Shadows (1959)

Director: John Cassavetes

This is a film I admire more for its place in film history and its capture of a time and place than I do for its actual quality. This is John Cassavetes' first film, the man who is known as the father of American independent cinema. He took American film out from under the studio system and made films that were more experimental and more honest in nature and in turn influenced the great American filmmakers of the 1970's. For the late 50's this is a film that is very progressive, especially in its depiction of race. The film depicts prejudice against blacks, and the identity problems of someone who is half-white and half-black. The structure also is very unique for the time, it's not plot-driven at all, and the style is more handheld and improvisatory. The film represented a way of filmmaking that was spontaneous, low-budget, and free.

An aspect of the film I very much liked is the jazz score that goes very well with the jazz-like structure of the film. The movie is improvised heavily (though there is debate about what that means), there are seemingly random scenes that don't add much to the whole at all, but in the end the experience as a whole is satisfying. I'd say this is more a slight and minor piece of jazz than it is a major one. In today's standards, it's not a very ambitious film and it doesn't quite feel as new. The film is great if you really want a time capsule experience and want to see how a transgressive film of the late 50's is like. I found it more interesting in that sense than as I did for the actual qualities of the movie itself.

Grade: B-

Curb Your Enthusiasm: Season One (2000)

Creator: Larry David

It was hard for me to figure exactly what this show was trying to do in its first season, but it was certainly funny and showed potential. Larry David plays himself, and he plays sort of a social observer role poking fun at social norms. His character is in the vein of Woody Allen, but without the personal stakes that Allen had in his films. David shows great talent in plotting episodic TV comedy, but I found his character mostly one-note, because unlike Allen's films, there wasn't much at stake. This is a show though that has gone on for many seasons, so I would not be surprised to learn quite a bit more when I see more episodes (and similarly I can't imagine a show like this going on for 5+ seasons without stakes).

The average episodes basically seem to unspool a yarn of unfortunate events that occur due to unforeseen events that unfold due to usually some innocent action that David did. It's the classic comedy of chain reaction. For example we might see one very subtle racist comment that David makes becomes so much more by the end of the night, affecting his wife's health. Even though the dialogue is improv, the plotting sure isn't, and the plotting is done very well and seems almost effortless which is remarkable considering the planning that has to go into writing these types of stories. What the show does well this season is establish a tone, and a feel for who David is. I hope the subsequent seasons do better in creating cohesive stories that actually affect David's life more substantially.

Grade: B-

The Master (2012)

Director: Paul Thomas Anderson

 Elusive. Challenging. Mysterious. These are just some of the words that critics and audiences used in describing The Master. Paul Thomas Anderson certainly did not intend on making an easy film in which the meaning is preached to the audience. Instead, the audience must extrapolate the meaning, but what makes it even more difficult is that it would be perfectly legitimate for five different viewers of the film to have five different interpretations of what the film means. I'm sure it's a film that will see its various interpretations dwindle as more people see it more times, because this is a film that slowly reveals itself as you watch, and reveals itself more on repeat viewings (I've seen it twice). At first we notice Joaquin Phoenix's outstanding performance as Freddie Quell, a man who is the epitome of social outcast. But then we start to see his relationship to Lancaster Dodd, the leader of a newly launched cult, and the many complexities involved in the relationship between the two men. Then later it occurs us to the broader social implications the film has on topics as broad as post-war America and cults.

The way I see it, and I think that's the only legitimate way I can start a conversation about this film, is that that this is a film about the complex relationship between a master and his followers. In the film, Dodd sees Quell as a wild savage dog, and he sees it as his duty as the civilized master to tame this seemingly untamable dog. Why Dodd decides to take this challenge up is because he sees his past in him, and he sees a successful taming of Quell as vindication of his own self and his own efforts. But the film is not so simple as to show Dodd as simply a noble master and Quell as dastardly savage dog. The lines between the two are blurred. The performances of both Hoffman as Dodd and Phoenix as Quell couldn't be more different, one is Wellesian in it's grandeur and control, while the other is unpredictable and wild. They are two extremes of masculinity, but we still see that Dodd is not the saint he thinks he is and Quell is not simply a barbaric wild dog. Dodd has outbursts and desires that Quell has, while Quell shows small moments of compassion and empathy. The Master questions the follower-leader relationship, but it's not specifically for or against the notion that everyone needs a master, instead it shows us how complex that relationship truly is. Yes the film feels elusive when you first watch it, but it's a film that comes closer and closer to you the more you take it in.

Grade: A

Chronicle (2012)

Director: Josh Trank

Many people seem to dislike superhero origin stories, but when done right they can be the best films of the genre. Chronicle is a good movie in a similar vein. The movie finds a group of kids who mysteriously get superpowers and we then follow them as these superpowers start to define and mold them. Our main character, the one videotaping this found footage style film, is the one who gets the largest arc, one that is informed by his troubled upbringing and difficult home life. Following this type of story to the end is a great idea on paper, and while the teen actors don't always rise to the occasion, the intriguing plot does reach its potential at times and even tries to add some interesting philosophical subtext, though that angle is glanced over.

That all sounds quite serious, but the real joy of this movie comes in the first half when the kids are just experimenting and having fun with their powers. It was like watching an actual documentary on what real teenagers would do if they got superpowers. By giving them superpowers we get to see who these kids really are, but it also functions as wish-fulfillment for the audience. The movie is most enjoyable when watching the three guys just have fun with their powers and discover how to use them. It's basically the "Spiderman tries to figure out how to use his powers" part of Spiderman movies, though the main difference is that Spiderman usually messes up a few times for laughs while in this one the actions of the kids are much more controversial. While the found footage style adds to the documentary feel of the first half, it turns into a distracting gimmick in the second half when the filmmakers struggled to keep the gimmick going when the main camera man doesn't need a camera anymore. By the end it is clear the film is still a genre film, it's a very good one, but it cannot surpass its genre limitations.

Grade: B-

McCabe & Mrs. Miller (1971)

Director: Robert Altman

If this film is a deconstruction of the western genre, then this might be the best genre deconstruction ever committed to film. It subverts many traditional notions of the genre, but more impressively, it's a film that feels like a unique and great film on its own, irrespective of the statements it might be making on the western genre. It definitely subverts the myths of the western on purpose, most significantly with the lead character McCabe who initially comes into this Pacific Northwest town looking like a legendary gunslinger, but is slowly unwrapped and revealed as a man who is less a mythical figure than just a real human being. In keeping with the subversion of gender tropes in the western genre, Mrs. Miller, the madame of a group of prostitutes, comes across as quite business savvy, much more so than McCabe who seems to be taking advice from her on how to run his brothel. In this film it is the woman who influences the man.

Altman also uses the rain, the gray skies, green trees, and the fog of the Pacific Northwest setting as a way to make the film feel a bit off. It creates a naturalistic atmosphere for the film while also giving us something much more unique than the typical blue skies and endless barren flat landscapes of most westerns. That natural, and even ethereal, tone of the film is one of the most impressive elements of the film. Altman lets his setting breath, his actors emote naturally, and films everything with an unobtrusive eye. On top of that is the amazing acoustic soundtrack by Leonard Cohen. The importance that soundtrack has to the melancholic feel of the characters cannot be understated. McCabe's melancholic feelings are what truly make the movie for me. His character is such a thoughtful and subtle attack on our concept of masculinity, and his private soliloquy's to himself, especially regarding his feelings towards Mrs. Miller, provide some of the greatest moments of the film. The film does so much (there's even vilification of the no holds-barred free enterprise system) while feeling completely natural. McCabe & Mrs. Miller is a naturalist film all the way, and that's why it's amazing it does so much while doing so little.

Grade: A

Chungking Express (1994)

Director: Wong Kar-Wai

When you think of a film from Hong Kong, you usually think of police thrillers, because those are the types of Hong Kong movies that have achieved success all over the world. But in this film, Wong Kar-Wai takes that idea and turns it on its head. He tells two stories that are just barely connected, each about a police officer in the bustling urban jungle of Hong Kong, but the two police never get involved in shootouts and the film isn't some frenetically paced action film. Instead, both stories are existential stories of the difficulties of finding romantic emotional connection in an urban world. Hong Kong is a place that has a dense population in which you'll see a sea of people either way you look, but this film looks at the paradoxical effects that has on finding real emotional connection in such a dense world.

The first story is more of a noir film with a similar tone to Blade Runner complete with existential mysterious characters, but the second film switches it up completely and is more of a screwball romance influenced more by Jean-Luc Godard with its quirky, loveable yet flawed characters and its guerilla-style down and dirty filmmaking. The second story takes more than half the running time and is more satisfying as a whole and really overshadows the first (this would be more of an issue if the first story took up more running time, but it doesn't). The first story establishes the idea of finding connection in a disconnected place, and the second one takes it all the way, creating a full romance that is entertaining but also one that has the characters actually taking action and trying to do something about the dissatisfaction they have (the frequent use of the song "California Dreamin'" in the second story establishes the idea of yearning for a new experience just so well). This is definitely a film I'll be coming back to, the second story is just so visceral and affecting on so many levels, and I feel like I'll see a lot more in that first story when I see this one again.

Grade: A-

Battleship Potemkin (1925)

Director: Sergei M. Eisenstein

 One of the important thing this film does is make you think about the difference between filmmaking as art and filmmaking as propaganda. Can a film that is obviously propaganda be considered art? Battleship Potemkin gives a lot of credibility to the "yes" side. It's a film that is explicitly revolutionary propaganda recreating a rebellion by a Russian battleship against their Tsarist officers. But it's also a very powerful film that used film editing in a way that was never used before, and those techniques only made the film much more powerful. The film is above all a testament to the power of film as an art form. It's a great example of what film really can do and the extraordinary power it can over those who watch it. Film can inspire and it can excite and Eisenstein was one of the first who really took advantage of this power (Joseph Goebbells also learned this power from this film, reportedly).

While the film is known more for being influential, especially in its editing techniques most famously displayed in the Odessa steps sequence, there are many great things about this film that still stand the test of time. The film is only about 70 minutes long or so, so the film doesn't try to build characters as people, what it does is create symbols within the characters. There is no individual, everyone represents the group, and if everyone rose up together against oppression, freedom can be won. One of things I liked most about the film is its message that soldiers are not just pawns of a government. They are citizens of their country like everyone else, and so they have the ability to rebel against their commanding officers and stand side-by-side with their non-military brethren. Sure the movie is famous more for its influence, but even today, almost 90 years later, it is still a powerful piece of work.

Grade: A-

Heartbeats (2010)

Director: Xavier Dolan

 This is really a minor film that gains most of its memorability due to the sleek and sensual filmmaking on display. The film is about two friends, one male and one female, who both fall in love with the same man. It's a predictable story with not a lot going on, but the story becomes involving and gains emotion due to Xavier Dolan's lush photography, slow motion scenes, and sumptuous colors. The movie also uses talking heads that talk about their experiences with love, and when you combine those with the story of the film it helps the film speak to the power of love. Love is one of those emotions that can overpower an individual to the point where it takes over their whole mind and body, it's an emotion that has a real hold over people, and the film speaks to that power.

In the film we see love threaten to destroy a very close friendship, and this ends up being the case even when that love is over something that doesn't give any love back. Even unrequited love has an immense power over people in a way that really makes no sense, but there is no rationality in love. The story of the film is limited and I never really thought about the plot at all in this film, but Dolan still manages to get these sentiments about love across. I greatly enjoyed and admire this film, but I would recommend the filmmaker as one to watch more than I would recommend the film. Dolan is certainly a filmmaker who has big things ahead of him (he was amazingly only 22 when he made this film) and I will be keeping a very close eye on his promising future.

Grade: B+

The Newsroom: Season One (2012)

Creator: Aaron Sorkin

 If I were to extrapolate Aaron Sorkin's political/cultural views from this series and compare them to my own, they would compare fairly favorably. I have very few qualms with Sorkin's political views and agree wholeheartedly with most of them, yet I still have a big problem with this show, and that's because those views are never proven or argued. Sorkin's ideas and views are broadcasted loudly and literally to the audience. This is a television show that does not show, it tells. There are some great moments of wisdom from Will McAvoy or the other characters, but they only work as moments independent from the narrative. That's why the opening scene of the show went viral in our world (the blind nostalgia of that moment actually makes it one of the few things I actually don't agree with Sorkin on). It worked great as an individual scene, but in that sense it's no different from The Daily Show, which does much of what this show wants to do without the illusion of trying to be an actual drama.

While Sorkin was almost never subtle in shouting his hopeful and sometimes naive ideals there were a couple of moments that seemed to actually take place in the real world and show the difficulties of attempting to be righteous. The main one was the episode in which McAvoy goes extremely hard on a homosexual black Rick Santorum supporter, insulting the man on national television, and in the same episode Olivia Munn's character breaks journalism ethics in the pursuit of what she thinks is the truth. That episode showed that you can try too hard to make the world a better place, and that good intentions do not always result in good results. It was easily the best episode of the season in a season filled with just odd moments in which the news team would seemingly travel into the future and get information that they would use in their news reports, Sorkin was trying to make a statement on how the news should have been covered, but he was doing so frequently with the benefit of hindsight. All I've talked about so far pales in comparison though to the ambivalence I felt to the personal stories of the characters. I did not care at all if whatever-his-name got with whatever-her-name or vica versa. The relationships had almost nothing to do with the main goal of the news organizations to do the news better, not literally nor thematically (see the recently reviewed Broadcast News, or even The West Wing, if you want to know what I'm talking about). Having said all of this though, it's not a show I'd recommend, but it's a show I will continue to watch because I am deeply invested in the subject matter of the news media. And even though I like Sorkin much of the time, I also very much enjoy criticizing him.

Grade: C-

Broadcast News (1987)

Director: James L. Brooks

 If you describe a movie to me as being a Hollywood workplace romantic comedy with a love triangle, I probably won't go in expecting to love it. Mostly because it's just a tired formula that Hollywood has done over and over again only because it's a consistent moneymaker and not because there's any artistic merit left in the genre. That's why I was enormously surprised at how much I loved James L. Brooks Broadcast News (also because Brooks himself doesn't have the greatest track record). In this film the workplace is a broadcast news station, but it's more about the people who work in the news than the news itself. But that's why it works. The people provide the emotion, and you get very quickly attached to the characters. There is subtle commentary on the "showbizification" of broadcast news, but the brilliant thing is that it's never broadcasted (pun intended), and instead it's all subtle and fully at the service of the characters.

The three main characters (each played brilliantly by Holly Hunter, Albert Brooks, and William Hurt) are perfectly realized. They each stand for something bigger than themselves, but are still real individuals. Hunter plays a working woman who is successful in her professional life, but struggling in her personal life (think Liz Lemon). As we go through the movie both strands of her professional and personal life are connected together, and at the end of the movie the ethics and principles of her career are actually brought full circle into the romantic conflict in her personal life. It's truly brilliant writing that captures both ideas and emotion. Even though the film is a Hollywood romantic comedy, it still finds a way to be unconventional. You'll find a happy ending in the movie in which things work out to a degree, but it's not the traditional happy ending you would expect. The film makes the statement that while things may not go your way the way you want them to, they will still end up going your way.

Grade: A-