Man Bites Dog (Spine #165)

"Usually I start the month with a postman." -Ben

Two years before "Natural Born Killers" came out and showcased the media's, as well as our own, fascination with violent culture and serial murderers, four French student filmmakers would come together to make a film, a fake documentary that follows the day-to-day life of a serial killer, that begins as mere spectating but quickly spirals out of control.

The star of the film is Ben (Remy Belvaux, who's also the primary director), a serial killer who's agreed to let a camera crew follow him around on his daily exploits. As we follow Ben he shares his opinions on art, nature, and society all the while interspersed with him murdering random people, primarily the elderly and, his favorite, postmen. We also get a look into Ben's "normal" life with numerous visits to his family and loved ones, which makes the character multi-layered and, when coupled with his biting dark humor, makes him downright loveable. As the movie progresses, the camera crew go from filming Ben's exploits, which are becoming more random and motiveless, to becoming a part of them, leading them all down a path that some of them will never return from.

"Man Bites Dog" is an unflinching look at not only our obsession with violence, but it also serves to make the viewer question themselves and what it is that they find themselves enjoying. By making the killer extremely likeable and funny, we seem to excuse much of the early violence, but as the film progresses and the crimes become more real and gritty, you find yourself conflicted and fascinated all the same. Remy Belvaux's portrayal of Ben is truly incredible and is the primary selling point of the film. He's so believable that you could easily convince someone that it's a real documentary. This realism is also aided by the film's black and white low budget look. Between the acting and the look, the violence can at times take on a very harrowing tone and may be a bit much for some people, as it can feel brutally genuine. To those that can handle it, I highly recommend this film.

Naked Lunch (Spine #220)

"Exterminate all rational thought. That is the conclusion I have come to." -Bill Lee

In 1959, "Naked Lunch", a novel by William S. Burroughs, was unleashed on an unsuspecting public. The book follows a nomadic junky and his exploits, most of the book being based on Burroughs' own life experiences. The book itself is written in a barely cohesive form, so that, as Burroughs would say, the chapters could be read in any order, therefore lacking any real narrative flow. Despite this, various film makers, almost as soon as the novel was published, began to try and find a way to bring this unorthodox novel to the big screen. Considering the book's structure, every adaptation, including a proposed musical version, all would fail and lead many to label the book as "unfilmable". In 1991, David Cronenberg would find a way simply by taking a different approach.

Rather than film a direct adaptation of the book, Cronenberg made the film about the writing of it, along with some more direct nods to pivotal moments in Burroughs' life, as well as some just all-around weirdness. The story begins with Bill Lee (Peter Weller), an exterminator who's wife has been using his bug powder as a drug. Lee is also finding himself hallucinating from prolonged exposure to the bug powder, causing him to think he is a secret agent working for a giant bug. The bug informs him that his wife, Joan (Judy Davis), is also a secret agent and that she must be killed. Lee dismisses the whole thing and returns home to find his wife having sex with his two best friends and, inadvertently, he does indeed end up killing her. This leads Lee to leave America for Interzone, where he begins writing what will become "Naked Lunch". Along the way he meets a doctor running a drug ring, a doppelganger of his now dead wife and a couple of typewriters that are actually living creatures helping Lee with his "reports", aka novel. He also finds himself more and more immersed in a drug-addled state, unable to tell reality from hallucination.


Cronenberg's directing style lends itself well to such a mind-fuck of a story, and in my opinion helps to pull this unbelievable movie off believably. So much of the film could easily fall into hokey B-movie territory, from the Mugwumps to the monster typewriters, but everything is filmed and portrayed with a sincerity to it that helps contain the tone throughout. Not to mention that all of the creature effects are superb and exist as a high water mark for all practical effects in film. Add to that a very subdued, but engaging performance by Peter Weller, and you find yourself with an engrossing film that holds you till the very end.

The Seventh Seal (Spine #11)

"Faith is a torment – did you know that? It is like loving someone who is out there in the darkness but never appears, no matter how loudly you call."

 Though nearly every addition to the Criterion Collection is an incredible work of art and film, it takes a true visionary to create multiple works befitting such high praise and posterity. Of the few directors that fall into that category, Ingmar Bergman is one of not only the most beloved, but also most deserved. For our first adventure into his work, of which there will be many, we start with what a majority consider to be his masterpiece, "The Seventh Seal". Filmed in 1957, "The Seventh Seal" is, on the surface, a tale about a Knight returning home from the Crusades who encounters the personification of Death and begins a game in hopes of besting Death and carrying on his life. As the story unfolds, however, the Knight has a crisis of faith which changes the stakes of the game as well as the depth of the movie alltogether.

Set during the period of "The Black Death", we are introduced to Antonious Block (Max Von Sydow) and his squire, having returned from the Crusades only to find Sweden ravaged by the Plague. It is early on here that Block crosses paths with Death himself. Finally relieved to be on his way home and ready to enjoy life, Block gets Death to agree to a game of chess. As long as Block can continue the game, he lives and if he can win, he goes free, but if he loses his soul belongs to Death. Being a bit foolhardy and proud, Block thinks this should be no challenge. The chess game, although seemingly a convenient narrative device, actually is where a great brunt of the story takes place, at least in relation to Block's character. As the film progresses, we see Block go from playing the game so as to continue to enjoy life yet by the end he has begun playing out of fear of death due to his deteriorating faith. This faith will crumble more and more as the game wears on and Death continues to shirk answers and fill Block's mind with doubt.

Block and his squire continue on their journey home, finding themselves interacting with a variety of people along the way. This includes a band of actors whom after some altercations end up joining Block on his journey. His squire saves a young woman under attack and as such she decides to return with him and look after his home. One of the last people they meet along the journey is a young woman ready to be burned for giving herself over to the devil. Block demands of her to make her devil appear, hoping that some form will actually arrive so that he can ask it the true nature of God. She merely replies that the devil is already there. Shortly after, Block and his companions find themselves finally at his castle, yet all is not quite as hopeful as Block had anticipated and his game with Death is drawing to it's close.

The title "The Seventh Seal" comes from Revelation 8:1 which reads "And when the Lamb had opened the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven about the space of half an hour". This illustrates beautifully how Block has grown to feel. For years he had been fighting and killing in the name of God, but upon his return and being surrounded by and faced with Death itself, he continues feeling further and further away from God to point of wondering if God even exists. It's incredibly powerful considering the time the film was made and how that line of thinking can still inspire and provoke to this day.    

With "The Seventh Seal", Bergman created a film rife with layers and layers of depth and resonance. The film's visuals are beyond striking, from the look of Death to the landscape views of particular scenes to the using of medieval art as a form of storyboard to some of the films final scenes. This iconography has lived on to influence people as far ranging as Woody Allen to "Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey", whose Death is modeled directly off of Bergman's.  The film also boasts an incredible cast, led by Von Sydow, who brings a young, natural charisma and bravado that realistically gives way to his crumbling beliefs and despair. He really sells the fear of nothingness he thinks may be awaiting him on the other side. That's not to discount any of the remaining cast as everyone does an incredible job at adding a certain bit of life and originality to their roles.

Bergman did what many set out to do, and that's to make a film that is everlasting. Over 50 years later, "The Seventh Seal" is still able to entertain, to challenge, and most of all cause oneself to question their own beliefs. When faced with Death, do we let it slowly make its way through us and tear down our beliefs, or do we stand firmly planted, no matter the obstacle we face? All in all, an incredible film that demands your viewing.

Throne of Blood (Spine #190)

[singing] "Ambition is false fame and will fall, death will reign, man falls in vain." - Forest Spirit

If one were to have a discussion about the greatest filmmakers of all time, one would be remiss to not mention the master himself, Akira Kurosawa. Kurosawa's work is vast, formidable, universally praised and has had a lasting impression on film as a whole. Whether it be by his influence or someone blatantly lifting his ideas, Kurosawa's mark is not often hard to find. Amidst his thirty films, many of which are part of the Criterion Collection, I chose for my first Kurosawa entry to be one where he used a form of inspiration; "Throne of Blood". "Throne of Blood" is Kurosawa's own take on Shakespeare's play"Macbeth",with the setting moved to feudal Japan and also adapted to a time in Japanese history that greatly mimicked the Scottish story it was embracing. With only minor alterations to the original work, the film exists as a remarkable re-imagining of Shakespeare's heralded play, which coincidentally is my favorite of his plays.

The film begins with messengers warning of an oncoming invasion from a rival clan, which is then swiftly halted by two armies led by Washizu (Kurosawa favorite Toshiro Mifune) and Miki, two very promising samurai. While returning to base, the two find themselves terribly lost in a forest where they come across an old forest spirit that foretells the two samurai's futures within rank and power. Once free of the forest and back to their daimyo (territorial leader), they are instantly promoted and the first of the spirit's predictions comes true. Here is where the films overall themes of greed and ascension by any means necessary begin to take shape.

The truest of any comparisons to "Macbeth" lie within the performance of Isuzu Yamada. Her character, Asaji, is, for all intents and purposes, the Lady Macbeth of the film and I have never encountered such a haunting, downright creepy and numb portrayal of the character. After receiving the foretold promotion, Washizu shares the remaining prophecies with Asaji, and she is the one who spurs Washizu on towards corruption, power and murder in order to attain what has been predicted to be his anyways. This leads Washizu on a downward spiral of betrayal towards not only his friend Miki, but towards his own people while at the same time he is enjoying, to an extent, his rise in power and prestige. In the end, Washizu is turned on by his own people and, unlike the duel that does in Macbeth, Washizu is given an amazingly powerful sendoff that is very fitting of the story and of Kurosawa's style.

With "Throne of Blood", Kurosawa is able to take this renowned tale, give it his own interpretation, and make it a beast all it's own. Whilst retaining the overall moral tale, the film also incorporates its own history to the tale, along with a visual style that is positively astounding considering the film was made in 1957. I don't see it often mention about the film, but there also exists quite a horror element to the overall film. From the forest spirit, the near "walking dead" nature of Asaji, countless visions of those Washizu betrayed to the atmosphere of the film, Kurosawa builds a very dark world for the story to take place in, and I feel that it couldn't possibly be more fitting.

White Dog (Spine #455)

"I want you to shoot him now before he kills more blacks!" -Julie Sawyer

All it took was a random viewing of the trailer for Samuel Fuller's "White Dog" to know that I had to see it immediately. I mean, an early 80's film starring Kristy McNichol that's about a seemingly racist dog sounds like a recipe for success to me. I was more than ecstatic to discover that it had been released by Criterion, thereby giving me even more incentive to see it and boy, was it a treat.

McNichol stars as Julie Sawyer, an up and coming actress that accidentally hits our titular character, a white German shepherd, with her car. After a visit to the vet, Julie takes in the dog as her own, much to her "totally happening" boyfriend's chagrin. One night, an intruder breaks in and almost rapes Julie, but White Dog saves the day by brutally attacking the intruder. This leads Julie to believe that he is the greatest dog ever and that he couldn't be more perfect for her. Not to long after this incident, though, White Dog sneaks out late at night and makes his way into the city where he attacks a black trashman, causes his death, and then quietly makes his way back home. Julie, unaware of the dog's recent attack, brings him to work with her and he viciously attacks a black actress. This startles Julie and leads her to believe something is seriously wrong with the dog. Upon bringing him to a trainer, she learns that he is a "White Dog", or a dog that has been trained to not only hate, but attack, dark skinned people. The owner suggests that she kill the dog right away, insisting that their can be no rehabbing this hate that his been imparted to the dog. Keyes (Paul Winfeld),  the head trainer, he himself a black man, takes it upon himself to try and cure the dog of its nature, believing if it can be learned, it can also be unlearned. This begins a constant and at times very tense back and forth between Keyes and the dog, as Keyes is adamant to not give up on the dog even in the face of failure. The ending is quite shocking and affecting, but not in the direct way that you think it might be.

As you can imagine, the film itself had its fair share of hardships right out of the gate. Based on a 1970 novel of the same name, the film takes a very head-on look at racism and its nature, whether its learned or inherited and what can be done about it through confrontation or indifference. Directed by Sam Fuller in 1982, the film faced constant threats of boycotts and protests surrounding its release with many groups feeling the film would inspire violence rather than address it. Paramount backed down and shelved the movie indefinitely, never seeing an official release. It was then edited for a direct to TV release, but NBC backed down and never aired it. It wouldn't be until 2008 that Criterion would come along and release the film in its uncut form.

The film itself is a bit tough to take. First off, the dog is horrifying. I am not sure what they were doing to this dog to make it so angry, but holy jeebus its scary. The attacks are all quite vicious, although some escalate into an almost unintentional hilarity, which negatively detaches the film from the very serious message that it is trying to convey.  It is also, sadly, a byproduct of its time with it's glaring Eighties-ness, specifically found within McNichol. There are, however, moments where the movie truly shines and you get the overall feel of what Fuller was attempting to get across.

"White Dog" is by no means a bad film, and I applaud it for going after a subject that still to this day needs to be addressed and for doing so in a creative way. It is, however, not without it's shortcomings.I recommend giving it a chance with an open mind. Enjoy a laugh or two here and there, try and take in the overall message and do what you can to come away unscarred by the ending.

CHE (Spine #496)

"To survive here, to win... you have to live as if you've already died." - Ernesto "Che" Guevara

One would be hard pressed to name a more recognizable image than that of Cuban revolutionary Ernesto "Che" Guevara. The sad irony of that is the severe lack of knowledge of who Che was to go along with that recognition. With his film, "CHE", director Stephen Soderbergh, set about the task of meticulously sharing the story of a man that is equally celebrated as much as reviled. Drawing from numerous historical sources, as well as author Jon Lee Anderson's biography "Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life" and some of Guevara's own diaries, Soderbergh had built an enormous amount of material to cover; much more than a regular movie time would allow. What was originally financed as one English speaking film grew into a story spanning four and a half hours and split into two parts, now almost entirely spoken in Spanish. The two halves, "Part One: The Argentine" and "Part Two: The Guerrilla", both tell different era's of Che's life, but not only work in conveying a true sense of this man's slow rise and drastic fall, but watched in one sitting it ignores modern convention of how film should tell a story, all the while containing an incredible and demanding performance by Benicio Del Toro as Che himself.

"Part One: The Argentine" has a back and forth nature in time, jumping from Che's address of the UN in 1964 and his actual beginnings with the Cuban Revolution in 1955. With this back and forth the film creates an excellent dichotomy showing us a very strong, very well known Che seemingly as popular as anyone on Earth, whereas when the film jumps back we see Che's early beginnings; his slow rise within the revolution itself, even his own personal battles with asthma, which adds this dash of humanism to someone that we are seeing will become larger than life. An early scene shows the introduction of Che to Fidel Castro, in which Castro asks Che to join him and there's this subtle power in seeing two men discussing their dream, and living to see it fulfilled; to an extent, at least. By the time "The Argentine" concludes, we see Che's group, the July 26th Movement, succeeding in their takeover of Cuba. While feeling like a high note, Che is quick to remind his troops that they have simply "won a war. The Revolution has just begun." Nevertheless, at this point, Che has become almost mythic and most certainly legendary. The very final scene is jumps back to that first meeting with Castro and reveals what Che wants in return for his help.

"Part Two: The Guerrilla" has a much more stark and bleaker feel all around. Years after the successful taking of Cuba, Che now finds himself in Bolivia, hoping to bring their brand of revolution to South America. Whereas the taking of Cuba was slow and successful, Che would find merely less than a year in Bolivia, giving up his fame and name in hopes of spreading that which he believed in. Despite a warm welcome in lieu of him being a foreigner, Che could never get strong support from the locals of Bolivia, and this would be the beginning of his end. As his health becomes worse and worse, his men begin to dissent and eventually betray the man the pledged to follow. This leads to his discovery, capture, and eventual execution.

If anyone doubted the prowess of Benicio Del Toro before this film, upon seeing it they would no longer have a right to that doubt. Del Toro simply becomes this role, in such a seemingly effortless way. He exhibits an amazing understanding of a man that has dreams but also maintains a strict forcefulness with his troops and a lack of real celebration, always focusing on the task at hand. No matter what era you are witnessing, its almost uncanny how one can beleive they are watching the real Che onscreen.

"CHE" was also one of the first films to use the RED cameras, a new type of high definition filming, and there aren't many words to describe just how amazing both films look, in their own right. Soderbergh approached both parts with seperate, yet unified ideas in mind. "Part One" was filmed widescreen and with warm colors, in a way reflecting Che's success, but also coordinating with his writing style in his diary in regards to those times; very eloquent and well spoken. During the era "Part Two" happened, Che was very sporadic and uncoordinated with his writing, not knowing what would come next. Soderbergh filmed "Part Two" in a handheld style to help convey this uncertainty and leave the viewer anxious for what may come next for them.

Despite one's feeling on the subject matter dealt with in "CHE", one would be hard pressed to find much to dislike about the film(s) as a whole. Yes, there are big aspects of his life not covered, but with what is covered directly shows the biggest high and lowest low in the life of a man that lives on as far more than that. I urge anyone and everyone to view this as a whole and get a better, clearer understanding of "that guy on the T-shirt", which sadly is what he and his memory have become.

The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou (Spine #300)

"I wonder if it remembers me." - Steve Zissou

Here we are again, with yet another of Wes Anderson's amazing films, and in my personal opinion, his very best. With the film, his fourth, we find Anderson has traded in his love of suburban settings and urban quirkiness for the wild and fantastical seas, focusing this tale on an aging legend who many think is far past his prime. Yet, the film still brings along Anderson's fascination with broken families as well as the relationships that build from that brokenness. "The Life Aquatic" also functions as equal parts homage as well as parody of the late great oceanographer/documentary maker Jacques Cousteau, of which Steve Zissou is modeled after. In the character of Steve Zissou, we are also treated to one of the greatest roles of the wonderful Bill Murray's long career, specifically written with him in mind.

"The Life Aquatic" focuses on Steve Zissou (Murray), an oceanographer/documentarian that has found himself well past his prime. He's no longer as beloved as he once was and all of his relationships, ranging from his marriage to his friends, are strained to their breaking points. While filming his most recent adventure, Zissou stumbles upon what he calls a "jaguar shark" that not only eludes him, but kills and eats his beloved friend Esteban. Upon returning, Zissou has resigned himself to heading back out to sea as soon as possible to find this jaguar shark and kill it. Zissou runs into a young pilot named Ned (Owen Wilson) who may or may not be his long lost son. With Zissou being unable to obtain funding for his latest endeavor, Ned, thanks to a recently obtained inheritance, puts up the money for the expedition and also becomes a part of the crew, which itself is made up of cameramen, editors, and many an unpaid intern. Rounding out the lot is a young reporter named Jane (Cate Blanchett) who is a great admirer of Steve's as well as very pregnant under not so wonderful circumstances.

Off and ready to document the finding and destroying of his new found foe, the journey is not quite as easy as Zissou envisioned. Between in-fighting, jealousy, love, a bit of theft, some nasty pirates, and experiencing even more loss along the way, Team Zissou, particularly Steve himself, discover that its much more about the journey than the destination itself. Through it all, Zissou comes to terms not just with his own mortality, but seemingly an understanding of his life as a whole and what it means to him. The whole of it is incredibly moving, and a lot of that rests firmly on the shoulders of Bill Murray.

For his efforts, Murray proves he is far more capable than being just a comedian. His portrayal of Zissou has so many layers to it that it requires repeated viewing to truly appreciate. From his interactions with his estranged wife Evelyn (Anjelica Huston) to his crew to "doing his best" at being a father-figure to Ned, Murray is a cut above in this movie and makes it even harder for me to see where people find fault in the film. He simply is a man that has hit bottom and despite that is still trying to make a go of it and through that discovers something much more powerful than fame or revenge.

Being a Wes Anderson film, one of the main themes is the relationships between the primary characters, mostly ones that are dysfunctional or all-together broken. We are also given to Anderson's amazing since of framing a scene an overall look and feel that are distinctly his. Although his previous works share many similarities, I personally feel that this is the one where everything just fell right into place. None of his films are lacking heart or emotion, but this one delivers on those cues much more profoundly. Oddly, this seems to be the Wes Anderson film that people are the most divided on. It's hard to find someone that has seen "Rushmore" or "The Royal Tenenbaums" and truly disliked them, although there are those that claim they just don't "get" them. "The Life Aquatic", however, seems to have just as many haters as it does fans, which is very strange to me, as I feel it's his strongest work and just doesn't get its fair shake.

There is so much more to go on about. The incredible soundtrack (which Anderson notoriously uses in his films to such a great degree), the rest of the supporting cast (especially Jeff Goldblum and Willem Dafoe), and an overall enjoyable tale that leans a bit fantastical at times, but stays leveled in a very human place. A truly remarkable film, indeed.

Rushmore (Spine #65)

"She's my Rushmore, Max." -Herman Blume

In regards to creative people who begin their careers on such a high note, there's always that fear of what some call a "sophomore slump". With "Bottle Rocket", Wes Anderson showed such immense talent and promise for a first time director, it would seem his next film would definitely have big shoes to fill. What Anderson came up with is "Rushmore", an incredible film that further cements his early visual flair as well as his almost play-like style of storytelling, "Rushmore" would not only prove that Wes Anderson was here to stay, it also was a launching pad for the career of Jason Schwartzman as well as the "second coming" of comedy genius Bill Murray.

Our story begins by introducing us to 15 year old Max Fischer (Shwartzman), a massive overachiever in every extracurricular activity offered at Rushmore Academy, yet has some of the worst grades of any student to have ever passed through its doors. Max loves Rushmore and has devoted nearly every waking moment he has to it. During an assembly, Max is introduced to Herman Blume (Murray). Blume is a successful businessman and former Rushmore alumni . Right from the start, Max and Herman have a mutual respect for each other. Max admires Herman's success and Herman envys Max's cockyness and genuine enthusiasm for life. Here we have what has become one of Anderson's strongest storytelling devices, the companionship that can form between people from a broken or ignored family system. Max seems ashamed of his meager means and constantly mentions his father as being a brain surgeon when in fact he is a barber. Herman has a crumbling marriage and two unappreciative children that are the complete opposite of himself. The pair become fast friends within this and create their own sort of family. Alas, just as it often happens in real life, the best relationships can become tested when love comes into the picture.

Love, in this case, is brought into both men's lives in the form of Rosemary Cross (Olivia Williams), a new teacher at Rushmore whose husband has recently passed. Upon meeting, Max is immediately smitten and takes every chance he can to make a pass at her, despite the significant age gap, obvious student/teacher taboo, and the fact that she doesn't feel the same. Realizing that his friend is just headed for heartbreak, Herman steps in and convinces Max that Ms. Cross just isn't the one for him. In the process of doing this, though, Herman also falls in love with her, which in this case, is reciprocated. The two begin seeing each other behind Max's back.

Upon the discovery of their secret relationship, Max and Herman soon go from best friends to bitter rivals, attempting to take one another down with increasingly dangerous results. As things begin to escalate, they both drive away Ms. Cross, with her pointing out that they (Max and Herman) deserve each other. Having both hit bottom, they both make attempts to reconcile with each other, as well as fix the relationships they have broken or completely ignored with those around them.

There really aren't enough good things I could say about this film. Like all of Anderson's films, it is immensely funny and forever quotable, but it is also endearing and touching. Anderson has a gift for showing that people don't have to be related to be "family", as well as that just because a family is completely disjointed or ignored, its never past repair. The movie also does its part to address loss, confusion, resentment, and redemption. Jason Schwartzman, in his first role ever, simply shines amongst several well established actors while at the same time brings a genuine sense of believabilty to his character Max. He is only outmatched by the wonderful Bill Murray, who with this movie began this amazing career resurgence within the independent/smaller scale film industry. Nearly every moment Murray is on screen is comedic gold, save for when he is showing he also has quite the serious side to display.

What we get with "Rushmore" is more than just an incredible film by one of the most original voices in cinema. Within the movie, we are treated to a wonderful tale about "growing up", how it starts in us young and continues throughout our lives. Through the film,we see the beginning of a young man's promising career and the re-emergence of one of our most beloved actors. Lastly, we are treated to a style of filmaking that combines genres and visual flair that can only be summed up as a "Wes Anderson" film.

Le Samourai (Spine #306)

"I never lose. Never really." -Jef Costello

In my pursuit of watching all of the Criterion films, I've come across few I didn't care for, but I found "Le Samourai" to be absolutely dreadful. What an incredible let down this movie was. On paper, it had the possibility of being genuinely incredible; taking samuari ideals and applying them to a modern gangster film, all created by Jean-Pierre Melville, a leading force within the French New Wave of cinema. Unfortunately, the execution left me longing for anything resembling a worthwhile effort. What began as simply sitting down to enjoy a movie quickly became a loathsome task that couldn't have ended soon enough.

The story focuses on ever-so-silent Jef Costello, a hitman-for-hire that lives an incredibly minimalist life, sadly the only real echo of anything resembling "samurai" in the whole film. Of the numerous murders he has performed, he has never once left any evidence of his crime, based on his methodical way of living which includes his girlfriend who is always handy with an alibi. After handling another job, despite his attention to detail, he is seen leaving the scene by a number of people, among them a lovely piano player that will come into play throughout the movie. This incident not only has the police after him, but also his employers. Thus begins a game of cat and mouse (and cat?) that will continue until the movies end.

See that paragraph you just read there? That little synopsis is one million times more interesting than this unbelievably lauded work. The movie tries in itself to be minimalist with hardly any dialogue and an agonizing pace. I can appreciate aspects of this, but without a single compelling character to get behind, it makes this form of film-making come off as boring and pretentious. Not once did I ever have a care or concern over our main character or any of those around him. The few times he spoke, the lines were often quips that almost beg you to groan at them. And then there's the pet bird. Showing up several times throughout the film, Costello's bird is the sort of maddening, constant annoyance that people sight as the reason they don't want children. The whole idea of this movie being silent and slow is pushed to jarring by the incessant chirping of said bird. The fact that it becomes a plot device is cause for much face-palming.

If you've made it this far, you can probably safely assume that I wouldn't suggest this movie, even to bitter rivals. Here's the odd thing. Some people I know, whose movie opinion I greatly trust, genuinely love this movie. It gets amazing reviews and is talked about to death on various movie and film lovers threads. Am I just missing something? Are these people finding something that's not actually there? I mean, Criterion did add it to the collection for a reason. So I leave you with this. I would never recommend it. I felt it to be long-winded, flat, annoying, and a sad waste of an excellent idea. Yet, since other people seem to feel differently. Take what you will from that. Make your own decisions. After all, I'm just one guy talking.

Gomorrah (spine #493)

"I'm Tony Montana!" -Marco

American cinema, over the years, has had quite a love affair with the idea of gangters and the gangster lifestyle. From "The Godfather" films to "Scarface" and beyond, there's almost a sort of romanticism with the idea of being above the law and above reproach. Even when someone takes a fall, it's done with such grandness that even death is a story worth carrying on one's name. "Gomorrah" is a film meant to turn the love affair with gangsters on its head. Directed by Matteo Garone, "Gomorrah" is relentless in its authenticity, rawness, and overall realism of what a life of crime is really like, sitting far from the dream its often perceived to be.

The movie opens in a tanning salon, wth several guys, with seeming clout amongst the local mob, enjoying themselves and relaxing in the booths. In no time at all, the salon has turned into a mob-hit bloodbath. This shows no matter how high up or respected you are, someone can still get at you and your wonderful life can end just like that. All this, and the opening credits have yet to roll.

The movie then continues on by jumping between five different stories that mildly intersect in ways, but are tied to the much larger theme of the Comorrah, the Italian mob. The people whose stories we follow are:
-Don Ciro,an aging money runner
-Toto, a 13 year old delivery boy being funneled into the gang system
-Roberto, a young graduate that is given an opportunity in waste management
-Pasquale, a high fashion designer
-Marco and Ciro, two teenagers who are in love with the idea of being gangsters

With this film being achingly realistic, its safe for one to assume that no one has a happy story to tell. Don Ciro is growing old and lacks any respect from anyone that he is helping. Toto loses his best friend to a rival gang and eventually becomes pressed with giving up someone he cares about for the sake of the gang. Roberto is immediately thrown into a questionable moral predicament and struggles with coming to terms with it. Pasquale is given an outside offer that conflicts with the Comorrah's interest in his business, and Marco and Ciro are so delusional in there affection for the gangster life that it continually leads them into terrible situations and could ultimately lead to their demise. Everyone seems to be stuck in a proverbial box that there is just no way out of. It adds tension to every moment and a sort of hopelessness that can almost become overwhelming.

Most of these feelings the movie gives would have just fallen flat without an amazing cast. Shot in a way that feels very similar to the equally polarizing "City of God", "Gomorrah" often feels like you are watching a documentary and that these actors really are living these lives. Its a testament to their abilities, as well as to the real-life stories they are portraying.

Another amazing aspect of the film is the cinematography and location. We are shown the slums and dregs of Italy, far from the fanciful places people often dream of visiting and falling in love at. Even when we visit a better location, the colors are diminished and really pull across the bleakness of the story in a visual way that matches perfectly. Bleakness aside, it's also fascinating to me to see this other side of Italy. One of my favorite things about watching foreign cinema is getting a grander sense of the country and setting than just the glamourized sections we always hear about and see. This very same idea ties exactly into the way this movie portrays a mob life. All aspects are shown, proving that all things are far from perfect and desirable.

Those doubting some of the realism of the film would do themselves a favor and look up the book "Gomorrah", written by Roberto Saviano, detailing the Comorrah and the organized crime way of life currently existing in Italy. Saviano has been dealt many a death wish since the publishing of the book in 2006 and remains in somewhat protective custody, another telling example of this real life violence being demystified.

"Gomorrah" is a shocking portrayal of the organized crime dealings in Italy. It will pull you in, break your heart, and hopefully leave you with a completely different perspective on this idea of gangsters that we as a culture love so much. It left me with an overwhelming sense of hopelessness, and I'm someone on the outside looking in.

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.