1979

Archived Posts from this Category

September 3, 2008

Stalker

Posted by Jordan Richardson under 1979, drama, entertainment, foreign, movies, science fiction | Tags: , , , , , |
Leave a Comment 

Andrei Tarkovsky’s Stalker is a masterpiece of philosophical profundity and visual splendour.

The Russian director is best known for his obdurate carriage on the beauty of the human spirit and his examination of the human condition, especially in a philosophical and theological sense. His conviction that man is, indeed, a spiritual being tempers his films with power and delivers a sense of loveliness beneath the technical components of filmmaking.

With 1979’s Stalker, Tarkovsky munificently and graciously places his characters in the middle of the definitive spiritual struggle. On the surface, the movie may well be seen as just another dystopic science fiction film.

Based on the short novel Roadside Picnic by Boris and Arkady Strugatsky, Stalker follows three men as they travel to a post-apocalyptic wasteland known as The Zone. The Zone has been cordoned off by the government and its history is vague. Some suggest that The Zone was the site of a meteor strike, while others float more possibilities.

The film follows Stalker (Alexander Kaidanovsky) as he works as a guide to bring people in and out of The Zone. He is distinctively tasked to take people to a room which is said to fulfill desires. Along with Stalker, Writer (Anatoly Solonitsyn) and Professor (Nikolai Grinko) head into The Zone in search of the room. There are moments of exhilaration as the trio tries to make it into the area and crosses paths with some guards. But ultimately the men arrive in The Zone and the real journey at the heart of Stalker begins.

There are austere instructions as to what Writer and Professor must do in order to avoid harm. Stalker tests various routes to the room by throwing metal nuts with strips of fabric ahead of him before embarking on new ground. It is interesting to note how the two men take Stalker’s guidance, as Writer doesn’t see any authentic peril and is more antagonistic, while Professor tends to follow Stalker’s advice. During the trip to the room, the three characters share philosophical discussions.

Tarkovsky’s film is stunning to look at. His trademark convention of long takes is well-utilized, chiefly in the form of the arresting shots of the passageway or of the deluge which we follow from beginning to end. The use of colour is also worth mentioning, as the being and effervescence of The Zone offsets the common sepia character of where the trio came from. The leaves are flourishing and the appearance of water is incredibly touching, as Tarkovsky goes to great lengths to institute the character of the locations.

There are many ways to view Stalker. Indeed, the viewing of this film is often a veritable litmus test of the viewer. Some may take the logical approach and choose to see things as frank: The Zone is the result of an accident or some sort of misfortune and there are wholly coherent reasons for the events that take place. Others may take a theological approach and see the journey as a type of sacred expedition for the characters: Stalker is a Christ-like figure with intentions of saving Writer and Professor by engaging them in the room.

Regardless of how one views Stalker, it is an enduring masterpiece. Countless essays exist as to the “true meaning” behind Tarkovsky’s vision and I won’t tire you by getting into the particulars. Needless to say, it deserves many repeat viewings and is a moving classic.

This is a life-affirming film, with much value put on the human spirit and its tenacity. The journey of Stalker (and his wife and child) through the “future” in which the film is set is reflective of our own experiences. We make sacrifices for one another, we listen to spiritual yearnings, we question things, and we often do things without rationalization.

With Stalker, Tarkovsky has crafted an experience in which each audience member will take away something diverse and something inimitably delicate. Analysis will only lead so far, much like the voyage through The Zone, and the true poetry lies within the essence and “stuff” of which we are constructed.

10/10

 

September 1, 2008

Manhattan

Posted by Jordan Richardson under 1979, comedy, drama, entertainment, movies, romance | Tags: , , , , , , , |
1 Comment 

Woody Allen wrapped up the ’70s with Manhattan, a film with faultless tone and beautiful black-and-white cinematography from Gordon Willis. The movie received two Academy Award nominations, one for Best Writing and one for Best Supporting Actress (Mariel Hemingway). AFI lists Manhattan at #46 on their “100 Years…100 Laughs” compilation and the U.S. Library of Congress has deemed it “culturally significant.”

Allen’s film is intricate, but not excessively so. The writer/director stars as Isaac Davis, a 42-year-old comedy writer with two divorces behind him. Long before George Constanza, he has a lesbian ex (Meryl Streep). Isaac is also in a relationship with a 17-year-old girl, Tracy (Hemingway), but he sees no future in it. While spending time with his friend Yale (Michael Murphy), Isaac discovers that he might be in love with Yale’s mistress, Mary (Diane Keaton).

Manhattan is about sorting out one’s closet, about living within the untidiness of relationships and emotions, and about establishing integrity. Isaac struggles in his relationship with Tracy, spending half of the film trying to break up with her. He loves spending time with her, yet doesn’t see a future in it because he doesn’t feel she is exceptional enough for him. Like many of the other characters in the film, save Tracy, Isaac is driven by his self-worth and by his sense of what he “deserves.”

Mary, too, is driven by what she “deserves.” She spends time with Yale, a married man, yet tells herself (and Yale) that she deserves better because she is gorgeous and intellectual. Yale is also driven by this same sense of pat superiority and this circle of individuals feeds off of one another continuously. Isaac’s only “out” lies with Tracy, yet his incapacity to be with her keeps him locked in the same rotation.

The splendour of Manhattan lies in the tangled sophistication of Allen’s characters. They rise like unlit skyscrapers over the title city and knit like telephone wires. The men in Allen’s film cannot deal with the notion of love, instead choosing to hide behind their words. This is likely why both men fall for Mary, who is the classic epitome of the pseudo-intellectual and provides them with a sense of similarity. Mary isn’t genuine in any way, shape, or form within her relationships, but she does give both men what they want.

It is Tracy who is more exigent, of course. The incongruity lies in her age, that she is able to be finally more grown-up than any other character in the film. She is the only character in the film that doesn’t live in the past and, as such, Allen has each other individual move around her like swirling moons. Tracy exists in the present, while Isaac, Yale, Mary, and the others all exist in the shards of past relationships. They all muse about what might have been, while only Tracy appears to have an incandescent outlook.

With this focus, Allen builds his Manhattan. It is a love letter about being in love in Manhattan. The music, Gershwin, elevates the proceedings even further and gives the film an everlasting feel. The locations, a veritable map of classic Manhattan landmarks, are brought to life with Willis’ cinematography and Allen’s direction. The visuals and the soundtrack create a perfect experience, giving true sensitivity to scenes in which characters simply eat Chinese food in bed.

Allen’s acting is good here. It is a misnomer to suggest that he plays the same character in all of his films, although many of his facial expressions and mannerisms are alike. Here, Allen’s Isaac may well be as gripping a character he’s ever played. He quits his job in a sudden sneezing attack of ethics, fulfills his yearnings based around reflective immaturity, and is intrinsically egocentric. In the end, we hope Tracy goes to London, lock, stock, and barrel. She must.

Woody Allen’s Manhattan stands out as one of his best films. It is profound, complex, elegant, amusing, and, at the same time, intensely vacant. There is a sort of depressing isolation to the film and we watch the characters swirl around each other without direction. There is a lack of impulse control, a lack of altruistic love, and in all probability a lack of authentic love within the hearts of most of these characters. Tracy, however, will go on with fond memories of Manhattan. And so will we.

10/10

 

March 10, 2008

Caligula

Posted by Jordan Richardson under 1979, drama, entertainment, historical, movies | Tags: , , , , , , |
Leave a Comment 

Caligula

Caligula is quite simply one of the most bizarrely bad films of all time. Directed by controversial Italian director Tinto Brass and by Penthouse founder Bob Guccione, the film has the “distinction” of being the only major motion picture to feature scenes of graphic explicit sex. With respected actors on the bill and hardcore sex and graphic violent flowing like wine, Caligula is one hell of a strange movie. The film was written by Gore Vidal, who had written a screenplay from an unpublished miniseries based around the life of the Roman Emperor Gaius Caesar Germanicus (aka Caligula). Vidal, a frequent contributor to Penthouse magazine, contacted Guccione for help with financing after being unable to secure any.

Naturally, Guccione had two conditions for Vidal. The first was that the film would no longer be a modest production, but would rather be an alarmingly huge spectacle akin to Hollywood’s sword-and-sandals epics from the 1950s and 1960s. The second condition was that a whole lot of sex would be added to the film to help draw attention to Guccione’s magazine. Vidal agreed and Caligula headed to production on a road paved with the best intentions.

To get the ball rolling, Guccione somehow dispatched Federico Fellini’s art director, Danilo Donato, to build the massive complex sets for the film. A slew of acting talent was brought in to bring credibility to the production. Peter O’Toole, Helen Mirren, and Malcolm McDowell were all cast in the epic. Guccione looked at established directors like John Huston and a few others before settling on Brass, who was right up the Penthouse founder’s alley. As the film started production, a pile of difficulties arose as massive egos clashed and issues between writers and directors started to leak out into the media. Rumours ran rampant, including one that Gore Vidal was thrown off the set by Brass and that many of the performers were uncomfortable with the nudity in the scenes. Many extras and one lead actress (Maria Schneider) resigned early on.

The inexperienced director clashed with the inexperienced Guccione several times, too, with an aggressive shooting schedule developed that nobody was able to meet. Poor Donati, the art director, had to scrap a lot of his concepts and was told to produce bizarre backdrops and various paintings to help suit whatever mood Guccione and Co. were going for. The changes in backgrounds and art direction had an effect on the script, which was revised several times by a frustrated Vidal. Vidal clashed with Brass continually, as the director hated the script and eventually rewrote some of it with star McDowell. The whole thing was chaotic and Vidal began to distance himself from the project, fearing the worst was happening to his script. Brass, in return, was shooting up a storm and the film took about four years to make.

Describing the plot of this catastrophe is essentially pointless, but there may be some points of mild coherency to latch on to. McDowell stars as the title character and the film essentially outlines his rise to power. O’Toole is Tiberius and Mirren is Caesonia. Other performers fill minor and major roles, most of which are comprised of various combinations of nudity, bizarre sexual acts, ridiculously over-the-top acting, or other oddities. Somehow the story of a depraved Roman Emperor exists in the fog of penetrative sex, torture, and casual killing. Naturally the depiction of Rome may have been oddly accurate, but there is no articulate narrative here to speak of.

Caligula is a big ugly beast of a film. Clocking in at 156 minutes, depending on the cut of the film available, it is a monstrous concoction of awful visuals, terrible directing, bad acting, and horrid dialogue. To think, there is a version of this film (the “uncut version”) that somehow sits at a whopping 210 minutes.

There is nothing wrong with erotica in movies. With Russ Meyer films and several other attempts at sensuous movie making, there are more than enough opportunities to experience titillation with cinema. While those films thrill and entice with their good nature, decent direction, and cheese-ball fondness for vibrancy, this horrid mass of Caligula does not. Instead, this Guccione-sponsored mess is a film that has long lost touch with reality and with what audiences want to see. It is a violent mess, featuring gobs of decapitation, evisceration, rape, bestiality, sadomasochism, and necrophilia. It is not sensual, enticing, or even remotely close to compelling.

Instead, it looks like the skeleton of something that may have had good intentions. As Gore Vidal distanced himself from it, so did director Tinto Brass. Guccione, apparently, had reshot and edited a bunch of garbage that destructed the already tentatively awkward film. With these re-cuts and a myriad of disgusting scenes, Caligula was disowned and disavowed by most of the performers and filmmakers with any credibility. There were various scenes that McDowell wanted no part in and he even talked an actress (Katharine Ross) out of taking a role in the film.

The story behind the mess that is Caligula is probably worth a film in and of itself. It is poorly shot and looks terrible, almost looking like it was shot through a tub of butter. It is a piece of trash, a vile concoction built from the misuse of gifted talent and fools. Caligula only has worth amongst those individuals who have the desire to see one of the worst films ever made and want to see what all of the fuss is about. I counted myself as one of those individuals, purely because of my interest in the art of film and my often idiotic desire to see almost everything ever produced, but I now regret my decision to ever view this movie. It is absolutely terrible in every way.

0/10

 

June 30, 2007

Monty Python’s Life of Brian

Posted by Jordan Richardson under 1979, comedy, entertainment, historical, trailers | Tags: , , , , , , |
1 Comment 

Monty Python’s Life of Brian

I go back and forth on being a Monty Python fan, to be honest. I loved Monty Python and the Holy Grail and I love most of what I’ve seen of the Flying Circus. I even used to own a few of the comedy cassette tapes back in the day and used to sing along to the Lumberjack Song and others. Still, when the time came to rewatch Monty Python’s Life of Brian, I found myself losing interest and getting bored frequently throughout the film’s runtime.

I’ve been around religion all my life and have studied it, especially Christianity, for a number of years. I’m also not easily offended, nor can I actually recall a time in which I felt offended by a film or TV show in terms of my beliefs or other religious beliefs. Without going way off track, Monty Python’s Life of Brian didn’t offend me and I don’t fault it for trying. I fault it for failing to make me laugh.

The film is a 1979 comedy written and performed by the Monty Python comedy team. It tells the story of Brian Cohen (played by Graham Chapman), a young man born on the same night and the same street as Jesus Christ. The film contains an extensive cast of characters, many of them (including simple bystanders) played by members of the Python crew. Ideally, the film appears funny as I get a chuckle even from reading the synopsis of some of these characters, like Biggus Dickus. Yet in execution, something was lacking.

Graham Chapman, John Cleese, Terry Gilliam, Eric Idle, Terry Jones (who directed this film), and Michael Palin are all extremely talented individuals. I respect and enjoy their work extensively. George Harrison also has a big part to play here. Not only is the Beatle in the film, but he set up Homemade Films to finance it after EMI Films backed out over fear of the subject matter.

The film works as a critique of the “sheep-like” tendencies of some religious followers. It also works as a religious satire that takes a look at some of the facets of organized religion and depicts them as being hypocritical and fanatical, yet Life of Brian never actually chases the rabbit far enough down the hole. It appears to somewhat circle the bowl of offensiveness, but Python’s crew never really takes the plunge and forges the depths of intentions. Perhaps this is because Monty Python’s Life of Brian didn’t age all that well, in my opinion, or perhaps it’s because of the increased sensitivities of the people at the time. I’m not sure, but what I do know is that as a comedy it ranked as ineffectual and resonated for me only as a major letdown. I was bored, quite frankly.

I realize that I am going grossly against hype, here. As I write this, a glance over at Rotten Tomatoes has this ranked at 98%. IMDB.com had this as at 8.2 out of 10 stars. In 2000, Total Film magazine ranked it as the greatest comedy film of all time. In 2004, Total Film ranked Life of Brian as the fifth greatest British film of all time. The accolades continue, of course, but I still can’t get myself to think of this film in such a positive way. There were laughs, sure, but not nearly enough. To me, that’s one of the largest failings a comedy can have.

3/10

Trailer: