My Top Five Ozu

I can't stop thinking about the films of Yasujiro Ozu. Everyone should see at least a few of his films. I'm not saying a total conversion is necessary, but for those of you wary of trying something new, or Japanese cinema in general, here are my top five Ozu films you should see.

1. Tokyo Story

2. Late Spring

3. I was Born But...

4. An Autumn Afternoon

5. Tokyo Twilight

These aren't necessarily my top five Ozu films, for the record, I'd have trouble making up a top ten, but I assure you these are all films that show off the great director's many facets. Enjoy.

There Was a Director

I sometimes speak of Yasujiro Ozu when I can't think of anything else to speak about. Of all the directors who's films I love and return to time and time again, he is the one I treasure the most. It doesn't matter if I've seen one of his films before or if I'm seeing a new one for the first time, it's almost as if cinema is being born again in my eyes when I watch his work.

Yasujiro Ozu is a director I discovered in a time in my life where cinema no longer felt new, I felt I had seen it all. I was attending a film school at the time, and although I was watching many films by other directors I hadn't seen much of, I was no longer excited by film.

I had heard of one film by Ozu: "Tokyo Story", then I heard of "Floating Weeds", I was intrigued to see these films as I had heard of this concept of a low angle camera that never moved. This technique was foreign to me; all my film professors were telling me the right way to make a film, to write a script, to move a camera, to work with actors, but Ozu was the exception to the rule.

My first year in discovering Ozu, I had tried to see everything by him that was available to me, I craved more, I declared to myself that all other film was meaningless, this was the only way movies could be made, (of course I was sort of caught up in the moment). Ozu's films did something which no other director has really done since, and that was change my perception of the world. It's very powerful when art does that, or when an artist can do that.

There have been other artists such as writer's, actors, or other filmmakers who have influenced my life in some way, but Ozu was the one that renewed it for me. The way I view life and the way I view film has been different since my first Ozu experience, I have heard of other people who have been similarly effected the same way by his films. I'm not sure I can pinpoint what makes his films so special to the few of us who view them that way. I've heard criticisms of his films being cold, dry, and drawn out, I'm not sure what to say to those people, only to suggest to them that perhaps they aren't seeing the film that is there but perhaps a film they want to see, something I have been guilty of as well.

Recently I actually got a friend of mine to watch "Tokyo Story" after writing in a letter to her how it actually changed my life, I'm interested to see what her reaction of it was, I consider this a victory since she is so far the only one of my friends who has actually seen "Tokyo Story".

I recently just watched two Ozu films which have just recently been released on DVD: "The Only Son", and "There was a Father", both great films, both made by a master who I have yet to see a bad movie from, I'm starting to think he never did make one. How to put my feelings of Ozu in words has proved exceedingly difficult no matter how hard I try, perhaps it's useless to speak about him, only the films themselves can do him justice.

Salt: Movie Review

"Salt" is the kind of action movie that doesn't get made anymore, even when I was watching it, it seemed a little old fashioned. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, this is in fact very, very good, good for people who like good filmmaking with action scenes that are clear and concise.

I'm not going to spend a lot of time on the plot of "Salt", it pretty much doesn't matter, it's just a jump off point in order for exciting stuff to happen. Angelina Jolie plays Evelyn Salt, who at the beginning is working for the C.I.A., things change however when she interrogate a Russian defector who tells her she is really a Russian secret agent who is about to kill the Russian President.

Her colleagues overhear this in the other room and take it seriously, Evelyn denies she's a Russian spy but soon finds herself on the run anyway. I know, pretty flimsy, but you know what, go with it.

"Salt" is a film unlike something like say "Inception" which doesn't pretend it is something it is not. This is a fun action movie for people who enjoy good action movies. It will probably remind people of the "Bourne" movies with its non-stop action and a character with a checkered past.

The action sequences are pulled off effortlessly such as Jolie jumping from truck to truck on a freeway in order to escape her pursuers, but for me the most riveting sequence in an assassination attempt which happens in a church during a famous funeral (I'm trying not to give too much away).

Jolie is great in this type of role, she is a bonofide movie star in an age where real movie stars are becoming scarce, she isn't given much to say, but you can sense her presence as she can keep us guessing and following her, no matter how absurd it becomes.

I wouldn't say "Salt" is a high art film, but it's worthy the price of admission just to have a good time. Good summer movies have been hard to come by lately, so this is as refreshing as it seems to get. It's no masterpiece, but it rises above its material by using pure cinematic craft.

Inception: Movie Review

"Inception" is like putting together a jigsaw puzzle that doesn't have a lot of pieces; it takes no time at all and in fact there are characters there who tell you how to figure it out. On the surface, I would say I enjoyed myself at "Inception", but I think it failed to be what it set out to be.

"Inception" is the brain child of Christopher Nolan, who probably was able to do whatever he wanted to do after the success of "The Dark Knight". This film has apparently been in Nolan's mind for ten years as he struggled to write it. I can certainly understand why it would take so long, the film is perfectly constructed in a way all planned out, Nolan has created his own world with his own set of rules, things like that must take time.

The story is about a group thieves, who's specialty is to steal ideas or secrets from the subconscious of someone while they are in a dream state. The team works as sort of a "Mission Impossible" science fiction type. The master of this type of thievery is Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio), who has his own deep dark secrets. Cobb is approached by an entrepreneur named Saito (Ken Wantanabe), who gives him an opportunity of one last job. This job consists of stealing from a young Oil Company heir named Robert Fischer (Cilian Murphy) who is inherting the company from his dying father.

The trick to stealing from Fischer is in fact a little trickier, it involves inception, which means planting an idea inside someone's subconscious without letting them know about it. Cobb gets together his crack team which includes his right hand man Joseph Gordon-Levitt, master of disguise Tom Hardy, and the architecture of the dream Ellen Page. Page actually has the toughest part as she must design a dream within someone elses mind without them knowing it's a fake.

"Inception" has a lot of great things going for it, it has an ingenious plot device that could go places, but it actually goes nowhere. Fisher's must've had James Bond or Michael Mann movies on the brain because that's pretty much what his mind is made up of. Nolan's fatal error was making his dream world have a rule system, it's all very simple to follow as long as there are rules. But do dreams have rules? I know mine don't. A few nights ago, I had a dream about a lion who was hiding in an ice cream truck, and ice cream vendors who had no idea where it was, only I could see it, I kept trying to warn them, but they just kept giving me ice cream; wouldn't it be fun if DiCaprio and his cohorts had invaded that dream?

The film does stop for some surreal moments, mostly when we get to see Page walk around with DiCaprio with her new found power to create a dream world. Perhaps the one image found on trailers for the movie is when Page takes a city street and folds it on top of the other, that is a fantastic image.

Mostly thought, I found the film to be more of an action movie, and less of a altered state science fiction, it was humourless and joyless, it didn't feel as though anyone was having any fun. DiCaprio for one has perhaps done one too many of these serious roles, he seems determined to make the guilt-ridden, brooding character to be his career now, I'd love for him to lighten up a bit, maybe crack a smile once in awhile.

For the most part, the performances work, particularly by Ellen Page who is sort of the audiences way into this world, she keeps it leveled down, and she's always sweet no matter what she does. Marion Cotillard also makes the most of a thankless role; she doesn't get to play a character, but an idea of a character within DiCaprio's mind, but she's still able to find emotion and pathos within it.

To me "Inception" is a bit of a cold movie, Nolan has a lot of intriguing ideas, I jsut wish he had expanded more on it, the climactic action sequence becomes epic and unstoppabloe, and that's where I think it should've stayed, it's a perfectly agreeable action film and Nolan knows how to turn on the juice when he needs to. Next time I hope he can think outside the box he created for himself.

E.T. The Extraterrestrial

Today I watched "E.T." again for what could've been the twentieth time of my life. It was the first film I remember getting on video, my Uncle Clark bought it for me one Christmas when I was very young. As a child, the film didn't have that much of an impression on me, I suppose I was too much of a boy, I was into action adventure movies like "Star Wars" and "Indiana Jones", "E.T." might've been too tame by comparison.

"E.T." was the kinda movie that grew on me, sort of as I grew up, I found it less to be a kids movie, but more of a movie about kids. I find it has more in common with Truffaut's "The 400 Blows" or Ozu's "I Was Born But..." rather than "The Wizard of Oz". Although "E.T." certainly is magical, it's a full film experience, it lifts you up the way Hollywood movies should do, it was directed by Steven Spielberg, a man who has been in tune with what audiences wanted to see since "Jaws", but "E.T." is his masterpiece.

The story is simple and straightforward; a homesick alien is left behind accidentally on planet Earth, and befriends a young boy named Eliot (Henry Thomas). Eliot is a lonely boy, he looks to have no friends, and is going through the recent divorce of his parents.

When Eliot and E.T. first see eachother, they are both frightened by the other, yet their curiosity wins out. Eliot takes E.T. into his home, he teaches his world as he sees it. The first thing Eliot shows him is his room which is filled with various toys. The two become friends, and soon we discover that E.T. and Eliot begin to feel a psychic connection with one another, Eliot begins to feel what E.T. feels. It becomes evident with Eliot, that the only way to save E.T. is to send him home.

When it was first released, "E.T." became a phenomenon, it was an extremely popular movie with audiences and became the biggest box office hit of all time. It's rather remarkable when you think of how small the movie really is. Steven Spielberg always thought of "E.T." as a personal film, it was a low demanding film with much of the action taking place inside one house, with only a few other exterior shots. There were even very few special effect shots in the film as well, unless you count E.T. as a special effect.

I often wonder if E.T. could get made today, even if it was by Spielberg and if it did, would people still flock to see it. Call it my cynical view of movie theatres today, part of which "E.T." could be blamed for. However "E.T" is not a cynical movie, it was a film that just happened to touch the mass audience, it was well made by a man who was a born filmmaker.

"E.T." is quite an emotional film, it's not mechanical, Spielberg makes you believe in everything happening. Much of the film is told visually, there is no exposition I could think of; we are never told who E.T. is, why he landed on Earth, and why there is a connection to Eliot. We are shown these things, and we accept it, Spielberg trusted his audience to make up their minds about the story, he just directed it to where it should be.

"E.T." is a also a film about a child's viewpoint, we see the film through their eyes, most of the adults, other than Eliot's mother (Dee Wallace) are not seen until the third act, it reminds me of a Charlie Brown cartoon, where the adults are only given horn noises for voices. Spielberg is one of the great director's of children, he treats them with respect and understands their mentality perhaps better than any other director around them. Eliot is a sad lonely boy struggling to get past his parent's divorce, a theme that Spielberg has wrestled with in many of his films. E.T. comes as a friend at a time when Eliot needs one the most, suddenly he feels a connection to something, or someone where he doesn't feel alone anymore.

"E.T." is often criticized for being overly sentimental, which is a criticism I find to be unfounded when it comes to this film. "E.T." is very much a visual movie, Spielberg shows us through images the emotion we need to know. Sentimentality is used to lift us up, it makes us feel good, perhaps we are manipulated in a way, but it's no different than what Chaplin or Capra did in their films.

"E.T." is a full movie experience for me, in the end I am elated, few films made today make me feel the way this one does. I'd like to think audiences would still flock to "E.T." if it were made today, it's high time Hollywood started making these kinds of movies again. "E.T." is full of wonder, of youth, innocence, and love, it's the kind of film that will forever be beloved to whomever turns it on.

The Grand Illusion

Jean Renoir's "The Grand Illusion" is a war story that today seems nostalgic. It was made in 1937, very soon before Hitler and the Nazi party shrouded the world with a dark cloud of anti-semitism and propaganda. The film takes place in World War I, when French and German soldiers were at war, but still kept their humanity in tact. As Renoir puts it in his introduction to the film "To a certain extent, the war of 1914 was almost a war fought by gentlemen."

If such a thing exists as a gentle war film, then "The Grand Illusion" is it. Renoir surrounds his film with men from different countries and backgrounds who fight the war, but they do it with a certain dignity and respect for the other side.

The film opens with two French officers name Lt. Marachel (Jean Gabin) and Capt. de Boeldieu who are on a mission but are shot down by a German pilot named Captain Von Rauffestein (Erich Von Stroheim). After they are shot down, Marachel is injured bu Von Rauffestein invites them for dinner with his officers. The visit is all very polite and courteous; Von Rauffestein treats them more as guests than as prisoners, he even apologizes for shooting them down, and there is a genuine respect between the two officers. There is even a rapport felt between Von Rauffestein and Boeldieu, as they are both from aristocratic families and perceive themselves as gentlemen.

As this introduction ends, Marachel and Boeldieu are sent to a POW camp where they meet in with a group of other french officers. As it is with other Prisoner of War movies, the usual consensus is to try and escape, which is the soldiers duty to do so. There is indeed a plot to dig a tunnel which is shown briefly, but it is left abandoned when the soldiers are transferred to another camp. Marachel makes a desperate attempt to tell the soldiers taking their place about the tunnel, but they speak English and can't understand his French.

Another officer is brought into the mix while at this camp, his name is Rosenthal, a Jewish businessman who comes from the same working class background as Marachel, and he pops up again when he and Boeldieu are transferred to a new camp which is run by non other than Von Rauffenstein, who has suffered a back injury and must be held in place by a neck brace, his flying days are over.

Jean Renoir was a cinematic humanist like many of the great French directors, I don't think there is ever a villain in any of his films. "The Grand Illusion" is about people who fight a war, they are committed to their country, and therefore must fight, even though they may get along with their enemies. I suppose the grand illusion that is eluded to in the title is that wars can be fought in a civilized way. That's the tragedy of the film, and we see it personified in Von Rauffenstein, a man who keeps his aristocratic ways, but is perceived as a mad man by his soldiers, and who is then betrayed by a man who he thought shared his same views. Von Rauffestein is a romantic, a sentimentalist, but as one character points out in the film "there is no room for sentiment in a war".

However Jean Renoir himself couldn't help but being optimistic, and chooses humanity in the end anyway, as we see two soldiers being allowed to enter Switzerland by Germans who choose not to shoot them.

"The Grand Illusion" is often cited as one of the greatest films ever made, and is usually found neck and neck with "Rules of the Game" as Renoir's masterpiece. Renoir fought in the first World War himself, he must've known another war was on the horizon when he made this film. "The Grand Illusion" was seized by the Nazi party and the original print was thought to be destroyed, however luckily, a print was found in Munich, and was joyously restored for a new generation to discover.

"The Grand Illusion" today seems to have been made when there was still order in war, it was played like a game which had its rules. When comparing the war in "The Grand Illusion" to the wars being fought today, it seems the difference is like night and day; it's not a game, perhaps it never was, perhaps that is the illusion. War is brutal, and the less we come to understand our enemy, the more it becomes maddening; Renoir knew this to be true, and he hoped that we would not come to this. "The Grand Illusion" shows there is still beauty in the world, and people, and you could see them as that even if they were your enemy, that's something I hope does not get lost in the face of war.

Rules of the Game

I don't know how many times now I've seen "Rules of the Game". I turn it on sometimes when I'm at a loss as to what to watch. One time I had it on and I don't think I spent very much time actually watching it, although my eyes perked up when a favorite moment or character turned up. "Rules of the Game" is just that kind of film which sneaks up at you, where you eventually discover its greatness.

I don't know much about the history of Jean Renoir's masterpiece, other than it premiered on the eve of the second world war with a scathing reception. The film was a box office flop in France and Renoir wouldn't make another film for a number of years.

When I first saw the film, I could imagine that reaction, I must admit I wasn't all that bowled over by it. The film seemed rather frivolous, it dealt with rich upper class people and their love lives, something I guess I didn't care much for. I watched the film expecting an equal to "Citizen Kane", but I left unimpressed. Of course I was young, inexperienced, what did I know? Enough time has passed, my sensibilities have changed since then, and I now feel a profound connection to this film.

"Rules of the Game" is a film that surprises you, it feels free yet was immaculately structured by Renoir who was one of the film geniuses of our time. The plot and the characters sometimes seem to get away from the viewer, but that's only because Renoir gives us so much to look at, it's a living mosaic of character, space, and movement.

The film deals with class, it's about not being able to express the emotions that are most precious to us. There are no main characters in the film, it's full of many stories of people who can express themselves openly to a fault, and those who fight against it to conform with their bourgeoisie lifestye.

We follow the case of unrequited love between a young aviator Andre Jurieu (Roland Toutain) who opens the film with returning from a solo flight across the Atlantic. Andre is welcomed back as a hero, but we find out the only reason he did it was to impress his lover Christine (Nora Gregor), a woman of class who does not seem to care much for Andre's affections at the beginning. Christine is married to Robert (Marcel Dalio), a man who is carrying on his own affair, but after hearing Andre's confession of love to his wife, he decides to stay loyal to Christine.

After this set up, the majority of the plot takes place on Robert's country estate as he invites guests on a hunting weekend. Andre is invited thanks to the persistence of a mutual friend Octave (Renoir). The games man of the estate is introduced as the husband of Christine's maid servant Lisette; the gamesmen catches a poacher named Marceau and Robert hires him on as part of the house staff; it isn't soon until Marceau goes after Lisette, causing the games man to get violently jealous. While all this is going on, the drama between Christine, Robert, and Andre is being played out, but Renoir counters their refined manner to the almost slapstick behavior of the servants.

"Rules of the Game" perhaps does the biggest balancing act of tone than any other film, it goes from drama, to comedy, to satire, to tragedy, but it's all held together so effortlessly.

The film came out two years before "Citizen Kane", which is a film that is notable for Orson Welles' use of depth of field, however Renoir beat Welles to the punch. Renoir's effect in this film is being able to show the various characters filling the space in a way that has not been achieved before. Several scenes are shown in wide shot to display a labyrinth of situations being played before your eyes. Renoir has full control of the scene, but by using this technique, your eye may wonder from one point of the screen to another. It's all so precise, it gives the viewer so much to look at, the foreground, middleground, and background all work to become three dimensional.

Renoir's camera feels as if it is gliding through the space seamlessly as if capturing a moment of these characters lives, almost as a juxtaposition to the style of Ozu who usually keeps his camera motionless, but the effect is still the same.

"Rules of the Game" isn't just great because of its technique, Renoir was trying to capture a certain time and feeling in France at the time, he wanted to explore the bourgeois sensibility. Although the film was unfairly maligned at its premier with accusations aimed toward Renoir for making a film that makes fun of the upper class, I found the film to be the opposite. The thing I missed the first time viewing this film was Renoir's humanity towards his characters, I don't think he judges them, but perhaps he judges their society. Renoir handles his characters with loving affection, no one is evil or sinister, yet they must keep their emotions in tact, they must refrain from their true feelings, that is the morality they live it, that is the rules of the game.

Watching the film again, I was amazed at some of the new surprises I saw, there is so much to see, it's impossible to get the entire story, and the seamless organization of every shot in one sitting. Renoir respected his audiences by not showing everything as it was the first time, he didn't spell anything out, we are meant to make up our own mind, there are only a small amount of filmmakers today who have that kind of trust. Renoir was one of the great humanists of cinema, he and his films are much loved today, and will continue to be as long as celluloid can continue to be seen.

401st POST: THE MARX BROTHER'S PART 2!!!!

I don't know where to begin with The Marx Brothers, which is I guess the reason I haven't really written about them. They are impossible to describe, I should just keep this short and tell you to watch their movies, all of them, particularly everything from "The Coconuts" to "A Day at the Races". Yet, I feel obligated to at least write some type of a tribute no matter that whatever I say couldn't give them the true justice they deserve, after all they have given me hours of entertainment, the least I could do is allow a few words to express how I feel about these great comedians.

This can be called a tribute, for I have no intention on critiquing the Marx Brother's work, although some of their movies are flawed, they never are, the only thing that lets down the Marx Brothers is the film itself. The worst Marx Brothers movie I have seen is "Room Service", a film that was not for them, it seemed reluctant to let The Marx Brothers BE The Marx Brothers. They were stuck to being regular comedic characters, yet if you look at that movie, you can see these guys making the best out of raw material. Groucho, Harpo, and Chico could make anything funny, just by being on screen, there's always a glimmer in their eyes, that need to entertain, that want to be funny that never went away. "Room Service" was a failure because it wasn't, by definition a Marx Brothers movie, no matter how hard the brothers themselves tried to make it one.

As far as their best movies go, I can only use the word perfection to describe them. Perfection is a word that is thrown around a lot when talking about classic films, it has almost become a cliche, yet I assure you, for The Marx Brothers, this description is purely justified.

I don't have a favorite Marx Brothers movie, it's impossible to pick one, the closest I can do is pick at least four, they are: "Animal Crackers", "Horse Feathers", "Duck Soup", and "A Night at the Opera"; these are the four funniest films ever made, yes they are that is not debatable, the only people who would debate that are people who have never seen them, they might not admit they have never seen them, but if they debate that it proves they have never seen them, because who else would debate that?

Is this the rantings of an obnoxious fan? No! I am not obnoxious, but I am a fan, and like all fans I am somewhat possessive, but let me try to defend my fanness. When I first saw "Duck Soup", which was my first Marx Brothers film, it was like I had never seen comedy before, this was my introduction to it. It was a new kind of comedy, one I'm sure has not been reproduced since. Here are four brothers (Yes this includes Zeppo, wonderfully straight Zeppo!), four brothers who seem to resemble every type of comedy. You have the silent pantomime clown Harpo, who stayed silent all his career, something even Chaplin couldn't claim. Then there is Chico, the one who never seemed to lose his vaudevillian roots, he was there to add zingers to the scene, to support his actors, and to play the piano. There was Zeppo, the hapless romantic hero, someone had to play those roles, and he did so well, after he left, the other romantic leads were just imitating what he established.

Notice me changing paragraphs now, because I have to gush about Groucho, and I'm pretty sure it will take a whole new paragraph. I am not shy to admit it, but Groucho is my favorite, he's my hero, the witty wordsmith who made anything a punchline even if it wasn't. Unless he was being conned by Chico, Groucho was the smartest man in the room, simply because he was the funniest, you couldn't get past his wit, others have tried, but they just can't fly one past him. I'm trying desperately now to say something about Groucho that already hasn't been said, something truly original, something he might have taken notice of and maybe have used it as a line, but I know I can't, I just can't think like he can. I think since Groucho, every comedian has tried to come close to being as funny and as smart as him. Woody Allen has come the closest I think, of course he was the ultimate Groucho fan, he perhaps payed the highest compliment to him and his brothers in "Hannah and her Sisters". When Woody's character is looking for answers and can't find them anywhere else, he goes to the movie theatre and there on the screen, he's watching "Duck Soup". The Marx Brother's non-sense seemed like the only thing that did make sense.

I must stop now, I'm gushing far too long, I think I have made my point. The Marx Brothers movies are now over 70 years old, but that perfection word keeps popping up, that's why they endure, that's the simple reason, their films could be terrible, each and every one of them, but they could always rise above their material, because they just couldn't help being funny, they were just that, funny. The one note of seriousness always came from Harpo when his face suddenly changed whenever he sat to play his harp, but other than that, I can't think of another group or individual comedians whose sole purpose was to put a smile on your face, they were the most entertaining bunch who ever lived, who knows if they even needed an audience, we were just the fortunate ones who got to see them do what they did best, make you laugh.

400TH POST!!!!: THE MARX BROTHERS PART ONE

It's been 400 blog posts, and can you believe it, I have not dedicated one of them to the funniest, greatest comedy team of all time. I intend to write about The Marx Brothers in the coming days, but for now, I've posted some favorite moments from a few of their films underneath. Feel free to laugh yourself silly.