27 February 2008

Thirty Two Short Films About Glenn Gould (1993)

Strange coincidence? First a bloody musical from the Fleet Street, then a videoclip-like Daft Punk vision, and now I have another music-related movie, this time about the eccentric Canadian piano player, Glenn (Herbert) Gould. Or even 32 short films? The title is honest: the film delivers thirty two small pieces from a complex character.

"I didn't want to reduce [him] to one dimension." – said Francois Girard, the director, so he made 32 dimensions, which is six times more how Todd Haynes did last year with Bob Dylan. The idea is the same, but the movies are quite different. Here we have fragments of a character through different genres. Dramatized situations, interviews, animation (by Norman Mclaren!) and experimental stuff. 


I've choosen to watch this film not because of Gould, but because of its form. Reading Louis Giannetti (1999, 137) you're getting curious: "The movie's structure is not a straightforward narrative, but series of fragments, loosely based on the thirty-two-part Goldberg Variations of Johann Sebastian Bach – one of Gould's most celebrated virtuoso performances. The film is structured around ideas rather that a linear story, and for this reason, thematic montage is its style of editing." Since I'm interested in every kind of non-linearity in narratives, it was a logical step to watch Girard's film. And the decision was good: Giannetti had right, my interest was fullfilled, but...

... it would have been around twenty stories enough. Let's see: 
Twenty Stories About Glenn Gould.
Sounds better isn't it? 
I can repeat what I said after watching Electroma on the other day. Even if this is a definitely better try with thick atmosphere around its protagonist's odd personality, better listen Glenn Gould than watch.

By the way, how would you picture the music?


7/10

26 February 2008

Gaslight (1944)

Today is another classic: the Hungarian rooted George Cukor's Gaslight is a typical Hollywood-like psycho-drama, involving the beautiful Ingrid Bergman (won Oscar for this role) and the brilliant Charles Boyer.
Unbreakable cause and effect chain, psychologically motivated cinematography, meaningful all-out details, lurid innocence versus lurid wickedness. That's Hollywood's classic era from the '40s. The time of the real cinematic experience, when the canvas was somehow "bigger" than now...

Before I would start my recent nostalgic cry:).. just briefly about the story: Paula is leaving her house in London. The Thornton Square 9 is a damned place: she lost there her aunt in a never solved murder case. The heart-broken girl finds a new feeling in Italy: "Soemthing that has never happened to me before." Her love towards Gregory Anton (Boyer is so deeply rotten that you will like him) turns into a quick wedding, and the couple is moving back to the deserted house. Of course it was Anton's decision who has something unfinished business there... 
I knew the wedding must be a torture, but this one definitely the finest among those mistakes.

"Will you light the gas please?"
With pleasure, but despite of that: You won't see almost anything, but you will definitely feel all the terror what Anton is using against Paula, who is slowly and systematically being driven out of her mind by her husband.

But don't afraid: Even if we are in London, Hollywood plays with the dramatic strings and sends a handsome and even more curious policeman to solve the desperate situation (Joseph Cotten might be familiar from the CitizenKane's journalist role). One more trifle: The camera's panning from the fighting couple to him who is unexpectedly standing in the door of the room is a filmhistorical shot!

Don't miss this cinematic masterpiece. CLASSIC, with all capitals.

9/10

23 February 2008

Daft Punk's Electroma (2006)

A small disappointment for the weekend. I was searching for this special film a lot, finally found it, but after watch it I'm not happy at all.

At first: Why it is a special one? After this week's booooring arias sung by Sweeney Todd I wanted to prove myself there are good ones which are using a music in peculiar way. Moreover Daft Punk is one of my favorite bands so everything was given to have a nice compensation after Burton's musical. It seems I'm gonna stay with the new film of the Coen's which deliberately refuses every kind of diegetic or extra-diegetic music...

Don't misunderstand me, there is nothing wrong with the music here. But only a small remark: there isn't any DF music during the 80 minutes. The "story" (the thematic?) is more from them than the music, which sounds closer to the other French duo's, the Air's world (from Haydn to Sebastien Tellier).

A pro pos story. The first scene: We have two robot-like guys, who are getting in an oldish black cool sportcar, and start to eat the miles under the sunny Californian sky. Looks like a road movie, and it is, according that it used to be that the heroes (here are Robot Heroes as the credits say) are hiding or searching something. Here it seems the latter case: they are desperately searching the ways to be 'Human' (yes, the licence plate of their car..). Anyway, I could tell more (wouldn't last too long), but it's just not worth according to this definitely non-narrative film. Then what else? Good question.

During the sterile movie's 70 percent the two robots just walking. I bet more than Irimiás and Petrina in Béla Tarr's more than 7hrs long Sátántangó (Satan's Tango). Ok, there is nothing's wrong with this one if they arrive somewhere, ... somehow. But - sorry that I'm telling you - they aren't.

Let's look at it as a video clip. It's a bit long this time, a Daft Punk without DF music, but at least you gonna learn how a robot can destroy itself if cannot reach its self-destruction button.
If you're a Daft Punk fan maybe shouldn't watch it. If you hate those guys (Thomas Bangalter & Guy-Manuel De Homem-Christo), it's really something for you to collect better argument against the fans. Better listen to them than watch.
5/10

22 February 2008

There Will Be Blood (2007)

If I wouldn't tell more than There Will Be Blood is the best (not one of the bests...) movie at least in the last ten years, maybe would be enough info. Would be enough because all my enthusiasm or analytical skills are not enough to prove this statement. But give me a try.

Lonely miner hackers the stones in a deserted land. He is completely alone, even music doesn't help his desperate effort. The only thing what you hear is the monotonious pickering and some Kubrickesque experimental noise (here I should salute to Radiohead's Jonny Greenwood for the unbelievable score). Every hit against the Earth is a hope to find its blood. The miner's foot steps into black blood which is leaking out from the wound of the ground. Welcome to the early 20th century when the searching for the oil replaced the gold fever.

The genious P.T. Anderson's film is a brilliant movie about two men: a man of practicality and a man of faith. The man of oil (when Daniel under his TomSelleck-moustache states "I am an oil man ... ladies and gentleman" - for the pause of those three dots I would give 10 Oscars to him) and the man of God. They are not wrong or right, bad or good. They just can't cooperate. Daniel is getting away from people ("I've built my hatred over the years, little by little"), not like Eli who is trying to reach as much as he can. But their dignity is harder than their sanity. And when they lose thier dignity (making contract with God and the Devil) they will slide: Daniel goes down to the ground and Eli even deeper to the hell. Their coalition, or even more their collition is the source of the drama.

... and then the miner's foot steps into blood which is leaking out from a smashed head.

Actually I really don't care with the Oscars, Berlin gave already the important prizes. But. This time maybe the Academy won't fail. Against Juno??? This year they haven't got any other choice than Daniel Day-Lewis and There Will Be Blood. Otherwise there will be blood.
Excellent, perfect, epic, already classic.

10/10

19 February 2008

Arsenic and Old Lace (1944)


"This is a Halloween tale of Brooklyn, where anything can happen ... and it usually does."

Frank Capra's classic is one of the biggest comedy success in the film- and even the theater history. Joseph Kesserling's original play proved its originality and universalism over the past decades: its characters, situations and most importantly its unstoppable jokes makes the audience laughing even in 2008, too.

Actually I'm not too fond of the comedies, and the film's slow start didn't changed my general opinion about the genre. But I gave chance and I did it right. Like some huge propeller, the story starts very leisurely without any effect on the viewer, but after a while, when its jokes start to rotate faster and faster it destroys all of your early disappointment. And then I didn't mentioned Cary Grant...

If nothing else there was one big revelation watching the film: George Clooney must be a huge fan of Cary Grant. His gestures, mimics are perfectly copying Grant's unbelievable rubber-face. If you've seen Grant only as Thornhill in Hitchcock's North by Northwest, you cannot imagine how flexibe (I mean professional) actor is he. And how funny!

Grant plays a forever-bachelor writer (his talkative book called: "Marriage, a Fraud and a Failure"), who is just got married:) He lives with his two aunts who have a very unusual habit: they are killing (khm.. helping) lonely old men. One day their another nephew, Jonathan arrives home, who is - what else - a terrible murderer. Did I say terrible? Oh yes, he is. He looks like Boris Karloff, not joking (at least not with him!). Moreover he is not coming alone: his surgeon (definitely not a good one according to Jonathan's Karloff-outlook..), Dr. Einstein is moving to the house of the deadly (khm.. kind) good old Brewster sisters'.

I tell you two funny details and then you can go and watch.
- The films' special effects were made by Byron Haskin. Familiar? Yeah, it was for me too watching the credits. Bingo: He directed the classic The War of the Worlds nine years later, in 1953.
- Another small thing is that in the role of Dr. Einstein plays Peter Lorre. Ok, his name is well known, so I'd like only show these three parallel pictures from him. Got it?:)


Btw, and what kind of humor you might expect? Listen:
"But my darling, we were married today!"
"It's ok, just go home and take some rest."

8/10

17 February 2008

Sweeney Todd the Demon Barber of Fleet Street (2007)

"In these once familiar streets I feel shadows..."

Tim Burton's musical (!) definitely one of the most wanted films from 2007. And it delivers. Stunning visuals, tactile atmosphere, perfect characters (I would risk that Sacha Baron Cohen as Signor Adolfo Pirelli is better than Depp), acting, and music. ...(*sigh) Too much music.

Tim Burton fans will kill me because of this: The almost two hours movie is too long. What I really want to say: Boring. Sometimes. (Huh, I could write down.) Sorry for this, but be honest: during watching the film around after the 15th song our enthusiasm over the brave and unique form is getting evaporate. I mean the songs are ok, but they are slowing down the story. The story what you can describe with two sentences. Even the film does it: "Benjamin Barker is back with a new name: Sweeney Todd. And he will have his revenge."

All right, this film is not about the story at first place. We know about Sweeney's vengeance from the book (George Dibdin-Pitt) or from earlier cinematic versions (1926, 1928, 1936, 2006), but at least from the hype which introduced the film. What else then? It should be something about the style and the genre. The earlier is perfect: Burton professionally delivers his unique world through film language again. The latter one is something new. Musical. Somehow it was predictable that Burton is going to try out one time. Fits to his surreal worlds and storytelling method. But despite of all these, somehow it doesn't work. At least somehow doesn't work two hours long. Right, listen: somehow it doesn't work two hours long for me.

"Otherwise" everything is working fine in the film. You will have blood and tears in Burton's way (definitely more blood), a real Shakespearian end and even the "closest shave you've ever had" ... if you understand what I am, more precise Mr. T. is saying.

Don't believe my words, absolutely worth to watch (even if the best Burton-film remains Ed Wood. There's no doubt about this)! Shouldn't think that the lightness what the musical brings makes the film's genre or maybe Todd's heart softer:)


8/10

15 February 2008

Juno (2007)

This week is a rollercoaster...

First of all I need to admit: it's my fault. I'm the stupid one who wanted to watch this. But why? What I was predicted?
I know now why is so risky to have a hard day. After that you want to watch something easy, something entertaining. And then you decide it might be Juno. "Nominated for 4 Oscars, and another 30 wins and 19 nominations." Did I tell you how stupid I am?

Yes, I'm stupid to choose this, but I'm more sad: maybe It's time for laugh for you because I used to believe in the little stars on imdb. Ok, I realized that nowadays there is some overrating hype (actually the phenomenon would deserve another post...), but it's getting really disturbing and disappointing. It started for me with the other terrible - forced- notfunny - wannabe - independentlike - cultthirsty crap, yep, I'm talking about Little Miss Sunshine. Bah! Come on! That balloon is the 178th best movie ever, I mean EVER made according to the visitors of the imdb!!! And then coming this one, Juno: nr. 135th! Noooo! Mann's Heat and Fellini's 8 1/2 are far behind! Didn't mention Scarface...

Wake up people. Juno is not good, which means isn't funny (forced), isn't real (Ellen Page as Juno acts as we think is an Oscar-winning acting, but it has nothing to do with reality!!!), isn't well directed (lack of motivations, unlikely curves), won't be cultic ever (even if it wants to be so desperately with its alternative music and slasher movie references). It's just a mathematically measured and perfectly balanced efemer way of moviemaking. There is a cute child, a baby, some direct humour and a BIG emotional bomb: Are you sitting? Because this cute one is going to be pregnant!!! Only a lovely dog is missing...

Sorry, I feel I'm not convincing this time cos I'm just extremely disappointed. Not only in this certain movie but the audience's taste. To summarize all this: I'm stupid, sad and according to this later statement of mine, even naive.

2/10

14 February 2008

Chambre 666 / Room 666



Don't be scared, it's not another bloody horror flick. But I admit it sounds like some satanic ceremony or I don't know, and even the "soundtrack" keeps up this first impression of ours...

So it's not a horror film, not even a feature one but a documentary. The first in this blog. Briefly: it's a documentary about "the future of the cinema". The question was taken by Wim Wenders, in May 1982 during the Cannes Film Festival in a hotelroom (you'll find out its number). The answers are coming from the directors who attended that year at the festival. Some of them disappeared already (their future is already answered..), some of them made a cinematic fortune.

"The future of the cinema". It's a typical Wenders-type question. Let's see the answers. Don't forget, we are in 1982!

Who else than Godard starts, who predicts "more and more movies look like tv series." Nice shot, but I would say the "future" brought exactly the opposite. At least in 2008. Besides his train of thoughts actually he is more interested to watch a tennis game (oh, Roland Garros, 1982) on the television, which is the best answer of the forced question:))

Monte Hellman (A Fistful of Dollars together with Leone) is coming: "I think that the last few years have been a bad period. I think that there haven't benn a lot of movies that I cared to see. And the ones that I've seen I've been disappointed in." Typical attitude toward the the contemporary cinema: everybody has a nostalgic feeling about the past, and this feeling works if we are talking about movies, too. But hey man, you're talking about the best years of the film history, about the seventies! No comment, go further.

Next to others Noel Simsolo is coming (never heard of him, maybe you? check): "It's not the cinema that's dead, it's the film-makers who make moronic films." He is really angry, after this sentence turned off the camera. What a primadonna..

Finally a real character! Fassbinder looks like some homeless truck driver, but his words are the winner. What is he said? I won't tell you: even a documentary might contain spoilers:)

Actually Herzog is on the ground, too. First of all he claims that he cannot answer this question with his shoes on. Haha, I'd like this answers on these questions... Above these he seems to be the best futurologist among the directors: he fantasizing about video cameras with which you can shop, take out money, or order food. After yesterday's news from Japan it's quite a good shot into the future. His summary about the pessimistic question is optimistic and funny: "What is the difference between the tv and the cinema? You can turn off the tv, but not the cinema." I like this.

Here comes the most optimistic one: How Spielberg is answering the question about the future of cinema? Of course he is talking about money. E.T. has eaten 10 million Dollars in 1982, and he believes that these costs will raise in the next years. Good guess, but I'm quite sure he was never thought about Spider Man 3's around half billion bucks...
The funniest part when is talking about the connection between film and audience. He believes that the people doesn't want to see some character who "masturbate for the first time at 13, whatever." Instead of that "You know, I want a picture that's going to please everybody." I accept this ars poetica, especially if the Indy4 will be as it looks like...

The next one is Antonioni. Strange to see him walking around, full energy. Anyway. His thoughts are quite sober: "The change is inevitable, and we can't do anything to prevent it. We will only have one thing to do: We will need to adapt." Wise and calm as his beautiful movies are.

That's all. Just one thing: this 45 minutes film has something like five points on the imdb. Maybe doesn't deserves more, but I'm quite sure that how the years will pass the ideas and the whole situation of this documentary will be more and more valuable but at least interesting.

7/10

13 February 2008

La Noche de los girasoles / The Night of the Sunflowers (2006)




From the deepest depths to the peak of the top. After Monday's wrist cutting Wristcutters today I found a real treasure. Jorge Sánchez-Cabezudo's first feature film became immediately a real masterpiece, at least for me. Ten out of ten!

Just imagine a movie where Robbe-Grillet meets with the Coen brothers. Sounds good doesn't it? I think it's one of the best combinations what I can imagine. And then comes this no name Jorge, and did it. Without a mistake. I'm not joking.

First I heard about The Night of the Sunflowers in the Sight & Sound. They advertised there as the best thriller of 2006. I don't want to think about thrillers from that year, but without checking the possible competitors I would say that this movie is definitely one among the bests. And here I need to mention that I'm not the biggest fan of the Spanish new wave of every kind of thrillers and horrors. If we think that Balaguero, Amenábar, de la Iglesia and all the new ones are big talents, then we shouldn't forget to stress Sánchez-Cabezudo's name either. He gives the chance to change my attitude towards Spanish film.

It was just weeks ago when I've seen Sidney Lumet's mediocre The Devil Knows When You're Dead. The Sunflowers-film gives the same narrative structure of that film: two steps forward, one step back. But what a difference! Since Lumet used the technique for aesthetically – be honest: trendy – reasons, then Sánchez-Cabezudo mathematically consequent form serves perfectly the story's knowledge-distribution. The mixture of linearity in cause and effect, the playful manipulation of point of views, the changing of meanings and our emotions through repetitions are appears just in perfect, motivated parallelism. The Coens couldn't do it better.

And what about the film? Hm, if I would say it is a non-linear story about a traveling salesman who rapes young women in some remote village, you would associate on Robbe-Grillet. If I would mention a weak cop, an unsolved crime flavored with an incorrigible deadly mistake told in calm but tension way, you would mention the Coens. So it's better to say the film contains both of these values. Just perfect.

Somebody said it's something about the Spanish psyche meets the butterfly effect. Not a bad approach. Watch it and decide. Olé!


10/10

11 February 2008

Wristcutters: A Love Story (2006)

It had to happen: to compensate those good movies in the past weeks today I found a really bad one. Remember it's title, really, don't forget, otherwise you will give a worthless chance just I did.

To save my keyboard and nerves only the facts: The Croatian Goran Dukic's film is about a guy, who attempted suicide because of his girlfriend. After a while he got to know that the girl committed suicide as well, so he decides to find her. During his trip he meets another girl (my only point goes to Shannyn Sossamon, but not honor her artistic talent..). The rest (love / meet the previous girlfriend / hate) you found out already, except one thing (spoiler coming for those who are still reading:). The film plays with the most cheapest trick: at the very end we realize that the whole shit story was the guy's dream in the hospital after his wristcutting. Let's start to vomit, because Shannyn is lying next to him on another bed...

Somebody wrote on the imdb that the Wristcutters is a mixture of Trainspotting and Donnie Darko. Wish I could laugh after this film, but this statement is even more stupid than the film itself, which is a typical independent gloomy boredom without any cinematic values.

Some near-death experience story which made me sink to the same level. Worthless.

1/10

10 February 2008

Punch-Drunk Love (2002)

"-I don't like myself sometimes. Could you help me?
Barry, I'm a dentist."

Did I tell already that PTA, namely Paul Thomas Anderson is a genius?! The order how I've seen his movies is: Magnolia, Boogie Nights, Punch-Drunk Love (today) and ... There Will Be Blood (during next week I promise – I mean for myself). Impressive list. But let's focus this time only his strange "love story".

If PTA is a genius then Adam Sandler is a prick. I just can't stand his way of acting (mostly the films are responsible for my hatred), but at lest his face is really irritating. Then look at the poster of a movie and you'll understand me why I waited so long to watch Punch-Drunk Love. But luckily the director's name convinced me...

I won't tell so much about the story, should be enough to mention that it based on a real case of David Phillips, who made a fortune from a coupon action in the USA. He bought 12150 pudding for 3000 Dollars and earned 1.25 Million air-miles on a frequent flyer program:)) Strange story isn't it? If you think, then multiply ten times this oddity and then you can have a clue what kind of character is Sandler's Barry Egan. I said I hate him. But not this time. My new theory is: there aren't bad actors just bad movies.

And this one is very good. The word 'very' stands for: special and unique. The amazingly strange starting, the perfect style (actually some technical accidents gave parts of the style), the weird blue colors, the playful lens flares, and the constantly rolling music which makes even crazier the whole stuff. Absolutely recommended, especially for those who don't believe in a valuable love story on the Hollywood canvas anymore.


9/10

06 February 2008

Reconstruction (2003)

"Let's start at the beginning..."
Alex sees first time Aimee in a bar. He invites her for a coffee and a visit to Rome. But maybe it's too fast. Not only for Aimee but for the narrative as well. So, then the narrator stops to tell, changes his mind: he starts from the 'real' beginning...

...and already warn his audience:
"Remember, this is only a movie. Imagination."

The Danish Christoffer Boe's debut is one of the most impressive ones in the last decade. He just came out from the film school but played immediately with the film language as a professional. Crazy plot? Tricky story? I think both. What we know "for sure", that there are four people (Alex, Simone, Aimee and August) who are searching for love. And the film is searching for its shape, too. Through August's narration the story – which is his book in making – tries to constructs a love, or even reconstructs something which is disappearing.

Ok, I know it sounds more enigmatic as it used to be, but what should I say if the plot and even the story are getting more and more enigmatic (I've seen years ago the film, but I admit after watching again I still don't get all the points)? If the narrator, Aimee's husband writes the ongoing story, changing rapidly for the book's sake? If it turns out that maybe Simone and Aimee are the same? Maybe we have only three characters? Or even just two? Alex and Simone? And Aimee just a dream of Alex ("If I'm your dream, then you're mine."), and their story is written by the narrator-writer August from some outer frame?

Who knows? More precise: Who cares? By the way: What happened Last year at Marienbad?

Anyway. Mark my voice: watch it (or at least listen to it: if Samuel Barber's Adagio for Strings was perfect in Stone's Platoon or Lynch's The Elephant Man, then here is 'only' beautiful...)!


9/10

04 February 2008

Point Blank (1967)

"You're supposed to be dead. Lynne said so.
She's dead.
Lynne? You?
No, her."

Lee Marvin in the role of Walker is definitely not the most gabbler character in the film history. His remarkable face (his last role in the Delta Force, huh), long legs and arms together with super-cool silence is already classic. I suppose the Point Blank without him wouldn't be a cult one among the first neo noirs.

Sad but true, this film cannot reach the heights what the other Boorman-movie delivered:), five years after the Point Blank. Of course I'm talking about the nightmarish perfect Deliverance, which – with Jon Voigt and Burt Reynolds – is one of my favorites from the very strong (New) Hollywood-seventies.

But back to Marvin's Walker, who starts a classic vengence spree after he was coned by his own wife and best friend, Reese. It seems and he claims that he only needs his share, some 93.000$, but we know that is just a reason to chase and hunt down the whole San Francisco and L.A. 'Organization'. It seems that the job is going pretty well even without a moustache...

As I said it won't be my favorite, but despite of my high and (probably that's why) unsatisfied expectations it is still worth to watch. The way how Boorman mixed the classic way of storytelling with some art house style values (brave flashbacks, fast parallel montages) makes the film and Marvin even more tough and rough.
Just think on the unbelievable scene when Walker finds his rotten wife. He is just silently sitting on a sofa and starts to forgive her. The woman leaves, later he follows her, enters the bedroom, wants to kiss the woman... but she doesn't react...
anymore.
Cool.

7/10

03 February 2008

Cannibal Holocaust (1980)

"What you will see will definitely shock and offend you." – Written on a black screen immediately, and I just agree. Ruggero Deodato's terrible, disturbing "classic" or at least "cult film" (btw somebody should tell me the exact difference between classic and cult..) isn't a typical Sunday evening entertainment. To tell the truth I believe this is a disgusting crap. Ok, don't bite me (...), I agree, I don't know anything about every kind of snuff trash shit moviemaking, but I have to say I don't regret. And if you think this is a masterpiece, then you have serious problems.

I know exactly the values of this film, actually they are pushed into our faces. Let's see them through the story: A team of documentary filmmakers disappear in the deep jungle of South America ("Only few hours from our homes") during filming and searching for real cannibals. Professor Harold Monroe, an anthropologist from New York is going to rescue them but returns home only with the recorded material. The footages contain terrible stuff. Terrible in two ways: how the filmmakers were treated the nature and the cannibals (yep, understand, we aren't different than the primitive ones), and how the cannibals were treated them... That part is disgusting full with extreme violence and cruelty, don't need more explanation, here comes the "cult" adjective.

And we are cannibals in our big city jungles too (the shot which pans from the trees in the (Central?) park to the skyscrapers is perfect). A tv channel wants to edit the recorded footage and broadcast as an anthropological film under the title: "Green Inferno". Monroe's condition: they need to show the whole material. So, together with the execs we are lucky enough to see the "uncut version"... Do I need to mention again how disgusting is it?

Finally about the film's reality or documentary values. There are really stupid legends in the film history and here is another one which tries to uphold the idea about the Cannibal Holocaust's (what a stupid, sensationalist title) realism. I mean according to the found footage, the way how Herzog's real (?) documentary compiled about the Grizzly Man, or how The Blair Witch Project turned the documentarism into PR money. If you have seen the film (and not only talked about it) you should see the beginning with the honest credits – included the story and screenplay writer's name (Gianfranco Clerici). Ok, I've seen the joke at the end about the mysterious John K. Kirov, who sentenced to jail because of trading with the film, but come on..:)) Anyway, if you eat this bullshit, just click here, and be happy.

And why I give 4 points? At least one goes to Riz Ortolani, whose music is an undoubtedly perfect score. It would work for a b porno in the 70s too, but its airy melodies mixed together with the bloody brutality is just phenomenal, but at least quite effective here as well. Better listen than watch!

4/10

01 February 2008

1000


Sorry, but I couldn't resist. The 1000th click. I know it isn't too much, but don't forget I'm not talking about celebs, politics, sport or music.
Thanks.

4 luni, 3 saptamani si 2 zile / 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days (2007)

Probably you heard already about the Romanian Cristian Mungiu's film, which won the Golden Palm in Cannes and the best film prize at the European Film Awards, wasn't nominated for the best foreign film for Oscar (hmm, definitely doesn't fit to the red carpet..), and which one of the best but at least definitely one of the most powerful and effective movies from 2007.

It seems that sooner or later all the post-communist countries find their history. Everybody tells 'The Story' with the accent which fits the most to the past's particular historical atmosphere. The mistrustful East-German past, poisoned by the Stasi in von Donnersmarck's Das Leben der Anderen, or the Hungarian's 'jolliest barrack' in Török's Moszkva tér told the most authentic way about this period, not with their stories but with their voices and feelings. And here comes Mungiu's film.

The story is unbelievable simple as it used to be with perfect films. The student Gabi (dark hair) is pregnant who would like to get rid of her unwanted fetus. Her roommate Otilia (the blond one) is trying to help the weak and desperate Gabi, at all hazards. Hazards? Did I forget to tell that the story is taken place in the end of the eighties Romania, where the abortion was wholly illegal?

"Don't be so superstitious, we aren't live in the Middle Ages.' – says Otilia, and she has right, but not in the way how she meant it. The end phase of Ceausescu's (the similarity with the hotel receptionist cannot be a coincidence) Romania is even worse than any historical time. The abortion – all with its terrible details – becomes only an apropos: the movie is about one of the most terrible era's last years, where some years later the unbelievable accurately depicted desperateness led to the "revolution" in December 1989.

How this Romania looked like? Mungiu's microscopically sharp milieu tells more than his abortion-story in the foreground. Just look at the faces on the local bus, see the conversation with the receptionist at the hotel lobby, look at the withering flower on the table, or examine the young girls' sear bodies. "Don't slam the door!" – shouts the "doctor". Just like my father said with our crappy but adored Dacia (same model, same color... yeah, the orange one), and – unfortunately – as I used to say to my girlfriend, too. Bad reflex, directly from the eighties. You can abort your child, but not you memories and bad habits. Terrible.

Or even more: TERRIBLE. Really. You will feel yourself sick after watching this film. But you have to watch it. It shows how terrible process is to make an abortion in 1987, but hey, you should imagine then how terrible might be to keep the child these times. Plus as Mungiu told in the Sight & Sound (January, p.12): "a terminated pregnancy was an act of resistence, a victory over the regime."









I believe that the opening and the closing scenes are already filmhistorical moments. The parallelism of the fishes' and the whole society's aquarium are unbelievable strong. And then Otilia looks into the camera. Shot. Black. The end. BOOM!

10/10