The most accurate film ever about aspiring writers: Reprise

The Norwegian film Reprise is one of the very few films about the literary life - in this case, about two young men each aspiring to be a great (Norwegian) novelist, in the high literary tradition - that actually has a sense of what it's like to be a writer; compared with movies such as Bright Star or Kill Your Darlings, there's really no comparison - this one truly gets at the jealousies, the torments, the self-doubts, and hubris, the occasional cruelty, the more the occasional affection and support, the minuscule recognition, the star-worship - all part of the literary life. Granted, the literary life depicted here, which seems to be from the late 90s?, and is in Oslo rather than NYC or Iowa, is like an anthropological study of a vanished culture; I doubt too many young men today dream of a writing career in the same way that the two men in this movie do - as an admixture of Hemingway (Paris), Salinger (solitude), and rock star world recognition. The very idea of sending a manuscript to a publisher by surface mail - and actually having the publisher read it, edit it, and bring it to life - let alone accede to an unreadable title (Prosopoeia, if I have it right) - and that this novel would be the subject of a panel discussion on a TV talk show - well, not in America, anyway. The movie really gets the close but sometimes strained relation between the two friends - one of whom is clearly the more talented, but deeply suffering; the other more conventional and superficial, and he knows it - but more likely to be successful for those very reasons. The movie is about their lives - and the lives of a set of their close friends, secondary characters - over a fairly long period of time. It reminded me in this of the very great Italian series The Best of Youth, but more literary and insular in scope. The narrative is a little hard to follow at times, with its weaving of a few time strands, very abrupt introduction of the secondary characters, and an occasional voice-over omniscient and ironic narrator, as in Jules & Jim. Despite these difficulties, it's worth staying with the movie for some very powerful scenes, particularly of the mentally disturbed writer, for some real depth of character, for a true sense of a life or style of life that may be seen no more, and for some unexpected turns at the ending - the movie has its antecedents for sure, but avoids all literary and cinematic cliches.

Opportunity wasted in pseudo-Shakespeare adaptation from Aregntina

Honestly the Argentine film Viola sounded like a great idea from the blurb - an Argentine bike messenger joins a Shakespeare troupe performing Twelfth Night and the boundaries between life and stage blur - I could imagine the possibilities, using the staged play about cross-dress courtship as a way to do the same - and there have been so many good adaptations on this play, recently, for example, She's the Man - but has there ever been a more boring movie than this one? We see nothing about "Viola's" life before the "joins" the troupe - she seems already to be a part of it; then we see a long scene from TN, which is fine so far as it goes; then four of the women in the troupe in the dressing room discuss various thoughts about love, in a dialogue that's not very interesting (the many closeups of the actresses are quite beautiful, as they take off and reapply makeup, kind of like a Lautrec painting on film) and the Viola actress decides to try to seduce the Olivia actress. Then a very long scene in which they go over again and again the lines of the courtship scene, leading at long last to a kiss. That's as far as we got, honestly. This movie would be better if we could see the actresses change, grow, feel some edge as they went through the same lines again and again - rehearsal scenes can be great in movies for advancing character and plot, for showing the many nuances that actors can get out of the same material- who can forget Naomi Watts's rehearsals in Mulholland Drive, for example? - but here they say the same lines again and again and again w/ no change in expression or inflection. Opportunity (and 30 minutes) wasted.

Additional thoughts on the Elliot's Watching Top 50 Films

Have received a # of comments on the recent post, The Elliot's Watching Top 50 Films, and would like to respond to a few: Some friends have offered alternate suggestions for some of the directors on the list (as noted, I stuck to a rule of one film per director so as to suggest as many types of films as possible; almost every director represented has several other films well worth watching, so some of the decisions about which one to pick are immaterial - think of it as 50 top directors, if you'd like), but in any case: Why Psycho over Vertigo? I guess last time I saw Vertigo it felt too over-plotted. Why 7 Samurai over Ikiru? Tough choice there, but 7 is much broader and more epic, one of the few on the list. Love the scene where he selects Mifune as the 7th. And love the sword expert. Why Mean Streets over Taxi Driver? I guess I'm drawn to the black-and-white, more intimate feel of the earlier movie, though both are awesome. Dolce v 8 1/2 - another tough choice, and, hey, watch them both! But La Dolce Vita seems to be a greater part of our culture - created a type in cinema that has persisted to this day (see Don Draper, e.g.), and coined the word paparazzi, and of course so many great scenes of Rome at night. Omissions: yes, there are no silent films, as these are films that for the most part I dutifully watched back in the day but very few have stayed with me or have moved me or made me laugh aloud. Maybe Chaplin, but that's it. I can appreciate the achievement of these precursors, but I'm not drawn to see any again. Similarly for the many "art" films from the 60s and 70s that I watched back in grade school - Brakhage was a great artist and quite a character, but I'm far more drawn to the great works of narrative cinema. Some have suggested films that I haven't seen, which have now moved directly onto my Netflix Q. (And note that I have corrected #15 to read Pan's Labyrinth. ek - 4/16/14) Thanks, all!

The Elliot's Watching Top 50 Films

As promised, here is my list of the Top 50 films, a highly subjective list of course, but one that hope will lead you to re-view some great films you've already seen and perhaps will lead you to some new pathways as well. As with the companion list that I posted on my other blog a few weeks ago - the Elliot's Reading Top 100 books - each of these films is (I think) by a different director, so rather than get into the debate about which films by Renoir, Kurosawa, Woody Allen, et al. - each director gets only one - but almost every director represented has many other films that could be on the list, so use this list as a way to explore and branch out rather than as a doctrinaire pronunciation from some high-culture gatekeeper. This list intentionally omits many popular culture classics that I'm glad I've seen once and that everyone should probably see once - but not necessarily twice. I believe every film on this list rewards multiple viewings. Because film is much more of a shared cultural phenomenon than literary fiction, I'm guessing that many who read these posts have seen 30 or more of these films; if you've seen 40 or more, we have similar taste. If you've seen all 50, then you are me. Can you identify all of the directors? I'm pretty sure that I can't. In a few days, I'll add the names of directors to the list.

--> Movie list

1.     Rules of the Game

2.     La Dolce Vita

3.     The Seven Samurai

4.     The Godfather

5.     The Seventh Seal

6.     The 400 Blows

7.     Annie Hall

8.     Duck Soup

9.     Tokyo Story

10.  Citizen Kane

11.  Some Like it Hot

12.  Night of the Hunter

13.  Mean Streets

14.  The Secret in Their Eyes

15.  Pan's Labyrinth

16.  12 Years a Slave

17.  The Great Beauty

18.  Casablanca

19.  It’s a Wonderful Life

20.  Psycho

21.  Bicycle Thieves

22.  The Conformist

23.  The Passenger

24.  Army of Shadows

25.  The Human Condition

26.  Mother

27.  Yi-Yi

28.  Little Fugitives

29.  Secrets and Lies

30.  Don’t Look Back

31.  Revanche

32.  The Loneliness of the Long-Distance Runner

33.  American Graffiti

34.  Fish Tank

35.  Sweetgrass

36.  In the Mood for Love

37.  The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie

38.  Searching for Sugarman

39.  A Streetcar Named Desire

40.  Talk to Her

41.  Titticut Follies

42.  Breathless

43.  Pulp Fiction

44.  Cabaret

45.  The Searchers

46.  Blue Velvet

47.  The Child (L’Enfant)

48.  Chinatown

49.  The Lives of Others

50.  Aguirre, the Wrath of God

Note: I have corrected #15 to read Pan's Labyrinth - ek 4/16/14

Touched: A crazy movie about four lives in contemporary China

I know it received pretty strong reviews but, despite its promise and despite a few pretty strong scenes, I could not finish watching the recent Chinese film A Touch of Sin. The strengths: it gives us what appears to be a very accurate look at the topography of life today in some of China's lesser-known cities and regions. We see life in a small coal-mining village (ruled by a corrupt oligarch), life in a mid-sized (for China) city -  and really see life on the streets and in public places - on highways, on a river ferry, the sounds everywhere of blaring conversations and loudspeakers, the ever-present danger of thugs at traffic stops and road blocks, crowds in all public places such as railroad stations, and then occasionally some weirdly beautiful night-time scenes - woman alone at night walking by the side of a highway. Sounds good so far - but - the problem is that the plot and action of the movie is so preposterous and so clumsily handled that I eventually bailed. For example, the first segment (there are 4, I think, very loosely related), involves a guy in a coal-mining village who tries to stir up resentment and rebellion against the oligarch who's stolen all the profits from the mine. Guy gets beat up by a shovel-wielding thug. In response, guy gets a rifle, walks through village, assassinates probably about 8 of his rivals, including at least one man who simply casually insults him. This is not in the least realistic - there's no police response until far too late. And you have to wonder: who is that rebellious character? Does he just show up all of a sudden out of nowhere - or has he been raising his complaints for months, years? It makes no sense whatsoever. At first, watching it and listening to his rantings against power and corruption, we thought - how did this movie ever get past Chinese censors? But then we realized: of course, what it's showing is that anyone who protests against power is obviously insane and psychopathic. Other sections of the long movie (I stopped watching in midst of 3rd section, about a woman working as a receptionist in a sex sauna who attacks a guy who tries to come on to her - in a grisly and highly unrealistic way - again, those who stand up against power are depicted as insane) are similarly absurd and improbable, and not really well dramatized, except maybe for opening scene when motorcyclist shoots three would-be highway robbers. (Even that scene, though: can you possibly shoot a pistol, then carry it in your mouth! while riding a motorcycle? Wouldn't it be a bit hot for that?!) A Touch of Sin need a touch of sensibility, too.

Three problems with The Wolf of Wall Street

Granted that Martin Scorcese's The Wolf of Wall Street is based on a memoir and that at least some of the things depicted in this debauched film actually may have happened - although keep in mind that Grant Balfour's memoir is written by a pathological liar and an ace bullshit salesman - and also keep in mind that movies exaggerate everything, as they probably should, in the interest of spectacle and entertainment, there are still a several really troubling things about this movie. First of all, yes, maybe the sexism (as well as the subtle racism - see any black guys on the trading floor? only in the final sequence) is meant to depict a debauched mentality, there's still a somehow tacit assumption and acceptance of the fact that women are present on earth only to "service" men - maybe the guys saw it that way, sure, but there's not a moment in the whole film to call this world view into question - not a single prostitute who looks like a drug addict, who's angry and resentful about what's expected of her. Second, although the movie is about the crash and burn of a great penny-stock trader, his world gone up in drugs, booze, sex, and stupid excess - is that really the message that thousands, millions, of testosterone-addled guys take away from this? I'm afraid far too many would say: how did I miss out? It would all have been worth it! (Especially when Balfour walks with a light sentence and is rehabbed as "the world's greatest salesman.") Third, the movie seems to be an expose of all that's wrong with Wall Street - when it isn't so at all. This guy was a sleazeball from the start, who ripped people off far more cruelly than a guy with a gun at a convenience store, but got treated far, far better than the typical thug criminal. But he's not what brought the country to near ruin - it was the white-shoe guys with the MBAs at the big brokerage houses who hold that distinction. The Wolf of Wall Street is just a distraction, bread and circuses, to keep us from thinking the real, and far less "sexy" truth (although that's been treated well in other films such as Margin Call). All that said, this is Scorsese, so the film is diabolically watchable, filled with some amazingly complex scenes of excess, and a few of good, high drama - the best of all being Kyle Chandler (playing an FBI agent) about Balfour (Leo Decaprio)'s yacht. Once you start watching you won't be able to stop - but don't be suckered, either, into thinking this movie is important or profound or an expose. This is a sideshow.

The Great Beauty - a contemporary La Dolce Vita, and perhaps another classic

Paolo Sorrentino's The Great Beauty is absolutely one of the best and most provocative movies I've seen in years and will, I hope, be recognized in time as a classic (I don't know anything at all about Sorrentino's other work, but plan to watch one of the "extras" in the great Criterion Collection DVD to learn more). I'm positive that everyone who's written anything about The Great Beauty has commented on its debt to and tribute to La Dolce Vita - it's quite obviously a contemporary look at similar themes and emotions, with quite a few visual tributes to Fellini along the way. Like LDV, TGB focuses on the life of man in late career as he lives an active perhaps over-active social life and reflects on his lost opportunities. In TGB it's a famous journalist, Jep, who, in a fabulous opening sequence of a rocking and opulent party with many beautiful people and others verging on the grotesque (another nod to Fellini) is celebrated on his 65th birthday. One major difference between TGB and LDV is that Jep is not a man in despair - he has a great self-image, he refuses to be swayed by the flattery of others, he accepts that his lifetime of writing magazine profiles does not mark him out for any special recognition. He knows everyone in Rome, it seems, but does he know himself? He has written one short novel that others seem to think very highly of - although he's dismissive, and it doesn't bother him at all when others call it his "novelette." The mystery is why he hasn't written any further serious fiction - he indicates that he has been unable to find the "great beauty" that will inspire him to take up serious writing again. There will be no spoiler here, but I will say that he does find the great beauty at the end of the film, in a moment that, to me, echoed one of my favorite works, Flaubert's Sentimental Education - but I'll leave it at that. There are so many fantastic scenes throughout the movie, with dialog as strong and complex as in any excellent novel - one particularly strong scene is the discussion among Jep and some literary friends in which a woman who sees herself as a socially engaged writer criticizes Jep for his non-engagement and he, in response, rips her apart in the coolest, most understated way imaginable. The cinematography is extraordinary - so many beautiful scenes of Rome by night, many from the terrace and balcony of Jep's apartment near the Coliseum - and the beauty continues right down to the closing credits, filmed on a slow boat ride down the Tevere/Tiber. Even the music is great - sometimes overwhelming techno dance music, appropriate to the scene, and elsewhere just a fine, subtle musical score. And was that Simon Signorette in an uncredited cameo? The plot structure is a little demanding, nontraditional - although straightforward in time, it involves so ellisions and some rapid introduction of characters that it may take viewers some time to piece together into a whole - but it's a complex movie that rewards serious attention.