tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27465023635515246822024-03-18T05:00:17.586+02:00TSorensen 1001 movie blogTSorensenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12208153011927807857noreply@blogger.comBlogger836125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2746502363551524682.post-32095796034191460212024-03-09T11:41:00.001+02:002024-03-09T11:41:17.956+02:00A Christmas Story (1982)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjBKH3bOBYg8WSZva6jprnOEejrT29KOZu1vxKAj-VJoaSAhSSkTtaPx1c7V3pbl54lt93YvpY2sxamIAdDMnkMJRGD_mt1iw3WvOXW5jkwpW26Cvn5RPkFSFBRiLGEJ676NdUW26AT9DvJbKt82h6DPUkQwh7iEuRRnbDvlAyFF59uQomMmcSN7leLV8E/s280/A%20Christmas%20Story.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="180" data-original-width="280" height="257" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjBKH3bOBYg8WSZva6jprnOEejrT29KOZu1vxKAj-VJoaSAhSSkTtaPx1c7V3pbl54lt93YvpY2sxamIAdDMnkMJRGD_mt1iw3WvOXW5jkwpW26Cvn5RPkFSFBRiLGEJ676NdUW26AT9DvJbKt82h6DPUkQwh7iEuRRnbDvlAyFF59uQomMmcSN7leLV8E/w400-h257/A%20Christmas%20Story.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br /><p style="text-align: center;"><b><br />A Christmas Story</b></p><p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="en-DK">Christmas movies are a category on their
own. During the holidays, they are everywhere, but outside that narrow period
from late November until New Year, they entirely disappear. A few of them do
work outside the season (“Die Hard”, “It’s a Wonderful Life”), but most feel...
flat... when Christmas is far away. Maybe this is why the List features very few
Christmas movies and that most of those belong to that first category. I
believe “A Christmas Story” is the first thoroughbred Christmas movie I have
encountered on the List, and, yes, it does feel sort of weird to watch it in
March.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="en-DK">But let us pretend this is December, it is
dark outside, and the coffee table is stuffed with Christmas cookies. Now we
can consider “A Christmas Story” in the right frame of mind.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="en-DK">Ralphie (Peter Billingsley) is a 9-year-old
boy living with his younger brother, Randy (Ian Petrella), his mother, Mrs.
Parker (Melinda Dillon) and his father, the “Old Man”, Mr. Parker (Darren
McGavin) sometime in the forties. Christmas time is coming up and all Ralphie
wishes for Christmas is the Red Ryder BB gun. This is not a popular choice and
everybody, his mother, teacher, even the department store Santa tells him he “will
shoot his eyes out”. Ralphie then cooks up a million schemes to get the toy for
Christmas, some of those are quite inventive.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="en-DK">While this is the main story, “A Christmas Story”
is a meandering tale with tons of small subplots fleshing out the life of Ralphie
and his family. We see a boy in his class getting his tongue stuck on the flagpole.
Ralphie tries to bribe his teacher. The Old Man wins a hideous lamp shaped like
a woman’s leg, setting off “the battle of the lamp” with his wife. Ralphie gets
the hate-gift of any nine-year old boys when he gets a pink bunny suit from
Aunt Clara and is forced to wear it (the best laugh of the movie). In fact, it
is not wrong to say that all these small vignettes are the movie.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="en-DK">Ralphie is a truly annoying little boy, but
I suppose that is also the point. As it is told in retrospect, we remember all
these great or exciting things form our childhood, but objectively, they were
perhaps not that fantastic and we were hardly the angels we think we were.
Presenting Ralphie as obnoxious is such a point and works great for comedy,
though less good for the ears. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="en-DK">Child-Ralphie’s point of view is of course
a child’s point of view and at that age there is a lot of magic, wonder,
strangeness and mystery to life. Small problems are big problems and big problems
just pass over the head. Life in the Parker home is full of small adventures,
disappointments and injustices. What matters from a child’s perspective is just
different from that of an adult.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="en-DK">Christmas is of course the central event
here and what can be bigger for a nine-year old boy? Reality is... eh, a bit more
messed up and that mess is really fun to watch.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="en-DK">Curiously, “A Christmas Story” is not a staple
Christmas movie in Denmark. I do not remember ever having watched it before and
I wonder why this is. It is a Christmas movie far above the average junk we are
fed with during the holidays and I could easily believe this would be a classic
elsewhere. Whether it will become a Christmas classic in our home I am not so
certain. Both wife and son found the voice of young Ralphie truly annoying.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="en-DK"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></p><p></p>TSorensenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12208153011927807857noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2746502363551524682.post-77132858864783081372024-03-05T01:11:00.001+02:002024-03-05T01:11:12.672+02:00A Question of Silence (Stilte Rond Christine M.) (1982)<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjdpjUMhg3MwtKr7CGNI-hsGrvIuolugvb7frZMFLNtevRfuEVzWw_1p7cW90d2WCxwINoeUxQMpHASjFHNcdPVGCHQ5DWXehSCnb4n62Wt8LhV6aZF7mDL6zQP0lb9AKPWn_BW5qI7puclvoA9f7epBKmv6ukEFAGoBIWLU3XojPu1b2m5WTqP3kjfWfk/s300/A%20question%20of%20silence.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="168" data-original-width="300" height="224" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjdpjUMhg3MwtKr7CGNI-hsGrvIuolugvb7frZMFLNtevRfuEVzWw_1p7cW90d2WCxwINoeUxQMpHASjFHNcdPVGCHQ5DWXehSCnb4n62Wt8LhV6aZF7mDL6zQP0lb9AKPWn_BW5qI7puclvoA9f7epBKmv6ukEFAGoBIWLU3XojPu1b2m5WTqP3kjfWfk/w400-h224/A%20question%20of%20silence.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br /><p></p><p style="text-align: center;"><b>De stilte rond Chistiane M.</b></p><p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">“A Question
of Silence” (De stilte rond Christine M.) was a difficult movie to find, but I
am happy I did. Rare movies are often rare for a reason, and I do suppose “A Question
of Silence” is something of a fringe movie, but at least it is an interesting
one of the sort.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Janine van
den Bos (Cox Habbema) is a psychiatrist called in to assess the sanity of three
women who have committed a gruesome murder. The three women have admitted to the
murder, feel no regrets and are complete strangers to each other. Why would
they do such a thing if not insane?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">As Janine spends
time with them in prison, she slowly realizes that this is not just a murder,
but something bigger.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Christiane (Edda
Barends) is a housewife with three children, who has no other content in her
life than taking care of the children and wait on the husband who clearly sees
her as no more than that. Christiane has turned catatonic.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Andrea
(Henriette Tol) is a secretary to an executive of a large company. She is
clearly very smart and highly skilled, but management cannot see beyond her
being a secretary, although she has potential for so much more. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Annie
(Nelly Frijda) runs a diner where she must suck up to scummy men who think they
have a right to abuse women.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">On the day
of the murder, all three women are in the same clothes shop when the (male) clerk
catches Chritine stealing. As a response they kill him viciously.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">What Janine
finds out is that the clerk is unimportant, it is what he represents, the oppressive
males, that matters. The act of murder is a rebellion against the patriarchy
and something which the women see as a win, not a crime. The court, dominated
by men, fail to see that point.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">So, the big
question is, did fighting the patriarchy justify the murder, or was this a
bestial murder on an innocent man doing his job? This, I suppose is what
viewers and critics has been discussing ever since and the reason this is
considered a great feminist movie.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">There is no
doubt that the three women believe that their misery is due to men and there is
also no doubt that the men immediately around them are selfish pricks who feel
superior to the women. This includes Janine, whose husband is a conceited ass. The
premise of the movie is that this is a systemic fault and men must as a
consequence be fought, simply because they are men. If you are a militant
feminist, you may agree with that.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Personally,
I find the idea interesting, but ultimately wrong and misplaced. Or maybe I am
just too male. There is a (sadly fundamental) human trait that inclines us to
blame an outside agent for the misery in our lives rather than taking a hard
look at ourselves. Once this agent is identified, we fix it by fighting and
killing it. Then we are absolved from blame and get an outlet for our
frustration. Ruthless politicians have used that trick for centuries and it is
found right down to the school playground. To me, the cases of the three women are
no different. There are a hell of a lot more rational ways to deal with their
problems than to commit murder, but it is so nice and easy to have so simple and
cathartic solution at hand. Just ask Hamas. Or the Nazis. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">I am not
dismissing the frustration and predicament of the women and I do not blame them
for thinking men are imbecile pricks, but I dare say that many of the systemic problems
for women has improved over the years through means that did not involve
killing anybody but by women taking action to improve both their own and other
women’s conditions. As any woman would tell me, we are not there yet, but going
back to the women of the movie, I am quite certain that today, a smart girl
like Annie could get a glorious career in another company with a less narrow
board, it would be acceptable for Christiane to ditch her worthless husband and,
well, Andrea would need those bums as customers, but at least today I doubt she
would need to take such shit from them. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">I am glad conditions
and opportunities are better for women today than they were forty years ago and
I am proud of the girls who fought for it. Luckily very few men have had to die
in the process, but I guess it takes movies like this one to get there. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">“A Question
of Silence” is more interesting and thought provoking than I expected and while
I cannot follow it all the way, I was happy to have watched it.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p><br /><p></p>TSorensenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12208153011927807857noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2746502363551524682.post-77219924791751303992024-02-28T21:56:00.003+02:002024-02-28T21:56:40.905+02:00Fanny and Alexander (Fanny och Alexander) (1982)<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhNA79GGjF3UVO-Bk4ugaR9_gjZ5Qn-InRACbAlnifvVV6B6zQ6WUiJ2KrBohVRmkxacGq7icEtNIKPDAhTflfY_btV4gU2hqoOg0yLQW23gNPxRGtDsP1yBwPz-5RhRwxIBfdJ7Q72nOqONc_2jyJAkme_FnhYKwwDd_leixs68UWyA7dZwa070OMfAJE/s274/Fanny%20and%20Alexander.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="184" data-original-width="274" height="269" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhNA79GGjF3UVO-Bk4ugaR9_gjZ5Qn-InRACbAlnifvVV6B6zQ6WUiJ2KrBohVRmkxacGq7icEtNIKPDAhTflfY_btV4gU2hqoOg0yLQW23gNPxRGtDsP1yBwPz-5RhRwxIBfdJ7Q72nOqONc_2jyJAkme_FnhYKwwDd_leixs68UWyA7dZwa070OMfAJE/w400-h269/Fanny%20and%20Alexander.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br /><p></p><p style="text-align: center;"><b>Fanny og Alexander</b></p><p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">It has been
about a month since my last post and, yes, I did spend a week on a winter
escape, but mostly the wait is due to the length and pace of this, the next
movie on the List. “Fanny och Alexander” comes in a cinematic version of 188
minutes, but of course I happened to buy the miniseries version clocking in at
a whooping 312 minutes. It was a tough one to get through and it did not help
that work has been very busy. Anyway, finally done.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">It is
Christmas time 1907 in the home of the Ekdahls in Uppsala, Sweden. The Ekdahls
are wealthy, so the party takes place in their palatial home stuffed with
domestics and expensive furniture. We get the entire Christmas party in close
to real-time, I do believe it is longer than the wedding in “Deerhunter”, and
the amount of detail is incredible. I noticed that they have the almond present
and the dance through the halls to the song “Nu er det jul igen!”, both Danish
traditions, though I would not be surprised if they actually originate from
this movie. Danish television has had a long tradition of airing “Fanny och
Alexander” during Christmas and this Christmas scene is the only thing I remember
having watched before. In any case, the Christmas party serves to introduce us
to the numerous members of the Ekdahl family and show us how happy they are.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Fanny (Pernilla
Allwin) and Alexander (Bertil Guve) are the grandchildren of family matron
Helena Ekdahl (Gunn Wålgren) and children of theater director Oscar Ekdahl
(Allan Edwall) and actress Emilie Ekdahl (Ewa Fröling). In this environment
Alexander’s imagination is sincerely encouraged. Then, shortly after Christmas,
Oscar suffers a stroke and dies. Emilie tries to carry on running the theater,
but eventually she abandons it and marry the town bishop, Edvard Vergerus (Jan
Malmsjö). The bishop is a hard and religious man who believes in austerity and discipline,
a combination that goes down very poorly with the children. His regime of
punishment and degradation makes Emilie regret, but there is no way the bishop
will let go of her and the children.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">“Fanny och
Alexander”, I understand, is supposed to be, to some extent, autobiographical,
which actually makes a lot of sense when you watch it. I can see Bergman as
Alexander being born into a creative theater world and I can see how an encounter
with the bishop would mark you for life. In fact, if half of this is
autobiographical, this movie would offer a Freudian explanation for most of his
movies.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">It would
also explain some of the more illogical elements of the movie, first and
foremost why Emilie would want to marry Edvard. It does not take more than a
glimpse of the man to see this is a bad match and any lingering doubt
evaporates when he opens his mouth. Her explanation makes very little sense
unless she is a complete idiot and incredibly selfish. The only explanation
that works is… that it actually happened, which I am inclined to think.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Alexander experiences
a number of magical or spiritual moments, such as seeing ghosts or his encounters
at the home of Isak Jacobi (Erland Josephson). It is easy to see a lot into
this magic, but I prefer the simpler explanation of Bergman’s representation of
creative imagination, the vent of his inspiration, At eleven years of age
anything can become magic.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">While the
Ekdahls are clearly the good people (and privileged), the Vergerus are the bad
guys. You need go no further than the interior décor, clothing and lighting to
be convinced of that. There are no grey zones here. Christian ascetism as the source
of problems is a recuring Bergman theme. The Jewish Jacobi household has a
curios role here. As friends of the Ekdahls, they are clear members of the good
side, but as a free agent, they can operate in spaces the Ekdahls cannot, both practically
and spiritually. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">In summary,
“Fanny and Alexander” is not a bad movie, but it suffers from wanting to tell
too much. The long version I watched is easily two hours too long. Isolated,
the many details may be interesting, but they also serve to distract for the
core of the story. As narratives, the many detours are simply not interesting
enough and I get impatient and distracted. The Ekdahl brothers Gustav Adolf
(Jarl Kulle) and Carl (Börje Ahlstedt) are the comic relief as the movie’s Thomson
twins, but sadly not funny enough for that (a classic Swedish problem). <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">For me,
personally, suffering children are deeply problematic to watch and here their
suffering is drawn out for hours. In the end we see much less than we sense,
but it was still hard for me to endure.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">“Fanny och
Alexander” won four Academy Awards, but not for editing. That one was a big
fail. Cut out about three hours and we are down to something that would work.
The miniseries version I simply cannot recommend. <o:p></o:p></span></p><br /><p></p>TSorensenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12208153011927807857noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2746502363551524682.post-37356310715478466172024-01-31T23:45:00.002+02:002024-01-31T23:45:44.823+02:00The Night of the Shooting Stars (La Notte di San Lorenzo) (1982)<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhAl5wfqXwPM9DmHgICdzIOB7-uqpom2lpkBF2IaKH9I5-HAE55NHHYMPDk1Sk5EabHZu_QCoDZxRPJAu8t_Jxlktgs7N4q8RStQ17qlKpaXR0-4dgV1wSrK4gCmj_lWhv8FcfIfhgvSRwmLJEt2XMowjxMDOEoYh8YVVWlqGO7UELGvGy3dHkc6TdJbBg/s300/The%20Night%20of%20the%20Shooting%20Stars.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="168" data-original-width="300" height="224" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhAl5wfqXwPM9DmHgICdzIOB7-uqpom2lpkBF2IaKH9I5-HAE55NHHYMPDk1Sk5EabHZu_QCoDZxRPJAu8t_Jxlktgs7N4q8RStQ17qlKpaXR0-4dgV1wSrK4gCmj_lWhv8FcfIfhgvSRwmLJEt2XMowjxMDOEoYh8YVVWlqGO7UELGvGy3dHkc6TdJbBg/w400-h224/The%20Night%20of%20the%20Shooting%20Stars.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br /><p></p><p style="text-align: center;">San Lorenzo natten</p><p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">War is a
terrible thing, there are not two ways about it. For an adult it is often
difficult to comprehend. For a child, war is downright bizarre. “The Night of
the Shooting Stars” (“La Notte di San Lorenzo”) tells the story of a war seen through
the eyes of a six-year-old girl.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The movie
takes the form of a mother telling her child of a war taking place a long time
ago as she experienced it when she was a child herself. The war is the Second
World War in 1944 when the front was somewhere in Tuscany and the retreating
German army was wrecking as much destruction as they could get away with. In
the town of San Martino, the German have selected a number of houses for
demolition and told the inhabitants to seek shelter in the church. Some of the
townspeople decide to disobey the order and leave the town at night to find the
American. Those who go to the church gets blown up by the Germans. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Cecilia
(Micol Guidelli) is a six-year-old girl who has joined the exodus with her
mother (and the father, I think). We follow the group at large and meet a host
of people and what they are experiencing is both strange and traumatic. The fighting,
when it occurs, is barbaric and, in the eyes of Cecilia, often surrealist.
Friends meet, but being on different sides in the war they shoot each other
after their greetings. A bus drawn by horse are led by opera singing German
soldiers, a fascist who kills Cecilia’s grandfather is killed by Achilles spear
and so on. The Americans are never quite there, and disaster is always close if
not present. Yet, in this nightmare there are also small wonders, such as a
field of watermelons, American soldiers giving chocolate and balloon (?!) and
the elderly Concetta (Margarita Lozano) and Galvano (Omero Antonutti) find each
when they have lost everything else. It is a world that makes little sense on
any level, but especially for Cecilia.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The special
angle of the movie makes it a strange war movie. It is surreal, scattered and illogical,
but in the way war is all that. It is full of people, real people, who talk (a
lot, this is Italy), have feelings, dear ones, flaws and then suddenly die. There
is no point to who dies and who lives, nothing is really fair, it just happens,
as in the strange shoot-out in the wheat field. As we see all this from the
little girl’s viewpoint, there is a certain innocence about it, as if people
are just playing at war with each other and not really dead, yet we also see it
as adults, the cruelty and tragedy of it.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">“The Night
of the Shooting Stars” is a beautiful movie to watch. The Tuscan landscape is sundrenched,
and all colors are sharp and crisp, especially the matching dresses of Cecilia
and her mother. Most of the people are smiling, sometimes even when they kill
each other, and the wonder of things are in every image. This may be a nightmare,
but it is also a great adventure at that eye-height.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">As a viewer
those feelings are conveyed to me. I sit back with equal amount of horror and
wonder. A lot of it happens in glimpses, a lot makes little sense, not because
of surrealism, but because from the child perspective we perceive certain
highlights that the child see as important and so I often lack the context or
the knowledge of the relations between each character. The position of both being
a third person viewer and share the second person view of the girl is sometime
confusing, but it also juxtaposes elements that are wildly differently perceived
by the child and an adult.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">War is
really not for children, or for anybody, really, and what the movie seems to tell
us is that children need to create this alternate reality to cope with it. That
is both a wonder and a tragedy in its own right and while the movie does not go
all in depressive, it is easy to perceive that beneath the surface of wonder,
there is depth of mourning.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">I am still
undecided if I truly liked “The Night of Shooting Stars”. I am still a bit
dizzy from watching it and trying to take it in, split, again, between wonder
and sorrow. Then again, its success at conveying those feelings very much
speaks for the movie.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></p><p></p>TSorensenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12208153011927807857noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2746502363551524682.post-34228172962768318322024-01-26T21:35:00.003+02:002024-01-26T21:35:33.360+02:00Gandhi (1982)<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhrnYxDdBWM8xPWSiUe_wCfooWL9dZ1yNuWZQpP6B9OhrcEADbxEuEmugiIGAPbEcmT1k2qjp6x4N_YrLfhMaqxcTxGv0q6KO2Tt_CaWeOZ-tNVfXt1ZP3-4vaCpEBbWpZd3sie-ouuWMMh4teYxjOY968qYzyhF4xgKUQwhOo_CO27fddyXVZVUyxXJZU/s300/Gandhi.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="168" data-original-width="300" height="224" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhrnYxDdBWM8xPWSiUe_wCfooWL9dZ1yNuWZQpP6B9OhrcEADbxEuEmugiIGAPbEcmT1k2qjp6x4N_YrLfhMaqxcTxGv0q6KO2Tt_CaWeOZ-tNVfXt1ZP3-4vaCpEBbWpZd3sie-ouuWMMh4teYxjOY968qYzyhF4xgKUQwhOo_CO27fddyXVZVUyxXJZU/w400-h224/Gandhi.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br /><p></p><p style="text-align: center;"><b>Gandhi</b></p><p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The movie “Gandhi”
is one of those gargantuan projects that either stands as a landmark or falls pitifully
under its own weight. Fortunately, “Gandhi” manages to be of the first kind.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">“Gandhi” is,
not surprisingly, a biopic on Mahatma Gandhi and rather than, as has in later
year become popular, being<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>focused on a
single event, it tries to take in a broad sweep, covering five decades, from
Gandhi’s time in South Africa in the 1890’ies to his assassination in 1948. It
is also, which is more astonishing, not preoccupied with Gandhi’s personal life
but focusses on what he did as a public person. It stands as proof that the
remarkable things people did are interesting enough in itself and does not need
support from trivial personal details. Watch and learn, producers of “Maestro”.
This does not mean that we do not get close to Gandhi, we do, but in small details,
integrated into the larger picture.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">In South
Africa, Gandhi was shocked to find racism being flaunted as blatantly as it
was. As an Indian he was a second-rate person to the white overlords. He got
the Indian community involved in a non-violent campaign for emancipation that
came to include other ethnic groups as well. He was thrown in prison repeatedly
and his supporters were physically assaulted and yet he prevailed and got a
number of demeaning laws withdrawn. In South Africa he developed the doctrine
of non-violent protest as well as his pastoral and ascetic outlook on life.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Based on his
success in South Africa he was invited to return to India to assist in the independence
movement there. Already on arrival he was seen as a hero, but his preference for
going out to see for himself and walk among people rather than work party politics
endeared him to the public, and the independence movement leaders first learned
to respect him and then to love him. Indeed, in the course of his activities in
India it is not wrong to call him the father of India, or, maybe better, the
guru of India.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">All this
sounds like the story of the real person Gandhi and, indeed, I do not know the
difference. The movie’s very clear objective is to tell the story of Mahatma
Gandhi and gives the impression of telling the objective truth. One should always
be suspicious of that, but I am not in a position to tell the real and the
fictious Gandhi apart. I suppose it speaks to the credit of the movie that it
feels real.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">It truly is
an amazing story and even covering the highlights of it requires a long movie,
but, surprisingly, “Gandhi” never overstays its welcome. It stays long enough
on each episode to round it off and never falls into the trap of repetition,
even if Gandhi with remarkable consistency follows the same policy that he
developed in South Africa. It is difficult not to feel anger at the wanton
cruelty of the British in both South Africa and in India, the massacre of
Amritsar was particularly difficult to watch, but even the British are not portrayed
with utter contempt. Rather, they seem bemused or even confused at what they
are facing in Gandhi. So am I, actually, as a viewer. My cynical common sense
tells me that Gandhi’s nonviolence and non-corporation and especially his inclusiveness
should be all too easy to trample and pick apart, yet it works against the
British.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">So much
more sad is it that it did not work against the religious tension among the Indians
themselves. Against that sort of madness even Gandhi fights in vain.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">“Gandhi”
features a remarkable roster of actors and actresses. Foremost Ben Kingsley in the
role of his life. I think for my generation, Mahatma Gandhi simply looks like
Ben Kingsley. In supporting roles, we have everything British and Indian cinema
could field at the time plus a few Hollywood A-listers. I even saw Daniel
Day-Lewis far down on the list. The Indian top leaders were really remarkably
portrayed. Roshan Seth, Saeed Jaffrey and Alyque Padamsee really look like the
real Nehru, Patel and Jinnah.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">“Gandi” cleaned
the table at the Academy Awards, taking eight statues, including three of the
big ones. Gandhi is an extremely ambitious movie, like Gandhi’s politics by all
rights it should not work, but it does, it flies. Highly recommended.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></p><p></p>TSorensenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12208153011927807857noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2746502363551524682.post-28825386807592351582024-01-14T18:18:00.001+02:002024-01-14T18:18:22.673+02:00Fitzcarraldo (1982)<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgnor_18_yuh8lOe3l7pjB2npKjF5JOgJ7URTqLbk9cXX_Ypt4n4zaXMyYd_yn2-1qq6VYXYmvepzRU39XOKgr4O80TNB63Pc3JU3skDgVp7CRz2CWMHN_9bqir2wHFgn_JDPRlkW1I9b5rucasDiopBo9rCQT1cyDzKyiho3z0OGzEsw_YwdFwq2hz5kU/s299/Fitzcarraldo.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="168" data-original-width="299" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgnor_18_yuh8lOe3l7pjB2npKjF5JOgJ7URTqLbk9cXX_Ypt4n4zaXMyYd_yn2-1qq6VYXYmvepzRU39XOKgr4O80TNB63Pc3JU3skDgVp7CRz2CWMHN_9bqir2wHFgn_JDPRlkW1I9b5rucasDiopBo9rCQT1cyDzKyiho3z0OGzEsw_YwdFwq2hz5kU/w400-h225/Fitzcarraldo.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br /><p></p><p style="text-align: center;"><b>Fitzcarraldo</b></p><p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">In Greek mythology
Sisyphus was condemned to roll a stone up a mountain. Every time he reached the
top, the stone would roll down and he could start all over. “Fitzcarraldo” is a
slightly more modern take on that story.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Fitzcarraldo
is a corruption of Brian Fitzgerald, an Irish adventurer in the early twentieth
century, played by Klaus Kinski, who has big ideas, but less good luck on
carrying them out. His project of a trans-Andean railway went bust and his idea
of bringing opera to the frontier town of Iquitos is not going too well either.
His latest idea is to buy a lease to a plot for rubber plantations that nobody
else wants. The problem with this plot is that it is inaccessible. The rapids
on the river means that it is impossible to sail upstream to the plot. Fitzgerald,
however, has a plan. It turns out that another, accessible, river is very close
to the inaccessible one a bit upstream from the plot, so Fitzgerald wants to
sail a steamer up this river, then drag it over the isthmus and sail down to
the plot. The steamer will traffic this river, rubber will be sent back across
the isthmus and shipped down to Iquitos. Fitzgerald, who is broke himself, gets
his girlfriend, the brothel manager Molly (Claudio Caridinale), to put down
money for the plot and the steamer, and he now has a short time to prove that
the lease is feasible. Major drawback: The accessible river is controlled by a
hostile indigenous tribe. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">As the boat
approaches the Indians, the crew flee the boat, leaving Fitzgerald, the captain
Resenbrink (Paul Hittscher), the machinist and the cook alone on the boat. When
the Indians surround the ship, they are trapped. This is where Fitzgerald
decide to gamble everything on a myth of the tribe about a white god who is
supposed to bring the tribe salvation. It seems to work and through an enormous
(and rather dangerous) effort by the Indian, the boat is dragged over a hill
onto the other river.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">----SPOILER----<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Sleeping
off the celebration hangover Fitzgerald wakes up as the boat is speeding down
the rapids, getting beaten up in the process. Turns out the Indians totally
bought into the myth, but slightly differently from Fitzgerald’s intention. The
white boat had to be carried across and sent down into the rapids. Only then
will the gods be appeased. The operation was a huge success for the Indians,
but Fitzgerald is back exactly where he started, like Sisyphus.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">---END OF
SPOILER---<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">From the
point of view that the ingenious people win out against the white man, I
suppose this is an interesting and successful movie. The problem is just that
we, the audience, are so invested in Fitzgerald and his huge undertaking that his
failure feels devastating. He may just be back at square zero, but that is also
a pitiful result given the effort. The strange opera ending, which I did not
entirely understand, feels like a patched on happy end. There really is nothing
to celebrate for Fitzgerald. That in itself makes this a painful watch.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">I also must
say I did not entirely understand his plan. It would be a lot easier to use
small boats on the inaccessible river and the steamer on the good river. Then
there would be no reason to drag the boat across. That of course removes the
entire premise of the movie, but I just find the reasoning too week.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Then there
is the character of Fitzgerald himself. He is hyperactive to the extent that
today he would get a diagnose. It is a difficult character to love, and Kinski
is not making that easier. This is a manic character played by a manic actor.
Something that apparently caused a few problems on the set. According to
Herzog, the Indians used as extras offered to kill Kinski for Herzog. He
politely declined.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Technically,
however, this movie is a monumental feat. The pictures from the Amazon are
stunning and the project of moving the ship is both as a document and an actual
effort without comparison. You must see it to believe it. Unfortunately, the
sound side cannot match the pictures. My disc has no subtitles, so it was a
choice between German and English spoken language. That means that everybody
except the indigenous people speak that language, dubbed in the studio. The
English version sounds incredibly fake. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">“Fitzcarraldo”
is in my personal opinion more interesting and impressive than actually good. I
found it difficult to keep my interest and attention on the movie until the
last act, and while that act is absolutely spectacular, I am not certain it can
carry the entire movie. For this reason, I am hesitant to recommend “Fitzcarraldo”.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p><p></p>TSorensenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12208153011927807857noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2746502363551524682.post-87863218165008581662024-01-03T21:23:00.001+02:002024-01-03T21:23:05.733+02:00Diner (1982)<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiy2aGlhZyAzwIJIZ3a0zFZ0eJNvvRmxSJZyw1RVfLly99K3YgW1zA5hEjKTcFX4xRystFdBrEhQE2ALVdNZp4v9utELhz1vo-6gqcf-j3MoXzTY1tP08gMillUb8gf8CRxC3hdBxWkDxkpD0vDdCesYTEx1E17ckF4fxV9TIdK2vXCDHt9xyuEOQmg_vo/s274/Diner.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="184" data-original-width="274" height="269" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiy2aGlhZyAzwIJIZ3a0zFZ0eJNvvRmxSJZyw1RVfLly99K3YgW1zA5hEjKTcFX4xRystFdBrEhQE2ALVdNZp4v9utELhz1vo-6gqcf-j3MoXzTY1tP08gMillUb8gf8CRxC3hdBxWkDxkpD0vDdCesYTEx1E17ckF4fxV9TIdK2vXCDHt9xyuEOQmg_vo/w400-h269/Diner.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br /><p></p><p style="text-align: center;"><b>Diner</b></p><p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">It is
entirely fitting that the first movie I review in 2024 is taking place during
the last week of the year (of 1959), culminating on New Year’s Eve.
Fortunately, I had better things to do New Year’s Eve than watching movies (it
was a good party!), but watching this on New Year's day is not so bad either.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">“Diner” is
about a group of young men in their early twenties who struggle with growing
up. They are clearly childhood friends and use the local diner as their hangout
and this is indeed where a large part of the movie takes place. The movie is
famous for the banter between these young men and true enough, their talk about,
well, anything and nothing, takes up a substantial amount of screen time.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Eddie
(Steve Guttenberg) is going to get married (to Elyse, a woman we never see the
face of). He is an American football fan and has devised a quiz on football
that Elyse must pass, otherwise the wedding is off. Eddie is clearly nervous
about the wedding and reveals late in the movie that he is a virgin. Shrevie
(Daniel Stern) is already married, but is clinging on to his interests, music
and his friends, alienating his wife Beth (Ellen Barkin) in the process. Boogie
(Mickey Rourke) is a hairdresser by day and study law at night, mostly as a
pick-up for girls. He also has a gambling problem, trying to get easy money and
easy girls. Fenwick (Kevin Bacon) is the rich kid who has no idea what he wants
with his life and is busy blowing it away with alcohol and irresponsible stunts.
Billy (Tim Daly) is back from New York to serve as best man. The love of his
life, Barbara (Kathryn Dowling), works at the local TV station. She is pregnant
but not really interested in a relationship with Billy. And Modell (Paul
Reiser) is just tagging on.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">All of the
young men claim a careless existence, but they all carry a concern or issue
related to growing up. Their irresponsible pranks and their banter all seem
like them desperately trying to avoid becoming adults and entering that next
phase of their lives. This is symbolized by the change of decade and all the
other changes happening at the time, from music over women’s rights to
different expectations to them as adults. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Coming of
age movies are common and whether as group or individuals, in comedies it is
usually about sex. This one is slightly more mature in that these people have
to assume a responsibility that is honestly long overdue. They do not realize
it themselves, but they are scared of the future and use each other’s company
to cling on to an adolescence they have already passed. They are under pressure
from society conventions to move on and while that is also about to change,
they are just a bit ahead of the curve for that. A decade or two later, adolescence
could easily stretch a decade or two longer, but not in 1959.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">In this
sense, it is a bittersweet comedy. The banter and the pranks are fun at face
value, but the desperate irresponsibility is also sad and painful, and I could
not help wanting to kick them in the right direction. Not necessarily to get
married and have children, but to assume responsibility for their own life. All
of them really. It does not matter if it is Shrevie, insisting his records are
more important than his wife or Fenwick drinking himself senseless. Shrevie is
a nice guy really, he does love his wife, and Fenwick is actually smart, a lot
smarter than he lets on. Why waste all this for a careless life?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">I found the
movie hard to get into. The thing these guys have together seemed like a very
closed thing. Their banter is along lines only they really get and as an
outsider I am not invited. Only gradually are we invited inside when the movie
moves beyond the banter, and they become real people. Still, even to the end I
had some difficulty telling Shrevie, Billy and Modell from each other. It does
not help that irresponsible stunts work very poorly with me. Fenwick faking a
car accident is just not funny to me. However, as their careless surface breaks
up and we see their vulnerability, the comedy also gets funnier. Perhaps the
characters simply become more likable, and the movie won me over in the end.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">“Diner” is
also interesting in having so many actors in the early part or what became illustrious
careers. Practically all these guys went on to become A-listers.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">“Diner” is
a rare intelligent comedy. It works because it is not stupid and does not
sacrifice itself to silly gags. It may not be as funny as it is made up to be,
but it works and that counts. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p><br /><p></p>TSorensenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12208153011927807857noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2746502363551524682.post-73777557328705838142023-12-31T13:53:00.001+02:002023-12-31T13:53:07.217+02:00Happy New Year 2024<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgHUCA6lbx1U-1MwyPNxVxK35OLsLddOAuI9LEOXC9ZxyGxDTEMRHAoEtYoQNhqS-C71ZwDLPc1057rMr0vCwJCC74r9wNpoi-9M86ckC1hy7cbLiywjiKCze61Lsxxi_2M01vpIJeTw9YLu1c_BqpQ9GBoFjvX3C4d-q11QMFICqziPt20YcaYj5Flt6Q/s300/2024.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="168" data-original-width="300" height="224" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgHUCA6lbx1U-1MwyPNxVxK35OLsLddOAuI9LEOXC9ZxyGxDTEMRHAoEtYoQNhqS-C71ZwDLPc1057rMr0vCwJCC74r9wNpoi-9M86ckC1hy7cbLiywjiKCze61Lsxxi_2M01vpIJeTw9YLu1c_BqpQ9GBoFjvX3C4d-q11QMFICqziPt20YcaYj5Flt6Q/w400-h224/2024.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br /><p></p><p style="text-align: center;"><b>Happy New Year 2024</b></p><p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">It is New
Year’s Eve again. I would have loved to have been able to say that the past was
a great year, but, alas, it was not. Personally, I am doing alright, life
carries on as it usually does, but the world looks bleaker than it has done for
quite some time. It is no secret that my six years living in Israel make me
take special interest in what happens there, but although it is hard not to, I try
to keep politics out of the blog. Cannot say I am always successful at that, after
all, my blog is my window to say what I want, but I want this to be about
movies and books and not about politics. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">This year
was also the craziest weather I ever experienced, and I think most of us know
what that means for the future. Let me just say that I have never felt this
good about working in renewables. To actually be able to make a difference on
something this important is special. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">I could
list up a lot of terrible things going on, but today is supposed to be a
celebration, a good riddance to the old year and the best of hopes for the
coming year. I do sincerely hope there will be good things in store for us all.
If there is one particular wish for the new year from me, it is responsibility.
That people, high and low, governments and organizations, take on
responsibility themselves instead of blaming everybody else. Half the problems
in the world could be solved if everybody took a hard look at themselves rather
than blaming somebody else for their misery.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Anyway,
during 2023 I watched and reviewed 62 movies, which is more than I have done in
a while. 12 of these were off-List movies, leaving 50 movies on the List. I
went from 1978 to 1982 and I am now well into what I consider the golden era of
cinema: the eighties. The past two months I have been through a streak of
classics that would please me any day and although I am looking into a series
of more mundane movies, there are lost of highlights to look forward to.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">On my book
blog I have done 9 titles this year, which I consider an acceptable achievement,
considering my target is just five books per year. I have gone through the
period 1811 to 1822, a period known for romanticism and the post Napoleonic
years. Jane Austen was a wonderful acquaintance and I really liked E.T.A.
Hoffmann’s book about his cat. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">I wish
everybody a happy new year and all the best for the time ahead. May 2024
finally be a good year.<o:p></o:p></span></p><br /><p></p>TSorensenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12208153011927807857noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2746502363551524682.post-28982003657831308632023-12-28T23:01:00.003+02:002023-12-28T23:01:55.841+02:00Yol (1982)<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgYPDzQrWWn3Y6KGp4sYoA3CvP5_vtt5TC0ArbB2pkc-kLuExTNiivPXI6SbgkIIjU5JgDZu81aigr6iRcw7nTC5zR-0_oJDsHvoD2R3I38z4plVy7KwMYBpk934EiTXmn92bSK7Bqu1MoM6QTQm-2Oj87xz4mVfeiv7iaZmiZz21Felxsh8mAAmhYVh1s/s361/Yol.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="139" data-original-width="361" height="154" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgYPDzQrWWn3Y6KGp4sYoA3CvP5_vtt5TC0ArbB2pkc-kLuExTNiivPXI6SbgkIIjU5JgDZu81aigr6iRcw7nTC5zR-0_oJDsHvoD2R3I38z4plVy7KwMYBpk934EiTXmn92bSK7Bqu1MoM6QTQm-2Oj87xz4mVfeiv7iaZmiZz21Felxsh8mAAmhYVh1s/w400-h154/Yol.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br /><p></p><p style="text-align: center;"><b>Yol</b></p><p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">When I
popped in the “Yol” DVD, I learned that my copy had only French subtitles. I
also quickly learned that my French is not really that good and even though it
is better than my non-existent Turkish, it had a massive detrimental effect on
my experience watching this movie. It is likely a lot better than what I got
out of it and the fault is on me, so my apologies up front. Luckily there is a
decent summary of the plot on Wikipedia without which I would have been
entirely lost.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">“Yol” takes
place in contemporary Turkey. A group of prisoners get a much longed for leave
to return to their families and we follow a handful of them. I am not entirely
certain of the names so I will try to leave that out. One does not get far. At
a checkpoint, he cannot find his papers, so back he goes. Another one travels
through the snow to get home, only to find that his wife is held prisoner because
she has dishonored the family (prostitution?). The guy is supposed to kill her
and seems intend on leaving her to die in the freezing cold, but changes his
mind when it is already too late and so she dies. A third is really bad friends
with the in-laws but gets away with his wife. Just as they seem safe, they are
hit by a double whopper: an angry mob want to lynch them for having sex on the
train toilet (presumably this is a crime against morality, though I would rather
say it is a crime against hygiene. That toilet is really disgusting) and they
get shot by one of the in-laws. Yeah, very bad friends. A fourth returns to his
Kurdish village only to drop down into a civil war affair. The village is under
siege by government forces and his brother is killed. Tradition dictates that he
then marries the widow and leave this girlfriend with a long nose. Presumably
there is a fifth guy, but I somehow missed that. Or got him mixed up with the
others.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Obviously,
this is a political movie, raging against the political system in Turkey at the
time. I sense it to be just as much a cultural critique as most of these men
are in trouble, not so much because of the regime but because of cultural
dictates of honor and tradition. For anybody with even peripheral experience
with the Middle East, such problems should not be a surprise, although from a
western perspective they feel medieval and heartless. Such a critique is a lot
more difficult to swallow for those being criticized so I guess calling it a
regime critique makes it more palatable. Then it is not the fault of the people
but the fault of the elite, and who does not despise the elite?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Reading
about the movie, I learned that the actual making of the movie was quite an
adventure in its own right as the director was imprisoned during filming and
escaped and fled to Switzerland and edited it from there. All direction was
done through written instruction. That is a story I would like to watch!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">There is no
doubt the filming and acting is of high quality. It looks very naturalistic. As
I could not get much out of the dialogue I instead focused on the images, and
they were stunning. Stunning and very depressive. The sense of dirt and smell
and poverty is all around. Poor houses, insufficient cloth, noisy and dangerous
traffic, it is hard to imagine this is a country on the doorstep of Europe
forty years ago. There were only two uplifting elements: The smiles on children’s
faces, always a blessing, and the pictures of wonderful food. No matter how
poor these people seem to be, the dinners, even casual snacks, look like feasts.
I am familiar with Middle Eastern food and what these people were eating is
everything I love about it.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">It is
obviously a clear miss that I got very little out of the narrative and that the
script was largely wasted on me. Obviously, I ought to find a copy with
subtitles I can actually understand and for that reason I would have to wait
with my recommendation until then.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p><p></p>TSorensenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12208153011927807857noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2746502363551524682.post-42516127807895676642023-12-20T21:29:00.003+02:002023-12-20T21:29:42.304+02:00Tron (1982)<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgicMxL5G347V5QOHz85ACQEaf2ULD7bQsHyg5OJyGkU9_U_Vv1Gyn8EpofNlRrTsym8IMKWYgQ7Z3iCFQWAp1EQ7WyUOqVFZaw2NvNKzgNXGSGvFOMA1qPj7QSkb2Kz_5rF8Qh1tfAsAApflV_LxpnoWWKa2Aeb7o9uKCmfZrbYsrfp7JpVb1Ye-pca80/s332/Tron.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="152" data-original-width="332" height="184" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgicMxL5G347V5QOHz85ACQEaf2ULD7bQsHyg5OJyGkU9_U_Vv1Gyn8EpofNlRrTsym8IMKWYgQ7Z3iCFQWAp1EQ7WyUOqVFZaw2NvNKzgNXGSGvFOMA1qPj7QSkb2Kz_5rF8Qh1tfAsAApflV_LxpnoWWKa2Aeb7o9uKCmfZrbYsrfp7JpVb1Ye-pca80/w400-h184/Tron.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br /><p></p><p style="text-align: center;"><b>Off-List: Tron</b></p><p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The third
off-List movie of 1982 is “Tron”. “Tron” is one of my son’s favorite movies, both
the original and the sequel, and he has watched it countless times. Thus, he
was invited for last night's rewatch, or was it him inviting me? hmmm…<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Kevin Flynn
(Jeff Bridges), usually known just as Flynn, is a programmer who got expelled
from the Encom corporation and now runs a gaming arcade. He is keen to access
the Encom computers to find evidence that the CEO Ed Dillinger (David Warner)
stole his software (some games) and used it to power his career. Flynn is visited
by his friends and current Encom employees Lora Baines (Cindy Morgan) and Alan
Bradley (Bruce Boxleitner) who warns Flynn that Ed is on to him, and that
people are getting locked out of the system. They agree to let Flynn into the building
so he can gain access. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">It turns
out that the Encom computer system has been taken over by a program called the
Master Control Program (MCP). It has even locked out Ed and is now bent on world
domination. When Flynn tries to access the system, MCP retaliates by using an
experimental laser to dissolve and digitize Flynn and he thus becomes another
program inside the strange computer world.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">This is a
really weird world built on vector graphics where programs are personified through
avatars. Blue ones are free, red ones are controlled by the MCP. Flynn is the
only “user” on the system and meet with Tron and Yori, avatars of Alan and
Lora. Together they venture on an odyssey through the grid to fight the MCP.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The basic
story of “Tron” is fairly simple. It is essentially “Star Wars” inside a
computer world. Or “The Lord of the Rings” (The lord of the disks?). That story
is classic and not super interesting. What is interesting is the world building
going on here. In my youth cyberpunk was a big thing (not certain if it still
is) where the idea was that inside the computer network, you can be an avatar
venturing around to meet and fight programs personified as other avatars. “Neuromancer”
comes to mind as a classic book in this genre. This entire concept comes from “Tron”.
In this sort of world, you are not planting code or searching libraries, you
are analoging it and fire guns and drive imaginary bikes. Today reality has sort
of caught up and you can play games in virtual worlds and with a VR headset,
pretty much get the “Tron” experience, but it is still different because the “Tron”
world is not a program, it is more like a network operative system hosting
programs. “Tron” is the internet before that was even a word. This is where it
slowly dawns on you how far ahead of the time “Tron” was.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">It is easy
to forget though. As a twenty first century viewer, the visuals are clunky and
primitive. Everything consists of straight lines and simple graphics. The
avatars are filmed in black and white and then (hand) colored. The result is…
weird. But then, again, go back to 1982 and we are ages before CGI. There was
never any movie before “Tron” that used computer generated images to even close
to the extent it was used in this movie. This is an age where the household
computers would have been an Apple II or, if you were really ahead of the
curve, the newly released Commodore 64. What “Tron” did, stretched processing
capacity to the extreme and according to “Tron” lore set limitation on the
actual design. To complicated designs simply could not render.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">These two
elements, the conceptualization of cyberspace and the pioneering work in CGI are
the cornerstone contributions of “Tron” and reason enough to watch it. It does
help that it also has that classic eighties vibe that feels so familiar for
fans of eighties movies (like me). The optimism, the endless possibilities, the
jargon. In many ways, this picks up on so many eighties themes that it is
absolutely worth watching, also beyond the special contributions. Of course,
there is no harm in having Jeff Bridges being the lead, he rarely does a poor
job, and he does bring charm and humanity to something which could easily
become too flat and mechanical. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">“Tron” is a
nostalgic trip back to the eighties, pleasant and easy, but also super
important for its contribution to popular culture and CGI. That is really
enough to recommend it. Lots of recommendations from my son too.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">If you are
in the wind industry MCP means something entirely different…<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p><p></p>TSorensenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12208153011927807857noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2746502363551524682.post-77114908411346968782023-12-15T23:16:00.001+02:002023-12-15T23:16:12.475+02:00Tootsie (1982)<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgTYwjJdZqMU_y2knj1dLAAOZd52BaSmye2WUX1Vejq4sU-FJD1NSuUC3Gg-U5PIbbFuxikALjoPoa8csh2n-IkqMVYNBQVZkGBpL03At63VOqjQBs6GCFWJrnKJpciMO8Y2ZBVxWLcNJ2mNeGf0RKDiK7L6TiCPs6mYk6AuqAUucSXQegO0jVmDaJWZ3Y/s279/Tootsie.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="180" data-original-width="279" height="258" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgTYwjJdZqMU_y2knj1dLAAOZd52BaSmye2WUX1Vejq4sU-FJD1NSuUC3Gg-U5PIbbFuxikALjoPoa8csh2n-IkqMVYNBQVZkGBpL03At63VOqjQBs6GCFWJrnKJpciMO8Y2ZBVxWLcNJ2mNeGf0RKDiK7L6TiCPs6mYk6AuqAUucSXQegO0jVmDaJWZ3Y/w400-h258/Tootsie.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br /><p></p><p style="text-align: center;"><b>Tootsie</b></p><p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The good
streak of great 1982 movies continues with “Tootsie”, a romantic comedy from a
time where it was possible to make them intelligent and fun, dramatic and
sweet, all at the same time.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Dustin
Hoffman is an actor, Michael Dorsey, out of work. He has got a, well earned,
reputation for being difficult to work with and his opportunities have dried
up. It takes his agent, George Fields (Sydney Pollack, who also directed the
movie), great effort to get this through to him. Even playing a tomato he
cannot do without arguing with the director.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Dorsey
lives together with aspiring (but way too unconventional) scriptwriter, Jeff (Bill
Murray), and sees a lot of, usually unemployed, actor friends. One of them,
Sandy (Teri Garr) is trying to get a role in a soap opera but is refused for
not being stern enough. In desperation, Michael dresses up as a woman to try
his luck at the audition… and gets the part.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Now follows
a strange and increasingly complicated double life where Michael Dorsey juggles
a romantic relationship with Sandy, another with fellow cast member, Julie (Jessica
Lange), and a third with Julie’s father, Les (Charles Durning) while
successfully becoming a star on the soap as Dorothy Michaels. In her character,
Michael is asserting against the director and the male cast and that wins over
the viewers, especially the female ones, and Dorothy Michaels becomes an icon. The
only ones in on the scam are Jeff and George and both are really worried.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">“Tootsie”
has at least three themes going. The most obvious is the gender switch, which
is also the source of most of the comedy. It is seriously hilarious, probably
the funniest gender switch role since “Some like it hot”, but it also tries to
drive some points on how it is for a man to experience what it is like to be a
woman in a male dominated world. This is way before MeeToo and the men in the
business have no restraint.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The second
theme is the romantic element. It is of course closely linked to the first and
is what makes it a romantic comedy. Michael as Dorothy is admonishing exactly
the treatment, he himself is subjecting Sandy to. Which is both funny and terribly
sad. Or would have been if Teri Garr had not been insanely funny in her own
right. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The third
element is the surprise and may at first feel like a clash, but I think is what
makes the whole thing work. This is a social-realistic element of unemployment
and the humiliation the actors must go though to make ends meet. This could
easily have been rather hypocritical, considering all these suffering actors are
played by A-list actors, but there is a serious tone here, so familiar from the
seventies and early eighties social-realist TV, that we buy it. As Michael says:
“I don’t believe in Hell. I believe in unemployment, but I do not believe in Hell.”
Getting a job, any job, is serious business for these people. This could easily
be a party killer, but it benefits the movie in two ways. It provides the
motive for Michael to do what he does and it works as a frame for the hilarity.
Funny stuff is only funny if played against something serious. The Marx Brothers
were only that funny because they played up against Margaret Dumont and “Tootsie”
is only as fun as it is because of its recognizable reality. Something modern
comedies, especially romantic comedies, have largely forgotten.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">“Tootsie”
is a feast of great performances. Dustin Hofman is very convincing, both in his
serious parts and in the comedic ones. His usually hyped persona fits brilliantly
for the role. Bill Murray is unusually subdued and it is Sydney Pollack’s
achievement that he prevents him from stealing the scenes. He is funny, but
restrained, just firing off his usual VERY dry jokes. The real star for me though
is Teri Garr. She is actually stealing her scenes and a lot of the comedy is
due to her. For a supporting actress she has a mighty impact on the movie and
had I not watched this movie (multiple times) before, I would have rooted for
her. She is a far more amusing character than Julie.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">“Tootsie”
is a favorite of mine. It is one of the best gender switch comedies ever and
one I do not get tired of watching. It avoids getting moralizing, but also
evades the silliness swamp of the opposite ditch. Keeping that balance is a
major achievement of this movie.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Favourite
scene: Les and Van Horn (George Gaynes) realizing Dorothy is a man. Priceless.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Very highly
recommended.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></p><p></p>TSorensenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12208153011927807857noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2746502363551524682.post-1531357076778580402023-12-10T12:44:00.003+02:002023-12-10T12:44:49.594+02:00The Evil Dead (1982)<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjyNsixb07JRSMNMOagoemrJcMXbwMDI0ILbhqfCp7l2_p-7RnOEfZ2kaSJcbLXGNY_WcwI-BAvV90tmIiLUWqhINx4rS66MpZ7fMb0C1dCO2SIfNbapJief1KCNRSh23CWTRZp2ttzoaxmuVCuCZAPH2hBiGMoSjySiCGBzcCSzhrcGm7WNYzlJCPmI88/s300/The%20Evil%20Dead.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="168" data-original-width="300" height="224" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjyNsixb07JRSMNMOagoemrJcMXbwMDI0ILbhqfCp7l2_p-7RnOEfZ2kaSJcbLXGNY_WcwI-BAvV90tmIiLUWqhINx4rS66MpZ7fMb0C1dCO2SIfNbapJief1KCNRSh23CWTRZp2ttzoaxmuVCuCZAPH2hBiGMoSjySiCGBzcCSzhrcGm7WNYzlJCPmI88/w400-h224/The%20Evil%20Dead.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br /><p></p><p style="text-align: center;"><b>The Evil Dead</b></p><p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">“The Evil
Dead” franchise is one of the most iconic horror franchises in existence. Even
I am familiar with it and horror is not really my jam. At campus we would watch
the movies a lot, though mostly the second and third installment while the
first one generally went under the radar. Certainly, watching it now, I realize
I have only ever watched extracts from it. We tended to prefer the third Evil
Dead movie because of its slapstick elements and while that is certainly an
element in the first movie as well, it is less of a thing. What is very visible
is that “The Evil Dead” was made on a marginal budget compared to the later
movies.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Five young
people are vacationing in a cabin deep in a forest in rural Tennessee. It is
clear, to us at least, that something is wrong right from the beginning. There
is a strange entity swooshing through the forest, represented by a point-of-view
camera sailing through the forest with an ominous low frequency rumble. The youngsters
are happily ignorant though, but that is soon going to end. In the basement
they find a strange looking book and a tape recorder, telling them that the
book is an ancient Sumerian book-of-death and that a certain incantation will
bring on evil demons. Somehow the tape actually makes the incantations.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Cheryl (Ellen
Sandweiss) is the first victim. When she goes into forest to find out what is
calling her, she is captured by the trees in what might best be described as a
bizarre rape scene. Desperate now to leave, she and Ash (Bruce Campbell) find
out the bridge is trashed. They are trapped. Cheryl now becomes possessed and
changes her appearance for the worse, so they trap her in the basement. The
other girls, Shelly (Theresa Tilly), the girlfriend of Scott (Richard
DeManincor), and Linda (Betsy Baker), girlfriend of Ash, fall in rapid
succession, while Scott in an attempt to get out gets so badly mangled by the forest
that soon he too becomes possessed. Eventually, Ash is alone, trying to fight
off his former friends who just refuse to die and stay dead.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">In this
sense, “The Evil Dead” is similar to the sequels. Ultimately, this is Bruce
Campbell as Ash fighting off a horde of zombies and demons in a wild and gory
ride. The setting owes a lot to “Night of the Living Dead” (1968), with an
isolated house under siege by zombies, and the possessed truly look and act
like those zombies, though without the sluggishness. The difference is that the
possessed are already in the cabin and it is a single guy trying to hold them
off while being attacked from all sides. So, it is still an under-siege movie, the
siege is just personal rather than the place.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Of course,
in this genre it is all about the jump scares and the goriness. On the first
account, “The Evil Dead” does very well, but I am also a very easy target. The
second is not as convincing. It is clear that it really wants this to be a
point and the demon possessed do look freaky. Some of the violence is also gory
to the point of the nauseous, but there is a point where the play-doh animation
takes over when it loses all credibility and just look amateurish. My guess is
that it was this more than anything that encouraged a sequel with actual
funding. “The Thing” was a good example of what was technically possible at the
time. Combine that with the talent and enthusiasm of Sam Raimi’s team and this
would be awesome (and so it was!).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Despite the
flaws in production value, “The Evil Dead” works very well and it founded not just
a very successful franchise, but also a horde of movies heavily inspired by it.
The haunted cabin in the woods is now a movie trope and Peter Jackson started
out making movies made to resemble “The Evil Dead” long before “Lords of the
Rings”. I only felt a little disappointed that Ash would not wield his famous
chainsaw, but that of course is only in the sequel.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">“The Evil
Dead” is extremely famous and rightfully so. As a movie to watch I do prefer
the sequel, but then again, I have a history there. You get really far on enthusiasm,
but sometimes a bit of funding does the trick. Still, this is a recommendation
from me.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p><br /><p></p>TSorensenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12208153011927807857noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2746502363551524682.post-32282860606847620382023-12-03T20:46:00.000+02:002023-12-03T20:46:04.275+02:0048 Hrs. (1982)<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjDSfTR60VFZvlsbOAex2NOahmbFat4ZEOuhI4ubseH4WOH_j4zBQ68zGlS9xfNkvOUic_s7TZ7vb7rUxLvVK3HO_INknx7mtOpypdib9DZDl3oD471BeKH2nQ2jeWypiqeOEyjOKnA-n8WyRd3gitLoLWoLP_NLkc7Se460d1Rdbn56l76onF3ZEoN3RI/s276/48%20Hrs.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="183" data-original-width="276" height="265" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjDSfTR60VFZvlsbOAex2NOahmbFat4ZEOuhI4ubseH4WOH_j4zBQ68zGlS9xfNkvOUic_s7TZ7vb7rUxLvVK3HO_INknx7mtOpypdib9DZDl3oD471BeKH2nQ2jeWypiqeOEyjOKnA-n8WyRd3gitLoLWoLP_NLkc7Se460d1Rdbn56l76onF3ZEoN3RI/w400-h265/48%20Hrs.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br /><p></p><p style="text-align: center;"><b>Off-List: 48 timer</b></p><p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The second
off-List movie of 1982 is “48 Hrs.”. This is one of those movies I would have watched
quite a few times back in the eighties, but probably not since, so finding it
on the list of eligible 1982 movies, I thought it was time to revisit it. Also,
Eddie Murphy had quite a streak in the eighties and those movies are generally
worth watching.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Jack Cates
(Nick Nolte) is a police inspector in San Francisco who, somewhat
coincidentally gets involved in a shootout between escaped convict Albert Gantz
(James Remar) and Billy Bear (Sonny Landham) and two of Cates’ colleagues. Both
policemen are killed and now Cates wants to hunt them down. To help him Cates
seek out Ganz former partner Reggie Hammond (Eddie Murphy) who has six months
left of a three-year sentence. Turns out Hammond is more than willing to get
Ganz busted.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Cates and Hammond
are a very unlikely duo. There is very little sympathy between them and absolutely
no trust. A fist fight and a number of near misses with Bear and Ganz change
that to a grudging respect as they both prove very resourceful.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">“48 Hrs.”
is considered the founder of the buddy-cop genre, a genre that became immensely
successful throughout the eighties and nineties. At least quantitatively if not
qualitatively. It created a format that has been copied and imitated ad
infinitum. You would have a white and a black guy, a wild one and a lawful one,
a screaming police chief (preferably black) and a case that is about to explode
and probably does. If the policemen do not lose the badge it is a close call.
The duo will intensely dislike each other, but through the dangers of the case
they will learn to trust and respect each other. Did I forget anything? Oh,
there will always be some girl/wife/daughter trouble, something about job vs.
paying attention to the home front. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">We all know
these clichés and they all come from this movie. “48 Hrs.” did not invent the police
movie and some of those tropes were established at the time it was released,
but the format was definitely set by this movie. That means, watching it now,
forty years later, it feels dated and predictable, almost comically so, and it
is easy to forget that “48 Hrs.” is not a recipe movie, but the movie that made
the recipe. For this reason, I did not enjoy it as much as I remember, which is,
honestly, unfair of me.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Nolte is
almost comically gruff and tough. A bit of an alcohol problem and fighting with
everybody including wife, boss and colleagues and driving around is a car that
is both too big and too trashed. Murphy is, well, Murphy. He is not pulling out
all his guns as he would later in “Beverly Hills Cop” but there is enough of
his roguishness to make him both sleek and amusing. His introduction, singing
Police’ “Roxanne” in prison sets a high bar which he cannot quite reach for the
rest of the movie, with the possible exception of him busting a country and
western bar.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">As we have
come to expect from Buddy-cop cop movies, there is a lot of action. Shootouts,
car chases, hostage scenarios and really badass villains. “48 Hrs.” is fine of
all these accounts and would still be if we had not become accustomed to even
wilder fare. One can argue there is a special charm here, but Nolte is not my
favorite actor, and his performance is just a tad too hammy to win me over.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Still, “48
Hrs.” must get credit for being first and considering how may tropes it fathered
I find it rather surprising it is not on the List. For this reason (some may
argue only for this reason) it is a must-see movie. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><br /><p></p>TSorensenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12208153011927807857noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2746502363551524682.post-25155234074741498912023-11-29T23:57:00.001+02:002023-11-29T23:57:04.234+02:00Blade Runner (1982)<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj_EeSWv6PBf51Tn9rI1aQwl99OkXttF-oUDSkaY0bDbGarBx1O3blIAneGuXTo29GLhQUD9Dk3Ljo0nsVG8DWL8KpUQiDogJfDpKRv82FgC5rN6E1jm69Qe5J0cwAEA2oc40M5hK-yIXo74RPI0z_VqzkKUomOMEL-_FHDBfvjU1vsDGy_uzJ9mjbD9sE/s300/Blade%20Runner.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="168" data-original-width="300" height="224" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj_EeSWv6PBf51Tn9rI1aQwl99OkXttF-oUDSkaY0bDbGarBx1O3blIAneGuXTo29GLhQUD9Dk3Ljo0nsVG8DWL8KpUQiDogJfDpKRv82FgC5rN6E1jm69Qe5J0cwAEA2oc40M5hK-yIXo74RPI0z_VqzkKUomOMEL-_FHDBfvjU1vsDGy_uzJ9mjbD9sE/w400-h224/Blade%20Runner.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br /><p></p><p style="text-align: center;"><b>Blade Runner</b></p><p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Before I
started this project, if anybody asked me for my favorite movie, my default
answer would have been “Blade Runner”. Some 700 movies down the line and some
amazing movies under the belt, I am not so certain anymore and yet, “Blade
Runner” continues to have that special in my heart. Last night’s revisit
confirmed that. As if I needed confirmation. I doubt there is any movie I have
watched as many times as “Blade Runner”. I know the dialogue line for line and
there was a period where I would put the soundtrack on every night before going
to bed. Yeah, I am a fanboy.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">For those
who have watched this less than a hundred times, “Blade Runner” takes place in
2019, yup, four years ago, but also 37 years into the future as seen from 1982.
The Earth is a messed up place, ruined, presumably, by pollution, and humanity
has gone into space. Artificial humans, replicants, have been constructed to cope
with hardships in space, but on Earth they are outlawed. A special unit of
policemen, blade runners, seek them out and retire them. Rick Deckard (Harrison
Ford) is such a blade runner.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">A group of
replicants have returned to Earth and are trying to gain access to the Tyrell
corporation, the company who makes the replicants. For safety reasons
replicants have a lifespan of only four years and this group is trying to do
something about that. Deckard is tasked to find them and retire them.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The first
impression is that “Blade Runner” is a neo-noir. A classic private eye story with
femme fatale’s, uncertain plots and a dystopian world. The cinematic version
even had the cliché voice-over. Something later editions thankfully ditched.
This narrative is actually the least interesting thing about the movie. Philip
Marlowe cyberpunk. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">A level
below this narrative we find a number of allusions to what it means to be
human, a religious fable of the children of God seeking out their maker to
challenge him with their lot and a paradise lost tale of Eve biting the forbidden
fruit and losing her place in Eden. The wonderful thing about “Blade Runner” is
that it is so open to interpretation and leaves clues everywhere. My personal
favorite is the sub-plot around Rachel (Sean Young) who start out as an aloof
and almost mechanical human, but as she discovers she is herself a replicant,
she loses the disciplined surface and reveals her humanity, symbolized by
letting her hair out and allowing Deckard to come in. The lost son motif
featuring the replicant Roy (Rutger Hauer) is also very strong with him using a
“saint” (J.F. Sebastian, Wiliam Sanderson) to gain access to his creator, who
is a lonely creature in the forbidding and aloof Tyrell headquarters, i.e. God.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Yet, the
element I love more than anything in the movie is the ambience. Yes, it is
dystopian, but there is a deep pervading melancholia that gets deep under the
skin, strongly driven by the soundtrack and a phenomenal cinematography, This
has never ever been done better. Period. When you watch the movie over and
over, you discover all these small gems, pieces of music, décor, ambience, a
mystifying scene here and there, an ambiguous exchange of dialogue, and everything
is so loaded. With meaning, with emotion, with anguish. It is a candy store for
the movie lover and it represents everything that science fictions can do when
it is great and not just an excuse for special effects.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Talking of
special effects, a lot have been made of the special effects in “Blade Runner”,
but they are different from the usual effect feast. In “Blade Runner” they are
subdued and primarily serve to enhance the ambience of the scene. There are
remarkably few explosions and stunts, but every scene has that little special
effect that takes us to this terrible, hostile and yet very familiar world of “Blade
Runner”.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">“Blade
Runner” has been formative for me. I would not be the same person had it not
been for “Blade Runner”. The best assignment I had in high school was to analyze
“Blade Runner” as a post-modernist type case, for which purpose we watched it
five times in the school’s basement. When I read or watch science fiction, “Blade
Runner” is the golden standard. To me it is not Han Solo chasing replicants, it
is Deckard flying the Millenium Falcon.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Yeah, this
may still be my favorite movie of all time.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><br /><p></p>TSorensenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12208153011927807857noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2746502363551524682.post-62942785930746035622023-11-26T16:31:00.003+02:002023-11-26T16:31:33.095+02:00Poltergeist (1982)<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiME5QhocNEW7tRflW7jhLiB_0oAtUwRWR11XYbgPekW77W-wE2AlBCyojecXV37GlRRhlT9aGe3pw9cW1TBPetnQqcMweYAHxwujXzr62uEGxopHMmrDPIbCZRE0j9I5xs9kyP5_BQnOeAFk8OlBaB1pK-dGAulTJHqN1h2dZgijh34rfjOx4OXToYgcI/s259/Poltergeist.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="194" data-original-width="259" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiME5QhocNEW7tRflW7jhLiB_0oAtUwRWR11XYbgPekW77W-wE2AlBCyojecXV37GlRRhlT9aGe3pw9cW1TBPetnQqcMweYAHxwujXzr62uEGxopHMmrDPIbCZRE0j9I5xs9kyP5_BQnOeAFk8OlBaB1pK-dGAulTJHqN1h2dZgijh34rfjOx4OXToYgcI/w400-h300/Poltergeist.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br /><p></p><p style="text-align: center;"><b>Poltergeist</b></p><p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">I am
continuing my trip down memory lane. 1982 was crammed with movies that have had
vast influence on me, one way or another. “Poltergeist” is another such movie
and this, I am afraid, not for anything positive. Mind you, I was barely nine
years old when it was released and E.T. figures were the greatest thing in the
world (right after pocket sized video games) and even the little I actually saw
of this movie scared the shit out of me. Some of the scenes from “Poltergeist”
haunted my nightmares for the better part of a decade after that and even the
mentioning of the movie or references to it was enough to trigger anxiety. My
relationship to this movie is a very good argument for age limits on movies. This
time is the first time I have watched “Poltergeist” since back then. I am
facing demons here.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">In hindsight
it feels rather silly. Although “Poltergeist” was directed by Tobe “Texas Chainsaw
Massacre” Hooper, this is very much a Steven Spielberg movie and that softens
the impact of it quite a bit. At least now it does. It lets us know with some
certainty that the principal characters will come out on top and there will be
some sort of closure. We will also be looking at this with some sort of
childish wonder, even when things get scary. Nobody told me that as a child,
but watching it now it is rather easy to dispel the power this movie has had
over me all these years. That does not mean this movie is not a scary
experience or in any way fails to be convincing. Horror movies have just gotten
a long way, especially in terms of jump scares, since then. A movie like “Smile”
freaked me out a lot more than this rewatch of “Poltergeist”.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">In this
house, it is my wife who is into horror movies. She fell asleep about two-thirds
in.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Steve
(Craig Nelson) and Diane (JoBeth Williams) live in the suburban community of
Cuesta Verde with their three children Dana (Dominique Dunne), Robbie (Oliver
Robins) and little 5-year-old Carol Anne (Heather O’Rourke). Carol Anne talks
to what she calls the TV people. She hears them when the TV is showing statics
and she is not really afraid of them. That changes when they come out of the television
and start redecorating the house. One fateful night Robbie is almost eaten by a
tree (!?) and Carol Anne is sucked into the spirit world through a portal in
her closet. Now she can only communicate with her family through the static
signal on the TV. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Understandably
upset, Diane and Steve get help from paranormal investigators from the local
university (Ghostbusters, two years before that became a thing). Clearly in
over their head, they seek further assistance from a medium, Tangina (Zelda
Rubinstein), who looks and sounds like something straight out of a David Lynch
movie. Together they seek an explanation and embark on a risky rescue mission. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The deeper
explanation? Well, as everybody should know by now, never build your home on
top of a cemetery. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The two
things that stand out in “Poltergeist” are firstly how successful the
cinematography is. The setting, the special effects and the characters are
believable and convincing and the hair-raising effect of seeing the little girl
talking to the television is very powerful. Especially if you are yourself a
child. I can vouch for that. Production value is top notch here and I think
Spielberg would not have settled for less. The spirits have an uncanny
similarity to those from “Raiders of the Lost Ark” and that is likely not a
coincidence. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Secondly,
the human (or “living”) side of the equation is not powerless. Combined, they
are resourceful, and they can and do fight back. It is a VERY uphill battle,
but there is something they can do and be successful about. Something modern
horror seems to have forgotten. This hopeful element, which definitely comes
from Spielberg himself, changes the movie from bleak disaster to something
almost uplifting. It is still scary as hell, but it is not despondent. The
child in me does appreciate that and it earns it extra points from me.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">It was good
for me to watch it again. The jump scares still have me on edge (jump scares
always do, I am SOOOO easy), but the demonic grip this movie had on me have
been dispelled. I would even rate this as a good movie, but please please keep
it away from children.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p></p>TSorensenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12208153011927807857noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2746502363551524682.post-15614677745088033572023-11-24T22:15:00.003+02:002023-11-24T22:15:51.861+02:00First Blood (1982)<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgPjpwh2NuUXVhhQNgy4zcohIhPSQetkWwTkWAXPvnAU-MQvosBh9JLF9dFnSpN2lVKuFuvJh3tfDHmP-F0QJayM7ytdcVHrd7v1HgqP7l1lggT4qsD-9XOzEhRYMy2mG58r-MMb_Y9bGYiRN7_YeyEMUKdGktZWqAtELulgLCVeBxKNvOrugzwiZvr3FU/s282/First%20Blood.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="178" data-original-width="282" height="252" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgPjpwh2NuUXVhhQNgy4zcohIhPSQetkWwTkWAXPvnAU-MQvosBh9JLF9dFnSpN2lVKuFuvJh3tfDHmP-F0QJayM7ytdcVHrd7v1HgqP7l1lggT4qsD-9XOzEhRYMy2mG58r-MMb_Y9bGYiRN7_YeyEMUKdGktZWqAtELulgLCVeBxKNvOrugzwiZvr3FU/w400-h252/First%20Blood.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br /><p></p><p style="text-align: center;"><b>Off-List: First Blood</b></p><p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">1982 was a
year of movie legends, specifically movies that may have come out to modest
success or appreciation but over the years have gathered a large following and,
and in many cases, founded a franchise. “First Blood” is one such movie. It did
well at the box office, but less so by the critics. To posterity, however, it
is known as “Rambo I”, founder of the Rambo franchise.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">I was not
in it to begin with. Rambo is not really for nine-year olds, and my first
experience was with the computer game and the later movies. In retrospect,
though, “First Blood” is by far the best of the series and works perfectly well
as a stand-alone feature.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">John Rambo
(Sylvester Stallone) is travelling through the Pacific Northwest, searching for
one of the few survivors from his unit in Vietnam, only to learn he died from
cancer he contracted while in service. Leaving the homestead of his friend’s
family, he approaches the town with the ill-fitting name of Hope. The sheriff
of Hope, Will Teasle (Brian Dennehy), does not like drifters and see it as his
duty to keep his town clean of them. He therefore gives Rambo a ride to the
other side of town and lets him know in no uncertain terms that he is not
welcome. The fact that he is a veteran carries no weight at all. Rambo figures
he will go into town to eat anyway so Teasle arrests him for vagrancy. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The staff
at the police station do their best to humiliate Rambo, especially Deputy
Sergeant Galt (Jack Starrett). For a while Rambo stoically eats it, but
eventually he snaps, knocks down the officers and escapes on a hijacked
motorbike into the mountains. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">What
follows next is a manhunt getting larger and more intense with every setback it
encounters. It does not matter how many men get hurt, Teasle will not yield,
Rambo is going down. Rambo’s commanding officer in Vietnam, Colonel Trautman
(Richard Crenna) shows up, telling Teasle he is wasting his men in a hopeless
chase, but that just pisses off Teasle even more. Meanwhile, we are getting a
101 in jungle asymmetric warfare by Rambo, who pulls off one amazing stunt
after the next on his pursuers.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">“First
Blood” can be seen for exactly that, one man’s fight against superior forces,
one good man who is able to outsmart the bad guys even though they hold all the
advantages. And it is good at that. It is intense, inventive and clever.
Compared to the later installments of this franchise, everything is within the
human possible and Rambo stands as an example of a single elite fighter against
a bunch of redneck Sunday warriors. Well, a slightly contrived example
admittedly, but the point is that Rambo is not a superhero, he is exactly what America
created to fight the war in Vietnam and now the same country has declared war
on him.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">And that is
the second way to look at the film and where this becomes interesting. This is
really about the ingratitude of the country to the veterans. Teasle and his
gang feel no appreciation for Rambo. To them, he is a hobo and later a menace.
They have locked their door for returning veterans. Zooming out from the local community,
John Rambo is a tool that has been discarded and the only difference from him
and other discarded tools is that he is highly capable. So rather than being appreciated
for what the country has made him become, he is chased or in the best case
ignored, getting jobs like parking cars.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">“First
Blood” was one of the first, and really started a wave of, movies about
returning veterans and while this wave was specifically aimed at Vietnam
veterans, a string of wars since have made this subject relevant until today
and not just in America.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Whether you
see this as an action movie or a social conscience movie, it works amazingly
well. Compared to the fare of the early eighties on both accounts, it stands
out as having aged surprisingly well. Sylvester Stallone was already an
established star at this time, but for my generation he is more associated with
the Rambo character than the Rocky character. Rambo became a by-word for super
soldier the world over.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">My rewatch
of “First Blood” confirmed everything I remembered about the movie and in a
very strong year, I still think the List made a mistake leaving this one out. Recommended.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p><p></p>TSorensenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12208153011927807857noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2746502363551524682.post-66255222228504196552023-11-20T21:03:00.003+02:002023-11-20T21:03:53.254+02:00The Thing (1982)<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgd2dvptkSU5SqNd-XbIX7SlD026BI3OU8negJxeWXLsZhV19c7IwaTQml73FZqF8i6yp30wmjt62q1po64NxyRb1IzN2NVjoe94h6_Av_aA6AE8YEzzZ32PM8vimgXVyEuTJGnloMvuQobwzgssja8iMz6jenAjEDNMFn9SyOgy1Jz0EwsI5RAPnufudo/s300/The%20Thing.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="168" data-original-width="300" height="224" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgd2dvptkSU5SqNd-XbIX7SlD026BI3OU8negJxeWXLsZhV19c7IwaTQml73FZqF8i6yp30wmjt62q1po64NxyRb1IzN2NVjoe94h6_Av_aA6AE8YEzzZ32PM8vimgXVyEuTJGnloMvuQobwzgssja8iMz6jenAjEDNMFn9SyOgy1Jz0EwsI5RAPnufudo/w400-h224/The%20Thing.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br /><p></p><p style="text-align: center;"><b>Det gruesomme udefra</b></p><p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">John
Carpenter’s “The Thing” is one of those movies that have always flown under the
radar for me. That is, until I watched a documentary series by James Cameron a
few years ago on science fiction movies that made a lot out of this movie. It looked
like a total miss that I never watched it and, knowing it would come up on the
List, I braced myself with patience.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Now, I have
finally watched it and I can see why a lot of people like it, it has a lot
going for it. The reason I am not jumping up and down is that “Alien” was there
already three years before and did it better.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The peace
on an American research station in Antarctica is disturbed when a dog on the
run from some crazy Norwegians seek shelter at the base. The staff find the
Norwegians a lot more disturbing than the dog, so they kill the Norwegians and
take in the dog. Bad choice. The dog turns out to be a shapeshifting monster from
outer space (the “Thing”), which kills and then imitate its victim. It is
impossible to tell who is human and who is a space monster and consequently
paranoia runs amok. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The helicopter
pilot MacReady (Kurt Russell) takes charge and even device a method to
recognize who are humans, but as more and more die, it becomes clear that no
one will get out of this alive and, more importantly, the alien must be kept
away from human civilization.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Bleak
stuff.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">“The Thing”
is essentially a “Ten little Indians” story. One by one the staff is taken out
and the focus of the movie is partly on the paranoia everybody gets caught up
in and partly the gory attacks of the monster. And it is really a focus to the
extent that there is little else to the movie. Most of the characters are
rather flat, there is room for no other topic, but who is next? On the upside,
those two elements are done brilliantly.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The monster
itself is alien, awful, gory and cunning and the special effects displaying all
this are nothing less than amazing. This is a tour de force on what was
possible before CGI and even the most outrageous of the displays look real and
believable and for that reason so much scarier. I am neither a big expert nor a
fan of horror movies, but my amateurish guess is that this is up there among
the best when it comes to the monster.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Paranoia
always works best in an enclosed space with a limited number of people and here
we get both. It is quite amazing that it is possible to fill so much of the
movie’s running time with people circling each other with ever increasing
madness, but there you are, and it is quite successful as that.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The problem,
as I wrote above, is that “Alien” did much the same in 1979 and both Nostromo
and the Xenomorph were cooler than the Antarctic research station and the
Thing. There is a strong element of “Invasion of the Body Snatchers” here as
well, but again, it becomes a reboot of something that was itself hugely successful.
Combining those two stories may be inspired and my guess is that this will be
enough for many viewers, particularly when done with this intensity. My problem
is just that I keep thinking about the movie I would rather watch, missing that
dark, quiet, sneaky threat. That sense that if you turn around, it is right
behind you.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Ultimately,
this makes “The Thing” good, but not great for me. I understand why it is liked,
if not loved, but I cannot give it that last appraisal. Something about it is
just too thin.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p><br /><p></p>TSorensenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12208153011927807857noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2746502363551524682.post-36015553891971814532023-11-18T18:22:00.003+02:002023-11-18T18:22:55.679+02:00E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial (1982)<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjigXu5lkPrIjTizkuKGOdLfr5TUqsfg3SDlhoLIFOp499VblNnE87PnWJuUezrJJUVZwaquH2m2JcwXxUlJGQ1R8MCGKIPcKycbE3t-wWQShWecQvVtcc8IWoD5rQv5D9h_w3da9hyphenhyphen4NJC5QuS_sZwt4mUlwgpSOWNZkVnm5choo_pBbwn4pKEmZrtPPM/s276/ET.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="182" data-original-width="276" height="264" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjigXu5lkPrIjTizkuKGOdLfr5TUqsfg3SDlhoLIFOp499VblNnE87PnWJuUezrJJUVZwaquH2m2JcwXxUlJGQ1R8MCGKIPcKycbE3t-wWQShWecQvVtcc8IWoD5rQv5D9h_w3da9hyphenhyphen4NJC5QuS_sZwt4mUlwgpSOWNZkVnm5choo_pBbwn4pKEmZrtPPM/w400-h264/ET.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br /><p></p><p style="text-align: center;"><b>E.T.</b></p><p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">I remember
when E.T. came out. Not because I watched the movie at the time, going to the
cinema was not something we did a lot, but the E.T. figures were the rage. Like
in frenzy rage. Most of my classmates would have a figure or a doll, the bigger
the better. Some with light in the finger and some who would say the famous
line “E.T. phone home”. The fad did not last, none does in second and third
grade, but while it lasted, there was nothing else in the world.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">E.T. is a
classic movie that holds up well, here 41 years later. I watched it last night
with my wife and son and it still keeps us engaged, we still feel that lump in the
throat and my son would grip my arm and not let go. Mind you, we have all
watched it before and not just once. It is the quintessential family movie.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">E.T. is an
extra-terrestrial botanist who gets left behind on Earth when his spaceship must
leave in a hurry. He seeks refuge in the shed of a suburban house and is discovered
by ten-year old Elliot (Henry Thomas). Elliot lives in the house with older
brother Michael (Robert MacNaughton), younger sister Gertie (Drew Barrymore) and
recently separated mother Mary (Dee Wallace). E.T. and Elliot befriend each
other and are soon linked on a mental level, sharing their emotions. The
children keep E.T. as a secret and Mary only late discovers the alien, ignorant
mostly through her own distraction. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The alien
needs to go home and while learning to communicate with the children, he builds
a communicator to call his spaceship, which they rig up in the forest. It is during
this excursion we get the famous shot of Elliot and E.T. on bicycle, sailing
past a full moon. It is almost too late for E.T. though. Something on Earth
does not agree with him and he turns very ill. Through their link Elliot shares
the illness. At this point agents of, presumably, a government agency, enters
and takes over E.T. In their hands E.T. finally succumbs. Or does he? Will his
spaceship arrive in time to save him?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Steven
Spielberg famously explained that the story of Elliot and his family is based
on his own childhood and how he dreamed of meeting an alien. A fantasy he also
lived out in “Close Encounters”. This connection with Elliot and his family is
clearly felt in how fleshed out they are in the movie. This looks and feels
like a real family with none of the glamour or crisis of most other movie
families. The biggest issue for them is the absent father and the very mundane
stresses of just getting along. The ordinariness of this family is what makes
the encounter with the fantastic being which is E.T. work so well. We feel it
is us meeting the creature and experiencing the adventure. There is nothing
spectacular about these children beyond the love they share with E.T. and each
other and that love we feel as well. This is what makes this so solid a family
movie.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">It is amazing
how well E.T. holds up after all these years. Look past the dated haircuts and
it looks and feels very modern. Part of that can be ascribed to Spielberg’s
very talented team, but a large part is also that E.T, the movie, has been
admired ever since and has stood as the beacon of what a family movie should be
like. A lot of this movie has been imitated, copied or inspired countless times
ever since. Make it look and feel like E.T. and you have done it right. Even
Spielberg himself has used it as his golden standard. This admiration runs the
risk of making the original look cliché, but it is so good that it stands above
that. 41 years down the line, E.T. is as effective as it was back when we all
ran around with a doll with a light bulb in the finger. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">I should
mention the most famous actor to come out of this movie, Drew Barrymore. We all
know what an astonishing career she has been having, and there, as little
Gertie, we can see where it all came from. I think few people can watch E.T.
and not fall a bit in love with that little girl.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">1982 starts
very strong and I have a wonderful program ahead of me for the next few weeks.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p><p></p>TSorensenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12208153011927807857noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2746502363551524682.post-71986316783740670092023-11-14T22:50:00.003+02:002023-11-14T22:50:48.073+02:00Fast Times at Ridgemont High (1981)<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjFKO6OncSPXzshjoOMNh8VMQbRLFW7bK8k-7_0_xmMCdDsu1Zu9nUfdaEc6Ew45I4XUyCz5ZykZE6oCAdXmpgLZ4Y1I0i231vyaankimDgKoJcAAkyETe11S7sJBwLErgOR6NWjvtXTtv9zpHOoJ4pV47JtMAh92wVFlqGUsamb9N41FOmV8llJfl-XRk/s299/Ridgemont.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="168" data-original-width="299" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjFKO6OncSPXzshjoOMNh8VMQbRLFW7bK8k-7_0_xmMCdDsu1Zu9nUfdaEc6Ew45I4XUyCz5ZykZE6oCAdXmpgLZ4Y1I0i231vyaankimDgKoJcAAkyETe11S7sJBwLErgOR6NWjvtXTtv9zpHOoJ4pV47JtMAh92wVFlqGUsamb9N41FOmV8llJfl-XRk/w400-h225/Ridgemont.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br /><p></p><p style="text-align: center;"><b>Fast Times at Ridgemont High</b></p><p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">I am
struggling with my review of “Fast Times at Ridgemont High”. Or more precisely,
I am struggling with my opinion of this movie. It sounds like something that should
be great. A teenage movie about high school children going through all those
awkward things teenagers deal with: friendships, sex, jobs, school and an
undefined future. Irresponsibility and doing things for the heck of it. Since “American
Graffiti” this has been the recipe for fun, if juvenile, movies. “Fast Times at
Ridgemont High” has a cast that is sort of a who is who of the eighties and a
very neat production value. Why do I then sit back with a “meh” feeling?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">I have spent
a few days contemplating that and my best answer is a complete anachronism: “Fast
Times at Ridgemont High” must have been made by an AI! <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The AI was
fed with all the ingredients such a film should have: A stoned surfer dude, the
shy, inexperienced guy, a know-it-all, the neighbors daughter, the experienced
girl, a bit of school, but only enough to present the really intolerable
teachers, a bit of sex, not too much mind you, just some breast here and there,
as few parents as possible, a party and some sport game to bring the school
together. Preferably use some up-and-coming actors, but for heaven’s sake not
real teenagers. You cannot miss. Problem is, it is not funny, and I care only
minimally for the characters. I think I smiled once (when Brad wanks off to a
dream of Linda and she walks in on him, very juvenile), but instead of
developing the joke, it just stops there.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">It is a
fairly chaotic movie, mostly based on vignettes, so a summary can only be
sketchy. We follow a group of high school students from Ridgemont High, but
since almost all of them work at the local mall, most of the movie takes place
there. Stacy (Jennifer Jason Leigh) and Linda (Poebe Cates) are friends and
spend their time at their food stand discussing boys and particularly sex.
Stacy has a one-night stand with an older guy who immediately after disappears
and Stacy then hooks up with Mark “Rat” (Brian Backer). Rat has a biology class
with Stacy and a serious crush on her. He works as an usher at the mall cinema
and after some coaching by his dodgy, know-it-all friend Damone (Robert
Romanus), he works up the courage to invite her out. When he does not want to
have sex with Stacy, she is disappointed and jumps on Damone instead. He makes
her pregnant and then ditches her. Stacy’s brother Brad (Judge Reinhold) messes
up a number of jobs until he comes into his own saving a 7-11 from a robbery. Surfer
dude Spicoli (Sean Penn) makes poor friends with the tough history teacher, Mr.
Hand (!) (Ray Walston), but they make up in the end. Also, he wrecks football
star Jefferson’s (Forest Whitaker) car.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Yeah, that
is sort of it. The vignette format means that it is all a bit disjointed and I
had some difficulty working out the point of some of the characters, until I
realized that the characters or the scene is there because it is part of the
formula. There is no true rebellion anywhere, very little development of
character, most scenes are so exaggerated they lose resemblance anything I
would recognize, but worst of all, it is not funny. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">In many ways
this all sounds very much like “American Pie” around 20 years later, but
despite being not less juvenile, it was actually fun and, crazy as it sounds,
it saves it. No such mercy for “Fast Times at Ridgemont High”.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The most
amusing element of the movie is the game of spot-the-star. Half the characters
went on to have great careers and even those who did not are quite recognizable
from other movies in the eighties. There is even a short part for Nicolas Cage.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">I keep
coming back to how similar and yet completely different “Fast Times at Ridgemont
High” is to the previous movie I watched, the Danish movie “Kundskabens træ”.
Despite taking place in the fifties, it was completely recognizable, it used
real teenagers who were hardly actors and had both a deeply sincere story to
tell and the hilarity of teenage pranks that were actually funny. Everything “Fast
Times at Ridgemont High” does not even though they cover exactly the same
territory.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">“Fast Times
at Ridgemont High” was disappointing, but probably mostly because I expected so
much more. It is a movie I wondered why I never heard of it and now I know why.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p><p></p>TSorensenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12208153011927807857noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2746502363551524682.post-17343039170343009612023-11-08T21:09:00.000+02:002023-11-08T21:09:04.927+02:00Kundskabens træ (1981)<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEietiVoTCD87uAazQm0WHVl0CzdVqfWAYgBIPFFqYzObx-LaI6w0ogclEawdz0CMOojnmT6v1ogHLso22C-q8PTugqxCih4aFTnC0OCqmLbueqcJMWPYV5CeZkI5VeYYbGyhkg1Kv8HfVpV4IALc6wVyQdOkdLmEYxvTjJisFq0xIwKvkgA_M3NurUpW_I/s300/Kundskabens%20tr%C3%A6.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="168" data-original-width="300" height="224" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEietiVoTCD87uAazQm0WHVl0CzdVqfWAYgBIPFFqYzObx-LaI6w0ogclEawdz0CMOojnmT6v1ogHLso22C-q8PTugqxCih4aFTnC0OCqmLbueqcJMWPYV5CeZkI5VeYYbGyhkg1Kv8HfVpV4IALc6wVyQdOkdLmEYxvTjJisFq0xIwKvkgA_M3NurUpW_I/w400-h224/Kundskabens%20tr%C3%A6.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br /><p></p><p style="text-align: center;"><b>Kundskabens Træ</b></p><p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">When I was
looking for a Danish addition to the 1981 group of movies, I immediately
thought of “Kundskabens træ” and went ahead to acquire it, only to shortly after
realize that this movie is actually included on the Danish edition of the List.
There are not that many local additions to the Danish List and sometimes they
are not even Danish, but “Kundskabens træ” is one of those special movies most
people my age will know or know of. It made quite an impact and was watched by
one million people in the cinema, which amounts to 20% of the country’s population.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">“Kundskabens
træ” (literally The Tree of Knowledge, referencing Genesis) is a movie by Nils
Malmros about a school class of children from 1958 to 1960. During that period
the children grow from around 13 to 15 years old and we therefore follow them
into early puberty with all the awkwardness and confusion that entails. While
the camera does follow all the children and exposes a lot of the dynamics
between them, we particularly follow Elin (Eva Gram Schjoldager). Elin is to
begin with a full member of the social circles, but, maturing earlier than the
other girls, she gets frozen out. She gets popular with the boys, but when Helge
(Martin Lysholm Jepsen) attempts to take it to the next level, Elin turns him
down. She is not ready. A feeling largely driven by Elin’s unfeeling parents.
Helge, his pride hurt, starts telling stories about her and combined with the
envy of the other girls, she soon find herself very much alone. There is very
little Elin can do, there is support from nowhere, least of all her parents and
she passes from one humiliation to the next.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">There is no
happy ending to the core story, it really is very depressing and while there is
a lot of comedy in the general portrait of the children and their awkwardness,
it is always colored by the sad feeling of being outside, such as when Elin, pressured
by her mother to host a party, gets told on the phone that they cannot come after
all because they had forgotten there was to be a party at another girl’s home.
Or when her former friends form groups in class to keep her out. Elin
internalizes it all until the end where it boils over, but we feel that pain
all the way.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Although
this is a movie that takes place in the late fifties, it is all very familiar.
Most people will recognize these scenes from their early youth, and I suppose
most people will find somebody to relate to in the movie. I think they were a
bit earlier out with the dancing and kissing than I remember from my youth, but
the dynamics is certainly very recognizable. It is also very particular for “Kundskabens
Træ”, and Nils Malmros’ movies in general, that it takes place in Århus in
Jylland. From those not familiar with Danish Geography, Århus is the second
largest city in the country and very much represents the province. All the
actors, particularly the children, have this very distinct Århus accent and
quite a bit of the mannerism is different from what you would see in
Copenhagen. I took my masters in Århus and spent six years there and when the
class goes on a school trip is to Rold Skov, 15 km from where I grew up. This
is very much my home turf. If anything, it made me feel even more at home with
these children.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Movies that
depend on child actors are always problematic. Children are not professional
actors, and their acting is often too much or too little, but this is never the
case in “Kundskabens træ”. If this movie stands out for something special, it
is how natural it all looks. I never got that feeling that they are acting, but
bought into the story 100%. That is an achievement.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Nils
Malmros was compared to Truffaut, with reference to his “The 400 Blows” and
there are a lot of comparisons, but “Kundskabens Træ” is also uniquely Danish,
and Malmros managed to tap into this in an uncannily recognizable way, and you cannot
watch this without feeling a bit guilty yourself for the Elins you do not help
in your childhood. If you were not an Elin yourself.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">“Kundskabens
Træ” is one of the best movies ever produced in Denmark and is well worth the
watch. It did get international recognition and I think an international
audience will also get a lot out of it. Highly recommended.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p><p></p>TSorensenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12208153011927807857noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2746502363551524682.post-34223125749146885442023-11-01T11:13:00.002+02:002023-11-01T11:13:29.892+02:00Diva (1981)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjU8PKROByJW4N5s6RswJgWYqsYv-Py2JQ_azXqFAEbJ45Fd2m9dXUT_IZvPZ5J6jPw56bOlbGulq62Ds0JE_Hyo_7fXpibzZQlDYupzGEBw1g6A5CLzT2cimXDFcirNNugMfUYLSAFs9lEP-KDfL0yU7KMc1ln35XsPskaPYw8DjC87HRdwv_FspU2m9Q/s275/Diva.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="183" data-original-width="275" height="266" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjU8PKROByJW4N5s6RswJgWYqsYv-Py2JQ_azXqFAEbJ45Fd2m9dXUT_IZvPZ5J6jPw56bOlbGulq62Ds0JE_Hyo_7fXpibzZQlDYupzGEBw1g6A5CLzT2cimXDFcirNNugMfUYLSAFs9lEP-KDfL0yU7KMc1ln35XsPskaPYw8DjC87HRdwv_FspU2m9Q/w400-h266/Diva.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br /><p style="text-align: center;"><b><br />Diva </b></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">I watched “Diva”
yesterday and have since spent quite a few hours trying to work out this movie.
The narrative is complicated, but at the same time ridiculously simple and I
understand most of it well. What baffles me is how all those threads and
components actually mesh into a coherent movie. The short answer is that they
do not, which may actually be the point.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">The central
character of this movie is Jules (Frédéric Andréi). He is a young postman who
lives in a workshop of sorts. Here he has built a temple for opera music with
all sorts of technical equipment, especially for the soprano Cynthia Hawkins
(Wilhemenia Fernandez) with whom he is completely infatuated. One night at the
opera he clandestinely records her performance (and steals her dress). This is
significant in two ways: Hawkins has never allowed any recordings to be made of
her, making Jules’ recording the only one in existence and, secondly, sitting
right behind Jules, two Taiwanese music pirates notice the recording and now they
want it.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">A second
storyline concerns a gangster ring dealing in trafficking and drugs. One of the
prostitutes has a recording incriminating the ringleader and she is killed just
after dumping her tape into Jules’ postbag. The twist here is that the boss of
the policemen investigating the gangster ring and the ringleader is the same
person. Not really a spoiler, we learn that early on.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Jules is
now hunted by three parties: The Taiwanese for the opera tape, the police for
being a witness to the murder of the prostitute and two gangsters, known as “The
West Indian” and “The Priest” (Gérard Darmon and Dominique Pinon), for the incriminating
tape. Fortunately, Jules receives help from a very odd couple, the wealthy and
eccentric Serge Gorodish (Richard Bohringer) and his girlfriend, Alba (Thuy An
Luu).<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Frankly,
this is a mishmash. There is the odd love story between Jules and Cynthia, the
weird but terribly clever Gorodish and the three chase groups. There seems to
be a social critique of corrupt authorities, a praise of pure art and a big nod
towards film noir. As a crime thriller it is almost a joke as the big reveal
comes very early (the identity of the kingpin) and the chases are almost
comical or at least stylized with Gorodish outsmarting everybody James Bond
style. The point, I suppose, is to not be so focused on the narrative, but the
appearance of the movie.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">This is
indeed what this movie is famous for and the alleged reason for including it on
the List. It has been celebrated as the movie that started the “Cinéma du look”
genre, which is supposed to emphasize style to content. This I understand means
to look terribly cool without too much concern for what is actually going on.
If that is indeed so, it would explain a lot in the movie. It is both a visual
and audio feast. Everything looks and sounds spectacular. The workshop Jules
lives in, the apartment (and the lighthouse) of Gorodish, the chase scenes and
so on. Both the Taiwanese in their sunglasses and the gangsters look awesome. I
bet Travolta and Jackson in “Pulp Fiction” were referencing Pinon and Darmon.
On the audio side, we get to hear a lot of opera and in a good way (opera can
be unpleasant, but not here) and when it is not opera, the music is either
sorrowful and pretty or high-speed cliché action movie tracks. Everything for
the senses is loaded high.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">As a viewer,
this is a bit challenging. You want to go for the narrative and there is enough
narrative that you do follow it. It is not obscure as Godard would have done
it, but then you are thrown off by the odd set of pieces it consists of. It
seems to me that the way to watch it is to step back and enjoy the elements
rather than the narrative. Tarantino made this his trademark, but a decade before
“Reservoir Dogs”, this style was already practiced in France. In that light, “Diva”
gains a lot more value and meaning. It almost begs a repeat viewing, wearing
those glasses.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">“Diva” has allegedly
become a cult classic, and I can see why. At first, I was ready to dismiss it,
but the more I consider it, the better I like it, so I guess that makes it a
recommendation from me.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p><p><br /></p>TSorensenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12208153011927807857noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2746502363551524682.post-47887141955884490022023-10-28T17:58:00.001+03:002023-10-28T17:58:21.322+03:00Man of Iron (Cxlowiek z Zelaza) (1981)<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgmPIezb4E1hhjdkdbFSwP8CLEKg_D65iDxNcvWQbVuqZyD8-eTH2B7Md5g_9Bmo_qk1x-CEUxY8G9APwTrOYHp8RHDC6tx4b3P_74stTIPF7yeQbKeq_etuvCUv18fio9gwIMNlFkumSlOtxK7zqM68IBiw8ElfMh4PG_kH7sWzH67vpslgL_Lc7NJoG0/s314/Man%20of%20Iron.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="161" data-original-width="314" height="205" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgmPIezb4E1hhjdkdbFSwP8CLEKg_D65iDxNcvWQbVuqZyD8-eTH2B7Md5g_9Bmo_qk1x-CEUxY8G9APwTrOYHp8RHDC6tx4b3P_74stTIPF7yeQbKeq_etuvCUv18fio9gwIMNlFkumSlOtxK7zqM68IBiw8ElfMh4PG_kH7sWzH67vpslgL_Lc7NJoG0/w400-h205/Man%20of%20Iron.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br /><p></p><p style="text-align: center;"><b>Jernmanden</b></p><p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Andrzej
Wajda’s “Man of Iron” (“Czlowiek z zelaza”) is a movie that is more interesting
than good. It is a movie that drags and confuses, yes is enormously relevant
and important. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Back in the
eighties, the Polish “Solidarity” (“Solidarnosc”) movement was continuously a big
story in the news media and Lech Walesa was a household name. If you could only
name one Pole, it would likely be him. Denmark is close to Poland and although
on the other side of the Iron Curtain, what happened there felt very important.
“Man of Iron” sets out to tell that story, or rather the story as it was formed
by 1981 when “Solidarity” seemed to have finally won concessions and
recognition from the Polish communist government.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">“Man of
Iron” is however not a story about Lech Walesa, but of a proxy character,
sharing many of the character features of the famous Walesa. This character is
Maciek Tomczyk (Jerzy Radziwiłowicz), the son of Mateusz Birkut. And yes, if
that rings familiar, it is because “Man of Iron” serves as a continuation of
Wajda’s earlier movie “Man of Marble”. In that we learned that Birkut ended up
at a shipyard near Gdansk and the film journalist Agnieszka (Krystyna Janda)
found his son there. In “Man of Iron” the observer is no longer Agnieszka, but
a radio journalist, Winkel (Marian Opania), who usually do government scripted
radio pieces. He is sent to Gdansk by the authorities with the assignment to create
a smear piece on Tomczyk. To that end, he is introduced to various people acquainted
with Tomczyk who can tell his story from the late sixties to the present day.
These are his student friend, Dzidek (Boguslaw Linda), Tomzcyk’s grandmother
(?) and finally Agnieszka, who is herself in prison now.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Each story
is told in flashback: how the students were beaten up in 68, how Birkut was
killed in the strike in 70 and how, in the late seventies, Tomzcyk was arrested
as a troublemaker and barred from the shipyard. All parts that mirror the story
of Walesa himself. Winkel is a nervous guy, caught between the police state and
the just cause, he is supposed to sabotage. The opposite pulls take a toll on
him so when he finally takes side, it is a great relief for him, the feeling of
freedom.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">It is rare
that a filmmaker catches a moment as it happens as well as Wajda does here. He
is literally telling a story of history in the making. The movie includes clips
from the actual strikes in both 1970 and 1980 with the actual Lech Walesa and
the signing of the agreement with the government. It even includes the
prophetic warning from the Party official in the closing moments, that the
agreement is just a piece of paper. Shortly after the movie was released, the Polish
government rolled back the agreement, outlawed “Solidary” and banned Wajda’s
movie. Lech Walesa and “Solidarity” did not give up but were instrumental in
the fall of communism less than a decade later and Walesa became the first
democratically elected president of Poland since the Second World War.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">One of the
details that come through very clearly in the movie is that the strike slogans
and demands are socialist at heart. This is a socialist rebellion against a socialist
government, who cannot crack down on the strike without going up against its
own stated policy. By doing so, it reveals itself as being the less socialist
of the two, a simple police state. Therefore, this is most of all a fight over
the narrative and the journalist is the foot soldier in that war. Wajda was extremely
perceptive there.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">What works
less good for me as an outside viewer is the confusion of people, places and
functions as well as the many references to past events. Elements that would
make perfect sense to a contemporary Polish viewer, but had the effect on me to
lose the thread several times. Add to that, that it seems as if we get the same
story told several times without learning that much new and it feels like an
unnecessarily long movie. Finally, every time the movie delves into the actual
politics, we get a lot of socialist dialectics which is just so much
mumbo-jumbo, talk with very little apparent content that I am left in some
confusion on what the conflict was really about.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Thus, the
odd combination of interesting but not great.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">In 2016 I
was in Gdansk for a conference on noise from wind turbines which took place at
the “European Solidarity Center” (“Europejskie Centrum Solidarnosci”), the
imposing and impressive exhibition and conference center commemorating these
very events. Humbling and evocative.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p><p></p>TSorensenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12208153011927807857noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2746502363551524682.post-50022637736942722582023-10-21T21:19:00.003+03:002023-10-21T21:19:39.066+03:00Three Brothers (Tre Fratelli) (1981)<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhLlmKpVesp7hLylZfu2b86q2opTIl31ezsJ6eahuBk99C1fxvDWuJDWalAcpUFt9LzPUQCJfMCNQpxzegGz4MLQ0EATT-ic_xxk5FJE9yaOuaNdhxBGNLEmXyy0mlJgE8mo-N34PyWNbpcV2ioYg5vHlgPrmA1OZ7VYrNvBi8FONcoo9UTas3BfqETY04/s307/Three%20Brothers.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="164" data-original-width="307" height="214" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhLlmKpVesp7hLylZfu2b86q2opTIl31ezsJ6eahuBk99C1fxvDWuJDWalAcpUFt9LzPUQCJfMCNQpxzegGz4MLQ0EATT-ic_xxk5FJE9yaOuaNdhxBGNLEmXyy0mlJgE8mo-N34PyWNbpcV2ioYg5vHlgPrmA1OZ7VYrNvBi8FONcoo9UTas3BfqETY04/w400-h214/Three%20Brothers.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br /><p></p><p style="text-align: center;"><b>Tre Brødre</b></p><p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">“Three Brothers” (“Tre fratelli”) is the
second movie on the List by Italian director Francesco Rosi. Critiques may,
with some right, claim that this is a boring movie with not much happening, but
I found it engrossing and blissful to watch. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">In a southern Italian village, an old man,
Donato (Charles Vanel), has lost his wife. He telegrams his three sons to come
for the wake and the funeral. The oldest of the three, Raffaelle (Phillipe
Noiret), is a judge in Rome and involved in cases against terrorists, much to
the chagrin of his wife. The second son, Rocco (Vittorio Mezzogiorno), is a
social worker and runs a ward for troubled children in Naples. He never
married, but has devoted his entire life to other people’s children. The
youngest is Nicola (Michele Placido), a worker’s right activist in Turin,
involved in strikes and disobedience in factories. He is separated from his
wife (she was unfaithful) and arrives with his daughter, a child of 8-10 years.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">The three brothers live each in their own
reality, which in turn represents different versions of Italy: The sensible,
the progressive and the humanitarian. This would and probably should be a basis
for intense conflict, but Rosi takes a different view and tries to bring them
together instead. All three have lost touch with the world they come from, the
south Italian village, and returning to that place show them just how far they
have moved and what they have lost. None of them feels at home anymore and they
all feel deeply the loss. There is more at stake here for them than the loss of
a parent. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">A central scene in the movie is a bedroom
where each brother lies on a bed dreaming. The dream of Raffaelle is of being assassinated
and how it devastates his wife. Rocco dreams of becoming a hero of the
children, wiping away all the threats to their existence (literally) and Nicola
dreams of going back to his wife to be reconciled. His dream also formulates
the alienation he feels with his past and the rootlessness that is the result
for all emigrants.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">I am still not entirely certain what is the
conclusion of the movie and what Rosi’s message is. This has a lot to do with
him not going the obvious way to create conflict, but to merely show how far
away these people are from each other and yet be united in something that may
be bigger. They do argue, it would not be an Italian movie if they did not, but
it seems more like they are trying to explain themselves to people who have
difficulty understanding their position. Especially Raffaelle comes through
strongly, trying to explain that the judiciary system is by no means perfect,
but a hopeful means to improve things and that the alternative is an abyss of
anarchy. This is an interesting position given that Rosi has a reputation of
left leaning activistic movies. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">A lot of the juxtaposition is between
Raffaelle and Nicola and that leaves Rocco as the third wheel. It is a bit
difficult to see where he comes in, in a conflict which is bipolar and as a
character he is far less developed than the other two. My guess is that in the
conflict between the established and the progressive, humanity should not be
forgotten. Maybe the church position?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">The lasting impression however is one of
beauty and peace. The cinematography is stunning and the pictures are crisp and
soothing. It is a movie that gets me down in gear and leaves me content, even
if I am not entirely certain what it is I have been watching. If you are
looking for the Hollywood story arc, you look in vain This is not a movie to be
experienced as a crisis and a resolution, but is rather an image of a
microcosmos of Italy, sad, beautiful but also hopeful as the picture of old
Donato and his young granddaughter left behind on the farm at the funeral.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">I liked “Three Brothers” a lot more than I
expected to and recommend it to anybody with the patience for this sort of
movies.<o:p></o:p></span></p><br /><p></p>TSorensenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12208153011927807857noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2746502363551524682.post-41899306055566364942023-10-14T12:01:00.003+03:002023-10-14T12:01:43.470+03:00An American Werewolf in London (1981)<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiflxnYCq0OcGp1XI9werBF5_ItnEB8WBjjdo_RhhaeE48F3WUfGgJYjo1CggItRIkMaaCYw9Rwf2uGjv-8PXov6bqStbSppSuhwm68MwwIRVCs521l3kuf-4TXFVmZA5_4MXPGC8xZ37L2vN5Wfne3anZ_hbIsY08z0SCRRKeRm4lBF050-aggmEIcK-4/s300/Werewolf.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="168" data-original-width="300" height="224" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiflxnYCq0OcGp1XI9werBF5_ItnEB8WBjjdo_RhhaeE48F3WUfGgJYjo1CggItRIkMaaCYw9Rwf2uGjv-8PXov6bqStbSppSuhwm68MwwIRVCs521l3kuf-4TXFVmZA5_4MXPGC8xZ37L2vN5Wfne3anZ_hbIsY08z0SCRRKeRm4lBF050-aggmEIcK-4/w400-h224/Werewolf.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br /><p></p><p style="text-align: center;"><b>An American Werewolf in London</b></p><p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">“An
American Werewolf in London” is one of those movies I missed in my early
childhood. I only developed an affinity for horror comedies at a much later age,
and at that time this was already off the radar again. It is, however, one of
those movies you “know” even if you have never watched it, if, for no other
reason, than that it founded the horror comedy genre.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">David
(David Naughton) and Jack (Griffin Dunne) are American young men, backpacking
through Europe, who find themselves lost on the North England moors. At
nightfall they seek shelter at the pub of a small village. The locals are not
exactly friendly and the name, “The Slaughtered Lamb” and the pentagram on the wall,
should probably have warned the two boys. In any case, they are impolitely
turned away, only to be attacked on the moors by a wild creature. The locals
show up, shooting the creature in time to save the life of David but too late
for Jack. The creature is seen to be a man.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">David wakes
up in a hospital where nobody believes his story. Not the police, nor the
doctor or the nurses. Nurse Alex (Jenny Agutter) does take a liking to David,
so when he gets released from hospital, he moves in with her. David is starting
to get visitations from the undead Jack, who tells him that David has become a
werewolf and when a full moon comes about, he will start killing people. The
only way out is for David to kill himself. True enough, at the first full moon,
David turns into a big-ass wolf and goes on a rampage. Is there any way for the
doctor and Alex to save David from himself?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Director
John Landis apparently brewed on the idea of a horror comedy since the late
sixties, but found little understanding for this combo and although this has
since become a very successful staple, “An American Werewolf in London” shows
clear signs that this was a difficult match to make. There are periods of the
movie where we are very clearly in the horror genre and others where it gets
downright silly, such as with the inept assistant detective. But there are also
periods where Landis got it right, such as David waking up naked in the zoo or
the choice of the porn cinema for David’s final rampage. Jack in advanced decay
and his other victims accusing him of their murder and shortly after his killing
of all the patrons of the cinema to the sound and images of this cheap-looking
porn movie. The juxtaposition is inspired. It also adds well to the
horror-comedy mix that there are probably more people getting killed in the
stampede to see the monster than are killed by the werewolf itself. It is a
dark sort of humor, but that is the essence of horror comedy.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">It still
felt a bit uneven as if the script was half finished or if half the planned
shots were ditched. The ending is sort of abrupt, though it is difficult to see
it ending any other way, and I do not think it is up to the standards of Landis
earlier movies, which are landmarks even today. Still, “An American Werewolf in
London” was an instant hit and generated a flood of horror comedies. “Gremlins”
probably would not have happened, had it not been for “An American Werewolf in
London”.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The
standout element of this movie is the transformation of David into a werewolf.
In an age before CGI, this seamless and frightening transition is nothing less
than astonishing and it earned “An American Werewolf in London” a well-deserved
Academy award for Best Makeup.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">I was not
carried away by “An American Werewolf in London”. It did not manage to absorb
me, but it is not a bad movie either. Today it has a high status, but I think
it deserves it more for being a pioneer than for its qualities as a great movie.
It was not scary enough or funny enough, but it is still worth watching.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p><br /><p></p>TSorensenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12208153011927807857noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2746502363551524682.post-23752915809656243312023-10-12T22:45:00.005+03:002023-10-12T22:46:13.150+03:00700 Movie Anniversary<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjM7YslaE2_Gz0gT4dT_Mux79TXkNNvAAGV3uNnAEle6lmCOKuS68fIJSigLrN-0ws4Kba8t4DMgwX2h0epnH1RWRUTEZIkxy10zwk84oYxm9KOBFMUezgnt7vM-xWx6qIc_-1yqQ19rGwIlrcte8Tqi_X_84o0ckn-ayKDAFQIj7qvMkB8PcEq7FNQO_g/s319/700.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="158" data-original-width="319" height="158" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjM7YslaE2_Gz0gT4dT_Mux79TXkNNvAAGV3uNnAEle6lmCOKuS68fIJSigLrN-0ws4Kba8t4DMgwX2h0epnH1RWRUTEZIkxy10zwk84oYxm9KOBFMUezgnt7vM-xWx6qIc_-1yqQ19rGwIlrcte8Tqi_X_84o0ckn-ayKDAFQIj7qvMkB8PcEq7FNQO_g/s1600/700.jpg" width="319" /></a></div><br /><p></p><p style="text-align: center;"><b>700 Movie Anniversary</b></p><p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">With “Zu
Früh, Zu Spät”, I have reached the 700 movie mark and I am in the habit of making
a post marking these corners. It is not that I am in the mood for celebrating,
though. Since Saturday I have been following what is going on in Israel and we
are concerned for family and friends there. Fortunately, none of them are hurt,
but the next few weeks are going to be hard.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">I was of a
mind to skip my usual top 10, but then I thought of making a top 10 of movies
that deal with the fight of evil incarnate. I know it is a bit too early, some
of the most notable movies on that theme belong to later periods, but although there
was in earlier years of cinema a reluctance to deal with evil, the seventies
started to change that, and I actually found movies enough for a top 20.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><b>Star Wars</b><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Darth Vader and the Evil Empire
is a classic, but maybe also a bit cartoonish. Certainly, he is evil, he kills
an entire planet, but it be a bit too remote for us to be truly scared of it.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Alien<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>“Alien” on the other hand is
truly scary. The Xenomorph is evil because it is a top predator. It is also an
invader of space and fighting it off requires extreme measures. Again though,
the futuristic space environment is sufficiently remote to protect us.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><b>The
Searchers</b><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>This might be an odd choice, but
I was struck by the story of a home being raided and the children abducted and
how difficult it was to track them down and rescue the survivors. It is a
smaller scale evil, but absolutely relatable.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><b>The Exorcist</b><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>An evil demon with the sole
purpose to destroy and torment and the almost hopeless struggle against it to
stay sane and human. This is truly evil, but with the aid of the supernatural<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><b>The Shining</b><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>That is also the case for “The Shining”.
Possession may be an excuse, but the resulting terror and barbarism is no joke.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><b>Halloween</b><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>We do not really need the
supernatural to be evil and I never entirely worked out if the murderer in
Halloween is possessed or simply evil beyond anything, but scary he is.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><b>The Texas
Chainsaw Massacre</b><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">I know this is a slasher movie, but the
barbarism is almost Hamas level.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><b>To Be or
Not to Be</b><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Maybe an odd choice, but fighting
indescribable evil by playing theater seems like a very heroic thing to do.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><b>Night and Fog</b><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>This could have been any
Holocaust movie, really, but “Night and Fog” does not pull any punches and
leaves you exhausted.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><b>Apocalypse
Now</b><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The journey into the Heart of
Darkness is a journey into the insanity of human depravity when the barriers
that make us humans fall down. No animal, alien monster or supernatural entity
is as evil as a human with no humanity and that is why “Apocalypse Now” wins
the title.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p><br /><p></p>TSorensenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12208153011927807857noreply@blogger.com0