Instant Film School #1: Paris, Texas

Welcome back to Country of What. I’m going to try again with this thing and see if I can maintain regular updates and some sort of consistency with the content. Today’s entry is the first of (hopefully) many columns discussing films available through Netflix’s Instant Viewing feature. Appropriately enough, I’m calling it Instant Film School, and I’ll be focusing on films that have made an impact on the film medium. Unsurprisingly, many of these films are brought to you by the invaluable folks at Criterion Collection. I suggest viewing the films before reading my column, because it is more of a discussion about the film than a review. Meaning there will be SPOILERS.

Instant Film School #1: Paris, Texas

Wim Wenders’ 1984 masterpiece, PARIS, TEXAS, is available on Netflix’s 720p streaming HD, as well as blu-ray and DVD from the Criterion Collection. The transfer is phenomenal, showcasing some of the best streaming quality I’ve seen through the streaming service. This is great news for Netflix subscribers because one of the true stars of PARIS, TEXAS is Robby Müller’s gorgeous cinematography. The Texas landscape has rarely looked so beautiful. The contrast between the desert and the bright blue sky is breathtaking.

PARIS, TEXAS opens with Travis, played by Harry Dean Stanton (Wild at Heart, Alien), wandering out of the Texas desert and collapsing in a nearly deserted bar. His brother’s phone number is found in his pocket and the local doc calls to inform him of Travis’ status. Travis’ brother Walt, played by Dean Stockwell (Quantum Leap, Blue Velvet), reveals that Travis has been missing for four years and agrees to drive down from L.A. to deal with him. We soon find out that Travis and his wife Jane (the amazing Nastassja Kinski) disappeared four years earlier and that Walt has been raising their son ever since.

At first, Travis refuses to speak and tries on a few occasions to wander back into the desert—aimlessly searching for something he doesn’t even remember. As he is reintegrated into his brother’s family, he begins to remember what he has lost and to reconnect with his son, Hunter. For much of the film, we are as in the dark as Travis about what happened that drove him to the wilderness. Eventually, he and Hunter strike off on the road to find Jane.

The “reunion” of Travis and Jane is the emotional climax of PARIS, TEXAS, and the centerpiece of the film. Jane has been working in a Houston peep show where customers watch through a one-sided mirror and communicate to the girls with a telephone. Through this impersonal medium, Travis and Jane are able to open up about what happened four years earlier that pulled them apart. Travis turns his chair away from the window so he and Jane are in the same situation, neither can see the other. He tells her of a man who married a younger woman; a man who drank too much and would go into jealous tirades, demanding to know where she’d been every moment of the day. The man cleaned up and the couple had a child, but the woman began to feel trapped by the weight of that responsibility. She dreamed of escape, and, finally, she did. She left the man for dead and never looked back.

Besides the great performances, what makes this 10 or 15 minute scene stand out as it does is Wim Wenders’ control of the camera. He lingers on Natassja Kinski’s face as her expression transforms during Travis’ story. We can see the moment she notices the similarities to her own story and begins to pay attention. We witness the heartbreaking moment when she realizes this IS her story and that her ex-husband is on the other side of the glass. The mirror is an active participant in this scene, as it shields Travis from her. Jane stares into her reflection as she moves through these emotions. The couple changes the lighting so that Jane can see Travis, but they are never able to see each other at the same time. It’s telling that their lack of physical closeness allows them to connect in a way that they never have before. They both open up about what they were going through as their marriage disintegrated.

Finally, Travis tells Jane about the hotel room in which he has left Hunter. The former couple never meets face to face. Travis barged uninvited into Hunter’s life, took him from the family he had grown up with and delivered him to a mother he has forgotten. Like a natural disaster, Travis tore through his family’s lives and left things in disarray. It’s interesting that Travis did not choose to leave the desert. If he had not been found passed out, he would still be wandering the desert and his family would continue to assume him dead.

Summer Movie Recap -- Part I

So, it’s been a while since my last post. I’m sure hundreds (thousands?) of my devoted readers have been checking the blog daily for new material. Well, ease off on the hunger strike; I have returned. This Friday will mark the first installment in an ongoing series of Friday posts imaginatively titled “Adam’s Movie of the Week.”* I’ll choose a movie that I like that you may not have seen, and say why it’s great. Basically, I’ll talk about stuff I like, which is why blogs exist in the first place. In the meantime, here is a recap of my summer at the movies.

*Title is subject to change upon unexpected stroke of creativity.

The summer kicked off with Iron Man. I never cared much for Iron Man the comic character, but Robert Downey Jr. does a phenomenal job creating the playboy Tony Stark. He actually is what Bruce Wayne pretends to be. Jon Favreau put together a movie that is fun, huge, and action-packed. This began the wave of big budget movies we all associate with summer. Hopefully the inevitable sequel will add a little depth by exploring his struggle with alcoholism, which was a major story arc of the comic.

The second big budget summer blockbuster should have been Speed Racer. I saw this in IMAX, and it’s speedballing in a melting candy store. Critics unjustly crucified Speed and audiences stayed away. You owe it to yourself to watch this in Blu-ray on the biggest screen you can find. It is pure cinematic fun. At heart Speed Racer is a simple story about a family, but the visual innovation on display thanks to the Wachowski brothers is breathtaking.

There’s nothing new for me to say about The Fall, except “SEE IT.” See it in high definition. No matter what else comes out as we approach Oscar-bait season, The Fall will remain one of the best movies of the year.

At least Prince Caspian was better than the first Narnia movie. The kids are a little older and a little less annoying, plus Aslan only makes a few cameos until the end. Am I the only one who hates the stupid lion? Surprisingly, the changes made when translating the novel to film were generally improvements.

Then things went off the rails. Indiana Jones and the Aliens from Another Dimension. Spielberg and Lucas give us a magical fridge, Shia Doolittle swinging from vines and talking to monkeys, and CG gophers. WTF? It’s too upsetting to even talk about.

The Incredible Hulk improved on Ang Lee’s version by toning down the CG, giving us a tangible villain (played with enthusiastic menace by Tim Roth), and more interesting motivation for Bruce Banner. The filmmakers opt to skip the origin story, which allows them to delve deeper into his life on the run as he tries to evade the authorities who would turn him into a weapon. The most engaging parts are when Bruce is not hulked out, which speaks to the abilities of the great cast and strong script.

To Be Continued....

The Fall

This weekend I was lucky enough to see The Fall. This is the best movie released so far in 2008--hands down. Hopefully you will recognize Ned the pie maker (Lee Pace) of Pushing Daisies fame. If not, you need to check out the best new show of last year, which will be returning next season with new episodes. In The Fall, Pace plays Roy, a bed ridden silent picture stuntman who has lost his will to live. In the hospital he meets a little girl (played brilliantly as a realistic child, not a movie kid) with a broken arm. To convince her to run errands for him, he tells her an epic story of five men in search of revenge.

Half of the movie takes place in the real world hospital, and the other half in the imagination of Alexandria, the little girl. Tarsem's use of color and scope in the imagination sequences reminded me of Yimou Zhang's work in Hero--which is a huge compliment. By the way, the director Tarsem Singh seems to have dropped his last name since his debut on The Cell. The visuals in the story are simply gorgeous, but the emotions in the real world portions are just as poignant. The themes of the real and imaginary stories merge toward the end in a really heart breaking way.

Roy and Alexandria are brilliant together. According to Tarsem, they made Catinca Untaru, the actress playing Alexandria, believe Pace was really paralyzed during the entire film shoot. The young actress did not speak English when they began filming, so it was up to Pace to play off of her jumbled deliveries. The Fall was filmed two years ago, before his breakthrough on Pushing Daisies, and I'm sure we can plan on seeing a lot more of Lee Pace in the coming years.

The "story within a story that helps understand the real world characters better" idea was used phenomenally by Guillermo del Toro in Pan's Labyrinth a couple years ago. Tarsem uses the device a little differently in the case of The Fall. Because Roy is telling the story and Alexandria is interpreting in her own mind, their images do not match up exactly (as in the case of the Indian). Also, the story is fluid, so a father character can become Roy after her suggestion.

By the way, if you missed Pan’s Labyrinth, it’s on Blu-ray; check it out now. The Fall is a remake of a 1981 Bulgarian movie called Yo Ho Ho, which is currently unavailable on DVD in the US.

Shock Cinema

What's that? You hate feeling happy and/or revel in being exposed to the most horrific images conceivable? Well, this post is just for you. Here are my top six most shocking (i.e. disgusting, emotionally devastating, sickening, or generally repulsive) films that are still worth seeing. A couple of these are truly great films, and all of them are worth seeing once.

6. Oldboy -- This is an extremely violent revenge flick from Korea. A man is imprisoned and tortured for 15 years for no reason. Then he gets out and lots of really messed up stuff happens. The story is so full of twists and turns, that you may not even want to try to figure out exactly what is going on; just wait for it to happen. The last scenes will leave your jaw on the floor. This is the second part of director Chan Wook Park’s revenge trilogy, so if this is up your alley, you may want to see Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance and Lady Vengeance. I haven’t seen either yet. The highlight is definitely Chan Wook Park's inventive camera angle in the crazy hallway fight.

5. Man Bites Dog -- This French film follows a documentary crew doing a project on a serial killer. They follow the killer around, and gradually lose their objectivity. The charismatic murder draws them in and makes them a part of the violence. It’s interesting to watch them lose themselves and become more like their subject. Man Bites Dog is essentially a critique of the media’s fixation on real life monsters--a point that is just as relevant now as it was then. There is one dinner table scene that is particularly graphic.

4. Cannibal Holocaust -- Before Cloverfield and The Blair Witch Project there was Cannibal Holocaust. A group of filmmakers travel to the Amazon and find cannibals. Their film footage is later found and edited into the movie. Note: these are cannibals, not zombies. This film was censored or banned in many countries for a long time for it’s inclusion of actual animal deaths. Yes, you read that correctly, this movie shows actual animals being killed. Seriously, this thing is fucked. Some of the human deaths are less realistic than bigger budget flicks like Romero’s Dead series, but the animal stuff will get to you.

3. The Last House on the Left -- Twelve years before Nightmare on Elm Street, Wes Craven created this freakish tale of senseless violence and revenge. A couple girls are tortured in the woods by a trio of maniacs. Critics point to the second part of this movie as a right wing wet dream, but politics aren't the point of this picture. The purpose is to make us examine the violence and realize that anyone is capable of pretty horrifying acts. I think we’re supposed to focus on the fact that totally different motivations lead to similarly violent acts. The torture is extremely graphic and hopefully leaves you feeling a little ill. Definitely not the most fun ever had at a movie, but still a good one. Note: 1972 independent film production values are not of the highest standard, so be prepared.

2. Irreversible -- The French are at it again. I’ve seen two of director Gasper Noe’s films, and I am positive that he is a thoroughly disturbed individual. This one has less incest than I Stand Alone, but more rape. In fact, Monica Bellucci (who you most likely know from the Matrix sequels and as Mary Magdalene in the Passion of the Christ) is raped for about nine minutes. The camera does not waver, and we are forced to watch the entire attack. The plot unfolds in reverse order like Memento, as Vincent extracts revenge, finds out about the attack on Bellucci, and starts a night of partying. Don’t get pissed, I didn’t spoil anything since the movie is in reverse. Anyway, the rape scene is probably the single most traumatic scene I’ve ever sat through. The opening attack is pretty sick too, though. And that annoying sound you can almost hear in the first 20 minutes is there purposely to disorient and induce a feeling of vertigo. This was reportedly the most walked out of film in 2002.

1. Dogville -- If I recommended that you see this movie, I secretly hate you. Dogville is a brilliant film with Nicole Kidman, Chloe Sevigny, Lauren Bacall, Stellan Skarsgard, Paul Bettany, John Hurt, Patricia Clark and James Caan. I don’t know how Lars von Trier got such a great cast to appear in such a bleak, depressing, experimental film. For three hours we see a woman subjected to physical, mental, and emotional torment beyond my imagination (and hopefully beyond yours). This movie actually stretched my understanding of the boundaries of torture. I can’t get into the details, because it still disturbs me. After Dogville goes off, you’ll just want to crawl in bed, turn the lights off, and be alone. And still, strangely, I think that it is a success. Even though there are zero Nazis in Dogville, you get a sense of the same kind of slippery slope that could have enticed so many Germans to join up with the party. Everyone is capable of atrocities, which is not a pleasant message. Anyway, if you hate yourself, rent Dogville. It’s the first in a trilogy, but I haven’t worked up the courage to see the sequel yet. Also, there are no walls on the buildings, just chalk outlines on the ground, which emphasizes the openness of a small American town in the 1930s.

I am not responsible for any therapy expenses incurred as a result of viewing the above films.

Funny Games

Sadist or satirist? Austrian director Michael Haneke is successful as both--for the most part. He wrote and directed the original Austrian Funny Games in 1997 and the remake in 2007. Surely the few other people in America who saw it have been just as traumatized as I was. Presumably, Haneke decided he really doesn't like Americans, so he came at all of us with a remake full of well-known names that more viewers would be willing to watch. Everyone knows Americans aren't too keen on reading in their movies. The two versions are almost exactly the same. Seriously, his new one is shot-for-shot the same.

The plot is fairly simple: two nice young men (dressed ominously similar to the droogs in A Clockwork Orange) show up at a family's lake house to ask for some eggs. Turns out they aren't so nice, and they go to work torturing the family seemingly just for the fun of it. Most of the torture is not physical, though, and very little of the physical violence makes it on screen. Haneke is great at evoking horror from the reactions of other family members. Their terror is reflected in us. It is a principle David Fincher used very well in the “Angel Face reconstruction” scene of Fight Club. His first edit of that scene had more punching and destruction on screen, but the final version felt much more graphic because we see how the rest of the crowd is affected by the massacre. There is an interesting discussion about this on one of the commentary tracks of the Fight Club DVD.

But this isn't your run of the mill horror thriller. As I said, we don't see most of the blood and gore that sells the Saw and Texas Chainsaw Massacre movies. What's really interesting is that Haneke's point seems to be to draw us in with his charismatic lead intruder, who routinely breaks the fourth wall. In this way, we have another glimpse of Alex from A Clockwork Orange. His nods and winks implicate us in the carnage as voyeurs. We lean in and maybe even nervously laugh at his milder comments and actions. This makes the damage he inflicts even more powerful. David Cronenberg did the same thing (though more effectively) in my favorite film of 2005, A History of Violence. Cronenberg excited us with the action and violence, and he showed us that his characters felt the same way. Then we saw the underbelly, the true consequences of violence.

So if you only want to squirm through the length of one film, which version should you see? That's a tough choice. Perhaps it's easier to watch without having to read subtitles. Maybe you want to see the recognizable faces of the American version. You could just want to see the original for the fact that it came first. My vote is for the original. But I may be biased because I saw it first (more shocking) and alone (no assholes cheering at the theater). The new one comes off as sleeker and more glossy because of the Hollywood faces. Tim Roth and Naomi Watts are both incapable of bad performances, and Michael Pitt is one of our best young up and coming actors.

Bottom line: See at least one of these. You will be shocked and will probably (hopefully?) feel a little guilty by the end.

A King in New York -- Charlie Chaplin

Thanks to the best channel in the world (Turner Classic Movies) I was recently able to watch Charlie Chaplin's second to last movie, A King in New York. Made in 1957, five years after he was refused re-entry to the United States, Chaplin launched an attack at American culture. My guess is that most Americans in 1957 wouldn't be very interested in his observations, but they didn't have a chance to find out. Due to its controversial material, A King in New York wasn't released in the United States until 1973.

The film is split into two parts: the first satirizes American commercialism (obviously just as relevant now as ever), and the second attacks McCarthyism (also pretty relevant now, though in a different form). Charlie Chaplin's movies began to take on more social commentary as his career progressed, and they lost a lot of the pure anarchic humor of his earlier work. Of course, some of the changes in style came from his need to adapt to the invention of sound, where viewers rely more on jokes than sight gags. His movies always had feeling (watch the end of City Lights, and see if there is a dry eye in the house), but his later films put more emphasis on the meaning of the story (his pre-American involvement take on Hitler in The Great Dictator and his beautifully melancholy metaphor for his own career, Limelight).

So you may be saying to yourself, "I've never seen a Chaplin picture. Should I start with this random King in New York movie I read about in a blog?" The answer is no. Start with Modern Times (my favorite) or The Gold Rush. You'll see a lot of bits that were ripped off by Warner Brothers' cartoons. Looking back, Modern Times was a way for Chaplin to test the water of social commentary, and he pulls it off well. The funniest Chaplin movies star his Little Tramp character, with his iconic bowler hat, oversized shoes, cane, and mustache.

I guess I should include a brief synopsis of A King in New York. A deposed king from Europe takes up residence in the Ritz. He has good intentions, but no money. American advertisers take advantage of him as he tries to cobble together enough money for his atomic energy plan. Next he gets mixed up with a communist orphan. The House Un-American Activities Committee assumes he must also be a communist, and hilarity ensues.

Chaplin was once the most famous person in the world. It's unfortunate how many people today have never seen a single one of his films.

Dominion vs. Exorcist: The Beginning

Dominion: Prequel to the Exorcist vs. Exorcist: The Beginning

This is the only example I can think of where two people have been able to make their own versions of the same basic idea. Paul Schrader (who earned my admiration for writing Scorsese's Taxi Driver and Raging Bull) decided to take the Exorcist in a serious direction. His version focuses on the a younger version of Max von Sydow's priest from the original Exorcist. Father Merrin has lost his faith after facing the evil of Nazis in WW2, but he is forced to recover it when confronted with the pure evil of the demon. One of the most effective scenes is a re-inaction of a traumatizing event from the war orchestrated by the demon to torment Father Merrin. Building on this one memory, Schrader brings back some of the ideas he explored in his screenplay of The Last Temptation of Christ as the demon tests Merrin's resolve.

Unfortunately, Schrader's vision didn't have enough pea soup spewing and crucifix humping for the studio. They gave Schrader the axe and hired the hack Renny Harlin. You may know Renny as the genius behind Die Hard 2: Die Harder, which up until last summer was the only misstep in the Die Hard series. Renny uses some of Schrader's footage, but does a Dawn of the Dead remakification of the original story. (A DotD remakification is where all serious subtext or meaning is removed and replaced by mindless action...and/or fast moving zombies.)

Harlin's version does have more guts and gore, but not enough to compete with torture porn like Saw and Hostel. When it came out at theaters, blood fans weren't interested in the soft core stuff, and fans of the original Exorcist's deeper, heavier feel knew better having read about all the hiring/firing chaos. So when Exorcist: the Beginning bombed, the studio decided to let Schrader finish editing his film and release it on DVD. Schrader may have had a really good horror movie if he had had the funding for a few re-shoots and some proper post-production work. The low budget really shows with the weak special effects.

Maybe there is a curse on movies related to the Exorcist. The previous two sequels starred high caliber actors like Richard Burton, James Earl Jones, and George C. Scott, and neither of them came close to the original. But they're fun if you want some jumbled up background story to the original, and the Exorcist 2 has some pretty cool visuals.

Verdict: Check out Dominion if you're a big fan of the original. If a friend tries to make you watch Exorcist: The Beginning, you will know for a fact that they are actually out to get you. Burn the disc and watch your back around that "friend."