Ingrid Goes West (2017)

 ☆ ☆ ☆

Ingrid Goes West (2017) – M. Spicer

I guess I rarely watch any movies that are so relentlessly modern – the plot is really about the kinds of obsession that social media can create and the new job of “influencer” (though not named as such here).  Aubrey Plaza plays Ingrid who desperately wants to be liked/loved by the in crowd who portray themselves as being perfect on Instagram.  After her mother dies and she spends a few months institutionalised, Ingrid heads to Cali (with a sizeable, although not inexhaustible, inheritance) after fixating on one particular influencer, Taylor Sloane (Elizabeth Olsen), who is a rather stereotypic yuppie millennial.  Yes, Ingrid is a stalker.  As such, it is never quite clear whether the film is supposed to be a comedy or not (I take it that Plaza got her break via comedy TV) – if so, it is so black as to be indistinguishable from an anxiety-provoking drama seen from the damaged stalker’s point of view.  You do feel sympathy for Ingrid, despite all of the terrible things she does, perhaps because they are recognised to stem from some deep-seated insecurities. Of course, the film wants to make the larger point that social media is full of put-ons and people portraying themselves as different & better than they really are – which has the unintended consequence of making the weaker among us feel worse as a result of social comparisons with the illusions.  Watching Ingrid try to insinuate herself into the SoCal crowd where she doesn’t fit/belong is painful, so watch this if that’s your idea of fun!  Although the film is damning of social media, a brief afterthought about the positive effects of these communities is too little, too late.

  

Wind River (2017)

 ☆ ☆ ☆ ½

Wind River (2017) – T. Sheridan

Above average thriller that has more to say than usual – about sexual violence against women, in particular on Native American reservations (where tribal police may be understaffed and have no ability to prosecute non-Native offenders).  It also spends a lot of its runtime with characters who are grieving, allowing viewers to absorb their feelings.  Jeremy Renner plays a hunter who is called into the Wind River Reservation in Wyoming during the winter to track a mountain lion who has been killing sheep.  He is no stranger to the reservation (portrayed as a dead-end place), as his ex-wife grew up there; they are divorced, after the recent death of their teen daughter. So, when Renner finds the frozen body of another Native girl, this brings traumatic memories back for him.  Elizabeth Olsen is the FBI agent, perhaps out-of-her-depth, brought in to solve the crime.  Graham Greene is the cynical tribal sheriff.  The content is depressing and the many chilly shots of people in snow simply add to the forsaken feel.  As seen in flashback, the crime itself is brutal and terrifying, revealing not only hostile prejudice toward Native Americans but a depiction of the worst of men.  Renner’s final actions feel as though they can’t possibly erase his trauma and might add to it.  Yet, at the end of the day, we do get glimpses of human warmth, between Renner and the dad of the victim, between Renner and Olsen.  Hope isn’t all lost when people care about each other -- but the failure of the American government to adequately protect its indigenous peoples (and women particularly) is a gaping wound in the heart of the nation.

 

Dracula: Prince of Darkness (1966)

 

☆ ☆ ☆

Dracula: Prince of Darkness (1966) – T. Fisher

A direct sequel to Hammer’s first Dracula film (1958’s Horror of Dracula) that begins with actual footage from the earlier film (as seen in the mind’s eye) to bring viewers back up to speed.  Although we see Christopher Lee (the inimitable Hammer vampire) in this flashback, it is quite some time before he appears in the actual film and then he never utters a word but only glares and hisses.  This time, I watched the film with the audio commentary and so I got plenty of chatty (and clearly unscripted) commentary from Lee and his co-actors – so I was a bit distracted from the plot.  Suffice it to say that two couples are travelling (near Carlsbad) when their coachman refuses to go any further, even though a local monk has earlier said that Dracula’s castle is empty as the dark lord has been destroyed.  Nevertheless, after they are dumped from the coach, another empty coach turns up and the horses bring them straight to the castle where a butler awaits them.  They eventually decide to stay the night – and of course one of them (Australian Charles “Bud” Tingwell) becomes a blood sacrifice to bring Dracula back to life (or back to un-life, I guess).  And then things proceed as expected, particularly with regard to Dracula’s approach to the ladies.  The unique thing about this outing is how Dracula is eventually vanquished – it isn’t by sunlight or stake (but I won’t spoil it).  Solid Hammer fare – and you already know if you like it.

  

Rope (1948)

☆ ☆ ☆ ½

Rope (1948) – A. Hitchcock

Hitchcock’s first film in colour is widely known as an early experiment in shooting a film in just one shot.  Of course, there have been many examples of this technical feat more recently (for example, Russian Ark, 2002) – and, in fact, due to limitations of cameras of the day, Hitch could only achieve 10 minute takes before the camera had to be reloaded (resulting in shots that ended and began with the camera pointing directly at someone’s back.  Nevertheless, Hitch organised his takes with a series of travelling shots that still manage to adhere to his theory (stated in Hitchcock/Truffaut) that varies “the size of the image in relation to its emotional importance within a given episode”. The story, drawn from a play by Patrick Hamilton, begins with two young men (based on real life killers Leopold and Loeb) strangling a third young man in their apartment.  After they hide the body in a trunk, they invite friends, his girlfriend and his parents included, over for a party.  They also invite their old college professor played by Jimmy Stewart, believing that he has espoused some theories (similar to those of Nietzsche perhaps) that identify that certain people may be naturally superior and therefore be entitled to engage in certain behaviours, even murder, that set them apart from the rest of humanity. Of course, Brandon (if not Philip) assumes this mantle of superiority for himself and even imagines that Rupert (Stewart) will applaud the heinous act he/they have committed.  Stewart gives a very weird performance, fully inhabiting a much more awkward and perhaps slightly sinister character than he usually does (apart from his Westerns or Vertigo) – but in the end he becomes suspicious and the movie follows Hitch’s usual designs around creating suspense (but not surprise) since viewers know more than the protagonist does.  A compact film (given the burden of the continuous take) but still fully in line with the Master’s oeuvre, even if it doesn’t quite attain the heights of his great masterworks.

 

 

La Main du Diable (1943)

 

☆ ☆ ☆ ½

La Main du Diable (1943) – M. Tourneur

Better translated as The Hand of the Devil, this French horror film reminded me of The Monkey’s Paw, although in this case the talisman offering good luck is an actual human hand and more than a few wishes are available – the cost, however, is the loss of one’s soul to the Devil himself.  Pierre Fresnay (from La Grande Illusion) plays the foolish painter who buys the talisman for one penny in order to achieve fame and love.  Upon learning more, he contacts the Devil (a cunning old man in a bowler) and learns that he can sell the hand back for a penny but that each day he delays, the price will double.  Fearing that he will lose his wife, he dawdles too long and soon owes millions of francs.  How he gets out of this predicament is something of a flight of fancy, involving the invocation of all the previous owners of the creepy left hand, but the ending still sits right.  Perhaps director Maurice Tourneur’s film is not exactly on par with the output of his son, Jacques, for producer Val Lewton at the same time but this is still worth a gander if you are in the mood for a different version of this age-old story.

 

Sleuth (1972)

 

☆ ☆ ☆ ½

Sleuth (1972) – J. L. Mankiewicz

Impressive two-hander (from Anthony Shaffer’s play) starring Laurence Olivier and Michael Caine in a twisty game of cat-and-mouse.  Olivier pulls out all the stops as a wealthy game-loving mystery writer who has hatched a plot to ensnare Caine, the hairdresser son of immigrants who is sleeping with Olivier’s wife (seeking a divorce).  Although the fun is in watching Olivier and Caine spar across the three acts, the subtext about class differences is never far from the surface.  Olivier can’t stand the idea of Caine showing him up.  The whole thing is staged in a single location, Olivier’s country estate filled with games, theatrical props, and mechanical toys (well directed by veteran Joseph L. Mankiewicz).  It’s hard to write about the film without giving too much away – however, my feeling is that the ending is just a little bit too pat (although I’ll admit that there was really no other possibility). If you are up for a theatrical game of gotcha full of clever sadistic twists, then this may be your cup of tea.

 

Drag Me to Hell (2009)

 

☆ ☆ ☆ ½

Drag Me to Hell (2009) – S. Raimi

It only gradually dawned on me that this film is actually an homage to Jacques Tourneur’s Curse of the Demon (1957) – which I should have realised since that is one of my all-time favourite films.  Most obviously, there is a curse placed on the protagonist (here, Alison Lohman) that means that a demon will come and destroy her in a matter of days.  In CotD, the curse came from an Alastair Crowley-type figure and here it is from a Hungarian gypsy but the slow encroachment of the demon is the same, all shadows and psychological effects at first before the full-on attack.  Although Tourneur’s film (drawn from a story by M. R. James) really focused on the passing of the runes, the passing of an object is not neglected here and although Dana Andrews played a sceptical psychologist who was cursed in the earlier film that role goes to Lohman’s boyfriend (Justin Long) in this film – she is a bank loan officer instead.  Beyond also showing a séance, that’s probably where the similarities end (except perhaps the ending and its location!).  Raimi’s film is much more tongue-in-cheek, a bit scary but definitely with some gross-out humour (and comedy-of-embarrassment scenes) and “modern” special effects and action, harkening back to the later Evil Dead movies for which he is rightly famous.  Ultimately, this is a fun ride but with an extra special something for fans of classic supernatural horror (which really can’t be beat – check out the earlier film if you can!). 

Bitter Springs (1950)

 

☆ ☆ ☆ ½

Bitter Springs (1950) – R. Smart

Well-intentioned but still problematic film about colonialism and racism here in Australia.  Chips Rafferty, beloved 1940s film icon, plays against type as the racist white settler & sheep rancher who purchases title to some land in South Australia (the film is shot near Quorn in the Flinders Ranges) situated around a water hole used by the local Indigenous tribe.  As he and his family (and several others who have joined them for the trip) arrive, they are met by a local Trooper (played by Michael Pate) who explains that the family should plan on sharing their land and the water hole with the local tribe.  When Rafferty bristles, Pate explains that the other options are to either force or perhaps ease the Indigenous people off their land but that it would be difficult because it is sacred to them.  The rest of the film shows us the conflict between Rafferty and the Aboriginal people (played authentically by real uncredited Indigenous non-actors, who unfortunately may not have been treated or paid appropriately) along with a distracting romantic subplot and ridiculous vaudeville performer brought in from the UK to “star” (Tommy Trinder).  In some ways, the film feels like an American Western, perhaps later in the cycle when Native Americans were accorded a greater degree of humanity.  In Bitter Springs, we don’t quite get to know any of the Indigenous people (save Blackjack who arrives with Rafferty’s group but soon allies himself with the blackfellas) and we don’t necessarily see things from their perspective – but the film is nevertheless sympathetic to them.  However, one has to wonder whether some in the audience may have sided with Rafferty – the original ending to the film apparently had the entire family wiped out after the tribe takes possession of the water hole but this proved too grim for test audiences.  Instead, a tacked-on coda shows Rafferty changing his ways and working together to raise sheep on his land with the Indigenous people at his side.  That said, the film has some beautiful vistas (in gorgeous B&W) and, you know, its heart seems to be in the right place.  If only Australian government actions were more attuned to the needs of the traditional owners of this land.

The Party (1968)

 

☆ ☆ ☆ ½

The Party (1968) – B. Edwards

Peter Sellers stars as an Indian actor (so you have to decide for yourself right away whether you will accept this potentially racist conceit) who is a bit of a bumbler who gets fired from a movie for accidentally blowing up the set (this is in a pre-title credits sequence).  Due to a mix-up, he is accidentally invited to a posh party at the producer’s house – the movie itself simply shows us the party.  There is no plot to speak of but instead we follow the various encounters and accidents of the protagonist.  I suppose this film is a forerunner of the comedy of embarrassment, because unlike in the Clouseau/Pink Panther films (also by director Blake Edwards) where the hero is clearly a joke, you feel some sympathy for this poor Indian star, you feel embarrassed for him (for example, when he loses his shoe in the indoor river running through the house).  Fortunately, the film (and Sellers) doesn’t really treat Hrundi as a stereotype (well, not too much) and the partygoers are generally accepting of him even as he initiates a variety of “situations”.  So, was it funny? Occasionally yes – there is slapstick.  But the overall effect is something beyond this, something almost tender toward the character seems to emerge that is greater than the sum of the gags. 

 

Wildlife (2018)

 

☆ ☆ ☆ ½

Wildlife (2018) – P. Dano

The acting by the three leads (Carey Mulligan, Jake Gyllenhaal, and Ed Oxenbould) is strong and seemingly nurtured by the sensitive direction from actor Paul Dano (his first feature, co-written with Zoe Kazan).  Through the eyes of a 14-year-old boy, Joe (Oxenbould), the world of adults is confusing indeed.  Having relocated to Great Falls, Montana, the small family struggles when Jerry (Gyllenhaal) loses his job, seemingly due to personality problems. When he up and leaves to fight bushfires in the Rockies, Jeanette (Mulligan) struggles to find other options to support herself and Joe. As this is 1960 (nicely laid out with period sets, cars, and costumes), those other options at first involve another man who could substitute for Jerry, financially and perhaps romantically.  You can see Mulligan’s desperation and her internal torment as she debates what to do.  Joe is along for the ride, whether he likes it or not.  Indeed, the film is mostly seen through Joe’s young eyes and his desire for his parents to remain together is palpable and often explicitly voiced.  As my parents divorced somewhere around this same time (when I was 13 or 14), I found the movie almost unbearably painful as it lead me to reflect on my own views of my parents’ struggles at that time (and my own emotional reactions). Although my family’s experiences were two decades later, the opportunities for women to choose their own paths and potentially stand on their own feet were therefore somewhat greater (if still not great enough). Mulligan’s portrayal allows us to see her grasping the possibilities of a new life, only half formed in her mind, in a society that is barely open to it.  I guess it could have been similar for my mother.  That said, Wildlife still does not quite manage to escape the circumscribed feel of its anxieties, potentially due to the inarticulate (though authentic) responses of a young teen boy.      

Insidious (2010)

 ☆ ☆ ☆

Insidious (2010) – J. Wan

There certainly are a lot of supernatural horror movies from the last decade or so – but their ratings on various websites suggest that they are mostly duds.  However, Insidious spawned a few remakes (not a sign of quality these days, of course) and seemed to have purposefully avoided gore/ultra-violence, so I checked it out.  And… it definitely is a genre film.  Which made me think about what I expect from genre films – do they need to be creative? Do they need to do more than satisfyingly include the central features of the form? Of course, in asking that question, I immediately realised that the best genre films (for example, in film noir or the western) start with the key elements of plot or style and then innovate within these.  So, let’s just say that Insidious begins with the key elements of the haunted house genre (bumps in the night, objects moving on their own) and then adds a little bit from the demonic possession genre (as Rose Byrne and Patrick Wilson discover when one of their kids falls into a sort of coma) and finally just cops huge chunks from Poltergeist (1982).  So, there is not much original here at all and precious little innovation.  But that doesn’t mean that there weren’t some moments where I had the chills and I certainly laughed wryly as various stereotypic plot elements turned up (perhaps with a bit of a sly wink from the cast or director).  The good news is that the film never really falls apart (even if we don’t always identify with any of the characters), so with that in mind, it’s an okay genre excursion from Malaysian-Australian director James Wan (who also did The Conjuring, reviewed here, and, uh, Saw, which I won’t watch) but it’s nothing more. 

Salvador (1986)

☆ ☆ ☆

Salvador (1986) – O. Stone

A couple of weeks ago, I watched Under Fire (1983) which starred Nick Nolte as a photojournalist covering the war in Nicaragua at the end of the Seventies and now here we have James Woods as a photojournalist covering the war in El Salvador at the start of the Eighties.  Both films portray the American diplomatic and media communities as small groups disconnected from the reality of the cultures around them.  One difference however is that Woods’ character is a real jerk.  It is hard to identify with him for a whole host of reasons (how he treats women, for example).  But somehow director Oliver Stone seems to be getting a kick out of Woods’ hyperactive loser – perhaps he sees him as a gonzo journalist of sorts (sidekick Jim Belushi is certainly all about drugs, booze, and hookers).  I was hard pressed to see whether Woods’ heart was in the right place, but apart from some hard to understand polemic specific to El Salvadoran politics (that is never explained) put in his mouth by the director which I assumed was supportive of the oppressed, he seems mostly self-interested.  Not sure why the more professional photog played by John Savage likes him at all.  As usual, Stone takes liberties with reality and places his characters at the scene of pivotal events, such as the assassination of Archbishop Romero.  But for all its visceral impact (there are dead bodies and threats of violence everywhere), the film feels a mess, which I guess is supposed to be a reflection of the way Richard Boyle (Woods) operated.

  

Tess (1979)

☆ ☆ ☆ ½

Tess (1979) – R. Polanski

A young Natassja Kinski, aged 17, takes centre stage as Thomas Hardy’s tragic heroine in Roman Polanski’s version of the 1892 novel.  When Tess’s alcoholic peasant father discovers that he may be descended from a more noble lineage, he sets into motion events that will lead to her downfall.  Indeed, he is the first of many men who seek to exert their will over Tess.  First, she is sent by her father to seek out the real D’Urbervilles and to represent herself as a poor relation; as a result, she is given a job (tending poultry) but soon her richer “cousin” (Leigh Lawson) attempts to seduce her.  Eventually, despite her resistance, he bends her to his will – but she escapes to bear a child out of wedlock (which dies).  Tess moves to another job at a dairy farm and soon finds true love with Angel Clare (Peter Firth), son of a family of religious puritans. However, she fears what he will think if he finds out her past, as he eventually does.  The plot goes further (for 2 hours and 40 minutes) and I won’t spoil it here.  Suffice it to say that the screenplay emphasises the mistreatment of Tess but also her ability to endure every hardship, even choosing them in lieu of giving in to the desires of men which might nevertheless provide freedom from poverty.  In Polanski’s hands, the film has the gauzy feel of many period pieces set in rural England (but actually filmed in France); it’s marked by the occasional stunning shot, but is generally subdued in tone. Kinski holds her own but has relatively few lines – we observe her struggles from the outside. As the plot unfolds, it eventually achieves a certain emotional weight but it is difficult to know (without having read the source) whether this is an effect of the book or the film or a synergistic combination of the two.    

 

The Adventures of Tintin (2011)

☆ ☆ ☆ ½

The Adventures of Tintin (2011) – S. Spielberg

After reading a couple of Hergé’s Tintin comics from Ayako’s collection, Amon chose this Spielberg film from amongst those available to stream from the university library.  We did not see it in 3D and, to be honest, I didn’t notice that it was designed for that format until close to the end when some giant cranes seemed to be rather obviously pointing right at the screen.  Although the plot is somewhat complicated (having to do with three model ships and the hidden parchments inside them that combine to offer the coordinates for hidden treasure when held up to the sun), this did not quite matter to Amon who declared the film “action-packed!” Indeed, given that it is animated (despite the use of motion capture for the many characters), the physical limitations of reality are not always honoured – the characters do seem to careen and carom pell-mell on land, air, and sea.  This is the adventure where Tintin first meets Captain Haddock who is an unrepentant drunk (somewhat weird for a kid’s movie) and they end up fast friends as they solve the mystery together – not sure if Tintin ever writes the story (he’s a journalist) but the bad guys (also chasing the model ships in an echo of Raiders of the Lost Ark) do end up in jail.  Thumbs up from Amon!