Change Your Image
kapali
Reviews
Il vangelo secondo Matteo (1964)
Impressive and imperfect
Before I saw Pasolini's "Il Vangelo secondo Matteo" I was uncertain if I even wanted to see it. I was aware that when he made that film the director was influenced by Italian neorealism, a movement which has little appeal for me. At the same time, Pasolini's later films are some of the greatest ever made. Eventually, my love for Pasolini's later works won out and I saw the movie. While "Il Vangelo secondo Matteo" is indebted to neorealism, as in its use of non-professional actors, this does not in the least detract from its quality.
Enrique Irazoqui, who plays Jesus, gives an excellent performance. He brings an intensity and harshness to the role that is very much in accord with the Jesus portrayed in numerous passages of the gospels. Margherita Caruso, who plays Mary as a young women, is an inspired choice. Although she does very little, and I cannot truly commend her for her acting, she has an amazing presence in this film, combining serenity, holiness, and innocence.
Pasolini paces the film well. It never drags, and never passes over subjects or incidents too quickly. The heroic quality of Jesus' life is strongly emphasized, his confrontations with existing religious authorities, his preaching of his message throughout Palestine, his bravery before the Roman authorities, and so on. Through demonstrations of his resolve, composure, and sternness, a real sense of the courage and dynamism of the character of Jesus is produced.
Pasolini's choices of locations could not have been better, and the scenes are staged and filmed skillfully, emphasizing the right emotions at the right times, whether those are feelings of sympathy, courage, or awe. I would not go so far as to say that any of these elements demonstrate brilliance, but they are very well done.
I was impressed with Pasolini's use of the gospels, which provide the bulk of what the character of Jesus actually says. I might note, also, that the harshness of much of the message is left intact. Conservative Christians might find this appealing, in that the director does not sanitize the message. Certainly, the pope enjoyed it. Pasolini received a medal from him. Non-Christians, and more liberal Christians, might find parts of the message to be a little frightening. When some of the harsher elements, especially the religious exclusivism (i.e., only those who believe in Christ have hope) are heard as spoken dialogue, rather than as words printed on a page, their impact is much greater, whether it is more disturbing or more inspiring. The film is a powerful evocation of the life of an important religious figure, and can be enjoyed by both believers and non-believers.
The film does have it's faults, however. The scene in which the "massacre of the innocents" is shown is poorly done. I personally found the depiction of the event to be somewhat comical, which clearly was not Pasolini's intention. The score, which draws on a variety of genres of Christian religious music is, by itself, beautiful. Unfortunately, I felt that it did not complement the film. The juxtaposition of disparate musical traditions with one another, and with the harsh world being visually depicted weakened the effect of both, had either stood on its own. I should say that these are relatively minor complaints. The film as a whole is a moving and impressive work. I do not think that it is as impressive a work as any of Pasolini's "Trilogy of Life" films, but it is a great film nonetheless.
Bowling for Columbine (2002)
A modern satirist ---POSSIBLE SPOILERS
While Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine" is hardly a balanced account, and I'd be worried about anyone who was swayed by its arguments, I found it to be a funny and profound condemnation of America's obsession with guns. Some of Moore's assertions are a little trite and easy, but he does provide a disturbing satire on American gun culture. This is one of those rare cases where a film deserving of an Oscar actually won the award. Moore himself, I might add, comes across as an intelligent, likeable, and articulate individual.
Reasoned arguments do not make good movies, which rely on relatively simple arguments joined with evocations of strong emotions. Moore does make effective use of such techniques, but his arguments could actually have been a little stronger. The viewer is made cognizant of much of the folly, cruelty, insensitivity, and general stupidity behind America's love of guns. The director's sense of humor, inspired choices of interviewees, and general wittiness mark him as a talented satirist.
Some of Moore's assertions do weaken the general impact of the film. He appears to blame gun violence in America largely on whites' fears of blacks and on media manipulation of those fears. As an American living in England, I can say that the local television news in American is more sensational and exploitative than television in the UK, but it is different in degree, not in kind. The media in the UK can be pretty bad, and newspapers here are often far worse than newspapers in the US. Consequently, Moore's argument does not work. His assertions that racist fears have fueled America's obsession with guns is no more convincing. While such fears have undoubtedly played a part in that obsession, the situation is surely more complex, and a cartoon version of American history, like that Moore gives in his film, does not prove his argument. It is funny though. His explorations of historical reasons are a distraction. Those reasons are simply too complex to present in a work like this, and Moore's simplifications distract him from his main target.
I was also troubled by some factual manipulation. For example, Moore provides us with the number of murders committed by guns in the US and the much lower numbers committed in other wealthy democracies. While the disproportionate numbers are frightening, they give no indication that violence is more pervasive in the US than in the other countries. In order to say that violence is more pervasive in the US, the total number of murders (expressed as ratios to the populations of the countries) would have had to be presented, whether they are committed with guns or with other weapons. If the total murder rates were then similar in the US and the other democracies, many of Moore's conclusions just would not hold. I suspect that the US is a relatively more violent society, but that suspicion is hardly proof I could use in an argument. A more thorough examination of the facts would have helped to make the director's assertions more convincing.
These faults do not, however, greatly detract from the impact of the movie.
The viewer should be aware that "Bowling for Columbine" is not a "factual" documentary. It is a satire. This should not deter anyone from viewing it, however. It is well made, effective, funny, and profoundly disturbing.
Elektra (1981)
Primal and ferocious
I saw this performance of Strauss' "Elektra" when it premiered on television, and have not seen it since. It, nevertheless, made a profound impact on me. I am rarely impressed by "modern" re-imaginings of operas. Such productions are usually failures. The "innovative" elements tend to be aesthetically unappealing, and frequently distract from the music. Friedrich's version of "Elektra" is an exception.
The costumes and staging, in an abandoned factory if I remember correctly, give the production an apocalyptic feeling, which is appropriate, as the lives of the characters of the opera are being destroyed by their own actions. The director shows us their dark, violent, harsh world. He evokes the primal qualities present in myth, and creates a real sense of ferocity, which is rare in operatic productions. Such darkness and brutality might not be appealing to many viewers, but are in keeping with the sentiment of the story itself, and are effective here.
Although my memory of the production is fifteen years old now, as I recall, the performers are all very good. I was certainly impressed with them at the time I saw this production.
The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)
A sweeping, epic failure --- POSSIBLE SPOILERS
There is no denying that "The Two Towers" is an impressive film, or that it is generally entertaining, but it is deeply flawed as well. I truly believe this could have been a great film, but because it is burdened with numerous problems it is ultimately a failure.
I enjoyed Tolkien's writings as a child, and reread them with pleasure as an adult, so when the first film came out I excitedly rushed out to see it. On the whole I enjoyed it, although it had some elements that bothered me. I was especially annoyed by Merry and Pippin's antics. At the time I was not too worried about the quality of the following movies on account of what I had seen since I knew Merry and Pippin would have to carry a large part of the second movie, and I assumed their characters would have to be made less "comedic" for them to do so.
Unfortunately, not only are they still annoying, but the character Gimli has also been made to provide comedic relief. I have no issue with comedy in the context of a serious movie, but the comedy here just was not funny. At one point, for example, unable to see over the battlements behind which he stands, Gimli requests a box to stand on.
Movies and books are different media, and a movie based on a book (or the reverse) can be judged without reference to its source material, and certainly is by those not familiar with the source. That said, those who are familiar with the book will come to the movie with some expectations of fidelity. When the director presents material different from that in the book, he should do so because such changes enhance the movie. When changes would negatively affect the movie, they should not be made. Many of the changes Jackson does make are of the latter category. Even without reference to the books, the flaws of the film are glaring.
There is a deliberately archaic feel to much of Tolkien's writing, and Jackson's screenplay largely obliterates this. He introduces contemporary touches which take away from the mythic qualities of the work, although these touches, no doubt, do render his project more commercially viable. Worse than this, some of the dialogue is just bad, and changes to the screenplay would have made "The Two Towers" a better film.
The introduction of the elves into the Battle of Helm's Deep appears to be motivated largely by a desire to have more elves in the film. It serves absolutely no other purpose that I can see, and is absolutely contrived. What is more, their marching in order, and turning their heads in unison towards the camera is ludicrous. I was torn again from a mythic world to a vision of a parade of US Marines with pointed ears.
The film also suffers from poor pacing. The middle of the movie, revolving around the character of Aragorn, is a mess. The dream sequences create a tedious morass that should have been edited out. Even the events leading up to these scenes should have been removed. They are deliberately manipulative, attempting to create tension about Aragorn's survival, but completely failing to do so.
Even the concluding battle, which has been much praised in the press, left me unstirred. Ralph Bakshi did a better job at depicting the battle in his 1978 film. The action is not particularly dramatic, and the repeated attempts at comedy ensure that whatever tension is built up is quickly dissipated.
The end of the film is meandering and pointless. Although "The Two Towers" does not complete the story being told, the dramatic impact of the film's conclusion could have been strengthened. Instead, the movie just peters out. Bakshi's film, by contrast, does build up to an impressive denouement. Tighter editing could easily have helped to build a sense of tension which would have made the victory over Saruman more satisfying.
For most viewers, both those familiar with the books and those who are not, "The Two Towers" will be a rousing adventure. The special effects are stunning. The acting is generally good. Jackson was perhaps a little too in love with his project, however. Had the middle of the movie been excised, the end re-edited into a more dramatically compact entity, and some of the dialogue rewritten, he could have produced a great film. He did not, and we are left with a sweeping, but ultimately unsatisfying epic.
Analyze This (1999)
Mediocre
"Analyze This" is exceptional example of a mediocrity. There is very little bad to say about this movie. The acting is good, the writing is fine, the production values are nice, et cetera, et cetera. There is, likewise, very little good to say about it. None of the actors gives an impressive performance. I never laughed out loud. I was never awed by the sets or the cinematography. "Analyze This" consequently belongs to that large group of utterly forgettable movies distinguished neither by their badness or their quality. As light entertainment, it's an enjoyable work, but since in a few years nobody will remember it's there, nobody will then be enjoying it as such.
The Dark Crystal (1982)
Gorgeous
"The Dark Crystal" is one of the most beautiful films ever made. The film is acted entirely by puppets, and persons in costumes so elaborate that the viewer is hardly aware that the characters they portray are not puppets.
I first saw this movie as a child and was absolutely enthralled. When I saw it again as an adult I was pleasantly surprised to discover that I enjoyed it even more, and appreciated it in more ways.
The sets, costumes, and puppets are universally impressive, and make this one of the most visually appealing films ever to have been made. The imaginary world in which the film is set is one of the best realized I've seen. The score complements the film throughout, and is often haunting in its ability to evoke emotions.
The story itself is simple, but inventive nonetheless. While the movie depicts a contest between good and evil beings, it does not fall into the usual depictions of some beings (and persons by implication) as innately evil and others as innately good. In the end, even the most wicked villains are redeemed. Good and evil appear as tendencies within individuals. Giving in to evil is condemned, and it's consequences shown, but even those who do evil are not wholly defined by such actions. There is an internal struggle between right and wrong within every being, but even those who succumb to their most vicious tendencies are capable of good. This final message is especially appealing to me when I contrast it with the message of most Hollywood movies. The usual message I get from these is that there are good people and monsters. Of course, each one of us is a good person and those we do not like are the monsters. "The Dark Crystal" provides a refreshing, compassionate, and hopeful alternative.
The action of the film is well paced. Moments of excitement alternate with quieter scenes. In some of these the daily lives of the beings of the movie's imaginary world are depicted. Even the smallest details have been thought out by the film makers and brought to the screen. Despite this, the film never lags. It is engaging and exciting throughout.
The film is not without it's faults, however. Some of the characters are a little too adorable, and some of the mysticism seems vacuous and forced. But taken as a whole the film is gorgeous and enchanting. It is a shame that puppets have so rarely been seriously used in Western drama. Films like "The Dark Crystal" demonstrate the effectiveness with which they can be employed. I watched the film with wonder, and was left with a sense of awe.
Les parapluies de Cherbourg (1964)
Deeply sad and profoundly beautiful ---POSSIBLE SPOILERS
Jacques Demy's "Les Parapluies de Cherbourg" is an enchanting and melancholy film. It chronicles the love story of Genevieve and Guy, and their final separation.
The first part of the film evokes a sense of giddy love with its music and vibrant colors. All the dialogue is sung, and while none of the music is particularly impressive, it is pleasant, charming, and often moving. The sets are dominated by bright, pastel colors, which convey the sentiment of the love story, and make the film one of the most visually attractive and distinctive I have seen. It truly is a stunning movie.
As the events of the film unfold, these elements, instead of producing the joyous feelings associated with a love story, enhance the sadness. Ultimately, "Les Parapluies de Cherbourg" is a very sorrowful movie, and the bright and charming elements, by evoking sentiments of love, emphasize that the characters' love story has come to an end, and so make the film more profoundly sad.
For those who enjoy melancholy beauty, "Les Parapluies de Cherbourg" should be a wonderful experience.