All of the characters are unrealistic, and the dialogue and interaction is what you would expect from an episode of Love Boat. In fact, this TV movie has the same structure as The Love Boat except all the stories take place in a high-rise apartment in L.A. rather than on a ship.
Reviews
8 Reviews
Good overview of the scene
30 December 2019
This documentary is a good overview of the Los Angeles music scene of the late 80s, and I am glad it was made; however it needs to be edited so that no more than two interviewees make the same comments. As it stands 6-10 interviewees say almost the same thing over and over again throughout the film.
It also unnecessarily includes too many video clips of bands. As each interviewee names examples of goth or metal bands, a clip is shown for each band mentioned, including Aerosmith, GNR, and Nirvana. Anyone who watches this film will know these bands. If the interviews were edited down, and the unhelpful and distracting clips removed, full song clips of L.A. bands could be added that would better illustrate the diversity of music and the merging of styles.
It also unnecessarily includes too many video clips of bands. As each interviewee names examples of goth or metal bands, a clip is shown for each band mentioned, including Aerosmith, GNR, and Nirvana. Anyone who watches this film will know these bands. If the interviews were edited down, and the unhelpful and distracting clips removed, full song clips of L.A. bands could be added that would better illustrate the diversity of music and the merging of styles.
Happiness
(1965)
Men, not women, should have open relationships
23 May 2015
Warning: Spoilers
This film is filled with scenes of nature. It is tempting to see these as symbolically mirroring the "naturalness" of the sexually open relationship that Francois seeks with his wife Therese and mistress Emilie; however, Francois, his wife, and his children are usually seen in the outdoors while Francois and Emilie occupy private and public, unnatural spaces. So, it is the traditional family that is aligned with nature in this film rather than the open relationship.
Furthermore, the possibility of an open relationship extends only to Francois, with Therese and Emilie expected to serve as his devoted objects of desire, similar to sister wives.
After fooling around behind his wife's back for a month, Francois offers his wife a shockingly nonchalant confession, and with childlike innocence seems to expect Therese to forgive him and let him continue philandering. It seems she does, with a smile, before excusing herself to pick some flowers. I understood her decision to leave to signify her refusal of this proposed one-sided open relationship.
Francois searches for her when she does not return, to find her drowned in a nearby stream, a la Ophelia. I understood this as a suicide in reaction to Francois's confession. Nevertheless, with Therese gone, Francois' extended family meets to decide who will adopt Francois' children as if a single man is incapable of both working and raising children (by contrast, before she died, Therese raised the children and created dresses on the side while Francois was working and philandering).
In the end, no adoption is necessary because Emilie, who earlier stated that she did not want a permanent relationship, now Stepford-like, turns into a docile pseudo-Therese (whom she physically resembles), and happily agrees to marry Francois and take care of his kids. Additionally, she seems to give up her wire service job (which I saw as a symbol of her feminist independence), and adopts Therese's home-based dressmaking business.
Many reviews of this film remark how sexually progressive its supposed depiction of open relationships was; but I think it is the same old patriarchal portrayal of a man, not women and not the other men in the film, deciding that his desire trumps his wife's.
Furthermore, the possibility of an open relationship extends only to Francois, with Therese and Emilie expected to serve as his devoted objects of desire, similar to sister wives.
After fooling around behind his wife's back for a month, Francois offers his wife a shockingly nonchalant confession, and with childlike innocence seems to expect Therese to forgive him and let him continue philandering. It seems she does, with a smile, before excusing herself to pick some flowers. I understood her decision to leave to signify her refusal of this proposed one-sided open relationship.
Francois searches for her when she does not return, to find her drowned in a nearby stream, a la Ophelia. I understood this as a suicide in reaction to Francois's confession. Nevertheless, with Therese gone, Francois' extended family meets to decide who will adopt Francois' children as if a single man is incapable of both working and raising children (by contrast, before she died, Therese raised the children and created dresses on the side while Francois was working and philandering).
In the end, no adoption is necessary because Emilie, who earlier stated that she did not want a permanent relationship, now Stepford-like, turns into a docile pseudo-Therese (whom she physically resembles), and happily agrees to marry Francois and take care of his kids. Additionally, she seems to give up her wire service job (which I saw as a symbol of her feminist independence), and adopts Therese's home-based dressmaking business.
Many reviews of this film remark how sexually progressive its supposed depiction of open relationships was; but I think it is the same old patriarchal portrayal of a man, not women and not the other men in the film, deciding that his desire trumps his wife's.
Nymphomaniac: Vol. I
(2013)
Von Trier's answer to Malick's Tree of Life?
10 July 2014
Warning: Spoilers
I am still dizzy from the 4-hour marathon of these two films, but I can say that von Trier takes on the meaning of life although from a very pornographic perspective. People who cannot handle graphic and often violent sex scenes should beware. However, those who have grown to respect von Trier's eclectic and singular vision, will see past the sex to the innumerable thoughtful layers of symbols and meanings.
Two things have occupied my thoughts for the past day. First, throughout the film, I was constantly reminded of Malick's Tree of Life. In the opening scene, the camera silently meanders along brick walls just as the camera glides through Tree of Life. However, suddenly the camera happens upon a bloodied female figure and the silence is shattered by Rammstein's For Me (perfect, since nymphomania is selfish - for me) which seemed to me like a musical "FU and your artiness, Malick!" I may be wrong, but that is what I thought. I continued to see similarities throughout the film, like the proliferation of Tree imagery that represents the Father and later a lonely craggy tree atop a great rock represents the nymphomaniac self; These are just a couple of examples.
I also wonder why von Trier named named characters with initials. Surely there must be a reason even if it was to make fun of people like me. Characters are designated by the letters A-H, K, L, P, S, and I assume that the letter J is taken by the central characters, Joe and Jerome (interesting that they share the same initial...and J also reminds me of another type of tree: Jesse's Tree). That leaves the intervening and unclaimed letters I, M, N, O, Q, R. I'm No Q(uee)R? I know, I know, but the letters must be significant.
I'm not going to try to innumerate all of the themes and symbols because that is one of the things that makes viewing von Trier's later films so much fun to watch. But they abound! Best movies of 2013.
Two things have occupied my thoughts for the past day. First, throughout the film, I was constantly reminded of Malick's Tree of Life. In the opening scene, the camera silently meanders along brick walls just as the camera glides through Tree of Life. However, suddenly the camera happens upon a bloodied female figure and the silence is shattered by Rammstein's For Me (perfect, since nymphomania is selfish - for me) which seemed to me like a musical "FU and your artiness, Malick!" I may be wrong, but that is what I thought. I continued to see similarities throughout the film, like the proliferation of Tree imagery that represents the Father and later a lonely craggy tree atop a great rock represents the nymphomaniac self; These are just a couple of examples.
I also wonder why von Trier named named characters with initials. Surely there must be a reason even if it was to make fun of people like me. Characters are designated by the letters A-H, K, L, P, S, and I assume that the letter J is taken by the central characters, Joe and Jerome (interesting that they share the same initial...and J also reminds me of another type of tree: Jesse's Tree). That leaves the intervening and unclaimed letters I, M, N, O, Q, R. I'm No Q(uee)R? I know, I know, but the letters must be significant.
I'm not going to try to innumerate all of the themes and symbols because that is one of the things that makes viewing von Trier's later films so much fun to watch. But they abound! Best movies of 2013.
Noah
(2014)
Was a 4 until the last 20 minutes; turned to a 2
23 May 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Aronofsky is one of the great directors and auteurs in contemporary world cinema. I always count on his movies to be memorable and aesthetically and intellectually challenging. Noah did not seem like the kind of vehicle a great director would choose unless s/he 1) was making a blockbuster for some reason or, 2) wanted to make a statement about how humans have ruined the world yet again, as in Noah's time.
The latter is what seemed to be the plot through most of the movie: Noah and his clan are never seen eating meat; Noah admonishes his young son for picking a flower because the flowering plant is a living being; they stop to rescue a fallen girl (who becomes Noah's daughter-in-law Ila) in peril of their own lives; genuinely care about the welfare of humans and animals.
By contrast, the children of Cain are monstrous narcissists who turned the landscape into wastelands pitted with tree stumps; torture and kill women and children; abuse and kill animals because they believe the world is there for them to do as they want; warlike, killing even the angels who came to Earth to help them.
This is a codified storyline that seems to posit that humans have fallen from grace as again as they did in the Garden of Eden. It goes even further though. Noah believes that God has decided that humans cannot be given anymore chances and, therefore, must not be allowed to continue as a species. This makes sense because following the plot so far, in a new Eden, humans would just turn into children of Cain and destroy everything again.
Now the story starts falling apart. Ila is supposed to be barren; however, just before the flood, Methuseleh magically made her fertile. On the ark, Ila becomes pregnant. Noah is distraught because he believed God did not want humans to exist any longer. Noah asks God what he should do. It seems that God wants Noah to kill Ila's child if it turns out to be a girl presumably to prevent the human race from continuing. Makes sense. Why would God wipe out all but 6 humans on Earth if He thought humans were capable of behaving themselves? The clan immediately takes side against Noah in favor of the unborn child.
Why would a devout son of God - Methuseleh - go against God's wishes by making Ila fertile? Why would Noah's family take offense at Noah's wish to potentially kill female offspring when all that has happened to this point shows that Noah has been chosen by God to do His will, and His will evidently includes killing his grandchild? The babies are born and they are both girls. However, even though God told him to kill female offspring, Noah cannot because when he looks at them, he says "all I feel is love" or some sort of maudlin sentiment like that.
When the ark finally makes land, Noah becomes a drunken hermit briefly because he has defied God, until his wife leads him back to the fold. Noah then gives a silly speech to his granddaughters (nobody but a newborn could stand to listen to it without rolling their eyes) about how they must make sure that humans are good for now on and that he trusts they will do their duty out of Love.
The same old all pervasive Love motif, which is fine EXCEPT four-fifths of the movie has been about how the worst aspects of humanity always win out over their capacity to Love. Even more ridiculous is that as Noah is driveling on, we see shots of birds feeding their babies, lionesses licking their cubs, etc. - like something out of a Disney film - implying that humans are just like all other creatures because we all love in the peaceable jungle.
And then the clincher: The sky starts radiating rainbows like a joyous sonic boom. Obviously God has changed his mind. He was done with humans and wiped most of them out, but Noah's Hallmark card eloquence has convinced him otherwise. Nonsense. So disappointed.
The latter is what seemed to be the plot through most of the movie: Noah and his clan are never seen eating meat; Noah admonishes his young son for picking a flower because the flowering plant is a living being; they stop to rescue a fallen girl (who becomes Noah's daughter-in-law Ila) in peril of their own lives; genuinely care about the welfare of humans and animals.
By contrast, the children of Cain are monstrous narcissists who turned the landscape into wastelands pitted with tree stumps; torture and kill women and children; abuse and kill animals because they believe the world is there for them to do as they want; warlike, killing even the angels who came to Earth to help them.
This is a codified storyline that seems to posit that humans have fallen from grace as again as they did in the Garden of Eden. It goes even further though. Noah believes that God has decided that humans cannot be given anymore chances and, therefore, must not be allowed to continue as a species. This makes sense because following the plot so far, in a new Eden, humans would just turn into children of Cain and destroy everything again.
Now the story starts falling apart. Ila is supposed to be barren; however, just before the flood, Methuseleh magically made her fertile. On the ark, Ila becomes pregnant. Noah is distraught because he believed God did not want humans to exist any longer. Noah asks God what he should do. It seems that God wants Noah to kill Ila's child if it turns out to be a girl presumably to prevent the human race from continuing. Makes sense. Why would God wipe out all but 6 humans on Earth if He thought humans were capable of behaving themselves? The clan immediately takes side against Noah in favor of the unborn child.
Why would a devout son of God - Methuseleh - go against God's wishes by making Ila fertile? Why would Noah's family take offense at Noah's wish to potentially kill female offspring when all that has happened to this point shows that Noah has been chosen by God to do His will, and His will evidently includes killing his grandchild? The babies are born and they are both girls. However, even though God told him to kill female offspring, Noah cannot because when he looks at them, he says "all I feel is love" or some sort of maudlin sentiment like that.
When the ark finally makes land, Noah becomes a drunken hermit briefly because he has defied God, until his wife leads him back to the fold. Noah then gives a silly speech to his granddaughters (nobody but a newborn could stand to listen to it without rolling their eyes) about how they must make sure that humans are good for now on and that he trusts they will do their duty out of Love.
The same old all pervasive Love motif, which is fine EXCEPT four-fifths of the movie has been about how the worst aspects of humanity always win out over their capacity to Love. Even more ridiculous is that as Noah is driveling on, we see shots of birds feeding their babies, lionesses licking their cubs, etc. - like something out of a Disney film - implying that humans are just like all other creatures because we all love in the peaceable jungle.
And then the clincher: The sky starts radiating rainbows like a joyous sonic boom. Obviously God has changed his mind. He was done with humans and wiped most of them out, but Noah's Hallmark card eloquence has convinced him otherwise. Nonsense. So disappointed.
Prisoners
(2013)
Animal cruelty prevented this from being an 8
4 February 2014
This is a very suspenseful film that ironically pivots on the notion that cruelty to animals in one form is a sign of mental illness while in another form is masculine and aligned with God and Country.
As you probably know, the film opens with a father saying a prayer just as he and his son kill a deer. From that point forward, the hunter and god-loving father is pitted against another character who, among other things, tortures a dog. We are provided with a number of scenes where animals, patriotism, faith are emphasized. One scene is when the hunter brings venison to his family's friends' dinner party and the veterinarian mother remarks that she can't cut the "meat" since she is a veterinarian. The veterinarian's daughters asks the hunter's son, "don't you feel bad" about killing an animal, to which the son replies, "my dad would say 'do you feel bad eating a McDonald's hamburger'?" I said all of this symbolism relating to animal cruelty is ironic because an actual deer was killed in the first scene. It wasn't a pretend killing, but a real one. At the end of the film, the Humane Association disclaimer states that it "monitored SOME of the animal action and no animals were harmed in THOSE scenes." Clearly, the AHA monitored the scene where the anti-hero chokes a dog, NOT the scene where the deer was killed.
Of course, the producers "pragmatically" thought that it is okay to kill a deer since hunters routinely do that and the main character is a hunter. Not in my book. Killing is wrong. It is especially wrong when it is for nothing more than a scene in a movie. Movies are fake. They are fakes of reality. So, real killing does not belong in fake realities.
Animal cruelty and associated allegories and symbols figure prominently throughout the film. I am discounting the layers of meaning and symbolism in the film, but only the actual death of an animal.
As you probably know, the film opens with a father saying a prayer just as he and his son kill a deer. From that point forward, the hunter and god-loving father is pitted against another character who, among other things, tortures a dog. We are provided with a number of scenes where animals, patriotism, faith are emphasized. One scene is when the hunter brings venison to his family's friends' dinner party and the veterinarian mother remarks that she can't cut the "meat" since she is a veterinarian. The veterinarian's daughters asks the hunter's son, "don't you feel bad" about killing an animal, to which the son replies, "my dad would say 'do you feel bad eating a McDonald's hamburger'?" I said all of this symbolism relating to animal cruelty is ironic because an actual deer was killed in the first scene. It wasn't a pretend killing, but a real one. At the end of the film, the Humane Association disclaimer states that it "monitored SOME of the animal action and no animals were harmed in THOSE scenes." Clearly, the AHA monitored the scene where the anti-hero chokes a dog, NOT the scene where the deer was killed.
Of course, the producers "pragmatically" thought that it is okay to kill a deer since hunters routinely do that and the main character is a hunter. Not in my book. Killing is wrong. It is especially wrong when it is for nothing more than a scene in a movie. Movies are fake. They are fakes of reality. So, real killing does not belong in fake realities.
Animal cruelty and associated allegories and symbols figure prominently throughout the film. I am discounting the layers of meaning and symbolism in the film, but only the actual death of an animal.
Taxidermia
(2006)
Definite animal cruelty
19 January 2014
It is very sad that such a talented director is also so demented. The first 20 minutes of this film are filled with stunning, magical scenes. For instance, a bathtub serves as a metaphor of Life; a great feat of cinematography. then, Anderson's Little Match Girl,a pop-up storybook, is filled with live characters. Clearly, the movie is a 10. Yes, there is a lot of sexuality (masturbation, male frontal nudity) and masochism, and these don't detract from, but add to the beauty of the story.
But as usual, Palfi then starts gratuitously killing animals. Not staged killings and torture, but actual. He did the same in Hukkle. After some 15 minutes, he poisoned a cat.
I don't car what humans do to themselves (masturbation, sex, torture) for the sake of a movie because they are willing participants,but non-humans should not be sacrificed for the sake of a film. NO film requires that.
It is too bad that Palfi's talent is mixed up with sadism and the objectification, and therefore lack of consideration for "real" versus symbolic Life. Taxdermia could have been a 10. Hukkle could have been up there too. Both are 2s.
But as usual, Palfi then starts gratuitously killing animals. Not staged killings and torture, but actual. He did the same in Hukkle. After some 15 minutes, he poisoned a cat.
I don't car what humans do to themselves (masturbation, sex, torture) for the sake of a movie because they are willing participants,but non-humans should not be sacrificed for the sake of a film. NO film requires that.
It is too bad that Palfi's talent is mixed up with sadism and the objectification, and therefore lack of consideration for "real" versus symbolic Life. Taxdermia could have been a 10. Hukkle could have been up there too. Both are 2s.
Hukkle
(2002)
It was a good ride until the director ordered killing
8 January 2014
Warning: Spoilers
This was an interesting movie until the director thought it necessary to kill animals.
It began with an interesting reliance on sound without dialogue. Mostly pastoral scenes with older folks - men with gin blossomed noses proliferated. It seemed like this film would continue in the vein of Bela Tarr and other Hungarian directors. Instead, it made a wrong turn.
The director decided that he needed a little more reality. That added reality took the form of animal abuse. Not a new idea: Bunuel abused animals in some of his films, and a neo-realist Italian film whose name escapes me showed villagers torturing a pig as the director filmed it as an amoral and passive journalist.
This film goes even further though. The director actually has at least one animal poisoned for the sake of a large;y absent plot line. But, it would not matter if the plot line was profound. Killing animals for the sake of a move is disgusting.
It began with an interesting reliance on sound without dialogue. Mostly pastoral scenes with older folks - men with gin blossomed noses proliferated. It seemed like this film would continue in the vein of Bela Tarr and other Hungarian directors. Instead, it made a wrong turn.
The director decided that he needed a little more reality. That added reality took the form of animal abuse. Not a new idea: Bunuel abused animals in some of his films, and a neo-realist Italian film whose name escapes me showed villagers torturing a pig as the director filmed it as an amoral and passive journalist.
This film goes even further though. The director actually has at least one animal poisoned for the sake of a large;y absent plot line. But, it would not matter if the plot line was profound. Killing animals for the sake of a move is disgusting.
Tell Your Friends