Contrast and dichotomy - has Aronofsky seen this movie before?
The Film: Persona
For years I’ve heard the hype surrounding Bergman – almost every filmmaker points to him as an inspiration, if not a great talent. I’d seen three of his films: Fanny and Alexander, Wild Strawberries, and Seventh Seal. All of them good, but they felt “from the past”. Talents such as Hitchcock, Godard, and Kurosawa are able to launch out across space and time and be just as interesting and, most importantly, fresh for a new generation.
Bergman always felt stale (if not kind of stale) to me. As if his films existed in the past as great works of art, but all the same were antiquated. If you watch Buster Keaton and Charlie Chaplin their movies still make us laugh and engage our minds as if they were still living and working today. Filmmaking is – if it is anything – a time capsule containing moments, images, and sounds that will move across time and be what it is today what it was a century ago. My point: Longevity and “freshness” matter.
Persona, made almost half a century ago, blew me away. I’ve never seen anything like it, and if I have (maybe Antichrist, Muholland Drive), it was likely inspired by Bergman’s audacious movie. What a film!
The audaciously academic word "mise-en-scene" - a word that makes my dick shrivel and blood boil - seems all too appropriate here.
Why to watch it: There aren’t many reasons not to.
For one thing, how can you turn down seeing a movie where Bergman splices in an image of an erect penis in the first few seconds? That would be unheard of , and censored, even now, I can’t imagine what sort of controversy it was at the time.
If you love movies, it is your duty to watch this movie on Netflix streaming. It takes the film camera and “the film” to the limits of what can be done artistically. Yes, Avatar might be a greater scientific achievement, but what other movie can question what movies are and what we are simultaneously. To call it pretentious is stupid if not ignorant of what pretentious means. Pretentious is attributing a value of culture and art into a work that lacks these elements. Bergman might be (he is) idiosyncratic and self-indulgent – never pretentious.
There are so many things to praise: The use of B/W photography, the audacity of the “film breaking”, the actresses performances, the imagery of duality, and the psychological depth – what sticks out for me most is how sexually charged the movie is. The famous monologue could get even a rigid man boned up. When she is discussing being banged out in an orgy and coming over and over, I was like, “Daaaaaaaaamn!”.
An image that can't be explained until you've seen the movie.
Pay attention to this: Bergman using “film breaks” and making the audience aware of something that is “faked” and something that is “real”.
I won’t be presumptuous and try to explain everything. After all, I’ve only seen the movie once, but what I can gather is that most of the imagery should be taken as literal as possible. Otherwise, god knows where people would end up. The start of film begins with the beginning and creation of filmmaking. Was Bergman saying that he was trying to make a second act - or did he want to create the “denouement” for films? I don’t know, but around the time when “actual” emotions are felt, the stepping on the glass for example, the film rips.
As in, the ability for films to fake our emotions breaks down when real emotion is felt and has to start over. There’s more: Why did Bergman show the camera crew briefly? Why did he make it so obvious that what he was showing is something that wasn’t real? I think because an artist cannot separate themselves from their work. Everyone’s faking – art, and people, have limitations.
-Collin
By Collin, on February 10th, 2011
#17 We just watched this on Netflix streaming.You should too!:Deliver us from Evil
The Film: Deliver us from Evil
No matter where you come down religiously, this is a must see movie. It is one of the few movies I will recommend that I don’t enjoy watching. How could you enjoy watching this movie, besides that it brings awareness to injustice? It is about a catholic priest from California who admits, on camera, how he molested children and how the church went to unreasonable lengths to cover it up.
Watching the priest so honestly admit to these wrongdoings borders on the surreal. The film also interviews his victims and explores the corruption which kept many of the incidents in the dark.
Why to watch it: It is a shocking indictment
The film always leaves me feeling helpless. Even despite so many of these incidents going public, little, besides financial restitution, has been done. I’m not radical in the sense that I think the Pope should be arrested, rapists should have their genitals cut off, or any nonsense like that, but at least the church should find someway to prevent this.
That Catholic priests frequently get away with this behavior, even in modern times, makes me wonder how many centuries this has been going on and how many victim’s lives destroyed.
Pay attention to this: Oliver O’Grady
Watch him as he laughs, chuckles, and still, to this day, doesn’t feel the way he should about his crimes. There is a moment in the film where he respectfully asks his victims to meet with him and one of the young men immediately responds, “I’d kill his mother”.
Apparently, O’Grady doesn’t see the big picture. According to an article cited on Wikipedia (I checked the original source) he was recently, December 2010, arrested for child pornography and was found working with a local dutch church. He is a sick person, why is he still allowed to walk the streets, but so many pot dealers, and other non-violent criminals, not?
Get Netflix streaming through the link at the bottom and follow along. Have fun out there and E-mail if you, the reader, have anything for us to watch!
-Collin
By Collin, on February 8th, 2011
#16 We just watched this on Netflix streaming.You should too!:Burden of Dreams
The Film: Burden of Dreams
The film is a simple documentary about the production of Fitzcarraldo and it’s legendary director, Werner Herzog. Despite its simplicity, it manages to capture, most likely, the most chaotic production shoot of all time. Yes, you could argue that Apocalypse Now was bad as well, but never has such catastrophic events plagued a film production.
The film Fitzcarraldo is, in terms of great movies, a relatively small achievement. It is not a great movie. However, what makes the documentary better than the original film is the obvious parallels of madness one can draw between the main character and Herzog himself.
Why to watch it: The man, the myth, the legend: Werner Herzog
I came to Herzog very late. I saw his movies Grizzly Man and Aguirre:Wrath of God only days apart and was shocked, only momentarily, they were made by the same man. Herzog has now become a hero of mine despite the fact I’ve only seen a dozen of his movies and enjoyed ever fewer.
He is a hero because he is the ultimate filmmaker. Fearless, courageous, adventurous, and, most of all, totally uncompromising. I read a fantastic quote from Ramin Bahrani, director of Goodbye Solo, where Herzog told Bahrani that if he (Herzog) knew, with certainty, the world was going to end tomorrow, he would start a film. It is that type of intoxicating spirit that has made Herzog so inspirational to so many.
Pay attention to this: Herzog’s madness
Herzog remains relatively calm throughout the movie, however, we start to see the dam break as the documentary progresses. Such an example is how he insisted on pulling the steamboat up the hill despite the chance of death and injury. Even the engineer who created the steamboat pulley system quit, fearing responsibility for death or injury. His abuses are, in my opinion, evil. Where these actions fall on your morality scale are up to you.
What is odd is footage of Kinski loosing his mind his not included. Only in a documentary many years later did the following footage surface:
Get Netflix streaming and follow along. Have fun out there!
-Collin
By Collin, on February 6th, 2011
#15 We just watched this on Netflix streaming. You should too!: Enter the Void
The Film: Enter the Void
You might have heard of this film as: A: The follow up to Gasper Noe’s film Irreversible or B: Quentin Taratino claiming it had one of the best credit sequences of all time. No matter what you think of this movie, as usual, QT was right. Those credits are so cool.
Moreover, a movie like this will likely never get made again. How it got made in the first place is a mystery I’ll never understand. The modest budget of ten to thirteen million is a fortune compared to the audience that would likely receive it in a positive light.
It is also rare in the sense that I disliked it, but admired almost everything about it. I would never watch it fully through again because it is way too long, but feel it did a lot of cool stuff and was bold in its execution.
The film follows a transendant state a drug dealer in Japan experiences after he is shot by the police. He experiences life, death, and his past. What else the movie intends to be is not exactly obvious. I enjoyed Noe’s own explanation which was that it was about the, “shimmering vacuity of the human experience”.
Why to watch it: Probably the most expensive experimental film ever made
The movie suffers from just being too long and having clunky delivered lines from its lead. I admired the stubbornness to which Noe refused to budge on the length and the patience he took to execute his vision, but never would I say I was entertained. Being intriguing and fresh is, indeed, entertaining, however, the film is a kind of a one trick pony in that respect.
I went to an experimental film program and was inundated with films that my teachers insisted should not be looked at in a “psychedelic fashion”. In Void’s case, I totally agree. As with the end scene from 2001: Space Odyssey, it cannot be seen through a lens of psychedelic interpretation. It degrades the spiritual, and certainly, transcendence of the movie.
What that means is don’t just say its a “stoner flick”. It contains ideas and scenes way more enjoyable to talk and think about than actually experience. I encourage everyone to read the press kit here to gleam what you can from the interview with Gasper Noe. Remember, if Gasper is anything, he is fucking fearless.
Pay attention to this: The technical side
The technical talent in the movie is just as impressive as anything you’d see in a movie such as Lord of the Rings or Avatar. The director uses techniques experimented with in Snakes Eyes, but turns up the knob to 11. Never have crane shots been used in this way. Never. Maybe never again.
The cinematography is integral to the ideas and mood of Void. If poorly executed the movie would have never worked. You’ll see camera shots and imagery you will NEVER see again. That I’m sure of. I don’t really know what else to say except there is a shot of a the camera zooming into an aborted fetus. If that doesn’t get you watching, nothing will.
Get Netflix streaming and follow along. Have fun out there!
-Collin
By Collin, on December 19th, 2010
#2 We just watched this on Netflix streaming. You should too!
The Baader Meinhof Complex
In this new series of articles we’ll be recommending random or popular films that are available right now on Netflix streaming. Join in and watch. Comment and email at the bottom.
The Film:The Baader Meinhof Complex
A true story about the terrorist/revolutionary group the Red Army Faction in Germany. During a time of civil unreset of group of educated Germans try to start a revolution through terrorism and war.
Why to watch it: It is a masterpiece on par with Munich. It might be even better.
This movie is one of the best films I’ve ever seen about true events. The film refuses to judge with any other view but the character’s own view: RAF were revolutionaries, not murderers or terrorists. Many will feel uncomfortable with the “good” or “positive” depictions of what many Americans would consider terrorists.
But the fundamental difference between them and, say, Al-Qaeda is that one is driven by political ideas, while the Al-Qaeda are driven by religion. The film also shows the authorities in charge as generally good people who were just trying to protect their people. It was madness.
Pay attention to this: The performances
Moritz Bleibtreu is fantastic actor. You’ve never seen him probably, but he’s in a lot of great German films. You MIGHT recognize him from Run, Lola, Run, The Experiment(original), and Munich. Him and his co-star Johanna Wokalek are fantastic as radicals who are filled with the audacity of passion and youth, but soon find things spiral out of control.
Also pay attention to Bruno Ganz as the government official in charge of stopping terrorism. He goes from being the mad Hitler in The Downfall to being a sympathetic man struggling to keep his country protected in this movie. He is really fucking good.
Watch this right now when you get home from work or school or whatever it is you’re doing….you should be watching this instead.
And if you don’t have Netflix streaming….buy it. It costs the same as a shot and a beer at your local bar.
Pay attention to this: Bergman using “film breaks” and making the audience aware of something that is “faked” and something that is “real”.
Recent Comments