Movies Serious Movie Discussion

[Rimbaud82]

SMD is so quiet these days

Where's an @Bullitt68 mega-post when you need one

 

[Bullitt68]

Where's an @Bullitt68 mega-post when you need one

Unfortunately, the only non-SMC mega posts that I'm putting together are in fruitless job applications

For a mini post, I'm currently watching Twin Peaks and even though I'm not even done I already know that when I'm done I'm going to go on a massive David Lynch binge. You a fan of Twin Peaks and/or Lynch? Personally, I think that Eraserhead, Wild at Heart, Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me, and Inland Empire all suck to varying degrees; I think that Blue Velvet is very good but not great, definitely overrated; and I love Lost Highway and Mulholland Drive. I'd never bothered with Twin Peaks, but, much to my surprise, I'm finding it to be my favorite Lynch thing (despite hating the piece of shit prequel movie, which I watched a couple of nights ago). I love it so much, and far more than I would've ever imagined or expected.

The first season was fucking outstanding, and while the second season obviously suffered from the 22-episode format (it was stretched WAY beyond what was necessary and it made for a lot of empty episodes and superfluous/stupid subplots) it was still excellent. The first Black Lodge dream sequence in the first season and then the extended Black Lodge sequence in the last episode of the second season are probably my two favorite sequences in all of Lynch, at least as of this post. Surreal in the best way, unnerving in the most profound way, the fucking quintessence of the Lynchian. The initial dream sequence is very much in the 2001 white room vein, but the extended sequence in the second scene is all and only Lynch.

Anyway, I finished the original run and I'm planning on firing up "The Return" tonight, so, other than the SMC, the only thing on my plate right now is Lynch.

 

[Deleted member 110072]

Just finished

The Legend of the Holy Drinker (1988)

The second Olmi film I have watched after his earlier masterpiece The Tree of Wooden Clogs, which I love. This one is an adaption of an Austrian novella from 1939 (never heard of it) and stars Rutger Hauer as Andreas, an alcoholic tramp living in Paris who is given 200 francs by an elderly man on the only condition that once he is able to pay him back, he donate it to the local church. The film follows Andreas after this apparent miracle as he initially gets his life back on track; he is seemingly still a nice man, and a "man of honour" as he says himself, despite his poverty. This event prompts a number of other small miracles - he suddenly gets a job and finds even more money in a second-hand wallet which he purchases, for instance. However, every time he goes to the church to attempt to pay the debt he is waylaid either by certain events - figures from his past suddenly reappear (old friends and love interests both) as if by magic, or else by his deep desire for a drink... He's clearly a well-intentioned man, but weak-willed. Not in the same league as a Wooden Clogs for me, but still a pretty interesting film.

It's got a pretty "strange" feel to it, hard to pinpoint, stylistically it's like a strange mixture of realism (strong emphasis on naturalistic sound and natural light for example) and more 'unrealistic' elements (strange dialogue, as well as just the general course of events and the transitions between events). I suppose the effect is something along the same lines as Paul Schrader's Transcendental Style in so far as there is a kind of religiosity hinted within the more realistic elements (of course it's also pretty obviously religious in the sense that it's about returning a debt to a church....). But it's not the same as watching a Bresson film either, the general effect for more is a kind of 'uneasiness'. It's hard to tell what's real, what is recollection or what is the imagination of a drunken tramp. I don't think that's quite the right word, it's not like the film is tense or unsettling in any way, it's difficult to explain what I mean lol. In any case, my reading of the film as a whole was very much an allegorical one (never read the book of course). The title itself makes it sound like a fairy tale or fable, and for me the story is basically a Sisyphean tale of one man's (or all men's) desire for grace/transcendence/the thing that religion provides for some in the face of the things of everyday life, and more especially the way that life gets in the way of this.... and of course this particularly from the perspective of an alcoholic, alcohol being something which provides some level of equal relief...at least in the short term.

Just ordered this exploiting Arrows very generous easter sale along with the Mohsen Makhmalbaf's poetic trilogy and the Taviani Brothers boxset, honestly with a few exceptions like Cinema De Look and Kieslowski my viewing of European cinema from the 70's to the 90's isn't that great. I must admit I tended to have the opinion that European arthouse cinema slipped rather too much into social realism for its own sake, it wasn't taking visual risks and depending on "well this is the way the world is so you better like it" but the above do seem to have a good deal more ambition than that.

Good chance to upgrade to some films to BR's as well with Night of the Hunter, King of Newyork, Invasion of the Body Snatchers and Theif and pickup Kechiche's Black Venus. Speaking of him as well I noticed in HMV last week that his Mektoub, My Love(or at least the first half) has finally gotten a rather unheralded DVD release, I'd given up hope of seeing it anytime soon.

Actually feels a bit of a hybrid of Blue is the Warmest Colour and Secret of the Grain, setting wise its actually more akin to the latter following a Tunisian family in the Restaurant business(this time with a rather obvious avatar of the director himself in the lead role) and is if anything even less focused with very little of substance happening compared to Blues more emotional/political roller-coaster. It does though follow blue in putting high end cinematography to good use with sunkissed beach locations and nightclubs although this time with more of a roving camera that actually reminds me rather of Malicks Tree of Life. Unlike that films christian high mindedness though this does also follow Blue is a liberal focus on flesh, not nearly as much nudity as his previous film after the opening but it doesn't let us forget these are twenty somethings on heat checking each other out.

I'd guess it might be a bit of a marmite film but honestly I found it the easiest viewing of any of his work, its pretty much focused on his style pushed to the extreme and 3 hours of sunkissed flirting doesn't demand as much of the viewer as Blues's drama and politics.

 

[Rimbaud82]

Unfortunately, the only non-SMC mega posts that I'm putting together are in fruitless job applications

For a mini post, I'm currently watching Twin Peaks and even though I'm not even done I already know that when I'm done I'm going to go on a massive David Lynch binge. You a fan of Twin Peaks and/or Lynch? Personally, I think that Eraserhead, Wild at Heart, Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me, and Inland Empire all suck to varying degrees; I think that Blue Velvet is very good but not great, definitely overrated; and I love Lost Highway and Mulholland Drive. I'd never bothered with Twin Peaks, but, much to my surprise, I'm finding it to be my favorite Lynch thing (despite hating the piece of shit prequel movie, which I watched a couple of nights ago). I love it so much, and far more than I would've ever imagined or expected.

The first season was fucking outstanding, and while the second season obviously suffered from the 22-episode format (it was stretched WAY beyond what was necessary and it made for a lot of empty episodes and superfluous/stupid subplots) it was still excellent. The first Black Lodge dream sequence in the first season and then the extended Black Lodge sequence in the last episode of the second season are probably my two favorite sequences in all of Lynch, at least as of this post. Surreal in the best way, unnerving in the most profound way, the fucking quintessence of the Lynchian. The initial dream sequence is very much in the 2001 white room vein, but the extended sequence in the second scene is all and only Lynch.

Anyway, I finished the original run and I'm planning on firing up "The Return" tonight, so, other than the SMC, the only thing on my plate right now is Lynch.

I fucking love Twin Peaks, my favourite TV show of all time. I can take or leave a lot of other Lynch stuff, Blue Velvet is good, but I think Twin Peaks benefited greatly from Mark Frost counter-acting unfettered Lynchian surrealism. S3 of Twin Peaks was missing that, though I still liked it.

 

[Deleted member 110072]

Personally, I think that Eraserhead, Wild at Heart, Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me, and Inland Empire all suck to varying degrees; I think that Blue Velvet is very good but not great, definitely overrated; and I love Lost Highway and Mulholland Drive. .

I think thats certainly understandable, Blue Velvet and Wild at Heart are more Lynch free wheeling developing his surreal style were as Lost Highway and Mullholland are actually putting that style to use in telling a more focused story. I enjoyed all of them but I'd definitely say the latter two are his masterpieces.

 

[Yotsuya]

I’ve watched two SMC recomendations this month: Good Kill and Journey to the West. Enjoyed both.

Good Kill was adequately low-key and laconic for it’s subject matter of remote controlled warfare, but had a confucing ending which made me think I maybe missed some satirical nuances during the film.

Spoiler

The guy does a drone strike vigilante kill of a rapist, quits his immoral job, get’s rid of a bossy wife and hooks up with young hottie. I don’t think I’ve seen a war movie with a happier ending. Almost surreal.

Journey to the West was a bonafide Stephen Chow movie allright. I really like his characters and comedy style and playful use of CGI. Hey @BeardotheWeirdo , have you seen Chow’s Mermaids or The New King of Comedy?

 

[Bullitt68]

I fucking love Twin Peaks, my favourite TV show of all time.

I can take or leave a lot of other Lynch stuff

Really? I'm actually surprised by that. I would've thought that you'd dig all of his kooky stuff. In a weird way, while I appreciate the fact that Tarkovsky's goofy shit is rooted in his memories, his upbringing, etc., I much prefer following Lynch through his off-the-wall surreal goofiness. Even something like Inland Empire, which I was so disappointed to find was so shitty after building it up in my head as the epic 3+ hour Lynch mindfuck masterpiece to end all mindfuck masterpieces, is more interesting to me than something like Mirror. I think that it comes down to the national/genre cinema elements at work - Tarkovsky is European arthouse while Lynch is American indie with a penchant for sci-fi/horror - and the distinctly different moods and atmospheres they create. I've long held that David Lynch is the master of atmosphere, that nobody, not even Kubrick in stuff like The Shining and Eyes Wide Shut, can even approach the uncanny sense of dread and fear and general creepiness that Lynch is able to create, so that even if I'm finding the overall experience stupid I won't regret it because I will have enjoyed those moments of being gripped by the sheer visual phantasmagoria if nothing else.

I think Twin Peaks benefited greatly from Mark Frost counter-acting unfettered Lynchian surrealism.

I agree, the collaboration seemed to make for a wonderful combination of surreal horror and surreal comedy. I've never been so baffled by the tone of anything. That was my favorite part of the show. There's no classification for what Twin Peaks is or how it's told. The Coen Brothers are always my go-to tone mashers, but Fargo is downright straightforward, even pedestrian, next to Twin Peaks. I think that the best example is the warm milk scene that opens the second season, with that nutty old guy trying to serve Cooper his warm milk while Cooper's lying on the ground shot. To your next point...

S3 of Twin Peaks was missing that, though I still liked it.

...that's what I'm noticing is absent. I'm five episodes into the third season and I haven't smiled once. It feels exactly like Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me, which sucked ass. So far, it's nothing but straight ahead surrealism. The comedy isn't there, and without the comedy, I'm finding it hard to give a shit about Cooper floating around in space and getting sucked through outlets and Hawk shooting the shit with the Log Lady, etc. To this point, the only things that I've enjoyed this season have been Michael Bisping showing up as the security guard, Matthew Lillard outperforming everyone in the cast thus far, and Madeline Zima taking her clothes off. I also went into the season bummed out knowing that Michael J. Anderson didn't come back to play the dwarf in the Black Lodge.

At this point, I'm hoping against hope that shit turns around in the last half to make the beginning half feel like it was worth it.

Blue Velvet and Wild at Heart are more Lynch free wheeling developing his surreal style were as Lost Highway and Mullholland are actually putting that style to use in telling a more focused story.

Huh, I'd have that the other way around. Both Lost Highway and Mulholland Drive go WAY off the deep end whereas Blue Velvet and Wild at Heart are normal plots, at least to the extent that you can use that word to describe anything of Lynch's

I enjoyed all of them but I'd definitely say the latter two are his masterpieces.

I went through a period of time where I watched Mulholland Drive like a dozen times. I was totally enraptured. Then I saw Lost Highway and loved it, too, though not quite as much. However, I've only seen Lost Highway once. I'm looking forward to rewatching Blue Velvet, I'm going to give both Eraserhead and Wild at Heart another go, I might even try Inland Empire again, and I'm going to watch The Elephant Man and The Straight Story for the first time (I can't even pretend to give a shit about Dune, so I'm leaving that one in the "unseen" bin), but I'm the most excited about rewatching Lost Highway and Mulholland Drive.

Good Kill was adequately low-key and laconic for it’s subject matter of remote controlled warfare, but had a confucing ending which made me think I maybe missed some satirical nuances during the film.

Spoiler

The guy does a drone strike vigilante kill of a rapist, quits his immoral job, get’s rid of a bossy wife and hooks up with young hottie. I don’t think I’ve seen a war movie with a happier ending. Almost surreal.

I'm glad you enjoyed that one. Like I said in the SMC, it's an unconventional war movie. On the satirical edge to it, I don't know that I'd call it satirical. It's biting and incisive, but it's not satirical like a Dr. Strangelove or even a black comedy like a Full Metal Jacket. It just lays shit out and the uncomfortably comedic elements are more a consequence of how fucked up things are than anything else. In short, I don't think that you missed anything. It's just a low-key take, as you said, on the bizarre new battlefields on which today's wars are waged.

 

[ufcfan4]

Huh, I'd have that the other way around. Both Lost Highway and Mulholland Drive go WAY off the deep end whereas Blue Velvet and Wild at Heart are normal plots, at least to the extent that you can use that word to describe anything of Lynch's



I went through a period of time where I watched Mulholland Drive like a dozen times. I was totally enraptured. Then I saw Lost Highway and loved it, too, though not quite as much. However, I've only seen Lost Highway once. I'm looking forward to rewatching Blue Velvet, I'm going to give both Eraserhead and Wild at Heart another go, I might even try Inland Empire again, and I'm going to watch The Elephant Man and The Straight Story for the first time (I can't even pretend to give a shit about Dune, so I'm leaving that one in the "unseen" bin), but I'm the most excited about rewatching Lost Highway and Mulholland Drive.

I never watched an episode of Twin Peaks. Have heard great things but just never got around to it.

I'm a big fan of Blue Velvet though. I liked that one because I think it is one of Lynch's more straightforward and accessible films but still had that trademark weirdness. And basically, it fits very well with the material- the contrast between this seemingly idyllic middle-American suburbia and the disquieting underbelly highlighted by Hopper and his gang. Many iconic scenes there too- from when Machlaclan discovers the ear to Rossellin's first live performace to virtually any scene with Hopper (PABST BLUE RIBBON!) and of course Dean Stockwell's cameo.

It's tough for me to judge some of his other work but I remember having trouble getting into Mulholland Drive (never finished it) and I didn't like Lost Highway at all (though I was twelve or thirteen when I watched it so I'm sure I didn't give it a fair shake).

Didn't Lynch direct the Elephant Man as well?

There was a time in my younger days when I used to get his and Cronenberg's filmographies mixed up a bit which is probably only due to the fact that they have the same first name, as their sensibilities really are not all that similar. I guess there's an undercurrent of strangeness in both of their works, but the comparison would stop there.

 

[Bullitt68]

I never watched an episode of Twin Peaks. Have heard great things but just never got around to it.

I'm a big fan of Blue Velvet though. I liked that one because I think it is one of Lynch's more straightforward and accessible films but still had that trademark weirdness. And basically, it fits very well with the material- the contrast between this seemingly idyllic middle-American suburbia and the disquieting underbelly highlighted by Hopper and his gang.

Everything that you said about Blue Velvet is why you should start watching Twin Peaks ASAP. They both essentially begin the same way - in Blue Velvet it's finding an ear and in Twin Peaks it's finding a body - and they're both, at bottom, about the weird and the perverse within the familiar and the comfortable. Twin Peaks is the very picture and essence of small town America, yet there are spirits and portals and visions and killers, too. It's as down-to-Earth in its everyday local yokel shit as it is out of this world in its surreal excursions. That contrast at the heart of Blue Velvet is also at the heart of Twin Peaks, only with Twin Peaks you get to spend more time in that world - and in both realms, the light and the dark - and with those people. Not to mention, aside from being more inspired and engaging than Blue Velvet IMO, it's also pretty clearly even more accessible, funnier, more relatable, and generally more enjoyable.

The first season is legit brilliant, one of the best seasons of TV ever, and the second season is solid, too, ultimately coming together to make for one of the best TV shows out there. I can't comment on the third season yet or determine how much or how little it hurts the overall legacy, but seasons 1 and 2 have my unequivocal recommendation.

It's tough for me to judge some of his other work but I remember having trouble getting into Mulholland Drive (never finished it) and I didn't like Lost Highway at all (though I was twelve or thirteen when I watched it so I'm sure I didn't give it a fair shake).

I could see Lost Highway being tougher than Mulholland Drive. That's why I'd recommend Mulholland Drive more than and before Lost Highway. As I remember his films, Mulholland Drive is quite clearly his best work.

Didn't Lynch direct the Elephant Man as well?

Yes, he did, though I haven't seen that one yet.

There was a time in my younger days when I used to get his and Cronenberg's filmographies mixed up a bit which is probably only due to the fact that they have the same first name, as their sensibilities really are not all that similar. I guess there's an undercurrent of strangeness in both of their works, but the comparison would stop there.

Yeah, they're both weirdos. The difference is that Cronenberg is obsessed with the body, with physical weirdness and with physical effects of weirdness, whereas Lynch is super cerebral, he's into psychology and surreal, abstract zaniness.

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

Damn, maybe I need to watch Twin Peaks.

Saw Mulholland Drive last year and loved it but haven't gone back to Lynch since.

 

[chickenluver]

RIP Bibi Andersson. One of the greatest performers of the screen, and a truly classy lady.

 

[Bullitt68]

RIP Bibi Andersson. One of the greatest performers of the screen, and a truly classy lady.

Damn. I hadn't seen that. Aside from her film work, obviously, I always enjoyed Ingmar Bergman's episode of The Dick Cavett Show where halfway through she showed up and literally the second she sat down she started busting Bergman's balls about his bullshit comment that his psychiatrist told him that he was "extremely healthy"



RIP.

 

[chickenluver]

I'd never bothered with Twin Peaks, but, much to my surprise, I'm finding it to be my favorite Lynch thing . I love it so much, and far more than I would've ever imagined or expected.

I fucking love Twin Peaks, my favourite TV show of all time.

I can't let a Lynch discussion pass by without throwing my hat in.

Lynch is one of my favorite filmmakers, I feel a strong emotional connection to much of his work. I've noticed that among those who consider themselves Lynch fans, or film fans in general, there is rarely agreement on which are his best works, or even on which are good at all. Personally I've liked everything he did except for Wild at Heart and Dune. I saw each only one time, Wild at Heart I'd like to revisit and maybe I would get more from it. Dune I have no plans to revisit, because I don't think it's a book that can work as one single movie.

The initial progression of his career is rather hilarious to me. First he puts out the hyper surreal, independently made Eraserhead, which Mel Brooks happens to see and loves so much that he hires Lynch for the Elephant Man, so now suddenly after only his second movie this weird guy is a big time director, getting three oscar nominations (that's just for him, the film got eight total) and offers to direct Return of the Jedi and Dune.

My favorite films of his are Elephant Man and Mullholland Drive, also really liked Eraserhead, Blue Velvet, Fire Walk with Me. Straight Story was a different type of Lynch film, but still pretty enjoyable. I don't remember Inland Empire that well, but I clearly remember two moments that scared the shit out of me like no other movie ever did. Lost highway was pretty cool, but kind of seems like a lesser Mullholland Drive to me, or perhaps calling it a warm-up for the latter film would be nicer. My favorite work of his is probably Twin Peaks as a whole, even though the three parts are completely different from each other, and despite there being some absolute trash episodes in the second season after Lynch and Frost stopped actively working on the show. I admit I associate a certain sadness with the new Twin Peaks, due to it being the last series I watched with my father before his death, and he even bought me a Lynch biography afterwards that I still haven't read.

The first Black Lodge dream sequence in the first season and then the extended Black Lodge sequence in the last episode of the second season are probably my two favorite sequences in all of Lynch, at least as of this post. Surreal in the best way, unnerving in the most profound way, the fucking quintessence of the Lynchian. The initial dream sequence is very much in the 2001 white room vein, but the extended sequence in the second scene is all and only Lynch.

Totally agree. In the final sequence when Laurie Palmer(?) screams bloody murder, it's so inexplicably chilling. Can't believe that episode aired on US network television.

I think Twin Peaks benefited greatly from Mark Frost counter-acting unfettered Lynchian surrealism. S3 of Twin Peaks was missing that, though I still liked it.

I agree as concerning Frost's influence on the original series. Frost was still heavily involved in the new series, having co-wrote every episode with Lynch, although for one, I read him say that although they were equal collaborators in terms of writing, once that was done Frost went to work on his Twin Peaks books, and Lynch handled everything else relating to the filming and editing of the series, and for another, from what I understand Frost himself has gone into some strange territory in some of his work, so Twin Peaks is not just Lynch weirdness filtered through Frost, Frost brought some weirdness of his own, perhaps moreso in the new series.

Fire Walk with Me is really the only example of Twin Peaks that's all Lynch and no Frost, while Frost's Secret History of Twin Peaks, and Final Dossier are the reverse.

I've long held that David Lynch is the master of atmosphere, that nobody, not even Kubrick in stuff like The Shining and Eyes Wide Shut, can even approach the uncanny sense of dread and fear and general creepiness that Lynch is able to create, so that even if I'm finding the overall experience stupid I won't regret it because I will have enjoyed those moments of being gripped by the sheer visual phantasmagoria if nothing else.

Agreed

At this point, I'm hoping against hope that shit turns around in the last half to make the beginning half feel like it was worth it.

I'm guessing it won't turn around for you. There may be one specific episode you enjoy for the dread and creepiness you mentioned above.

Agree on Mathew Lillard giving a standout performance. Kyle McLaughlin as multiple characters was my favorite performance(s).

I went through a period of time where I watched Mulholland Drive like a dozen times. I was totally enraptured.

It took a second viewing for me to grasp it, but after that I've found it highly watchable. When the movie club tackled it I watched it twice that week. I haven't done that with very many movies.

I can't even pretend to give a shit about Dune, so I'm leaving that one in the "unseen" bin

You've read the book though right?

I never watched an episode of Twin Peaks. Have heard great things but just never got around to it.

I'm a big fan of Blue Velvet though.

I agree with Bullitt that if you like Blue Velvet, Twin Peaks is a must-see. They have essentially the same overall theme / concept, and very similar tones.

I didn't like Lost Highway at all (though I was twelve or thirteen when I watched it so I'm sure I didn't give it a fair shake).

At that age I imagine that one Patrica Arquette scene made quite an impression on you amirite?

Didn't Lynch direct the Elephant Man as well?

Yes, and for my money that's the best example of his style and tone without surrealism. Plus it has one of the greatest John Hurt performances.

Not to mention, aside from being more inspired and engaging than Blue Velvet IMO, Twin Peaks is also pretty clearly even more accessible, funnier, more relatable, and generally more enjoyable.

Once again agreed

Mektoub, My Love...

I'd guess it might be a bit of a marmite film

Does that mean it's a love it or hate it film?

 

[Deleted member 110072]

Huh, I'd have that the other way around. Both Lost Highway and Mulholland Drive go WAY off the deep end whereas Blue Velvet and Wild at Heart are normal plots, at least to the extent that you can use that word to describe anything of Lynch's .

That's really my point, Blue Velvet and Wild at Heart are more standard plots with the surreal elements thrown ontop of them arguably subverting them, Lost Highway and Mulholland are telling stories were the plot is much more eccentric and Lynch's style is directly needed to tell it. I can really see it both ways in terms of what people preffer, I think the former two are arguably easier to follow and more "fun" were as the latter two are arguably more rewarding of "serious" viewing and dramatically more weighty.

You being a big Bergman fan as well I would definitely expect you to prefer to the latter, especially Mulholland which I would argue has more than a little Persona influence to it. I mean people were trying to copy Bergman's film for decades before that but Lynch was I think the most successful in the "female personality playoff" leading to it becoming even more popular and resulting in stuff like Black Swan and the Duke of Burgandy. Basically kicked off the era of the "arthouse lesbian" rather than the "pulpy serial killer/criminal lesbian" of the 80's and 90's.

I think highlighting just how influential Bibi Anderson was as well, arguably even moreso in recent years with so many great female performance following similar styles to her in persona.

Does that mean it's a love it or hate it film?

Yes, UK expression based on people supposedly either loving or hating said hops by-product sandwich spread. I think it comes down to whether you like the directors style, I mean relating to the above Blue is the Warmest Colour is IMHO another example of a film whilst not surreal(although somewhat obtuse) of the "Persona style female personality playoff" film that seems to be what many directors go to for their "grand statements". This film though is much more your "Wild at Heart" I'd say, the directly letting his style run wild in telling a much simpler(to the point of almost non existence) plot. Basically if you like attractive people flirting in a very naturalistic fashion filmed in an very artful style you'll probably enjoy it, if you don't then you'll probably consider it one of the dullest films ever made. Female cast is predictably strong as well as ever with his films, maybe not pushed as much as Blue but certainly with the presence to match their looks.

 

[BeardotheWeirdo]

I’ve watched two SMC recomendations this month: Good Kill and Journey to the West. Enjoyed both.

Good Kill was adequately low-key and laconic for it’s subject matter of remote controlled warfare, but had a confucing ending which made me think I maybe missed some satirical nuances during the film.

Spoiler

The guy does a drone strike vigilante kill of a rapist, quits his immoral job, get’s rid of a bossy wife and hooks up with young hottie. I don’t think I’ve seen a war movie with a happier ending. Almost surreal.

Journey to the West was a bonafide Stephen Chow movie allright. I really like his characters and comedy style and playful use of CGI. Hey @BeardotheWeirdo , have you seen Chow’s Mermaids or The New King of Comedy?

No, not yet. But Mermaids is on Netflix Canada so I'll have to check it out soon.

I agree, Chow is one of a kind.

I came across Journey to the West on Netflix. Didn't even know it was a Stephen Chow film when I first watched. I thought I'd seen all the best Chow movies long ago so it was a real treat randomly coming across that gem. I would've found out about it eventually through his IMDB or elsewhere, as it was a bit hit in China.

Only Stephen Chow can take the cutest kid you've ever seen, have her murdered by a massive fish, and make the process hilarious at the same time.

 

[Yotsuya]

Only Stephen Chow can take the cutest kid you've ever seen, have her murdered by a massive fish, and make the process hilarious at the same time.

Yeah, first I was like damn, Chow can’t

Spoiler

kill the dad can he?? Yes he can. Well certainly the kid lives. Nope.

I loved the martial arts style of the demon hunter lady. Just pound everyone on the head until they explode. Also, Monkey King was just as neat trickster as one could expect from a Chow movie and wonderfully animated, so recommended for @europe1 too.

 

[Rimbaud82]

Just finished

Edvard Munch (1974)

A docu-drama by Peter Watkins about the famous artist Edvard Munch (obviously). There are a few different cuts, a 2 hour 52 min theatrical version and a longer TV version which is nearly 4 hours. I watched the longer TV cut, only realised after that there was a shorter one. But wow, what a film! Maybe the best film about an artist I have ever seen, completely original and absolutely incredible. Stylistically it is 'sort of' a documentary in that there is narrated voice-over providing details of his life, but there is also an element of 'reconstruction'...as in some of it is filmed as if it's a documentary performing interviews with people from Munch's time. Obviously this is all fictional, performed with amateur actors and largely improvised dialogue, but the documentary style is really interesting. Watkins had pioneered a similar approach in his debut for the BBC with Culloden in 1964. It's done with an impressive eye for detail, lighting and so on, you almost feel like you could be watching actual 'fly on the wall' footage from inside the cafés, bars, studios and so on from the period.

There are other scenes which are more like typical drama, but even then it is far from conventional. There are scenes covering various aspects of Munch's life, from his childhood (his mothers death from consumption and his own near-fatal illness), his journey into adulthood as he falls in with a group of radical artists and has a brief, passionate but psychologically traumatic affair with a married woman (known in his diaries as Mrs Heiberg). It generally continues chronologically showing the development of his art (and it's consistent denouncement by conservative critics). The voiceover provides some context, both for Munch's life as well as the wider historical context, including wider trends within European art that influenced Munch. But you get that the sense that what Watkins is really trying to get at is the subjective psychological and emotional factors behind Munch's art - much in the vein of expressionism itself. The Munch in this film is very much the stereotype of the tortured artist...which, to be fair, seems accurate for the period of Munch's life covered in the film. Munch here seems to suffer both from some kind of broader existential despair, as well as more specific psychological issues stemming from his childhood and from his romantic and sexual experiences. Watkins presents Munch as been practically compelled to make his art as an outlet for this 'overflow' of emotion.

In trying to capture this artistic process and the emotions/psychological states behind it - Munch's attempts to “paint the fleeting moment of significance” - Watkins opts for an equally fluid, almost manic approach. The voiceovers are basically like those you'd get in any BBC or PBS documentary, but the way in which scenes are actually edited together is pretty experimental. While the story develops chronologically, scenes constantly flick back and forth between the past and present. For example, a shot of Munch squeezing out some red paint will suddenly cut to an earlier clip of him coughing up blood as a child. There are constant flashbacks to his intense affair with Mrs Heiberg. This is pretty obviously suggestive of the way in which is art is connected to his memories and to his emotional state. It's the sort of thing where there is a risk that it come off as being a bit trite, but I think in this case it is executed so well that it works. Plus the fact that, to me anyway and I don't know much about Munch's life, his artwork does seem to suggest what the film suggests so to speak.

All in all, despite being nearly 4 hours long it doesn't feel boring or overly slow at any point. Not that it's fast moving, but it has a very deliberate kind of rhythm which kept me interested throughout. Really it is such an impressive film. As I say, possibly the best example of the artistic process/mindset I have seen put to film.

 

[Rimbaud82]

RIP Bibi Andersson. One of the greatest performers of the screen, and a truly classy lady.

Can't believe I didn't even see this! Damn, RIP!!

 

[Rimbaud82]

Really? I'm actually surprised by that. I would've thought that you'd dig all of his kooky stuff. In a weird way, while I appreciate the fact that Tarkovsky's goofy shit is rooted in his memories, his upbringing, etc., I much prefer following Lynch through his off-the-wall surreal goofiness. Even something like Inland Empire, which I was so disappointed to find was so shitty after building it up in my head as the epic 3+ hour Lynch mindfuck masterpiece to end all mindfuck masterpieces, is more interesting to me than something like Mirror. I think that it comes down to the national/genre cinema elements at work - Tarkovsky is European arthouse while Lynch is American indie with a penchant for sci-fi/horror - and the distinctly different moods and atmospheres they create. I've long held that David Lynch is the master of atmosphere, that nobody, not even Kubrick in stuff like The Shining and Eyes Wide Shut, can even approach the uncanny sense of dread and fear and general creepiness that Lynch is able to create, so that even if I'm finding the overall experience stupid I won't regret it because I will have enjoyed those moments of being gripped by the sheer visual phantasmagoria if nothing else.

Well, to be fair the only Lynch I have delved into is Twin Peaks, Eraserhead and Blue Velvet! But I am not terribly keen on Eraserhead, as well as those similar elements in Twin Peaks: The Return. I do agree with about the Lynch-ian atmosphere, you're right that Kubrick is the only one who would come close, but I agree that Lynch is the master at creating this feeling of sheer dread....it's the "uncaninness" of his particular brand of horror as you say. But ultimately I prefer the Tarkovsky-ian European arthouse aesthetic. Though don't get me wrong, I am a fan of Lynch. I'm trying to put my finger on why myself, perhaps it is simply in the way that Tarkovsky's weird shit - levitation, dream sequences etc. - is rooted more in his rooted his upbringing and his memories. There is a greater sense of self in Tarkovsky compared to Lynch, like you say? Of course, Tarkovsky also brings a distinctly religious/spiritual bent to his films along with that, albeit not in a conventional manner. To use some art analogies since I have been watching so many films about artists lately haha, there is a reason that I like expressionists and don't like surrealists so much.

I agree, the collaboration seemed to make for a wonderful combination of surreal horror and surreal comedy. I've never been so baffled by the tone of anything. That was my favorite part of the show. There's no classification for what Twin Peaks is or how it's told. The Coen Brothers are always my go-to tone mashers, but Fargo is downright straightforward, even pedestrian, next to Twin Peaks. I think that the best example is the warm milk scene that opens the second season, with that nutty old guy trying to serve Cooper his warm milk while Cooper's lying on the ground shot. To your next point...

Exactly, it's the combination of those that works so well in Twin Peaks. Without the comedy there is something missing.

...that's what I'm noticing is absent. I'm five episodes into the third season and I haven't smiled once. It feels exactly like Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me, which sucked ass. So far, it's nothing but straight ahead surrealism. The comedy isn't there, and without the comedy, I'm finding it hard to give a shit about Cooper floating around in space and getting sucked through outlets and Hawk shooting the shit with the Log Lady, etc. To this point, the only things that I've enjoyed this season have been Michael Bisping showing up as the security guard, Matthew Lillard outperforming everyone in the cast thus far, and Madeline Zima taking her clothes off. I also went into the season bummed out knowing that Michael J. Anderson didn't come back to play the dwarf in the Black Lodge.

There are a few elements later on which start to add a lot more humour, but as much as I wanted to love it....I could only like it at best, unfortunately The Return doesn't come close to the original series.

 

[Rimbaud82]

Does that mean it's a love it or hate it film?

Never heard that expression before? lol