Vampire Cage Match - Vote Now
Advertisement
Sign in
Username   Password         Forgot password?
Wanna join? Sign up
Find movies you'll love

As cool as a Fruitstand

  • La Stanza del Figlio

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    The Son's Room  (2001)

    Sometimes there's movies you've been wanting to see for a long time, but somehow keep delaying. Requiem for a Dream is such a film for me: I've heard it's great, I want to see how great it is, but I enver quite feel up putting myself through it.

    La Stanza del Figlio I've actually owned on DVD for a while, but the word "tearjerker" on the backflap held me back. Luckily, I had a friend over, and she picked it as the film we would watch.

    The thing is, this is not a tearjerker. Yes, it is about a son dying. Yes, it's about grief, and there is much crying done in the film. But at no point did I ever feel manipulated. The film never felt melodramatic, the music never swelled to try to push feelings over the top. For lack of a better word, it felt real.

    Maybe that's why I didn't cry, even if I'm usually quick to shed a tear or two over a movie (or book, for that matter). But I was more moved than I've been in a while, because everything felt true.

    Did I mention it's funny, too? The main character's a shrink, and much of it stems from his patients, but despite the fact that they're all somewhat pathetic figures, the overall sense you get is that despite everything, life does go on.

    La Stanza del figlio is not a masterpiece. It's too small in scope for that, too innocuous. But it's note-perfect in what it sets out to do, and definitely worth watching. Just don't let the "tearjerker" label scare you away.
    Originally posted on:As cool as a Fruitstand

  • Death Proof

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Grindhouse  (2007)

    This morning, I heard a critic on the radio summarily dismiss Death Proof (Tarantino's part of Grindhouse, released separately here) without offering any further qualification. Death Proof (from here on: DP), he said, was a movie honoring bad B movies by being, itself, a bad - and worse: uninteresting- B movie.

    I object.

    True, DP is, to borrow a phrase from The Squid and the Whale, minor Tarantino. The only QT movie it's arguably superior to is Kill Bill pt. 1. But it's much more interesting than "just" a bad B movie.

    QT's films typically take place on one of two levels. His first three (Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, and the underrated Jackie Brown) take place on the first level, which I'll call level A. On level A, every character shares QT's intimate knowledge of and deep interest in pop culture, but this also implies that this level shares its pop culture with the real world. While it is undoubtedly a movie world, the rules of our world apply: gravity sucks, lethal wounds will kill you, and nobody has superpowers. In fact, the one time these "rules" seem to be violated, in Pulp Fiction, it is seen as a miracle. Level A is a tweaked version of our own world: the details might be different (Big Kahuna burgers and so on), the cars are cooler, and there are surreal elements, but the basis is the same. QT points to this, for example with the mostly diagetic music in Reservoir Dogs.

    Then there's level B, where the movies that, as QT said himself, the level A characters would love to watch take place. Kill Bill is resolutely on this level, which is much more cartoonish and flexible. The "rules" of our world don't apply so much there: gravity is challenged at some points, the Bride survives being buried alive and can certainly be said to have "superpowers", especially in the scene where she beats an incredible number of samourai, blood spouts out in gallons at the time, etc. It's a mythical world centered around a superhero on a quest that she ultimately achieves. Notably, while it's not a linear movie, it does end at the resolution. There are still some resemblances to "the real world": superman, for example, exists there too. But aside from the scene with Vernita Green/Copperhead, it's on its own plane.

    What about Death Proof? It seems at first to be on level B as well. There is an intimidating "supervillain" with the stereotypical villain name Stuntman Mike, and a "superweapon": his Death Proof car. The first half of the film plays out as a male fantasy with four girls filmed and objectified as lust objects (with QT's foot fetish clearly on display), and tagged as soon-t0-be victims from the get-go. They're more individualised than they would be in the standard B movie, and the director clearly shows his affection for it, but his camera is predatory. Furthermore, the girls are not real, but designed to embody a fantasy, as evidenced clearly by the lapdance subplot.

    As if we needed more evidence about which level we're on, QT even has two characters from Kill Bill, the sheriff and son #1, who we know live on level B, make an appearance.

    The second group of girls is very different, but they still fit on level B: Zoe Bell plays a superhuman version of herself. She is already rather extraordinary (and attention is pointedly called to this in an early conversation) but she's admitted that the stunts in the films are impossible even for her. After the first chase, the way in which it's shown she survived is almost cartoonesk, and it comforts us about the rules of this world.

    And then QT pulls out the rug from under us.

    During the second chase, the "mythical" cars, Mike's black Dodge Charger and the girls' white Dodge Challenger (the color coding also approriate on this level) suddenly burst onto a road filled with sedans and SUV's, and by this, QT suddenly takes us from this level B movie world not to level A, but straight into the real world, our world. We could be in those cars, and by this trick QT reminds us how vulnerable we are, and while we were at first an audience safely standing on the outside ironically looking in, we are now in this. We're involved. And the chase gets much more thrilling because of it.

    It's just a detail. A small thing some might miss. But it shows that DP is not empty, but open, and filled with touches that show that QT is incapable of making an uninteresting movie.

    There are many other things I could expound on: the look Kurt Russell gives the camera just before stepping into his Chevy Nova, the nostalgia touch that shows QT is aware many young people might not get his references, the strange theme of abstinence and sexual frustration that comes up in both parts, the differences and parallels between the two groups of girls, etc. The soundtrack choices are inspired, as we're used to from QT by now, and certainly worth a few words. But I think I've written enough for now.

    __________________

    "There are few things as fetching as a bruised ego on a beautiful angel"
    Originally posted on:As cool as a Fruitstand

  • The Strange Love of Martha Ivers: first thoughts

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Barbara Stanwyck is my new idol. Really, cool, smart, fierce, if it wasn't for the murderous instincts she has in the two movies I've recently seen her in (this one and Double Indemnity) she'd be a perfect role model. I'm hoping to get a hold of "The Lady Eve" soon, I can't wait to see how she does comedy.

    Also, does Lizabeth Scott look like Lauren Bacall or what? Slightly more wholesome, slightly less cunning maybe, but wow. And an impressive actress, too.

    And that leaves...the men. Who are definitely less impressive than the women in this film, at least character-wise. This is Kirk Douglas' debut, but he doesn't register so much, really (admittedly, it might have been the part). As for Van Heflin, I don't know if it's because standards of attractiveness have changed so much, but I had a hard time buying him as a ladies man, and his flirting seemed WAY too over the top.

    All in all though, a nice little noir. I like the twist that the blackmail is called into life by the people who fear it. There's a nice undercurrent of class tensions. And whaddaya know, there's even a sort-of happy ending.

    Which just leaves one question: why is it that when I feel crappy a nice and cynical film noir is exactly what I need, while a feel good comedy will leave me feeling crappier even than before?
    Originally posted on:As cool as a Fruitstand

 

Like what you're reading?

Subscribe
Search
  Go

Browse previous
<June 2007>
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
272829303112
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
1234567


Categories
 


Advertisement