kristen

Under discussion:

Slumdog Millionaire  (2008)

Slumdog Millionaire (2008, Danny Boyle, USA/UK) zero stars

The movie opens with a device it will use to tell the rest of the story- a question followed by a very pointed yet mystical explanation of how Jamal will succeed. Jamal is one question away from winning 20 million rupees. How did he do it? A. He cheated. B. He’s lucky. C. He’s a genius. D. It is destiny. It is written. And that is half of the problem. Jamal’s life has a predetermined outcome calculated by the filmmaker to meet the desires of a hopeful audience. 

Police kidnap Jamal (they suspect him of cheating on game show Who Wants to Be a Millionaire) and torture him in order to elicit a confession. Torture methods of our innocent victim include beating, suspension by the arms, and electrocution. From this moment the audience naturally sympathizes with innocent hero. Jamal maintains that you don't have to be a genius to know the answers to those questions. Intrigued at this slumdog's stubbornness, the authorities agree to listen to an explanation, question by question, of how Jamal knows the answers.  This device allows the movie to explore Jamal's life, providing insight into his character and setting up the love story.

Jamal explains situation after situation where he is the victim of some horrible atrocity (like having to jump in excrement because of his brother, having his mother's head bashed in before his eyes, him inches away from being blinded by an orphan collector, leaving his love in the hands of this horrible man, being threatened at gunpoint by his brother, and finally his brother raping the love of his life Lakita (she agrees so that Salim wont kill Jamal)).  Each one of these atrocities explains how he knew the answer to the game show questions. Unfortunately, he did not learn a single thing at school (the final question asks about The Three Musketeers, a book he was supposed to read). Fortunately, his life “is written".

We learn that we are dealing with a saint. Everything Jamal says is true. Here is a person who never inflicts harm on others. A person who is always innocent but always suffers. Even being on the show tortures Jamal for he must relive these horrible events. Because of his propensity for truth, the police come to believe what we knew from the beginning, Jamal is innocent.

But memory is a funny thing. Memory, even the memory of saints, fails. What human can possibly relate the story of his/her life objectively? No human I know.  No Holden Caulfield. No Guido. Not even me. However, the movie believes sincerely that Jamal is a completely reliable narrator and asks us to believe the same. This is how we know that the story is told by device, not person. Even a person who is truthful to a fault will tell his or her story unfaithfully. If the movie wants to give us a character, shouldn't it allow him to fail?

Jamal is infallible therefore he lacks human dimension. The movie tries to avoid this by saying that he is human but a mystical hand guides him to success. This touch of magic harms what could have been really beautiful about the movie- the love story. Again the movie relies on techniques, this time it’s a technique that continually separates Jamal and Latika to make their love seem urgent and to force magic into their final reunion. Because of Jamal’s magical destiny he finds Latika immediately every time he looks for her. In Mumbai, with 19 million people (as his brother Salim points out) Jamal finds Latika in less than thirty minutes. He asks one person and then there she is, waiting to run to Jamal. Yes, the story was written that way.

However, Jamal must win Latika. It seems that her heart knows money and security offer happiness. She refuses to run away with Jamal out of love even if it means suffering abuse from a rich misogynist. Jamal must win 20 million rupees to win her heart. The problem is that true love doesn’t love money; it loves the person. If the movie wanted genuine romance, it should have (SPOILER) allowed Jamal to loose the 20 million rupees but win the priceless prize of love. Then love will have its victory. Instead, we have reason to doubt Latika’s love. Why wouldn’t she run away with a rich friend who loves her, who she’s known all her life, and who will not beat her under any circumstance? Any woman like her would choose Jamal over an abusive millionaire.

It has been written that "Slumdog Millionaire is the film world's first globalized masterpiece" (Joe Morgenstern, Wall Street Journal). It seems that some critics completely overlook the facts. Though there are many internationally known movies like Modern Times, La Strada, Titanic, I guess that Danny Boyle is the only filmmaker with an internationally recognized "masterpiece". Kenneth Turan of the Los Angeles Times described it as "a Hollywood-style romantic melodrama that delivers major studio satisfactions in an ultra-modern way". Yes, every section does feature at least one club song in its entirety from ultra-modern artists such as M.I.A. "The film uses dazzling cinematography, breathless editing, driving music and headlong momentum to explode with narrative force, stirring in a romance at the same time" (Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times).  The characters do spend most of their time running. McCarthy concluded, "As drama and as a look at a country increasingly entering the world spotlight, Slumdog Millionaire is a vital piece of work by an outsider who's clearly connected with the place".  How? By making a movie about it? (as my friend Ryan said). 

As the movie readily admits "It is written”, written to manipulate this response from its audience.

Under discussion:

Changeling  (2008)

            Clint Eastwood characters are like Sarah Palin saying repeatedly in the vice presidential debate that we need to stop the greed and corruption on Wall Street. What she says is correct but one gets the feeling that she has no sophisticated understanding of the matter and no plan of attack (she lacks abstract thought). She correctly identifies an evil but simplifies it to a sound bite. In the same manner, Clint Eastwood portrays the corrupt LAPD as evil (which they may very well be) but reduces humans to flat charactures. Clint Eastwood in his simplistic manner says that the police force is corrupt and that we need to stop them. Is the matter really so black and white? Do all the people on the police force really have no soul? Is every action an act of pure evil? People and evil are more complex then Eastwood’s conception. This is an oversight that is an injustice to people and to evil. The rest of the movie follows this simplicity but does manage to have a few worthwhile moments.

Changeling first establishes how much Christine Collins (Angelina Jolie) loves her son. When her son mysteriously disappears, Christine suffers injustice after injustice. First the corrupt LAPD deliver the wrong son. When she goes public with the news, pure evil Captain J. J. Jones (Jeffrey Donovan) throws her into a mental institution to shut her up. Next come the shocking details of the child murderer in order to manipulate the audience to feel further sympathy. There is a turn of events thanks to Rev. Gustav Briegleb (John Malkovich). Christine and the Reverend proceed to right all the injustice. They expel the corrupt police force. They liberate the women in the mental hospital (who are wrongfully there because of the more police cruelty). They see that the child murderer receives the death penalty. And they continue to search for her lost son. To be sure, Christine never shy’s away from her responsibility (a running theme in the movie).

The one mature decision Clint Eastwood makes during the movie (that is to say a non-manipulative, unexpected move that helps the story) comes when Christine visits the child murderer Gordon Northcott (Jason Butler Harner) the day before his execution. Everyone expects the murderer to admit that he killed Walter so that Christine can have some closure in her life. When he doesn’t tell her in the interview everyone expects him to shout it from the platform seconds before his hanging. Instead he takes his secret to the grave. This silence fits the character and allows the movie to continue because though unresolved, Christine now has hope.

Harner gives a great performance. As a villain he manages to be creepy but almost too mentally off to hate. In his own strange way he is charming (even though we saw him viciously hacking child to death). He has a strange innocence even in his guilt.

By the second half of the movie, I had such low expectations that any ending other than Walter Collins (Christine’s son) running into his mother’s arms in slow motion would be appreciated. I think I can say safely that most people expect this saccharine ending, which makes the way Eastwood actually ends the movie quite clever. It’s not a good ending, it’s a Hollywood ending but it does enough so that critics don’t turn their heads and moan and it gives the general audience the sweetness they desire. It also preserves some mystery about the case, gives Christine hope, and at least paints Walter Collins as a hero (someone Christine can be proud of). The end delivers the expectations while preserving tragedy. This ending shows a great understanding of audience and critics. Eastwood knows how to play the game. This understanding of the politics of filmmaking and his wonderful personality are (what I believe) the reason for his acclaim (aside from his one great movie Unforgiven where he rightfully deserves praise). 

Under discussion:

36 Fillette  (1989)

             I grew up in a puritanical household so at fourteen, I had no concept of sexuality except as an evil that tempts women to defile their bodies. Sexuality has always been used by others to suppress women or used by women as liberation. I was plagued with guilt whenever an unwholesome sexual thought entered my fourteen-year-old head. I even believed that fantasizing about kissing a boy was damnable. 

            This movie is about a girl who is much more aware of reality, society, and sexuality than I was at her age. She is somehow by the age of fourteen liberated, socially free, much more like my sister then myself. I followed all the rules. I trusted adults when they said that this or that was bad and that I shouldn’t do it. I never had stage of rebellion (as a teenager). Maybe I’m more of a rebel these days. I am going to marry a wonderful heathen who I now live unlawfully with.

            Then again, I had my own reasons for abstinence. I’m a romantic who wants an intimate bond with the love of my life. Yes, I want to be fully devoted to one person. And at the age of fourteen, I knew that I do not want to have children. These things kept my mind away from sex and showed an independence of my own.

            The protagonist of 36 Fillette, a fourteen-year-old Lili (Delphine Zentout) knows what I never did, her powers as a woman. She longs to be free even at her young age. She is feisty, manipulative, vulnerable, and innocent. Our coquette Lili entices middle-aged Maurice (Etienne Chicot) who clearly has had his fare share of women. He knows the tricks of the game. When Lili jumps out of his car and threatens to find a better time elsewhere he (mocking the situation) asks her “Did I not pay enough attention to you?” He lets her go her own way after asking her for a date later that night. Ignore her just a little and she’ll want him even more.

            She wants to have sex because she wants to be free of this first boundary to womanhood. But she asserts her independence and proves a challenge to get into bed. Maurice must play the full game. He has to listen to her, talk to her, buy her gifts, promise to see her even if it means driving all night from a far away business trip. He has to go through the motions to make this first time seem meaningful to her. She conquers him even as he conquers her.

            Lili cries in her bed after a long night with Maurice- a night where she almost willfully lets him rape her. She cries for confusion, loss of youth, and then mostly, her inability to have sex. She is a virgin who wants mostly to loose her virginity. Being so young, she is at risk of being condemned as a slut. Men don’t face the same condemnation.

            Lili’s inexperience in the bedroom eventually turns Maurice off. A woman finds her distraught in the hotel bed and tries to comfort her. The woman condemns Maurice but Lili is only upset at herself. She knows that Maurice did not take advantage of her. She tried to use him to find her own freedom and could not deliver. Lili calls the woman a bitch for her ignorance.

            Lili immediately seduces another young man to have sex with her. This time she looses her virginity. When the young man asks her how his performance was she replies “It’s never good the first time”. From this point on she can look forward to more pleasurable encounters.

            A coy smile at the end of the movie shows that she has conquered man and at least views herself as triumphant- not a trace of guilt to be found.

            The movie offers a fresh view of women’s sexuality. Of course fourteen is a little young, but Lili is fully aware of what she is doing and of the potential consequences of her actions (ex. Getting pregnant). Breillat at least gives Lili a voice and an admirable independence even though the subject matter is difficult. The movie does not advocate sex at a young age, but it does demand that women be free to use sex as they like, not as how men see fit. The movie allows women to think about their sexuality. This is a freedom I never knew.

Under discussion:

A Night at the Roxbury  (1998)

A Night at the Roxbury (1998, John Fortenberry, USA) **

This is the most unintentionally gay movie I have ever seen. I know that Doug (Chris Kattan) and Steve Butabi (Will Ferrell) are brothers in the movie but everyone knows that they aren't brothers in real life. I know, I know, movies require a suspension of disbelief. But the characters act less like brothers and more life lovers to remember that they are supposedly siblings.

So you want examples of their gayness? They sleep in the same room on silk sheets in leopard print underwear. Steve wakes up Doug with a twisler and the eats it. They wear matching (flamboyant) outfits. They keep disco balls in their bedroom. They listen to the Bee Gee's while strutting down the street. They work out together in spandex outfits (and Steve allows the equally queer trainer to feel his pecks). Both Doug and Steve are virgins (because they are so in tune with each other that they cannot interact with women). Doug is extremely jealous when Emily tries to steal Steve away. Doug ruins Steve's wedding by holding a boom box high above his head (a Say Anything move- clearly an act of trying to get back together with your girlfriend (or boyfriend)) blasting Haddaway's "What is love?" (I might add that this is the only hilarious part of the movie). Steve is so in love with Doug that he leaves Emily at the alter. He's not ready to give up with "brother" (is it strange that they never fight?). All Steve and Doug like to do is dance like animals in-sync on the dance floor.

I like that the movie is secretly gay but it should have been more aware of itself. The movie tries to be about two awkward guys who think they are cool enough to score with hot women. As a result, there are many scenes that unconvincingly try to show that these guys are into women. When Emily has sex with Steve, he does enjoy it until she gets passionate and then he looses interest (gay? yes). When two gold diggers seduce the brothers they keep telling their one-liners and try to figure out what the other one is doing. The girls have a hard time keeping these brothers apart. The movie becomes a mediocre success story of two ignorant club junkies. These not-being-able-to-get-a-woman jokes fall flat because these guys are so clearly gay. When will the wake up to that fact? The movie acknowledges that they are unaware of themselves but still insists that they are straight. Come on Hollywood; let these two out of the closet. The movie tries so hard to mask their gayness. But they're not fooling anyone. The real comedy lies locked away behind the mask of straightness.

~Kristen Gorlitz

Under discussion:

Hamlet  (1948)

            Andre Bazin in his essay “In Defense of Mixed Cinema” claims that screen adaptations cannot damage the source literature- “ It is nonsense to wax wroth about the indignities practiced on literary works on the screen, at least in the name of literature. After all, they cannot harm the original in the eyes of those how know it, however little they approximate to it. As for those who are unacquainted with the original, one of two things may happen; either they will be satisfied with the film which is as good as most, or they will want to know the original, with the resulting gain for literature”. While this is technically correct- no one would say that a repudiated novel is horrible solely because the movie is bad, Bazin fails to realize that cinema offers a false substitution.

Surely, degradations do not directly damage the original. When (under pseudonym) Alonso Fernández de Avellaneda published his own inferior sequel to Don Quixote the work did not damage masterpiece Don Quixote by Miguel de Cervantes, in fact, Cervantes incorporates this false sequel into his own sequel, using the blunder to his advantage.

            Cinema seems to be a synthesis of other arts. It includes the auditory and visual strengths of theater, the mobility in time and false motion of literature, the memorable images of photographs and paintings, the notes of music, and to some extent the craftwork of sculptures. Because cinema contains elements from each of the art forms before it, at surface level cinema seems an evolutionary progression or extension of these other art forms. Cinema is in some perceptual ways more realistic than other forms of art because a main strength of cinema is its isomorphic representation of reality and its illusion of motion. Cinema appears to have more ties to reality. And being more realistic in auditory and visual ways, when cinema adapts literature it appears to be an almost evolutionary enhancement of literature- an extension of what was. This is not the case. But many feel that a cinematic adaptation is an apt substitute for literature- this is the illusion of substitution. Many feel that an adaptation equals the source, and as a result, one is often traded for another.

This substitution should never happen, but it does happen when people do not have the time to read the book. For example, James Whales’ movie adaptation of Frankenstein is a dim-witted, pale reflection of the original Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein though people more readily recall Boris Karloff as the monster than Mary Shelly’s novel. The viewer that substitutes the inferior movie for the original literary classic either 1. has no interest in the original work because of the poor quality of the movie, or 2. feels s/he has a sufficient understanding of the literature because of the information provided in the movie.

The fact is cinema is art and an art that is distinct from literature. A movie can equal or surpass its literary source in terms of greatness (see Kubrick). But one should not judge a book by its movie. Unfortunately, because a movie is related to its source book material, associations from the movie affect people’s perceptions of the book. If one watches a bad adaptation before reading the novel, it is possible that the viewer/ reader will (when reading the book) recall the images from the bad movie, and thus the movie will negatively impact their reading of the novel. We should remember the distinction between the two art forms and judge according to the standards of quality for each art, but one cannot deny that the perception of a movie does sometimes affect (and/or create an aversion) to the source book. Movie should not, but they do affect the reading of a book. Movies also help to create a popular conception of the source literature. And so, a bad adaptation can, contrary to Bazin’s claim, negatively effect literature.

Satisfaction with inferiority can damage art. “I could be bounded in a nutshell, and count myself a king of infinite space, were it not that I have bad dreams”. ~Hamlet, scene ii. Hamlet (in one aspect) is a play about the inifinite space of the human mind. Lawrence Olivier’s Hamlet offers a very weak interpretation of Shakespeare’s masterpiece Hamlet (Bias alert- I think Shakespeare’s Hamlet is undeniably one of the greatest pieces of art in any category of all time). For the majority of the movie, Olivier (as Hamlet) is bounded in a nutshell, for his approach to the character is of a restrained melancholy introvert. As a result, Olivier denies us the mind of Hamlet through his too cautious restraint. O that his too too solid flesh would melt. Olivier is too firm, too resolved for a man with the weight of the world on his shoulders. As a result, we have the loss of infinite space. It is tragic to deny us this mind.

~Kristen Gorlitz

Under discussion:

Forgetting Sarah Marshall  (2008)

           To my dismay, Forgetting Sarah Marshall beings with all the college student movies clichés. A boy comically brushes his teeth in the mirror. Then he grabs a whole box of cereal and eats it in his grossly decorated apartment. The montage of lazy, filthy boy continues. We see him in sweat pants flopping from one lazy position on the couch to another. He tries to exercise but can’t find the motivation. Then his lovely girlfriend calls and says she’ll be home early. Boy must clean the house.

           When Sarah Marshall arrives Peter steps out of the shower completely naked to greet her only to realize that she is breaking up with him. Instead of being awkward and vulnerable comedy, the scene drowns in insincerity. Every real moment is traded for the laugh. The director seems to celebrate his cleverness yet at every step falls flat to cheap jokes.

           I almost walked out of the theater. Fortunately, the movie gets a lot better. Peter tries to escape his misery by going on vacation to a lovely spot that Sarah and he frequently talked about in Hawaii. Only it turns out that Sarah had the same idea. To his horror, Sarah is at the same hotel with her flippant pop singer boyfriend Aldous Snow- a recipe for cheap jokes. For example, Peter stalks them back to their room and interrupts their kiss. He tells his stepbrother on the phone that he thinks her ruined Sarah’s day. Cut to Sarah having orgasmic sex with Aldous. There are jokes about Peter sobbing in his suite like an old woman, jokes where Peter has to sit at a table looking at Sarah, jokes about Peter drinking all the time.

           Only when the movie stops the cheap jokes and relies on sincere drama does it work. Peter meets a wonderful girl named Rachel who seems to be the perfect girl. But the movie understands what it is like to get over an ex. It takes time, even if you meet someone else. Rachel does help Peter to have fun, but when Peter sees Sarah again, he cries. Sarah then begins to realize how great Peter was only when Rachel threatens to take him away. These are the remnants of a real relationship. Sarah realizes that her pop-star boyfriend is not as special as Peter. Peter realizes that Sarah was great but maybe she didn’t always understand him.

           There are some fantastic moments. When Sarah’s TV show is canceled Aldous cannot understand her fear about the future. Peter walks by Sarah and recognizes her pain. Peter is able to comfort her, a reminder of the relationship they once had. At another point, Sarah confesses to Rachel how pretty Rachel is. This shows both jealousy and real respect for Rachel as a person who is able to help her ex in his time of need. At an awkward dinner where Sarah accepts a courteous invitation to dine with Rachel and Peter, Peter and Aldous bond over laughing at Sarah’s ridiculous role in a movie (where cell-phones kill people). Rachel seems to bond with Sarah, respecting her role as a movie star. While surfing, Aldous comes up to Peter and gives him a respectful compliment about his music. Peter is grateful and feels that Aldous really understood what he was trying to do with his music. At another point, Sarah confesses how hard she tried to make the relationship work, but that Peter was too lazy to notice. This is the first point where he seems to understand what went wrong.

           The movie evolves into a pretty realistic look at break-ups, the struggles with getting over a past love. It is clear that the relationship is over for these two, but that in no way means it is easy. The rebound relationships aren’t perfect. Peter has to evolve before he can make things work with Rachel, who genuinely seems a perfect match.

           The comedy does not work for the most part. The Dracula musical seems to rely on a Dracula musical with puppets being inherently funny. No thought or effort is put in to developing the joke. The movie works best with its realistic depiction of relationships and breakups and fortunately there are a few funny moments that make this entertaining. I was pleasantly surprised with the way the movie turned out.

~Kristen Gorlitz

Under discussion:

The Umbrellas of Cherbourg  (1964)

It’s hard to know where to being to begin to describe my personal reaction to this movie but it helped me to understand a deep tragedy in my life- in the views I had adopted. Maybe it helped me to realize the reality of the love that I had so soundly convinced myself was inconceivable, unobtainable, lost. And so, it is a movie about the lost love of my life and the movie that helped me to find him again.

I begin with my “DEPARTURE” (the 2^nd section of the movie) with Guy. In this section of my life, I convinced myself that even the most real love was suspect and could not sustain a relationship. I believed more in logic than in love because I knew that, from my own experience, I had the best love, the truest love, and that it had escaped me. I tried with all my powers of deception to make love compatible with logic. I convinced myself that I could will myself in love. Now I know this is foolishness, but I had to test the idea. I tried to love another man. He was practical, kind, thoughtful, romantic (in an odd way), eccentric- potentially a match.

He fell in love with me just as Mr. Cassard fell in love with Genevieve. Mr. Cassard’s character is interesting because he is a longing romantic, though admits that he fell for a woman who never loved him. Genevieve reminds him of that woman. But Genevieve gives him new hope and new grounds to walk on. At least he can be completely happy in this relationship. This is probably because Mr. Cassard has never known the love that Guy and Genevieve share. Mr. Cassard only gives love; he has never been loved.

I gave my Mr. Cassard hope. I felt that for all practical intents and purposes that I should love him; should be with him. But the memory of my Guy never left me, not for a day. Genevieve similarly is grateful that someone will accept her in her vulnerable (pregnant) state. She believes that her child needs a father. She wants her love Guy to return from the war but her hope in happily ever after wanes as he consistently forgets to write. So she chooses Mr. Cassard- a completely rational choice- though never forgets Guy (she names her daughter Françoise in memory of Guy). This is how we know she will always long from the love she once had.

She is moderately happy because there are other things in her life to love like her daughter. This happiness is part of the deception I told myself while dating Mr. Cassard. Genevieve lives securely, and like life, security provides a livable happiness.

By the “ARRIVAL” (3^rd Act) I realized that I too had thrown away, given up on my Guy. Why had I stopped believing in the truly magical love of Act 1? Why did I settle for a relationship where only one person loved? Is that happiness?

I was greatly disturbed for the rest of the day. The movie shook the logic that was he foundation of my relationship with Mr. Cassard. The movie does not so much ask what could have been. It knows the answer. Guy and Genevieve had a love so rare that only a few are blessed to have it, but they chose something practical. The movie, however, is never cynical but quite realistic. Even though they never eternally realized their love, their lives continue with moments of happiness. And there’s always the memory of what once was.

Even after the movie, I was happy with just the memory of my Guy. I could not conceive of how we would get back together. Now I realize that the tragedy of Guy and Genevieve was almost my tragedy. I, for so long, denied my first, my only love, my real happiness.

I was so close to experiencing the painful moment years in the future when it became impossible to restart our relationship. I would have had to live with that torturous moment when a married Genevieve and encounters Guy for the first time in years. The bittersweet movie shows how they do have their happiness, but they do not love their spouses out of anything more than duty and security.

Duty and security led me to believe that I loved Mr. Cassard. Now I know that I never forgot my Guy.

This movie helped me avoid Guy and Genevieve’s tragedy. It perfectly shows true love. There is an ever-present sense that Guy and Genevieve should never be apart, but the movie, being a realistic representation, shows what happens in a world where logic survives over love. The movie captures the tragedy that happens to so many people. Yet the movie never denies the greatness of love, even when the characters fully do. That is how the movie is great. The movie knows life but longs for love.

I learned a great deal about life with Mr. Cassard, but thankfully the movie restored my faith in love. I got a second chance with Guy. This time I was able to make a brilliantly illogical decision- all in the name of love.

~Kristen Gorlitz

Under discussion:

Gallipoli  (1981)

A better runner film than Gallipoli (1981) is Hugh Hudson’s Chariots of Fire (1981). A better male bonding film is Howard Hawk’s Rio Bravo (1959). A better historical representation film is Stanley Kubrick’s Full Metal Jacket (1987) But as a fantasy film, Peter Weir’s Gallipoli (1981) works with a grace unique unto itself.

            Archy, Mark Lee, trains hard to be the fastest runner. Gallipoli (1981) does not explore this passion for running as in Chariots of Fire (1981). Running may be a way for Archy to advance in life. However, the film implies that his uncle Jack may like the fact that Archy runs more than Archy does. Archy tells Jack that there is more to life than racing. The film does not explore the dynamics of the sport, or introduce intense passion to win a race.

Instead, the fact that Archy is a runner serves as a base for a friendship with Frank Dunn, played by Mel Gibson.  In the first organized race of the film, Archy defeats the cocky Frank Dunn, played by Mel Gibson. The two have talent, and their athletic inclinations allow for nonsexual male bonding. Frank and Archy wander in the desert, uncivilized like the cowboys of the west, though their comradery is not as profound as iconic cowboy John Wayne and his partners in Rio Bravo (1959). The bond does not make a deep impression because Archy and Frank are flat characters.

We learn background information on Frank. The British murder his mother and that is why he opposes the war. Yet, Frank remains the lovable rebel for the duration of the film. He has his adventures (he hops a train), his fun (he sleeps with a prostitute), and his problems (he has no money). Frank is good deep down, and Archy sees that. Archy is an optimist and always in good spirits. He is naïve for he devotes himself fully to the war without thinking of the horrors it brings. Archy is too good to be interesting. He risks his life for Frank by refusing a safe position. Frank may have a loose morality, but he would never harm anyone. The two go from a time of joy, to a time of despair in war, yet their outlooks do not change. It seems that the death that surrounds them has no effect. To the fault of the film, the characters are static to an ever-dynamic backdrop.

The Australians remember the Battle of Gallipoli as a major controversial historical event in a way comparable to how Americans remember Vietnam as controversial (“Battle at Gallipoli”). The movie Gallipoli (1981) is a fictionalized account of this battle in World War I (Thompson and Bordwell pp 664). The problem with Gallipoli (1981) as a historical piece is that it spends so much exposition on Archy and Frank (fictional characters) and only leaves ten or so minutes for the battle to take place. The film so loosely bases the story on the battle that the battle becomes irrelevant. Stanley Kubrick’s Full Metal Jacket (1987) fictionalizes the Vietnam War with sets and characters, yet captures the controversy of the war. The Vietnam War is an indispensable part of Full Metal Jacket (1987).

Gallipoli (1981) does stand out in one aspect, and that is its 80’s synthesizer-pop score. The synth-pop music initiates when there is a race. This music is so jarring that it takes one out of the atmosphere of the film and places one in a science fiction- fantasy world. Since the characters are flat, the absurd music does a wonder to ruin any gravity that Gallipoli (1981) tries to establish. Three times the film transports us to a world beyond our understanding. The music leaves a more memorable impression than any other aspect, which is why this is such a good fantasy movie. The world is beyond what we would expect, but we like it all the same.

~Kristen Gorlitz

Under discussion:

Rabid  (1977)

            Cronenberg redefines the word "sweet". Cronenberg is just the director to pull off a typical plot with such mastery that even though you know what is going to happen next, it shocks you all the same. Cronenbergs second commercial film Rabid (1977) takes the epidemic horror film to a new level.

            It shocks me that I could predict the next move while remaining so tightly wound up in the plot that I felt surprise all the same. The predictable quality of the story ceases to matter. The movie gives the audience what it wants. There are really cool looking, gruesomely gorey scenes, that are not cheesy because Cronenberg knows the film he is making. Rabid (1977) is a film that builds suspense with the threat of horror. It does this in such a way that the audience lives fully in the world of the film. The look of the film (the original special effects true only to Cronenberg films) and the dialogue can be cheesy, but that is what makes the film believable. Only Cronenberg has been able to make this cliched and cheesy film realistic, scary, and even touching. The end of the film poignantly reflects on the effects of violence.

            In Cronenberg form, the characters morph from normal citizens to sexually free characters obsessed with violence. Cronenberg is able to make a point of the horrors of both worlds. We see this theme through many of his other films (all of the ones I have seen, in fact). Rabid (1977) is amazingly entertaining, and has a point as well.

~Kristen Gorlitz

Under discussion:

Stardust Memories  (1980)

            I am sorry to mention Fellini's 8 ½ (1963) because this movie is not 8 ½. It is Woody Allen’s Stardust Memories, but there are so many plot overlaps that it is hard to forget 8 ½. The movies are different: one cannot repeat 8 ½ and I do think that Allen makes the story of Stardust Memories his own. I do not even think that Stardust Memories should be compared to 8 ½, but I see why it is. I mean, the opening sequence is so similar to the opening of 8 ½. I am not going into the other similarities. I think that the big difference is that Allen tries to find meaning, while Fellini does not try for anything per se. Stardust Memories searches, 8 ½ happens.

            So now to leave all 8 ½ comparisons behind, Woody Allen’s Stardust Memories chronicles the life of a successful filmmaker who strives for meaning, for some justification of comedic movies when the world suffers so much. The film provides insight into Allen as a filmmaker, his egoism, narcissism, neuroticism, heroism. Although the movie does give more insight to Woody Allen’s character, the point of Stardust Memories is not for Woody Allen to complain about his difficulties in filmmaking but rather to point out inconsistencies in humanity and poise a philosophical debate about meaning.

            The film is a metaphysical mess of levels of reality: film inside a film inside a film relating to the real life of a filmmaker in a film reflecting the true filmmaker outside of the film (you get the picture). Sifting through these levels of reality can be confusing but that adds to the dimension of the search for meaning. What place does comedy have in the world? What should we be doing with our lives? Can movies bring us meaning? What role do we play in life? Should we be won over be sentimental traps? One part in Stardust Memories, Woody Allen reflects on life’s meaning, almost gives up, but then remembers one moment where he looked at one of his girlfriends and found happiness in her. This is a beautiful notion, but the film does not leave us with that sentimentality. It questions the beauty of the moment. It is a good move, for it allows us to question beauty. What is the meaning of this happiness?

            Stardust Memories questions and does not answer. The end hurls the audience again into the metaphysical world and leaves one to decide for himself whether the falsity of the film renders everything meaningless, or if the comedy saves it, or if there is another way. Meaning is left to the audiences' discretion.

~Kristen Gorlitz

Under discussion:

Katzelmacher  (1969)

            Prostitutes, sex, gossip, money How could Scott say that Fassbinders Katzelmacher is the longest 88-minute film that he has ever seen? Katzelmacher has all the elements that sell in commercial Hollywood films like Rob Cohens XXX (2002), what could be boring about that? The film is somewhat indifferent and wants, in some respects, to be boring. Katzelmacher is empty, funny for its obscenities, and one of the better films about ennui; it relates the feelings of the characters to the viewers in a way that helps us feel their boredom and reflect on it.

            The men of the film are misogynists. They abuse the women, beat them at random, take advantage of free board, and sleep around without consequence. The women do not seem to mind the abuse. They are weak, fall in love easily, and remain loyal to such wretched creatures. The main conflict of the film results from gossip about a foreign Greek man who lives with one of the women. The only thing that the characters are interested in doing is having sex, sharing gossip, aimlessly sitting, and drinking. There are long, unconventional periods of silence, which is funny because movies just do not do that.

            The movie does not make moral claims, but if you think about these characters, they are losers. They spend their time doing things that hurt their friends or acquaintances. No one is happy. Katzelmacher is empty, but content, not happy, but funny, pathetic, and in that way interesting.

~Kristen Gorlitz

Under discussion:

Breathless  (1960)

            If you ever felt love punch you in the gut you understand Breathless. Jean-Luc Godard’s Breathless is as timeless as Romeo and Juliet, as charming as the Beatles, as fresh as Avant-Garde, as hip as Bohemian Pairs, and as smart as science. Crime accentuates this love story as Michel, a highway killer with unknown motivation, enters the world of adorable Patricia.

            Michel cannot live without Patricia while Patricia fluctuates between the desire for love and the desire for independence. The two exchange plenty of nonsensical flirtatious banter as Michel coerces Patricia to sleep with him again.  Can you have love without this eroticism? Godard gives a philosophy of love with essay like precision in an interview that Patricia attends. Eroticism is a form of love and love is a form of eroticism. The two are inseparable. Michel craves the erotic element from Patricia because of love. He says the he has slept with two girls since her, both were a disappointment.

            Godard departs from strict essay logic to a lifelike representation of love through editing. Love is not logical. Patricia tries to logically assess whether she loves Michel enough to loose her independence. She tests herself by informing the police of Michel’s whereabouts. She tells Michel what she did, and says that she must not love him because if she did then she would not treat him badly. He tells her that it is not logical to make up a test and then use that test as evidence against love. That is faulty logic by logic’s standards. Not to mention that love does not work with that precision.

            The jump cuts and disrupted continuity work so well in Breathless because love has its own logic. The editing is not logical to life, it is not logical to movies, but it is logical to love for love stands above these. It can do whatever it wants. There is freedom in love. Michel finds this freedom with Patricia. He could run from the law, but instead he remains with Patricia and longs only to sleep. Patricia is his peace: what is tragic is that she will never know it.

            One could say that Breathless comments on how women never know what they want. One could look negatively on Patricia’s flippant behavior. Patricia is a strong woman; she values her independence and does not need a man, whereas Michel is not exactly a moral exemplar. He must hide himself from the law, while Patricia stands boldly in a world of men. Patricia is the sole life force to Michel. Instead of an attack on women, Breathless is an insight to love and its fluctuations. Patricia understands how love can upset her independence; tragically she does not see the freedom of love. Michel understands what she never does.

            Both characters have their flaws, which only add to this portrait of life. This movie teems with life because of the characters and because of their love. The love mixed with the element of crime works to show how love must steal time and live in the moment. That is what this film does; it lives in a fresh, hip way, and breathes with fleeting romantic love.

~Kristen Gorlitz

Under discussion:

Jubilee  (1978)

            Jubilee is an interesting film, but I am still trying to find an interesting idea in the film. Jubilee definitely entertains; the music is sweet, the costumes are bold and vivacious, and the dialogue is intriguing. But this nihilistic view of the future is so old fashioned, meaning it is so the present fashion. The post-modern world is obsessed with this idea. Gloom and doom mixed with sadomasochism is the philosophy of the present. Now, to be avant-garde means to be ahead of ones time. Back when H.G. Well’s wrote The Time Machine in 1895 it was avant-garde, even prophetic, to warn of humanity headed towards destruction. We also had books like George Orwell’s 1984 (1949) to warn of the future. 1984 comments on how history has no meaning long before Jubilee.

            Jubilee is a movie that warns of the future, of course, the movie might be ahead of its time when compared to other movies. But no, a movie version of The Time Machine came out in 1960 by George Pal with basically the same structure: someone or some group looking at the future and seeing the horrors that lie ahead. So much for an original plot. If the plot is not original, what makes this movie avant-garde? Well, maybe it is the way it looks. Wrong again! Movies like A Clockwork Orange (1971) and Zardoz (1973) have a similar futuristic look. It may not be fair to compare images to A Clockwork Orange because that movie had a higher budget. But Zardoz has similar looking effects which I personally enjoy more. Movies like Jim Sharman’s Rocky Horror Picture Show (1975) feature transvestites and other weirdos. Jubilee also features a narrative linear structure, which is the conventional way to tell a story.

            Is Jubilee avant-garde for its surreal elements, such as a naked man in a Greek mask watching the ballet dancer? Jean Cocteau captures this type of poetic and surrealistic imagery better in The Blood of a Poet (1930). Sorry Jubilee, surrealism has already left its mark.

            The characters of Jubilee may find some meaning in their bands; they care about the people in their groups. At least people still stick together in the future, even if their group activities include vandalism, murder, sadomasochism, numerous ways of destruction.

            Every element that makes this film experimental or avant-garde has been done before. I guess that means that it is not either. Like Zardoz, Jubilee does not say anything interesting. However, like Zardoz, Jubilee is redeemed because it has high entertainment value. I would not call Jubilee avant-garde or experimental, but at least it is entertaining.

~Kristen Gorlitz

Under discussion:

The Clowns  (1970)

            I am happy that I was able to watch this hard to find made for TV Fellini movie. This old VHS almost would not play. Now, I am a bit biased, meaning I love everything Fellini does... Do I even need to say that I liked this one? The Clowns is a documentary style film about the dying art of clowns.

            The Clowns reminds me of Kafka's short story "The Hunger Artist". Both tell the story of an art that has gone out of fashion, and shows that happens to the artist whose life was entertaining its audience. The clowns need to make people laugh, but no one laughs anymore. We see the lives of real clowns withering away, lost in memory of the happy past. Like the Hunger Artist, these clowns need an audience, but they have gone out of style. This film is also like Chaplin's Limelight (1952). In a sense, these clowns are not extremely funny. The story is more a tale of tragedy, the life of a dying artist.

Many of Fellinis films have someone ask the question about the film: "And just what are you trying to say with this film?" Fellini does not need to incorporate others doubts about his talents into all of his films. But this does show the struggles and the doubts that Fellini has about himself; it is a humble trait, it simply gets redundant. I would leave out that line, but it does not ruin the movie.

The Clowns captures clowns performances but the atmosphere is more static and dead then Fellinis other films. This fits the idea of the movie. It is as if, in all his other films, Fellini pays tribute to this dying art of the clown by capturing its spirit and helping it live on. But in this film he shows how the original form of circus art has died. The clowns are more tragic characters than funny ones. This movie is not as absurd, not as funny as his others are; but that is the point. It is the same thing with Chaplin in Limelight. Chaplin is not funny in this movie, and that shows how the art form is dying out.

~Kristen Gorlitz

Under discussion:

Vampyr  (1931)

            This vampire movie does not have any of the elements that I like so much in adaptations of Bram Stoker’s Dracula. Dreyer attempts spirituality, but (oddly) this time he fails. The idea is that the vampire tries to get his victim to take his own life, and in doing so, the victim will be damned.

            The movie tries to build an atmosphere with overexposed shots and foggy lighting. This could be cool, I’m not a stiff for “bad photography” if it works with the atmosphere. But the odd images are not that cool. Vampyr features shadows on the wall that are not connected to any person. This could be a ghost world, but these ghosts are as shallow as their images. There is one sequence where the lead imagines himself in a coffin. That is cool.

            The title cards are poorly written. But that is not my main problem. The problem is that the story revolves around a person tempted to commit suicide. There is no temptation expressed though, through images or through ideas. The idea of Vampyr is a baby way to contemplate spirituality (suicide=damnation, so don’t do it!). Movies inspired by Bram Stoker’s Dracula are much more complex. They express this temptation through creepy sexual passion.

            Vampyr does not work. The atmosphere is nothing special, the images are not that cool, and the ideas are shallow. This is surprising since it is by Dreyer. Oh well…

~Kristen Gorlitz

Under discussion:

The Householder  (1962)

            I want Indian food! And not just any Indian food, I really want the food of an Indian Buffet in Chicago of all places. If I had $50 and six hours to spend on one meal, I would be their gorging myself on the deliciousness of India. Blast! The advantages of being rich…

            The Householder is an odd Indian film because one, it is directed by an American, and two, it follows characters who are well off and who speak English (which is known mostly by the upper classes). The film does not explore the poverty of India, or even let on that there is poverty in India.

            Instead, it lightly explores the difficulties of an arranged marriage. It thinks about the duties of the man in the household. The husband comically expresses the process by which he fell in love. He comes off as incompetent and ignorant of women, for he says mean things but charms with naive likeability. The movie revolves around his growing affection for his wife.

            The ideas are simple, but entertaining. The husband does not understand women. He buys his mother nice things but not his wife. His incompetence works. He cannot keep his students under control. He cannot win affection from his wife until the end. He is a lovable loser, and this charm of being a loser finally brings husband and wife together.

The film looks good (Satyajit Ray's cinematographer did this film) but there are audio problems. A religious notion is introduced to divert the husband from his wife, but he sees that his real duty is to her. I am not sure that there is much to this film conceptual wise, but it is fun with its simple kind of appeal.

~Kristen Gorlitz

Under discussion:

The Laughing Club of India  (2000)

           This laugher may not be funny, but it is contagious. This documentary looks at laugher as a medical treatment. In Bombay, a laughing club forms. They meet to laugh in many different exercises.

            The structure of this documentary makes the impact. At first, we see many people who force themselves to laugh, and we understand the critical response to the crazy people when they laugh so publicly. It is embarrassing even for the audience to see grown men and women behave so foolishly. But a story unfolds. The laughing club wishes to heal people through laughter, and this may not be something to laugh at. The medical treatment of diseases with laugher has helped many in the club overcomes hardships in their life. Since the film interviews people in Bombay, poverty prevails. We soon discover tragedy in the lives that seem so carefree.

            Laughter frees the soul, and reminds people not to take life so seriously. The goal is to be as free as children; open to changes and experiencing joy for the first time. There is nothing funny about their laughter, and tragedy underlies the documentary; however, the laughter brings hope and finds joy even in the face of tragedy. The documentary touches humanity, it finds something deep and personal within everyone it touches, and expresses hope for a greater future. The Laughing Club of India grows young again.

~Kristen Gorlitz