Blog Archives
Criterion: The Young Girls of Rochefort
THE YOUNG GIRLS OF ROCHEFORT, JACQUES DEMY, 1967
Recently with a group of film buffs, we’ve had some conversations about Blind Spots. These are the films, genres, directors, themes, or whatever attributes that just rub you the wrong way and turn you off from a film. My blind spot are many of the American musicals from Classical Hollywood. I’ve tried and just cannot get into them. Part of it is the overdose of style over substance, and I think they often spend too much time and space distracting from what makes films good (plot, character, conflict). For instance, why spend 5-minutes on a song saying one thing about a character when you can reveal plenty more with actions against other characters?
Basically I like musicals where a character is a musician and that says something about him (Once), or where the art of the musical is a major part of the narrative (All That Jazz), or pretty much anything directed by Ernst Lubitsch. There are other conventional musicals I like, such as Singing in the Rain, Meet Me In St. Louis, and some I hate, like An American In Paris and My Fair Lady. I know, it’s not too defensible and I realize that. Despite my personal tastes, I understand that the American musical was a major institution, created by enormously talented people, and they deserve their place in the lists of the best of American film.
The Umbrellas of Cherbourg is an exception to this Blind Spot because it is revolutionary, and breaks from the formulas that I dislike. The music actually adds to the characters, all of whom are deeply drawn and identifiable.
I was wary of The Young Girls of Rochefort because I knew this was more in the style of the musicals that rub me the wrong way, especially An American in Paris. Fortunately I found that, while Rochefort is nowhere close to as groundbreaking as Umbrellas, there was enough there to make me appreciate the film. The characters were not as deep and their encounters more fleeting, but the film is made exceptionally well and manages to transcend what is not my favorite formula.
There are a number of characters with various objects of affection that dance around each other (literally and figuratively), with their perfect matches seemingly just barely outside of the picture. First, there are the carnies, who are basically interested in a good time and act more as distractions to the real romantic interests. There is the sailor who has devised his ‘feminine ideal’ and even painted her, which coincidentally looks like Catherine Deneuve’s demoiselle character. Meanwhile, the twin sister, played by Francois Dorleac (who tragically died the year this was released) encounters and brushes off Gene Kelly, who is a fit for her artistically and creatively, since they are both musicians. Finally, there is a shopkeeper with the unfortunate last name of Dame, who used to be involved with the demoiselle’s mother, who operates a frites stand and has no idea that he is even nearby.
The Umbrellas of Cherboug managed to have a deep message and a light presentation, and I thought that might be the way that Rochefort would go as well. Since the sailor and the demoiselle kept barely missing each other, was Demy saying that the feminine ideal is unobtainable? Even to the end I wondered what he was saying here.
[Spoiler]
As we learn in the final scene, the circus that is en route to Paris picks up the sailor as a hitchhiker, so we assume that he will meet his feminine ideal. It isn’t tightly wrapped up, but the message is clear. It is strengthened by the statement by her ex-lover who lies and tells her that this love interest is in Paris, which is “too small for your passion” and that she will find him. So, overall, there isn’t much of a message here. It is more about the journey of finding someone, at least for the demoiselles, or not finding someone for the carnies, who will go from place to place and stay lonely, although they don’t seem bothered by this.
[/spoiler]
Movie Rating: 7/10
Special Features:
The big one here is Agnes Varda’s The Young Girls Turn 25 documentary, which revisits the town of Rochefort 25 years later. It shows how the city has been revitalized, how the locals remember the project, and how it has become a permanent part of their culture. One local proudly carries around the VHS cassette of the movie everywhere she goes (hopefully upgraded to Blu-Ray by now).
It is a little more than an hour-long, but is a lot different than the standard documentary special feature. This is a Varda film, and rather than just rehashing a lot of tidbits of information from the film shoot (which it does to some respect), it takes a journey. In this case it is much of the crew, stars, and extras all coming together to celebrate the anniversary of the film. Much of it is jubilant, although some is somber. The scenes where they dedicate streets to Jacques Demy and Francois Dorleac were especially touching, the latter of which had Catherine Deneuve breaking a bottle to christen her sister’s street, barely able to hide the emotions of her loss through large sunglasses.
There are other quaint, fly-on-the-wall types of features. There’s another French TV special with Legrand and Demy working out the music of the film and answering some questions. The song was the one that the carnies sing, and it was a treat seeing them work out the timing, the ending, and how it would transition to the next scene.
There were also a couple features surrounding the costume designs and set designs, which were mostly about Rochefort, but also touched on Umbrellas. I enjoyed hearing about how the costume designer collaborated with her husband who was the art director to match clothing. Rochefort wasn’t as flamboyantly colored, but it certainly had a look. They paid a lot of attention to little details, such as coloring 1,000 total shutters on random buildings.
Criterion Rating: 8.5/10
Criterion: The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp
THE LIFE AND DEATH OF COLONEL BLIMP, POWELL AND PRESSBURGER, 1943
“BUT THE WAR BEGINS AT MIDNIGHT!!’ frustratingly exclaims General Wynne-Candy, known to the film audience as Colonel Blimp. There are a lot of points to the Powell and Pressburger epic, and the most potent and appropriate is that in the era of the Great War, wars do not begin or end at a certain designated time. They begin when they begin and end when they end.
The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp is an unparalleled masterpiece. It is far and away from most historical epics, but in a completely different way. You cannot really compare it to something from David Lean. It is no Lawrence of Arabia; nor is it anything that could have come from the vision of a Cecil B. Demille or anything that starred Charlton Heston. It is unquestionably a Powell & Pressburger film, and it captures the lofty rise and thudding fall of the British ideal of civilization. It encompasses the Boer War, two World Wars, the rise of Naziism, and a lot of hunting expeditions that would yield mounted animal heads on an upper class British wall.
I remember taking a history class on the two World Wars, and we talked a lot about the actions that led to them, and how effectively war had changed. WWI was a war of attrition and ended with a harsh peace for the Germans. WWII was something entirely new, total war, and it was exceedingly difficult for the British ‘Blimps’ who used to run the entire world to come to terms with. In that class, we had the benefit of decades of academic study and hindsight, but Powell & Pressburger arrived at the same prescient conclusion right in the thick of it. And they were absolutely right. You could not fight a gentleman’s war in that era or any era since. That was the lesson that was so difficult for Candy and the Blimps to discover, but it was the right one. The enemy was not notified of the starting date and time of D-Day, or things might have ended quite differently.
It is almost unimaginable that any other actors would play the three leads in this film. Roger Livesey carried the swagger, the charm, and the pomposity of Blimp from his foolhardy youth to his rotund and thick-headed old age. Deborah Kerr plays three roles, and each one is the object of his affection, essentially the motivation for everything he does. However, it is the performance of Anton Walbrook, and the way his friendship unfolds with Candy, that is the emotional core. He has lived the highs and lows of the wars, whereas Candy has been comfortable hunting trophies, drinking sherry and hunting trophies all his life. My two favorite scenes in the film are Walbrook monologues – the one he delivers to the alien board when trying to return to England, and the one he delivers to Candy as they engage in a timely political debate after the General is sacked.
One of the strengths of the film is that the partnership between Candy and Theo are familiar territory given the partnership with the British director Michael Powell and the Hungarian ‘alien’ writer Emeric Pressburger, an unlikely pairing that would produce some of the most magnificent works of their time. You can see both of their voices in the characters, and they are wonderful.
I cannot say enough good things about this movie. It is one that I adore and thanks to such a wonderful restoration, is one that I will revisit many other times in my life.
Movie Rating: 10/10
Special Features:
Martin Scorsese gives a passionate introduction. He has been obsessed by Powell and Pressburger for many years, and cites them as influences for much of his work. He references the duel in Colonel Blimp, which doesn’t actually happen on screen, but is one of the best shots in the film as the camera flies away from the building into the snowy wonderland. He used that same technique in Raging Bull. Sometimes it is not necessary to show the conflict, but instead the magnitude and reactions of the outcome.
The commentary is given by Scorsese and Michael Powell. The beginning portion is mostly Scorsese, and he talks a lot about the use of color, the technical matters of the production and the staging. Michael Powell was quite old when he recorded his portion. His speech staggers some and is at times unintelligible, but his presence is comfortable. He tells small stories about the production, points out the many Deborah Kerr hats that he is proud of, and shares a lot of what came from him and what came from Pressburger. It is like watching home video with a grandfather you love.
The 2000 documentary [i]A Profile of “The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp”[/i] is also excellent. It talks a lot about the background and controversy of the film, and you hear from a lot of British directors who were directly influenced by it, including Stephen Fry and a young Kevin MacDonald.
The restoration demonstration is again mind-blowing. The original print had a lot of mold and resulted in many green waves flowing across the screen. Plus the color plates and aged poorly and resulted in a disorienting view. The before and after swipes of the restoration are truly impressive. Given the condition and age of the original print, this is one of the most impressive restorations that I’ve seen.
And this just scratches the surface. There is also an interview with Thelma Powell, production stills, and the original Colonel Blimp cartoons that inspired the film. If you are going to choose a handful of Criterion Blu-Rays to own, this would be near the top of a short list.
Criterion Rating: 10/10
Criterion: The Umbrellas of Cherbourg, 1964
THE UMBRELLAS OF CHERBOURG, JACQUES DEMY, 1964
After the opening credit sequence, the film begins in a garage, with Guy finishing up his work. There are not many images that are more masculine than a group of male auto mechanics fraternizing. Think of the crew from Drive a Crooked Road as they hoot and holler at the women passing by. This is a different auto shop, and the masculinity is quashed the moment they open their mouth. This is not a musical with regular actors occasionally breaking out into song. This is a movie where every line is sung, and not in the manner of a Mick Jagger or Tom Jones. The men sing with high pitched voices, in falsetto, in an instant shattering the stereotype of the masculine image.
While Demy was undoubtedly influenced by American musicals, what he created was truly original and groundbreaking. From the concept that every line of dialogue is sung to the sharp, loud and bright background colors that match the actor’s wardrobes, he broke through convention with a blowtorch.
Even now, some 50 years later, the world that Demy created takes some getting used to. I’ll admit that for me, giving it a second try with this Blu-Ray disc, it was not easy to get absorbed into this movie, but once there, I didn’t want to leave. The next 90 minutes fly by, as you become invested in the relationship between Guy and Geneviève, and whether it will survive his departure to the Algerian war.
Even though the movie’s presentation is the embodiment of consumptive lightness, the overall theme is rather complicated and not altogether pleasant. It is the choice between passion and practicality, something that most adults have to face at some point in their lives, and something that was the theme to what could be considered the film’s prequel, Lola. Roland daydreams and yearns for passion, but is ultimately scorned and chooses a responsible, practical life. Lola has plenty of temptations that might make immediate sense, including the potential coupling with Roland, but she waits for her original passion, and that choice pays off.
In The Umbrellas of Cherboug, Roland has changed entirely and is the face of practicality, whereas Geneviève is a shopkeeper’s daughter that is madly in love with someone from a lower class, Guy, who works in a garage of all places. This relationship could work, although it would not be without challenges, which is something that both parental figures realize and try to convey to the love-struck lead characters.
Because we have been trained by Hollywood that true love always survives despite all obstacles, the ending of Umbrellas is bittersweet and difficult to absorb.
[Spoiler]
Even though they both have their doubts, they have made their bed and have to sleep in it. Guy is at peace with the decision he has made, and that is exemplified by how he happily plays with his son in the film’s final shot. Geneviève’s appears to be consumed with regret, even if she’s the one driving the Mercedes, wearing expensive clothing, and looking as upper class as her recently passed mother wanted for her. Together, they would have made for a more passionate pairing, but they would have faced struggles in life that might have hurt them in the long run. Did they make the correct choice? That depends on your perspective. However, the choice was made and time has passed, so they have to live with it.
[/Spoiler]
Some people have problems with the ending, but I think it is one of the film’s strengths. This is a movie about love, sure, and you become invested in the two main characters, but it is also about life and the choices we make.
Movie Rating: 8/10
Special Features:
This disc is full of extras, making it appropriately the most loaded yet in the box-set.
The Once Upon a Time documentary was fixating, nearly as good as the movie itself. It has many archived interviews with Demy, Legrand, Varda, Deneuve, and it peels away the layers that went on behind the scenes. As some would expect, the voices were not the actor’s, but they did sing as they acted in order to get the affectations correctly (and apparently they all sang awfully). I thought it was fascinating how tough the movie was to sell to distributes, seeing how successful and iconic it is in hindsight. Yet since it broke boundaries, I can see why people were reluctant.
There is a short interview with Demy and Legrand for French TV. These pieces are always of interest to me because the French media can ask direct, difficult questions. I thought the questions they posed to Legrand about how he compares with Bach and Beethoven, and whether those classical composers would have made film scores was pointed, but a very good question. They were basically asking whether he had compromised his own integrity in order to create film music. I thought he handled the questions with aplomb, and rightfully did not elevate his own talent to the world’s best composers ever.
Film Scholar Rodney Hill gives a 20+ minute interview that I thought worked effectively well. He gives a bit of a retrospective and contextual basis for Umbrellas, and makes the thematic connection with Lola. He talks about many of the difficult realities with the movie, and how it was a product of the Algerian war, which had just ended when the film was released and was fresh on the minds of the masses of people who saw the film.
Just like the previous two discs, there was a short piece on the restoration. They repeated some points from the previous two, but I liked how they showed the RGB print composition and color correction. In some ways, they have used controversial Turner-like methods to adjust the color, but they are doing so to get as close to Demy’s artistic vision as possible.
Criterion Rating: 10/10
This is the disc that makes buying the box-set worth it. Umbrellas is a landmark in French and World cinema, and Criterion has held up to their reputation of putting everything they can into their biggest and best releases.
Criterion: Insomnia, 1997
INSOMNIA, ERIK SKJOLDBJAERG, 1997
Before I delve into the review, please forgive me for a little bit of gushing. This Blu-Ray transfer looks fantastic. The light blue and stark, shining white hue jump really bounce off the screen. The crucial foggy scene where an accident occurs is breathtaking with this transfer. I know of some people that were mixed on the original yet liked the Christopher Nolan remake. My advice is to give this another look on Blu-Ray. Because of the better transfer, the film language is more prominent and speaks better to the characters and their motivations.
Jonas, played flawlessly by Stellan Skarsgård, is a Swedish homicide detective who is called to investigate a murder up in northern Norway. The town is north of the arctic circle, dubbed the “Land of the Midnight Sun,” where for a few months in the summer the sun will remain shining throughout the day and night.
Jonas is far from a sympathetic character. In fact, he’s the opposite. He is not quote an anti-hero, because his actions are so despicable that it’s near impossible to root for him. In one scene he shoots a dog point blank just to dig in and peer into its bloody carcass. The most pivotal scene is after planting some evidence as bait, they chase the likely killer into the shack where the murder occurred, but find that the suspect has escaped through an underground tunnel that leads to the coastline, where a dense, blue fog waits for them. The pursuers split up in. One gets shot in the leg, while the other takes a shot at Jonas. His vision blurred, he sees a shadow of who he believes is his man, and takes a shot. Moments later, he discovers that he killed a fellow officer. Rather than report the crime, he covers it up and tries to pin it on the killer at large, which just adds to the depravity of the character.
Meanwhile, Jonas cannot adjust to the continuous, bright conditions. He tries to duct tape sheets to the windows, yet there is one penetrating beam of light always staring back at him. The hotel room lighting was truly spectacular in setting up the tone of the tortured character. Is he evil because of this hell in which he is living in, or is it a hell because he is evil?
The pulp mystery-novel type of plotting has a couple of problems, but it is secondary to the visual filmmaking and tremendous performances, most notably when Jonas meets the killer and finds common ground. In a way, they are in this together, and Jonas acts accordingly.
As the film progresses, and Jonas’ state degrades, Skarsgård just gets better. He looks like a man delirious, broken, worn down by the punishing sun. His gaze goes blank at times, his head held downward. He makes many pauses, trying to reconcile this dream-like world he is living in. Of course I’ve seen the actor in many tremendous performances such as Breaking the Waves and Dogville, but I believe this is his masterwork, and he single-handedly elevates what would otherwise be mediocre material.
Because of Christopher Nolan’s successful remake, it cannot helped but to make comparisons. Visually both are top-notch filmmaking, and the Nolan version has a better ensemble, is better written, and captures some of the moral ambiguities in the original. It has a half hour running time and adds more exposition to the story, which does help payoff with the conflicts near the end. That said, sometimes less is more, and I’d say the predecessor is better than the higher profile reproduction.
Movie Rating: 8.5
Special Features:
There is a 20-minute conversation between Skarsgård and writer/director Erik Skjoldbjærg. They discussed the process of putting the film together. The lead character was originally going to be Norweigan, but was changed to Swedish after casting the lead actor. One thing that was telling was that Skarsgård admits that he didn’t like the script when he first read it, which led to an uncomfortable pause from the director. It is understandable since this was a first feature, and the actor would be taking a major risk. Skarsgård adds that it was the rich character that drew him to the role. He made the right decision.
There are two short-films, both student films of Skjoldbjærg’s, which I decided to pass on. While I adore Insomnia, the director doesn’t have enough of an impressive body of work that makes me want to explore his originals, unlike someone like Jacques Demy. Maybe one day.
I wish they had added a commentary, whether academic or with the Director and Actors. Since the lead is Swedish and the country Norweigan, there are numerous mentions of the language gap that are probably lost to me and most Western viewers. I’d also like to hear more about the shot selection and some of the behind-the-scenes work.
Criterion Rating: 9/10
Criterion: Zatoichi, The Blind Swordsman, Disc 4
ZATOICHI’S REVENGE
After a couple lighter and lackluster entries to round out 1964, the series re-invented itself in 1965, taking the character away from the formula and towards some darker areas. The foundations of the formula are still intact, with the hero wandering to a village to find distress and abuse. This time the adventure is personal, as he encounters a former mentor of his whose daughter has been forced to prostitute for the bosses in order to pay off her father’s debts.
Not only was the tone darker in this iteration, but the filmmaking was more creative. They experimented with different shot angles, which enhanced both the character moments and the actions. They also take Zatoichi away from his ethical code to never attack unless attacked. As the title implies, this time Zatoichi takes more initiative and [SPOILER ALERT]initiates the attack and murder of the villains. This is the first time in the series that he has used his cane sword as an offense rather than defense.[/SPOILER]
Movie Rating: 7.5/10
ZATOICHI AND THE DOOMED MAN
They cannot all be diamonds. The 10th film in the series was, in my opinion, easily the worst. Aside from some good landscape shots, a more confident use of color, the direction was lazy. The character development was practically non-existent, and the pacing sluggish. This one features one of the largest battles in the series, and they instituted a series of traps to try and outsmart the swordsman – not a man idea, both logistically and creatively – but the execution was off. It was one of the least thrilling action scenes in the series. On top of that, the ending was rather sudden without much resolution.
Movie Rating: 4.5/10
ZATOICHI AND THE CHESS EXPERT
My disappointment with the 11th film didn’t last long, as I quickly found myself engaged with the 12th and it is my favorite of the bunch so far. Zatoichi finds a friendly, chess-playing samurai who he forges a bond with and becomes a traveling companion. The chemistry between the two actors reminded me of the debut film, where Zatoichi gained respect and forged a friendship with a samurai hired by the opposing clan. Adding a richly drawn, strong male character contrasted well with Zatoichi’s demure and quiet persona. There were other strong character moments, such as his relationship with a woman that he had widowed by killing her husband, and the daughter that he becomes fond of. There was less action, but that worked to give the characters space to breath, and let the character suspense develop. The climax chess match was brilliantly done.
Movie Rating: 8/10
The Essential Jacques Demy: Lola, Bay of Angels
THE ESSENTIAL JACQUES DEMY
So begins my journey into the world of Jacques Demy. In the interest of disclosure, I’ll admit that I’m not a major fan of his work. Yes, that sounds like sacrilege to many Francophiles, but a major part of that is my limited exposure. I’ve pretty much only seen The Umbrellas of Cherbourg, and clips here and there of other movies, such as The Young Girls of Rochefort. I try to keep an open mind, and with this stacked new box set release, I can dive into his career from the beginning. One of the major selling points is the presence of his ex-wife and widow, Agnes Varda, who I adore. I especially like her Le Bonheur, which has a Demy-like feel to it and was released around the same time of his major films. She will be prevalent through these discs, and there will be some documentaries of hers later.
LOLA, 1961
Demy’s first feature came in the midst of the New Wave. In fact, he probably got his shot thanks to the successful efforts of Louis Malle, Francois Truffault and Jean Luc Godard. Lola is in the spirit of the New Wave. The narrative and plot do not follow a formula. There are a number of different characters with intersecting plotlines, and no direct narrative.
Lola, played by Anouk Aimée, and Roland, played by Marc Michel are the pivot points for these characters. There is also an American sailor, a mother and daughter, and the off-screen presence of Michel, Lola’s first love, who she is still dedicated to after all these years. Roland is a lost dreamer, who was just fired from his job for being tardy and has no regrets about it. He finds purpose when he encounters Lola, a long lost friend that he hasn’t seen in years. They rekindle their friendship, and it becomes immediately clear that he wants something more. Meanwhile, Lola is having a tryst with the American sailor, while still longing and waiting for her first love and the father of her child, who she is convinced will come back someday.
The mother takes to Roland, and the teenage daughter finds herself charmed by the sailor, but not in a romantic way. The sailor is fond of Lola, but he will be leaving soon for Cherbourg and knows that any sort of commitment is not realistic. The mother is a lonely war widow and single mother who seems to have affection for the Roland, but he does not look at her in that way. He sees her platonically, just like the sailor sees her daughter, and like Lola sees Roland. Demy juggles these complicated character motivations with delicacy and explores the nature of human relationships. Basically, his message is that oftentimes what you want does not want you.
Lola was filmed with a low budget, just like many of the early New Wave films. The Criterion print had a lengthy and arduous restoration process, overseen by the Demy estate, but was an uphill battle because the original negative had been lost. They had found a print and worked to get it as close to the original as possible, which was demonstrated in a special feature about the restoration. Unfortunately the print looks terrible, and not quite up to par with most Criterion releases. That said, since this is an ‘Essential’ box set, the movie has to be included as long as the restoration allows the film to be watchable, which it does. This first work is most essential in seeing the roots of what the filmmaker would become. Some have called it a musical without music (although there is one song performed by and about Lola). It’s themes will reoccur in his next films, whether they are nouvelle vague or mainstream musicals.
Movie rating: 8/10
Special Features:
This disc sets the stage for what will be a stacked set of special releases. It contains most of Demy’s early shorts, including his first filmed project, Les horizons morts an 8-minute depiction of a lonely man. The most impressive short in my opinion was Le sabotier du Val de Loire, where a pastoral family makes clogs. What makes this short special is the care and fondness for the subjects. It is more about their way of live rather than the clog-making process. It reminded me of Robert Flaherty documentaries, only without being staged or embellished. There are four shorts in all, which vary in quality, but are still worth seeing.
The documentary about the restoration is interesting, although you can tell that they are making some excuses for why the print is so poor. Mathieu Demy oversaw the process, and his input was primarily how to preserve the artistic intent rather than creating a technically perfect restoration. Since his part was mere snippets, I’d rather not play the blame game, but given the condition of the print, I think a little bit of artistry could have been sacrificed for clarity.
BAY OF ANGELS, 1963
One thing that is immediately apparent when watching Demy’s second feature is that it is a grander production. It may not measure up to his later color films, but it is ambitious. The main draw is that he cast Jeanne Moreau, who at the time was queen of the New Wave, having starred in Elevator to the Gallows, The Lovers, Jules et Jim, and La Notte. Despite her track record, her role as Jackie was a departure for her. First, she ditched her reknowned dark hair for a platinum blonde. Second, the character was hopelessly addicted to gambling, completely self-centered, impulsive, and basically a wreck of a person.
Like with Lola, the male lead is a meek, naïve, lovesick young man, this time named Jean, who basically becomes Jackie’s lapdog. He tries his hand at gambling in a local casino, has some beginner’s luck and a large windfall, which he then uses to take a trip to Nice for more gambling. There he runs into Jackie at the roulette tables. His luck rubs off on her, and they bond for adventures in Nice and Monte Carlo. He begins the movie being reluctant to fall into the trap of gambling, and disturbed to hear the pathetic stories of Jackie’s addiction. They have a roller coaster of winning and losing, and eventually he becomes like her. He makes poor decisions, mostly because of his romantic desire for her. She treats him like a puppy dog, and at one time admits that she is using him for his luck.
While I was impressed with the look of the film and the performances, particularly Moreau, I had some problems with the film. The major plot hole for me was that the gambling was completely unrealistic. I’ve spent my time near a roulette wheel and have never seen someone win or lose in such quick and dramatic fashion. Then there’s the matter of the ending, which I won’t go into detail about. I’ll just say that it didn’t seem realistic given how the characters were developed.
Movie Rating: 6/10
Special Features:
This disc was pretty thin. There was a 12-minute interview with Jeanne Moreau that I enjoyed. There were a few dumb questions, which I thought she handled well. I liked how she talked about choosing roles and how she chose to work with directors regardless of the material. That worked out pretty well for her.
There was another, shorter featurette about the restoration. Since they had the master, the process was not as difficult.
Criterion Rating: 7.5/10 (both discs)
Criterion: Pickpocket, 1959
PICKPOCKET, ROBERT BRESSON, 1959
Pickpocket is one of those films that I’m surprised I haven’t seen. It has been referenced numerous times in film class, and its influence on other films is well documented. It is arguably the most influential Bresson film, which is saying something. Even though I hadn’t seen it, I felt like I had. I’ve seen the ending maybe a half-dozen times, and I’ve seen it copied, most notably by Paul Shrader who was obsessed with the film and contributed towards it being revisited and eventually enshrined as one of the greats.
I have seen enough other major Bresson works that I’m familiar with his quiet, contemplative, and spiritual style – the Bressonian tone. Au Hazard Balthazar, Lancelot du Lac and others are beautiful, yet challenging films. A Man Escaped shares more in common with Pickpocket. They both have quiet, downtrodden characters, both with often expressionless performances. These explain why the film is often watched multiple times, because the subtleties in expression are easier picked up on subsequent viewings. Even the slightest reaction becomes more monumental, more telling, and makes you question what the film is trying to say.
I’ve heard people describe both Pickpocket and A Man Escaped films as slow, but compared to some of the spiritual films, they are quite fast paced. Pickpocket moves very fast for a Bresson movie, as pointed out in the commentary. If you break down the events that take place in the plot, it sounds like a bit of a thriller:
SPOILER ALERT —
Man steals to help his sick mother.
Man gets caught, gets let go.
He learns more about how to steal.
Goes on a thieving spree with two accomplices.
Gets interrogated by police, close to being caught.
Leaves country, comes back and tries to steal again.
Gets caught, thrown in jail.
Gets redemption through a girl.
I could see another director taking the same plot points and making the film more exciting, less memorable, and a more fleeting and bland experience. This film is not just about what happens to the pickpocket. It is about exploring his soul, why he becomes what he becomes, how he lives with it, and why he comes back to it.
Movie Rating: 9.5/10
Special Features:
The introduction from Paul Schrader is interesting and useful, but not essential. He explains what he sees in the film, how it has affected his career, and why it has lasted.
There is a short French TV interview with Bresson in 1960. What I found interesting about this was that the interviewers were antagonistic, and somewhat attacked the film and it’s cool reception. For instance, they asked why Pickpocket was disliked when A Man Escaped was liked. Bresson handled himself well, and said that people identified more with the hero and escapist rather than the criminal.
Film scholar James Quandt’s commentary was extremely well prepared and said a lot about the film. If anything, it was too academic and robotic, but that’s what I look for in academic commentaries. These are the types that really enhance the perception of the film. He points stuff out that you might eventually come to on your own after half a dozen views, or looks into various readings of the film. Because Pickpocket is such a quiet film, I appreciated his constant vocal presence and that he always had something to say.
The best feature was a documentary from 2003 where the filmmaker tracked down three of the former stars. The interviews with Pierre Leymarie and Marika Green were captivating because they go through the Bressonian process, and how he breaks down the performance for the amateur actors (or Models, as he called them), so that they are not really acting. He takes take after take to get what he wants and never lets the actor know which it is, but tends to use the later takes when the actor is tired. That is certainly apparent in Pickpocket, where all the actors have a worn down look, and explains why the tone and character appearance is consistent throughout most of his films, because he just about always uses non-actors and molds their performance the way he wants.
In the second half of the documentary, they find Martin LaSalle living a quiet life in Mexico City. He recalls his experience in fascinating detail, but focuses more on the emotional impact that the entire process left on him. He said it took him 10-15 years to recover from the experience. He went to study with Lee Strasburg and barely worked in the decade after Pickpocket, until eventually settling in and making a living. His personality was affable and gregarious. You could see moments of dourness, especially as he recalled the aftermath of the movie, but overall he was a pleasant person. I see that he has continued to act in Mexican films, and he is probably very happy with these occasional small roles that allow him time to tend to his gardening.
Criterion Rating: 10/10
Criterion: The Fantastic Mr. Fox, 2009
THE FANTASTIC MR. FOX, 2009
As I began re-watching Fantastic Mr. Fox for the second time, I tried to convince my wife to watch it with me. “I’m allergic to Wes Anderson,” she said. I tried to explain that this was different from the typical Anderson film because it is animated and based on a Roald Dahl work. As it reached the five-minute mark and she heard Bill Murray’s voice, she said “yes it is! It is just a Wes Anderson movie with animation!” and she was gone. I still think she might enjoy this, as it seems to be one that other Anderson haters embrace. That includes me, to a certain extent.
Among some circles, this is blasphemy, but I am not a huge Wes Anderson fan. I respect him immensely as a filmmaker and acknowledge his creative vision, but his filmmaking mannerisms (or Andersonisms) are a little too organized, calculated, and a departure from reality. I like Bottle Rocket and Rushmore, and I liked The Grand Budapest Hotel. I loved The Royal Tenenbaums when it first came out, but it hasn’t aged well because he has gone back to the well too often.
That said, I cussing adore The Fantastic Mr. Fox! It is a cussing brilliant film, and easily my favorite Anderson.
Oddly enough, even though these are animals, they feel more real than any Tenenbaums, Zissou’s or other Andersonish characters. There’s a little of Mr. Fox in all of us, adventurous, impulsive, occasionally brilliant, and yes, egotistical. His faults can be frustrating and endearing, and that materializes with his marriage to Mrs. Fox, so eloquently voiced by Meryl Streep. Even his child and nephew and their little rivalry and is easily relatable. Most people can put themselves in either the Ash or Kristofferson category, and you can empathize with both. That they are so far apart makes their chemistry and eventual friendship that much more moving. They find that they both have different strengths and weaknesses, which is sort of the point of the entire film. On top of that, I love the wolf scene and how it embodies facing and embracing what we are most afraid of, which often is just as afraid and nervous about us.
That’s not to say that there are not a lot of Andersonisms added to the project. The game of Wackbat and the Owen Wilson quickly narrated instructions while showing an overhead view of the field with complicated, graphical examples that populate and crowd the screen. And yes, he relies on a lot of his stable of actors, such as Murray, Schwartzman, Murray, Wilson, and his brother Eric. If you only listened to the film, it probably wouldn’t sound too different than other Anderson movies. Even though I’m not a fanboy, that’s not a bad thing. Anderson has a lot of talent and a distinctive style, which I found to be a better fit with animation than live action.
Movie Rating: 8.5/10
Special Features: This disc is absolutely loaded with features. There’s an animatic version of the film, which is basically the same voices with storyboards. I’m sure there’s an audience of that, and I thought it was interesting for 10 minutes, but couldn’t re-watch the entire movie this way.
The making-of scenes were vast and fantastic. They range from showing the actors out on a farm doing their voice acting, to seeing the laborious stop motion animation process, to seeing the musical composition. They number more than a dozen little vignettes that are all enjoyable.
One of the coolest features is Dahl reading the original story, which I enjoyed for a short duration. There have been audio tracks like this on other discs. Red River for instance had the full radio play. All are interesting, but you have to keep the DVD in the player on that screen to listen to the audio. It is too bad Criterion doesn’t let you download the file to listen later on a mobile device.
There’s also a terrific audio commentary by Wes Anderson. He talks a lot about the technique and process, but also talks about where he got his vision. I liked when he pointed out where he lifted objects from, whether they were from Dahl’s house or borrowed from other films, such as Truffault’s The Story of Adele H, which Anderson wonders out loud if he can be sued for mentioning. Probably not since it made the cut.
If that’s not enough, there’s also an hour-long documentary about Roald Dahl. I watched the beginning and my interest was peaked, but I will save it for a day.
Because of the extensive special features and the gorgeous digipak case, if you have any appreciation for this film, I’d recommend the Criterion. I consider it among the best that have been released this year.
Criterion Rating: 10/10
Criterion: Zatoichi: The Blind Swordsman (discs 1-3)
ZATOICHI: THE BLIND SWORDSMAN (DISCS 1-3)
First off, the Zatoichi boxset from Criterion is a gem. You can tell just by holding it or flipping through the discs that it’s on a completely different level than all other box sets. It is the largest, most ambitious release, with 25-films total. That’s too much to tackle in a short period of time, much less to summarize in a single post. For that reason, I’m dividing these into a series of three posts.
Zatoichi is genre filmmaking and it unquestionably follows a formula with few deviations, but it is still a treasure. A lot of this has to do with the time in which these films originated. They were produced during some of the best years of Japanese cinema. They followed in the footsteps of Mizoguchi’s samurai films and Hiroshi Inagaki’s Samurai trilogy, and were contemporary of some of Kurosawa’s best films. One of the films even included Yojimbo, one of Kurosawa’s most iconic characters. Meanwhile, the Japanese New Wave was in its prime, most notably Seijun Suzuki and his Yakuza films. The Zatoich was a serialized amalgamation of all of these narrative forms, and it even shared some of the same crew and cast as these classical Japanese artists. These essentially were template art films, with some thrills and adventures to keep audiences hooked.
The quality varies on each film. None that I have so far seen come close to the highs of the contemporaries that I just discussed, but I didn’t expect to see Ozu, Kurosawa or Naruse. At best, they are excellent, stylized, escapist genre films. At worse, they are mediocre yet still engaging and watchable. In many respects they are like a high quality TV series today (and Zatoichi did become a series), with some amazing episodes and some that are just okay. None are poorly put together or not worth watching. Again, like a TV series today, they are easy to binge watch just to see what happens to the hero next.
The premise is usually that Zatoichi wanders into a town inconspicuously where there is corruption present. There’s usually a woman in the picture, often (although not always) innocent and being taken advantage of. There are often warring factions, and when they realize who Zatoichi is, they try to lure him to their side with food, money, comfort, or whatever it takes. They are almost always unscrupulous, evil people. Zatoichi has his faults. He is greedy, likes to gamble, is susceptible to the charms of woman, but he is basically good and looks out for the common man. Regardless of what side he takes, he looks down on all who will make trouble for others.
You have to suspend a lot of disbelief. Yes, Zatoichi is blind, yet he gets around very well for himself and hardly ever stumbles or runs into walls. He is always deadly with the sword, and most battles have him engaged with several people. He never strikes first, and will often kill 2-3 people with a single spin and sword stroke. And, spoiler alert, he doesn’t get killed – there are 25 movies, after all. He barely gets hurt. Sometimes the action can get monotonous because the outcome is clear; other times it is thrilling.
Of the nine that I have seen so far, I appreciated the ones where they peeled away at the character. The first two, which happen to be the only black and white ones, establish the legend and develop the character. They are not short of action either, but they spend more time investigating this unique character. The films shift to color with the third film, and there’s a little more action, and they settle somewhat lazily on the formula. The high point for me was the seventh film, Zatoichi’s Flashing Sword because it makes the best use of color and is the most stylized, while deviating from the formula enough to show that Zatoichi has some weakness, can be harmed, and is capable of blood lust. The films blend together to a certain degree, but Flashing Sword’s imagery has stuck with me the most. The latter two films I felt suffered from monotony as they tried to unsuccessfully break away from the formula. One of them has Zatoichi interacting with a child and a flawed woman, which would normally be a nice change, but it came across stilted and less confident.
1. The Tale of Zatoichi – 8/10
2. The Tale of Zatoichi Continues – 7.5/10
3. New Tale of Zatoichi – 7/10
4. Zatoichi the Fugitive – 6.5/10
5. Zatoichi on the Road – 7/10
6. Zatoichi and the Chest of Gold – 6/10
7. Zatoichi’s Flashing Sword – 8.5/10
8. Fight, Zatoichi, Fight – 5.5/10
9. Adventures of Zatoichi – 5/10
Special Features: None yet until the end.
Criterion Rating: 9/10
Criterion: Cul-de-sac, 1966
Some might consider this a lesser Polanski, but it was produced during what I consider his peak. Repulsion, which I consider to be the best Polanski (sorry Chinatown!) came out just the year before, and this pictures uses many of the same crew, including the DP, Gilbert Taylor. It has a similar look and feel to Repulsion. While this film is lighter in tone and has some comedic moments, it still had similar, dark themes as his surrounding films, which would culminate a couple years later in Rosemary’s Baby, another of his best films.
Cul-de-Sac could have been a three-act play using mostly four lead actors, but the location of Lindisfarne / Holy Island was almost like another character. It was the dead end, or cul-de-sac in many ways for all of these characters, whether temporary or permanent. The castle was beautiful, but remote, isolated, and subject to the tidal whims of the sea. It was a change in tide that created the situation that put these characters together, as the car of two gangsters stalls on its way to the island.
The ensemble case consisted of lesser known talent, but they really shined here. Most notable was Donald Pleasence in his effeminate portrayal of the cuckolded husband George. Françoise Dorléac played his restless French wife. I admired her work in Truffault’s The Soft Skin, and it is worth noting that she is the elder sister of Catherine Deneuve, who was absolutely fantastic in Repulsion. In many ways the two characters were similar, albeit Dorléac’s Teresa responds to her isolation with adultery rather than psychosis. Finally, Lionel Stander played Dickie, the gangster who occupies and bullies the quiet lives of this odd pairing. He was perfectly cast as the loudmouth ruffian, which results in terrific character conflict between Pleasence and Dorléac.
I would be remiss if I didn’t mention the amazing long take. There is a period where the threesome are on the beach, when Dorléac strips naked, runs into the water and leaves the men to argue. As they continue their bickering, a noise is heard from overhead which Dickie thinks is a helicopter coming to rescue him. Instead, to his disappointment, it is a low flying airplane. The actors play off it exceptionally well, and the plane enters the frame with perfect timing. Dorléac right on cue, returns from her swim towards the end of the shot. It was over 8-minutes, and it’s difficult for me to remember a better orchestrated take in Polanski’s long career.
Film Rating: 8/10
Special Features:
The disc has a short, making-of featurette. What I like about the Criterion documentary features compared with traditional releases is that they aren’t self-congratulatory. They are honest about the production, warts and all. First off, I was surprised that they practically bash Stander, who was extremely difficult to work with. You wonder whether they would have been so frank about his behavior if were still living. They also talked about the animosity on the set between Polanski and pretty much everyone else. Finally, they talk about how they put together and timed the praiseworthy long take. If it weren’t for production problems and delays, it may not have happened.
They show a black and white TV interview with Polanski in 1967, just after he had filmed The Fearless Vampire Killers. Sometimes these features don’t work well, but this was a good interview, especially considering this was from when Polanski was young and at the height of his career. He touches on his rough childhood in Poland during the war (he was a Jewish refugee whose mother died), and focuses more on his career, and shows old shorts and previous works of his. It is a nice retrospective and Polanski is always a good interview subject, young or old.
The disc is light on special features and that is okay. Other Polanski releases, including Repulsion have a lot of features. This is a good companion to all of them.
Criterion Rating: 8/10
Criterion Close-Up 