Pain & Gain

We watched this surreal movie, which we recommend. Our commentary (here) is a bit short, we were maybe a bit too shocked to talk about it right after watching it! It’s intense!

Blowup

By M

We are back in business here.

I spell the title that way because IMDb indicates it’s the original title, which I find awesome.

This movie is certainly a must-see for anyone who cares a bit about cinema. A lot has been said about it, and I guess the most important thing in that lot is that it is Antonioni’s masterpiece. I am not going to enter that debate for the unfortunate reason that I don’t know enough. What I can say is that this movie feels like visiting a museum: one recognises many of the things learned in the classroom.

It’s a bit of a lesson for a first-year undergrad: categories are there and they are very clearly there. For example: the multiple mises en abyme, going in all possible ways. It’s also an interrogation about the status of “art”: what is art? what in painting is art? is photography art? can art be commercial? what is cinema? etc. And these elements are obviously discussed, obviously put on screen. Antonioni traces numerous connection lines between photography and painting, and then, between cinema and all the other arts.

It’s worth noting here the naivete of the subtelty attempt that turns into the most-explicit sentence one could imagine. One of the characters, observing a zoomed-in printed photograph says: ‘it looks like one of X’s paintings (abstract)’. Yeah… ok…

Other eternal questions are: why are people interested in each other? is fashion the decay of society? do people use each other? what is real in perception? and even, if we dare: does reality exist? what’s the point of beauty/art? (with the notorious scene of the main character fighting with two models; a scene that doesn’t serve the plot at all and in cinematographic terms very explicitly serves the purpose of not making the plot advance AT ALL).

My guess is that in 1966 such categories weren’t that obvious. I guess, when Antonioni made the movie, it was striking to ask such questions. Nowadays it feels like those questions are perfectly well brought to the movie, as if it was an end-of-year project executed by the best student in the class, but it also feels like lacking some sort of genius’ mess. I am ready to acknowledge I probably don’t know what I am talking about.

I found one filming techinque absolutely ashtounishing and I regret that we have now cameras that avoid that kind of thing: when the scene presents several dimensions, the camera is focused on the spot where the character is moving to, where he is at the beginning of the scene is blurred, in such a way that the character literally comes to focus. I thought that was fantastic, it’s disturbing, catching, beautiful.

I won’t comment on the fact that it is based on a Cortazar’s short-story, because I have not read it, and it saddens me to think that Cortazar might be outdated.

Of course, a must-see, with a notebook by your side.

The Place Beyond the Pines *Spoiler*

By M

I had read a couple of reviews before watching this movie and I was pretty much convinced the movie would not be excellent. And it wasn’t. Yet, it begins with an almost 10 minute long sequence starting on Ryan Gosling’s six pack and following him as he simultaneously dresses and walks towards his bike. It made me totally forget about the reasons the reviews had given me against the movie and I was ready to collect as many arguments as possible to defend it. The sequence is superb. You are intrigued by this world we seem to be entering, the world of in-cage-motorbike-riders, and you almost forget that since Drive was made, making Gosling play a driver is… tricky.

The story is three-fold: 1- Ryan Gosling learns he has a baby and tries to orient his life to make sense of that fact / 2- Bradley Cooper is traumatized by killing Ryan Gosling (and leaving his son “orphan” – which is a scandalous interpretation of what happens because the kid still has parents, except his dad is not his biological dad) and tries to follow his own dad’s steps while neglecting his kid (who is the same age as Ryan Gosling’s) / 3- “15 years later” both kids meet and become friends (it ends poorly).

There are a few things to save in the movie besides the magnificent introductory sequence. A few. The final credits, for instance, are sober and elegant, and Cianfrance plays a very loud, easy-listening music, which produces a fantastic effect. Gosling’s smile is cracking sometimes, for instance, as he hides Eva Mendes’ eyes for a picture pose. Right after the movie I could think of a couple of lines that I found great, but now I can’t remember any.

It’s also great that Eva Mendes spends her time crying and Gosling pretends not to notice. Gosling’s relationship with his retard friend is also great, we don’t quite know what to make of it. The shooting of the ride between the pines, when they first meet, is also very good. The greatest scene besides the first sequence is the one with Ryan Gosling throwing up in the truck after he completes his first bank robbery. It’s also worth noting that Gosling sings for Mendes’ mum in Spanish and that he dances with his friend’s dog. The rest of musical choices, except for the final credits, are bad.

The stories are ok: it’s interesting to talk about motorbike riders (except it sounds like a remake of Drive), it’s interesting to talk about corruption in the police and it’s interesting to talk about childhood and adulthood.

Many choices are terrible. My friends thought it was a good idea that Ryan Gosling’s son (Dane DeHaan) did not kill Bradley Cooper’s son (Emory Cohen), which he almost did to revenge his father. The more I think about it, the more convinced I grow it was actually a terrible choice. The whole movie is about reproduction of patterns, one of the most visible ones is that Ryan Gosling did not grow up around his father (he informs us of this himself) and his son is not going to grow up around him (he is dead). Bradley Cooper becomes like his father, and his son (the final scene tells us) is likely to follow that path. Now, if Emory Cohen had died, he would have avoided Cooper’s path. Therefore, Cianfrance would not have surrendered to the unbearable narrative of ‘everything reproduces itself to the infinite’. Now, we can be sure that DeHaan will die as soon as he has a kid.

So many other choices are regrettable, for instance that DeHaan “has a temper” just like his father. That he is instinctively good at riding bicycles and motorbikes, just like his father. That Gosling quickly becomes good at robbing banks. That his voice is extremely high when he robs.

The actors are not amazing: Ryan Gosling is invisible, it could have been anyone else. Eva Mendes gives us a movie-long frown (you can check on the movie poster). I have absolutely nothing to say about the rest of them, except for DeHaan, who is good.

The editing is strange, notably the fusion between scenes. I remember one in particular, mixing together the image of Gosling and Mendes’ couple with the scene that follows, right after they first meet, under a very loud and cheesy music. It’s almost shocking.

Some of the story details are not that acceptable either: that Eva Mendes and her mum speak Spanish around Kofi (Mendes’ partner) but not around Gosling (why?); that Google only tells DeHaan that his father died, assassinated by a cop, and not that he was the greatest motorbike rider ever (EVER)…

I don’t know if you should watch it or not, if you don’t, you won’t be missing out.

Melancholia

This recording (click here) is a bit… strange, my editing skills are not good enough to make it better, so I hope our hesitations are not too annoying. We sound very nervous, as in first-date kind of nervous, which is as one should be when talking about this movie.

Our basic message is that we adored this movie and that you should watch it.

This movie is so great that in its ‘plot summary’ iTunes only says “A beautiful movie about the end of the world”, instead of giving you the dry lengthy paragraphs typical of that section.

On April 20, 2013: It’s a scandal that I (M) say that nobody had put images on Wagner’s Tristan und Isolde music before. I just watched An Andalusian Dog. I have a million things to say about the movie, but I will just start by apologising for not knowing that Buñuel used Tristan und Isolde 82 years before Lars.

Alice in the Cities

By M

This movie is in perpetual movement, a ‘swing’ sort of movement. We spend more than half the movie in different means of transportation: cars, trains, trams, planes, ferries… Wenders brings them all.

Movement also in the frugal soundtrack that barely counts half dozen songs that smoothly cradle you through the movie and enhance your experience of the trip. The movie is about quests, but it is mainly about how paths are defined through the search.

Delightfully enough, the movie is also about pictures, and therefore about stillness. Not only because as in all the rest of Wenders’ movies, you could make a picture of each image, but also because pictures are an important character in the movie that make the plot progress and allow the characters to express their evolution. Wenders the photographer even has the tenderness to make his character say about his pictures “they never look like what you saw” while Wenders the director shows you on the screen, a still image that is even more beautiful than the recorded image you saw seconds ago. Disarming.

Of course, the most interesting thing about the movie is the relationship between Alice and Phil, two components of a very strange undesired couple that end up being unbreakable. The negotiation of the frontier between childhood and adulthood Alice is legitimately going through, and the desperate search for his true self Phil is engaged in, are brilliantly intertwined as the movie progresses. Both actors play their roles brilliantly.

Also worth mentioning are the subtle and discrete, but militant and efficient, comments that Wenders slots into the movie. My favourite is the fierce critique of American TV: “The inhuman thing about American TV is not so much that they hack everything up with commercials, though that’s bad enough, but in the end all programmes become commercials. Commercials for the status quo. Every image radiates the same disgusting and nauseated message. A kind of boastful contempt. Not one image leaves you in peace, they all want something from you.” But also impressive is the arrow sent against the European urban development: beautiful village houses are abandoned to serve urban expansion. Alice tells us how sad it makes her to see all those “grave houses”.

Wenders offers us a piece of beauty. Enjoy it.

Blue Valentine

One of our favorite movies. It’s a pleasure to think and talk about it. You can listen to our thoughts on it here.

Half Nelson

We watched this movie some time ago and really liked it. Here is why.

Weekend (1967)

We watched this movie a couple of days ago. Click here for what we have to say about it.

Days of Heaven

By N

Days of Heaven (1978) is Terrence Malick’s second movie. Despite not being a wide-spread popular success, it won Malick the prix de Cannes for best director in 1979.  Malick’s movies always come with anecdotes which make you admire him and his work even more – for example, most of the filming in Days of Heaven was made either in sunrise or sunset, with the final result being some magical lighting effects. Also, it took him 2 years of editing before releasing the movie. The result is astonishing with precision and beauty. Would I be wrong to say that one of the most important parts of making a movie is not shooting or directing actors but is editing. Malick clearly understands it and takes the matter seriously.

Today no one could contest that this movie is a classic you should add to your ‘10 (yes, 10) movies I should see before I die’ list. I don’t think you’ll watch it for the story though. In short: three siblings – a young Richard Gere, Brooke Adams and Linda Manz – run away from Chicago to work in a farm in Texas.  Richard Gere and Brooke Adams pretend to be siblings when they are in fact lovers. Sam Shepard, the owner of the farm, falls in love with Brooke Adams and asks her to stay with him in the farm. Knowing that Shepard is dying from illness, Richard Gere asks Brooke Adams to be with him until he dies to inherit his fortune – she decides to stay in the condition that her siblings can too, and here begins a triangular love story. As you can imagine, it is not going to end well.

Apart from that, nothing much happens. One will also note the infrequency of dialogue, for most of the story is told through the narrative spectre of Gere’s little sister, Linda Manz. Having said that, this is not problematic, and you are not bored at all; indeed, the absence of dialogue is complemented by an absolutely stunning use of scenery. His strength is not to make things look intentionally attractive; that would be too easy and superficial. Prettiness is pointless when trying to flatter reality. His two major recurrent themes, which you can find in his movies such as The tree of life (2011) and To the wonder (2012), are more than ever present in this one: dominant nature and (despair of) humanity. Malick’s shots of imposing nature are incredible; his sense of aesthetics genuinely touches you – Everything is expressed through images and music. And this is where Malick excels.

This movie is undoubtedly a wonderful cinematographic experience. Watch it in the cinema if you can – but watch it in whichever way you can.

Morse. Let the Right One In. *Spoiler*

By M

To PB and GSB, for letting me in (in different ways, at different times, when most needed).

This is one of my favorite movies of all times and I can only eternally thank PB for giving me such present.

Be Oskar for one second. A difficult childhood. It’s really cold in Sweden and it gets even colder when other kids make fun of you at school, it freezes when your parents get a divorce, and life is impossible when your Dad has a drinking problem. Being 12 is not fun. You go out despite the snow. There is a girl. She has that voice. She is wearing just a night-shirt. You ask her whether she isn’t cold. She says she doesn’t remember that sensation. She solves your Rubik’s cube. You become closer and you help each other become adults, stand on you own feet. You end up needing each other, because life is much better like that, because, like that, and only like that, you can fully be yourself. And live.

Now, the girl is a vampire. “Are you dead? / No”

Everything about her is right, everything is just. Everything about them both is just right. She is a newcomer to the boy’s building, where she arrives with an old man. I understand that in the book, they have an “exchange of favors” kind of relationship, where he provides for her food and she gives him sexual favors. The movie skips the sexual favors, which is, arguably, a mistake, but whatever.

The old man loves Eli so much. As much as you can picture someone loving. But he is supporting Eli in her choice to get out of her right track, in her choice of being someone else. He provides for her food so that she doesn’t have to kill. She puts a distance between death and herself. Drinks a blood that belongs to nobody. Until she meets Oskar. The old man is jealous, makes mistakes, and kills himself, inviting her to drink his blood, which she does, recovering fully her identity.

All this is shot so beautifully, so beautifully. You can feel the cold on your own skin. The music suits the images perfectly and even the special effects are well integrated: Eli gets all her years for some seconds and transforms into an old monster. The photography is magnificent and even more so because it serves the powerful story.

“Be me for one second”. That is love. Being able to be the other, even if it is just for one second.

Blood, of course. When Oskar refuses to understand, when Oskar is mad at her, when Oskar doesn’t want to abide by her rules and forces her into a world of reality, opening the door, not asking her in — “You need to ask me in” — “Why? Is there an invisible wall?” he says with the arrogance of ignorance. She enters without being invited and starts bleeding from all her pores. “No!”, he yells. “You can come in!” he cries while hugging her. Anything but losing you.

The eroticism. They are 12 year old kids, but her hand on his naked back. Her, naked in his bed. Nothing happens, just the calmness of the tension.

Love again, as protection, this time. She cuts off the heads of those who threaten him. He tries to kill the one who threatens her, but fails. She takes care of it. One of them apologizes, the other says it’s ok. Then they need to leave, and it’s forever.

I could go on, every scene is perfect, every element of the story is a jewel. He wants her to have sweets. Puts his money in it. She can’t eat, but loves him too much to disappoint him. Has the sweets, throws up. “I’m sorry / It’s ok”.

Two caveats that I need to share though. There is this one character and plot development that is beyond vulgarity. One of the city residents, a woman, gets bitten by Eli, but the girl doesn’t have the time to kill her. She turns into a vampire and decides to kill herself. The first thing that is totally unbearable is that the cats recognize that she is not human and try to attack her. The idea that cats feel paranormal activity (see Ghost, for instance) is boring. Then this lady kills herself by being exposed to the sun and burning. That scene is ugly and unnecessary.

I read an interview with the director and the author of the book to conclude that they didn’t understand much about the movie, which might explain such poor choices.

Watch it a trillion times.