|
|
|
1968 - France
Director
Alain Resnais
|
|
Sci-fi romance with a thoroughly Resnaisian slant — oui, je l’aime! Our hero, Claude, agrees to an experiment which would attempt to send him back in time one year ago, for one minute: he’s recently attempted suicide, and has nothing to lose anyway. The experiment goes awry, naturally, and he gets stuck in the past, bouncing around between moments over the last year or so, reliving the time he spent with a troubled girlfriend and the guilt he feels over their relationship’s demise. The sci-fi aspect of it is cheesy as hell (he is sent to the past in a giant garlic bulb, evidently), but the rest of it is quite nice. Doesn’t take all the skill in the world to edit haphazardly these nonlinear scenes, but it works out pretty well.
Screencaps
    
 
[Le Beau mariage]
1982 - France
Director
Eric Rohmer
|
The first Rohmer I didn’t entirely like, but I guess it was bound to happen sometime. Between his Moral Tales and his Proverbs, most of Rohmer’s films end with the main character learning a simple, but clever and unexpected, lesson about life. And for the most part, the viewer takes away some new knowledge in the exchange as well. If such a lesson happens here, it’s that a girl shouldn’t bank on a rich husband, and I think we all learned that a century ago. And Sabine ranks up there with the most obnoxious heroines in cinema: Rohmer’s done that before, but I love Delphine in all her whiny, self-obsessed glory in The Green Ray. At least she owns her faults, and is searching for something real in life, and one can identify with her. Sabine whines, period, and never for a moment stops thinking too highly of herself. Bah. There is plenty of Rohmerian charm and lovely country landscapes, but there Sabine is to ruin every moment of it.
|
|
|
Aguirre: The Wrath of God
|
[Aguirre, der Zorn Gottes]
1972 - Germany
Director
Werner Herzog
Starring
Klaus Kinski
|
I am convinced of this film’s brilliance in pacing and mood, but still must own up to the fact that long stretches of it bored me. The audience should wait, and wait, and finally realize nothing is going to happen, just as Aguirre’s crew did, and it drove them mad! But was I on the edge of my seat waiting; was I invested in what I was waiting for? Honestly, no. That’s a paradox that makes judging this film difficult for me: Herzog did all the right things, but I didn’t care! Oh well. Nevertheless, amidst the waiting there are some brilliantly, bizarrely hilarious moments. Aguirre is an amazing character, and Kinski embodies him with a believable ferocious madness. The ending was absolute perfection. So this is probably what I would cite as an objective masterpiece. A personal masterpiece? No, but I liked it very much.
|
|
“That was our story!”
-Hélène
|
|
[...ou le temps d'un retour]
1963 - France
Director
Alain Resnais
Starring
Delphine Seyrig
|
|
Like a lot of you, I’ve been looking forward to this one for a long time; unlike recent viewers, I was not disappointed by it. Fascinating follow-up to Marienbad, exploring many of the same themes with a greater human component. Delphine Seyrig is sensational in this film: really the first chance I’ve had to see her acting chops (I can’t see Marienbad as much of an actor’s film) and she really hits all the right notes in a compelling performance. I would agree with the points Sidehacker (et al?) have made about the rough editing, but although I noticed it, it didn’t diminish the viewing experience for me. Mainly I think Resnais’ technical work fails because half the time the shots fail to evoke a real rhythm or tempo. The film only fully had me in quieter moments. If the editing had been emotionally effective, this would be a perfect film in my view. As it is, I’ll count that as a “nice try, too bad, but no harm done” and continue to let his engaging meditations on identity, memory and self run around in my brain.
Screencaps
    
    
 
1968 - Germany
Director
Radley Metzger
|
This is as clumsy, unsophisticated and earnest as books like the one it was based on are, but important for the same reason: at a time when lesbian attraction was so far from being a nameable possibility, these cheap paperback romances of boarding school lust could be sold in small bookshops or passed among friends to give girls some small insight into themselves, some brief feeling of belonging. So I’m very happy to see an equally sensitive film made out of one of these books. It’s not terribly well-crafted or acted, and it’s fairly simple. This is not a film I love for artistic merit. This is a film I love because in terms of my societal and cinematic interests/agenda, it is important.
Anyway, it is a wistful, truthful portrait of youth and loss. The pretentious romance novel voiceovers, discussing sex with all manner of literary illusion, must have been ripped straight from the book. This is another thing that is all the more endearing, considering my approach to the film. I love that the sex scenes are ‘marred’ by this voiceover, are relatively obscured and come later in the film. That way, it seems to me, the film could never satisfy or even appeal to the crowd that just wants to see two young girls fucking. That way, it remains a film purely about young girls, for young girls. It is surprisingly pure and sensitive.
Lame dialogue, yes, but I’ll echo it: “for all the other Thereses and Isabelles who will love each other by different names,” I’m glad this film exists.
|
[]
1973 - US
Director
Radley Metzger
|
…Does one rate something like this according to the usual scale? It’s Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? crossed with a skin flick, a bizarre but strangely amusing combination. All right, I don’t see myself getting into erotica but Metzger’s is a hilarious, weirdly mannered, surprisingly visually clever take. At least in this movie… there are a few I know better to stay away from. Anyway, the acting is so consistently, specifically bad that one starts to believe it is sheer genius… The fact that Claire Wilbur could keep that up AND do a spot-on Liz Taylor impression is pretty cool. Um, so yeah, this is hilarious, purely 70s, and I’d recommend it to anyone who isn’t turned off just by the sound of it.
|
1998 - France
Director
Nicole Garcia
Starring
Catherine Deneuve, Jacques Dutronc
|
Convoluted jewel trade film, blandly likeable throughout, then in the last quarter or so it becomes clear that a 20-year romance is at the core and my girlish instincts kick in: yeah, convoluted or not, I can go for Deneuve & Dutronc! Uh, good thing the ending was dumb again because this film was not good enough for the rating I was prepared to give it after Dutronc collapsed in Deneuve’s lap… oh dear. Really dumb attempt at identity confusion between Deneuve and a younger jewel seller, which seems to amount to just “they slept with the same three men!” and it’s entirely ignored by the end. Not especially good, only recommended for fans of the actors.
|
[Tystnaden]
1963 - Sweden
Director
Ingmar Bergman
Starring
Ingrid Thulin, Gunnel Lindblom
|
It is the least alike among the films of Bergman’s ‘trilogy’: more stylistically and thematically rich; he has shifted his focus from the absence of God to the horrifying, alienated human condition. He has clearly turned that corner here, and it’s for the best, in terms of my interest. ‘God’s silence’ is if anything taken as a given here. He doesn’t drone on about it, or even consider it. The silence referred to in the title is really about the insurmountable barriers between all individuals. Anyway my rating is up in the air because on the one hand I feel this is the least successful, most disjointed, strangely not ‘of a piece’ among the trilogy (to be honest, I can only imagine a strong link between the first two); on the other, my interests are much more in line with Bergman’s here and if its pieces don’t make a satisfyingly complete whole they are still fascinating in themselves…
|
|
|
|
[Nattvardsgästerna]
1962 - Sweden
Director
Ingmar Bergman
Starring
Ingrid Thulin, Gunnar Björnstrand, Gunnel Lindblom, Max von Sydow
|
|
(Review fashioned of stuff I rambled on about in the DG substitute thread — I guess I covered most of what I thought there already, although as a result this reads as a defense of WL which many of you will not need.)
I give the film credit for subtlety, although what the dude wrote in the insert for either Through a Glass Darkly or Winter Light is probably true… something to the effect of if you completely accept what Bergman is doing in these films they will work for you; if one moment makes you laugh or make a snarky comment the mood will be permanently broken.
I was happy to lose myself in Bergman’s stark, searching world… although I answered these questions for myself a long time ago & never approached them from the same angle, there is still much genuine pain, earnest critique, and compassionate treatment of both atheists and believers in this.
The stark, simplified landscapes, sets, camera work &c are predetermined by the ‘chamber drama’ project. If you’re with Bergman so far then it follows that the ideas, dialogues, and characterizations will be correspondingly minimalist and bleak. I absolutely get it if the very idea of a film of this kind is unappealing, but if the construct itself is okay then the question becomes: was it fulfilled satisfyingly? For me, it was.
I think the way the characters talk and act seems of a whole with the film’s intent and style. They may seem simple and angsty but I think they represent different angles of the question Bergman wants to consider and nothing more — the film is by design economical.
That’s where I may prefer Through a Glass Darkly, though, which I find to be populated with richly drawn, compelling and understandable characters, until the last scene where I feel Bergman is just putting words into a character’s mouth for the sake of having them said. He seems to do this consistently in Winter Light so it doesn’t bother me. But TAGD has better characters as humans.
I suppose I’m inclined to like it anyway because it is something that interests me. Not questions of faith, exactly, which I laid to rest ages and ages ago, but… well good ol’ fashioned existential angst hasn’t entirely lost its appeal yet.
Screencaps
    
    
[Såsom i en spegel]
1961 - Sweden
Director
Ingmar Bergman
Starring
Harriet Andersson, Gunnar Björnstrand, Max von Sydow
|
Quietly absorbing, disturbing film about a woman’s madness (everyone knows how I love those!) and her family powerless to help or understand her. I love the ‘chamber drama’ style for Bergman: on the one hand it allows him to be severe; it really locks the viewer into stark, confrontational images; and Nykvist’s photography is beautiful, natural, intense. At the same time, it allows him to probe deeply into his characters’ minds, and this is a richly drawn portrait of all four characters’ mental landscapes. The father, who confuses art and life and tries to be honest about his darkest thoughts; the husband, who is earthy, compassionate, and perhaps a bit blind to the truth; her brother, awash in teenage angst and confusion. Then Karin, whose illness convinces her she hears voices which command her and that she will soon see a god. Bergman equates steadfast, unreasonable faith with utter lack of free will, ultimately leading to insanity. And her god is a terrifying, terrifying thing…
(spoilers) I disliked the ending, in which the father equates God instead with love, love of all kinds and manifestations. It seemed out of character and unnecessary to the film, simply sticking words into the father’s mouth because he wanted someone to say them. It also doesn’t seem like the conclusion the film should naturally reach — but I’m anxious for it to be torn down in the films to come.
Aside: I think I have a thang for Max Von Sydow in thick-framed glasses.
|
|
About TLC
Films: All reviewed | Favorites
Actors: Profiles | Favorites
Directors: Profiles | Favorites
All films by year
2008 Viewing log
The Woman Accused 1933, Paul Sloane
So Big! 1932, William A Wellman
The Awful Truth 1937, Leo McCarey
Conquest 1937, Clarence Brown
It’s Love I’m After 1937, Archie Mayo
The Mad Miss Manton 1938, Leigh Jason
Algiers 1938, John Cromwell
The Gay Divorcee 1934, Mark Sandrich
All This, & Heaven Too 1940, Anatole Litvak
Mannequin 1937, Frank Borzage
A short digression on Charles Boyer…
Yes, I am endeared. I am, in fact, ensorceled. His inhumanly arched eyebrows, his little winks and half-smiles, and that ability to at once maintain full control of his material while shining the spotlight on his costar: yes, that is talent; yes, this is love. And no, Cluny Brown, it’s not just the cocktails giving you that persian cat feeling… I think we both know too well it has a bit to do with Mr Charles Boyer. Rawr.
Pre-Code Hollywood
» The Woman Accused 1933 Paul Sloane
» So Big! 1932 William A Wellman
» Pre-Code Icons Gallery #1: Barbara Stanwyck
» A Month of Pre-Code Hollywood
Previous months
30s Cinema
Maestresses
The Lubitsch Race
In-transit romances
Nothing better suited to Hollywood romance than three weeks out of time, away from life, falling in love with a stranger, spending days idly and nights actively.
Allure
Awards Daily
Bright Lights Film Journal
Cinemaniacal
Cinema Talk
Classic Cinema Online
Collective Contemplations on Cinema
Critical Culture
Criticker
Fataculture
Film Comment
Film Int
Greenbriar Picture Shows
House of Mirth & Movies
If Charlie Parker Was a Gunslinger...
Jump Cut
Mango Grove
Not Coming to a Theater Near You
The Pagan Agenda
Pop Matters
Rants & Musings
Reverse Shot
Self-Styled Siren
Senses of Cinema
Sight & Sound
TCM schedule
They Shoot Pictures, Don't They?
Through a Blog Darkly
       
Friend me
|
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
