Movie Review: Django Unchained

"Django Unchained" caught me by surprise, it's not that I didn't think I was going to enjoy it, after all it's made by Quentin Tarantino who's films I've all enjoyed thoroughly, some I would even call masterpieces. But "Django Unchained" represents something I didn't expect from Tarantino; a harsh critique on slavery. Since the beginning with "Reservoir Dogs", Tarantino has gone out of his way to transcend genre, using it as a means to comment either on character, relationships, or films in general. His trademarks, which we have all gotten used to include, manipulation of time such as "Pulp Fiction" where the film ends as it began, or in "Reservoir Dogs" where we cut from the aftermath of a bank heist to before it actually happened. He would also include chapters in his stories which would usually hint to what will happen next or to introduce a character such as "Kill Bill" or "Inglorious Basterds".

With "Django Unchained", none of the chapters, or time changes are visible, at least from what I observed. This is Tarantino's most direct and linear film, and probably his least complicated and most blunt.

"Django Unchained" follows what Tarantino first started with in the "Kill Bill" movies, by offering up yet another revenge tale. Django (Jaimie Foxx) is a Black slave who is freed one night by a high minded, and sophisticated bounty hunter by the name of Dr. King Schultz. Schultz needs Django to help him find the whereabouts of a murderous gang known as the Brittle Brothers. Django has met them before so he will be helpful in identifying them.

But Django also has other things in mind, we learn that he is married and his wife Brunhilda (Kerry Washington) has been sold off to a Plantation in Mississippi. Schultz takes Django under his wing as a bounty hunter, and the two become partners. After awhile, they set off to find Django's wife who has been bought by Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio) and lives on his plantation known as Candy Land, and as expected the usual Tarantino cat and mouse game and eventual carnage will take place as soon as our heroes get there.

All that I have described to you above, probably comes to no surprise to those who know Tarantino's cinephile sensibilities, yet a new depth has been added. This is a slave's revenge tale, and one that Tarantino takes to heart. This is unlike any other film I've seen that has depicted this period before. Tarantino does not shy away from the atrocities that negroes fell victim to at this time, and this causes some of his most disturbing imagery.

At one point in the film, we see a black slave torn to pieces by wild dogs, we also see a line of them in dehumanizing spiked collars and muzzles. Brumhilda herself is subject to torture in a hotbox in Candy Land where she is stripped naked and left locked up to roast in. When she is released, she gets cold water splashed in her face and then tossed in a wheelbarrow. These are disturbing images and something I wasn't expecting from Tarantino.

Now take "Inglorious Basterds", Tarantino's last film which followed the similar tale of vengeance with a group of Jews getting back at the Nazis during the second World War, and in conclusion brought about an early, and historically inaccurate end to it. That film opened to harsh criticism with some claiming it supported Holocaust denial. I didn't really feel that way, after all, what were the Jews getting revenge for if not for the Holocaust? However, after watching "Django Unchained", I would now say "Inglorious Basterds" is the inferior film, and far less daring. "Django Unchained" takes on the subject of slavery in all of its brutality, and ludicrousness, while "Inglorious Basterds", more or less dances around the Holocaust in favor of its cinematic fueled Adventure story.

Now I still like "Inglorious Basterds", but I can't help but re-evaluate it after viewing "Django Unchained", which I see is a more mature work from Tarantino. But perhaps this is a subject with a more personal stake on the man who has given us characters such as Jules Winnfield and Jackie Brown. Tarantino has long been influenced by blaxploitation and black culture. He even once said if he were ever to direct a biopic, it would be on John Brown, who used violent methods to help abolish slavery. I don't know much about Tarantino's upbringing, but I don't think it would be a stretch to say this topic is near and dear to his heart.

But "Django Unchained" is also a superior film structurally as well, and perhaps it is the direct approach that helps with it. It never seems to slow down, and the dialogue plays like music coming out of the actor's mouths, none so much than with Christoph Waltz, who is playing the other side of the coin from his Hanz Landa character in "Inglorious Basterds", and Samuel L. Jackson who is given the juicy role of a nosy house man. Tarantino seems to gravitate towards Waltz and Jackson who are proper subjects for his kind of dialogue.

There are two bloody sequences in Candy Land which dominate the final act and probably top the climax of "Kill Bill Vol.1" as Tarantino's bloodiest set pieces. What's amazing about all of his movies is how he can find new ways to extract blood from all of his victims. In this film, I see Tarantino owing a lot to Sam Peckinpah, and there is even a scene early on where a man is shot off a horse, that for some reason reminded me of Spielberg's "War Horse" just last year, but I digress, it's a whole new game just to identify all the homages the film riffs on.

"Django Unchained" represents the second time this year I've seen a film of such violence elevate itself from the ugliness of its world to become something rather beautiful, the other was "Seven Psychopaths" which is a film that probably wouldn't exist without Tarantino. But "Django Unchained" in my mind represents a great director at his most passionate and angry, it's at the same time an entertaining genre piece and a primal scream at an ugly time in history.

A Christmas Carol

For me it's hard not to think of Christmas without thinking of Charles Dickens. Has there been a more beloved writer? If you haven't read a word of Dickens, you no doubt know his most popular stories. "Great Expectations", "Oliver Twist", "A Tale of Two Cities", and "David Copperfield" have all made there way into our popular culture, and are national treasures in England, where Dickens is probably only second to Shakespeare in that country's pantheon of great writers.

Dickens and the movies have enjoyed a long relationship together, his books have been adapted over and over again, and they probably will continue to do so, because people just can't get enough of them. But I would also say, Dickens wrote in a very cinematic way, so much so, he would've had a great career as a screenwriter had he lived during the advent of film.

Dickens was probably most descriptive when it came to vivid characters, and locations, and they were purposely episodic since his novels were published as serials, this made them perfect fodder of film.

But let's face it, there is one story that eclipses all of his books in popularity and pure pop sentimentalism. When "A Christmas Carol" was first published, it was mostly responsible for making Christmas popular again, it in fact saved the traditions we still today hold very near and dear.

"A Christmas Carol" has been adapted for the screen for what seems like a million times, but the real McCoy remains the 1951 version starring Alistair Sim. Watching the film, I can't say it's much of a complex or even visually compelling film. A lot of it is static, and reminds me more an old BBC teleplay rather than anything that's cinematic, yet, I am sucked into the story each time I watch it, I would even say it's one of the most unabashedly moving films I have ever seen, and most of that has to do with Sim's performance as Ebeneezer Scrooge.

Let's focus on this performance shall we? "A Christmas Carol" is the kind of story that lives or dies based on who's playing the main character. Scrooge is the type of character that I can see many aged actors wanting to play, his arc from penny pinching miser, to a reformed merchant remains one of the greatest transformations in literature.

Yet Scrooge is a much more complicated character than most people give him credit for. It's easy to indulge of the caricature quality of Dickens' descriptions of Scrooge, but that would risk losing any relation to the story. What Sim does so brilliantly is make Scrooge into a real human being, we see his fall from grace, and in fact the film adds a few episodes of his past which aren't in the book that add a few more shades of grey to Scrooge.

Sim's depiction adds a certain melancholy to Scrooge, he makes us empathize with this man who has become hardened by the coldness of life, and we can see him slowly open up as he interacts with the three ghosts which show him his past, present, and future. But one thing that's so refreshing comes from Sim's humor in the character. The fact that Scrooge remains so sourly, and grim springs out some funny occasions. Take his reaction when we finds out from Jacob Marley he's going to be visited by three spirits. "In that case nevermind" he says, as if he couldn't be bothered with the saving of his soul.

But along with this, Sim is able to find the Pathos, and sadness of the character, and he makes the most of the uplifting finale. One of my personal favorite moments of the film comes near the end when Scrooge goes to visit his estranged nephew and meets his young wife for the first time. His face is one of humbleness, but of a man who finally understands how his happiness has eluded him all these years.

The rest of the film is full of the kind of performances that can only be described as classic british film acting, but Sim seems to have transcended all of this, and makes his character perfectly natural and very modern. Even modern actors haven't been able to touch the magic that Sim was able to conjure in this film.

Alistair Sim was actually a very well known character actor in Britain, very often playing in comedies, he even stole the show from Marlene Deitrich, in Alfred Hitchcock's "Stage Fright", but I suppose he will always be remembered as Scrooge, it's really he who has made this "A Christmas Carol" into a classic film, and one that remains cherished to this day.

Incidentally this is in fact the only British film version of "A Christmas Carol" I have seen, the others I've seen were produced in Hollywood and remain much more artificial and losing the darkness of the story. Perhaps it took the British to truly adapt Dickens and who understood the darkness of his stories. Dickens was one of those writers who understood that darkness always had to come before the light.

Merry Christmas from Jeremy and The Movies

Worst Movies of 2012

Hey guys, I have just gone through the longest hibernation in this blog's history, what have I been doing? Well let's just say I've been busy with various different creative projects, along with various different real life things. But I'm here to say that Jeremy and the Movies has not retired despite what you may hear from these brash, new, young movie blogs. No, we keep on truckin, and will for hopefully more years to come.

Lot's to talk about, lot's of films in the air of course, as usual, I've been trying to catch up with all of the must-see event movies, and some of the smaller more indie movies that have come out this year in order to come out with my top ten list which should be ready by Oscar season. I'll also have my favorite performances, my Special Jury Prize, and 2012's MVP!

But this long process always begins with the bottom of the barrel. This of course comes from the worst movie of the year.

Now, seeing how I do try to avoid films that I don't see myself liking all that much, not many movies appear on this to make for an appropriate list. However, there are some films that fall through the cracks, and never fail to disappoint.

Two movies come to mind that totally made wish I didn't spend my time and money to watch, but unfortunately I did, and the only thing I can do in return is to prevent this from happening to anyone of you faithful movie watchers.

The first film "Rock of Ages" hides its crumminess from it's all out cheese factor, and 80s nostalgia. For some reason, movies like these get a free pass because they dupe the audience into thinking that just because they are self-aware of the high camp of their movie means it's all for fun. No, no, no, this cannot be. Yes, movies can be cheesy and fun, but those movies at least have some creativity to drive the cheese. "Rock of Ages" is about as bland as any of the overused hair band rock anthems this movie uses. Even usual fun actors like Alec Baldwin and Russel Brand can't lift this wreck into any sort of level. You can call me a Grinch, a Scrooge, or just a fan of alternative music, but "Rock of Ages" offers nothing that you haven't seen before, and nothing would make a worse double feature than this film with High School Musical 3.

The second film that fits into this worse movies category, is here just for the very reason that it inhabits almost everything I hate about certain movies.

I came into "Dredd" on a whim. I have a weakness for comic book movie, for me they are usually a nice escape, but this wasn't at all.

"Dredd" is actually a small scale comic book movie, it has a very simple plot, and for most movies, I'd consider that a godsend, as the biggest problem with most films are the overly complicated, and convoluted plots. "Dredd's" plot is fairly straight forward. The fault with the film is its execution. The film deals in a post- apocalyptic future where these the cities are ruled by judges who are judge, jury, and executioner all in one. Dredd is the most bad ass of these judges, and together with his rookie sidekick must take down a ruthless, violent gang ruler named Mama.

What I hated about this film, and what I hate about most of these types of films isn't the ultra-violence it revels in, but in the complete bleak, and nihilistic video game approach to its material. Dredd is mostly a faceless emotionless hero, he has a mean scowl worthy of Clint Eastwood, but a personality equal to a turnip. Bodies are blown apart, blood is splattered in all directions, and in the end you are left feeling pretty miserable and uninspired. I felt dirty after "Dredd", and maybe it's my weakness that I can't accept this sort of nihilistic point of view, but all I know is this movie made me feel sick inside, and that's something good movies don't do.

Well that's it, I'm sure there are other really bad films that were made this year, but I'm glad I didn't have to see them. Do yourself a favor and avoid bad movies at all costs, remember if it looks bad, it probably is.

Movie Review: The Master

I'm still digesting "The Master", some films can still do that these days, those are the good ones, or at least the ones worth seeing. So yes, there you have it, let's get it out of the way so there is no misunderstanding, you should see "The Master", run to your local multiplex or arthouse (if you have one) and see it, why? Because it's worth the discussion, the dissection, the interpretation, and the criticism all things that I love about these types of movies.

It's a film that has already gotten love and criticism from various critics not unlike "Tree of Life" did last year. Although I'm not comparing it to that film, I'm just saying it brings out the same kind of passionate Love it/Hate it vibe..

But then I suppose there's the camp that appreciates it at a distance but can't openly say they love it. For me I don't think "The Master" holds a special place in my heart, I will probably at some point see it again, because I would say there is so much to take in and admire, but I don't see it as the sort of film I will come to love like I do with all my favorite films. I will see it again for the fact I am fascinated by its director Paul Thomas Anderson who has not made an uninteresting film and has flirted with greatness throughout his whole career. Anderson is a director of unique ideas, and bold choices, some seem to be right on, some seem to be a dead end, but he still takes risks, which is what I like about him. I for one found a certain catharsis in the ending of "Magnolia" with the raining frogs, it's one of those moments I can't really explain in words why it was the right choice, call it cinematic poetry in its highest form.

However I did have reservations about Anderson's last film "There Will Be Blood" which is commonly seen as his masterpiece. I found the film to be highly ambitious in theme, structure, and tone, but also something, I would argue that never reached its ultimate point, and the idea of who Daniel Plainview was supposed to be or represent alluded me.

"The Master" comes as Anderson' follow-up film, and it shares much in common with its predecessor, but I for the record found it more satisfactory. I can't really pinpoint why, but I find that with this film Anderson really hit a certain transcendence that he didn't with the more nihilistic feel of "There Will Be Blood".

I was more engaged with the story of "The Master" which centers on Freddie Quell (Joaquin Phoenix), a World War 11 veteran who, when we meet him is suffering from some sort of mental shell shock perhaps left over by the war, or perhaps something he's had his whole life.

I would describe Freddie as a restless drifter, he is given a psychiatric test by an army doctor at the beginning the film, diagnosed with a disorder, and is put back into every day society without much fuss or being cured. We see Freddie later working at a department store in 1950 as a family photographer, he's still edgy, mixing drinks with paint thinner, and one day he attacks a customer for no apparent reason; this of course is not normal.

Freddie leaves and ends up working on a farm where he accidentally poisons a worker there with his alcohol mixture. He's able to run away and he finds himself on a boat owned by Lancaster Dodd (Phillip Seymour Hoffman), a strange man who introduces himself as a writer, doctor, a nuclear physicist...but above all a man. Dodd decides to take Freddie in, he feels a kinship with him, a connection that isn't really fully examined.

If you've read anything on "The Master" you would know of the Scientology angle "The Master" represents, in the film it's replaced as "The Cause" with Dodd its leader. Freddie takes up with Dodd and soon becomes his right hand man; and this is the basis for a rather unorthodox and unique relationship between the two men, which is indeed the heart of the film.

I suppose a film for me needs something to cling to, something to invest in, and something that is worth investing, and it's this relationship between Dodd and Freddie that does it. For whatever reason, they are two men who need eachother, almost as if to co-exist, it's deeper and more twisted than a father/son relationship, or even that of lovers. Freddie in fact becomes more of Dodd's pet than anything, in fact there are many instances he's given commands as if he were a dog, with Dodd often describing him as an animal. At the beginning this seems something that Freddie needs or is craving, Dodd represents answers and a meaning. In the film's best scene and one of Anderson's greatest in his entire career, Freddie is taken through processing by Dodd, where he is asked a series of questions. It's here where Freddie finally breaks and you can sense that Dodd has been the only one ever to get through to him in such a way.

But Freddie becomes more and more disillusioned as Dodd is made out to be a fraud and a fake to most people, and his ideal master is seen more as a man. This to me is the key to the film's final heartbreaking moments as Freddie comes to realize this. I felt sympathy for Freddie, he is the film's damaged character, mentally unstable, maybe insane, but Anderson, with the help of Phoenix make him completely believable and a human being.

As Dodd, Hoffman is less mannered than Phoenix, he sounds more down to Earth even though what he is saying most of the time seems out of this world, but he's able to tap in this man's humanity, and our sympathy leans towards him even.

I guess that's Anderson's main feat is going about this story as an outsider, looking into this world and these characters with a keen eye for detail and being able to hold back without being giving judgement. This might be viewed as a cold approach on Anderson's part especially contrasting this with his earlier ensemble pieces of "Boogie Nights" and "Magnolia" where the characters behaved like an extended family. But I feel Anderson's more objective view is a growing maturity and confidence, something I will give him credit for. He's asking us to look closer, and to make up our own minds, telling us it's not that easy to get in but can be far more rewarding.

The ending of the film might appear abrupt, but I didn't think it was anything compared to the bowling alley in "There Will be Blood" which left me bewildered and scratching my head. This ending is more subdued and in its own way rather perfect. There are sure to be arguments coming from people about certain questions not being answered, or things not being as well developed as they should've been. I think Anderson answers all the questions he wanted to, there isn't much hidden meaning, but the joy is getting something out that might be different for everyone, that's the magic of ambiguity, it gives the viewer much more power.

Come to think of it, this could be a film about not finding the answers we are searching for. One of the things about Freddie is how restless he is and how things are left unfinished with him, perhaps we are left to suffer with him, so is life sometimes.

"The Master" is full of great scenes and wonderful performances by Phoenix and Hoffman both of whom are no doubt reserving their tuxedos for Oscar night. This may not be your answer for great cinema, but it's worth searching for and seeking out, perhaps in time we will have our answer for its greatness.

Sergio Leone and The Infield Fly Rule Movie Quiz

1) What is the biggest issue for you in the digital vs. film debate? Not that I mind either, it's that film is being depleted as an artistic option for filmmakers.

2) Without more than one minute’s consideration, name three great faces from the movies Buster Keaton, Greta Garbo, Humphrey Bogart

3) The movie you think could be interesting if remade as a movie musical Goodfellas

4) The last movie you saw theatrically/on DVD, Blu-ray, streaming Theatrically: The Master; DVD: Monkey Business (1931 version)

5) Favorite movie about work The Shop Around the Corner

6) The movie you loved as a child that did not hold up when seen through adult eyes Hook

7) Favorite “road” movie Two-Lane Blacktop

8) Does Clint Eastwood’s appearance at the Republican National Convention change or confirm your perspective on him as a filmmaker/movie icon? Is that appearance relevant to his legacy as a filmmaker? I have not seen Clint Eastwood's appearance, but it does not change my perspective of him, I have always respected his career and the way he does things, and continue to get a lot out of his movies. As far as I'm concerned it's not relevant.

9) Longest-lasting movie or movie-related obsession My obsession of It's a Wonderful Life has lived in me since I first saw it as a kid, there's something about it that still shakes me.

10) Favorite artifact of movie exploitation The Drive-In

11) Have you ever fallen asleep in a movie theater? If so, when and why? Not, I don't think I could ever.

12) Favorite performance by an athlete in a movie Maybe Babe Ruth in Pride of the Yankees

13) Second favorite Rainer Werner Fassbinder movie I regret to say I have yet to see one of his movies.

14) Favorite film of 1931 City Lights

15) Second favorite Raoul Walsh movie The Roaring Twenties, my first would be High Sierra.

16) Favorite film of 1951 The River

17) Second favorite Wong Kar-wai movie Haven't seen his films sadly

18) Favorite film of 1971 Two Lane Black-Top

19) Second favorite Henri-Georges Clouzot movieHAven't seen his movies

20) Favorite film of 1991 The Double Life of Veronique but Barton Fink would be a close second

21) Second favorite John Sturges movie Bad Day at Black Rock

22) Favorite celebrity biopic "Yankee Doodle Dandy"

23) Name a good script idea which was let down either by the director or circumstances of production The Return of Doctor X, I thought it had potential, it's like my favorite bad movie of all time. I like the idea of a reporter and a doctor investigating a mystery.

24) Heaven’s Gate-- yes or no? I'm waiting for the criterion release of it, but I'll see it.

25) Favorite pairing of movie sex symbols Jane Russel and Marilyn Monroe in "Gentlemen Prefer Blondes"

26) One word that you could say which would instantly evoke images and memories of your favorite movie. (Naming the movie is optional—might be more fun to see if we can guess what it is from the word itself) Minimal

27) Name one moment which to you demarcates a significant change, for better or worse, on the landscape of the movies over the last 20 years. I would say the digital technology has made films look more like they are coming from a computer than anything else, I'm not saying that as a bad thing, but you can see a difference in a film's aesthetic because of it.

28) Favorite pre-Code talkie Trouble in Paradise

29) Oldest film in your personal collection (Thanks, Peter Nellhaus) I have a collection of Chaplin shorts from his early days, but as far as features go it would be "Birth of the Nation"

30) Longest film in your personal collection. (Thanks, Brian Darr) "The Decalogue" but if you don't consider that a true film than "Carlos"

31) Have your movie collection habits changed in the past 10 years? If so, how? Yes, I would say more than ever I followed a certain pattern of seeking out films, now, I go from seeking out to picking at random any film that I may stumble upon, I try to keep within the boundaries of a budget but that may go out the window if I stumble upon a film I've been searching for a very long time. I still haunt movie stores just to see in case a find a hidden treasure.

32) Wackiest, most unlikely “directed by” credit you can namee "Annie" directed by John Huston

33) Best documentary you’ve seen in 2012 (made in 2012 or any other year) I actually don't think I've seen any so far this year.

34) What’s your favorite “(this star) was almost cast in (this movie)” anecdote? I think I heard Cary Grant being the lead male in "Ninochka" I find that interesting just to think what it would be like to see him in a film with Greta Garbo. Also all the roles Harrison Ford was offered but turned down, mostly for "Syrianna"

35) Program three nights of double bills at a revival theater that might best illuminate your love of the movies Night One: the theme of the joy of laughter "Ninochka" and "Sullivan's Travels", Night Two: two sides of the coin, the disappointment and joys of life "Toyko Story" and "It Happened One Night", Night Three: Movies as an escape "Swing Time", and "Rear Window"

36) You have been granted permission to invite any three people, alive or dead, to your house to watch the Oscars. Who are they? My three best friends

37) Favorite Mr. Chips. (Careful...) Peter O'Toole even though I haven't seen his Mr. Chips, he is still one of my favorite actors, so thereby wins.

Annie Hall

I love "Annie Hall", or maybe I just love Diane Keaton, or maybe it's just Woody Allen, or his dialogue, it's really the whole package. It's hard to believe what a little movie "Annie Hall" really is, even by Woody Allen's standards, yet it was a sleeper hit in 1977 beating out "Star Wars" for the Best Picture Oscar back then, also picking up statues for Keaton's performance plus Screenplay, and Director for Allen. It marked brave new territory for Allen, who before then made mostly comedies with great wit and visual gags, but this was the first film that hinted at a more personal and reflective work.

The film actually started off with a more ambitious outline, but Allen cut it down from an original print that ran 140 minutes to the one we have today at a little more than 90. The film we have today remains a bare bones relationship comedy about an on and off romance between Allen's stand-up comic Alvy Singer, and Keaton's title character.

The film begins with Allen addressing the camera in monologue, this is probably the image people associate with Allen the most, and it's really a bold move by the filmmaker, something that has been repeated mostly unsuccessfully by others. We find out at the beginning that Alvy and Annie have broken up, and the film moves in flashbacks going back to Alvy's childhood, to the moment the two first meet and fall in love, and to their eventual break up.

We see Alvy and Annie meet, talk, fall in love, fight, break up, get back together, then break up again. It's all done very economically, with Allen's usual visual aesthetic of people walking and talking. He rarely does cutaways, and it's really the actors in the frame that keep the film alive.

But unlike his later ensemble films which juggled multiple characters like "Manhattan", "Hannah and her Sisters" or "Crimes and Misdemeanors", "Annie Hall" doesn't stray from its main story, it has a more intimate feel then his later films, and because of this we start to care about Alvy and Annie probably more than any one of Allen's other characters. We want to see them make it, because we get the sense they are meant to be together, but it's Alvy's own anxiety and indecisiveness about love, and life that becomes the relationship's undoing. It's only when it's too late does he realize that Annie was the girl for him.

There are other women in Alvy's life that we meet, including a political advocate, (Carol Kane) who he dates before Annie, and a religious follower of the Dalai Llama (Shelley Duvall) who he sleeps with while he and Annie are broken up. But none of these come close to having the same kind of dynamic he has with Annie, we feel that she gets him,and they can match barbs better together than with anyone else.

It's probably no surprise that at the making of this film Allen and Keaton were in a relationship, and Keaton's nickname was in fact Annie. Allen also instructed Keaton to wear the same kinds of clothes she wears in real life for the film. It's also been hinted that Allen added many Keatonisms in Annie's speech such as the famous "la,di,da" scene when Annie and Alvy first meet.

Wherever the lines between fact and fiction get blurred, Keaton gives a purely naturalistic performance, so much so it's hard not to fall in love with her. This is one of my absolute favorite performances by any actress because it feels so real, look for example at Keaton's monologue about an Uncle of hers who is a narcaleptic, who one day doesn't wake up and is dead; her reaction is funny because it's an honest moment. There's also the scene where Annie and Alvy are cooking live lobster, something that had to have been improvised by both actors, especially since dealing with live lobster crawling around the floor, one must.

"Annie Hall" was also made at the time Allen liked to experiment with structure on his film. The movie weaves in and out of various comedic moments that, if you think about it might interrupt the flow of the film, yet it imbeds itself with the tone quite well. I'm speaking of such moments as the exaggerated childhood flashbacks where Alvy swears his family lived underneath a rollercoaster, and his hilarious take on his former school mates and where they ended up. My favorite has always been the kid who says "I used to be a heroin addict, now I'm a methadone addict."

At one point Allen even cuts to an animated sequence where Annie is portrayed as the Evil Queen from Disney's "Snow White". Yet Allen makes all this randomness work, they are portrayed more or less as sketch ideas, but fill in the tapestry of the story he's telling.

But what really counts and what I think makes this Allen's most beloved film is the relationship between Alvy and Annie, it's a human comedy about two very intelligent and neurotic people. They are unsure about what makes them happy, they are too concerned about life and how to live it, and analyzing it, they don't seem to settle down with each other. You could call this an anti-romantic comedy since it ends with the two not being together, but it's really Allen's tale about love, and even if it doesn't last, it makes life worth living.

Throughout the film Alvy uses jokes as an analogy on how he sees his life, he ends the film with a joke that basically explains why people like him enter into relationships, and it's really a bittersweet and beautiful sentiment the way it's delivered, and it's usually what I think of when I am reminded of this film.

The other thing I am reminded of is the image of Keaton in the two instances Allen films her singing in a nightclub. The first time, she is overshadowed by the noises of audience members and the ambiance of the nightclub, the second time, Allen gives her the moment to sing a song, but it's as if she is alone, we don't hear anything else but quite murmurs. I'm pretty sure she sings the whole song, and Allen doesn't cut away, he is showing us Keaton in this moment, and she is able to reveal herself to us. It's not just a moment where we get to see the real Keaton, but also the way you feel Allen saw her as well. Allen films Keaton singing again in his later film "Radio Days", where she had a cameo, and you feel in that film that the admiration for this women has not gone away. How he must've really loved her at one time, I'm sure they remained friends, but we know from this film that what they had was very special.

Monty Python and the Holy Grail

The Black Knight, The Killer Bunny, The Knights who say Nee, Shrubberies, llamas, swallows, "Run away!", "Bring out your dead", the holy hand grenade. If you haven't heard of any of these references than chances are you have never seen "Monty Python and the Holy Grail", perhaps you haven't even bothered to see it, after all it's very silly.

For the non converted, Monty Python was a comedy troupe started in the 1960s by five Brits (John Cleese, Graham Chapman, Eric Idle, Terry Jones, and Michael Palin), and one American who did animation for them (Terry Gilliam). They had what is arguably the most influential and groundbreaking sketch comedy show "Monty Python's Flying Circus", which lasted for seasons, where they created inspirational silliness such as "The Dead Parrot sketch", "The Spanish Inquisition", and "Spam". Their show never played it safe, it would change format all the time, in one infamous episode they played their closing credits right in the middle of the program.

Their show would grow more and more until it found itself too big for the small screen, and no doubt the Pythons craved a larger canvas to let loose their madness on. "The Holy Grail" was the first of three very funny films the troupe made together, and it is probably by far the silliest and the one that refers the most to the original television program.

In the film, the Pythons retell the Arthur Legend and the quest for the holy grail, it more or less sticks to the original story about King Arthur, and his knights of the round table, with each Python playing a knight or their trusted steeds (the horses in the film are men galloping with coconuts to make the sound effect). Chapman himself plays Arthur, but every troupe member shows up in multiple character roles.

I could go on about the plot, but that's really the boring part about this film, the plot is more or less a backdrop, an idea that can be parodied by the Python's best ability and they do it in spades.

The beginning of the film starts out almost like a series of sketches, as we see Arthur riding through the country side, the most famous bits coming from Eric Idle, playing a dead collector at a local village, he shouts out "Bring out your dead!". When one citizen isn't "quite dead yet", Idle speeds things up by knocking him upside the head with a mallet. It's all darkly grotesque, but is so ridiculous, you can never take it seriously.

Not soon after that, Arthur encounters the black knight, who loses every limb in a sword fight, but is still convinced "it's only a flesh wound". As a side note on this particular scene, when I first saw it as a kid of ummm I'll say about ten, I don't remember laughing harder at a single scene before in my life, and even though I can anticipate what's to come, I still laugh out loud.

The film really is a series of scenes like the ones described above that work as a sketch, with the idea of the grail being the through line which will give everything a conclusion. The film ends abruptly with the plot being interrupted by policeman coming to arrest them all for the murder of a local historian who was helping narrate the stor. It was said the filmmakers got the idea of breaking the fourth wall like this after Mel Brooks used the same technique at his conclusion of his western parody "Blazing Saddles". But this is just the way to end a film like this, if they were going to actually obtain the grail in a more conventional way then that would be a let down.

Some might argue that "The Holy Grail" doesn't hold up as well as a film compared to the group's later efforts, and a case can be made for their follow-up "The Life of Brian" to be their masterpiece. But I like "The Holy Grail" just a little bit more for the simple reason that it is all very silly, it doesn't seem to concern itself with anything but making us laugh at very ridiculous things. Perhaps some might say it's a scathing indictment on autonomy or religion, or the monarchy, but that metaphor is all but lost in the debris left over from the holy hand grenade.

What the film does do, and does well is one of the reasons I love comedies like these, it breaks the rules and makes something that is usually stuffy and self-important like a costume epic, and brings it down a peg. Most costume epics, at least the bad ones are designed to show off expensive sets and scenery, and actors saying some important but not so interesting things, in fact to quote from another python sketch, it's all very dull, dull, dull, dull. Monty Python takes some of the starch out of films like these, first by showing off their not-so expensive budget, and talking about not-so important things such as if coconuts migrate.

That's the beauty of comedy, it's the eternal equalizer, drama is there to show that the middle ages had kings, and knights and great battles, and comedy is there to show that it also had a lot of shit in the streets too.

The Man from Laramie

In the 1950s, director Anthony Mann and star Jimmy Stewart made eight successful films together, five of which were westerns, and they stand as some of the finest ones ever made. I could pick any one of those fives to talk about and make an argument as to why they are great, but almost at random I decided to choose their final film the made together, "The Man from Laramie", partly because I see it as their most ambitious (it was filmed in glorious Vista Vision), their most violent, and probably their most psychological.

"The Man from Laramie" casts Stewart as Will Lockhart, a former Army Captain who's come from Laramie a personal vendetta. Lockhart's brother was killed by a group of Apache Indians who had repeating rifles, and he wants to find the man responsible for selling them.

This brings Lockhart to a town that is mostly owned by a cattle baron named Alec Waggoman (Donald Crisp). Alec has his ranch run by his psychotic son Dave (Alex Nicol) and the more level headed Vic (Arthur Kennedy) who was hired on by Alec to more or less look after his son. When Dave mistakes Lockhart for stealing his father's salt, he goes crazy and lassos Lockhart pulling him across a burning fire, while burning his wagons and killing off his mules in the process. When Alec learns about his, he pays off Lockhart, he seems to want to get him out of town as soon as possible. It is later revealed that Alec believes Lockhart is a messenger of death he has dreamed about for years, will inevitably kill his son. We learn Alec is also going blind and knows that he must leave his ranch for Dave to run, something he has mixed feelings about. He feels more certain that Vic is the right man to take over the ranch, he is the adopted son, someone who has always wanted Alec's approval and love, but always comes second in favor of Dave who is his flesh and blood, even though he's obviously crazy.

Things come to a boil on a fateful day when Lockhart is hired by Kate Canady (Aline MacMahon) a rival ranch owner and Alex's former love interst. Kate has Lockhart separate her cattle from Alec's, which Dave sees, which he turns into a gunfight between the two men. Dave is wounded in the hand, but he quickly exacts vengeance on Lockhart as his men hold him down, as he shoots him point blank in the hand. Once this happens, soon all the pieces come together, and it isn't long till everything is revealed and in a way resolved.

Even though Lockhart is the central character, and the man with the mysterious past as the name in the title points out, most of the drama centers on the family dynamic of Alec, Dave, and Vic. Mann focuses on their story, where as Lockhart's own familial vengeance is put on the back burner until the end. Lockhart is more the observer, the witness to everything, he's almost playing detective here to see what everyone's motives are.

I find Anthony Mann to be at his best when he is dealing with high stakes in drama, which usually have a violent outcome. The shooting of Lockhart's hand is so memorable, because it's the culmination of Dave's psychotic behavior, we knew he was crazy, but we didn't know it would turn so sadistic. Even Dave's men feel shame when they see him do this, and they even help Lockhart with his gun and his horse when it is all over.

But you can see Mann revel in the Lear-like drama of Alec and his two sons. The themes of family, love, hate, and jealousy that are at the heart of what he is trying to explore.

The film is also wonderfully shot on location in New Mexico, capturing the desolate landscape, which is the perfect place for this story of family deterioration to take place. Mann shows off great compositions giving long takes with actors sometimes off in the foreground, but also showing great shots of close-ups, particularly Jimmy Stewart who does some of his finest acting in this film.

The casting of Stewart was the other masterstroke, as it was for the other westerns he did for Mann. It might be difficult to buy Stewart as a western hero at first, but that's because he is so unorthodox. He stands tall, yet gangly, he's often soft spoken, but there is a spark of madness in his eyes. Unlike the John Wayne western hero, Stewart looks like someone who could lose in a fight, and it's often that he does in a Mann film, or he struggles to gain the upper hand.

Stewart's characters in these films are usually seen as loners, either on a quest for vengeance, or escaping a shady past. These are usually typical characters found in film noirs, which is not an accident, considering Mann began his career making some of the most memorable film noirs ever.

Stewart brings a sense of pain and anguish to these characters, however the role he plays in"The Man from Laramie" is more melancholy, he's somewhat quiet and reflective. He's probably the most decent character in all the westerns he made with Mann, yet ironically, he's probably punished the most. He's still dealing with the death of his brother, and we can see the conflict in him as he is trying to find the man responsible, and when he inevitably does, his reaction becomes somewhat much more surprising after all the pain he's had to bare throughout the film.

To me Stewart was always the more real western hero, when he is shot in the hand by Dave, he doesn't hide the true pain and hurt he is feeling, his voice cracks, and he screams in agony, not many movie stars would let you hear them scream. Stewart's always been a fascinating actor, who is mostly known to mainstream audiences as the modern everyman hero, yet his range and choice of characters have always been more interesting than that. Anthony Mann was the right director to tap into his darker side, and they made some of the greatest western because of it.

Though "The Man from Laramie" is a great film on its own, I'd recommend visiting all of the Anthony Mann/James Stewart westerns: "Winchester 73", "Bend of the River", "The Naked Spur", and "The Far Country" being the others, they all deal with dark, and violent themes, and are unique among the western genre.

Strange Impersonation

"Strange Impersonation" is one of the strangest film noirs I have ever seen. I remember when I first watched it, being sucked into its nightmarish soap opera plot. It's got b-movie written all over that, but like the best of film noirs, it transcends its genre trappings, to give us something with substance, what we have is a film about a woman who faces her psychological fears head on.

"Strange Impersonation" is the story of a career scientist Nora Goodrich (Brenda Marshall). She is on the cusp of creating a new state of the art anaesthetic, something that has consumed her life for quite some time. Nora's work has made her put off her engagement with her fiancee Stephen, (William Gargan) for quite some time. Stephen is madly in love with Nora and will wait for her, but there is a lingering doubt about how long Stephen is willing to wait. Nora's assistant Arline (Hillary Brooke) thinks she's being foolish about not marrying Stephen right away, after all he's successful and can support her.

Things begin to get strange when Nora has a run in with a woman named Jane Karanski, who she almost hits with her car. She isn't harmed, but an ambulance chaser by the name of Rinse sees it and gives Jane his car in case she's interested in a settlement. Nora, returns Jane home safe, and goes home to work on her experiment, but something goes wrong. While Nora sedates herself to test the anaesthetic, an explosion sets off which leaves her scarred.

We find the culprit of the explosion was Arline who wanted to be with Stephen all along, Nora doesn't know this right away, she is recovering from her scars at the hospital. When she is released she meets up again with Jane Karanski who now does want a settlement from her. She pulls a gun, and in a struggle with Nora falls from a balcony, and dies, but is mistaken for Nora. Hopeless to win Stephen back because of her scars, Nora takes the identity of the dead woman and leaves, but that is just the beginning.

What I find interesting about "Strange Impersonation" is the subtext underneath its melodramatic plot. Here we have a career woman in Nora, who you could say is being punished for choosing a career over male companionship. The film was made in 1946, where the most recognizable woman character of that year was probably Myrna Loy as the faithful wife to Fredric March in "The Best Years of Our Lives". Woman were very rarely seen in a work place environment, let alone choosing it over a happy life with a man. Nora becomes a victim, because her fear is losing Stephen, and that fear manifests itself to a world of film noir, where her entire life is turned upside down. Friends betray you, people want to kill you, and in order to escape, you must become someone else, only to discover you can't escape your own past. In the end, Nora's anxieties come to a boil until you can almost not take it anymore, things get so bizarre, until it comes to a logical conclusion as most films of this type do, and we get our happy ending.

The film looks to have been made on a shoestring budget, it looks cheap, and dirty, full of actors most people haven't even heard of. It clocks in at only 68 minutes which makes it lean and quick moving, it was probably made to be the shown at the bottom of a double bill. What probably saves this film from the obscurity it would've found are the people who made it. It was directed by Anthony Mann, who made some of the greatest and most violent film noirs, and later made many memorable westerns mostly starring Jimmy Stewart in the 50s. Mann creates a suffocating world in "Strange Impersonation", it becomes more claustrophobic for Nora and the audience as it goes along. Mann was also a great director of violence that shocks you, the reveal of Nora's disfigured face is truly frightening, and the way Nora is treated up to her recovery is almost a full violation of her identity.

The film was also produced by a very interesting company: Republic Pictures, which was mostly known for b-movies, but in my opinion showed a little artistic side on more than one occasion. Republic has been the home to Orson Welles and John Ford, and helped produce some of their most personal films.

"Strange Impersonation" is one of those films that seems to have gotten through the cracks of film history, it remains there for us to admire. It's a film that is a nightmare, it's paranoia surrounds every frame and doesn't let go until the finale which serves as a relief. Still I'm fascinated that a film such as this was made at the time it was, it shows they had courage back then to do something completely unique and deal with subject matter that today still wouldn't even be considered mainstream, but that's the beauty of film noir.

The Best Films of 2012 ...So Far

I've been out of commission for more than a month now, but not to worry, more blogs will come ASAP. I've seen a lot of movies as of late, not as much as I've wanted to, also it's tough keeping an indie movie cred in a place like Red Deer Alberta. Anyway I thought I'd indulge in some of the films I thought have been the best so far this year.

1. Moonrise Kingdom Wes Anderson's latest is a fairy tale about young love. Perhaps his sweetest comedy with two very appealing (and COOL) little kids. Anderson's stuns with long running shots that are feasts for the eyes. Although he is accused of having films that are emotionally cold in favor of being too clever for his own good, I have not been more emotionally involved in a film as I have with this one all year.

2. Goon Probably the funniest comedy there has been all year. Sean William Scott has never been better, as a tough guy who is hired by a hockey team purely for his skills to win in fights. However it's full of a lot of unexpected heart, and the type of vulgar humour and action fit for the best hockey movies.

3. The Dark Knight Rises Although I'm not going to pretend this isn't without its problems, I was a big fan with how this third Christopher Nolan Batman film turned out. Batman to me seems a lot more mellow in this one, and I think this comes with the appearance of Anne Hathaway as Selina Kyle. She adds a spark to Batman and a touch of humour that I always thought the series lacked. I especially liked the scenes she shares with Christian Bale's Batman. Add to that some nice crowd pleasing scenes by Nolan and you got a very satisfying blockbuster.

4. Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter How nice it is to see a movie that doesn't take itself too seriously, this wears its B-movie origins proudly and doesn't apologize. I wonder sometimes at people who look for logic in their summer action movies, those who would accuse a fantastical film for being too far-fetched, I feel sorry for those people because they are the ones who would probably find no joy in films like this.

5.The Hunger Games Not knowing much about the story going into this film, I was put off guard with how dark it was. Although the serious and grim story didn't always gel quite right with the satirical stance on reality television, I was enthralled for the most part. This is mostly due to the charisma of the cast lead by Jennifer Lawrence, also Woody Harrelson is worth mentioning too as her trainer.

Well there you have it, honorable mentions might also go to "Cabin in the Woods" which felt more like a Joss Whedon movie than "The Avengers", the Farrelly Brothers loving ode to Larry, Moe, and Curley in "The Three Stooges", "Men in Black 3" which might have been the best of the series, and although it was unnecessary to make "The Amazing Spiderman" had enough original elements to separate itself from the Sam Raimi trilogy.

My Sight and Sound Top Ten

The British Film Institute will unveil their Greatest films of all time list later this year, a list that is announced every ten years. All over the world, revered filmmakers and film critics get to pick what they think are the greatest films ever made, I guess they failed to ask me. Despite all that, I still wanted to share my list.

I've done top ten films before, but I like to think I'm always evolving as a film goer, my tastes to change from time to time, plus I wanted to give some films I haven't highlighted as prominently as others. Some favorites still and will always remain, but here is what I would submit if Sight and Sound had asked me. Because of my fondness for certain directors I've decided to stick to my rule by only choosing one film from each director.

Tokyo Story Struggling what Ozu to pick I actually considered putting in "Late Spring", to me both films are equally poignant and heartbreaking. Yet I tend to favor "Tokyo Story" as it was my introduction to Ozu's cinema, and it's probably the best example of what his work represents as a whole.

It's a Wonderful Life Because there really isn't a film quite like it, it's more complex than most people give it credit for. It's the story of a man always on the brink of desperation, he's hanging by a thread through the entire film. Then we get the other side of the coin seeing an alternate world had he never existed. It's probably the one film I think that can reconcile being heartwarming yet rather perverse at the same time. At the center is Jimmy Stewart giving his all.

Jules and Jim Brimming with youthful energy, a film about a love triangle that ends tragically should be by all accounts depressing, is anything but. Strangely enough, I feel a kinship with this film, much of my own philosophy as an artist is represented in this film. It's a film about youth, and made in the same spirit, perhaps the most joyful film experience I have seen.

The Double Life of Veronique Kieslowski's film about connection, a link to something that can't really be explained but only felt. When film is very much about showing the external, this along with Kieslowski's "The Decalogue" and "Three Colors Trilogy" attempt to show the internal, universal questions about who we are, and if we are all connected. Profound.

The Shop Around the Corner When I look on this list, I would probably pick one movie that I wish I could've made, and it would be this. It's just so very perfect in a very specific way, it's about people, relationships, done with the right amount of sophistication, coyness, and charm.

Sherlock Jr. Buster Keaton has made many great silent comedies, this is probably his crowning achievement. Barely a feature at 45 minutes yet full of as many gags and inventions as most two hour comedies. What am I saying?, Certainly more gags and invention than any other comedy ever. Keaton has become more fascinating to me as a grow older, he's like the zen master of comedy, he takes what comes, and doesn't flinch about it, has there been a more braver man in film?

Rear Window In this case, I can see how "Vertigo" could be considered the greater Hitchcock film, but after viewing "Rear Window" again recently, I felt a much bigger connection towards it. A film which asks the viewer to participate in fully. Jimmy Stewart is our stand in, we react to what he sees, in a nutshell it's the ultimate movie about movies.

City Lights Keaton was about space and movement, Chaplin was about faces and emotion. This has been called the best ending ever in a movie, and I wouldn't consider that an over statement. To me "City Lights" is all about capturing moments of pure emotion coming from actor's faces, and isn't that what simply film is all about?

My Dinner with Andre Why? Because it risks tampering with convention, no action, hardly any exteriors, one location. I was riveted. This never feels like a stunt, it's shot economically, not flashy. It's one of a kind, and can't really be repeated or equalled, it's its own genre.

Swing Time What is the ultimate escape in movies? Simple, it's the moment Fred Astaire begins singing "Never Gonna Dance" and he and Ginger Rogers dance their greatest number, when that happens, I am somewhere else, I'm out of my head, I'm in a dream.

The River

"The River" is a welcoming film, as if it's greeting you with open arms at the very beginning. It's a warm glowing film filled with life, color, and a vibrant world. "The River" is a film that flows humbly and peacefully along, a quaint little slice of life that in its own way is perfect.

"The River" was directed by Jean Renoir and it is perhaps his most beautiful looking film ever made, possibly the most beautiful looking one in technicolor anyway. The story was a passion project for Renoir, he had obtained the rights of the novel, which was wrtiten by Rumer Godden, and held onto it for many years. His hopes for the film languished for two years until he was able to find financing from a novice producer named Kenneth McEldowney. He filmed it on location in India, where he was able to gather rich images of the life there, a whole culture which inhabits the world of "The River".

The story is told through the eyes of a young English girl named Harriet (Patricia Walters), she lives near the Bengal River with her large family. We are introduced to Harriet's mother, father, her siblings, and her little brother Bogey. But the story also involves two other girls, they are Valerie (Adrienne Corri) another English girl slightly older than Harriet, and Melanie (Radha), an girl of mixed blood, who's mother was hindu, and her father is English.

A new man comes to live in Bengal, an American named Capt. John (Thomas E. Breen), he was a soldier in the war, who's one leg was amputated. The three girls Harriet, Valerie, and Melanie all see Captain John, and in some way or another fall in love with him. Harriet is the youngest of the three, and probably the most romantic, she sees herself as an ugly duckling who wants desperately to become a swan. During a festival dance, Harriet becomes jealous when she sees Captain John pay more attention to Valerie. However he is also drawn to Melanie, who he seems more comfortable to confide in. Melanie is of mixed race and doesn't know where she fits in, she has an Indian suitor and it would be customary in the culture for her to marry him, however she is conflicted. Captain John is an outsider as well since he lost his leg, we find out he is proud, and hides away from anyone's pity; he wonders not knowing quite where he belongs, some of the most painful moments in the film come from the harsh reminder that Captain John has a handicap.

For Harriet however, she is too young to understand this, for her, Captain John is her first love, and although he feelings probably seem childish, Renoir makes it plain that they mean the world to her. She herself confides in Captain John, and shows her the little cubbie in her house that is her escape. She writes poetry and shows them to him, she opens herself up, but of course he is much too old to think of her as anything but sweet. She sees him spend more and more time with Valerie, which makes her bitter, a little while later, she along with Melanie see Captain John and Valerie kiss. "That was my first kiss", says Harriet, "but received by another".

Despite the innocence of a first love, there are darker illusions throughout the film as well, and by the end, we do experience a very tragic death which strikes very close to home for Harriet, and she will have to do some growing up.

The time line of "The River" takes place through one year in the life of this English family in India, but it feels almost like an endless summer day. The film is bathed in beautiful warm light, and there is always a feeling of rebirth in the air. Renoir was the son of the great painter Pierre-Auguste Renoir who's art was full of vivid portraits of people, I would call them slices of life. With this film, it almost seems like Renoir is trying to duplicate his fathers' work, the way he composes his people, and how he captures the gentle humanity in each of their faces.

As with most cases, Renoir had trouble getting this film off the ground. The master filmmaker had made his two masterpieces "Grand Illusion" and "Rules of the Game" in the late thirties, but by the time he made "The River" in 1951, he was no longer considered a bankable director. The film was supposed to be Renoir's first major Hollywood production but contained a rather small budget and didn't go so smoothly with his inexperienced Producer at the helm. However Renoir persevered and insisted on shooting in India, his cast had to consist of unknowns due to budget constraints, and in some cases had to cast non-actors in some of the prominent roles. However none of this is noticeable in the finished film, it's an organic and natural experience.

"The River" is a very serene film, it doesn't bother with trying to be over dramatic, it's more interested in the nature of life and how it rolls along and keeps going. The film begins and ends with the river and how it keeps moving throughout the years, it's an ongoing circle. Nothing is quite resolved at the end of the film, there is no sense of finality, it simply ends with a new beginning, everything starts over. There is a scene in the film that does illustrate this idea; Harriet is telling a story to Valerie and Captain John, when she is finished the story, she asks "How do you spell conclusion?" Captain John replies "Why don't you just say the end?" to which Valerie replies "Because it isn't the end, it starts all over again." That's what this film is all about, life and how it keeps going despite the changes it encounters.

Pickpocket

The thing I remember most about "Pickpocket" is the faces; I watch it and become convinced that an interesting face is all you need in a film, the rest is all filler. The protagonist of the film is Michel (Martin La Salle), he doesn't do much with his face, it's there, but he's not meant to emote. He's left mostly as a mechanical presence, we are denied a real performance, a direct link of empathy, yet the face remains fascinating.

In the film, Michel plays a pickpocket, he lives alone in a small apartment, filled only the a few necessities. Michel is obsessed with becoming a pickpocket, while he's alone he tries out different maneuvers, he uses the post of his bed to practice taking a watch off the wrist of men's hands, he uses a suit to see if he can take out a wallet with a newspaper undetected. It is implied that Michel is probably suitable to have a regular job, and live a non-criminal life, but he chooses to remain a pickpocket. Later he falls into a gang of pickpockets who teach him new tricks, and together they pull off more elaborate crimes. Michel, who narrates the story says he doesn't become close with these men, they only talk of the next crime, and different pickpocket techniques.

Michel does have a life outside his crime one, he has a mother whom we are told is sick, she is dying. She is cared for by her saintly neighbor Jeanne (Marika Green), a young girl who who becomes prominent in Michel's life, she in fact becomes his one saving grace and his only chance for redemption. At first Michel chooses not to see his mother, it's never spelled out for us as to why he doesn't, to his friend it seems like a selfish act, but when he's questioned about his love for her, he answers "I love her more than myself".

Michel is an example of emotional detachment, he's alone in the world, he feels no emotion and we get the sense the only time he does feel alive is when he is stealing. There's a moment early on in the film where Michel is at the racetrack, he's close around a large crowd of people. We see a close-up of his hand as it moves through a man's jacket, Michel's face remains neutral yet there is the feeling of anticipation, and danger, of being alive. When Michel is close to obtaining the man's wallet, there is a small slight movement in his face, maybe a blink of the eyes, or an opening of the mouth, it's small but it's there. We can sense that pure exhilaration in Michel as he commits his crime, and suddenly he becomes less mechanical and more of an individual.

"Pickpocket" is the special kind of film, in that it doesn't act like a usual one, it was directed by the great french filmmaker Robert Bresson, who many people consider to be very spiritual and philosophical in his films. In the criterion version, filmmaker, and critic Paul Schrader, who does the introduction describes Bresson as being a rather perverse director, but it's only in the way he uses filmmaking not in the usual sense. Bresson plays with the audience expectation of what film is supposed to convey, there is not empathy or emotion in the conventional sense, Bresson takes this away by using non-actors. The actors are not meant to give a performance, they don't react, Bresson doesn't even give them the luxury of a close-up. With "Pickpocket", this technique becomes very useful to the story and transcends the film into something much more meaningful.

It's the face of Michel that we remember, it says nothing, and does nothing, he looks bored, lifeless, it's as if his whole being has been sucked away; it becomes easy to identify with him being someone who steals just for the shear thrill of being alive. The only close-ups Bresson does give us are the hands of the pickpockets as they move rhythmically, and seductively through various people's jackets, it becomes a very erotic thing. The most thrilling sequence comes through a montage of thefts while at a train station, Michel and his cohorts steal from various people while the camera shows off their skills, it's a thing of beauty all edited together seamlessly. Bresson is capturing the poetry and the elegance of the art of the pickpocket, and it's here where I felt direct empathy with Michel, he must feel the excitement of it all as we do, which is why he does it.

"Pickpocket" becomes this story about how one can carry on a life of crime without any remorse or regret, Bresson asks the question but he doesn't have an answer for us. What he does have is a chance of redemption for Michel which comes with the presence of Jeanne, and the films most famous scene is in the finale where the two are united, it's a burst of emotion that isn't seen in the film other than when Michel is stealing. Yet Bresson doesn't push the fact, he still holds back, there are gestures of affection but they are refrained from any melodrama.

It's difficult to peg a director like Bresson, he seems to transcend all sorts of types you would associate with a filmmaker. His films don't seem to fall in the category of theatrical or realism, they work on a different plain. With "Pickpocket" Bresson is tackling feelings that are very internal which film is not commonly known for conveying very well, but it's what makes his films unique. "Pickpocket" seems to make an argument that films can use images to express the inexpressible, it's ironic then that Bresson is able to accomplish this by wiping away any type of emotionon a person's face. What we are left with is what we can only conjure on our own, Bresson gives us the images, we take them in, we respond to them truthfully, it's a unique film experience that shows us a new way to interpret things.

"Pickpocket" is the same kind of film like Ozu's "Tokyo Story" that came to me with a new idea on how films should be made. I think I was tired by most of what I was seeing, but here came a new way of filmmaking, by not telling us exactly how we should feel, but just letting us make up our minds, "Pickpocket" is brave enough to leave what is only necessary and let us fill in the blanks.

Some Comments about The Avengers and Super Hero movies in general.

I have not lost all hope for Super Hero movies, but they are starting to annoy me a bit. Despite popular opinion by fans of the genre (yes it has become its own genre now), I don't think super hero movies have done much that is all that interesting, yet that doesn't mean they can't still be fun.

A perfect example of this would be the recent release of "The Avengers", a film not without its faults, but is able to sustain your interest with fine acting from most people, and clever dialogue written by "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" scribe Joss Whedon.

But the film itself did not break new ground, in fact it reeks at times of the all too familiar. In the film, there is a threat, the super heroes assemble, and the threat is vanquished in a rather large battle. There is nothing wrong with this formula, and a clever guy like Whedon does his best and giving us scenarios that are entertaining, yet it seems to be a missed opportunity.

A few years ago, I wrote about how super hero movies, had much in common with the latter day western, which had its heyday in the 40s and 50s. The western hero like the super hero was usually an outcast, a loner, and he was driven by some sort of honor or duty, or maybe vengeance. If you replaced the cowboy hat and the six guns with super powers and tights, I could be explaining the same archetype.

Since I wrote that piece, many super hero movies have come and gone, some of them good, some of them crummy, but I would argue none of them have become transcendent. We have become stuck in a pattern with super hero movies, they have become less about story and more about the conglomerate. "The Avengers" is a product, owned by Marvel studios in association with Disney. They are servicing the fans needs to see the characters on screen, and defeating their enemies. That's all fine and good, what we have is a nice B-movie, not unlike old serials from the 30s and 40s, only this time with a big budget and huge special effects.

Maybe that's all the fans ask for, and that seems to be what Marvel Studios is willing to do for them, but as a movie goer, I don't think super hero films will sustain themselves for very long if that is the case.

I had the same feeling watching "The Avengers" as I did with "Thor", "Iron Man 2", and "Captain America", it was difficult to tell them apart. Each film was structured the same way, there was a big bad, and the hero had to vanquish it. "The Avengers" doesn't stray from this formula, other than giving you more bang for your buck. In this case, all the super heroes are in one movie, and it just means more action than most.

As I said I liked "The Avengers" but I will still call this a missed opportunity, here's why: Joss Whedon. Whedon, is a clever guy, when he is taken off his leash and able to do his own thing. Look at "Buffy the Vampire Slayer", which was a complex coming of age drama/comedy, disguised as a campy genre show. Whedon has proven himself capable of creating complex ideas and themes hidden within genre. Even though Whedon wrote and directed "The Avengers", I didn't see much of his own stamp on the finished product, albeit it was a nice surprise to see much screen time given to Scarlett Johansson's Black Widow, a testament to Whedon's affection for female heroines. Whedon, for the most part acts like a director for hire, doing a by the numbers Marvel movie, which is given life with his flare for wit, and humanity.

Whedon has the talent to dive deeper and further in the Marvel universe, and perhaps he was struggling with his own instincts and what the Marvel overlords wanted in the end, which was a harmless blockbuster. It's a shame because knowing what Whedon is capable of and what we are given does not measure up. And this has become the case for super hero films in general, there doesn't seem to be a risk.

This lack of risk taking is probably due to the huge amount of money these films cost, which makes it more and more difficult to take any chances.

There doesn't seem to be much hope that super hero movies will tone down their spectacle and unlimited action anytime soon, which might make room for a more intimate and compelling film, and I could sense there were a few scenes where Whedon was trying to express that.

Recently I re-watched Howard Hawks' masterpiece "Rio Bravo", a western which is all about relationships, how men talk to eachother, and the comaraderie that comes with that. The final shoot-out at the end of the film comes and goes without much fuss, it was there, but without much importance, it was all about the characters. There's a special laid back feel to a film like "Rio Bravo" about guys going through the motions and enjoying eachothers company, but it's so very much entertaining. Can there be a super hero equivalent? Not so far, but how interesting that would be.

Aguirre: The Wrath of God

A couple of years ago I was floating down a ferry boat through the misty forest of Vancouver Island; it was a three hour trip across the river. The day was cloudy, cold, and dark, we were expecting rain, yet the scenery was eerily beautiful. There were heavy mountains on both sides of the river, all covered with forest greens, and light fog gliding through the tops of them. It was a serene and peaceful trip, but the picture of nature that day made it look foreboding. At times it felt as if we were the only boat on the river, and an uneasy feeling of isolation gripped me. What I was remembering in my head were the images I had seen in "Aguirre: The Wrath of God"; the same greyness in the air, the same haunting dreamy quality, a beautiful nightmare of madness personified.

"Aguirre: The Wrath of God" isn't usually qualified as a horror movie in the strictest sense, but it fills me with the sense of dread and doom for its characters as any one could. Only the horror in this film seems much more real, it's main character must surely be one of the greatest monsters in movie history. The horror here inhabits the madness people are driven to as they try to obtain power and glory.

The story is set in 16th century Peru as it follows a Spanish Expedition's quest to find the ancient city of El Dorado. The opening shots of the film show the explorers struggling in the jungle, they must carry with them, horses, a cannon, and two ladies in waiting. They have Indian guides to help them, and one black slave; but it all seems so futile, they are not fit for the jungle. The leader of the group can see this, he doesn't see much point in going on, still he selects a small group of men to carry on the expedition up river, perhaps with the hope of more luck. He puts a Spanish nobleman named Don Pedro de Ursua in charge, with his second in command being Aguirre (Klaus Kinski). Other people in the group will consist of a priest, who keeps a diary throughout the journey, Ursua's mistress, and Aguirre's young daughter.

As the journey begins there is almost no question of the doom, the group has in store for them. They divide eachother into three rafts, one of which gets caught in a whirlpool, and they can't snare themselves free, Ursua makes the gesture of sending a party to save them, but it is all for naught. As the morning approaches, all the people in the raft are dead.

Soon mutiny is in the air, lead by Aguirre, Ursua is wounded, and Aguirre nominates a glutinous soldier named Guzman to be their new leader. Aguirre is still second in command, but it's obvious, he is the one pulling the strings, he will not relent in the journey.

Other things happen along the way, there are attacks by natives, a run in with some cannibals, and soon starvation, fever, and death. This was a destiny that was pre-written for them at the very beginning; a lost cause, which is driven by men's mad determination to defeat nature.

At the heart of this film is the character of Aguirre played with mad vigor by Kinski (Kinski himself has had flights of madness in his lifetime on many occasion). Aguirre is perhaps the most dangerous of men, a madman with power, and an insane quest of obtaining more. He is ruthless with his men, not caring what it takes to reach his goal; the only creature he cares for is his daughter, with whom he carries an incestuous affection for. The close-ups of Aguirre are all you need to know what he's thinking, Kinski gives him a walk that is somewhat lop-sided, that reminds one of Shakespeare's "Richard III". Aguirre can be thought of as the personification of all powerful, and evil men who have sacrificed innocents in their mad search for glory, and or immortality.

The film was directed by Werner Herzog, who is definitely one of the greatest living filmmakers we have today. Many his films deal with characters who's madness either bring them to the brink of destruction, or destruction itself."Aguirre" was his first important film, and perhaps still his greatest, it's more a film about images, and atmosphere, than one about people. Aguirre is mainly a man of evil than anything else, I'm not sure there is anything else there, Herzog makes that known, particularly with the final images.

I remember seeing the film at a young age, and not quite grasping what it all meant. I had heard of a movie about a journey to find El Dorado, expecting maybe a harrowing adventure tale, but instead I got a deeper, unsettling experience. There are moments in the film that feel like they are out of a dream, and occasionally Herzog captures nature's beauty throughout all the dread, but perhaps that comes from the delusion that the men will actually find their city of Gold.

"Aguirre: The Wrath of God", continues to haunt me, with it's mood, it's atmosphere, and the face of Klaus Kinski. It's a fierce film that doesn't let you go, it's a whirlpool, a nightmare, but it's hypnotic in a strange and beautiful way. I can say without exaggeration, its images have stayed with me, and they can lock me into its world like no other film.

Sergio Leone and the Infield Fly Rule Test

) Favorite movie featuring nuns
Black Narcissus

2) Second favorite John Frankenheimer movie
The Train

3) William Bendix or Scott Brady?
No Opinion

4) What movie, real or imagined, would you stand in line six hours to see? Have you ever done so in real life?
I think I would stand in line for any film festival involving Buster Keaton, The Marx Brothers, Yasujiro Ozu, or anything that sounds like fun. I stayed overnight at a theatre at the premier of Episode one The Phantom Menace. Nothing like camping out in a big city.

5) Favorite Mitchell Leisen movie
According to IMDB the only movie of his I've seen is "Easy Living" which is a film I love. Now I want to see more of his films.

6) Ann Savage or Peggy Cummins?
Peggy Cummins

7) First movie you remember seeing as a child
An American Tail. Whatever happened to Don Bluth?

8) What moment in a movie that is not a horror movie made you want to bolt from the theater screaming?
As a child and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, as soon as he enters the temple. I was 8 and didn't know what to expect, the only time I left a movie early in fear.

9) Richard Widmark or Robert Mitchum?
Mitchum

10) Best movie Jesus
Willem Defoe.

11) Silliest straight horror film that you’re still fond of
The Return of Doctor X

12) Emily Blunt or Sally Gray?
Emily Blunt

13) Favorite cinematic Biblical spectacular
Probably still the parting of the red sea in The Ten Commandments, that film had a huge impact on me as a child.

14) Favorite cinematic moment of unintentional humor
Perhaps again in "The Ten Commandments", the self-important narration by Cecil B. DeMille or when Yul Breynner says out "His God, is God".

15) Michael Fassbender or David Farrar?
Michael Fassbender

16) Most effective faith-affirming movie
"The Decalogue"

17) Movie that makes the best case for agnosticism
"A Serious Man"

18) Favorite song and/or dance sequence from a musical
"Never Gonna Dance" from "Swing Time"

19) Third favorite Howard Hawks movie
"Only Angels Have Wings" I think. First two are "Rio Bravo", and "Ball of Fire"

20) Clara Bow or Jean Harlow?
Jean Harlow

21) Movie most recently seen in the theater? On DVD/Blu-ray/Streaming?
Theatres: The Three Stooges
DVD: Stage Door

22) Most unlikely good movie about religion
Quo Vadis

23) Phil Silvers or Red Skelton?
Phil Silvers

24) “Favorite” Hollywood scandal
Fatty Arbuckle

25) Best religious movie (non-Christian)
A Serious Man

26) The King of Cinema: King Vidor, King Hu or Henry King? (Thanks, Peter)
King Vidor

27) Name something modern movies need to relearn how to do that American or foreign classics had down pat
Flow.

28) Least favorite Federico Fellini movie
Of the ones I've seen I'd say Armacord, although that's not to say it's bad.

29) The Three Stooges (2012)—yes or no?
coitenly

30) Mary Wickes or Patsy Kelly?
Mary Wickes

31) Best movie-related conspiracy theory
Chinatown

32) Your candidate for most misunderstood or misinterpreted movie
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

33) Movie that made you question your own belief system (religious or otherwise)
The Three Colors Trilogy

The Seventh Seal

How often now do we get films that ask such existential questions such as "What happens to us when we die?" "Does God exist?" and "What's the meaning of life?" Do we still ask these questions within ourselves? Do we demand it in our films to ask them for us?

In 1957, Ingmar Bergman made his landmark film "The Seventh Seal" which dealt with issues such as life and death head on. There is no irony in the film, although today you can't help but think of the many parodies or homages other people have made of it. However, all that aside, "The Seventh Seal" has remained a powerful film, not only is it a deeply personal, and reflective work on life's great mysteries, it is also a scathing indictment of religious persecution upon God-fearing citizens.

The film begins at the edge of a desolate beach. A Knight named Antonius Block(Max Von Sydow) has returned home after ten years of fighting in the Crusades to a plague ravaged countryside. It is at this beach he sees Death (Bengt Ekerot) appear before him. Antonius' time has come to an end, but he is granted a reprieve from death as he challenges him to a game of chess; as long as they are still playing, Antonius will get to live.

The film then follows Antonius and his squire Jons (Gunnar Bjornstrand) across the plague filled land. The early images of the film are filled with cold and empty landscapes, and shadows of death haunt the frame. The first sign of life is a man leaning against the rock, but when Jons goes to him to ask for directions, he discovers that it is only a rotting corpse, a terrible omen indeed.

They get to a village, and we meet other characters in the film, a kindly actor named Jof (Nils Poppe) and his wife Mia (Bibi Andersson) along with their newborn child. Their lively performance in the village is cut short by the arrival of a religious caravan, and a God-fearing Monk who warns the villagers of the impending death coming to them and their only hope of redemption is if they repent. Bergman does not relent on the religious imagery in this scene, and how it is used to strike fear in the villagers. There is also a young woman seen in the village who has been captured and is scheduled to be burned at the stake for having relations with the devil; some accuse her of being the cause of the plague around the village. However, we see later, that even though she believes she is possessed by the devil, it's mostly due to her becoming mad with the fear of dying.

Now despite the thought of death hovering over the entire film, it should be said that "The Seventh Seal" isn't a depressing or even hopeless film. Bergman paints his film with sparse scenes of comfort, and warmth brought on by the goodness in humanity. Although Antonius is haunted with thoughts of death, he is given a peaceful tender moment with Mia and Jof where they sit at their camp enjoying life. "I shall try to remember this moment", Antonius says, it's statements like these where Bergman does see a point to life, enjoying the little bright moments that are given to us, because you never know how much time you got.

Bergman also plays with light comedy in the film, mostly coming from Jons, the squire, who makes up the antithesis of Antonius' frame of mind. Jons is seen as a cynic, who although he fears death like Antonius, does not take any pains to seek any answers of an afterlife. He is able to see the hypocracy of the church, which he sees as an institution that dwells on death more than anything. There is a scene where Jons has an amusing discussion with a religious artist. The artist has been commissioned to paint on the church walls, but they are images of death, Jons points out that it doesnt seem very cheery, but the artist says it's to remind people that they all die, therefore should repent before it's too late.

Jons also voices his complaints about the Crusades (A war which was started based on religion) and how futile it all was; but in contrast Antonius struggles more to find an answer. Antonius does not completely give up his faith and his pursuit in the movie is finding proof of the existence of God. But God remains silent in the film and Antonius' struggle becomes more and more futile as he asks more and more questions, all that is certain is Death.

But the film is never preachy or dismal, it remains entertaining, Bergman sometimes plays upon the type of superstition he discredits in the film to create a very atmospheric horror look to it. The film looks great in its highly stylized black and white, the use of dark shadows, dense fog and smoke add to the impending dread of the characters, it mostly resembles an old fashioned ghost story.

But like all great films, "The Seventh Seal" rises above any genre trappings, to become a great work of art. Ingmar Bergman was a man who grew obsessed with death and mortality in his films, but he was also a storyteller, and was able to work his themes into his films so they could be enjoyed to a broad audience.

For me personally, I've only just recently embraced Bergman's films, maybe it was because he dealt with such deep issues I would avoid him, but I found myself interested with his work more and more. Now I find his films much more accessible and not just for intellects who felt his themes important. Bergman made movies for everyone to enjoy on some level, they were never depressing because they were from the heart and emotion. "The Seventh Seal" shows that even though a man can be obsessed over death, doesn't mean he's not in love with life.