About Chocolate Parfaits

Today was less stressful than yesterday, and it was also easier to figure out what to watch. I still can’t get over the fact that I couldn’t watch “Foolish Wives” because of “3 Bad Men”, and this line of sadness will continue with “Dr. Caligari” vs. “The Crowd”, “Intolerance” vs. “Häxan” and “Greed” vs. “Der Golem”. Oh well, such is the movie theater I love to hate.

La Passion de Jeanne d’Arc
France 1928, Carl T. Dreyer, 110′

As one of the critics’ favorites, I have always meant to see this film, especially after I have fallen in love with “Vivre sa Vie”. But every picture I have seen of this movie was Maria Falconetti’s sad face, and felt like the movie must be dreadful to watch.

For some reason, this was totally not the case, yet I don’t know why. Perhaps it was precisely because I didn’t feel too emotional when I saw the film; in fact, it felt extremely artificial to me, in a similar way as Goethe’s “Iphigenie auf Tauris” did. For precisely that reason, I find both “Iphigenie auf Tauris” as well as “Jeanne d’Arc” very beautiful. I found Maria Falconetti’s performance extremely impressive, especially for a woman who was not trained to be an actress. I was also surprised by the depiction of the other characters, the evil clericals. Everybody else commented how funny and poignant they looked, and I must admit that I agree. They gave quite a nice picture of religious terror.

As always there were aspects of the film I disliked, namely that the events in the film weren’t even close to the historical truth: In reality, there was no revolt at the end of Jeanne’s death (ugh “You have burned a saint!”), there was no good man trying to help her and of course her trial was nothing like it was depicted in the movie. I also don’t believe that Jeanne’s true character was so jesus-like. Of course this was all intended and contributes to the film’s beauty, but ugh.

All in all, I was positively surprised by this film that I expected to be rather boring to watch. The atmosphere of the film was absolutely gripping (perhaps helped by the beautiful and large theater as well as the professional musical accompaniment), and I “enjoyed” it very much. I found myself glued to the screen, although I didn’t cry like Nana. As a woman, I guess I don’t suffer much in life.

By the way, the whole movie was shown in French without any translation whatsoever. I was very amused.

Queen Kelly
USA 1929, Erich v. Stroheim, 101′

The only unfortunate thing about the film itself was this absolutely dreadful Africa scene, where Kelly was to be married to some old ugly guy. It shows how much longer the film would have been when just a scene like that was this long. The most unfortunate thing about the whole event were the obnoxious girls sitting behind us. They managed to laugh at the most stupid moments (and not laugh at good moments), and commented on the film loudly the whole time… Amazing, really. It made me think of the day when I watched “To be or no to be”. It was in the main theater in the Babylon and whenever something funny happened, the whole audience was roaring with laughter. Back then, I loved laughing with that audience as much as I hated having to see “Queen Kelly” with this audience today.

Poor Stroheim, of course he was an evil maniac, but the resulting film didn’t deserve to be seen by such simple-minded women. It’s not even like “Queen Kelly” was intellectual or anything, but it did have quite a lot of great jokes. (Horizontal profession! Hahaha.) The majority of the film was a feast for the eye and the comical mind. Before I saw this film (my first Stroheim that is), I was a little doubtful of all the frivolity and generous spendings, but now that I see it, I must admit that I find it very enjoyable to look at, and Stroheim’s love for details is exactly what I love about his films.
I’m not so sure what I think about the length though. The Africa part was incredibly long-winded and from the stills we can only guess that it was intended to be something like 3 times longer. In comparison to that, the movie (Kelly’s affair with the prince) is perhaps just an introduction to the story. How amazing and scary at the same time. It is a piece of irony that the combination of Stroheim’s mad direction and other people’s mad cutting have ‘created’ these masterpieces.

As always, a silent also lives by the fact and acting skills of its main character, and Gloria Swanson had plenty of both. I don’t find her to be an outstanding beauty (and actually think that she looks a little bit like Adele Sandrock, hahaha), but oh wow she was good. I felt like I recognized some of her facial expressions from “Sunset Boulevard” and in retrospect, it was very fascinating to see one of the silents where her skills were exposed in such different way. She was absolutely perfect in this role of innocent yet smart and slightly precocious girl, and made the movie so much better for me. The queen herself was a delightful contrast to it – I loved how she threw her poor cat to the floor! Just lovely.

Since I enjoyed “3 Bad Men” very much, I am not too sad that I wasn’t able to see “Foolish Wives”, but I definitely want to see every other Stroheim now. I think I love my crazy film directors too much…

The Stummfilmfestival in Berlin has started. I got a ticket for all the movies, so I will be seeing practically everything I can. Also, 6451 is in Berlin and so we will happily see quite a lot of each other.

Tagebuch einer Verlorenen (Diary of a Lost Girl)
Germany 1929, Georg W. Pabst, 109′

Before the film started, an announcer told us that this Pabst film was based on book aimed at maids. I knew that maids in the 19th and beginning of the 20th century loved reading these cheap thin books, but I also knew that most of these books contain disgustingly clichéd and badly written love stories. I could barely believe that Pabst (nor Louise Brooks) would make such a movie, which also was aimed at that audience.

Indeed, the film’s story was amazingly… girlish. A girl was driven out of the house by her stepmother for being impregnated by some evil guy, then fled from some dreadful reformatory for girls and subsequently got herself into a brothel, oh well. What make this film so interesting are firstly Louise Brook’s face and secondly Pabst’s directing.

I expected quite a lot from Pabst, and was not disappointed. The film was pretty much exactly like I hoped for, there were no Murnauesque special effects, just solid acting, a lot of subtle humor and a pleasant, fluid pace. Pabst knew very well how to make his characters interact, making this the probably the most lively silent I have seen so far. Besides Louise Brooks herself, we see a lot of close-ups of other characters who transport their feelings and intentions through facial expression alone. Nevertheless, there is something melodramatic about this direction style, and I have a feeling that Tarantino likes Pabst for the same reason for which certain critics like Sirk. XD

Straight Shooting
USA 1917, John Ford, 71′

Admittedly, we saw this film because it fit into the schedule. I have never, ever seen a John Ford movie, and ever since I got into movies, I have never ever seen a single western yet. The fact that this super old movie was supposedly well preserved was quite intriguing. I decided to give it a chance, even though the story didn’t sound all that exciting: Farmers and ranchers were engaged in some sort of war, in which the superhero-like protagonist decided to help the poor farmer’s family when he saw an old man and a cute girl cry over the murder of the son. What then ensues can easily be qualified as gun porn, but it was a very nice-looking one.

Ultimately I had my little irks with how useless the girl was in the end (ugh, this is so American really), but in many ways, the film was a nice introduction into western as well as a great contrast to “Tagebuch einer Verlorenen”, oozing so much manliness.

3 Bad Men
USA 1926, John Ford, 92′

I cried manly tears! No, seriously, this was one of the most amusing and fun films I have seen in quite awhile. Just like “Straight Shooting”, it fulfills all the Western clichés, where outlaws are actually lovely and funny people helping a damsel in distress and where everybody finally realizes that the true gold is the gold of a fruitful harvest.

It might have been interesting to see what John Ford’s original intent for this movie was, but as it is presented now, it was very enjoyable and amusing to watch. This is the kind of movie that one has to see, because there is not much to tell about it. All in all, it has a funnier and more complex story than “Straight Shooting”, and seems to be much more mature both for storytelling and characterization.

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (USA, 1920)
USA 1920, John S. Robertson, 80′

I have never seen any of the over 100 film versions of “Dr. Jekyll” before, and have only seen parts with Ingrid Bergman (which I liked very much, she has such a lovely shocked face). As my first film of this kind, I haven’t had very high expectations for the film. Indeed, there wasn’t much in this film that impressed me too much. In terms of direction, it was far less sophisticated than even “Straight Shooting”, and besides John Barrymore who plays both Jekyll and Hyde quite well, everything in the movie was pretty bad: Lighting, other people’s acting, the flow of the story… We rarely see any bad silent films, because we haven’t even seen the highly acclaimed good ones. “Fräulein Else” is perhaps the only film I have seen which doesn’t even had a Wikipedia article, and that one wasn’t even too bad – just not exactly good or memorable either. This version of “Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde” was little more than underwhelming. John Barrymore saved it a little bit, but that wasn’t enough for me who was tired after this marathon, heh.

The Turandot Project

The first documentary in ever that I have seen. Since this film is relevant to my interests (China, Zhang Yimou and perhaps my favorite opera) and I secretly always have wanted to see this opera in China, I console myself with seeing this documentary.

It’s a lot like I expected it, and I think I am rather forgiving that this movie just oozes of propaganda, perhaps because I expected it. But really, are they sure they want to show so much shameful footage, like the soldier who’s all like “our army is cultured” or Zhang Yimou’s “It doesn’t matter how they move, they just have to sing”? On top of that, the singers are rather bad, and the misunderstandings and bad translations are rather embarrassing, especially from the Chinese side. Uff.

Apart from that, as controversial as the production looks like to me, I actually like the looks of the production. I am a child of bombastic Chinese performances, and I think that colorful, megalomaniac beauty like from some fairytale is exactly what this opera needs. However, I am not entirely convinced that “Turandot” should be authentically Chinese looking, au contraire. “Turandot” is a Chinese princess, sure, but it clearly is no Chinese name. In fact, it’s more Persian/Middle Eastern and since names don’t matter all that much: Maybe my biggest irk with “Turandot” is that it is not a very typical Chinese story, but really does feel like a “1001 Nights” story. Also, many of its elements are allegoric and purely symbolic, as it is clearly a fictional story, a parable even. There is something disgusting about people talking about truth and authenticity, when the authenticity they talk about is the so-called Chineseness. “Turandot” is as Chinese as falafel is Israeli, and I can’t believe they get some ignorant or shady Chinese people talking about how “Turandot is originally Chinese, and now it’s performed at its original place”, ewwww. Also, there was not a single world about the real reason why “Turandot” was never performed in China before. (For those who are interested, it’s the same reason as to why “Paths of Glory” was never shown in France until 1975: “Turandot” supposedly shed a bad image on China like “Paths of Glory” did on the French army.)

In the end, I am still looking for my own perfect “Turandot”.

PS. Heavy metal is opera.

Conversations with Other Women

I was browsing the internet to see what other films she did besides “Brick”, and when I saw that this is going to be some sort of dialogue-based love story between 40-somethings played by Aaron Eckhart and Helena Bonham Carter, I could not resist. I knew that the story wouldn’t be anything special, and I wasn’t really sure if I would like the split-screen, but ultimately the film showed to be exactly what I expected.

Only I didn’t like the dialogue all that much. Perhaps I just have wanted more than the two characters talking about their own love lifes, screwing each other and subsequently childishly trying to ruin the other person’s life during a short moment of rage. All in all, I wasn’t too impressed by the writing itself, it was more like exactly what you would expect from a movie like this, and to me, it only speaks for how immensely boring people must be in their fourties. As a depiction of such, it was fairly brilliant though; I love the contempt in their voice when they say “23 August the 12th” (his new girlfriend) and “Jeff the cardiologist” (her new husband) XD

Apart from that, I liked how the story unfolded, and I actually must admit that I even liked the split screen approach. Sure, it’s a little bit annoying, but the smart way the film was cut contributed to the depiction of the character: Either both of them were shown, or their past was shown. That was rather nice, in my opinion.

Despite the wonderfully acted yet absolutely dislikable characters, I have ended up finding both of them fairly interesting. He’s clearly still wooing her and she has already adopted a very sad, nonchalant view of the world, in which she has to hide the fact that she smokes from her current husband. For these kinds of somewhat sophisticated details, I liked the movie, and it was thoroughly enjoyable to watch, but ultimately the film doesn’t leave all that deep of an impression.

Julie & Julia

The bad points first: Number one, the horrible englench. I want to cringe every single time they say “buuuuuuf burginen” and perhaps there is nothing as un-French as this movie. Number two, the character of Julie. I am aware that the real Julie is even more of a bitch, but even this Julie isn’t all that lovable. In fact, every single time I see her, I get annoyed by those non-problems she has. The only thing that redeemed this part is Doug Chris Messina, whom I really loved. Number three, the chick flick factor. Men are always loving and supporting, and they even watch stupid cookshows with you and laugh their heart out!

As somebody who loves Nora Ephron’s films (or more like I only like “You’ve Got Mail” and totally love it), I have thoroughly liked this film. If only it wasn’t based on a real blog I dislike! Perhaps the film would have been great if they only made a film about Julia Child, but then again I am very in love with the idea of
Really, Meryl Streep and Stanley Tucci are so incredibly good, and wonderfully cute together! I was very in love with the France part of the book simply because the characters worked so well together. Having seen a few other Meryl Streep films, but never having seen Julia Child, I found that Meryl Streep acted weird (so loud and all? Hahaha), but that was obviously because she was not playing herself after all! The onion cutting scene! Ahahaha! I cannot remember a single funny scene in the New York part, that was just emo, ewwww.
And the food! As expected, it was depicted beautifully in the film, as is the fun that comes with cooking. Oh how much I want to cook now, hahaha. I wish I were a good cook and could try out all of Julia Child’s recipes too… in 365 days! XD

All in all, this was a wonderful feel good film, despite all the criticism I had on it. Partially because I love the characters and the topic of the story (<3 French cooking), I felt much better after seeing this film. Rarely, but sometimes this is all I need in a movie.

A Midsummer Night’s Sex Comedy

I think the “Midsummer Night’s Dream” is the story I have seen the most films about. There were the 1935 and the 1999 version, there’s “Smiles of a Summer Night” by Bergman and now this film. Considering that Woody Allen loves Bergman and based this film on “Smiles of a Summer Night”, this is the second movie I am seeing which references a film referencing something else (see 12 Monkeys -> La Jetée -> Vertigo).
This makes it even more fascinating for me to see all these different facets of the same topos going through these different directors. If only it weren’t Mia Farrow but Diane Keaton in this pivotal role, I think the film could potentially have become one of the greatest Woody Allens.

Ultimately I think what was truly missing in this film is the chemistry between the characters. Apart from that though, the film was brilliantly written. I love the way all these Shakespearean elements are put in: A rather romantic nature, this little device that creates a fairytale picture everybody finds himself in and all those love misunderstandings. I had much fun trying to figure out who is going to end up with whom beforehand, and even though I turned out to be wrong, I liked the conclusion it came to. Absolutely lovely, and so like Woody Allen.

This is definitely one of the best Woody Allen films, especially with Woody Allen’s own wonderful role, and I must admit that I had it even more fun with it than with “Crimes and Misdemeanors”.

Bonjour Tristesse

When I was 18, I was smitten by the idea of “Bonjour Tristesse” but without even knowing anything about the story itself, I was sort of scared of reading the book. A coming of age book by a French girl who is leading a decadent life with nothing to do, I was imagining smoking melancholy in black and white – and got scared although I never smoked. In fact, this movie is nothing like I ever imagined “Bonjour Tristesse” to be, except for the fact that I can identify myself strangely with it.

Luckily I don’t lead such a decadent life and melancholy and emptiness is the last thing I have in my life. Apart from that though, I am very in love with the details of the film: Anne’s white, completely useless cap; Cécile’s playing with men and comparison chart with Anne; this amusing Marilyn-Monroe-type woman and her wonderful straw hat; what I love the most are the black and white “French style” scenes in the bars of Paris. I think they give the film a nice frame and show to me yet again what a great director Otto Preminger is. Sadness is what ultimately prevails in this film and I think that was conveyed perfectly throughout the superficial happiness.

Unfortunately I’m not a great fan of Jean Seberg’s acting and I actually hate how this film is spoken in English altogether. Everything is supposed to look and feel French, I’m quite an idiot for not having just decided to see a French dub or something. It’s a perfectly French film except the main character don’t speak French, now how weird is that? For me it destroyed the mood a little bit, since the film relies on this French atmosphere very much.

Finally I must say that I liked how the happenings in the film came together, and I find the characterizations of all characters quite well done. Though I assume that the book is ultimately better than the film, I have lost interest in it now. The mystery of “Bonjour Tristesse” had been uncovered for me, and what rests there is the memory of a good movie that I couldn’t take my eyes off.

12 Monkeys

There is something unforgettable about “La Jetée” and now I know what it is. Basically “12 Monkeys” is everything that “La Jetée” is not and vice versa. “12 Monkeys” is suspenseful, Hollywood-ish, full of hot actors sexily beaten up, yet I kept missing what I saw in “La Jetée”: Atmosphere, romance and a beautiful, simple love story with a woman from the past. Somehow I prefer somebody who clings onto the past for something as romantic as the obsession for a woman, instead of just liking the old world. I loved the idea of this woman to be the key of the whole story; compared to her, the female protagonist in this film is utterly boring and colorless.

“12 Monkeys” on the other hand is a science-fiction thriller and needs to be understood as such. Its main protagonists played by Bruce Willis and Brad Pitt are absolutely brilliant, especially the latter. I also agree with Ebert that this movie is much more a film for the mind rather the eye (which is more the specialty of “La Jetée”). “12 Monkeys” has a rather complicated story and is so immensely full of references to movies, especially the Hitchcocks. It’s the 90’s “Inglorious Basterds”!

Finally, I enjoyed “12 Monkeys” very much even though it (yet again) didn’t really meet my expectations. It’s a wonderful film for being a Hollywood action flick and I wholeheartedly recommend it.

Swimming Pool

…is clearly the biggest gem of this film. Surprisingly, I found myself liking her character very much, whereas I was thoroughly annoyed by Charlotte Rampling’s. They had quite a good chemistry together, and perhaps that was what actually made the film work for me.

Apart from that, I think there are at least 4 people I know who have seen the film… and for everybody, I think sex was the only thing the film seemed to be about. This proved to be fairly true except the bold characterization of Julie didn’t actually shock me. Considering that this is a “normal movie” after all, it didn’t show anything explicit. In comparison to that, I was much more shocked by “In All Innocence” back then when I saw it on French TV. Perhaps this is because Sagnier’s character isn’t evil nor dangerous, she plays around without doing much (except for the dead guy, harr harr). In fact she’s too good for any of them, including the guy who ended up dying. I love how this weird friendship blossomed between the characters, with Julie saying “I think I killed him. For you, for the book.”

So what can I say, in the end this was an enjoyable, simple movie featuring quite a lot of scenes with romantic, rural France and Ludivine Sagnier’s naked body – and that’s it. I probably would not have seen the film if I hadn’t gotten it from a friend and if it hadn’t appeared in conversations so surprisingly often. I definitely would say that I liked the film except for the lousily directed ending, and I admit that it’s more a film of guilty pleasure than anything else.

Crimes and Misdemeanors

I think I should never expect something from a film. How should I put it, I feel like lately there really is no film that has blown me away. (Note how this is utterly wrong! It’s only a feeling, and at least “Dr. Strangelove” did blow me away.) They are objectively great, but ultimately a disappointment due to my expectations.

“Crimes and Misdemeanors” is perfect, it has Woody Allen, film references, an engaging storyline that has every element of interest for me – twisted love stories, a murder and people talking about everything that is happening to them. But perhaps it’s because I knew how much I am going to like “Crimes and Misdemeanors” that I ended up not really liking it, as much as I would hate it.

In the end, the part about the film I loved the most was when Woody Allen was going out with his niece. They had better chemistry than literally every single other couple in the film, ha ha ha. How like Woody Allen, really. Everything else, I don’t really know what to say about it. It’s well done and meaningful and all, but perhaps what I was missing out was… the humor? Truth to be told, what I enjoy about Woody Allen the most is the gravity of his stories, just like how Judah’s story with his mistress indeed made me think. But these serious relationship stories are so valuable precisely because they are being uplifted by the humour without which you can neither survive Woody Allen’s films nor life itself. Yet in this film, Woody Allen with Mia Farrow however do nothing but complain and complain and complain about everything, and perhaps no single funny line has been passed between them. It’s too bad Woody Allen’s characters never kill people but just looks sad when he’s being told “I hope we can be friends”.

In the end, I feel like Dostoevsky is funnier than this film. But apart from failing my expectations on humor, I think that the humanity for the film largely makes up for it, and I totally agree that this is one of Woody Allen’s best movies, perhaps tying with “Vicky Cristina Barcelona”. I definitely liked it much more than “Husbands and Wives”, but ultimately I had less fun than with “Whatever Works”.