Movies Serious Movie Discussion

[Rimbaud82]

Land and Freedom (1995)

Ken Loach film about David Carne (played by Ian Hart), a young Liverpudlian Communist Party Member who joins the republicans to fight Franco in the Spanish Civil War. When he first arrives in Spain Carne falls in with the POUM (an anti-Stalinist communist party) and their small militia. Initially we can see a strong spirit of solidarity on the republican side from civilians and fighters alike (for example a ticket inspector lets Carne off without a ticket because he has come to fight). We follow Carne throughout the film as he slowly becomes more experienced and learns the ropes within the Republican movement, eventually becoming a hardened fighter. There are some early successes by the POUM Militia at defeating the Fascists and initially things seem positive. However, the main focus of the film is on the in-fighting amongst different Lefitists and the way in which this debilitates the overall Republican war effort. There is an excellent scene in the middle in which the taking of a town - a big victory - quickly descends into an intense and heated ideological debate amongst those arguing for radical reform and communisation of land, versus those who argue for a more restrained approach. It is a very powerful and effective scene, which sets up the final third in which we see the Republicans fighting each other nearly as much as Franco. There is pressure from the Stalinist/Comintern aligned majority faction to re-organise the Republican forces into a "proper" professional army. Initially Carne joins the International Brigade (he is after all a Communist Party member, and believes it is the best way to keep a united front against the Fascists). However, Carne eventually becomes even disillusioned entirely due to the things he witnesses. The repression of the POUM by the Stalinist elements within the Spanish Left is the crux on which the film turns. It is therefore a kind of tragedy, in which Stalinist repression and internecine fighting amongst the Republicans played a huge part in preventing a Fascist victory. All in all, a nicely simple and well-told story which carries a strong emotional message. It's a wonder that more films haven't touched on the Spanish Civil War in all honesty.

The framing device used for the story is that of Carne's death as an old man, alone in his flat (with National Front and Anti-National Front graffiti spray painted on the walls outside, connecting the struggle to more recent times), his letters and various other papers from the time are then discovered by his granddaughter with the events unfolding as a kind of flashback. At Carne's graveside, she reads a William Morris poem she found in Carne's papers gives a close-hand salute perhaps suggesting hope for the future of the struggle.

 

[Rimbaud82]

The Baader Meinhof Complex (2008)

It tells the story of the Red Army Faction from 1967 to 1977. The RAF were, of course, a German Left-Wing terrorist organisation which saw itself as taking up armed struggle in order to combat anti-imperialism and a resurgence of fascism within the West German state. The film charts the rise of the group from its origins in the late 60s to the dramatic events of the "German Autumn" in the late 70s. As the name suggests it primarily follows the key figures, Andreas Baader, Gudrun Ensslin, Horst Mahler and Ulrike Meinhof from the foundation of the group, through their increasingly violent campaign until their eventual arrests. The final part of the film focuses on their hunger strikes and then controversial suicides (or not, as supporters argue) in prison.

All told it was a decent film. An interesting take on the subject matter. Unlike some films about similar topics and groups, this one was, on the whole, an extremely negative portrayal of the RAF. However, at the same it does manage to portray the various social and political factors which created the RAF and groups like them. At the beginning we see a crowd of young Leftist students protesting the state visit of the Shah of Iran being mercilessly set-upon and beaten by German police. In the chaos a young student - Benno Ohnesorg - is shot dead. Events like this served as fuel to the fire that was spreading around Europe at the time. Visually the film really drives home the brutality of the police, it is a very effective scene. This specific German setting is also placed well in the broader context of anti-imperialist movements, student protests and Left-wing nationalist terrorism and/or armed campaigns worldwide - American Civil Rights, the Protests of 68, Che Guevera, Algerian Independence, the Vietnam War, the PLO etc. etc.

It is hard not to sympathise with these elements, and it's this which prevents the film from becoming a one-sided polemic against the RAF. Ultimately it condemns them, but it also seeks to understand them and how they originated. One point on this is that the film does an excellent job of getting across the swinging 60s context out of which they emerged. Gudrun Ensslin is portrayed as hip and sexy, strutting around in a mini-skirt, while Andreas Baader is a cool and edgy figure of rebellion, together they are almost like a Bonnie and Clyde pair. It's easy to see how they struck and alluring figure for young, radicalised Germans.

That word in the title - complex - is extremely apt. At it's core the film is a psychological interrogation of the group's members and their mindset. While I would say the film is sympathetic towards the social movements and contexts out of which the RAF arose, it is extremely critical of the members themselves and their almost pathological desire for violence. They are not presented as possessing any kind of particularly astute theory of revolution. For Ulli Edel, the director, it is simply an almost childish need to act and lash out which drives them. Andreas Baader may strike a cool and alluring figure on the surface, but he is no Che Guevera...more like an angry, jumped up criminal who has found a cause to direct his anger towards. Ultimately the members of the group become so wrapped up within their superficial ideology that practically any act of violence can be legitimised, however horrific. The film portrays this complex as leading to an ever-spiraling cycle of violence and paranoia.

 

[europe1]

While I would say the film is sympathetic towards the social movements and contexts out of which the RAF arose, it is extremely critical of the members themselves and their almost pathological desire for violence. They are not presented as possessing any kind of particularly astute theory of revolution. For Ulli Edel, the director, it is simply an almost childish need to act and lash out which drives them.

That's some great movie-thinking right there, Rimbaud!

 

[Rimbaud82]

Last night I watched

Carlos (2010)

It's a film which tells the story of Carlos the Jackal, real name Ilich Ramírez Sánchez, one of the most infamous Left-wing terrorists of all time. Unfortunately couldn't find a copy of the full five and a half hour film, so had to make do with the 2hr45 version (it has also been released as a three part series, and a much shorter version for the yank market). Nonetheless it was an outstanding film. It tells the story of Carlos - a Venezuelan Marxist-Leninist - from his early days in 1973 as a raw recruit of the of the PFLP (Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine), through to his eventual capture in Sudan and extradition to France in the 1990s.

It operates both as an effectively tense thriller and psychological study of the 'terrorist as celebrity'. I say psychological, but the film makes no cheap attempts to explain Carlos's internal thought processes per se, nor is there any outright denunciation of his political analysis. Where the film is especially critical is in it's depiction of Carlos as essentially a narcissistic pyschopath. Whatever the political analysis which originally drove him to join the PFLP and commit to armed struggle (and as I say this is not necessarily criticised on a fundamental level, though obviously neither is it praised), with his increasing fame comes an ever-growing ego. Carlos is portrayed as being motivated as much by a desire to fuel his own celebrity as by a deeply-held political conviction. There is one scene early on which exemplifies this. After having committed one of his early attacks, we see Carlos admiring his naked body in the mirror...in this element I would say there are obviously some similarities to the Baader-Meinhof Complex (2008), which I recently watched as well, but this is a much better film.

However, as much as it is a character study of one man, it also does an excellent job of portraying the wider political world of the time, ie. the political and sociological context which allowed a figure like Carlos to emerge and operate. Through Carlos' life and various stops around the world it brilliantly shows the geo-political context in which the Palestinian armed struggle was able to draw support from other Arab countries (though not all of course) and from the Soviet Bloc; as well as the manner in which radical Marxist-Leninist ideals were impacting Europe (Red Army Faction and their links to the PFLP, Italian Brigate Rosse etc.), and obviously South America (where Carlos was from after all) through the 60s until the 80s. As the Cold War melts, the world moves on and the socio-political context which created Carlos melts with it. With the fall of the Berlin Wall the entire political situation is so radically altered that Carlos finds himself increasingly isolated and unwanted. As the film progresses through the decades Carlos moves from an almost glamorous, terrorist-chic to a disheveled and hunted figure. With his eventual capture by French authorities, it seems that time has finally left Carlos behind.

All in all an excellent film, I will have to watch the full length version when I can.

 

[Rimbaud82]

Re-watched

The Wind That Shakes The Barley (2006)

One of the best Irish history films without doubt, hell one of the best history films in general.

It is honestly a close to perfect depiction of the War of Independence and Irish Civil War. Unlike the ridiculously Hollywood-ised, historically inaccurate Michael Collins it takes a micro-cosmic look at the period rather than a grand narrative and as a result it does a far better job portraying the reality despite the use of entirely fictional characters - two Cork brothers Damian and Teddy.

Teddy is the commander of the local IRA unit whereas Damien starts off as a skeptic of the republican movement, intending to leave for England to follow a career as a Dr. However, through his experiences of British repression Damien's latent Nationalism is converted into direct support for the IRAs armed struggle....

The film perfectly depicts this spiral of violence. Starting from IRA arms seizures on small village RIC barracks, to the assassination of crown forces leading to reprisals on the Irish civilian populace, in turn leading to further support for the IRA (though it not in all cases in real life it should be noted). The film then later shows the high-point of the conflict which saw large scale operations by what are popularly known as flying columns who carried out guerrilla style ambushes on the British Army and Auxiliaries and then melted back into the countryside. That's the theory anyway; the actual extent and operational effectiveness of these columns varied greatly from region to region, but in some areas they did indeed carry out a number of attacks exactly like the one depicted in the film. For instance, the Clonfin Ambush, or the Kilmichael Ambush (probably the most famous, and as the film is set in County Cork the one it is probably modeled on). The one in the film is depicted brilliantly.

The British forces are the bad guys in the film. Of course. I have to laugh at the Little Englanders that were triggered when the film came out. There was an overwhelming diplomatic mandate for an independent Irish Republic and the British forces (the RIC, Black and Tans and the Auxilaries) were suppressing this. However, despite the depiction of British brutality and repression it does make attempts to explain their mindset. One officer, when confronted by Damien, screams "...that is not my responsibility, I am just a solider sent by my government.....these men fought at the Somme!!!". Likewise, the IRA men escape from prison with the help of some other British soldiers, they aren't portrayed as purely evil.

Ultimately the film is not a simplistic narrative of the Irish vs the Brits. It also expertly portrays the various tensions within the Republican movement, primarily those between the IRA units themselves and the local instruments of Dáil Éireann such as the courts; as well as the conflict between radical elements within the IRA and more conservative types . In theory the Volunteers/IRA were under the control of the Dáil, but in reality this was not the case (in fact the Dáil didn't actually declare the IRA as the official army of the Republic until 1921, not long before the truce was signed). When the IRA leadership goes against the decision of a Dáil court because the exploitative businessman in question has been providing a source of funds for rifles, it leads to an an intense debate between the more radical Marxist elements within the movement and those who argue for a purely pragmatic approach to drive the British out. This debate scene, coming in the middle of the film, really made me think of Loach's Land and Freedom which I had not seen when I first watched this.

As much as it's a film about the IRA 'defeating' the Brits and obtaining independence (and it can simply be watched/read on this level as many choose too), I believe Loach also intended it to be read as a film about the way in opportunities for real change provided by the Irish Revolution were ultimately never fulfilled. The Truce and the Anglo-Irish Treaty of course does not lead to a 32 county socialist republic, but a 26 county free state within the Empire...others choose not to accept this - because they demand more radical change (ie. along the socialist ideals of the Republic declared in 1916) and because they are not happy with the symbolic oaths of allegiance to Britain and so on... This of course leads to the brutal Irish Civil War (which saw more bloodshed than the War of Independence). It is here that the narrative device employed by Loach - ie. focusing on the two brothers - comes into play especially. Teddy is pro-Treaty, while Damien - not even in the IRA at the start, but radicalised by his experiences - is anti-Treaty. Both men now find themselves on opposite sides of the conflict, with tragic consequences.

A truly marvelous film which does an incredible job of portraying the entirety of the conflict in microcosm. Without ever mentioning names like Michael Collins, Eamon De Valera or Cathal Brugha, and through a small localised lens it manages to tell the story of the Irish Revolution in all it's complexity.

 

[Rimbaud82]

Last night I watched

Vampyr (1932)

Was in the mood for something to remove the bad taste left from that utter, utter shite that is episode 3 of the latest BBC adaption of Dracula. Had thought of rewatching either of the two versions of Nosferatu (1922 or 1979), but as brilliant as they are I have seen before so opted instead for a film I had downloaded a couple of years ago but never got round to.

The first ever "talkie" (ie. film with sound) from Carl Theodor Dreyer, Vampyr is a film about...yep you guessed it, a vampire. It is a fascinating horror film, albeit a very strange and unusual one. It obviously dates from around the same time as the original Dracula film with Bela Lugosi (in fact I believe the release of Vampyr was delayed to allow for Dracula to premiered first the year before). Both are films about Vampires, released only year apart, yet tonally they couldn't be any different. Dracula is pure Hollywood camp, with a straightforward plot and a easy to follow style. Vampyr is a dark, enigmatic film with a somewhat confusing storyline in which the lines between the real and imagined are entirely blurred. The plot, such as it is, concerns Allan Gray, a student of the occult who arrives in the eerie village of Courtempierre and soon finds evidence that the place is under the sway of a vampire... It is not a straightforward narrative, but the story itself is a loose adaption of J. Sheridan Le Fanu's collection of Gothic tales In A Glass Darkly, which are actually incredibly interesting because they predate Dracula by over 20 years (and by another Irish writer, interestingly enough!). The story makes similar use of Vampiric folklore, including stakes through the heart and so on.

However, I would say the main strength of the film lies in it's impressive use of imagery and atmosphere to create a pervading sense of unease. The cinematography, the use of angles, effects and so on are all incredibly effective at creating a particular mood and tone. At points a bit opaque and confusing, it ultimately leaves an uncanny and disconcerting impression. According to Dreyer he "wanted to create a waking dream on screen and show that horror is not to be found in the things around us but in our own subconscious." I would say he was successful....

 

[Rimbaud82]

We may rename this the Rimbaud82 Serious Movie Discussion based on this last page, fuck me where has everyone gone lol

 

[Rimbaud82]

On Saturday night I went to see a 4K restoration of

The Holy Mountain (1973)

Truly and utterly baffling, completely hilarious, at times pretentious, shallow and disgusting, but in equal parts absolutely beautiful and profound, all in one; where the hell do you even start when talking about this wonderful film

A basic description of the plot does little to describe it - an Alchemist is joined by a Christ-like figure, and a range of other bizarre individuals as they go through a series of mystical rites in order to reach the summit of a holy mountain where they hope to attain immortality... Ok, that sounds strange enough I am sure, but it does not even come close. Over the course of two hours we are subjected to an absolute assault on the eyes as a range of dazzling, psychedelic and hypnotic images flash before us. Not to downplay the ideology of it, but more than anything it is an extremely visual film which needs to be seen.

It is a complete whirlwind of surrealist imagery. Visually it is incredibly rich...but with that said, there are also important ideological impulses in the film. The entire thing is fundamentally shaped by Jodorowosky's own personal belief system, seemingly cobbled together from his readings of eastern mysticism, western occultism (Tarot cards), and Jungian philosophy. The imagery of the film is saturated with these ideas. At times it comes off as a bit trite and flimsy, but despite that there is some genuinely engaging ideas contained there. Among general critiques of modern society - anti-imperialist, anti-industrialist, anti-consumerist, anti-a-lot-of-things really - there is also a genuine, serious philosophy of personal enlightenment (as Jodorowsky's saw it). This is pretty much submerged within the overall surrealism and at times is lost within the biting satire, but is fully recaptured at the very end....

It's a film I posted about years ago, must be at least 4 or 5 years now, but back then I would say my film describing skills where not much up to par. Very interesting to watch it again now, especially on the big screen in glorious 4K.

 

[Rimbaud82]

tonight is the night....

 

[europe1]

tonight is the night....

Ahem...

 

[Rimbaud82]

The Lighthouse (2019)

Following up The Witch was never going to be an easy task, but Eggers has done it again with this brilliantly mad, delirious tale of maritime horror. I absolutely loved it. The bare outline of the story is that of two men - one older, one younger - who become trapped on a remote island outpost in the 1890s. This at least is actually inspired by a real incident known as the Smalls Lighthouse Tragedy, which happened off the coast of Wales at the beginning of the 19th century. Eggers takes some of the ideas suggested by such a tale - the psychological impact of this remote setting - and develops it into something much, much weirder. The Lighthouse follows the two men as they struggle to contend with the island, with the profound isolation and with themselves. Tom Wake (Dafoe) is a craggy auld former seaman with a gammy leg, and the the man in charge of his junior 'wickie', Ephraim Winslow (Pattinson). For his part, Winslow is a hard-working, straight-faced ex-logger with an ambiguous past. Wake spends much of the film giving orders to Winslow, who toils away at all the manual tasks which need attended to on the island. All the while Wake warily guards The Light itself. Within this bleak and claustrophobic space, the relations between the two men are already strained, but it soon becomes clear that something mysterious is going on. As the film goes on Wake and Winslow slip further and further into madness....

Eggers is a master of mood and atmosphere and The Lighthouse perfectly captures the salty, windswept earthiness of this remote Nova Scotian outpost. This is greatly helped by the cinematography. Shot in black and white on old analog cameras and making use of a 1.19:1 aspect ratio, it feels old and primitive. The aspect ratio and nautical setting made me think of Bait (2019) which is an interesting crossover, clearly both directors were aiming for a similarly aged effect. Of course, it also deliberately harks back to older black and white films as a result...I am particularly thinking of the likes of Bergman's Persona (1966) (there are certainly some interesting thematic/psychological parallels there too), or other Bergman films, as well as early horror films like Nosferatu (1921) and Vampyr (1932). The cinematography also serves to emphasise and enhance the claustrophobia of the plot. It was a very effective and inspired choice in my opinion. At this point the incredibly creepy and unsettling score should also be praised as well.

Thematically there is a lot to unpack in The Lighthouse, although it is extremely ambiguous. Naturally this will be off putting to a lot of people (I suspect @Bullitt68 will not be/was not a fan), but I was thoroughly engaged with it. It is a strange, wonderful film which is equally dense in old maritime folklore, Jungian archetypes, psychology, and ancient mythology. Indeed, it has a very elemental, folkloric vibe in general - something which fascinates me. In this respect it is definitely a fitting follow-up to The Witch. And I would be remiss if I didn't mention the spectacular performances from both Dafoe and Pattinson.

 

[Deleted member 110072]

On Saturday night I went to see a 4K restoration of

The Holy Mountain (1973)

Truly and utterly baffling, completely hilarious, at times pretentious, shallow and disgusting, but in equal parts absolutely beautiful and profound, all in one; where the hell do you even start when talking about this wonderful film

A basic description of the plot does little to describe it - an Alchemist is joined by a Christ-like figure, and a range of other bizarre individuals as they go through a series of mystical rites in order to reach the summit of a holy mountain where they hope to attain immortality... Ok, that sounds strange enough I am sure, but it does not even come close. Over the course of two hours we are subjected to an absolute assault on the eyes as a range of dazzling, psychedelic and hypnotic images flash before us. Not to downplay the ideology of it, but more than anything it is an extremely visual film which needs to be seen.

It is a complete whirlwind of surrealist imagery. Visually it is incredibly rich...but with that said, there are also important ideological impulses in the film. The entire thing is fundamentally shaped by Jodorowosky's own personal belief system, seemingly cobbled together from his readings of eastern mysticism, western occultism (Tarot cards), and Jungian philosophy. The imagery of the film is saturated with these ideas. At times it comes off as a bit trite and flimsy, but despite that there is some genuinely engaging ideas contained there. Among general critiques of modern society - anti-imperialist, anti-industrialist, anti-consumerist, anti-a-lot-of-things really - there is also a genuine, serious philosophy of personal enlightenment (as Jodorowsky's saw it). This is pretty much submerged within the overall surrealism and at times is lost within the biting satire, but is fully recaptured at the very end....

It's a film I posted about years ago, must be at least 4 or 5 years now, but back then I would say my film describing skills where not much up to par. Very interesting to watch it again now, especially on the big screen in glorious 4K.

I don't think I'v ever seen any Jodorowosky, maybe vague memories of part of El Topo late night in the 90's although that might have been just clips. Might be time to change that as I see Arrow are releasing a box set of his work presumably from the same scans.

My bank account is still recovering from several UHD purchases and finally picking up a decent version of Sansho the Baliff with Criterion giving it a UK release.

 

[Rimbaud82]

I don't think I'v ever seen any Jodorowosky, maybe vague memories of part of El Topo late night in the 90's although that might have been just clips. Might be time to change that as I see Arrow are releasing a box set of his work presumably from the same scans.

My bank account is still recovering from several UHD purchases and finally picking up a decent version of Sansho the Baliff with Criterion giving it a UK release.

Definitely worth checking out. I had seen El Topo and this one before, but this restoration was a whole new world (and my memories were pretty hazy too). Other than that the only other Jodorowsky I have seen is Endless Poetry, which wasn't bad.

 

[europe1]

The Holy Mountain (1973)

This review earns 0/10 stars for not even mentioning the funniest part of the film.



Thought that part when those Romans got the protagonist drunk and made him into the Messia was pretty hysterical as well.

 

[Rimbaud82]

I have now just seen that Eggers next film is a Viking revenge saga set in Iceland at the turn of 10th century, and it's being filmed in Belfast! I am picturing Egger's version of something like The Virgin Spring (1960). Once again, hyped to fuck!

 

[Rimbaud82]

This review earns 0/10 stars for not even mentioning the funniest part of the film.



Thought that part when those Romans got the protagonist drunk and made him into the Messia was pretty hysterical as well.

<45>

The conquest of Mexico depicted in the film is absolutely incredible.

 

[europe1]

I have now just seen that Eggers next film is a Viking revenge saga set in Iceland at the turn of 10th century, and it's being filmed in Belfast! I am picturing Egger's version of something like The Virgin Spring (1960). Once again, hyped to fuck!

This is your annual reminder that there is a movie about an Irish Ninja killing Icelandic Vikings with throwing-knives as if it's some sort of Spaghetti-Western and it's still somehow one of the most historically accurate takes on the Viking period.

(Aka: When the Raven Flies)

 

[Rimbaud82]

This is your annual reminder that there is a movie about an Irish Ninja killing Icelandic Vikings with throwing-knives as if it's some sort of Spaghetti-Western and it's still somehow one of the most historically accurate takes on the Viking period.

 

[Rimbaud82]

The SMC is watching that this week and I posted this in there earlier today:

I think I might have been temporarily high, or swayed by the hype lol. The more I think about it, the more I dislike it haha.

 

[Rimbaud82]

Uncut Gems (2019)

For almost the totality of it's run-time Uncut Gems is a protracted, anxiety-inducing assault on the senses. Adam Sandler is extremely impressive as Howard Ratner, a sleazy but sympathetic jeweller up to his neck in gambling debts. The film follows Ratner as he attempts to claw his way out of this hole and satisfy his loan-shark creditors. To this end he hatches a plan involving the sale of a rare Black Opal which he thinks will be his salvation... However, the circumstances Ratner has found himself in are clearly beyond his control. External forces, along with his own personal failings and compulsive gambling, leads to an increasingly desperate situation.

An excellent crime drama, full of psychological depth and told with punishing intensity.