The Black Dahlia (2006)

☆ ☆ ½

The Black Dahlia (2006) – B. De Palma

I’d basically given up on Brian De Palma long ago, so I’m not sure why I checked this out from the library.  Perhaps it was the promise of “neo-noir”, drawn from the same vein as L.A. Confidential (also based on James Ellroy’s work), a far superior film?  Or maybe I just needed something trashy after life got too serious?  De Palma was always trashy, even when his films had some merit (long ago), but, unfortunately, he got boring.  This film is boring despite its star power.  Josh Hartnett is a rather vacuous hero, not charismatic enough to carry the picture, and seemingly lost in the plot twists rather than actively engaging with them.  (Sure, that’s a traditional noir hero conundrum but we needed more of an active problem-solver like Bogey, Dick Powell, or Glenn Ford here rather than a passive “baby, I don’t care” Mitchum-type who gets suckered).  Scarlett Johansson tries her hand at the forties femme fatale but I’ve concluded that she can’t really act.  Hilary Swank can act and seems cast against type as another femme fatale but her part of the plot feels rather ludicrous.  Aaron Eckhart, as the somewhat shady cop/partner to Hartnett, plays cartoonish, perhaps trying to will the film to be bolder than it is.  I suspect the underlying book, based on a true crime story (the real murder of a wannabe actress in the days of Hollywood’s golden age), is a lot more interesting and the many characters and intricate/convoluted plot are done justice in a way that De Palma just can’t manage to put on the screen.  Even the Oscar-nominated cinematography by Vilmos Zsigmond can’t rescue things.

Choose Me (1984)

☆ ☆ ☆ ½

Choose Me (1984) – A. Rudolph

Director Alan Rudolph was a protégé of Robert Altman (working as AD on Nashville, for example) and Choose Me offers a similar sort of unpredictable (almost plotless) experience as Altman once offered up.  But the characters that Rudolph gives us here (a talk radio relationship therapist, a promiscuous bar owner, an escaped mental patient and/or former spy, among others) seem somewhat phony – people don’t really talk the way that they are scripted here, all psychobabble with hearts on sleeves.  Moreover, it is hard to really grasp any of the points that Rudolph may be wanting to make about love or sex or relationships (just what are all those prostitutes doing hanging around anyway?).  I think I get it that the radio therapist (Genevieve Bujold) has difficulties with relationships herself but is “cured” to some degree by sex with romantic Keith Carradine (possibly mad) who nevertheless ends up with Lesley Anne Warren, the bar owner who can’t say no to men but hates herself for it.  I didn’t get a sense that these were real people or that there are any real people like this.  Still, the fact that the film doesn’t telegraph where it is going keeps it watchable. Thinking about it like a stage play (especially as all the characters’ paths intersect) probably makes the most sense. But it does have its merits as cinema as well with an astonishing EIGHTIES feel, some good cinematography and set design (including pink neon lighting everywhere) and a smooth Teddy Pendergrass soundtrack. But it is more than a little freaky just to think that these hair and clothing styles were normal at one point – now they seem as artificial as the rest of the film.

The Sniper (1952)

☆ ☆ ☆ ½

The Sniper (1952) – E. Dmytryk

An edgy serial killer film that creates a lot of suspense, as the police (led by Adolphe Menjou) follow clues to track down the sniper, but which also seeks to generate some empathy toward the killer himself, making a plea for using treatment rather than punishment for youths committing acts of violence.  Although this is a Stanley Kramer production (and his films had a tendency to be heavy-handed and preachy), the message is conveyed only in a couple of speeches by the police psychiatrist and the rest of the film focuses primarily on the actions of the killer and those of the police.  This is the first film by director Edward Dmytryk after returning from being blacklisted (he was one of the Hollywood Ten who refused to name names to the House Un-American Activities Committee) and he keeps things taut.  Arthur Franz is excellent as the sniper who wants badly to control himself but cannot; fortunately, the psychological underpinnings of his condition (he experiences strong anger toward women) are not laid out, allowing us to maintain our suspension of disbelief.  Whether he can or cannot be cured and whether people like him can or cannot be identified and treated early are points that the film can only speculate about, taking care to present different viewpoints.  As brutal and upsetting though this noir may be, its heart is in the right place.

Zazie dans le Métro (1960)

☆ ☆ ☆ ½

Zazie dans le Métro (1960) – L. Malle

Manic, nearly anarchic, comedy from Louis Malle (only his third feature) that sees a cute and precocious 10-year-old running around Paris being chased by various adults.  She’s been left with her uncle (Philippe Noiret) who seems to be a drag queen at a nightclub (although married to lovely Albertine, played by Carla Marlier).  Zazie’s main pursuer is Trouscaillon (Vittorio Caprioli) who takes on various roles but is probably a cop.  She primarily wants to ride on the Métro but is prevented because the workers are on strike (causing massive traffic jams that create even more chaos).  Instead, Zazie takes in some scenic locales such as the Eiffel Tower where the principals seem to be engaged in some dangerous stunts (with great views of the city).  Ultimately, this may be a film that loses a lot in translation (through both space and time) with some jokes that work best in French (a lot of wordplay, judging by the forced misspellings in the subtitles) and in 1960 (Jonathan Rosenbaum suggests that there are references to 1950s films here, probably French ones, that I didn’t catch).  However, the main influences are worn on the sleeve (Tati and the Marx Bros. primarily), so if you like them, this may be your thing.  Yet, after all this running around, the film does feel a bit pointless -- but it’s worth watching for its crazy energy and Malle’s willingness to experiment with his camera and the mise en scène (sped up shots, cartoonish slapstick, destruction of the set at the end).

River of No Return (1954)

☆ ☆ ☆

River of No Return (1954) – O. Preminger

I was curious about the combination of Robert Mitchum and Marilyn Monroe with director Otto Preminger and in a western to boot.  It holds together okay but it does threaten to fall apart at the seams on a number of occasions. Apparently no one got along on the set (including Monroe’s acting coach) and the stars both exhibited their usual bad behaviour.  This doesn’t really show on the screen but it is a somewhat odd mix of Mitchum’s sullen bravura, Monroe’s breathy naiveté (with songs), a child actor (Tommy Rettig), angry Native Americans, and some too obvious back projection.  The plot sees Mitchum (just out of jail) as a single dad who has just reconnected with his 9-year-old son, ready to do some homesteading out west where most others are prospecting for gold (parts of the film were shot on location in Jasper National Park, Alberta, Canada).  Monroe is a saloon singer who is hooked up with a shady gambler (Rory Calhoun) who has won rights to a claim down river –  he steals Mitchum’s gun and horse, leaves Monroe (for the moment, or so he says), and heads off.  When the Native Americans attack and burn his house, Mitchum has to guide a raft down the rapids (with Monroe and Rettig) to catch up with Calhoun.  It’s dangerous!  Preminger may have been more comfortable with film noir (where he had used Mitchum more successfully in Angel Face, 1953) and Monroe seems out of her element but the end result is passable and probably a good example of the 1950s star vehicle.

  

Ben-Hur (1959)

☆ ☆ ☆

Ben-Hur (1959) – W. Wyler

I thought I should finally watch this epic from director William Wyler just because of its record-winning Oscar haul (11 awards) – but I was always daunted by its 3 ½ hour running time.  Usually, I break these long films into two nights of viewing but not this time – and it was a bit of a hard slog.  I haven’t really gone in for these religious sword and sandals epics and I’ll probably continue to stay away (although Spartacus, 1960, was certainly watchable).  Charlton Heston (emoting wildly, as usual) plays Judah Ben-Hur who, during the time of Jesus, is a Jew who rebels against the Roman Empire.  Well, it’s not that simple.  He isn’t really the leader of the rebellion (that’s Jesus, who is only seen from behind if he makes it on camera at all) but he does have a privileged position due to his childhood friendship (or bromance) with Messala (Stephen Boyd), now one of the leaders of the occupying army in Judea.  Of course, Messala leans on him to turn in traitors but Ben-Hur refuses and is ultimately made a scapegoat and forced to be a slave rowing the Emperor’s galleons.  His mother and sister are thrown into jail.  Over the course of the next several hours, Ben-Hur experiences a reversal of fortune, due to serendipity and his own persistence/character.  This sets him up to return to Judea to challenge Messala; cue the famous chariot race, which is a classic piece of cinema (a spectacle within a grandly mounted and expensive film filled with extras), though not as exciting as I would have hoped.  Indeed, I have to conclude that it is possible that the film won all its Oscars (against the stiff competition of Anatomy of a Murder and Some Like It Hot!) mostly because of its religious theme.  Those may have been different times or perhaps epics just aren’t my thing. 

  

Lo and Behold, Reveries of the Connected World (2016)

☆ ☆ ☆ ½

Lo and Behold, Reveries of the Connected World (2016) – W. Herzog

The Werner Herzog documentary has certain well-known features:  importantly, the director narrates these films in his inimitable German accent, often appearing or at least conducting interviews from an offscreen space (as he does here).  His early docos often focused on visionary (or slightly cracked) individuals single-mindedly pursuing their dreams but since Encounters at the End of the World (2007), he has often cast his net more widely, choosing topics because of their intrinsic interest and then riffing on them.  He likes to go beyond the accountant’s truth to get at something more “ecstatic” which might sometimes be more poetic than strictly-speaking truthful.  That may have been the aim here in this wide-ranging review of the effects of the internet on human life, but things feel a bit looser and less focused (even for Herzog).  The film is broken into ten parts that use interviews with different people (some, like Elon Musk, may fit the mold of Herzog’s earlier protagonists) who have something to do with the cause and effects of the internet.  We are treated to brief but often stimulating discussions of: the start of the internet; the negative effects of trolling; the ways that the internet could still allow us to communicate on Mars (cue Musk); the future of artificial intelligence (and robot soccer teams); driverless cars; what would happen if solar flares disrupted the internet; the negative impact of hackers; the possible use of internet disruption and hacking in warfare (cold or otherwise); gamifying the cure for cancer; and so on.  Directly after the film, I felt it was a bit of a mess – but a lot of the content has stuck with me and generated new and different thoughts about the world and its fragility (mostly).  So, it must be a success, and particularly by Herzog’s standards.  But I also felt rather depressed about just how little I know about the world and the way that the internet has grown fundamental to it.  I’m not a luddite but I had hoped somehow that trying to keep things simple would mean keeping them safer and easier for me and my family.  But things have just moved too far and too fast in recent years.  Hell, I’m old.