The 400 Blows (Spine #5)

"Oh, I lie now and then, I suppose. Sometimes I'd tell them the truth and they still wouldn't believe me, so I prefer to lie." - Antoine Doinel

Remember what it was like to be a child, so full of ideas and possibilities, longing for not only the opportunity to break free, but also for that feeling of acceptance and approval in our endeavors? It's so easy as a child to be misunderstood, as well as neglected. This can lead to "acting out" and other such mischief, when a child does things that they know are wrong, but they just want to be noticed, to be accepted, and to be loved. Francois Truffaut's semi-autobiographical first film, "The 400 Blows", explores this idea, among many others, as well as brings about a cinematic style that is often heralded with bringing about the French New Wave film movement.

The title,"The 400 Blows", is a literal translation of the original French Title, "Les Quatre Cents Coups". This is in reference to a popular French phrase, "faire les quatre cents coups", which means "to raise hell" or "live life to its fullest", both of which could be used to summarize aspects of the film. This makes the title make a bit more sense, since the English translation "The 400 Blows" seems to almost insinuate a sense of corporal punishment, which although some harshness is displayed, the film is more about emotional attack and effect than anything physical.

Set in Paris, the film's focus is on 12 year old Antoine Doinel, portrayed with incredible ability by Jean-Pierre Leaud, who was all of 14 years old at the time. Antoine is a seemingly likeable and "grown up" young man who, as the movie continuously shows, longs for attention. His home life is that of squalor and little means, with a mother that could care less for him and an adoptive father that, aside from some joking and small attempts at bonding, is easily flustered and aggravated. At school, Antoine takes part in much the same shenanigans as all the boys in his class, but he is always the one getting caught in the act, thus making him out to be some sort of menance or nusance, very undeservedly. It's here, very early on, where one can see where the title comes into play. All the adults in Antoine's life think he is just out to "raise hell" and be a mischief-maker whereas Antoine, still young and full of dreams, just wants the most out of life. He loves film and longs to one day see the ocean and just seems to genuinely want to be happy and free.

After a few altercations with his teacher, Antoine and his best friend Rene' skip school one day, enjoying the sights the city has to offer. One of the most shocking sights for Antoine is seeing his mother, in the arms of a man that is not his father, thus cementing her as not just having no care for him but also none for their family as a whole. Rather than make a scene, Antoine continues on about his business and never speaks a word of what he saw to anyone. In the moment, though, his mother noticed him as well and there is an obvious understanding that Antoine knows what she's up to.

The next day at school, he makes up a pretty dastardly lie as to why he missed the previous day. Once the lie is exposed, he's immediately in even more trouble. His mother approaches him in a much more caring manner than she has so far seemed capable of. It definitely feels like a sort of bartering between Antoine and his mother. Her being nice and encouraging him in school in exchange for him being good, as well as not mentioning her indescretions that he is now aware of. The latter part is never discussed, but is very much implied.

To make his mother proud, he has a writing assignment that he must do his best on. Antoine, while reading, is deeply moved by a passage he finds in a book by Balzac. When he is in class, he hearkens back to what he read as inspiration. He tells his mother that he what he wrote will be the best paper and the whole family celebrates by doing Antoine's favorite activity, going to the cinema. When Antoine gets his paper back, though, it is revealed that rather than create his own writing, he simply wrote his beloved passage down word for word. Antoine, fearing letting down his parents again, decides to run away. Even amidst the harshness of the streets, the movie gives the sense that Antoine is genuinely happy. This builds a strange dichotomy between Antoine's obvious longing for attention but also him wanting to just be rid of everything that holds him back. This begins a transition within Antoine; a realization that even if he is all alone, it won't matter as long as he's free.

After a time, Rene' urges Antoine into breaking into his fathers place of work to steal a typewriter in hopes that they can sell it for more money. Anotine reluctantly follows through with it, but is against the idea the entire time. This shows a similarity as well as a great difference between the two boys. Rene', although from a much more wealthy family, is also a product of neglect. With his parents constantly coming and going, he's left to his own devices. When Antoine does something mischevious, it reeks of attention, but with Rene' it seems to just be out of sheer boredom. Unable to sell the typewriter, Antoine insists they return it, and in doing so he gets caught. His father is called in and, feeling as though Antoine has had enough chances, he turns him in to the police.

After a short stint in a juvenile detention center, Antoine is sent to a work center for young boys. They have daily routines and are given psychiatric evaluations. It's during Antoine's evaluation where a great deal of his backstory is revealed, ranging from his (almost) first sexual experience to his growing up. He was apparently raised mostly by his grandmother, with his mother wanting nothing to do with him. He even, at an even earlier age, heard his mother discuss how she should have had an abortion so that he wouldn't have been a concern. It's challenging knowing that this whole time Antoine has lived with this knowledge of his mother, yet still longer for her love. It shows the power the family bond can have, for better or for worse. It's not long before Antoine has finally had enough of this place and he makes his grand escape, culminating in one of the most satisfyingly visual endings to a movie that I have ever seen.

It amazes me that this was Truffaut's first film. It shows a more genuine side of Paris, far from the touristy aspects of most movies. At times it feels as though you are watching a documentary, and that feeling brings even more humanity to the film. Part of what sets it apart, and a constant running theme so far with the Criterion Collection, is the visuals. From an overhead shot of all the schoolboys breaking out of line as they walk through the city to a shot of Antoine in a spinning ride at the fair, to the final escape scene, the film just mesmerizes. There is an incredible moment filmed during a "punch-and-judy" puppet show that focuses on all the children's faces and there is just no way you can fake the looks they give. The scene is quick, but it's so genuine and innocent and makes one try to remember that time when you were young and loved the whole world and its possibilities.

Leaud, as mentioned earlier, brings so much to the character of Antoine. Charming nuances and an overall awareness of self and the story makes him all the more compelling. Truffaut was so taken with him that he has worked with the actor throughout his life, often with him playing the same role of Antoine as he himself grows. It's always amazing to me to see someone so young already have such talent. This line of thinking,though, is exactly the kind of thing the movie is addressing. An overall lack of attention towards the youth of today. We are challenged by the movie to not just immediately blame the child, but take a look at the childs surroundings and dealings and see that he/she is nothing more than a by-product of these things. We are also challenged to actually listen to the child and give him/her a chance for expression of thoughts and feelings, rather than simply being told the way things are going to be.

"The 400 Blows" is often cited as must-see cinema and I couldn't agree more. This movie brings about a true sense of themes and ideas and explores them in a way where the viewer is still left to make up his or her own mind. It appeals to the angst within all of us, and urges us to break free.

The Silence of the Lambs (Spine #13)

"Well, Clarice...Have the lambs stopped screaming?" -Dr. Hannibal Lecter

Where does one really start when summing up "The Silence of the Lambs"? It almost feels a bit redundant to even bother doing a review of this most beloved and revered film. So much of it has become a part of pop culture that even those that have never given it a second glance already have some sort of knowledge of it; a quote, a fleeting glimpse, possibly the memory of another film parodying an aspect of the film's narrative. No matter the situation or the company around you, saying the name "Hannibal Lecter" or "Clarice" will assuredly make a connection or elicit a response. The film, in it's almost 19 years of existence, has garnered countless praise and honors, took home all five of the big Oscars, has seen it's characters and the movie itself at the top of numerous "best-of" lists, and, as evidenced by this attempt at a review, even has its very own Criterion Collection edition, albeit out-0f-print(although still readily available in non-criterion formats). Some would say, all of this for just a simple horror film? That assumption is sadly that person's biggest mistake, as "The Silence of the Lambs", although portraying grim, true-to-life horror, is far more than just your standard horror film.

We begin the film with FBI Agent-in-training Clarice Starling (Jodie Foster) taking on what appears to be a bit of a daunting training exercise. She is pulled off the course to meet with the head of the FBI's Behavioral Science Unit. She is tasked with conducting an interview with reknowned, as well as incarcerated, psychopath Hannibal "The Cannibal" Lecter (Anthony Hopkins) in hopes that Lecter can help provide some insight into another killer that is on the loose, Jame "Buffalo Bill" Gumb (Ted Levine). Starling finds it odd that she is asked to do this, seeing as how she hasn't even become an agent yet, but is assured by the powers that be that is is due to her abilities and strength.

This begins one of the big themes of the movie, which is gender roles/reversal. There is a remarkable contrast in that our hero is a woman, not only trying to prove she belongs in a world overrun with men, but she is also tracking down a mad man that specificially targets women in such a way that empowers the "fragility" often associated with women. To have such a strong woman as the lead is an excellent contrast to this stereotype, and makes her journey even more compelling. Another thing that I had honestly never noticed in other viewings of this film is how almost every man Starling comes into contact with is immediately infatuated with her. It's hard to tell if it's because she is often the only woman in the room, or if it's that she is a woman in a station of power and respect. Whatever the reason, it helps add another layer to this already dense and fascinating story.

Having accepted her assignment, Starling has arrived at the mental hospital where Lecter is kept. Lecter was at one time a respected pscyhiatrist who was convicted of not just murder, but of eating various parts of his victims. As the camera follows Starling through the cells and Lecter comes into frame, something about him is immediately fascinating. Before he even utters a single word, you find yourself already wanting to know everything about him, but there's also a fear associated with knowing those same things. This is a true testament to Hopkin's portrayal of Lecter. He exudes this all-knowing personality coupled with genuine menace. It's genuinely haunting and proves to be one of the best aspects of multiple viewings; trying to pick apart Lecter's nuances, to try and "figure him out", so to speak.

Lecter and Starling seem to get off to a good start, including the reveal from Starling that "Buffalo Bill" got his nickname from the fact that he likes to skin random parts of his victims, all overweight females. As they are talking, Starling jumps right to her business at hand, offending Lecter and his initial appreciation of Starling. As she begins to leave, another inmate humiliates her in a surprisingly perverse way. Hannibal immediately changes his demeanor, calling Starling back to him and giving her his first in a line of riddles to set her on her way of solving the case.

As Clarice's search begins, "Buffalo Bill" has struck again, this time abducting a senator's daughter. This puts a timetable on catching "Bill", as his M.O. has each girl living about three days before he mutilates and murders them. This adds another layer of tension to the film, as one layer had already been established between Lecter and Starling's interactions. The FBI use this kidnapping to their advantage and offer Lecter a chance to be transferred to a more preferable facility if he will willingly help them catch "Buffalo Bill" and save the senator's daughter. Lecter's doctor, and supposed nemesis, hear's this proposed plan, exposes it as a lie and makes his own genuine bargain with Lecter and the senator, not only thwarting the FBI's plan but nearly taking them out of the equation alltogether.

As part of the deal, Lecter is transferred to Memphis and reveals a description and a name to federal agents that are now working on the case. He is then held in a makeshift prison while awaiting his complete transfer. Starling shows up and demanding the truth from Lecter, feeling that everything he has given her has been lies. Lecter refuses her demands, instead insisting that she elaborate on a traumatic incident from her childhood, which is also where the title of the film is derived. This scene between Lecter and Starling is cinematic gold. If there were a single moment to cite as why both actors deserved the acclaim they get for these roles, this is it. Starling recounting her childhood trauma allows her to shed the strong persona she's been carrying the whole movie. At the same time, we see Lecter hanging on her every word, waiting for each new detail she reveals. She has become his fascination, whereas he has been hers almost the entire length of the movie up to this point. A truly classic scene.

Starling is soon run off by the local police, but not before retreiving her case files on "Buffalo Bill" from Lecter, complete with one last clue pointing her in the right direction. This also sets up Lecter's incredibley executed and gratuitously violent escape from his confinement. Heads are bashed, faces are bitten, insides are let free, and the ultimate reveal is something that is completely shocking and, in other circumstances, would be seen as grotesque and repulsive. By this point in the movie, though, the movie has succeeded in making the viewer "like" Hannibal Lecter. For all intents and purposes, he's not the actual bad guy of the film. In fact, he even aids in the capture of the true villain of the film. Not to say that the mass killing and eating of people is condoned in any way, but it creates a sort of moral ambiguity where you are compelled to forgive this character his actions simply on the basis that you can't get enough of him. Even more compelling is Lecter's association with the movie, given that it has a 2 hour run time, and he's only in about 24 minutes of it.

With Lecter now escaped, Starling is left to try and put the pieces together and stop "Buffalo Bill". While investigating aspects of "Bill's" first victim, Starling stumbles upon an incredible find in the case . She contacts her department head to relay the information, but he informs her that they have found their man and are en route to apprehend him. Starling continues on with her search, and the movie uses some clever editing in getting us to the final setup and scene. I'll refrain from spoiling the ending on the off chance someone reading hasn't seen it, but rest assured the tension and suspense elevates to a whole new level and has a truly satisfying end.

One aspect of the movie that I haven't mentioned much is the villain himself, Jame "Buffalo Bill" Gumb (Ted Levine). He is portrayed as everything you see or hear about serial killers, actually being partly based off of three of the most notorious ones: Ed Gein, Ted Bundy and Gary Heidnick. He's portrayed as a weirdo; a gender-confused transvestite that collects and cultivates a particular type of moth that ties in to his murder victims. He's also shown as a predator, plotting and taking advantage of whomever he has his sights on. Although "Bill" is an awful man, the true villain, and definitely able to instill his own brand of fear in the viewer, he fails to be as compelling as Lecter. Most of the movie actually revolves more around "Bill's" crimes and catching him more than the man himself, which is a shame as Levine really gets into the role and makes the most out of what little screen time he has.

"The Silence of the Lambs" is a film that is truly as good as it gets. Boasting a stellar cast at the very top of their game, coupled with a story that delivers on its straightforward narrative, along with pulling in and exploring multiple themes as well as crossing over several genres, "The Silence of the Lambs" is a film that is impossible to pigeonhole, although it is often just lumped into "horror". I urge you to watch it with a diferent set of eyes, and take in everything this fine film has to offer.

Bottle Rocket (Spine #450)

"They'll never catch me... because I'm fucking innocent." - Dignan

When we're young, there's not just that feeling that we're invincible. We also carry with us the connotation that everything we do is right. I mean, in our own eyes, how could we possibly ever be wrong? Now, imagine being grown, but never letting go of those sentiments. Add in some best friends and grandiose ideas, and you've got "Bottle Rocket". This is a film that not only introduced us to beloved filmmaker Wes Anderson, a young man that lists four of his five films as part of the Criterion Collection (sorry, "The Darjeeling Limited"), but it is also the feature film debuts of the Wilson Brothers; Luke, Owen, and the virtually unknown Andrew. It's incredible to see that, even this early on, Anderson already had such an incredibly visual eye for film as well as the basic themes that would continue on throughout all of his works.

The movie begins with us seeing Anthony (Luke Wilson) checking himself out of a mental health facility. We find out that he entered and is leaving of his own free will, knowledge that his best friend Dignan (Owen Wilson) is completely unaware of, as he believes he is busting Anthony out. As they are on their way home, Dignan shares his "75 year plan" notebook with Anthony, which is full of suggestions of heists and riches, all with the intent of them joining Mr. Henry's (James Caan) gang. The two of them then break into a house, taking little things and timing themselves. Practice, as it were, for when they go for the bigger heists. After a moderately funny exchange, we discover that the house was Anthony's parents. Right off the bat, the movie has established that Dignan is a "man-child" of sorts; big dreams, no real sense of "wrong", but a massive sense of entitlement. Anthony, on the other hand, comes off as very simple and kind; sort of blindly following Dignan around with little complaint.

The "boys" begin planning their first big crime; a local book store. While not only silly, it further pushes the simple-mindedness of the pair. They enlist the help of their friend Bob (Robert Musgrave), to be their getaway driver, although he end's up being more of a whipping boy for Dignan. They then obtain a gun, much to everyone's delight, and devise a plan. They arrive at the bookstore and somehow manage to pull it off, coming away with a small amount of money. The trio then hit the road, as they are now "on the lam".

They soon settle on staying at a hotel off the highway. This is where Anthony meets Inez (Lumi Cavazos), one of the hotels maids. Inez is originally from Paraguay and speaks little to no English. This doesn't keep Anthony from following her every movement and falling hopelessly in love with her. Meanwhile, Bob, who has been growing marijuana in his parents backyard, has found out that the cops discovered it and have arrested his older bully of a brother, Future Man (Andrew Wilson). Bob is freaking out, but the other guys convince him to stay the night, promising that they'll figure something out the next day. By morning, though, Bob has taken off with the car, leaving Anthony and Dignan stranded at the hotel.

After a few days, Dignan wants to continue on with the 75 year plan, stealing a beat-down car so that they can get to the next destination. Anthony urges Inez to come with them, but she declines. Feeling rejected, Anthony is confused and decides that maybe it is time for them to go. Before leaving, Anthony gives Dignan an envelope to pass along to Inez. Inez gets a fellow worker to translate to Dignan that she loves Anthony, but Dignan mistakes this as the other worker simply telling him that he loves him, and never relays the message. Dignan and Anthony then hit the road, but not for long as the car quickly breaks down. Dignan is confused about Anthony's concern over their lack of money, seeing as they had a couple hundred dollars left from the bookstore job. Anthony reveals to Dignan that the envelope that he asked him to give Inez had all of their remaining money in it, and that they were now broke. Dignan can't accept this and the two get into a fight and go their seperate ways.

The next we see them, Anthony has moved in with Bob and they have their own daily schedule of activities and good deeds, whereas Dignan has now become a member of Mr. Henry's gang. Dignan runs into Anthony and, through much pleading and begging, gets him to join Mr. Henry's gang, as long as Bob can be a part, too. Mr. Henry takes them all under his wing and begins to become a sort of mentor to them, leading them up to their next caper; cracking the safe of a cold storage facility. It's during this time that Anthony reconnects with Inez, discovering not only that she is in love with him, but also that her English has greatly improved.

Enlisting the help of some of Mr. Henry's men, the trio set out to pull off their next job. Although it starts off swimmingly, it slowly falls apart, piece by hilarious piece, leaving them with no other option but to run. As they are about to make their getaway, Dignan realizes that one of the crew has the car keys and had been left behind. Though Anthony tries, Dignan insists on going back for him while everyone else makes a run for it. Moments later, the cops arrive, catching Dignan. At the same time, the film cuts to a scene of Mr. Henry, robbing Bob's house while everyone is gone. The movie concludes with Anthony and Bob paying a visit to Dignan, who is now in prison. Before they can leave, though, he's already trying to get them to help him escape.

If there is one theme that Wes Anderson seems to have at the forefront of all of his films, its relationships. Of our main characters, we know little to nothing of their own personal families, so these young men come together to form their own make-shift family, filling the void left by the real one thats either dysfunctional (another running Anderson theme) or just not there. Anderson also has a knack for portraying romantic relationships as genuine and earnest, without the shmaltzy-ness of most modern movies. In "Bottle Rocket", we see two people fall in love that can't even really communicate with each other, but it never feels forced or contrived. It just feels natural. From a film-making standpoint, it's obvious from the get-go that Anderson already had skills and a specific visual viewpoint that he would continue to develop with each subsequent film.

In the case of Luke and Owen Wilson, we can see how much they've grown as well how much they've stayed the same. Luke, for better or worse, seems to just kind of be himself, even to this day. That's not necessarily a bad thing, just an observation, and he makes it work well. Owen already seems to have a sense of himself and his comedic timing, but in "Bottle Rocket", he sometime comes off a bit stiff, perhaps "acting" too much, whereas nowadays he has adopted his brother's style of just playing yourself.

Although I do greatly enjoy the movie, its not without its flaws, primarily the plot. The story tends to meander its way from beginning to end without any real purpose. It does get us from point a to b, but at times it doesn't feel cohesive or together. As I pointed out with it being almost everyone involved's first movie, there's definitely some acting and delivery issues, but none that really hinder the movie. I actually feel that it is as strong a first effort as I have seen, full of memorable quotes and moments that leave you wanting to revisit the film again and again.

Double Suicide (Spine #104)

For all the movies that one gets to see, there always seem to be even more that elude you. "Double Suicide" is one of those films. It has been at the top of my "must see" list for a long time. Already drawn in by the name and cover art, you put a Criterion stamp of approval on there, and I'm pretty much along for the ride. After having finally seen the film, I can safely say it was worth the wait and excitement.

Before I get into what the movie is about, I feel it needs some setup. The movie itself, directed by Masahiro Shinoda in 1969, is based off "The Love Suicides at Amijima", a 1721 play performed often with marionette-style puppets; a style known as bunraku. When adapting this play into movie form, Shinoda kept this idea of puppetry to wondrous effect. When the film opens, we are showed many scenes of a group of puppeteers, going through motions, making adjustments and quick fixes, and setting up a tone and idea that no matter how in control we think we are, something is beyond us "pulling the strings" (that's for you, Bela). In theater and puppetry, especially on a grand scale, puppeteers and stagehands will often be clad in complete black, as to not be seen or distract. This is where Shinoda challenges the audience of "Double Suicide". Although it is live-action, there are many instances of people in all black from head to toe, lying in wait or interacting in scenes. They are at once merely set dressing and at the same time, I feel, a bigger part of the narrative, of the lack of free will we so desperately cling to as humans. They are reminders of more things at work, and sometimes they are just downright creepy. Going into the movie without knowing this could possibly make the movie confusing or possibly off-putting, so I felt it should be addressed from the get-go, in case anyone, as you certainly should, wish to see this fine film.

The movie itself, after the sly introduction, moves us right along to our leads, Jihei, a paper merchant and Koharu, a courtesan, aka a prostitute. They have been seeing each other for over three years. Here is where we first see that they are in love, yet find themselves in the midst of an impossible situation. Since Koharu is a courtesan, she must be redeemed, or bought, from her master, which I can only imagine is a lot, although we are never given any sort of figure. Jihei, although madly in love with Koharu and wanting nothing more to redeem her, is very poor and continuously makes promises of redeeming Koharu as soon as he can. It here, all the way at the beginning of our tale, that the only answer for the pair is a suicide pact so that they can be together forever. Always a solid plan.

It becomes apparent that Koharu is the most sought-after courtesan in the area, often receiving, but not enjoying, the attention of rich, filthy men. She has to often be excused for her unsavory attitude towards possible clients, explaining that she is in love, even though such things are forbidden for a "lady of the night", as it were. A new customer, a samurai, takes notice of the emotional state she is in and offers to help her out if she will be honest with him. She confesses her plan to die with Jihei so that they can finally be together. After admitting this, Koharu has a sudden change of heart, saying that she does not wish to die and that she will be the samurai's. Jihei, eavesdropping from outside, hears her treachery and unsuccessfully lashes out at the samurai. It is revealed that the samurai is actually Jihei's brother in disguise. This is also where we discover that Jihei has a wife and two kids. This definitely doesn't speak well to the character of Jihei. He's already not doing well financially, yet even with a wife and two kids he spends his nights and his money with a courtesan. Pretty harsh, for sure. Jihei's brother makes him promise to never visit Koharu again, saving his family from shame and seperation. Jihei, having heard Koharu's plea's and thinking her playing him for a fool this whole time, accepts the offer and leaves for his home, leaving Koharu an emotional wreck.

We then move to ten days later, where instead of working Jihei is sleeping through the day, his wife, Osan, sorting through deliveries, and their children being watched, sort of, by some hired help. This makes me wonder how bad off they really are if they can afford to have two people waiting on beckon call for them, but hey,who knows? Anyways, they are paid a visit by Jihei's brother and Osan's mother. There is talk amongst the town that a merchant is redeeming Koharu, and they are certain that it is Jihei. After much pleading and convincing, Jihei makes a written promise that the merchant in question is not him, and they leave believing him. We soon discover, after speculation as to which merchant bought Koharu, that Osan had actually been in contact with Koharu without Jihei knowing about it. The two women have made their own pact, this one with Jihei's wife pleading with Koharu not to let him die. This reveals to Jihei the reason that Koharu changed her mind about their own pact, and reignites his longing for her. Jihei reveals to his wife that he knows Koharu will kill herself rather than be redeemed by this other merchant, and Osan can't bear to have her death on her conscience. She hurries Jihei along to stop Koharu before it's too late. Just as he is about to leave, carrying with him everything the family has in order to pawn it and buy Koharu's freedom, Osan's father shows up and makes his own assumptions. He begins demanding that Jihei divorce his daughter, pointing out every shame that Jihei has brought upon his family. Jihei refuses a divorce, saying that he wants to be with Osan, but her father has made up his mind and drags Osan with him. Although he's been pleading with her father to leave her be, Jihei does nothing to stop him from taking her. Jihei has other plans.

The night passes and before Koharu can be retrieved by the rich merchant, Jihei shows up and sneaks her out. They run and run as far as they can, both overtly emotional over every little thing they can think of or remember, but both are more concerned with fulfilling their longtime vow of dying together. They question their own honor, their families they will leave behind, the stories that will be told, and in the end, they feel as if they are making the right choice. They make their way to a cemetery, where I was sure the titular scene would take place, but instead, they make love one last time. Both scenes in the movie that involve lovemaking(there's one at the very beginning between Jihei and Koharu as well) strike a chord with me for two reasons. First, both scenes depict Jihei going down on Koharu, which by 1969 standards was assuredly very risque and provocative. It's far from graphic and I would say it's even tastefully done. The other thing that comes to mind is how this woman, a prostitute by trade, is basically trained to please whomever may come calling, yet, even when Jihei was paying for her company, he's the one pleasing her. I think it speaks to a grander idea, of want over need. Jihei so desperately wants this woman that he's willing to die for her. For her part, Koharu is willing to die too, but we never see any form of her investment in this relationship.

Waking the next morning in the cemetery, the pair rush off to a open, grassy area and the movie's title comes to fruition. It's far from glamorous, in fact its downright brutal, but it is filmed in such a way as to be visually and stylistically compelling. Although their deaths happen a good bit from each other, we see that by the movie end that their bodies have been found and laid together, side by side. This touches on the poetic, and with being such a visually compelling movie, its easy to get caught up in the "lets die and be together forever" idea, but the one place where I feel the movie falters is letting us really know why. At the beginning of the movie, Koharu asks Jihei why he loves her. his response? "Because I am a man. And you are a woman. Thank god you are a woman." And that's it. We see this guy lose his family and livelihood over that. I am sure that there's something more to it, but we are never made privy to this information. I feel like there should have been more, well, anything to their relationship just to make the extremes they go to a bit more plausible. All in all, though, the movie still succeeds in being a compelling piece of cinema and one that I glad I finally got to see. Visually stunning,skillfully executed and highly recommended.

Carnival of Souls (Spine #63)

In regards to Horror movies, one can often fall victim to clever artwork and an engaging title. The name reels you in, the artwork gets you excited, and then the movie (often) fails to deliver(I'm looking at you, "Children Shouldn't Play with Dead Things".). "Carnival of Souls" is no different. While the movie does still boast a bit of visual flair and, if you make yourself look very hard, an interesting idea, its a far departure from what one would expect at first glance.

The movie kicks right in with no introductions to anyone, just a car full of guys challenging a car full of girls to a race, which of course leads to a sketchy looking bridge that the girls, after a slight nudge, drive right off of and into the murky lake. What seems like the entire town shows up as the police search the lake for the car with what literally appears to be nothing more than lasso's. After what we are told is three hours of searching, one of the girls in the car emerges from the water, all muddy and distraught.

We come to discover this girl's name is Mary Henry(Candace Hiligoss), a local accomplished organist that has a very harsh, cold way about her. This is where I wish the movie had given some previous background, as this seems to be a trait that Mary has only just now exhibiting since the accident, but with no real character background, she could have just as well been this way her entire life. She makes a quick stop by the bridge where the accident took place, and then makes her way for Utah, where she is to become an organist for a local church. On her way, she passes by a run-down area that seems a bit carnival-like, which seems to stir something in Mary and also might as well come with a big sign that says "Foreshadowing!". It's also about this time that she starts seeing the face of a ghoulish man in place of her own reflection, played to moderately creepy effect if not edited so poorly.

Mary arrives to her new home,a multi-tenant abode complete with a sweet-hearted landlady and the sleaziest guy a movie can provide. This guy over the course of the movie seriously uses every ploy ever to try and bed Mary, which starts off as off-putting but just gets over-worn after a while. Upon her arrival,though, Mary begins seeing the ghoulish face in place of hers more and more, taking somewhat of an emotional toll on the already cold and detached Mary. We also witness Mary, while shopping for a new dress, go through a sort of disorientation, resulting in her inability to hear any sound and everyone around her not being able to notice her, as if she isn't even there.

Between shunning the advances of the male tenant, dealing with the haunting ghoul's face at every turn, and now the possibility of not existing/being crazy, the movie begins to set up a bit of a bleak atmosphere, but in the long run fails to really deliver on. This build up culminates in a scene where Mary goes to the church she works for to practice her organ and while playing she is overwhelmed by an other-wordly feeling. Her hands are instantly out of her control and her simple church hymn becomes a sort of devilish interlude, invoking visions of the dead rising up from water and populating the carnival-like building she had seen earlier. Mary is interrupted by the church's priest, firing her on the spot for playing her evil tunes within the church, but immediately offering the church as an answer to her problems. Isn't that always the way?

The movie begins fleeing towards an ending, with more haunting faces, another scene of Mary "disappearing" from those around her, an odd insinuation that she's been dreaming the whole thing, and then, since science (a local doctor) and faith (the local church) have seemingly failed her, Mary makes a last ditch effort to save herself: she takes on the "carnival" head on. Mary arrives and scours what feels like the ENTIRE area of the run-down "carnival". Once she gets to a point of feeling satisfied, a giant group of ghouls emerge from the nearby lake and begin to take chase, leading to one of the most visually impressive aspects of the movie, but ends up making the movie make even less sense. The ghouls get Mary down to the banks of the lake and surround her. The next scene we see a cop explaining to the priest and the doctor that all there is are footprints in the sand leading to a point. It's as if Mary just disappeared. Huh?

The movie concludes with us back in the town Mary was from and they have finally drug the lake enough to find the car that fell in at the beginning. The discovery and removal of the car reveals this astonishing twist; Mary originally died in the car. This leaves me with several questions. Since Mary died, who is this person we've been following the entire time? Was it a wandering spirit that somehow took on the look of Mary and tried to live again? Did Mary's soul somehow escape and become corporeal? It's all confusing and does make the mind think, but sadly the movie itself isn't compelling enough to make one truly care.

"Carnival of Souls" isn't a terrible film. It definitely has its place in the land of B-movies and enjoys a rather large and loyal cult following. It has also, in recent years, become a staple of discount DVD bins and horror movie collections. I do somewhat question its place in the Criterion Collection, but I believe its place is mostly due to its visual aspects, which at times are rather impressive and do their best to establish a creepy atmosphere. There just isn't a compelling story to go along with it.

Vampyr (spine #437)

You know how in movies sometimes there's this hipster guy or gal that goes to film school and expresses his or her self through a black and white student film that seemingly has no real point or direction? I genuinely can't help but feel that "Vampyr" is the 1932 version of that premise. There are a few things, technically and visually speaking, that the movie really astounds in. Yet, as most modern cinema shows us, just because there is some new flash or camera wizardry, it does not necessarily a good movie make.

"Vampyr", from what I can tell, revolves around a young man named Allen Gray. Allen studies the supernatural and comes to an inn for some reason we are never given. He does see a man with a terribly menacing scythe, which i believe is "foreshadowing". One night, his room is broken into by an old man who says three or four words (the movie is almost literally silent, even relying on title cards to tell most of the story...kind of.) to him, writes a message on a package, leaves said package on Allen's desk, and immediately exits the room. The message on the package says that it should not be opened until the old man dies. The next day, Allen begins to witness shadows, completely on their own, all about the village. This is one of the more impressive aspects of the film, including Allen following a shadow as it walks across a field and into a building, climbs a ladder, and returns to a soldier to whom which the shadow belongs. Genuinely, quite an impressive sight, even though the movie had given you no idea what it all means, at least not yet.

Not long after, the old man, whom it has been revealed has two daughters, one very sick, dies, killed by the soldier's shadow. Allen then opens the package to reveal a handwritten novel on Vampires. The pages of the book itself are shown to us via title cards, but are at least written fancily as to at least be visually intriguing, if not sporadic and often near-nonsense. The rest of the movie is seriously a film fever dream. Allen walks around a lot, reads more of the book ever-so-slowly, stumbles upon what he might think is a vampire in the town's midst and then it just gets less and less coherent.

"Vampyr" may have some of the worst editing I have ever seen in a film, and I have seen some really bad films. Aside from the impressive visual effects, I can't understand why Criterion chose this film. I genuinely had to read other people's reviews of the film to understand what exactly was going on. While reading about the film, I found that it was released to almost overwhelmingly negative reviews and it wasn't until the advent of the modern film critic that people started to take a liking to it. I even read people applauding the director for breaking the standard narrative form of film, whereas Ed Wood was hated for doing the same things. It would be easy to just say that the movie was made in 1932 and that was how movies were. Seeing as how "Dracula" and "Frankenstein" came out the previous year, I beg to differ. Those films had incredible visuals for the time as well, but more importantly told compelling stories and featured solid acting. Besides a camera trick or two, I can't possibly see anything worthwhile about "Vampyr"

Repulsion (spine #483)

One of my favorite things about film is its ability to set an effecting mood so that the movie itself, and not just the actions on-screen, provides its own assault on the senses. "Repulsion" sets just such a mood and delivers a solid story, but it definitely requires extreme patience to get there. The movie follows Carol (Catherine Deneuve), a shy, young Belgian woman that lives with her sister, receives (and shuns) lots of male attention, and might just be borderline crazy. Carol, throughout the whole movie, almost never speaks. She sort of just looks at things and people as if she can't quite understand what's going on around her. This makes the beginning of the movie a bit of a struggle to get through, as you are not sure whether this is all character and nuanced-acting, or whether Denueve was really just a terrible actress. Thankfully, it's just a very long and drawn out way of establishing the rest of the film. There's a scene with Carol sitting on a bench looking at a crack in the sidewalk and something about this scene reassures that there is much more going on.

Soon after this, Carol's sister goes on a trip, leaving Carol at their apartment all on her own. This is where the film begins to take quite the surrealistic turn. Carol begins having fears and visions of a burglar breaking in and then raping her. Having seen Carol get upset and freak out over just the slightest bit of affection shown her, it makes this scene all the more powerful and damaging. The rape is far from graphic, but is shown in sporadic cuts with no sound except the ticking of a clock, adding to the ever-increasing tension. Yet, when Carol wakes up, she's all alone, the doors are still locked and it starts to become evident that the whole thing was in her mind.

Time begins to pass, expressed in the film by different forms of food that have been left out, and their gradual rot. As the loneliness and mental instability creep in more and more, so do the sexual dreams Carol has, sometimes as rape, sometimes as groping hands emerging from the apartment walls. Like the crack she saw earlier in the movie, Carol begins seeing cracks all over the apartment, all the while as she is dwindling more and more into madness, eventually escalating from her raw desires to violence and murder.

The movie, directed by Roman Polanski, has quite a bit of visual flair, especially for its time period (1965), and is filled with some truly intriguing effects that I won't spoil for you but are definitely impressive. Having no previous knowledge of the film before watching it, I was quite surprised and pleased to see it be an engaging thriller with some terrific horror elements with it. The movie itself totally relies on Deneuve's performance, which ends up being quite astounding, doing so much with so very little. Definitely a patient, slow-paced film, but one that I felt rewarded with having seen.

Withnail and I (spine # 119)

Even before I had decided to begin this daunting task of conquering the entire Criterion Collection, this movie was well on my radar for two reasons. Firstly, Zach Galifianakis, in an interview with Rolling Stone, noted "Withnail and I" as being the funniest movie he's ever seen. Seeing as how I personally hold every single nuance of Zach as comedic gold, how could I not take his word on it? The second thing that hooked me in was the cover art done by none other than Ralph Steadman, best friend of Dr. Hunter S. Thompson as well as the visual half of the Dr.'s "Gonzo" literature. Between the Zach's recommendation and Steadman's involvement, I couldn't have wanted to see this movie harder. Then, I saw it.

That's not to say that I hated the film. Far from it, actually. I just can't resoundingly say that I am for it, either. The movie takes place in the late 60's with two out of work actors, Withnail (Richard E. Grant) and "I" [Paul Mcgann(and yes, his characer is "I". look in the credits)]*, who are barely scraping by, spending what little they have on booze, and are desperately in need of a change of scenery. As luck would have it, Withnail has a very flamboyant uncle named Monty, portrayed by Richard Griffiths (whom you may know better as Harry Potter's muggle Uncle Vernon. A lot of "uncle" work, this guy),who happens to own a small cottage out in some countryside. So they go, and this is pretty much where the movie actually goes nowhere.

"Seinfeld" was constantly labled a show about nothing, when in actuality there were multitudes of things going on. In the case of "Withnail and I", it really is about absolutely nothing. They get to the cottage, get shitfaced for a bit, Uncle Monty eventually arrives unannounced and makes advances at "I" as he sleeps, "I" gets fed up and wants to return home and manages to get an acting gig along the way. The movie feels like there should be something going on, some bit of soul searching or redemption, anything really. It comes off as merely just a glimpse of two people that have given up on life, one of which still hanging to a thread of hope. It's not really much in the way of a comedy at all, although there are a few choice lines here and there, my favorite being, "I'm preparing myself to forgive you."

I feel like maybe the movie relies on a deeper knowledge of England at that time period so as to be more affecting. Some reviews I have read lend it a comparison to "Fear and Loathing...". with two guys at the end of a swinging time period trying to pick up the pieces and start anew. It does help the film to look at it with those sort of eyes, but I find it not enough for resounding praise. The movie does have a very odd, yet interesting ending involving Hamlet and a pack of wolves, which leaves you feeling like there was more to what you just saw, but not enough to make a return trip. As I often say, though, this is completely my take. The film did decent box office and is apparently quite the cult hit among many, so I would recommend seeing it. I just can't guarantee you'll feel any different than I.

*interesting nerd fact: Both primary actors, Grant and Mcgann, have spent time in the beloved shoes of "Doctor Who". McGann portrayed the 8th doctor in a Doctor Who TV movie in 1996, and retained the moniker up until 2005 when BBC relaunched the series with ninth doctor, Christopher Eccleston. Grant, on the other hand, made some animated web adventures as the ninth doctor in 2003, apparently preparing him to take over as the ninth doctor when the new series began. However once production began, he was not asked to continue on. As such, he is officially known as the "unofficial doctor". If you got all that, you are as hopeless a nerd as I am for writing it.

SALO, or the 120 Days of Sodom (spine #17)

To kick off this most daunting of endeavors, I figured I would start off with one of the movies I have been most curious and interested in wanting to see. "Salo, or the 120 Days of Sodom" reigns as being, at least in conversation, one of the most controversial movies of all time. Based on the eighteenth century writings of the Marquis De Sade, the story is adapted to Italy, 1944 and ripe with Fascism.

The film focuses on four men of varying status; The Duke, The Magistrate, The President, and The Bishop. One of the first lines uttered in the film, by The Bishop, is, "All's good if it's excessive." and that phrase alone completely sums up the plot of the film. These four men specifically choose eighteen young people, 9 boys and 9 girls,and bring them to a seemingly secluded palace,along with maids and soldiers, for four months of perversion, humiliation, and eventual execution. They are joined by 4 middle aged women, 3 of which share stories of their excessive lifestyles and experience while the fourth plays piano interludes along with the stories. Each story told entails a different primary theme, each of which gets specifically explored. These stories mirror, in their own perverse way,Dante's Inferno; The Anteinferno, The Circle of Manias, The Circle of Shit, and The Circle of Blood.

Each story is told in a large common area, with the captive young people in various states of dress and undress, with each of the older women telling stories meant to arouse the four gentlemen, as they have the young ones at their complete disposal, sometimes taking them into rooms on the side, often making them participate in acts right there with the group. As the days wear on, the mental states of the boys and girls seems to be somewhere between denial, survival, and absolute breaking point. There is a lot in the movie that makes it so controversial, but I feel most of that is in idea rather than execution. Personally, things of a sexual nature don't bother me as it seems to bother most. I feel like, especially with Americans, sex is still such a taboo thing that we also constantly are bombarded with, that anytime it can be used in a way to provoke thought or any other feeling than the norm, I am compelled to say, "job well done." The sex depicted is never graphic itself, but the filming of the movie, made in 1975, lends a bit of realism that most movies nowadays could never pull off, just on picture quality alone.

With the other stories comes the introduction of shit as food and aphrodisiac,including a scene that the new cover (photo shown) is taken from. Ultimately, violence,torture, and death arrive for all those that broke the rules (yes, there were rules!) or refused to participate in the acts as they went on. At the same time as these horrible acts are occurring, watching the movie itself reveals it to be quite visually compelling in the way it was filmed. Nearly every shot filled with symmetry, looking almost "Kubrick-like" at time and the whole film feeling like its been washed in the color gray adds depth to the horrors your subjected to. The director, Pier Paolo Pasolini, cited the film as being a political statement and also metaphorical in its depictions. The director himself was murdered before being able to supervise a finalized version of the film. The nature and content of the film being so controversial and appalling to most found the film to be banned in many countries, even still to this day. Luckily, you can get it in America.

Personally, I came away liking the film. Many people told me to prepare myself for the worst, and with years of having read various reviews and stories, I may have had the movie on too high a pedestal for what I was expecting. The thing I always try and keep in mind with movies is the time period they were made. Thinking about this coming out in 1975 makes the subject matter and depictions that much more profound then they would seem in cinema today. The other wonderful thing about movies of that era, specifically the horror movies of the seventies, is that the violence and other atrocities aren't glorified as they are in modern cinema. Yes, those things are assuredly why people watch "Salo", but whereas with "Saw" or "Hostel" where audiences hoot and holler for the kill scenes, "Salo" depicts these acts as the perverse, vile things they are. You don't feel happy seeing them. You feel bothered and uncomfortable, as you should. On this level, the movie shines. It spends the whole movie pushing the freedom of excess while at the same time painting it in such a dark, filthy light. Definitely not a film for the faint of heart, the weak stomached, or the close-minded. "Salo" is an experience all its own if you are willing to take the ride.