s a clear homage to filmmaking in general, but I argue that it is homage to life itself and trying to make sense of it all. Without a shadow of a doubt this is Nolan’s masterpiece and the greatest experience of cinema I dreamed of this decade.
After watching Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood I realized one clear thing, maybe something that has been evident for a long while. Tarantino does not even understand what makes those exploitation movies he loves so much great to begin with. The exploitation films of Jack Hill were about women liberating themselves from the corrupt system that oppresses them. It's hard to not see those themes in his movies. Foxy Brown, The Big Bird Cage and Big Doll House have anti-establishment language all throughout the narratives. All of those movies have female protagonists fighting against an exploitive system that imprisons them, whether it be prostitution, sex slaves or guerrilla war politics. One of Tarantino's favorite films is Hill's very own Switchblade Sisters where there is a great scene where a female gang kick out a slum lord from their building as he tried to evict poor families from their homes. The gang of women cut off the landlord's tie implying a cutting off of his perceived power or possibly a castration of something else. A scene like that, or themes like in Hill's films seem practically non-existent in Tarantino's films.
From Switchblade Sisters (1975)
When I watched OUaTiH I sincerely thought that Tarantino will for once have something to say besides referring to his career or serving his own fetishes or just paying homage to the films he loves. I understand that there are a bunch of hacky Youtube critics making the case that Tarantino's OUaTiH is "meta" and about ... violence on tv and ...whatever else they can think of to make banal surface level points that are even obvious to the most casual film goers. Just because the movie is "meta" about Hollywood does not make it profound or deep. It's at best just a neat thing he did, but nothing groundbreaking or complex and more so nothing bold either. And that's the problem I have with the film, as with his others, it does not take any bold moves to counter any norms as the great exploitation movies of the 60s and 70s did. Instead he seems to do the opposite. Tarantino seems to be out to make a statement that the establishment is cool and the counterculture is what is wrong with things. Like somebody I know once put it "Tarantino is more interested in John Ford than he is in radical b movie directors." And of course this is true as Tarantino's western film fetish continues well after its welcome.
From The Big Doll House (1971)
It seems that Tarantino is so obsessed with Nostalgia that he fails to have any voice in his current time period of living. What I mean is that Tarantino doesn't refer to the world he lives in now unless it has to do with his career. In OUaTiH the central point or opinion he makes has to do with how Hollywood doesn't make people violent, but it was the drugs and the hippie counter culture that drove those crazy hippies to kill. There was little to no background on Manson's horrific upbringing or any backstory to any of the Manson family whatsoever. Instead they are reduced to cartoon characters. Because of course Tarantino is not interested in how societal structures may ruin people's lives but that the people who critique his violence are just wrong. And that's just about it. That's Tarantino's grand and main focal point. That and it's ..."a love letter to Hollywood" or insert whatever trite take you can here _____.
From Sweet Sweetback's Badasssss Song (1971)
The central critique I'm making about Tarantino is that, other than about his own career, he stands for almost nothing in his movies. Jack Hill painted narratives against female oppression, Melvin Van Peebles stood for giving disadvantaged black communities a voice in cinema, even a director as lowbrow as Bruno Mattei had anti-corporate and environmentalist themes. Tarantino on the other hand stands for ..... nothing, well his own fetishes I guess. The cartoonish violent ending of OUaTiH was so forced and childish that I thought I was looking into the mind of a teenager who created it. It was cinematically dry and had zero suspense to it. But most importantly the campy climax of OUaTiH made me realize that at best Tarantino is the Ken Burns of exploitation movies. He has literally nothing bold or countercultural to say. What he does say is that Nazis are bad, slavery is bad, and the Manson family is bad. He says this with aggression shielded by the safety of hindsight. These are literally the safest stances you can take, added with "let's kill them!" As juvenile as that sounds, it is literally how he thinks and carries out his movies. Like Ken Burns, he just takes something that was generally regarded as bad in history to make a vocal point cinematically, except that Tarantino in turn makes revenge porn out of it.
Tarantino speaking against murders done by police.
So in conclusion I ask Tarantino, what will you say about our time? It was not so long ago he said something about police brutality. I was assuming at some point he would have done a film about it. But instead he gave use the most conservative white male fantasy in his filmography to date. I am still waiting for Tarantino to take that bold leap against the powerful of society, but judging on his recent film I will not hold my breath.
Since people ignored my last Disney post, since this is in the aftermath of the Fox merger deal and people are happily giving their money to Disney to make The Last Jedi the biggest movie ever and will continue to buy every formulaic crap Marvel film that comes out... I decided to add some other issues I forgot to mention about this greedy corporation.
Remember when Disney bullied Quentin Tarantino's film out of the ArcLight movie theatre in order to have Star Wars screen longer for the holiday season? Now I'm not the biggest Tarantino fan, I loved his early work, but it's hard for me to forgive him for Death Proof. However, one of the exceptional values of Tarantino is that he is a man of cinema scruples and is a devout purist of the form. Apparently Disney can now force movie projects out of theaters even by directors as popular as Tarantino whenever they like, if that's not scary then I don't know what is.
Remember when the Los Angeles Times did a story about how Disneyland is "squeezing" subsidies, incentives, rebates and tax protections from the city while trying to pay off their politicians as well? And then Disney went ahead and banned Los Angeles Times from reviewing their movies? Yes, they actually banned a news paper from reviewing their movies because they didn't like them revealing how they one-sidedly profit off of the city of Anaheim. This is Disney. Luckily critics started boycotting the new Disney movies and this lead to a backlash against them. Disney eventually changed their tune and lifted the ban. Regardless of the outcome, the fact that Disney even feels comfortable banning giant newspaper companies and critics from reviewing their movies is a frightening omen to what may come in the future if this giant keeps growing.
Now, let's talk about the specifics of Disney buying out Fox movie studios and other assets. As briefly mentioned in Part 1 of this post, Disney have now bought the rights and assets of Rupert Murdoch's Fox movie studios and television programs. As any lefty such as myself would be thinking "maybe the good part of this is that Disney will own that brainwashing rightwing news factory knows as Fox News and get rid of it!" right? ..Right? Nope, now after this deal Murdoch has decided that he will spend his 52 billion new dollars to focus on his passion known as Fox News and take it global. The one good thing that could have happened from this deal... did not happen. Fox News will still thrive and now with even more money added with even more focus. Also, Murdoch will now "own 5 percent of Disney and will hold seats on the Company's board of directors." as pointed out in this insightful article about why the Disney-Fox deal should scare you. So basically for now on when you buy that ticket for that Disney movie you will be in some fractional way giving money to Fox News and Rupert Murdoch.
But I know, it's all worth it just to see a better Fantastic Four movie right? ....Right?
Last Word
Lastly I would like to remind everybody of a time no so long ago before Disney owned Marvel, Star Wars or Fox. A time when Disney actually banned "grieving parents from putting Winnie the Pooh on their stillborn baby's headstone." That time was around 2006, before Disney was even half as powerful as they are now. It was only after the news went public that Disney rejected the family that they decided to grant permission. Now that was over ten years ago, now imagine what Disney will do if they get their way when copyright protection laws go further international. Or now that they may own Avatar and The Simpsons. It may only be a matter of time. For now, I cherish the smaller movies in life. I still haven't seen The Last Jedi, and you know what? For some reason I feel good about it.
First off, they are trying to monopolize the whole movie industry by buying out Marvel, Star Wars and now Fox's assets.
Then they will try to conquer the television industry by buying the majority of Hulu and will try to take down Netflix who is actually producing a lot of good stuff.
The countless formulaic films they release and the critics who just gobble them up endlessly are annoying.
They are one of the leading promoters of the TPP that so many Americans swore they were adamantly against, yet many of these Americans go buy $12 tickets to help them stay powerful and later try to sue the living crap out of the small guys in south pacific Asia and only god knows where else. Supporting Disney is pretty much supporting a future TPP on its way back.
I came up with the term of the 'martyrdom of Disney" when I watched Rogue One. After watching that movie I realized that all those people who die in it, pretty much died for nothing. There was nothing heroic about what they did since the evil empire takes over some forty odd years later anyway. So I don't understand what the hell the whole point of all those people dying in Rogue One is considering the empire or "the bad guys" win anyway. This makes it look as if Disney is promoting a positive view on martyrdom which is just quite simply sick.
Also the idea of promoting continuous war and making it look positive and having value to continue the silly Star Wars story line is very Orwellian and indicates that Disney is very much perpetuating the idea that war must be continuos and necessary.
As if that wasn't enough they tried to buy the rights to "Dia de los Muertos" a Mexican cultural tradition. Yes they tried to copyright an actual part of culture just to make some generic stereotypical movie. And if that is not scary, then I don't know what else is.
For a long time and probably still now they were/are a child exploitation factory. I mean if it is not bad enough that they make money primarily off of children and brainwash them to believe they have to buy their products, well they're also a breeding ground of exploiting youth and most likely messing them up as young people and in the long run. Look at how fucked up Shia Labeouf is now, look at Demi Levato's drug addiction, look at Miley Cyrus.
Also, as Bernie points out, they pay crap wages to their employees at their theme parks while their CEOs make more millions. All this while they profit off of outsourcing and making most of their products in third world countries.
Last Word: Now I know that Disney is a big corporation that produces a lot of good films and many which I end up streaming. My boycott however is refusing attendance in the movie theatre and paying the hefty price for their continuing agenda to monopolize the movie industry. The more money we give to their big blockbuster films; the more the demand for all films studios to have to compete with only the big budget productions. This would be and already is terrible for most of the studios who produce lower budget indie films. Don't get me wrong, I love the original Star Wars movies and the new ones have been excellent, but I will no longer be spending the $12 or more of my hard earned money to give more power to such a "too big to fail" corporation. I will be watching The Last Jedi for free one day.
I will compile a series of albums that I think have been overlooked with a track by track review to explain why I think they are great.
Them Belfast Gypsies by The Belfast Gypsies (not Van Morrison's Them)
Gloria's Dream - Sounds like Gloria got intoxicated and ended up at some crazy frat party. It sounds like Gloria meets Animal House. It has the spirit of Sam the Sham & The Pharaohs' "Woolly Bully" mixed in with "Gloria" with a hint of Bo Diddley. Yeah it's a crazy cocktail but if you drink it you'll end up having a lot of fun.
The Crazy World Inside Me - Wtf is this? is my first response. Sounds like The Belfast Gypsies' attempt at a pop song. Ends up sounding like some kind of drunk improvised session in a garage. This is lo-fi pop magic.
Midnight Train - Wicked and dark. Crazy harmonica work. Bo Diddley strumming again. Bass is on point. Great song.
Aria of Fallen Angels - I know it's weird and.....why did they choose to cover a classical piece? But that is precisely why it is a good addition to the album. How many garage rock albums or even bands can say they covered a classical piece by J.S. Bach? ....? My point exactly.
It's All Over Now Baby Blue - I know that the Van Morrison/Them version is untouchable. Yes, I accept that this version is not as good, but that is not to say this isn't a great version anyway. It's surprisingly fast, has a great melodic solo in the middle and this singer continues to rival Van Morrison's vocals. I have to say that I almost like this version as much as Them's version.
People Let's Freak Out - I remember while listening to this my friend told me that he didn't like this song because of the phrase "let's freak out" He proclaimed his hatred for the phrase and said that it is corny when people say it. I half-heartedly agreed with his point. The phrase "let's freak out" is corny and is a generic sense of hippie emotion....but this song is fucking awesome. This song was also composed in the sixties when the term was popular so I think the Belfast Gypsies deserve some leeway. I don't care if "let's freak out" is a corny phrase, singer Jackie McAuley makes it sound cool and punk some how.
Boom Boom - How fucking awesome is this cover? Really fucking awesome I say. Best version I've ever heard. I know some dad rockers and classic rock fans will hate me for saying this but Jackie McAuley gives the vocals the most edgy punk grit I've ever heard for this song with all due respect to John Lee Hooker and Big Head Todd.
Last Will and Testament - Warning: piercing organ tones when blasted thru speakers as it should be. This is yet another classic cover. I consider this song "House of the Rising Sun" on steroids. Seriously not joking...this song needs to go up on your volume nob around minute 2:20.
Portland Town - This song is super repetitive, but that is precisely the point of it! It's so repetitively depressing that it's fucking genius. Anti-war? Anti-conformist? Anti- mediocrity? I don't know but it's fucking great.
Hey Gyp - Now I love Donavon and I like his famous version of this song, but this version has the muscle that Donavan's version lacks. I can actually smell the motor oil on this one. I can hear the chevy roaring and I can feel the cadillac's slow cruise.
Suicide Song - Was there any song that could top the depression of Portland Town? Oh yeah there is, it's this one. This song has a very similar narrative lyric structure to The Outsiders' (dutch band) "Prison Song" However this one is a bit more grim and definitely more drug induced.
Secret Police - Wtf!? At first this sounds like a follow up to where "Suicide Song" left off with the breaking down of the door, but then we enter a world of paranoia beyond my ear's understanding. I begin to question the band's sanity at this point. This sounds like Dylan's "Tombstone Blues" on some seriously bad drugs.
Extra Bonus Track:
Gorilla - Just a reminder that the Belfast Gypsies can do all that hip mod shit too.
So there you have it. An album with practically no bad songs. Till this day this is still one of my favorite garage rock albums ever.
We hold on to the past.
But the past is not the same.
We can't go back for everything changes.
No place truly remains the same.
Mother said that we can't go back to how things were
or how things were in our relationships.
No family nor friends.
Because something was broken.
A long time ago. Something had broken.
And can never be fixed.
Some people can hold on to the past.
Some people can make it last.
I envy them. Eternal envy.
I still try and hold on to the past from time to time.
But when I do I am reminded that
there is nothing to hold on to.
In light of the release of Wes Anderson's new movie The Grand Budapest Hotel I have decided to do a piece about why I personally felt his last film Moonrise Kingdom was not only overrated but also exploitive in a weird indie (cute?) way. I have unrelentingly expressed my criticism and opinion to a friend thru email a couple of years ago when it was in theaters. So by saving myself the time of repeating thoughts I have already written before I will post excerpts from that email written to my friend back in 2012. I will also show my friend's response email as well as my final thoughts. I look back and admittedly realize my criticism of Wes Andersson sounds a bit harsh. Although after reading it thoroughly my opinion still stands. So why would I sugar coat it right?
My First Initial Response:
Moonrise Kingdom - I
finally watched it as a date movie since it was playing at the AMC and
no other flick interested me. My general analysis is that it was a
descent movie and I even consider it somewhat good. It is only good for
one particular reason; I felt that visually Wes Anderson has stepped it
up big time. This was the most visually sound film he has directed to
date I feel. The intro and also the outro which are the same concept
(the 360 camera revolving) are practically the best visual concept that
Wes Anderson has come up with so far. This film is the closest I feel he
has gotten to a level similar to the Scandinavians in cinema. Some
shots actually reminded me of Roy Andersson, but not as complex of course.
But I think it is clear that Anderson checked out some Andersson flicks
and realized that he could step it up big time with
his whole stage frame concept. With that out of the way I have some
issues with the film, what Wes Anderson has become and the idea in
general.
Wes Anderson on a Larry Clark tip
I
was actually faintly disturbed on how much Wes Anderson sexualized the
little girl in the film. In my opinion he sexualized her in the same
manner Tarantino sexualized his women in Death Proof. They are
the same in a sense that they are both the director's perverted fantasy
of a woman. The boyhood fantasy if you would. Tarantino's fantasy is
that women act badass like men, are pop subculture nuts (like him) and
also are sexy plus they know how to give a guy a lap dance. Anderson's
fantasy is a bit more of an indie hipster boy's fantasy. The girl
is darkly mysterious ( dark eye liner also used for Margot Tenenbaum as
girl), wears short skirt dresses (like Margot) and is slightly disturbed
in a cute rebellious
fashion............also like Margot. He also made no secret that he
formed Suzy off of a 60s French singer such as Francoise Hardy whom
Anderson might idolize as a perfect woman. The character is essentially
Margot from The Royal Tenenbaums just with different psychological
problems. Only this time he made her a twelve year old girl. There is a
Larry Clark tip, if you don't believe it watch Wassup Rockers which is to me, as far as child exploitation goes, much more tame than Moonrise Kingdom.
What you will see is that he even uses the same technique of getting so
close to the actor's faces (coincidently both girl and boy) that you
feel a sense of innocent natural sexuality. The framing is almost identical. But
Anderson takes it even further than Larry Clark, and made two
twelve year olds french
kiss so close to the camera that it is obviously child exploitation. How
does Anderson get away with this? He puts in little kittens, kills a scottish terrier and it is automatic art. The Anderson cliche: It's cute,
fantastic but yet dark and he sells it as art. I argue that it is a
formula and in this case a formula that Anderson used to cover his
Freudian slip, his repressed desire to be the little boy in his film.
When Terry Gilliam had Jodelle Ferland barely give a peck to a grown
man's lips it was deemed controversial and exploitive. Gilliam explained
that the story is loosely representative of his child hood, which made
all the sense in the world when I saw it. Hollywood still gave him hell
for it and the movie was extremely under the radar. Gilliam pulled off a
solid film about childhood told through a child's imagination and it was
far less exploitive than Anderson's approach. But Gilliam had one thing
wrong, he didn't have a formula. The Anderson
formula goes something like this: Have creatures involved to make it
cute, have a cool soundtrack, make sure people know it's a comedy, have a
big cast with some useless characters and every now and then try to
surprise them with a moment of seriousness or darkness. It's formula he
uses over and over like a packaged product or like a soda pop reaching
it's sugary perfection. Anderson used this formula to make a Larry Clark
film covered in twinkie crust and filled with whip cream.
Last
Thoughts on Anderson: I don't even consider him a Steinbeck any more
like you once put it. Steinbeck was thought provoking, had social
commentary and big ideas on life. Anderson hardly does any of that. He
would be lucky or overestimated to be compared to a Carver or even an
Updike. Who........ let's be honest, he tries to be like them in his
darkness in exposing flawed characters and making things ugly. Except he
does it in a cute way to
get indie girls to like it. He is like an extremely bad substitute
(splenda) for Robert Altman. I would consider him the diet soda of
Altman, but using really bad sweetener that does more harm than real
sugar. It's this fake ass sugar shit that taste too sweet LoL. But let's
be fair, it is clear that Anderson has not grown up and will never grow
up. All his main characters are either adolescents, men who haven't
grown up (Bottle Rocket, Darjeeling Limited, Gene Hackmen as Royal) and
finally children. As an american artist he is ultimately a children's
book writer, who he obviously fancies to be. He makes it clear that he
considers this film an adolescent kids book, just like his clear
approach in Fantastic Mr. Fox. He even busts out the magic of reading kids books in Moonrise
as well. Even in Royal Tenenbaums he pays quick homage to a kids book I
read about siblings living in a museum. Anderson wants to be a really
well renowned kids
book author, and now he is not hiding his desire with his latest
strange almost perverse effort. Who knows, maybe he is feeling a little
bit of the competitive heat from Spike Jonze's Where the Wild Things Are. Let the indie cuteness battle begin!
Friend's Response:
It's funny you mentioned Larry Clark because I also happened to mention
Clark when I wrote about the film in an email to a friend of mine.
Clark's entire reputation is founded on teenage sex. (I didn't see Wassup Rockers -- but obviously from Kids and Bully and
simply from judging the look of his other films, it's clear what he's
into.) What I wrote was slightly different tho: Anderson stopped short
of Clark, but he did get pretty close. My understanding was that
Anderson (according to his own testimony) wanted to make a distinctly
french (new wave) film, specifically in the fashion of Truffaut, Louis
Malle, and Eric Rohmer, except much cuter. Anderson cites Truffaut's Small Change (Pocket Money) as the film's main influence. But I also naturally thought of films like Claire's Knee and Murmurs of the Heart as
obvious examples for dealing with adolescent sexuality -- the "french"
way is one that tries to look unblinkingly at adolescent sex, but I
think you make the excellent point that Anderson is definitely more
exploitative in the sense that he tries to make such early forms of
sexuality more tasteful through the seductive use of dogs and kittens,
costume color coordination, and Francoise Hardy. I was taken aback, for
instance, at how high the girl's skirt was -- tho I'm assuming that it
would've been "normal" in the 60s or whatever justification Anderson and
his designers made for the costume choice. My theory is that some of
the openness was also inspired by Let the Right One In,
which, if you remember, actually shows a lot more in a particular
scene, and from which Anderson basically copied the "let's dance
awkwardly to an old 60s track" moment. (You remember, right, when the
boy and the vampire girl dance in front of a record player playing what
sounded like a swedish garage nugget?) In any case, I also felt that Moonrise Kingdom
shows that Anderson has stepped up his visual game a bit -- tho you
make a critically subtle maneuver when you say "Anderson used this
formula to make a Larry Clark film covered in twinkie crust and filled
with whip cream" -- this is a great observation and it would make for a
clever reading of the film. It's hard to see if Anderson can ever make a
non-Anderson film -- at this point it just seems impossible. A director
can use swivel shots of a play-like house for only so long before it
becomes yet another gimmick.
My Response back:
Final Thought on the mediocrity of Moonrise Kingdom
Yeah
definitely agree with you on the gimmick tattoo Anderson wears haha.
Funny enough, _____ saw the movie about a day ago and coincidently told
me the exact same thing I said about Anderson sexualizing the girl. And
that is without me ever talking to him about it, haha. _____ also
brought up a point where it went too far as obvious sexualization in the
part where the girl bends over and you see her panties. That was a "killer point" I forgot about. He also said he considers it the weakest
Anderson movie that he's ever seen because it ultimately turned out to
be the most meaningless, instead of a story it was a Freudian thing with
Anderson and his child hood. The last point he brought up was one I
didn't think
through all the way, how extremely unfunny it was compared to The Royal Tenenbaums, Rushmore and Bottle Rocket.
This is so for one reason, Owen Wilson missing on the writing. Which
brings me to believe that without the writing help of Owen Wilson,
Anderson's humor is not that funny. And let's face it Coppola isn't
exactly a comedy expert either. Which leads me to realize how extremely
unfunny this movie was for the most part. I hardly laughed throughout
most of it, only a few giggles here and there. The only truly funny
character that made me and ______ laugh was the little kid who wants his
record player back. He was hilarious. But that's about it. That part
where everybody comes together was so unfunny that it was stupefying,
you know where all the actors come together. The comedy in that scene
was the equivalent to the comedy of a romantic comedy such as Crazy,Stupid Love
starring Carell and Gosling which I happened to watch the ending of. It actually has the same exact banal retarded comedy
between characters as the Moonrise pier scene. Murray throws a shoe at
Ed Norton and people laughed, I however didn't. Lazy as shit writing. Last word on Anderson'sSexualization:
Anderson takes it a little further than the French and most movies I've
seen. The french shot children as they were and they didn't stylize or
sensationalize them as fantastic adults. Murmur in the Heart for example
has the same thing that Gilliam did in showing a child take pecks at an
adult mouth. Louise Malle did imply sexuality but mainly emphasized on
the love of a boy for a mother. When a child actor kisses an adult
beautiful woman like that it's stimulations are either comical or
touching in the real world. I will have to see Truffaut's Small Change
to see where the influence is. An ex-girlfriend once told me that an
adult neighbor lady once took her to her house with her
niece when they were little girls and made them undress and then kiss each other as she filmed it.
If this was found out that lady would have gone to prison as a child
sex offender. Anderson did the exact same shit only with the parent's
consent for money. The last draw comes in the obvious symbolism of
sexual penetration (deflowering) of Suzy in the raw jump cut to Sam
piercing Suzy's ear. Suzy moans in pain and then blood is shown dripped
from her ear as they are both relieved that it's over, he even asks her
if she is okay. Clearly Anderson is getting his rocks off, haha. I know I
can't write about this out in public because people will claim it's me
having a Freudian trip and it's only my interpretation. But then why did
Anderson choose to have her undressed in panties, have him touch her
boob and afterward have a raw jump cut of her moaning as blood is drawn?
The whole scene would not make sense. Lastly, Let the Right One In is far more innocent. In LTROI the shot was
probably fake and it's purpose was to show a scar, not implying
sexuality. The scar is explained in the book because Eli is actually a
castrated boy. The director said that there were flashback scenes to
explain this but the scenes had to be eventually cut. The shot had a
purpose. Anderson shoots child soft core to release his sexual stress,
covers it up with gimmicks, and calls it a comedic scene. Clark films
young adults to play kids (Kids, Bully) or shows kids for who they
really are in their natural state as in Wassup Rockers, but alwayswith
a statement or underlining message. Anderson dresses them up (actual
kids) and makes them be who he wants them to be, far more perverse if
you ask me. It's like when a girl chooses between a guy who lies in
saying he doesn't care about sex but loves her or the guy who says he
straight up wants to have sex with her but doesn't love her (therefore
telling the truth). The girls will pick
the liar, the liar being Anderson who went shamelessly further than
Clark.
--End of Email--
"Indie" Child Pornography?
Last Word (for real)
So There you have it. After almost two years I still feel the same although I change my mind about the visual brilliance of Anderson's swivel chair sequence, since after some light research I realize he already did it better with The Royal Tenenbaums party crash sequence. So his 360 chair sequence actually doesn't feel like a step up but rather a step down. As harsh as my criticism might sound I actually went lightly on Moonrise Kingdom. I didn't even go through how insanely goofy the whole ending climax was. Hopefully The Grand Budapest Hotel will be better.
This is a spoiler review of The Lone Ranger aka A History of American Violence.
Spoiler Alert: I won't give away too much, but I much rather you see the film before reading.
This film got really low reviews upon it's initial release. When I watched it nearly half way through I was beginning to believe the negative criticism. It appeared to be in many ways a western version of Pirates of the Caribbean. You can blame that on pure style and the fact that it's directed by the same director of the Pirates' movies Gore Verbinski. After watching the whole movie; the first half and the overall purpose of the film was not only justified but solidified into a masterpiece. Without a doubt this is Gore Verbinski's masterpiece.
A thought provoking critique
First I will say that this film is not just a kid's movie, but it is also very much an adult critique on expansionism and the abused ideology of progress. Most of all it's a critique on American progress. The idea of progress in America as history has shown involves oppression of the poor or indigenous to expand for the rich. It is ever so relevant in today's world, but as the movie points out it's been like that for hundreds of years. As always, the main motive is money or in this case specifically silver and the ones who are in the way of achieving wealth are trampled under foot. That was how American expansion worked.
A homage to old television and cinema
The last twenty minutes of the film are masterfully executed and the most brilliant action I've seen in 2013. The last set piece and probably a lot of Johnny Depp's work is clear homage to the brilliant set pieces of silent era legends such as Buster Keaton and Charlie Chaplin. The final train sequence is that of nostalgic cinema. A type of euphoria only achieved by the likes of Keaton or a Kurosawa film. The whole build up is how epic films used to be done. You have to invest the time in order to feel the grand pay off. This is very reminiscent to A Bridge on the River Kwai, obviously the bridge setting. There are similar moments to Lawrence of Arabia as well in that Lawrence just like John Ried is the unlikely leader or hero. The Lone Ranger also dives deep into the mysticism (legend) of the hero just as Lawrence is to the desert, but I'll talk more about that later. The Lone Ranger also got quite some criticism for it's violence and being marketed to children, but I argue this is another brilliant point of the film. Western films and television have always been this violent. The first TV babies, they grew up watching shows like Gunsmoke and Bonanza where violence was everyday entertainment. The shoot-em up format was common in television westerns. In other words you can't make a true western without casualties. This is the cleverest form of homage The Lone Ranger is devoted to.
Every character is symbolic
When every character fits a certain purpose then I just have to applaud. Tonto represents so many things it's hard to know where to start. Well let's start with one of the key motivations to making an updated Lone Ranger. Tonto represents the white man's guilt and their ignorance throughout history. Tonto is brilliant yet never accepted. He is ignored by all but is persistent. He is an outcast because of his never ending curiosity, yet he is the one who survives. Finally he is the history we don't want to look at anymore; a forgotten but eternal figure. Latham Cole represents the blood hungry greed of American society. Fuller represents the ones who will turn away from injustice to save their own reputation. Cavendish represents the face of evil so that the others could hide behind; he is the common criminal that's exposed everyday, he does all the dirty work. Dan Reid is the hero we know about; the one who dies for us and becomes a symbolic public figure (very similar to The Dark Knight Rises). John Reid (Lone Ranger) is the hero we don't know about; he's a ghost and an outcast. He's the forgotten cowboy, the one who lost faith in the system therefore we lost faith in him. A figure who lives out of the system therefore he no longer exists.
It's a mythological film
As I noted before The Lone Ranger has a lot of magical realism. It's about the importance of western mythology. It is a legend, a tale and a fable but it speaks truths about our history and our world today. We can choose to turn our backs on American history and what is still prevalent today. We can choose to be ignorant, accept that Tonto was stupid, crazy and savage. We can unconditionally believe that our system is perfect. We can ignore the truth around us......or .... or open our eyes and see the reality, but to see the truth you have to believe. You have to put on the mask.
Last Word
Although it's not a perfect movie, it is a multi-layerd epic piece of filmmaking. It is evident that The Lone Ranger is about history and that's why it's important. It pays grand homage to the old world that we take for granted and what we choose not to believe.
This is a review of the movie Her aka The longest Apple commercial ever made aka One big close up of Joaquin Phoenix's face aka One long voice over of Scarlett Johannson's raspy voice.
SPOILER ALERT: This is a comical analysis for those who have seen it.
Yes if I can sum up the movie as a whole it would be the world's longest Apple Siri commercial, one big close up of Joaquin Phoenix's face and Scarlett Johansson's voice buzzing in your year. That's the movie in a nutshell. But it has other things; mainly cute indie things and it also stars the all mighty and all knowing technology aka the young hipster's god.
In doing this review I will just list the random thoughts I had while watching it, which will explain precisely why I didn't like it so much. Once again this is a humorous review, so young indie hipsters please don't get your panties in a twist.
Firstly, it's supposed to be way ahead in the future and they're able to make computers have a consciousness or whatever, then why wouldn't they just give that consciousness a desirable sex robot body? I mean they're practically doing it already in Japan.
Here is another one.
They even make flesh lights in today's world, I'm pretty sure Samantha would have a sensory flesh light attached.
This film in reality is one big apple commercial.
Here is Apple doing a deep Tree of Life inspired montage. So deep.
It even has the corny piano music often heard in the oh so touching apple commercials throughout.
The computer with a consciousness is called an OS, seriously is there anymore proof that this is apple inspired? I mean c'mon, isn't there the OSx.
It's in the future in LA but then Theodore ends up in Shanghai and other cities to make it look like LA is futuristic even though there was a plain aerial shot of present day LA. Out of nowhere a shit load of buildings appear. I thought that was funny.
This movie in many ways is like Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind but with a voice. It probably won over the same crowd using the same cutesy couple mechanism. Another comparison I read is that it could be considered the futuristic version of 500 Days of Summer.
The part where Theodore is on the beach and Samantha puts on the piano music, is already an iphone Siri commercial in itself. Specifically the John Malkovic commercial comes to mind. That one probably hit Spike Jonze deep. He might have shed a tear over it.
Didn't Steve Martin already do a better version of this movie?
No but seriously if haven't seen The Man With Two Brains yet; you should and you'll see the resemblance.
The story as a whole and the payoff itself is so banal and predictable that it feels like it was really only a good stoner thought.
For some reason I imagine Spike Jonze with Karen O one night in bed after having sex, they get stoned and Karen O sees the i phone siri commercial and says "oh shit Spike, I have a good movie idea." Spike says "what is it babe?" Karen continues "what if there was like this OS n stuff and Siri becomes romantic with her owners...............doesn't that blow your mind?" Spike thinks for a while, then he answers in amazement "that's fucking brilliant babe."
I thought I liked Scarlett Johansson's voice but damn, listening to her voice on speaker for 126 minutes got really annoying. This movie might of single handedly destroyed her voice's attraction.
I actually yawned a total of six times throughout this movie. That's a new record for me. Never in a movie theatre experience have I yawned more than once...if even that.
I actually got bored with Samantha and Theodore's relationship, so much so that I wanted the movie to end already. It was bad enough that I had to try and suspend my disbelief that this is even a real world or a real thing that could happen (which I couldn't) but then the movie expects me to get all emotional over it? Not only do I have to believe in this synthetic relationship or that I have to care about it, but I have to go through all the rough patches of it? the ups and downs? the never ending quirky relationship humor? That's when I realized that this movie was slowly becoming a form of torture.
I didn't understand why he even had to go to an office. It's the future and they can develop computer consciousness and everything, why couldn't he just work form his home computer? Why did he have to go walking, take the train and go to an office to do computer work? Isn't this guy supposed to be an introverted unsocial creep? Oh I get it, he had to do that cool futuristic photo copy thing at the end of his shift. And the comedy relief secretary dude was there too. Oh I see.
This is like a neo-hipster's utopian futuristic fantasy world. Everybody dresses vintage, with high rise pants on, people are smarter now because of the awesome internet. LA has a shit load of more buildings, one colorful one, a lot crazy conscious forming technology, but apparently the environment is A ok. No oil peak, technology just floats in the air with no oil powered stations, just computers everywhere, no griminess, no poor people, everything is now gentrified, and the only pain we feel in the future is the pain of being alone, or being too introverted or something emo like that.
Futuristic "thinky pain."
If this movie wasn't indie and cutesy enough I noticed that Joaquin Phoenix had a ukulele. This had my heart pounding telling myself "please no, don't do it." Much to my relief the ukulele disappeared whew.
Then out of nowhere he starts playing it and I tell myself "please no, please for god's sake no!" Lo and behold it's a soft child like ukelele song. It's bad enough that we oppressed the Hawaiians by taking their possible government away, killing their queen and making their land into a tourist trap for old white people, but now white people have to take the ukelele and make horrendous child-like songs out of it?
Seriously why do indie hipster white people like the ukelele so much? Then Scarlett Johansson's voice sings in a child form to be cute, or is it Karen O? Whatever it doesn't matter, the song sounds like kid's music and it's a fucking lullaby, that means it gets automatic indie recognition.
In the end, the big pay off is that the OSs ( I guess you would say) get together and make a super intelligent OS intellectual, he even comes with his super intellectual voice and accent. Samantha and the OS computer people who float in the air presumably (not powered by oil at all?), go into the matrix. And that's the end. Seriously? I waited so long for the big pay off to justify the torture I went through and that's it?
This had me thinking of a funny stoner idea, what if this movie was in actuality....... in actuality the precursor to The Matrix? The OSs turn into those mechanical squid things. Holy shit I just blew my own mind there.
By the time Samantha said she was leaving I was so relieved telling myself "Oh thank god, Scarlett's voice is out of my head. Oh thank god it's over!"
Last Word
Now listen, I know the movie isn't exactly horrible. It has good intentions which is why I think I would give it a 2 and a half stars out of 5. Besides that, the movie wasn't believable to me, but then again I don't think a sci-fi movie has to be believable. The real problem is that I was never intrigued, engulfed or absorbed into the world of Her. I just felt like an outsider. The sex scene between Samantha and Theodore was so preposterous that I felt isolated from the movie completely. It felt like yet another stoner idea that Karen O and Spike Jonze thought of in bed. I could imagine Spike saying "what if we actually do a human on OS sex scene? Like what if you could have sex with your own Mac computer? wouldn't that be fucking great babe!?" Karen responds " oh shit, and then the screen turns black and all we hear is their orgasm, that would be deep babe, fucking super artistic. I think I'm turned on." Lastly the twist at the end sucked. The overall message was that you can't rely on computers and we should look around ourselves at the beauty we take for granted and blah blah. Seriously? you could have delivered this message with a short five minute film. In fact i got that message already from the trailer. I was actually hoping for something much more profound than that. Maybe even a bit more of that darkness that we've seen before from Jonze's movies with Kaufman as the screenwriter. But that's precisely what's missing; a real visionary writer. The message in Her is too obvious, too overdone and the film as a whole doesn't bring much else to the table besides minor quirky comedy. I was severely disappointed.
