Under discussion:

Trouble Every Day  (2002)

an interesting review here, with all sorts of 'spoilers', but worth a read before or after watching Trouble Every Day...

http://www.filmfreakcentral.net/screenreviews/troubleeveryday.htm

Plaintive and sad, Claire Denis' remarkable Trouble Every Day is a rare combination of honesty, beauty, and maybe even genius. It isn't enough to say that the picture captures the barbarism festering at the core of gender dynamics; nor is it sufficient to express my frank amazement at how Denis subverts genre in ways perverse and powerful. Here's a canny director who knows the vocabulary of cinema as well as the cruel poetics of sexual anthropology--perhaps it's enough to say that Trouble Every Day captures something ineffably true about the sex act with images vital, frank, and unshakable.

Under discussion:

Men Behind the Sun  (1989)

Make no mistake about this film. It is grim and ghastly and I am not only talking about the transfer to DVD and the dubbing. All the characters talk with an inexplicable mock english accent, all vaguely similar, complete with the phrasing, delivery, and accentuation, but minus the farting noises,  to Terrance and Philip's on Southpark. You will want to look away more than a few dozen times.

What occured at Unit 731 matches or exceeds anything doled out in shovelfuls and the boatload during the WWII conflict and I suspect any other conflict, you wish to name.  Then it all ended, and those in command of Unit 731, for the most part 'walked', much like some of the Germans, with their own newfound value, did too... thanks to the global cooling of the developing Cold War. Their crimes buried away somewhere, for the good of the national interests.

see http://www.ww2pacific.com/unit731.html and other sources on the Web and elsewhere for more information about this fun factory.  As much as you may care not to believe it so, Men behind the Sun may just as well have been a documentary. I doubt whether the circumstances could have been protrayed with any more horror than you will see here.

WARNING! there are some extremely gruesome scenes..

Under discussion:

The Gallant Hours  (1960)

From Sea of Thunder; Four Commanders and the last great Naval Campaign 1941-1945; by Evan Thompson 

...Halsey sought consolation in other ways. 

In his role as sea dog, he had a well deserved reputation for seeking a girl in every port.  One of Week’s, jobs was to keep Halsey and his staff entertained off-duty.  "I'm running a little party for the Admiral and getting some nurses from a hospital ship---God help them, the nurses I mean!"  Weeks wrote his wife from Ulithi after the difficult visit to see the wounded aboard the hospital ship on November 11.  A week later, Weeks wrote his wife, "The nurses were grand, good sports---they'd been working very hard with the wounded and were just as ready for a break as we were." 

The nurses needed to be good sports.  An Admiral’s aide to the chief of nursing aboard a hospital ship described a nurses’ party with Halsey and his staff:  After the meal, one of the celebrants flipped a live cigarette in the wastebasket, which caught fire, whereupon an officer grabbed a CO2 bottle, stuck the cone in the basket, and quickly extinguished the flames.  Then he pushed the nozzle up the dress of one of the nurses and squirted her between the legs.  She let out a scream as the dry ice burned.  Other schnockered officers grabbed CO2 bottles and started chasing nurses around the wardroom.  

Though Halsey claimed his nickname "Bull" had been bestowed by newspapermen, in fact he had been dubbed "Bull" by fellow officers for his conquests ashore.  Carnes Week’s son Carnes Jr., a Marine corporal, was invited to have drinks with Halsey at the St. Francis Hotel during a home leave in 1944.  "When he partied, he really let himself go," Weeks recalled.  "He always had a Marine guard outside his door, and I was asked to stand guard there that night.  Inside, I could hear them down on all fours barking like a dog with this nice lady who was his friend for the evening."

Under discussion:

Inland Empire  (2006)

Here is a link to a pretty interesting article on Slate describing both the film and the film-making; I think it is worth a reading and a post:

http://www.slate.com/id/2172678/pagenum/all/#page_start

here is the text, there are some embedded videos available with the link that could not be linked to this post

dvd extras

David Lynch Goes Digital

Why Inland Empire is better on your TV than it was on the big screen.

By Dennis Lim
Posted Thursday, Aug. 23, 2007, at 10:34 AM ET

In recent years, David Lynch has emerged as a tireless proselytizer—of organic coffee, transcendental meditation, and, perhaps most surprising for a onetime celluloid fetishist, digital video. While other veteran filmmakers (Jean-Luc Godard, Spike Lee, Steven Soderbergh) have dipped their toes in the chilly electronic murk of DV, Lynch has jumped right in. "Film is like a dinosaur in a tar pit," he told me when I interviewed him last fall.

Lynch's latest feature, Inland Empire, is his 10^th, and his first to be shot in digital video. The movie was an overwhelming experience on the big screen, a three-hour waking nightmare that derives both its form and its content from the splintering psyche of a troubled Hollywood actress, played by Laura Dern. But the natural home for this shape-shifting epic may in fact be the small screen. Watch Inland Empire on the DVD that came out last week and you sense that this lurid, grubby fantasy springs from deep within the bowels of YouTube as much as from inside its heroine's muddy unconscious. The DV that Lynch has come to cherish is the medium of home movies, viral video, and pornography—the everyday media detritus we associate more with television and computer monitors than movie theaters, more with intimate or private viewing experiences than communal ones.

And not only does Inland Empire often look like it belongs on the Internet, it also progresses with the darting, associative logic of hyperlinks. Indeed, parts of the movie originated on Lynch's Web site, davidlynch.com, itself a labyrinth of wormholes and worlds within worlds. The rare major filmmaker who caught on early to the potential of streaming video, Lynch has been creating short films specifically for an online audience since 2001. One of his more popular Web series, Rabbits, in which a rabbit-headed family recites Beckettian non sequiturs (to the sound of canned sitcom laughter), actually made its way into Inland Empire.

The practice of shooting feature films on video only goes back a decade or so, to the introduction of the cheap, compact MiniDV format. The Dogme '95 movement, led by Danish troublemaker Lars von Trier, kicked off the digital revolution, and before long, DV was the default mode for indie filmmaking the world over. Broadly speaking, the first wave of MiniDV films can be grouped into two categories: those that treat video as a language in itself, with its own expressive potential (the first Dogme film, The Celebration, for instance, or even The Blair Witch Project), and those that attempt to disguise or neglect to accommodate the video-ness of video and use it simply as an affordable substitute for film.

High-definition video, which now often closely approximates film, has become an increasingly common format for studio productions (David Fincher's Zodiac being a recent example). But Lynch is not interested in simulating celluloid with a state-of-the-art video camera. He shot Inland Empire with the relatively primitive Sony PD-150, a consumer-grade model that was introduced in 2001 (eons ago in techie years) at a retail price of less than $4,000. Lynch's love of video has much to do with the freedom it grants. Shooting with a camcorder removes the strictures of a traditional film production, allowing for a smaller crew, less setup time, and no accountability to money men. The lightweight camera, along with the low cost and high capacity of videotape, generally means more and longer takes. Video permits Lynch to indulge fully his taste for improvisation—to make things up as he goes along. Inland Empire was written a scene at a time and shot piecemeal over a period of three years.

But Lynch being Lynch, aesthetic concerns presumably outweighed practical ones. Compared with film, video typically looks harsh and almost hyperreal, with a narrower range of colors and weaker contrast, but it's precisely those qualities that Lynch revels in. While a lower-resolution film stock, like Super 8, has a grainy, romantic allure, lower-resolution video, characterized by fewer pixels per inch, merely looks fuzzy. For Lynch, who has likened low-res video to film stock before the emulsion process was perfected, the murkier the image, the more "room to dream," as he puts it. It's no wonder this master of the enigmatic would prize video for its literal lack of information.

The deeper you get into Inland Empire, the more logical the video aesthetic seems. The bleeding colors and the unstable image are a perfect fit for the fugue state that the movie gradually sinks into. Simply put, Inland Empire is the story of a grave identity crisis. The trouble begins when actress Nikki Grace (Dern) lands a part in a hokey melodrama called On High in Blue Tomorrows. As actor merges with character, and film and reality violently intersect, space and time also begin to fissure. One minute we're in sunny Southern California, the next in snowy, old-world Poland.

Inland Empire shares with Lynch's previous feature, Mulholland Drive (2001), a morbid fascination with the destructive machinery of Hollywood. Both regard acting as a threat to the stability of the self. The earlier film, ingeniously reconstructed from an aborted TV pilot, was a poisoned valentine, ruefully enthralled by the promise and magic of old Hollywood. Inland Empire strips off the patina of glamour. In every respect—from its experimental ethos to its unconventional economics (it was partly self-financed and eventually self-distributed)—the film is Lynch's defiant rebuke to the industry that has never fully embraced him. At one point, one of Dern's characters (she seems to be playing three or four) is stabbed in the gut and staggers along the Hollywood Walk of Fame, leaving a trail of blood.

Video, as Lynch uses it here, is the language of the subconscious, somehow more and less real than plain old filmic reality. DV looks more lifelike than film (its frame rate, the frequency at which successive images are captured, is higher than film's and closer to how the human eye operates), but it also seems unnaturally heightened, since it's not what celluloid-trained eyes are used to.

Lynch started his career as a painter—earlier this year the Fondation Cartier in Paris mounted a show of his photographs, digitally tweaked erotica, and massive, crude, roughly textured oil canvases—and he uses video with the curiosity and resourcefulness of an innate visual artist. He pays attention to its flickers, its shadows, its susceptibility to distortion from under- or overexposure. In this remarkable scene, for instance, he achieves a multitude of textures with an amusingly low-tech flashlight-in-the-dark method.

Bodies and faces, meanwhile, are repeatedly abstracted with an unforgiving lens or light source. Dern fearlessly offers herself up to one disfiguring wide-angle shot after another. The extreme close-up is a Lynch trademark, and here, using his DV camera like a new toy, he peers even more intently than usual, as if he's stumbled on an entirely different way of looking.

Whether or not Lynch intended it to, Inland Empire in the end conveys a techno-existential insight worthy of William Gibson. Film is a physical process, dependent on the interaction of light and chemistry. Video is by definition more remote, more spectral, a cluster of data in the electronic ether. And while mortality is a defining trait of film, a medium that degrades and disintegrates over time, video—quickly and endlessly reproducible—conjures a spooky sense of the infinite. In Inland Empire, truly a horror movie for the digital age, it's not that the ghost is in the machine. The ghost is the machine.

Dennis Lim is editorial director at the Museum of the Moving Image and a regular contributor to the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times.

Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2172678/

Under discussion:

The Guns of Navarone  (1961)

Out of Africa  (1985)

Sands of Iwo Jima  (1949)

The Spy Who Came in from the Cold  (1965)

Where Eagles Dare  (1969)

The Wild Geese  (1978)

In Clive James recent book Cultural Amnesia; he writes about  people who matter, most of them though, I am very sad and embarrassed to say, I never heard of ( for that matter, I just noticed that I had been reading his works for years in the New Yorker, but never noticed the ‘by-line’  until the other day ) but well I should have.   

The book is set up in alphabetical order and its subjects include such persons as Louis Armstrong, Dick Cavett, Miles Davis, Sergei Diaghilev, Francois Furet, Chris Marker, Michael Mann, Thomas Mann, Erik Satie, Margaret Thatcher, Isoroku Yamamoto, Aleksandr Zinoviev, and many others. Each person’s section begins with a brief biographical introduction followed by an essay of sorts on that particular person. The biographical information is terse and leaves a feeling of wanting to know much more of the person. The essays provide the most interest, relating the person in question with all sorts of other persons, other arts, and simple, often times intensely personal observations.  I cannot say that I agree with all his observations, for who could ( I do not share  his perception of John Coltrane’s music and the music of  that period of Jazz in particular that he sets down in his essay on Duke Ellington ) but there is certainly something about Clive James way of weaving one bit to another and another and another.  

A portion of the section on Arthur Schnitzler follows below and how James weaves an isolated quote into an examination of the manifest absurdity within the mentioned films, the blockbuster,  a few actors ability and personal idiosyncrasies, the nature of a ‘star’ to an actor, historic detail, and more…   

Of the great unknowns, Arthur Schnitzler (1862-1931) has his section and in the essay portion  contains a marvelous review of sorts on ‘Where Eagles Dare’ a wonderously hilarious  World War II adventure.   I quote at length ( it is lengthy but can be read in convenient sections without missing much at all ), because Clive James tells and writes it all so well: 

‘Arthur Schnitzler (1862-1931 ) was a giant of literary Vienna in its most fruitful era.  A practicing physician before he turned professional writer, he brought a view steeped in the harsh realism of the consulting room and the surgery to his stories, novels, and plays.  The most conspicuous, and most enduringly controversial, element in this clinical realism was his exploration of the erotic.  As a physician he knew a lot about it at secondhand…’ 

‘there are all kinds of flight from responsibility.  There is a flight into death, a flight into sickness, and finally a flight into stupidity.  The last is the least dangerous and the most comfortable, since even for clever people the journey is not as long as they might fondly imagine.’-Arthur Schnitzler, Buch Der Spruche und Bedenken, p. 78-  

‘… Schnitzler’s flight into stupidity might look like the only explanation for the sort of newspapers, magazines, television programs and movies that make us ashamed to be living in the West.  At first blush, the mass media seem to offer the ideal chance of examining stupidity in isolation.  But once again, the trick is not easily worked.  There is a possibility, amounting to a probability when the really big money is involved, that the stupidity is being manufactured by clever people whose commercial motives put their case, scope and integrity into abeyance.  This non-anomaly becomes most obvious in the case of Hollywood's blockbuster movies, or the long haul of creative intelligence takes a spiral route towards the big haul at the box office. Every onlooker fancies his power of discrimination has a wonderful time when a blockbuster flops on the opening weekend.  But the blockbuster that we actually have a wonderful time watching is a more equivocal case. Where Eagles Dare has always been my favorite example: since the day I first saw it, I've taken a sour delight rebutting pundits who so blithely assume that the obtuseness on screen merely reflects the stunted mentalities behind the camera, and I go on seeing its every rerun on television in order to reinforce my stock of telling detail---and, alright, in order to have a wonderful time.  There's something precious about the intellectual squalor of Where Eagles Dare: it is a swamp with the surface of green pulp squeeze from emeralds.  You can't get the same charge from Delta Force movies, or from the adventures of Jean-Claude Van Damme and the brainless universe where men with guns are helpless against a man fighting with his feet.  Where Eagles Dare is the apex of a form: it shows that there is somewhere to go beyond The Guns of Navarone, a numbskull stratosphere in which not even The Wild Geese could fly.  Where eagles dare, the sense of the ridiculous winks out to a dot, and the vision is filled with the vaulting pretensions of latter-day schoolmen who believe, if only ad hoc and pro tem, its cinematic sense can exist in vacuo: detached, that is, from any other sense; a voluntary brain-death.  The whole complex phenomena is epitomized by Richard Burton's hairstyle. 

Schnitzler, let us remember, said that the flight into stupidity is a flight away from responsibility.  But soaring beyond any human absurdity that even Schnitzler could imagine, Richard Burton's hairstyle in Where Eagles Dare is a flight into stupidity and away from the barber.  Burton plays a British agent who is possibly also a German agent, although we can be fairly sure that he will turn out to be a British agent in the end, because Richard Burton's agent would never agree to a deal by which his client was shot at dawn.  Burton the almost certainly British stage is sent, with Clint Eastwood and other agents---some of who actually do turn out to be German agents—on a mission to a castle deep behind German lines, there to rescue, or possibly confirm the credibility of, or perhaps betray the real identity of an actor pretending to be an American general in possession of the plans for a Second Front.  The actor playing the actor need not detain us, and considering how he acts it is a wonder that the Germans have detained him.  (There is a lot more to wonder about the behavior of the Germans, but we'll get to that later.)  The actors who matter are Richard Burton and Clint Eastwood.  Clint, already a top box office draw at the time, has been cast as a simple, straight-talking American assassin who helps a fiendishly ingenious British spy: it's the same relationship as Felix Leiter to James Bond, but beefed up to equal status to meet the requirements of the American marquee.  Apart from saying "hello" so as to make Germans turn around before he shoots them with the silenced pistol---if he had merely mouthed "hello" before shooting them in the back, it would have been a different kind of movie, i.e., a realistic one ---Clint's character has nothing anachronistic about him except his cataleptic taciturnity, which we are glad to recognize as a minimally equipped actor's career-long habit of overdoing the understatement.  Burton's own style of acting is equally dissonant with the time, but in the opposite direction: he always overdid the overstatement, and from the beginning to the end of his career on screen he looked exactly like a stage actor projecting to the upper circle, except when a director with animal-training skills (Martin Ritt in The Spy Who Came in from the Cold, to take one of the few examples) either whipped him into submission or else slipped a sedative into his morning triple.  Burton always moved his lips so much when he enunciated that they would stick out past the end of his nose, and there are episodes in Where Eagles Dare in which they practically leave the frame, as if yet another triple was waiting out there, begging  to be imbibed.   

It isn't the stuff he does with his face, however, that makes Burton look out of place in this castellated anteroom of World War II.  It is the stuff on top of his head.  It's his hairstyle.  It was probably still all his own hair at that stage, but it's a hairstyle: an item, that is, which not even women found it easy to obtain during World War II, and which for men was unknown.  (In the movie, Mary Ure has obviously taken a hairstylist into action with her, but we never see him: although if he'd wandered into a shot holding a crimping iron he would have looked no more futuristic than her miraculously smooth coiffure, shining with a blonde luster that  Eva Braun, even with her connections, could only dream of.) The high command of the Romanian army did indeed issue an order that no officer below the rank of major could wear makeup, but the British army and the German army both made a policy of short back and sides for all ranks, and the German army was particularly close-cropped.  Yet Burton, intending to be accepted as a German officer in order to penetrate the enemy redoubt, has gone to action sporting a page-boy hairstyle so fulsome that it spills abundant curls and waves below the back of his collar.  Burton had a big head anyway.  I interviewed him once, and found out why he always looks so stocky on screen: it was because his upper works were so broad you had to lean sideways to see past him.  Even if close-shorn he would have had to wear a cap rare for its size in the whole of the Wehrmacht.  But with his hairstyle added to his massive cranium, his cap has to be big enough for a buffalo, and it still does nothing to disguise---does a lot, indeed, to emphasize,--- the anomalous abundance of hair protruding at the back.  On several occasions in the movie has to pass a German checkpoint, and you can only deduce that the garrison has been recruited from an institute to for the blind.  Later in the war, when regular German forces were in a state of collapse, Volksstrum units were organized from the old, the adolescent, the lame and the sick, but I can't remember that very many sightless people were issued with the Panzerfaust  and asked  to shoot in the direction of the noise kicked up by Allied tanks.  Here at the castle there is no discrimination against the optically handicapped. 

Whether as a single, double or triple agent (“Triple, please," you can imagine him saying) the Burton character would have been barely free of his parachute harness before being placed under arrest.  He would have been locked up on the basis of his appearance alone.  Every other anachronism is explicable, within the screenplay’s purely cinematic parameters.  In the German pub below the castle, Burton, Eastwood and the other agents---the others are notable chiefly for their expandability---talk very loudly in English.  Yes, English is their chosen language when they discuss their plans about fooling the Germans, and they do not lower their voices when members of the garrison pass by closely behind them.  It could be said, however, that a convention is being observed here, and that our agents are really speaking German.  (It could also be said that if they were speaking German, the closely attendant Germans would be even more likely to notice that plans to fool them were being loudly discussed, but let that pass.)  There is also the consideration that English seems to be the adopted language of every German in the area.  Similarly, it could be put down to an equally hallowed cinematic convention when the German commandant arrives in the castle courtyard by helicopter.  There were no operational helicopters in World War II, but there were no operational cannon ancient Rome either, and Shakespeare still put a few in.  Shakespeare pioneered Hollywood's flexible attitude to temporal authenticity, as any what Hollywood mogul with a tertiary education will be glad to tell you.  For every howler in the movie there is a good justification, the principal one being that the people who made the movie must have known it was howler, but correctly judged that nobody they cared about would notice.  In the majority of big-budget war films since World War II, and all the small budget ones, the enemy has always fired a special kind of bullet that goes around, instead of through, the actors on our side, occasionally penetrating only at the shoulder or in a sexually neutral section of the upper thigh.  In Sands of Iwo Jima John Wayne finally got killed by Japanese bullet while he was sitting down, but only after the Japanese machine gunners had vainly fired thousands of bullets at him when he was running very slowly.  In Where Eagles Dare, whole German machine-gun nests equipped with multiple examples of the lethal MG42 (rate of   fire: 1200 rounds per minute) are unable to graze Richard Burton's hairstyle.  Big enough for slowly moving cow to graze it, for cinematic reasons it is impervious to speeding lead.  But there are precedents for that.  There is no precedent for the hairstyle per se. 

This is where the pundit clinches his seemingly open-and-shut case for Schnitzler’s flight into stupidity as the principal motivation of the film’s creators, or perpetrators.  He might concede that some of the perps are technically clever, but in that case he will insist that there is still a collective purpose: the system itself.  And he will be right, but not as right as he thinks.  He has overlooked the factor of star power, which is what made him see the movie in the first place.  Letting Burton keep his everyday or hairstyle was a studio’s only chance of getting them into this sector of World War II.  (He kept a less a bit less of his thatch for his cameo appearance in The Longest Day, but it still wasn't buoyant enough to get him arrested by his own side, let alone by the enemy. ) And Burton wasn't being stupid either.  He realized that the point was not to look like a British agent plausibly pretending to be a German officer: the point was to look like Richard Burton.  The reality of star power depends on exactly that.  Malleability is for actors.  For screen stars, recognizability is what matters.  Much later, and in a better movie, Robert Redford proved it all over again by declining at the last moment to adopt an English accent when he played Denys Finch Hatton in Out of Africa.  He was right.  Out of Africa was a serious venture, but it was still a blockbuster and it needed Redford as a draw on the marquee, not as a paragon of authenticity on the screen.  Redford was content to leave all that to Meryl Streep and Klaus Maria Brandauer.  He wasn't just content, he insisted.  And it was by making such demands that he became Robert Redford.  If we doubt the value of that, we should remember that he would never have been in a position to set up the Sundance Festival, and thus alter the whole course of independent and intelligent film-making in America, if he hadn't been Robert Redford in the first instance.  He is a very clever man, and so, between drinks was Burton, who could recite English poetry by the mile.  Burton was clever enough to intuit a deeply awkward truth, and incorporate it in the hairstyle he carried into action in one of the most lucrative movies he ever made.  To one side of the world's great events, there is the interpretation of them.  To one side of the interpretation, there is entertainment.  And to one side of entertainment, there is absurdity.  But if the absurdity is correctly judged, he will be found entertaining, even by those who are well aware of the real importance of the events being travestied.  There can be a willing, mass participation in the flight into stupidity, because there can always be an agreed moment when the flight away from responsibility becomes irresistible.  To pick that moment takes a kind of talent, it might be a spoiled talent, but mediocrity will never make it…’   

Quite a bit remains within the remainder of this essay and for that matter the book in its entirety.  

Under discussion:

Akira Kurosawa's Dreams  (1990)

 The Dreams:

Sunshine through the Rain

The Peach Orchard

The Blizzard

The Tunnel

Crows

Mount Fuji in Red

The Weeping Demon

Village of the Watermills 

What do dreams tell us? What do these of Kurosawa tell us?  From what stuff are Dreams constructed?  Mine, never as lyrical as these in this film,  typically take the events of the day, mix them up a bit, add a bit of extraneous information, pour on some garbled insight, add some emotional coloring, and then become sort of an amalgam of what has occurred during the day offering new and I would hope fresh insights about that which has transpired during the course of my day. 

Of course, in Kurosawa's Dreams, none of the dreams are disjointed like mine.  All the dreams are much more structured, and follow a discernible narrative, but all are nonetheless, clearly magical.  Of the eight, I am hard pressed to make a choice of a favorite; it seems so difficult (the clouds of drifting peach blossoms like a blizzard of snow, in “The Peach Orchard";  simply unforgettable).  One, ‘Crows’,  however, took several of Van Gogh's paintings and made them live.  

I lost track and am not quite certain of exactly which paintings were made live in the film.  As the artist character walked the fields in France, he came upon ‘Langlois Bridge at Arles with Women Washing’ made alive, Women Washing, the stone Bridge itself, all in Van Gogh’s glorious colors.  Later the artist character walked along the road across the same fields Van Gogh painted, and then met up with the Van Gogh himself painting, played by Martin Scorsese, complete with the bandage and the missing ear.  I may be wrong, but next occurred, ‘The Sun rising behind Mont. Majours’ and then in a burst of flight, ‘Wheat Field with Crows’ ( one of the last works before Van Gogh’s  suicide )  with hundreds of Crows squawking and flapping in flight covering the screen. 

For more information about Van Gogh, all of his individual paintings, his letters to his brother Theo, and much more, please see the following website:http://www.vggallery.com/index.html  

From E. H. Gombrich’s  ‘The Story of Art’, here is information regarding the individual  paintings on the screen and what Van Gogh was experiencing during that portion of his life ( Van Gogh completed hundreds of paintings over the course of the final three years of his life).  I quote this Gombrich at length and apologize for the length but it seems there's so much information ( especially the final paragraph ) that Grombrich conveys here that points directly to not only Van Gogh, but  other artists, art, and my feelings for Kurosawa's work and his in this film.  

In the winter of 1888, while Cezanne was painting his landscapes and still lifes in Aix, there arrived in southern France another painter in search of the intense light and colours of the south. He was a young and earnest Dutchman called Vincent Van Gogh. Van Gogh was born in Holland in 1853, the son of a vicar. He was a deeply religious man who had worked as a lay preacher in England and among Belgian miners. He had been profoundly impressed by the art of Milet and its social message, and decided to become a painter himself. A younger brother, Theo, who worked in an art-dealer’s shop, introduced him to Impressionist painters. This brother was a remarkable man. Though poor himself, he always gave ungrudgingly to the older Vincent and even financed his journey to Arles in southern France. Vincent hoped that if he could work there undisturbed for a number of years he might be able one day to sell his pictures and repay his generous brother. In his self-chosen solitude in Arles, Vincent confided in his letters to Theo, which read like a continuous diary, all his ideas and hopes. These letters, by a humble and almost self-taught artist who had no idea of the fame he was to achieve, are among the most moving and exciting in all literature. In them we can feel the artist’s sense of mission, his struggle and triumphs, his desperate loneliness and longing for companionship, and we become aware of the immense strain under which he worked with feverish energy. After less than a year, in December 1888, he broke down and had an attack of insanity. In May 1889 he went into a mental asylum, but he still had lucid intervals during which he continued to paint. The agony lasted for another fourteen months. In July 1890 Van Gogh put an end to his life. He died younger than even Raphael. His career as a painter had not lasted more than ten years---the paintings on which his fame rests were all painted during three years which were interrupted by crises and despair. Most people nowadays know some of these paintings; the sunflowers, the empty chair, the cypresses and some of the portraits have become popular in coloured reproductions and can be seen in many a simple room. That is exactly what Van Gogh wanted. He wanted his pictures to have the direct and strong effect of the coloured Japanese prints he admired so much. He longed for an unsophisticated art which would not only appeal to the rich connoisseurs but could give joy and consolation to every human being. Nevertheless, this is not quite the whole story. No reproduction is perfect. The cheaper ones make Van Gogh’s pictures look cruder than they really are, and one may sometimes tire of them. Whenever that happens, it is quite a revelation to return to Van Gogh’s original works and to discover how subtle and deliberate he could be even in his strongest effects. 

For Van Gogh, too, had absorbed the lessons of Impressionism. He experimented with the use of bright, pure colours which he did not mix on the palette but applied to the canvas in small strokes or dots, relying on the beholder’s eye which would see them all together. Some of the younger painters in Paris had built up a whole scientific theory on this type of ‘pointillisme’ which should heighten the intensity of colour effects. Van Gogh liked the technique of painting in dots and strokes, but under his hand it became something rather different from what the Impressionists had meant it to be. For Van Gogh used the individual brush-strokes not only to break up the colour but also to convey his own excitement. In one of his letters from Arles he describes his states of inspiration when ‘the emotions are sometimes so strong that one works without being aware of working…and the strokes come with a sequences and coherence like words in a speech or a letter’. The comparison could not be clearer. In such moments he painted as other men write.  Just as the form of the writing in a letter, the traces left by the pen on the paper, impart something of the gestures of the writer, so that we feel instinctively when a letter was written under great stress of emotion---so the brush-strokes of Van Gogh tell us something of the state of his mind. No artist before him had ever used this means with such consistency and effect. We remember that there is bold and loose brush-work in earlier paintings, in works by Tintoretto ( St. George’s Fight with the Dragon ), by Hals ( Pieter van der Broecke ), and by Manet (Monet working in his boat ), but in these it rather conveys the artists’ sovereign mastery, his quick perception and magic capacity of conjuring up a vision. In Van Gogh they help to convey the exaltation of the artist’s mind. Van Gogh liked to paint objects and scenes which gave this new means full scope---motifs in which he could draw as well as paint with his brush, and lay on the colour thick just as a writer who underlines his words. That is why he was the first painter to discover the beauty of stubbles, hedgerows and cornfields, of the gnarled branches of olive trees and the dark, flame-like shapes of the cypress ( Landscape with Cypresses near Arles ). 

It is clear that Van Gogh was not mainly concerned with correct representation.  He used colors and forms to convey what he felt about the things he painted, and what he wished others to feel.  He did not care much for what he called "stereoscopic reality", that is to say the photographically exact picture of nature.  He would exaggerate and even change the appearance of things when this suited his aim.  Thus he had arrived by a different road in a similar juncture to that at which Cezanne found himself during these same years.  Both took a momentous step of deliberately abandoning the aim of painting as an "imitation of nature".  Their reasons, of course, were different.  When Cezanne painted a still life, he wanted to explore the relationship of forms and color, and took in only so much of "correct perspective" as he happened to need for his particular experiment.  Van Gogh new wanted this painting to express what he felt, and if distortion helped him to achieve this aim he would use distortion.  Both of them had arrived at this point without wanting to overthrow the old standards of art.  They did not pose as "revolutionaries"; they did not want to shock the complacent critics.  Both of them, in fact, had almost given up hope of anybody paying attention to their pictures-they just worked on because they had to.  

Neither dreams nor the dreams in this film, nor some films are overly concerned with correct representation.  Films can, "…exaggerate and even change the appearances of things when this…” suits the Director's aims.  As Kurosawa does here, in this film, all the better so for our emotional benefit, enjoyment, and experience.

Under discussion:

Safe  (1995)

Don’t count on the All Movie Guide to give you any hope explaining the film or this post either for that matter. 

I appreciate the films of David Cronenberg. I enjoy the meditation on his subject matter, his sense of the science/society bond and the sense in the films of attendant, unexpected consequences run mad and life annihilating. I found this film, while exploring similar man-made environmental issues much quieter, not as physically sickening ( but enough so nevertheless ), the cinematography much better (very interesting use of long-shots in the early part ), but these differences with/from Cronenberg's films did nothing to lessen the similar dread I felt throughout this film ( and all of Cronenberg’s ) and at the film’s conclusion.  

The beginning of the end came for me, a little after the film began, the return home from a forced convivial dinner with ‘friends’,  a quick hop into the sack,   and on to  the scene of Carol's husband (I prefer to see him hanging, supported on his tippy-toes, with The Terminator 2’s Robert Patrick morphed into Jenette Goldstein’s pokey sword arm thing through the last grasped and gulped  milk container and out the rear of his neck ) pumping away on her, she looking off into space, completely disassociated, gone, not having or seeming to want any part of it...but from that moment on it seems,  she becomes very associated with her life, as it unravels to that horrible sequestered end, with her looking into the mirror, an emaciated, bloated, ghost, repeating a mantra of ‘love for herself’, because nothing else works for her malaise. 

Is Haynes toying with our beliefs???; suggesting that Carol just might be imagining her sickness (after all,  the rest of us are just fine, what the hell is with her??? Is she faking??? She has to be, because we cannot feel ‘it’. ), letting her and her sickness, after the doctor's reassurances, become a fringe/New Age belief/concern one moment, then moving in closer and letting the reality of hers and those of the other ‘unfortunates' daily existences make it a truth and the truth for Carol and finally for all of us???  

He paints the woe, the physical destruction of her health and then, I think, the woe of the world ( the Gaia ) with the spewing blue/black smoke from the truck ahead of her while she drives somewhere and then she must stop to choke it all out or in, and his use of sights and sounds.

I really enjoyed the sounds, the ambient background of the machinery of civilization, effective like in David Lynch's Eraserhead, Blue Velvet.  Here though, I think, the drone you hear in the background, is tolling for Carol and for us all, and it seems our death knell, our Requiem Mass. Perhaps, it seems, we  just do not know it yet, but Carol certainly 'do'. She and the others are at the far end of the bell curve, the most highly sensitive range to the environmental poison;  (they are the canary in the mine for us all )  

In the background swirling above and around: Jets flying above spewing out contrails  (Here is an interesting post from the Rigorous Intuition Site:http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2006/05/manifestations_13.htmlReferencing Morgellons Disease; that some have linked to Jet Contrails; note the reference to ‘Delusional Parasitosis’ in the post and how this fits the simple, unknowing view of Carol ).  The traffic, the dust swirling, the destructive pollution everywhere, all inescapable (except, secured  inside your own private clean room???), the clad and protected figure walking about the grounds of her Treatment Center ( by the way, the treatment center, although it was in 'Albuquerque' certainly the shots were not and it is too bad, real scenery here would have been more effective evocative to show the isolation and hardness ). 

This seems like a real disaster movie to me, but at the moment, only to Carol and the others who exist like her, the hypersensitive, but not just yet,  for the rest of us.  To experience her nightmare, we  just have to wait to get the appropriate dose of our own poison.  Right now, our tolerance may be only just a little bit higher than hers ( but how much higher??? Are we Safe? ). We can ask ourselves how long do we have to wait to before we all become Carol, and how long before we get on with changing, correcting, and eliminating this mess for us all and those who will exist in the future.