Much ado about nothing

Plus 2024:Q3 films

Today, I thought I’d preface my quarterly film reviews with an essay on how I got interested in movies. I'll describe my education in film, by looking back at my early filmgoing history. Those uninterested in boomer nostalgia can skip down to the reviews. But at least a few Zoomers might be interested in seeing how technology has has changed the way we learn about film.

Spoiler alert. I'll argue that the key to my film education was learning to appreciate films where nothing was happening (hence the title of the post.)

Before age 10, I saw very few films at the theatre, and always with my family. I was 5 when I saw 101 Dalmatians, and they also took me to Mary Poppins, How the West Was Won, and 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea (my favorite.) In those days we only had small B&W TV at home, so what impressed me was not the plots of these movies (which I mostly ignored), rather it was the widescreen technicolor. I liked visual images much more than other kids, although I did not know this at the time.

My true education in film began a few years later, when I started watching art films as a teenager. At the time I had no concept of an art film, or the auteur theory of filmmaking. To me, 2001 was a Arthur C Clarke film, not a Stanley Kubrick film. Even today, seeing that film at age 12 remains my number one film experience, indeed nothing else is even close. Walkabout was another film that made a big impression on me at a young age.

Surprisingly, American audiences were actually more receptive to European art films during the 1960s than they are today. (This might have been due to their greater eroticism, in the era before porn.) A number of these films were shown on TV. Certain scenes stuck in my mind, but only many years later did I understood what I had seen. A saw relatively few of them, but three that made a big impression (even on TV) were Blow-Up, The Passenger and Solaris.

In all five of the films I mentioned above the scenes that most stuck in my mind were ones where nothing was happening. Of course I don't mean that literally, I mean than the pace was so meditative that most filmgoers would be bored, complaining that "nothing's happening". The astronaut jogging in 2001, the girl and boy wandering through the desert in Walkabout, the long darkroom scene in Blow-Up, the scene on the rooftop of the Gaudi building in The Passenger, the cars on the futuristic (Tokyo) expressway in Solaris. These scenes got under my skin, although I could not explain why.

At the University of Wisconsin I went to a film series on classic horror films, which included stuff like the original (silent) Nosferatu and the 1942 Cat People. For the first time in my life, I saw classic black and white films as they were meant to be seen, on the big screen. The images were stunning. I became a snob that refused to watch films on TV.

A few years later, I was at the University of Chicago, which had an outstanding film society. You could see 80 movies over 3 months on a $10 film pass. (Which was important, as I was dirt poor at the time—surviving on hot dogs for dinner, wearing thrift shop clothes, and cutting my own hair.) During those three years, I dramatically increased my knowledge of classic film, especially the great silent comedies (Keaton, Chaplin), screwball comedies (Hepburn, Grant, Stewart, etc.) and film noir (Bogart). Those are still some of my favorites.

On one occasion, film critic Andrew Sarris gave a talk right after the showing of Strangers on a Train. He asked the audience about a scene early in the film where Hitchcock focused on the shoes of the two main characters. Sarris asked what happened after they boarded the train. I looked around and was surprised that no one raised their hand, so I finally stated what I thought was obvious, the train shifted to another track. That event made me realize that most people don't watch films in the way that I do, especially when "nothing's happening".

Don't take this the wrong way, I am not claiming to have had a sophisticated understanding of film. Even though I was in my 20s, I had no idea that Robert Walker was playing a gay man. Many European art films were still way over my head. I was an adherent of the Pauline Kael school of film criticism—the more entertaining the better. Later, my taste shifted more toward that of J. Hoberman.

After the film 2001, the highlight of my filmgoing occurred in 1979, when I saw Apocalypse Now in a grand (but sketchy) downtown Chicago theatre, preceded by my all time favorite film trailer (for The Shining.) In the short trailer "nothing happened", or at least not a single person appeared.

It wasn't until I started watching lots of Asian films in the 1990s that I began to truly understand the visual language of film. In general, Asian films seemed more visual whereas (apart from Tarkovsky) European art films seemed more intellectual. Asian films became my favorite.

The period from 1985 to 2005 was the golden age for Asian films where nothing happened. In my 20s, I would have been bored stiff by many of those films, but by age 40 I had become more patient, and I also had learned how to appreciate slow cinema. I finally understood the connection between the Antonioni and Tarkovsky films I'd seen on TV as a teenager, and the films of Kiarostami, Hou Hsiao-hsien, Jia Zhangke, Lee Chang-dong and Apichatpong Weerasethakul.

Is it possible to learn to appreciate slow art films? I’m not sure. I’ve put a lot of effort in trying to learn to appreciate classical music, without much success. Ditto for poetry. But I can’t say I have had no success. While I cannot claim to appreciate even 20% of something like the Goldberg Variations, or Beethoven’s late piano sonatas, I do have a bit more appreciation on the fifth listen of those works than on the first. I believe that most people have a greater innate ability to appreciate music than I do, but less ability to appreciate visual images. (Of course music is also an important part of film.)

I suspect this is partly hardwired into the brain. I like paintings, even though I only visited an art museum once while growing up. There is nothing in my early environment in Wisconsin that would have led me to become a film buff. But it was there from the beginning. I still recall looking out the car window in Chicago during the late 1960s, and being stunned by the sight of the brand new Marina City:

I see my interest in film as being akin to my interest in painting, architecture, and natural scenery, which is why I have little interest in theatre or TV dramas. I won’t claim that my approach is correct; I can easily understand how other filmgoers might be more interested in a good screenplay than in good cinematography. De gustibus . . .

If you have trouble seeing the distinction between people with a focus on the visuals and those that focus on dialogue, consider the fact that people like me are not much bothered by “spoilers”.

A few years ago, I bought a 77-inch OLED TV made by LG. This is the first TV I’ve had that can do justice to films—at least most films. Now I watch films at home. But even today, I’d never watch 2001, Lord of the Rings, or Apocalypse Now on my TV; those need the big screen. And most films lose at least a small part of their effect when not seen on the big screen. But given the challenges of finding good films at the theatre in OC, and the increasingly lousy experience when I do go, I feel I have no choice.

I tend to prefer the quiet parts of films—even action films. Thus trailers almost always make me not want to see a film, as they make it seem the film is nothing but car chases and explosions. My favorite scene in Apocalypse Now is Martin Sheen sitting on the boat doing nothing, just narrating his inner thoughts.

I’ll stop here, even though I haven’t even mentioned many of my favorite directors, or how much I love Japanese films—that will have to wait for future posts.

I hope this post doesn’t sound pretentious. To be clear, when I was young I mostly watched action/adventure films like James Bond and Star Wars. I still like them, but not as much as before.

2024:Q3 films

Newer Films:

A Short Story  (China, Mubi)  3.7  Bi Gan’s new film is just 14 minutes long, but it’s a brilliant exercise in surrealism.  He is the director of Long Day’s Journey Into Night.

The Delinquents   (Argentina, Mubi)  3.6  Some might find this more than 3-hour film to be a bit dull, but I was continually entertained.  There’s a lot of sly humor, and in some hard to describe way the film seems more real than almost anything else I’ve seen in years, despite a plot that is more than a bit far-fetched.

Passion  (Japan, Mubi)  3.6  This is actually a 2008 film, but was finally released in the West, so I’m putting it here.  This was a master’s thesis for Ryusuke Hamaguchi. (His first student film was a remake of Solaris, which cannot be publicly shown because they lacked the film rights.) I’m supposed to say he went onto much bigger and better things, but this is already an extremely impressive debut—almost on par with his later work. I have no idea how a mere film student was able to find actors as attractive as Aoba Kawai and Ryuta Okamoto.   

Do Not Expect Too Much from the End of the World  (Romania, Mubi)  3.5  Do not expect too much from the first hour of the film, at least if you go in blind like I did.  Once you get into the flow, however, it becomes an excellent black comedy on the modern world.  Not for everyone.

Here  (Belgium, CC)   3.5  It’s hard to imagine there being much of an audience for this minimalist film.  But if you are willing to forego plot, it contains one of the best portrayals of adult shyness that I’ve seen.  (Most films contain nothing more than a crude caricature of shyness.)

Touch  (Iceland)  3.4   It sticks to a familiar formula, but it’s a good formula.

The Last Year of Darkness  (China)  3.4  You might expect the most socially liberal city in China to be one of those sophisticated coastal metropolises.  Actually, it is the western city of Chengdu that is best known for tolerating people with alternative lifestyles.  This documentary looks at a group of young people who spend their nights dancing to EDM at a “queer haven” in Chengdu.

The Settlers  (Chile, Mubi)  3.3  The vivid cinematography and realistic story makes you feel you are in Tierra del Fuego back in 1901.

The Beast  (France, CC)  3.2   The great Léa Seydoux is the main reason to see this overly complex mix of Henry James and AI.  People that like puzzles may appreciate this more than I did. 

Megalopolis  (US)  3.0  A three star rating is the lowest that I consider worth watching.  Much of this film is cringe-worthy, but it’s just barely worth watching to see what a formerly great director with oversized ambition came up with.  I believe the politics involves a three way battle between an old school Democratic machine mayor, a liberal accelerationist, and some Maga demagogues, but the film is so incoherent that I’m not sure and it doesn’t really matter.  To say the film is a bit too “on the nose” would be an understatement.  I guess Coppola is one of those guys that can’t stop thinking about the Roman Empire. Even worse, the film was preceded by a trailer for Ridley Scott’s Gladiator II.

Older Films:

When a Woman Ascends the Stairs  (Japan, 1960, CC)  3.8  Second time I’ve seen this Naruse film, and it seemed even deeper and richer than the first time.  Hideko Takamine gives one of my all time favorite performances by any actress.

The Straight Story  (US, 1999, CC)  3.8  David Lynch takes a very slight story and makes it mesmerizing, without using any of his usual surreal techniques.  On a personal level, I connect with this film more than any other.  The locations are familiar—although the stretches of highway 18 are mostly in Iowa, whereas I grew up near that road in Wisconsin.  Richard Farnsworth reminded me of my dad (who passed away in 1990), and a friend of mine had exactly the same reaction.  You’re probably thinking, “He reminds lots of men of their dad.”  The thing is, my friend didn’t say it reminded him of his dad, he said Farnsworth’s character reminded him of my dad.

The film is based on a true story, and is underrated by both critics and audiences.

You Can’t Take It With You  (US, 1938, CC)  3.7  Lionel Barrymore is much too young to play Jean Arthur’s grandfather, but this Capra film is so charming it doesn’t matter.  It can’t be easy to make a comedy that seems just as funny after 86 years. Contains the famous scene where Jimmy Stewart induces his date to scream while dining in an elegant restaurant. Is Capra still underrated?

Clockwork Orange  (US/UK, 1971, CC)  3.7  Kubrick’s other three films from 1964-75 are among the greatest ever made.  So he was at the peak of his career in 1971---but this one hasn’t held up as well as those other three.  The basic problem is the first half, with its portrayal of a sex-obsessed futuristic society.  At the time, it seemed reasonable to extrapolate from recent cultural changes to a highly lascivious future.  But things didn’t pan out that way, and the first half of the film now seems rather dated, a funhouse mirror vision of 1970s excess.   Despite these reservations, there are plenty of scenes showing Kubrick’s brilliance, so it’s still well worth watching---just not very often.

Licorice Pizza  (US, 2021, CC)  3.6   In Brooklyn Baby, Lana Del Rey sings:

They say I'm too young to love you
I don't know what I need
They think I don't understand
The freedom land of the seventies

Based on Boogie Nights and this film, I’d say Paul Thomas Anderson understands the freedom land of the 1970s very, very well.

Revanche  (Austria, 2008, CC)  3.6  A subtle psychological noir, far more intelligent than most films with this sort of plot.   Nice cinematography.

Seven Weeks  (Japan, 2014, CC)  3.6  Onayashi seemed to peak very late in his long  career.  Many people would be bored by this nearly 3-hour anti-war film that is almost plotless, but I was continually delighted by its visual style, which involves much more than just pretty pictures.  (At the box office, it was the 71^st most popular Japanese film of 2014.  I guess I need to check out the 70 above it.)

Personal Shopper  (France, 2016, CC)  3.5  Similar structure to Clouds of Sils Maria, even many of the same actors.  A sort of ghost story for grown-ups, one that doesn’t insult your intelligence.  My only reservation is that the visual style is a bit bland. 

What Did the Lady Forget?  (Japan, 1937, CC)  3.5  You can see why critics compare this Ozu film to Lubitsch.  It has the same light touch, and will especially appeal to more intelligent film lovers.  I feel like I’d have to watch it a second time to fully appreciate the comedy.

Crisis  (Sweden, CC, 1946)  3.4  Even in his very first film, many of Bergman’s themes and techniques were already being developed.  This makes me want to see his other early films.

Vengeance is Mine  (US, 1984, CC)  3.4  No, not the Japanese one---and a bad title.  This independent film was probably too depressing to do well at the box office, but Brooke Adams’ performance is memorable.  I don’t know if mental illness is the worst thing in the world, but it’s right up there.

Wild Geese  (Japan, 1953, CC)  3.4  A romantic tale of a kept woman in Meiji Japan.  Very effective atmospherics in the second half of the film.  Stars moon-faced Hideko Takamine.

Family Romance LLC  (Japan, 2019, Mubi)  3.4  This version was embedded inside a brief documentary, which may not have been a good choice.  It’s more interesting as a postmodern video essay than as a film.  In other words, while the ideas it examines seem especially relevant today, the film just skims the surface of what seems to be coming along in the next few decades.  It does make Tokyo look very appealing.  Herzog directed.

Haywire  (US, 2011, CC)  3.3    Soderbergh is most effective when he focuses on light entertainment, as is the case here.

Eyewitness  (US, 1981, CC)  3.3  The first half of this Peter Yates film is intriguing, and the two leads are charming.  After that, the film plods along toward a predictable finale.

Scandal   (Japan, 1950 , CC)  3.3  Came out the same year as Rashoman, but this Kurasawa film was a bit earlier and was far inferior.  Has a few powerful scenes, but most of it is predictable and heavy-handed.  The two actresses look vaguely Western, and Mifune is very young and charismatic.

The More the Merrier  (US, 1943, CC)  3.2  So-so screwball comedy with Jean Arthur.  A look at the housing shortage in DC at a time when there were 8 young women for each man.

Bad Seed. (France, 1934, Mubi) 3.2 Billy Wilder’s first film starts out a bit bland, but ends up with a number of charming scenes.

Obsession  (US, 1976, CC)  3.2  If you are going to plagiarize, it makes sense to copy from the master.  De Palma borrows lots of ideas from Hitchcock, and even uses Bernard Hermann for the score.  The film hovers between the ridiculous and the sublime, so much so that at times I couldn’t tell if De Palma was making an homage to or a parody of films like Vertigo and Dial M for Murder.  BTW, ‘Obsession’ would have been a more appropriate title than Vertigo for the classic Hitchcock film.

The Deep End  (US, 2001, CC)  3.2  There are several keys to a successful crime film.  First, you need to figure out a way to get the audience to root for people that are objectively bad.  Second, you need to convince the audience that certain implausible behavior is actually plausible.  This film is only partially successful on both scores.  But I can see how someone that was convinced by the film would rate it considerably higher.

Voyage of Time  (US, 2016, CC)  3.2  Lots of Terrence Malick eye candy.  I saw the 40-minute version.

It Should Happen to You  (US, 1954, CC)  3.2  A hundred years from now people might look back on this as being a cultural milestone.  It imagined a world where people become, “Famous for being famous”.  That could never happen, right?

Valpairaso (Chile, 1960, Mubi) 3.2 This 27 minute documentary on the San Francisco of Chile (which I visited last year) is probably only of interest to Chris Marker fans, as he helped to narrate the film. If you don’t know Marker, you want to start with La Jetee or Sans Soleil.

One From the Heart  (US, 1982, CC)  3.1  Musicals are probably my least favorite genre (along with horror films.)  But this one does have some attractions, including some really enjoyable music from people like Tom Waits.  There’s also Teri Garr’s charm and some nice candy colored special effects from Coppola’s Zoetrope studio.  Too bad the story is so uninteresting.

Princess Mononoke  (Japan, 1997)  3.1  I found this to be a big disappointment, at least compared to other Miyazaki films.  The animation lacked the beauty of films like Spirited Away and My Neighbor Totoro, and the excessively long action sequences grew wearying by the end.  I also made the mistake of seeing a dubbed version at the theatre.

Wife   (Japan, 1953, CC)  3.1  This Naruse film about a married couple drifting apart is more ambiguous than anything Hollywood would attempt.  I like that fact, but unfortunately it’s just not very interesting---well below Naruse’s other films.

Desert Fury  (US, 1947, CC)  3.0  I cannot in good conscience give this film a strong review, as its script is so mindbogglingly dumb.  But I also cannot give it a bad review, because it’s such a perfect example of a lurid, melodramatic Hollywood noir.   So think of the 3-star rating as a sort of 4.0/2.0 review.  (BTW, younger viewers might find this hard to believe, but 1947 audiences would have been oblivious to the obvious gay subtext.)

2 or 3 Things I Know About Her  (France, 1967, CC)  2.6  By this time, Godard is just cruising on his reputation.  Some cool images of mid-century posters and architecture.

John Wick  (US, 2014)  1.5  One of the worst films I’ve ever seen, and yet it has a 86% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. (And you wonder why our politics has become so stupid.) It’s so bad I wasn’t sure if it was intended as a campy comedy or straight action picture.  Either way, it was bad in just about every way a film can be judged (acting, dialogue, action sequences, etc.)  It seemed like the sort of film an AI might produce. Spoiler alert:  The plot features a man that seeks revenge for the murder of his puppy, and responds by killing about 100 men and women.  That’s the entire movie---a pointless bloodbath.  And he’s the “hero”.