About Chocolate Parfaits

The Big Lebowski

I have recently heard that a film should teach you something about life by telling a story. Now, a story can be absolutely brilliant but the mise en scène can be absolutely horrible and unwatchable. Now, “The Big Lebowski” surely is greatly directed, there is no doubt about that. And the storyline itself is absolutely wonderful and full of funny references, which definitely has contributed to its cult status.

The film makes me want to drink a White Russian. It reminds me that I need a signature drink – I’m considering making it a white grasshopper.

Now, at least 3 people told me that I should watch the film, and perhaps right now was the perfect time for me to do so. It’s as if seeing “The Big Lebowski” made me realize what I like about a movie: When it attempts to solve the mystery of life by telling a story and incorporating a million details of humanity. To me, posing questions by showing is so much nicer than any psychological analysis in a scientific context. In fact, I have read an absolutely horrible ’scientifical’ article today, which reminds me yet again that I am most definitely never in my life going to study film. I would like to study something (like a mix of theology, political philosophy, history, photography and directing) that is not explicitly film – with the intent to actually study film. At least to me that sounds like something more reasonable.

I’m sorry for digressing. So what made “The Big Lebowski” enjoyable on so many levels? First of all, it was quite funny and entertaining. The whole story is like a roller coaster in a floppy way like “Some Like it Hot” was and it’s full of quotable scenes making it funny for seemingly any type of humor. But there’s more to that, and the fact that the Coen brothers do the Jarmusch thing definitely helped; they write up characters to match the acting of their friends like the roles of John Goodman and Steve Buscemi (who I love btw!), making those characters so much more “alive” even when they don’t have so much acting time. John Goodman’s character is an amazing asshole, but he drives the story further, provides some good laughs and is an amazingly non-stereotypical way to depict a character who could just as well stand for a whole generation of middle-aged men. The same applies to the Dude, the likeable loser: He fails at life, but at the same time it feels he has his heart at the right place and he was smart enough to look through the other Lebowski’s plan. The combination of hilarity, identification potential with the characters and an intriguing story where the characters are confronted both with each other and unusual situations make “The Big Lebowski” into a treasure box of truths about what life is. The best example is Donny’s death – we see how non-chalantly the other two deal with it and yet there is some mix of emotions and irony in the scene where Donny’s ashes are shattered. It’s like “Fight Club” without the fights.

I also love how there is no actual conclusion to the story, no big picture, just a good storyline. There is no climax or some dramatic end that the story has built up to (think fight against the big boss), there is no mastermind behind or it a big plot revealed – there isn’t even a million dollars to begin with. In the end, it’s more like an adventurous slice of life, the ultimate paradox.

If you have read this far: Yes, I find the way I am ranting about “The Big Lebowski” weird too, and it is utterly different from how I used to speak about “Fargo” which I would consider a very similar type of Coen movie. Maybe at that time I just wasn’t as susceptible for films like that, or I just didn’t get the story. Who knows. At any rate, I am aware that the thoughtful layer of “The Big Lebowski” is a very subtle one and therefore seems quite difficult to pinpoint to me. But it’s the main thing I got out of watching the film (oddly enough), so I apologize.

So don’t watch “The Big Lebowski” for the stuff I have ranted about, but do watch it if you are into black comedies.

Alice in Wonderland (2010)

I hope Lewis Carroll turns around in his grave when he watches this version of his “Alice in Wonderland”. That was about the most idiotic story I have seen for quite awhile and its level of smartness would lie somewhere between Kanokon and Arina Tanemura manga if it were not for the absolutely brilliant Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter.

So let’s see, what did I like about the movie: The 3D effects which were fun to watch (although it was difficult to keep those glasses on my nose); some of the characters (namely the red queen, the white queen and the mad hatter) were quite original and amusing; the stylishness that comes with all Tim Burton films. I guess that’s it. Everything else was an immensely horrible downfall, let’s rank them from less bad to the worst:
- Alice is a freakin’ adult who behaves like a 10 year old
- The story was amazingly straightforward and ended with some fight with a monster (LOL)
- Alice is being helped by a bunch of animals (can it get even more clichéd than that?)
- Alice’s face was shown all the time and unfortunately the girl just cannot act
- Alice’s character is a wannabe modern girl
- After coming back to the real world, Alice ends up “believing in the impossible” and sailing out to do trading with China; I can’t think of any possible ending that is even worse than that; this movie fails both at politics and at picturing society. But then again, after watching this movie I’m supposed to believe the impossible after all. Maybe I should have gone for the Nobel Prize.
- There is no genuine feeling between the characters, and if you ask me, there was not remotely anything genuine about the film at all. It exuberated at stylishness, but there was no connection or any warmth in the film at all (think Korean animated movies). Every single smile in that movie was fake. On top of that, every scene was unfortunately accompanied by dramatic and overly emotional (not to say kitsch) music.

In the end, I hated this movie a little bit less than “Big Fish” because I am a horrible sucker for the “Alice in Wonderland” motif and because I admit I have loved Alice’s dresses, but can I please get my money back?

PS. I need to watch a smart movie… like right now.
PPS. After watching this movie, I feel like I have already forgotten how many wonderfully subtly intelligent movies Tim Burton has made – Ed Wood, Edward Scissorhands, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory… it’s really sad. But then again, I cringe when I think of Big Fish and I feel the same about Alice in Wonderland.

Alice in Wonderland (1903)

First of all, the newsletter said “Alice in Wonderland for FREE”, and then it turns out that the exact same version of the video is actually on Youtube. But hey, it never hurts to watch a legal version I guess.

At any rate, this movie was not as enjoyable as the first free movie I have seen on The Auteurs (namely “The Housemaid”), but it was a fun history lesson. “Alice in Wonderland” is the best book to make a movie out of after all, and this one is so cute in the way it’s old and people were so bad at film-making too. Compared to “A Trip to the Moon” just one year before, I think that the technique in Alice sucked a bit, even though they did quite an effort and obviously put a significant amount of money in this 10 minute long gem where all the Cheshire Cat was obviously the best actor of all of them, lol. (The cat is so great!)

The Shining

When I heard of Kubrick’s name for the first time during the anticipation of the release of A.I., I have already watched three of his movies: Lolita, Spartacus and Eyes Wide Shut. It took awhile to see his others, but ignoring his early obscure works, I only have Dr. Strangelove to watch. Since 6451 also recommended it to me, I can only hope that it won’t be a disappointment. (After all, I probably won’t exactly like “Lolita” if I watched it now.)
Yesterday, I had a short peek at what else he stuffed his HD with – his selection is awfully German, but there’s a lot of interesting stuff there.

“The Shining” is a masterpiece. At the same time, it’s so much of a cult movie that I was walking around telling people that I watched the film – and everyone had some comment to give to it, be it a reference to the Simpsons or an opinion on Kubrick’s films in general. I like when I can use the movies I watch as a smalltalk topic. It makes me feel more mainstream, but at the same time it makes me feel relieved that I don’t only watch obscure stuff, heh.

I’m pretty sure that I had nightmares after seeing this movie, which usually never happens to me. Maybe that is the reason why I like this movie so much: The atmosphere. After all, “The Shining” has nothing – the story is nothing special, there are barely any interesting plot twists, and that makes it really difficult to write about the film itself. But the atmosphere! I love the scenes where the loli twins appear and although I thought it looked like cranberry sauce, the blood-shedding door is just too stylish for its own good. I can see how the style of modern Asian horror movies is inspired from this film, and just show how influential Kubrick is yet again.

I’m completely addicted to “The Recluse” by Cursive now, but unfortunately it keeps me up from writing anything more on this movie. I mean, the song is about the exact opposite to the movie. There is nothing atmospherical about indie music (or most of it), but it’s addicting sometimes. “The Shining” makes me want to ignore it, but it just shows how impressive the film was.

Today, I spoke to Loris who mentioned how important the content of a film is to him. That is so weird, because I used to be like that too: The story and especially the dialogue were the most important. For him I know that it partially stems from his affiliation to the theater stage, and I understand that very well because I used to love theater plays too. But ultimately, that is not all for me now – films work differently than theater plays, and mise en scène for a film means so much more than “setting characters into place”. After seeing quite a few films now, I have become quite a visual person too now, and the reasons why I like “The Shining” or “The Limits of Control” so much mostly comes from the visuals: It’s about how the looks and the pace of the film create an intense atmosphere.

I completely failed at finding out what other films he has seen lately, but it seems at least he saw “Crimes and Misdemeanors”, “Husbands and Wives” and some Coen films like “The Big Lebowski”, their new “A Serious Man” and “Burn After Reading” (which he disliked because he found it too cynical – and oh my, that must mean it’s really cynical).

PS. Today, I also found out that there is a sex scene with Claudia Cardinale in “C’era una volta il West”. That makes me want to see the movie even more now. XD

Words can not describe how sorry I am, so I’ll just get the remaining reviews out…

Kyouto Uzumasa Monogatari (Kyoto Story, 京都太秦物語)
Japan 2010, Yoji Yamada/Tsutomu Abe, 90′

Kyouto-Uzumasa, a district formerly known for housing all of the great Japanese film studios: Kyouko, the dry-cleaner’s daughter works part-time in the library of the local Ritsumeikan University where she meets Enoki, a horribly nerdy but very passionate scholar of Chinese characters, visiting from Tokyo for research. Kouta, the tofu shop’s son, regularly goes to Osaka for auditions to debut as a comedian but after years of trying he still hasn’t succeeded, which may be because he just tries too hard. So while Kouta still tries for the impossible, straining the patience of everyone around him, Kyouko sees the passionate scholar fall for her…

I was at the World premiere, yay. Similarly to Yanaka Boshoku we have a movie about a city district again and we get that warm (sometimes a bit too stuffy) feeling of small Japanese town-communities that has faded away in most places. And in a similar way reality and fiction were mixed as the real history of two shop owners was used to develop the story of Kyouko and Kouta, their fictional children. Additionally the shop owners told, in little interviews, their story and in another layer of fiction-reality they talked about their fictional children and the actors who played said children were also “interviewed”. Kyoto Story is the next in a line of Japanese movies this year that question the way people in Japan live and openly oppose the pursuit of material goods and money, this time offering the cozy classical town-district culture with its small communities and local shopping streets as an alternative to the fast life of the big city. I guess Yamada was, despite just being the coordinator as he himself stated in the Q&A, in charge of overall Japaneseness™. The movie literally oozes it. Kyoto Story is a very closely-knit cooperation between the local Ritsumeikan University and Shochiku, the last remaining (and one of the oldest in Japan) big film studio in a district where the Japanese movie industry started. (Uzumasa-based Daiei, now closed, produced the first Japanese Oscar-winner “Rashomon” for example.) Yamada, the camera operator and the three main actors were the only professionals on set, everything else was done by the students. The director said that a great amount of preparation went into the movie and many residents were interviewed, so having students do this instead of professionals greatly helped in getting honest answers and stories from the people. The movie in itself while being nothing over the top told a heartwarming little love story in a quite mature and experienced way, I wonder how much influence Yamada really had. Ultimately, while it is focused on Uzumasa and will be of more interest to people interested in Japanese culture it has the quite universal message that you should try to see the happiness in front of you first, instead of chasing after the impossible. In this particular story that message is quite convincing.

The Limits of Control

“Two espressos in separate cups.” This is so Jarmusch, really. That line is the essence of the film. Actually his old films were not like that at all, I think that “Night on Earth” was the first episodic super-stylish Jarmusch, and the newer his films are, the more stylish and luxurious his films look like. I wonder if I mind that we have lost the raw, gritty Jarmusch of Permanent Vacation and Mystery Train, but I find myself loving his table shots (whether it’s coffee, fruits or a gun) and the fact that his characters are now walking through Hollywood-ish romantic places instead of poor American cities. He has kept his use of unusual, indie music and the panning shots through the city though, thank God.

Isaach de Bankolé has only one single facial expression in the movie. The dialogue is completely pointless and somewhat elitist and pretentious. Nothing really happens at all, and yet I find myself watching this movie instead of taking a nap. Just recently, I was saying that I found “Platform” to be too slow, but actually “The Limits of Control” is much, much slower. I can’t help but be fascinated by the film, even though theoretically it’s the exact opposite of films I like: I prefer films with some sort of meaning, a suspenseful story, lots of action, dialogues and fleshed out characters. None of these apply to “The Limits of Control”, and yet I am explicably drawn to the film.

More than anything else, I am in love with the details: The two espressos, the plastic raincoat, the matchboxes, Madrid, the recurring guitars, the carefully chosen interior architecture. (Even the train is stylish!) I am wondering how I would feel about seeing “Broken Flowers” again. I felt that “Broken Flowers” seemed weary and not very interesting, I even thought it was because Jarmusch got old. Perhaps he did with “The Limits of Control” even more, but at the same time, it feels so… contemporary? Incredibly beautiful? Unreal?

Coming back to the pretentiousness of the film: If it really were elitist and pretentious as a lot of critics seem to think, I would probably hate the movie. I have never seen Jarmusch as an elitist though, in fact I think he is much more real and down to earth than most others. His movies don’t, they just show details. People speak about ‘pretentious’ topics such as the universe, life and art in quite a confusing way, but all of them speak about themselves and their own impressions. It’s more about liking or not liking rather than what is good or real. Or the characters express a belief that doesn’t feel imposing but makes you think “Oh that’s an interesting way too see it, but I don’t see it that way”.
I have no idea whether it is the case or not, but I feel like Jarmusch’s films are so much more honest to himself than an elitist director could possibly be.

I thought that the name of the cinematographer sounded familiar, and oh my God, how familiar! Christopher Doyle made the most horrible Paris je t’aime part (Porte de Choisy), but also Three, Hero, Infernal Affairs, Chungking Express… I am amazed.

I love the scene where he goes into that underground bar-type thing. It’s a special scene, and somewhat cliché: The scene is in the middle of the movie, and it’s the only time when he actually does seem to show any feelings at all. He actually smiles!

Oh my God, why did I never go to the Reina Sofía? It has so many nice pieces.

I love the scene where he sits down in front of that completely pointless white piece of… art?, stands up and leaves. I liked how he opens his jacket to sit down, and it makes a lot of sense that he then changes back into his ‘normal self’ (or so I assume). Nevertheless, the whole part with Bill Murray was kind of boring though – that is the one part where the atmosphere of the movie didn’t do so much for me.

At the end of the day, I feel (or I fear!) that I like this movie because it’s a Jarmusch. Because I know what to expect in his movies and what not to expect, and perhaps I am on the same wavelength. Jarmusch is my Kundera in movies, except that Jarmusch doesn’t talk so much.

Platform

Quite awhile ago, Gorp asked me when I am going to dislike one of the films on the Monolith (my harddrive), all of which he gave me. Well, perhaps Platform is one. Just like „Springtime in a Small Town“, I find it difficult to describe whether I liked „Platform“ or not.

Let’s start with the bad parts of it: I have found the story, especially with its ending, to be incredibly unsatisfying. While I easily accept a non-existent ending in „The White Ribbon“, I have found it difficult for to do so for this film. After all, the whole story is about how the characters are evolving and what is going to happen to them in the end, but we don’t actually get to know much about it. I actually have cared for the flamenco dancing girl, but she just randomly disappeared into nowhere.
Then, I am still not a big fan of slow films, even though I have become much more forgiving than I used to. „Platform“ however, is just way too slow for its own good, or at least its slowness did not contribute too much to its atmosphere in my opinion. I think I would have held the film in much higher esteem if the pacing were more according to my tastes. „The White Ribbon“ also had its slow moments, but they never felt slow. „Platform“ was mostly boring.

Yet, I have to stress that „Platform“ has its moments – and there are quite a few of them. I would say about 10% of the film was absolutely gorgeous and interesting. The aforementioned flamenco scene is one of them, and the scene where the other girl dances alone in her room is another one. I liked the way pop music was integrated into the film very much, and I love the portrait of a generation changing throughout the years. Whenever we got a glimpse of that, I thought „Perhaps cinematography and directing are not so bad after all“.

Finally, I thought that „Platform“ said and showed a lot – just not enough, and left me incredibly unsatisfied at the end. In general though, I think that I am still interested in Zhang Jiake’s films and with the hope that the others won’t be SO slow paced (or at least slow paced and interesting in its slow pacedness), I wonder which title I should proceed with. „The World“? „Still Life“?

Le Amiche

For many reasons, „Le Amiche“ ended up being the only film I was able to see during the Antonioni retrospective they had at the Arsenal. This is very sad, but if it was not the retrospective, I would never have been able to see this film otherwise. After all, the movie doesn’t even have a decent Wikipedia article!

It’s weird enough, because I have seen so many great movies lately, but none of them had an impact on me as strongly as „Le Amiche“ did. Granted, this is not a very typical Antonioni, and I understand perfectly why it is not as acclaimed as his other films. Most Antonioni’s are extremely visual and his style would make his film great even if the story were completely pointless. „Le Amiche“ is not a feast for the eyes as most Antonioni’s are, like „Blow Up“ or „L’Éclisse“, although of course the characters are always very nicely dressed. It also doesn’t really have an intriguing mood like „The Red Desert“ – very unlike every other movie of his, „Le Amiche“ is just a simple film with a simple story.

But what a story! When I think back, the last film that impressed me in the same way was „Jules et Jim“, although for rather different reasons, since Truffaut’s masterpiece is very stylish and playful too. „Le Amiche“ is comparably serious yet less dramatic. It’s mostly a love story, but a more ‚real’ one than Antonioni’s other films about love. When Rosetta wanted to kill herself, I could perfectly feel why. The characters in „Le Amiche“ remind me a little bit of „Don Juan kommt aus dem Krieg“, where many different women are shown, but in the end they are all the same. All women take love seriously, even when they make a decision against it. There were quite a few scenes where I thought „Wow, how real“ – very unlike Antonioni’s other films. One of them was when Momina says „A husband is always a husband“ when she reconciles with him, another one was when Nene says that she must leave when there is no love in a relationship anymore, that she would have stayed if there were children. But since there are no children, love is necessary for two people to be together. This scene, and quite a few others, made me want to cry out in the movie theater.

I find myself to describe why I like „Le Amiche“ so much, and actually this Amazon review does a much better job than me. It’s very personal, I guess, and it touched the core of myself, a little bit like „Huo Zhe“ did. In that respect, this film is much more precious to me than every single other Antonioni. I have found all of his films to be brilliant, but none of them made such an impression on me than this little, unpretentious title.

Before I die, I am determined to see these other Antonioni’s:
- L’Avventura
- La Notte
- Antonioni’s China
- Professione: Reporter
- Beyond the Clouds
This means that I will at least double the number of Antonioni titles I have seen. See why I think it’s difficult to a cinephile in the making?

Sunset Boulevard

I don’t know how long it’s been that Shii tells me to watch this movie. For some reason I don’t understand, I always thought that the movie would be a romantic comedy. Probably because a film with „sunset“ in the title sounds like it has to be romantic and since Wilder directed it, it must be a comedy. Harr harr. Later, I got to know that it was about some old woman who wasn’t able to face her age – such a vain topic is not particularily interesting for me, or so I thought.

Now, I have completely forgotten why I have finally decided to watch the film – especially since it turned out to be completely different from my imagination. It should have helped me not to know that this is a Wilder – in many ways it’s probably the exact opposite of Wilder’s films. Usually, Wilder mostly employs somewhat weak and hollow women (except for Greta Garbo of course), he likes the blonde type after all. Gloria Swanson’s character is somewhat hollow too, but at the same time, her character is very well fleshed-out and much more complex,. She is not just an old hag, there’s some mysteriousness and obsessiveness about her that is very different from Wilder’s usual simple-minded women. She plans ahead and knows how to charm a man. The way she entertains the man she loves by playing Charlie Chaplin for him shows that she is actually a fascinating character, and a much more exciting lover than the little girl, her rival in love. Perhaps Norma is the best female character Hollywood has ever made, I think she’s even greater than Margo Channing in “All about Eve”.

I love Erich von Stroheim’s appearance in the movie, absolutely love love love Buster Keaton playing himself. It’s just so funny when we see Swanson interact with people of her own age, and tragic at the same time. That particular scene is like the whole movie through the magnifying glass, it was great. While Gloria Swanson is absolutely amazing, she did not completely outshine her surrounding (except maybe William Holden) just because they managed to get so many great actors on screen.

In the end, I feel like I should watch that movie again. It’s incredibly layered, provoking and usually deep and serious for a Wilder movie. I loved it a lot. In the end, I would say that it’s among the best pictures that Wilder made, with „Some like it hot“, „Avanti“ and „One Two Three“. But then again, there also is „The Apartment“, „Ninotchka“ and „Sabrina“… ahhh! I think he is my second favorite director for a good reason. (No. 1 would be Jim Jarmusch.)
It’s so difficult to compare Wilder’s movies really. How is it even possible to judge whether “Some like it hot” or “Sunset Boulevard” is a better movie when they are more different from each other than apples and oranges?

Something extremely odd happens to me when I’m at 6451’s place. It’s a quite bare house and literally everybody I know has a nicer house than they do. However, something about that place intrigues me, it makes me want to live there. Perhaps it subconsciouly makes me think my first boyfriend’s home with it’s the mixture of white walls, a neat yet boring kitchen and Biedermeier looking furniture.

Anyways, this is the first movie I have seen with 6451 and I am so glad that we chose this one to be it.

Der Letzte Mann

It’s been awhile since I have last seen a silent film, and most silent films that I ended up liking were during live screenings. Metropolis, Nosferatu and others made an incredibly great impression on me because I was able to watch them in a movie theater with like-minded film buffs accompanied by great live music. I was not sure whether I will be happy with just watching a silent on a laptop screen.

But, it seems that truly great movies would deliver even under the worst circumstances (it was the same thing for “The White Ribbon” after all). “The Last Laugh” was absolutely wonderful, and while I still don’t really know much about silent films, I had this feeling that the cinematography was extremely unusual. The few scenes where we were zooming into the main character were astonishing and greatly contributed to the mood – I was so in awe. It was only later on that I got to know what revolutionary techniques Murnau used.

It’s difficult to describe it, but I think the greatness about the film really consists in its cinematography and all those details that make this film with its simple story so incredibly effective and suspenseful. We were introduced into the main character’s life with so much detail that the scene where his downfall starts comes off as a shock. I especially love the scene where he walks in through the revolving door while that other guy walks out. More than Nosferatu even, the greatness of The Last Laugh comes from his versatile directing and modern filming techniques. I am so amazed by Murnau’s skills… why is it that German director’s in the Weimar Republic were so great?

Concerning the ending, I am absolutely sure that Murnau was incredibly pissed when he was forced to change his ending. Granted, I have only seen his Nosferatu so far, but I strongly believe that he never wanted the film to end that way. The end is too… hollywood-ish, it’s completely defying the film’s atmosphere and considering what kind of time Murnau is coming from and what background he has, I can’t possibly believe that he intended to tell such a story. However, after I have struggled through the whole film and felt so much compassion for the main character, the ending left a nice feeling for me. I know this is horribly wrong, but I was somewhat happy at the end.

I absolutely need to see Sunrise. The problem with watching movies is that every single movie I watch makes me want to watch at least two more other films. When is this ever going to stop? XD