Change Your Image
dromasca
living in Israel
makes a living out of computers and computer networks
best films ever - Casablanca, The Great Dictator, Citizen Kane
likes travelling, blues, rock and jazz music, reading, sports (especially football), and of course - films
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Le diable par la queue (1969)
the merry castle
'Le diable par la queue' (1969) is part of a series of successful films that Philippe de Broca made in the 60s and 70s. Most of them combined comedy with action films, and the casts included some of the best-known actors of the era, which ensured them immediate and constant success with audiences. Revisited half a century or more after release, we can see that many of these films have not only 'aged beautifully', but are still enjoyable entertainment for today's viewers and have something special and interesting to say in addition. This is also the case for 'Le diable par la queue'.
The film's premise might as well be that of a thriller. In a corner of France, a noble family runs a hotel in a semi-ruined castle. They attract their customers in complicity with the local garage and gas station owner, who sabotages the cars of passers-by. Arriving at the castle-hotel, these are greeted by the family composed of counts, countesses, barons and marquises, who ensure a stay full of special services. Things get complicated when one of the customers forced to spend the night at the castle turns out to be a burglar, who had just committed a robbery and tries to leave the area with a hard case bag containing the loot of the heist.
The French love castles and movies set in castles. 'Le diable par la queue' was made at the end of a decade in which several of the successful 'serious' films had castles as a setting. This time the romantic vein and social commentary are almost completely replaced by the naughty and sexy humor of many comedies of the same period. Although the film is not a parody, we can guess that Philippe de Broca and his screenwriters had in mind the mentioned French models, but maybe also horror films like 'Psycho'. The result is very nice. The ladies of the noble family, from the marquise mother of the family played by Madeleine Renaud, the countess daughter (Maria Schell) and the baroness niece (Marthe Keller) flaunt and use their charms with aplomb. We can also see Jean Rochefort, at an age when he was more of a cuckolded husband than a standard of French pronunciation. Of course, however, the bulk of the feast is provided by Yves Montand, in a role in which he makes extensive use of his showmanship talents. A viewing of this film is likely to appeal to spectators looking for nostalgia, as well as to those who just want to be amused by a sparkling comedy.
Un amour de Swann (1984)
twilight of an epoch
One of the most useless intellectual exercises, in my opinion, is to compare a book and a movie, even if the movie is inspired by the book or is an adaptation. Literature and cinema are as different arts as dance and painting, for example. Each has its specific materials and means of expression, and comparing two works from different arts, even if they approach the same theme, seems ridiculous to me. 'Un amour de Swann', the 1984 film by Volker Schlöndorff starts from the characters and plots described in the first volumes of the monumental series of novels 'In search of lost time' by Marcel Proust. If nothing else, at least the complexity of the Proustian text should be sufficient as an argument to avoid comparisons. 'Un amour de Swann' is a period film, adapted for the screen by Volker Schlöndorff, with a screenplay written by Peter Brook among others, which uses characters and settings from Proust's novels and partly rewrites, for the screen, one of the many story lines in the books. It is a story of obsessive love, of social conventions, of feelings confessed in manners dictated by the social rules and the etiquette of a world that was in its twilight, but was not aware of it. It's a film that deserves to be judged as a stand-alone work.
Charles Swann, the hero of the film, is a rich bourgeois living in the last decades of the 19th century. He is rich enough to afford to do nothing, to maintain a not very spacious apartment but with an appearance and agglomeration of objects of a museum in Paris, a personal servant and a two-horse carriage. He has access to a high society that is a mixture of bourgeoisie and nobility, although the Jewish origin of his family is not forgotten by those around him. He has all the time in the world to occupy himself and describe in a private diary his own feelings, the center of his self-centered universe. When his best friend introduces him to Odette, a luxury courtesan, falling in love with her puts him in front of difficult dilemmas. First of all, he is terribly jealous and needs to come to terms with the woman's feelings and his own. Then, he must decide whether to formalize the relationship through marriage. A second social barrier created by his marriage to a former courtesan risks isolating him from the circles of high society in which he revolves. Everything will be played out and decided in one day and especially one night.
Volker Schlöndorff succeeds in recreating on screen the atmosphere of 19th century Parisian finery, with its decadent sophistication, with its masked social prejudices, with its feelings dressed like the characters in corsets and layers of sophisticated fabrics. Every now and then we have, for a fraction of a second, clues to the cruelty of the real world around the heroes: a silhouette in rags on the streets on which the carriages gallop, a look or a word that alludes to the contradictions, exploitation of women, anti-Semitism or homophobia that gnawed at the social edifice that it would collapse at the outbreak of the Great War. The characters, however, are narcissistically concerned with their own feelings, and the conflicts are drowned in the loaded aestheticism of the settings and self-concerns of the big bourgeoisie. Jeremy Irons is the ideal actor for the role of Swann, bringing to the screen a passion that is intended rather unsuccessfully to be controlled by social conventions. Ornella Muti is the beautiful and mysterious Odette, and each of the viewers will have to decide, like Swann, what her true feelings are. Alain Delon is counter-cast as the Baron de Charlus, a rather unusual role for his filmography, but further evidence, in my opinion, that he was a much more complex actor than the one known from his very commercial films. Fanny Ardant is also on screen in the role of the Duchesse de Guermantes, reduced in importance in the story, so that we do not have much opportunity to enjoy her formidable talent. The finale puts events into perspective and concludes a solid, well-acted period film that I greatly enjoyed and that will only disappoint those who insist on making comparisons. For Volker Schlöndorff this film is, I think, another study of a decaying society, one of the main themes of his filmography.
Down by Law (1986)
a Jarmusch-style escape
'Down by Law' made in 1986 is Jim Jarmusch's third feature film. The previous film, 'Stranger Than Paradise' had enjoyed an unexpected success. To a large extent, 'Down by Law' continues the same creative line, taking a classic theme and treating it in a personal manner, ignoring the rules of cinematic genres to focus on the heroes and their relationships, but also on the landscape that surrounds them. Like the previous film and like the vast majority of those that will follow in the film director's career, it is an independent movie, made outside the system of the great studios. From the creative freedom thus acquired resulted a unique style, then in full formation, which already gave Jarmusch the status of a promising, talented and interesting filmmaker.
The story begins in a New Orleans that looks more like a post-apocalyptic movie landscape. Zack is a pimp whose business isn't going too well, Jack is a serially fired radio DJ. Separately, Zack and Jack are arrested by the police and thrown into jail on what appear to be framed accusations. The two small thugs convicted of crimes they did not commit meet in the same prison cell, where they will have to put up with each other and find a way to survive together. When they've barely gotten used to the situation, appears Roberto, an Italian convicted of murder, though from the looks of it and the way he acts, his worst crime seems to be that he speaks rudimentary English. The ever-optimistic Roberto will not only change the mood in the cell, but also discover a way to escape. The adventure of the three is just beginning.
Director and screenwriter Jim Jarmusch doesn't seem too concerned about the credibility of what's being told on screen. Why were Jack and Zack framed for crimes they didn't commit? How does the escape happen? There are 'details' that Jarmusch does not feel obliged to clarify. A story is a story. He seems more concerned with presenting us with the natural and economic setting in which the story takes place, and he does it masterfully, on black and white film and with the help of cinematographer Robby Müller, who shoots terrifically both in New Orleans and in the swamps of Louisiana. John Lurie plays the role of Jack and also composes the music, Tom Waits is Zack, but the show is stolen by Roberto Benigni, already famous at that time in Italy but practically unknown to the American public. His character, with an innocence and a humor that defies the harsh reality in which he finds himself, predicts the hero of his own film 'La vita è bella' which he would make 11 years later. Benigni, who had already made three films as a director by that time, admired and learned a lot from Jarmusch. Some fans of the adventure or escapist genres may be displeased. 'Down by Law' is before all a Jim Jarmusch movie.
We Live in Time (2024)
Love Story 2024
Since the first scenes of 'We Live in Time', the 2024 film by the Irish director John Crowley, I had a feeling of 'déjà vu'. After about a quarter of an hour in the movie, I suddenly remembered. Of course, I had seen a similar movie before, a romantic story about a young and handsome man who loves a young and beautiful woman, a story in which the two face hardships because of those around them, in which their love overcomes all obstacles until they are hit by the serious illness that risks taking the life of the young and beautiful heroine. The film - directed by Arthur Hiller - was called 'Love Story' and was written by Erich Segal. Released in parallel with the novel of the same name, it enjoyed enormous success. The year was 1970. I was 17 when I saw 'Love Story', now I'm 71. How do the two films compare? 'We Live in Time' uses exactly the same romantic melodrama formula and the main characters are very similar in typology. I think what deeply moved me then works well now - a love story written honestly and intelligently and well served by a couple of handsome, talented and well-cast actors.
If the formula, theme and main characters are similar, the narrative structures of the two films are very different. For about two-thirds of 'We Live in Time' the script written by Nick Payne lets viewers witness a sequence of episodes that take place over several years and are presented in seemingly random order, requiring the reconstruction in the mind of spectators of the love story between Tobias and Almut. The meeting between them happens as in the movies: he is almost newly divorced and wanders at dawn on a highway in a hotel bathrobe, she runs over him with a car. The pieces of the puzzle fit together and the picture we reconstruct is that of a love story between two of the nicest and most attractive young people we've seen on screens lately. To formalize the relationship in a marriage, to have children or not, to succeed in their respective professions (she is a very talented Michelin-starred chef) - everything is approached with love and humor. When the so often merciless disease strikes, Tobias and Almut will try to deal with it in the same way, but how far can living lives to the fullest postpone the blows of fate? The final part of the film uses linear narrative, building a crescendo towards a somewhat expected ending.
From 1970 to 2024, mainstream cinema had time to accept scenes with nudity and sex only to kind of abandon them in the name of a new yet unwritten code of decency. John Crowley reintroduces them without hesitation, integrates them well into the plot and adds a dramatic childbirth scene. I have nothing but praise for the two actors who play the lead roles with talent and intensity. Andrew Garfield builds the character of a charming and sensitive man, radiating empathy and with a sense of humor present at all times. Florence Pugh is strong and beautiful, and very well embodies the dilemma of the women who succeed in their professions, but for this they must constantly adjust the balance between their professional lives and their feelings. I would have liked the script writer and director to have described her culinary creations in more detail, and not just because I'm a fan of movies with and about food, but it would have given more motivation to the decisions made by the chef character at key moments. I also want to mention the appearance of Lee Braithwaite in a debut role on the screens, with a special physiognomy and expressiveness. 'We Live in Time' proves that well-written and well-made films that express feelings and emotions honestly and authentically have a chance in any era of cinema history.
Ordinary People (1980)
the breaking of an ordinary family
Americans don't really use the expression 'cinema de papa', invented by critics and French filmmakers followers of the New Wave to define everything that characterizes the film-making ways of previous generations, from which they wanted to move away. It would be about productions filmed mostly in studios, elaborated scenarios which were often adaptations of novels or plays, a style of directing very attentive to detail and relying on the quality of the actors, avoiding improvisations. According to these criteria, 'Ordinary People' (1980) would be a classic example of 'daddy's cinema'. It's also an example that this way of making films can generate remarkable, deep creations with heroes that stay with their viewers long after the screening is over. It was Robert Redford's directorial debut and remains to this day one of the best, if not the best, film he directed.
The title is justified from the first scenes. We see the comfortable home of an American couple somewhere near Chicago. The Jarretts are an ordinary family, but we quickly understand that things are not going well, and that this is due to the trauma of losing their elder son in a boating accident. Conrad, the younger brother, has feelings of guilt and is in recovery from a suicide attempt. Calvin, the father, displays a permanent and fake contentment, while Beth, the mother, emotionally represses her feelings, if she has any. The three do not want or cannot communicate with each other. For Conrad the only way to express his thoughts and anguish is through the psychiatric therapy sessions that he attends with Dr. Berger. The teenager's return to high school studies, friends and the activity of a performance swimmer or the start of an idyll with a girl he meets at church choir rehearsals are constantly threatened by the trauma he cannot leave behind. The family, far from being a refuge, amplifies the anguish through non-communication.
Robert Redford moved to the director's chair after two decades of acting in which he had become one of the most famous and highest paid stars in Hollywood. Understanding and guiding actors was his strength and his main quality as a filmmaker. All the actors in this film give strong and believable performances and for many of them it is one of the best films of their careers. This is certainly the case of Timothy Hutton who won theAcademy Award for Best Actor in a Supporting Role, as Conrad. The classification is debatable, the teenager Conrad being the main character of the story in my opinion, but the award is justified. Donald Sutherland may apparently seem a miscast, with an atypical role for an actor often ready to go to extremes, but here, he finds resources of sensitivity little explored in other films. Mary Tyler Moore transcends her television star status in the mysterious and complex role of mother incapable of emotions or expressing them. Judd Hirsch takes on the role of Dr. Berger, a key character in a plot that can also be seen as a film advertising and promoting the profession of psychoanalyst. Finally, we have in this film the debut on the big screen of Elizabeth McGovern, young (at the time), talented and sensitive. The psychological depth of the story reminded me at its best moments of Ingmar Bergman. Even if today some dialogues seem a bit long and a bit theatrical, 'Ordinary People' is a smart and deeply moving film that successfully launched Robert Redford as a director and won four Academy Awards, all of which were deserved.
Emily the Criminal (2022)
an anti-heroine to remember
'Emily the Criminal' (2022) is one of the most exciting feature films directorial debuts that I've seen in the recent years. As John Patton Ford also wrote the screenplay, my guess is that we're dealing with a talented filmmaker who has a lot to say and enough time ahead of him, even if this film was made after he crossed the 40-year-old barrier. It's a seemingly simple story about a modern-day young woman's slide into crime, which both manages to say a lot about herself and about the world she lives in.
Emily is a graduate of an art school for which she has fallen head over heels in debt. A minor crime left her with a criminal record that makes it difficult for her to find suitable jobs that will allow her to pay the installments. When she can no longer cope financially, she agrees to take part in a credit card fraud scheme. She meets Youcef and becomes more than his accomplice in crime. But with the money comes the risks of getting deeper and deeper into the world of crime. Surprisingly, Emily will find in herself the resources to survive and even succeed in the world of crime, where violence cannot be for a long time avoided.
The screenplay is not perfect, especially towards the end, but John Patton Ford managed to realistically describe the social environment and economic pressure in which his characters live. Present-day Los Angeles is the perfect setting for this personal and crime drama. The quality of the film, however, is primarily given by the superb acting performance of Aubrey Plaza, in the role of the anti-heroine turned unlikely criminal. I had noticed her in a previous film where she stood up brilliantly to Michael Caine. Here she has Theo Rossi as her partner, and although he is also an actor with many qualities and charisma, he seems to be in her shadow here. Looking forward to the next John Patton Ford and Aubrey Plaza movies.
The New Year That Never Came (2024)
the last two days of non-liberty
'The New Year That Never Came' tells stories from the last two days of non-freedom for the Romanians. It is, incredibly, the debut feature film - at the age of 50! - by director Bogdan Muresanu. A solid, mature, emotional film and a history lesson for those Romanians - alas, too many - who do not know or have forgotten the past of the communist dictatorship. In my opinion, in the history of Romanian cinema, it is a significant film, as was Lucian Pintilie's 'Reconstitution' from 1970. That one was only the second film of Romania's most important theater and film director in the second half of 20th century.
The action of "The New Year That Never Came" takes place on December 20 and 21, 1989, at the end of the period of the communist dictatorship. The characters of the film, like most of those who lived those times, have neither the feeling nor the hope that they will get to live the change that will take place soon, the fall of communism that had already happened in almost all the countries of Eastern Europe. Even when foreign radio stations announce the protests that started in Timisoara, nothing seems to budge in Bucharest. The Securitate secret police seems all-powerful, the propaganda machine is in full swing, life full of shortages and dominated by fear continues. A Securitate officer manipulates his informants who surveil the lives of students and intellectuals. He also has a mother who is about to be evicted from the house she had lived in all her life, which will be demolished to make way for grandiose buildings in the new city center. A television crew has to urgently change a tribute film to the dictatorship scheduled for New Year's Eve, in which an actress who had fled to the West appears in the foreground, in a situation reminiscent of the collection of short films 'Memories from the Golden Age' of Mungiu. The replacement actress has a crisis of conscience when she is forced to participate in the show. A family enters a crisis after learning that their eight-year-old boy asked in a letter to the communist version of Santa Claus to see Uncle Nicu dead, 'because that's what dad wants'. The son of the television director plans to flee the country with a friend across the Danube, the border with Yugoslavia. In the music of Ravel's Bolero, the narrative planes alternate, the tension builds, the boiling point approaches. Will the mamaliga (Romanian polenta) explode?
I found the narrative construction excellent. At first, the viewer may be a little confused by the multitude of characters and situations, but quite quickly the common denominator (fear, hope suppressed in struggle with resignation, long-repressed anger) and the connections between the characters become clear. For those who lived through that era, the settings and cinematic style create a sense of immersion in the past. All the actors are formidable, but I can't help mentioning three names: Iulian Postelnicu (who had major roles in at least three good films I've seen in the last year), Adrian Vancica and Nicoleta Hancu. I found the reconstruction of those last days and hours of the dictatorship impressive, with only one major flaw related to the final scene, that of the rally in Palace Square, where a fictional intervention in the key detail of the start of the protest that changed history leaves room for a revisionist interpretation. Romanian cinema has returned, repeatedly, for 35 years now, to the final years of the dictatorship and even to the days when Romania's fate changed. Several of the resulting films were memorable. "The New Year That Never Came" is a remarkable creation, which adds to this list at a time when politically motivated revisionism fuels the pseudo-nostalgia of those who have forgotten or who did not know the dictatorship.
Joker: Folie à Deux (2024)
the rise and the fall of Joker
Scott Silver and Todd Phillips knew what they were risking when they scripted 'Joker: Folie à Deux' the way they did. The film also directed by Phillips 5 years ago enjoyed immense success with the public and critics, received 11 Academy Awards nominations and 2 statuettes. Part of the secret to its success was that it fit well into the Gotham mythology and expanded and enriched the Joker character. The screenwriters of this sequel made two decisions: they made the continuation of the story into a musical and returned the Joker character to the human dimensions of the tormented Arthur Fleck. The first decision was inspired, but the second was a surprise and disappointment to the masses of viewers for whom Gotham is an entire universe in which the Joker is one of the brightest stars. Most fan reactions have been devastating. But I'm not one of the fans of movies inspired by comics, I liked the original 'Joker' for its complexity of the characters, acting and its visual power, so this sequel had no many reasons to disappoint me. Moreover, the musical adaptation and the casting of Lady Gaga as Joker's partner delighted me. I enjoyed 'Joker: Folie à Deux' almost as much as the first film.
The beginning of the film is delicious: a cartoon that basically recaps what happened in the past and introduces the Joker to the very few who wouldn't know the character. From Disney-style animation, we move to realism and reality. Arthur Fleck, imprisoned on an island connected to Gotham by a long and winding bridge awaits his judgment among the inmates, overseen by cruel guards - sometimes sadistic, sometimes falsely friendly. A ray of light appears when, as part of a music re-education program, he meets Lee Quinzel, a girl who introduces herself as a childhood neighbor and tells him about a past almost as unhappy as his own. Is there still hope for the death penalty threatened murderer of five (or maybe six) victims? Arthur's lawyer prepares a defense based on split personality: the evil Joker would take over the peaceful Arthur who is innocent of the crimes he is accused of. But are Arthur and Joker two different personalities? Ultimately, the admiration of the crowds who made of him a vigilante idol and especially the love of Lee are for the Joker and not for Arthur. It will all play out at the trial, but what we're about to see is very different from any courtroom drama we've seen on screen before.
The formidable cinematography is signed by Lawrence Sher, with whom Todd Phillips already collaborated on the first 'Joker'. The collaboration with the Icelandic composer Hildur Guðnadóttir also continues, and the role of music is amplified by the fact that we are dealing with a musical. In fact, the songs are not only aesthetic interludes, but also play an important role in fleshing out the relationship between Joker and Lee. They are mostly taken from what Americans call their great songbook, hits from the '50s or '60s, many taken from other musicals. I'm a big fan of both Lady Gaga (as an actress) and Joaquin Phoenix and their presence together made 'Joker: Folie à Deux' a treat for me. Phoenix went to physical extremes to get into the role. I also noted Brendan Gleeson's performance as the security guard who guards and escorts the Joker. The film can be criticized for its length and some repetitions that could have been avoided, but this is an almost universal disease of Hollywood productions nowadays. In the first 'Joker' movie we witnessed the transformation of Arthur Fleck into the Joker. In 'Joker: Folie à Deux' he is brought back to his human dimensions. But what the crowds loved about him was the character and not the man, and thus, he loses everything in the process, including the adulation of many of his movie fans. For me, however, this film was not a disappointment.
Tegnap (2018)
the inescapable past
'Tegnap' / 'Yesterday' is the 2018 debut in feature film of Hungarian filmmaker Bálint Kenyeres. A late debut, he being already known as an actor, screenwriter and author of short films, and which has not yet been followed by a second film. It's a Hungarian film, but it has nothing to do with Hungary, not a word of Hungarian is spoken, the story takes place in Morocco and is spoken in French, English, German, Arabic. Vlad Ivanov, the huge Romanian actor, appears in the lead role. He is also the main reason why I decided to see the film. I was left with a lot of question marks at the end of the viewing, but that was probably exactly the intention of the screenwriters and of the director.
Victor Ganz is a European businessman, the head of a large construction company, who travels to Morocco to fix a project that seems to have some problems. He seems like a confident guy who controls everything that happens in his business and life. The trip is also a return, he had been to Morocco twenty years ago, he has friends and relations here at ministerial level. The evening before returning, unable to sleep, he goes to a bar where he had been many years ago. Here he seems to glimpse the silhouette of a woman he had known and had a love affair with, a woman with whom he was supposed to go back to Europe, but who had disappeared without a trace from a motel on the seashore and the edge of the desert. He goes in pursuit of her, and from here begins a journey in which the present and the past, reality and delusion will mix to the point of total confusion. Morocco is no longer the one he knew, people have changed, communication is difficult or even impossible, the language barrier is amplified by differences in cultures, mentalities and symbols. The man secure and in control of every detail of life gradually turns into an obsessed man, unsure if he is in the present or the past, in conflict with the surrounding people and the desert and the merciless sun.
Where many other filmmakers would use flashbacks, Bálint Kenyeres keeps the narrative all the time in the present. Victor, his hero, has few clues to the past - a few weathered photographs and unreliable memories. The story is told from his perspective, but the hero's insecurities about the time he is in, the fate of the woman he is looking for, and his own identity are conveyed to the viewer. He may feel confused at many moments, even at the end, when a possible solution to the mystery of the woman's disappearance is told in a language he does not understand and which the director chose not to subtitle. But the confusion is intentional. The return to the present is only apparent. He who has lived his youth intensely remains in part the prisoner of past - this seems to be the message. Vlad Ivanov is formidable, as we know him. When Ivanov plays a role, we cannot imagine the character otherwise or another actor in his place. He plays the part of the foreigner in three or four languages, and that suits him perfectly, for none of them is his home language. The overwhelming cinematography, signed by Ádám Fillenz, reproduces the atmosphere of ruin in the desert and transmits the merciless climate beyond the screen. 'Teglap' / 'Yesterday' is a film that will appeal to lovers of cinematic experiments and psychological dramas, a film that will intrigue and puzzle many.
The Stranger (1946)
Orson Welles road-opening movie
The 1946 'The Stranger' is one of Orson Welles' attempts to make films within the Hollywood production system. It was a commercially successful gamble, but one that would remain an exception in Welles' directorial career. Many of his subsequent films either ran over budget or production time, to the point of canceling the projects in some cases, or forced him to make so many artistic concessions that Welles later disowned them and even refused the usage of his name in the credits. 'The Stranger', however, produced by Sam Spiegel and John Huston (who was also co-producer and co-writer, but was not credited) manages to bring to the screens a very actual theme in the years after the war - the hunt for Nazi criminals - and does so with an elegance and economy of means that make the film a milestone for many film noir and thriller productions.
'The Stranger' is one of the first films made after the war in which the main hero is a Nazi hunter. On the trail of a war criminal who has erased all traces of his identity or physiognomy from the archives, Detective Wilson frees another Nazi and pursues him, convinced that he will connect with his former partner in crime. The two arrive in a small American town where the former Nazi, under the false identity of a history teacher, is about to marry Mary, the young daughter of a judge. Trying to cover his tracks, the criminal kills his accomplice. The only person who can make the connection between the assassin and his past is his new wife, but she is both in love and faithful to the vow made at the church to be together with her husband through happiness or sorrow. Will Mary give up her adoration for the man she's in love with? Or maybe this one will be betrayed by his passion for clocks, the hobby that was also known to be that of the wanted criminal?
Here is a commercial film that is both an art film and a film that contains a treasure trove of references for what was to come in Orson Welles' filmography but also in other genres of American and world cinema. It is one of the first films in the Nazi-hunting genre. Many more will follow, until the 80s, when the genre reaches its peak. For the first time in a fiction film, documentary sequences shot at the liberation of the death camps by the Allied troops are used. They will return in Stanley Kramer's 'Judgment at Nuremberg' for example. The cinematography is outstandin as Russell Metty, a favorite collaborator of Welles and other great directors, creates unique frames, daring perspectives, makes extensive use of mirrors and of the studio space created especially for this film. Almost every frame is a lesson in cinematography. I was less than thrilled by the very intrusive musical score by Bronislau Kaper, but eight decades ago the effect was probably very different. Welles also resorts to brilliant counter-casting. He assumes for himself the role of the Nazi murderer and has Edward G. Robinson play the positive role of the detective on the trail of the Nazi murderers. The role of Mary is cast by Loretta Young, a famous actress and positive role model at the time among Hollywood stars. I think time has taken its toll here, the relationship between the young American woman and the husband who gradually reveals himself to be a criminal is played too emphatically to be believable to today's viewers. Even if not all the details have remained that fresh 78 after, 'The Stranger' remains a viewing that has every chance to please not only those who love the history of the film but also those looking for quality entertainment.
Stroszek (1977)
broken dreams
Made in 1977, 'Stroszek' is one of the most special films of Werner Herzog, one of the few very special directors who were part of that unique generation of filmmakers who made German (West German) films into some of the more interesting productions of the 70s and early 80s. When I think about this generation of directors, I cannot ignore the fact that they grew up in the years after the Second World War and were formed in a Germany that had lived through two decades of reconstruction but also of historical amnesia. It fell to them to bridge the lost decades and generations with the artists (including filmmakers) of the formidable decadent and expressionist period of the Weimar Republic, also embodying the war traumas and conflicts that had left many scars and open wounds. 'Stroszek', a film unlike any other, is one of the proofs of the creativity of these artists, but it is also a film born out of pain and suffering, depicting the impossibility of adaptation of the less privileged.
The story begins in Germany. Bruno gets out of prison. We don't know exactly why he was convicted. He seems like a nice guy, with some mental problems, he takes life as it is, helps those around him as best as he can. He meets and shelters Eva, a prostitute pursued by violent pimps, whom he brings to the home of his older friend, Scheitz. When criminals make their lives impossible, the three decide to try their luck in America, where Scheitz has a nephew. They land in Wisconsin, in deep America, and begin to face the realities there. People are, at least in appearance, less violent, but life has other harsh rules of its own. They are each trying to work, they take out a mortgage for a caravan which they think is great at first, but paying the mortgage payments becomes a problem. Life again overwhelms the three heroes, each in-adapted in his own way there, in America,
It is very difficult to characterize Werner Herzog's style. If we were to look for its roots, we would find them in Italian neo-realism rather than in German expressionist cinema. Except for Eva Mattes, all the other actors are non-professionals. Some of them play out their own lives on the screen. Bruno S., the actor who plays Bruno, had been cast by Herzog in a previous film, but the character borrows a lot from his real-life story and personality. 'Stroszek' is a kind of road movie that takes its heroes from Germany to the United States, the locations filmed are authentic and the style is almost documentary. This does not mitigate, but on the contrary, accentuates the drama which sometimes has grotesque overtones, but very rarely we laugh. The ending is powerful and metaphorical. It caused controversy even among members of the film crew, and it is said that Herzog had to hand-hold the camera for the final scene. It is a pessimistic film, with no chance or hope for its heroes. We, the viewers who see the film almost half a century after it was made, enjoy a unique and impressive work.
I vitelloni (1953)
the magnificent five
'I vitelloni' is the second feature film directed alone by Federico Fellini, in 1953. It is a combination of neo-realist cinematography, social satire and character comedy, in which Fellini already demonstrates a perfect mastery of the means of expression, of the choice and control of the actors, of combining visual composition with the expressiveness of the music (composed by Nino Rota). It is a film full of humanity and sensitivity, which already predicts many of the major obsessions in the masterpieces that will follow and the evolution of the filmmaker from neo-realism to surrealism and to the magic of performances. In the end, it's a film that doesn't show its age and remains quality entertainment more than seven decades after it first hit the screens.
The story takes place in a small provincial Italian town by the sea. World War II has been over for less than a decade, but on the surface, nothing remembers it. Life goes on apparently normally, the ruins have been cleared, the dead buried and forgotten, and no one remembers the years of dictatorship or war. The economic situation is stable enough to allow the group of five men who are the film's heroes to live, in their mid-thirties, on their parents or sisters backs, to unenthusiastically search or not search for a job, spending their times in cafes or chasing local or visiting women, the young or the not so young ones. The unofficial leader of the group, Fausto, gets Sandra, the sister of Moraldo - another member of the gang, pregnant and is forced to marry her. At the intervention of his father-in-law, he is employed in a shop, works without enthusiasm and is quick to make advances to the boss's wife. Marriage did not change him into a faithful man, but other events will cause him to reconsider his attitude.
The dominant feeling experienced by the film's heroes is boredom. Portraying bored heroes on screen is a big challenge for screenwriters and directors, as they risk to pass the sentiment to their audiences, but Fellini was already on the path that would make him a master at tackling such situations. He succeeds perfectly by introducing scenes of the popular dance parties, theater and carnival events that would become an integral part of the thematic and aesthetic of his filmography and emphasizing character development. It's an example of classic melodramatic cinematography, but it works emotionally because each of the actors understands and lives his or her character perfectly. Among the actors, the audience has the best chance of recognizing Alberto Sordi, who was already quite well known and would become one of the great actors (especially in comedies) of Italian cinema of the 60s and 70s . However, the entire team of actors is formidable, and the characters of the film would become points of reference not only in Fellini's filmography but also in the world cinema, from the angry young men of the 50s, passing through the beatniks and the heroes of the French New Wave in the 60s and reaching to the hippies and protestors of the 70s. And thus, the comedy of characters takes on the substance of social satire, more subtle and powerful even than many contemporary neo-realist films. 'I vitelloni' - a film to be searched for, found and enjoyed.
Beetlejuice Beetlejuice (2024)
don't say it for the third time!
Tim Burton's 'Beetlejuice Beetlejuice' (twice) is a sequel to 'Beetlejuice' (once) made in 1988 by the same director. If a different director and an entirely different cast had produced the film, I would have treated it (and probably many others did the same) quite harshly. However, since we are talking about a director who has become famous, who reuses his characters and brings back to the screen the world he created in the film that launched his career and defined his aesthetics and to a large extent the themes, we cannot help but ask the question why Tim Burton wanted so much to make this movie. Corollary - was it worth the effort? How does the double-titled 'sequel' compare (comparison is inevitable) to the original? A little research reveals the fact that Burton had long wanted to resume the theme in a sequel, that he refused two other scripts and that he set the uncompromisable condition that Michael Keaton would resume his titular role. Meanwhile the Beetlejuice Universe has expanded with other films, TV series, cartoons and computer games. In the decades of computerized effects and of virtual and intelligent enhancements, a sequel has to bring something very different to be remembered in the future separately from the original. I doubt that would be the case with 'Beetlejuice Beetlejuice'.
Re-watching or, for the younger ones, watching for the first time the original movie is not mandatory but it is very useful to understand exactly what is happening in 'Beetlejuice Beetlejuice'. Some of the characters return, namely the mother and daughter from the Deetz family, a family that had a secondary (but important) role in 'Beetlejuice'. And of course Beetlejuice returns and he hasn't given up on his plans to spend the rest of his death with Lydia Deetz, now a TV star and an expert on ... ghosts and connections between the worlds of the living and the dead. 35 years later, the teenager in the original movie is now at her turn the mother of another teenager, Astrid, equally rebellious and innocent about contact with the world beyond the Styx. Beetlejuice turns out not to be exactly a bachelor either, but rather a divorcee, and Delores, his ex-wife and grave-robbing partner from the plague centuries, comes together (from pieces, literally) to reunite their family. The combination of teen movies, horror (the action also takes place before Halloween) and the constant interaction between the world of the living and the afterlife works. Up to a certain point.
The cinematic world of Tim Burton is always present on the screen: colorful and frightening, grotesque and macabre, full of coarse humor and no curtains, expressive music used in unexpected ways. The problem is that the audio-visual style can no longer surprise and is no longer enough. 1988's 'Beetlejuice' launched an approach and created a distinct commercial-artistic brand that became famous and hasn't changed much since, although the technical tools are different. Among the acting creations of this 'Beetlejuice Beetlejuice' (twice) I liked Winona Ryder's the most. She manages to create a believable evolution of her eccentric character created three and a half decades ago. The younger generation is represented by actress Jenna Ortega, who presents an alternative to the role of the rebellious, skeptical and inevitably in love teenager. Ryder was 17 years old in 1988 and the role in Tim Burton's film launched her career. Ortega, on the other hand, at 22 years old, already has more than 50 roles in her filmography, but she is still fresh, expressive, attractive and scared, as the role demands. Monica Bellucci has a minor role, but one that includes a spectacular, anthology scene. Willem Dafoe and Danny DeVito may also complain about under-casting, but on the other hand, they seem to be having fun, with make-ups beyond recognition, in Tim Burton's film. The main problem is the lack of an interesting story. The film has three main narrative threads - a story of coming of age and teenage love, and the two obsessive pursuits of Beetlejuice and Delores. None captures or engages. Gags and transitions between the worlds of the living and the dead are not enough. A lot can happen in the next 36 years, but unless something radically changes, I'd say that Tim Burton has no reason for another sequel. Or, as one can learn in the movie, saying 'Beetlejuice' three times is not advisable.
A Quiet Place: Day One (2024)
Manhattan is (again) destroyed
A morning with beautiful weather in New York. The metropolis begins another day of diverse, dynamic, noisy life. Suddenly, an extraordinary event happens, an event that will change everyone's lives. No, it's not about a movie about 9/11. 'A Quite Place: Day One' is a movie about the invasion of extraterrestrial aliens that will destroy, for the thousandth time in the history of cinema, Manhattan. We won't learn much about the invaders, except that they are ugly murderous monsters that are guided by sounds. In fact, chances are that fans of alien horror movies already know them, as the 2024 film is a prequel to the first two films in the 'A Quite Place' series co-written and directed by John Krasinski. This time Krasinki is only co-author of the script, with Michael Sarnoski directing.
The horror - aliens combination is already known, but the screenwriters had the inspiration to add two very different and very unlikely characters for films of this genre. Samira (Sam) is a poet, suffering from a probably terminal illness. She is in Manhattan with her caregiver from the clinic where she is being treated, for what could be her last visit to the city where she grew up and with which she has the best childhood memories. In a way, though, the constant pain and awareness that death is coming anyway make her a special kind of fighter for survival. She is the one who provides moral support to those around her, including Eric, a young Englishman visiting New York just as catastrophe strikes. The two will form an alliance for a few hours in order to survive. Manhattan is the loudest place in the world, and that's why the odds are better for the marginalized, the outsiders.
The creators of this third film in the cycle 'A Quiet Place' manage to continue on the same line of quality what they had achieved in the first two films. They don't insist too much with the description of the monsters, which we only see for fractions of a second, and they do not get complicated with technologies. The the story is kept at minimal necessity and nothing excessive is added. There are some fairly well done horror and action thriller scenes, but they aren't the principal. The only thing I felt was missing from the script was more consistency in the portrayal of the character of Eric, played by Joseph Quinn. Sam dominates the story, and not just because of Lupita Nyong'o's excellent acting. Manhattan is, perhaps, destroyed again, but we will remember - even after the movie ends - Sam, the poet who knows how to suppress her own cries of pain and help those around her.
A Haunting in Venice (2023)
Poirot haunted
Kenneth Branagh continues his series of adaptations of Agatha Christie's novels and seems to feel quite comfortable in the skin of Hercule Poirot and in the position of director of the films that bring him to the big screen. The third film in this series is 'A Haunting in Venice', a rather loose adaptation of one of the late novels of the British detective master, 'Hallowe'en Party'. The book, also mentioned in the movie 'Belfast', was one of Branagh's mother's favorite books. Unlike the two previous films in this Poirot series, it is a film that forgoes lavish locations, and the cast - without compromising on quality - is much less rich in first-rate stars. A different film, much more personal and special.
The story is moved from England to post-World War II Venice. The reverberations of war are still felt. Poirot, whose past had begun to be revealed in the previous film, is now retired, living his quiet life and small habits in a Venetian palace and on its roof. He no longer deals with cases, but the cases follow him. When the writer Joyce Reynolds (a kind of alter-ego of Agatha Christie) invites him to participate in a spiritualist session in a haunted building, the detective cannot refuse the invitation to expose the imposture or perhaps to confirm the identity of a famous medium. A storm begins that isolates the semi-ruined palace from the rest of the world, creating the closed setting of Christie's novels, and the corpses soon show up.
Ghost story buffs and Agatha Christie fans will excuse me, but I wasn't caught up in the atmosphere at all. Perhaps it was Poirot's hesitations that prompted me to take his place as a science-backed skeptic. Both the ghost story and the detective story have solutions, it's up to the viewer to what extent to believe them. The quality of the film lies in the psychology of the characters, and mainly of Poirot. The screenwriter is Michael Green and he, along with director Kenneth Branagh, give actor Kenneth Branagh enough material to expand the human dimensions of the character. The rest of the cast is very well chosen. The most famous names are those of Michelle Yeoh and Tina Fey - acting excellently and with visible pleasure. For the first time in the current series, Branagh is using digital film, which probably makes it easier to create effects, and many of them are spectacular. Even though the detective-ghost plot failed to impress me, I found enough other reasons to enjoy watching 'A Haunting in Venice' and recommend it to others. In the end, Poirot decides to return and take on new cases. This means that there will be new films in this series. I will definitely look for them.
Raising Arizona (1987)
a feel-good movie by the Coen brothers
The 1987 'Raising Arizona' is the second feature film written and directed by the Coen brothers. The first film, 'Blood Simple' had impressed but also disturbed many of the viewers with the combination of strange or banal characters doing extreme things, with the comic or dramatic situations often resolved with realistic and refined violence. The two filmmakers had been criticized that their characters were almost all negative - criminals or immoral. 'Raising Arizona' tries a diametrically opposite approach. Almost all the characters are positive, the only exception being a murderous thug who rides a motorcycle and who could very well just be the materialization of a nightmare of the main hero of the film. That's not to say that the plot of the film isn't full of strange happenings, chases, beatings and crimes of all kinds. But the approach is comical and empathetic, and this is one of the Coen brothers films that comes closest to the feel-good genre . It is also a film that already has the clear imprint of the style of films that the two brothers would make for the next almost 40 years.
Hi is a recidivist supermarket robber. Ed is the cop who takes Hi's mugshot arrest photos and fingerprints so many times that she ends falling in love with him and convincing him to become an honest man after they marry. Life as honest newlyweds isn't easy, though, especially when the couple discover they can't have children or adopt because of Hi's criminal record. Since most of the the Coen brothers' characters have an atrophied moral sense, kidnapping one of the quintuplets of a wealthy couple seems like a reasonable solution. Kidnapping the baby proves to be the easiest part.
'Raising Arizona' is a well written and excellently executed action comedy. As we can expect, the baby wins the hearts of the viewers and of the villains who kidnap him. Nicolas Cage seems to be playing a role that is a prelude to his later Nicolas-Cage-with-a-shaggy-hairstyle roles. Here he is young, full of humor and in love with the character played by Holly Hunter. How could he not be in love? Two more of my favorite actors appear in the well-chosen cast: John Goodman and Frances McDormand, the latter in a small role but showing that she was present in the casts of the Coen brothers from their first films, building the career that has brought her 4 Academy awards and counting. Cultural and cinematic references, from character names to entire scenes abound and beg to be discovered and savored. 'Raising Arizona' was in 1987 and is still in 2024 quality summer and all-season entertainment.
Smilla's Sense of Snow (1997)
frozen passions
Director Bille August's 'Smilla's Sense of Snow' (1997) should have had every reason to be a standout film. The script brings a successful novel by Peter Høeg to the big screen. The story belongs to a cinematographic genre - techno-thriller - which is successful with the public. The cast is excellent and includes a female star - Julia Ormond - then in the prime of her career, who is given a complex role that combines action with psychological analysis of a very interesting character. And yet, the film fails to live up to its potential and ambitions. What starts out interesting and complex ends up like another action movie. As if something was lost along the way.
The film's heroine, Smilla Jaspersen, is half Inuit, originally from Greenland. Her mother died when she was 6 and she was raised by her father. A brilliant mathematician and ice researcher, she still can't find her place either in her career or in her personal life. At 30+ years old, she is single and out of work, when a strange accident happens in the apartment block in Copenhagen where she lives. A little fatherless boy from an Inuit family, whom Smilla had befriended, falls to his death from the roof of the house. The incident is classified as an accident, but many details do not seem right to Smilla. What was a child suffering from dizziness and fear of heights looking for on the roof? If this was just an accident, why was he being autopsied and sampled for biopsy? The questions she asks seem to be uncomfortable for the police but also for the company that had hired the boy's father, a big concern that dealt with mineral exploration in Greenland. A neighbor who seems like a decent man, but whose intentions are not clear to the woman, is also interested in the same case. How does he appear in key moments and places of the investigation? Maybe he just looks for an opportunity to start a relationship with her?
The story gets complicated, but it remains interesting as long as the investigation reveals details that are also related to the Inuit identity and the woman's relations with her neighbor, with her father, with the investigators who try to remove her from the case. From a moment on, however, the events become less and less believable. Smilla and her new friend find themselves embroiled in a James Bond-esque plot and fighting a global corporation willing to commit any crime to achieve its goals. Their transformation into action movie heroes is a little believable. The script that adapts the plot of the book is probably also to blame. For the director Bille August the great success may have come too soon, and after the Palme d'Or and the Academy Award for the best foreign film (received in 1988), expectations were always high. About two-thirds of the way through the film I think he manages to maintain interest and create a Nordic thriller atmosphere, enhanced by the icy landscape that covers Copenhagen and envelops everything in Greenland. The director is also helped by the actors, especially Julia Ormond and Gabriel Byrne, who play the main roles. The whole cast manages to reproduce the Scandinavian atmosphere well (at least it seemed to me) even though it is an international cast. If Ann Biderman, the screenwriter who adapted Peter Høeg's novel, had resisted the temptation to include adventure movie pyrotechnics, I think 'Smilla's Sense of Snow' would have been better. But even so, it's a film worth watching.
All Quiet on the Western Front (1930)
the lost generations
Lewis Milestone is one of those immigrant filmmakers who laid the foundations of the American film industry and whose biographies await screenwriters to turn them into memorable films. 'All Quiet on the Western Front' was made in 1930, only a year after the publication of Erich Maria Remarque's novel. Just as the German writer's book is considered one of the most successful anti-war works, Milestone's film about war is also considered a masterpiece of the genre. Any good war film is also an anti-war film - I've said it on other occasions and it applies here. Additionally, the film earned Milestone the first Academy Award for film directing in the sound film era, a year after he had received the award (in the comedy category). To this day, he is the only director in the history of the Academy to receive two Academy Awards for film directing in two consecutive years. 'All Quiet on the Western Front' had two versions, one of which was silent for the many venues that were not yet equipped with sound amplifiers in that transitional period. It is a remarkable film and it is also a milestone in the history of the transition from silent to sound film.
The script follows quite faithfully the novel, the film being considered one of the most outstanding screen adaptations of an important novel in world literature. The first scenes take place in a German town at the beginning of the First World War. The patriotic atmosphere and the confidence in an easy victory also infected the students of a high school class, encouraged by their teacher's demagogic speeches. Most enlist voluntarily. Paul Baumer, a young man with ambitions to become a writer, is not very enthusiastic, but he lets himself be carried away. He, along with six of his colleagues and friends, will go through basic training and be sent to the front after a few weeks of rudimentary instruction. The realities of the front are completely different from those described by the press and teachers or imagined by the young men. Violence, disorganization, hunger, corruption reign and the danger of mutilation or death is constant. Paul befriends an older soldier, Kat (Katcinsky), who takes the group of recruits under his tutelage, manages to procure food, teaches them the secrets of survival. The war begins to grind down the members of the group one by one. On leave after being wounded, Paul visits his family and the town, but is immediately shocked and disgusted by the ignorance of those back home about the realities of war and the unchanged patriotic demagoguery of the café bourgeois, including his teacher. Back on the battlefield, he will only find Kat. The end of the war is drawing near, but Paul's generation, what few are left, is lost.
The narrative structure is excellent, building on the story in the novel. The names of the actors no longer mean much to today's movie fans, but I will still mention the memorable creations of Lew Ayres (Paul) and Louis Wolheim (Kat). The former was only 22 years old when he made this film. It can be seen that he is already an actor of the sound film era and he indeed had a long career. Louis Wolheim had trained at the silent film school. He specialized in expressive compositional roles and at one point was declared 'the ugliest actor in Hollywood'. He would die a year after playing the role of Kat, a pinnacle of her career. Fix camera scenes bear the stamp of the silent movies, with elaborate compositions and sophisticated framing. It is the battle scenes that are especially impressive. This version of 'All Quiet on the Western Front' was made in the so-called Pre-Code period, that is, before the formal adoption of the censorship rules that determined what an American film could show on screen. The violence of war depicted realistically, with mobile cameras and bold angles, could not have been shown in this way after 1934 and until 1956 when the Code was revised (total elimination only occurred in 1968). Without the visual impact, this political, social, moral story about war and anti-war would not have had the same impact. Revisited today, as the one-century anniversary of its filming approaches, Lewis Milestone's film remains surprisingly expressive and powerful in its message. This message is also still relevant, and will be as long as other generations of young people are lost in wars.
Cross of Iron (1977)
for a piece of metal
Any good war movie can only be an anti-war movie. This axiom is also confirmed by 'Cross of Iron', the 1977 film by Sam Peckinpah, the only war film by the American director who was a master of western films and their derivatives, one of the two films he made in Europe from throughout his career. Based on a novel by a German writer, 'Cross of Iron' brings to the screen an episode that takes place in 1943 on the Eastern Front, lived and narrated from the perspective of a unit of German soldiers. Hollywood influences are not absent, but the film manages to create a gallery of truthful portraits of ordinary soldiers, younger or older men, each with his own destiny and luck in the hell of the war. It is a film that has been appreciated by great directors from Orson Welles to Steven Spielberg and Quentin Tarantino. I couldn't pass up the opportunity to watch it.
Corporal (and then Sergeant) Rolf Steiner commands a platoon of soldiers at a time when the fate of the war is increasingly decided against Germany after the defeat at Stalingrad. The assaults of the Soviet army are getting more and more furious and the moment of withdrawal of the German army from occupied Crimea is approaching. The regimental commander, Colonel Brandt, is intelligent and lucid enough to understand the situation, but Steiner's direct command is Captain Stransky, who has volunteered for the Eastern Front after serving in France. None of the soldiers are staunch Nazis, each for his own reasons. Stransky's ambitions are personal, his Prussian noble family waiting for him to return with the Iron Cross. Steiner already earned the decoration, but he doesn't give a damn about it. He's a good soldier but he's a human being first, and his goal is to make as many of his soldiers survive the inferno as possible. Stransky and Steiner will clash when the captain takes credit for a bravery of another officer, killed in action, and Steiner refuses to confirm his report. In order to take revenge and eliminate his opponent, Stransky is capable to send to danger the entire platoon.
Anti-war literature and film have a tradition in Germany, the most famous example being Remarque's 'All Quiet on the Western Front' and the films inspired by this novel. Without reaching their depth and clarity, 'Cross of Iron' also presents a nuanced and humanized picture of German soldiers in the trenches of World War II. The film is a co-production of studios in England and Germany. For audiences outside Germany such an approach was quite new in 1977, and this is probably one of the reasons why it was originally much better received in Germany than in other countries. The cinematic qualities are undeniable. The opening and ending credits are impressive and put the events and characters depicted in the film into the context of the horrors and war crimes committed by the Nazis. The war scenes are very well directed and the depictions of violence (Peckinpah's trademark) are impressive. I didn't mind the repetitions, I think they effectively emphasize the hell in the middle of which the conflict between the characters takes place. However, the Hollywood influence is also felt, precisely in this film made while Sam Peckinpah was running away from Hollywood. It's one of James Coburn's best roles, but he also acts in some scenes more like the cowboys he plays in other movies. James Mason also looks more like an English gentleman or American officer than a Wermacht soldier. On the other hand, Maximilian Schell creates here one of the best 'bad German' roles he has played in international films. 'Cross of Iron' is a movie with and about men, and the two episodes with female presences don't fit very well. The idyll with the hospital nurse (an obviously under-cast Senta Berger) is too sketchy, and the episode with the platoon of Soviet women seemed too voyeuristic. The strongest part of the film remains the gallery of soldiers, each with its own personality, with actors excellently chosen for small but well-craft roles. Almost 50 years after its creation, 'Cross of Iron' is an interesting film production even if it has rusted in some places.
La vie de château (1966)
the unlikely heroes
8 feature films in 50 years. This is the entire filmography of Jean-Paul Rappeneau between 1966 and 2015. And yet, the French director and screenwriter managed with these 8 films to make a name for himself and occupy a visible and honorable place in the history of French cinema. He did it without revolutionizing the 7th art as some of his contemporaries tried and without choosing shocking themes as others tried. The 1966 'La vie de château' ('A Matter of Resistance' in the English distribution) is his first feature film. Rappeneau also wrote the screenplay, along with a few more credited collaborators. He enjoyed already in this film an exceptional cast which he used skillfully. What was his secret? I think it's primarily about respect or maybe even love for the audience. I think Rappeneau knew throughout his career to listen to the audiences and understand why people come to the cinema and pay for tickets. He responded by creating films that severe critics labeled as commercial, but he proved that this label does not necessarily mean compromising on quality. The public responded by making most of his films box office hits. The first one was 'La vie de château'.
The 1960s were the first time in which some of the European and particularly French filmmakers felt comfortable enough to look back at the Second World War without anger and to make films in which the approach to the conflict was somewhat more nuanced, including the genre of comedy. Not all of these attempts were met with sympathy, and even 'La vie de château' had its critics, particularly for presenting the German military in an insufficiently evil light. A viewer who knows nothing about the film might think, upon watching the first 10-15 minutes, that he is watching a romantic family comedy set somewhere in Normandy. The generic exposes a series of luminous close-up still shots of Catherine Deneuve at the peak of her youth (beautiful she was and still is) at 22, creating an atmosphere of sensuality. Deneuve is Marie, the young wife of Jérôme, the owner of a castle about to return to ruin. Marie dreams of going to Paris, Jérôme opposes because he cannot afford it financially, but also because he fears that he could lose his young wife to the temptations of Paris. The zoom-out occurs later, when we understand that the story takes place in the summer of 1944 in the days leading up to the Normandy landings, that the area is swarming with German soldiers, Resistance fighters and British and American spies, and that the castle has a strategic position, being located near a German super-gun that could endanger the landing plans. Marie remains the center of attention, being courted by both a young resistance man sent to destroy the cannon and a German officer commanding the regiment that decides to occupy the castle, under the eyes of the jealous husband. The affair ends in a fight between the suitors on the very night before D-Day. To win back his wife's heart, Jérôme is willing to become a hero. In other words, when two lovers quarrel, the husband wins.
Philippe Noiret plays here perfectly the role of the unlikely hero. He will repeat it, in a tragic register, nine years later in 'Le vieux fusil'. For Catherine Deneuve this is one of the first roles in which she is the undisputed star and the object of all men's desire. Many more will follow. The tone is light, comical, even romantic, and the debate whether the 'feel good' approach to the events of that period is appropriate is a legitimate one. I have no intention of settling it. I will mention three more elements that contribute to the film's cinematic quality: Pierre Brasseur as Marie's father, Michel Legrand's music and Pierre Lhomme's cinematography. The use of black-and-white film in the mid-60s was no longer an economic choice, but an aesthetic one. Rappeneau belonged rather to the category of directors who rejected the approaches of the New Wave, but from a technical point of view and from the liberties with which he draws his characters, he shows in this film (his debut!) that he has a good command of the lessons and innovations brought by his already famous colleagues. Revisited almost six decades after its release, 'La vie de château' surprises for the better with its charm and freshness.
La chambre bleue (2014)
love and crime in a small French town
Mathieu Amalric is one of my favorite actors and his presence on the credits of a movie is reason enough to want to see him. From time to time he is also behind the camera as a film director. This is the case with 'La chambre bleue' ('The Blue Room') from 2014. Amalric proves that he is an interesting and versatile filmmaker, playing the lead role, directing and also co-writing the script together with Stéphanie Cléau who also is his partner on the screen. This is the adaptation of a novel by Georges Simenon - a love story combined with a psychological thriller in which for quite some time the main question is not 'who committed the crime?' but 'who is the victim?'
The setting of the story reminded me of the films of Claude Chabrol. We are in a provincial town where almost everyone knows almost everyone, an oppressive space where passions are bubbling and love is never too far from crime. The opening scene of the film shows Julien and Esther in a steamy love scene in a blue-walled room in a small hotel. In the next scene we see Julien arrested, interrogated, questioned about his life and his relationship with Delphine. We do not know for a long time why he is arrested and suspected. The narrative will advance on two parallel planes, the testimonies from the investigation foreshadowing flashbacks through which Julien tells his version. But what happened? We, the viewers, will find out gradually, receiving with each flashback a piece of a puzzle that is not fully completed even after the last scene. The liaison was clandestine. Julien, a successful agricultural machinery dealer, was happily married to Delphine, with whom he had a daughter. Esther, the town pharmacist, is less happily married to a sickly man much older than her. The two lovers had superficially known each other in their teens and their lives had diverged for many years. At the reunion, passion triggers, especially at Esther's initiative. Does Julien love her enough to leave his wife and family? Things get complicated when Esther decides to test the man's love. Corpses also appear. Are these crimes? Natural deaths? Accidents?
Mathieu Amalric is an actor capable of playing many roles, but he seems to be best suited to those in which he embodies men in love, undecided, about to lose control of their lives due to the dilemmas of love. That's exactly the role he plays here. He probably chose to make this film just for this role. Stéphanie Cléau, a screenwriter and actress with surprisingly few screen appearances, is a perfect partner, building with Amalric an adulterous couple in which the woman tries to take control of the man's destiny. Léa Drucker, another actress I really like, doesn't get enough time to develop her role. However, I would not want to criticize the film's duration. With less than 80 minutes of projection, 'La chambre bleue' is perfectly dosed and excellently paced. In an era dominated by lavish 150-minute-plus movie productions, this minimalist approach manages to prove that an interesting and complex story can be built in fewer minutes, where there is focus and talent. The cinematography uses a narrow screen format, befitting the feeling of claustrophobia on which the tension is based. The knock-out finish is memorable. There aren't many reasons to avoid this movie.
Civil War (2024)
too dark to be true?
Dystopias on screens seem to impress less lately, and this is probably also due to the fact that our lives and the events around us contain more and more elements of dystopia. 'Civil War', the film written and directed by Alex Garland in 2024, depicts an ultimate American dystopia: the United States is ravaged by a civil war in which California and Texas (with Florida as allies) are rebelling against federal power and are on the way to win the war. Neighbors are pitted against each other, anarchy reigns, and war crimes that Americans only read about in the press are taking place on American soil. The script tries and skillfully succeeds in not associating any of the conflicting parties with current political camps, nor does it explain how and why Texas and California became partners in the secessionist alliance. Alex Garland's attention was directed to another aspect - the role of the media in such conflicts and how journalists deal with the violence and war crimes they witness. The whole thing is packaged as a political action thriller (a well done one). What happens on the screen is in many moments horrible, sometimes even hard to watch. By not providing explanations, Garland leaves the audience to ask. How did they get there?
At the heart of the story are four journalists who decide to undertake what has become a journey strewn with deadly dangers from New York to Washington, DC to try to get an interview, perhaps the last interview, with the President of the United States barricaded in the White House. Lee is a famous photojournalist, whose name and biography are inspired by Lee Miller the famous 20th century American photographer and war photojournalist. Jessie is a much younger version of the same character, wanting to follow in the footsteps of Lee, who is for her idol and role model. Joel is a young, brave and experienced war reporter. Sammy, much older than the other three, is a veteran journalist who writes for 'what's left of the New York Times'. The road of the four is dotted with images of devastated America and unimaginable but highly suggestive war scenes as photo subjects. The final part of the film takes place in the besieged White House. An empire is about to fall.
Is a bloody road movie. We witness Jessie's coming of age, with her becoming more and more like her role model. At the same time, it is precisely the most hardened reporters who reach their psychological crisis points when faced with the deaths of their colleagues. Many films have already been made about the profession of war journalist, some very good. 'Civil War' adds to this list, asking tough questions about the nature of the professions of war reporter and photographer. What is the ultimate duty of journalists in extreme conditions? To record and report what they witness? When it comes to extreme violence, atrocities, seen without reacting, don't reporters become accomplices? Does 'embedding' with one or other of the forces - without which access to the battlefields is in many cases impossible - mean complicity with them? Alex Garland deliberately chose, I think, the profession of photojournalist and presented his heroes using the slightly old-fashioned tools of their trade. I think he meant that the questions asked in the film do not refer to a specific period, but to all the wars covered by journalists, since the press exists.
The cinematography is fluid and spectacular, although it does not appear to have been an excessively expensive production. Action movie buffs will be pleased, I think. Kirsten Dunst (Lee) proves that she has moved into the category of solid actresses with a diverse filmography. Cailee Spaeny seemed a bit counter-cast at first (too young?) but as the film advances she goes through a maturity process that manages to convince. Wagner Moura and Stephen McKinley Henderson round out the cast of characters with satisfying supporting roles. 'Civil War' is more than just another dystopia.
Master i Margarita (2023)
'The Master' of our times
Mikhail Bulgakov's novel 'The Master and Margarita' was written between 1928 and 1940, but the writer never saw it published. The first - censored - version of the book appeared in the USSR in 1966. I guess this is the version that was translated into Romanian that I read in the late 60s. I have seen several more theatrical and cinematographic versions in the years that followed. It can be said that every generation since had its version of 'The Master and Margarita'. Mikhail Bulgakov created a complex and profound literary masterpiece, still relevant as long as individual freedom in general and the creative freedom of artists in particular is questioned under different political systems. The film directed by Michael Lockshin, an artist who lives in two cultures - Russian and American - was shot about 3-4 years ago, and its release was delayed after the start of the war in Ukraine in 2022. Filmed in Russia and acted mostly with Russian actors, the film was released only at the beginning of 2024 and is enjoying success with audiences in Russia. The controversies surrounding the script and production seem to echo what happened to the novel that inspired the screenplay in a complex of situations where life imitated the book (and the film). This 'The Master and Margarita' has a chance to become the major film version of the period we live in.
The screenplay is a rather loose adaptation of the novel, which has three narrative planes: the fate in the Soviet Moscow of a writer who is in constant struggle with censorship and in love with Margareta, a married woman; the appearance in Moscow of Professor Woland, a magician who may be an incarnation of the Devil and who dialogues with the atheist citizens of the new Soviet Union; and the evocation of the New Testament episode in which Pontius Pilate confronts Jesus and seals his condemnation. The biblical narrative plan is almost completely neglected. The focus is on the story of the Master, who is a playwright whose play about Pilate is taken off the stage due to its 'un-Soviet' theme. Events related to Bulgakov's biography itself are added. The writer is criticized in a public meeting and then expelled from the Writers' Union. When he decides to express his sufferings in the only way he knows - by writing a novel - he meets Margarita. Woland makes his appearance only about 40 minutes in the movie and becomes kind of a protector of the writer, the hero of his book and a witness to the love story between him and Margarita. The relationship between the two can only end tragically. Creators who have the courage to tell the truth are the fools of any age, and those considered fools in a dictatorial system like the Soviet one are sent to forced treatments. Lucidity among madmen is neighbor to death. The last part of the film is dominated by the story of Woland, leading to the destruction of yet another empire. He and all his companions witnessed yet another episode of the grandeur and folly of mankind.
'The Master and Margarita' is a complex work, with multiple layers and meanings. Michael Lockshin and his team found cinematic equivalents for many of the novel's narrative threads and added some nuance and development to ideas that, if present, are not central to the book. Visually, the film is formidable. The director created together with the designer Denis Lischenko and the director of cinematography Maxim Zhukov filmed a vision of Moscow where the mess of everyday existence is combined with the grandiose constructions of the communist era. It is not the Moscow of a hundred years ago, but rather the city of the future, as Stalin dreamed of the future, in the making. I believe that the trio of actors in the main roles are exceptional. Evgeniy Tsyganov makes in his character a synthesis of Bulgakov and many other writers, poets, artists whose voices were censored and strangled during the period of Soviet terror and who nevertheless did not give up their creation, often at the cost of their health or life. The love story with Margareta is believable and crosses the screen thanks to Yulia Snigir's beauty and talent. Finally, the German actor August Diehl is an excellent choice for the role of Woland, the character with magical and evil powers who dominates the second part of the film. Michael Lockshin's 'The Master and Margarita' also has some flaws in my opinion - an excessive and unnecessary verbosity considering the expressive force of the images and its screening duration. Here again, as in many other contemporary films, I don't think that exceeding the 120 minute limit added anything good to the viewers' experience. However, this screen version of Bulgakov's book is probably the best yet produced. I hope that international distribution will overcome all kinds of barriers, because this film deserves to be appreciated by its contemporaries, just as I believe it will be appreciated in the future.
Nachts wenn der Teufel kam (1957)
justice under terror
The life path and the career of Robert Siodmak has been winding, full of ups and downs, worthy of the script of a biopic waiting to be written and brought to screens sometime in the future. The German director of Jewish origin had to leave Germany when the Nazis came to power and ended up in Paris where with the few films made between 1933 and 1939 he came to be considered a possible rival or perhaps successor to René Clair. Terror followed him and at the outbreak of the Second World War he left for the United States where in 13 years he directed 23 films, becoming one of the specialists of the 'film noir' genre - appreciated by critics and film history, but not by the American public of that immediate post-war period, who preferred more optimistic-escapist films. Back in Europe he enjoyed several years of success and recognition and this period includes 'Nachts wenn der Teufel kam' (the English distribution title is 'The Devil Strikes at Night') from 1957. He was one of the first filmmakers who took refuge to America during the Nazi period returning to make films in Germany. 'Nachts wenn der Teufel kam' combines elements of American 'film noir' (many invented by Siodmak himself) with the tradition of German expressionist serial killer films, but it is above all also a political film, with a critical message about the political class and the police and justice apparatus subordinated to Nazism during the Second World War.
The story takes place in the last summer of the Second World War, the summer of 1944. German cities are already being bombed daily, the front lines are getting closer, the number of fallen soldiers is constantly increasing, but the official propaganda still talks about the final victory. All aspects of civilian life are subject to the directives of the Nazi Party and the terror of the Gestapo, including what remains of the police and judiciary. Captain Axel Kersten returns from the front after being seriously wounded and is assigned to the post of commissioner in the criminal police. When he is entrusted the case of the murder of a woman in Hamburg, he makes the connection with a series of crimes that had been committed in the last decades in different cities of Germany. The arrest and conviction of an innocent man prompts him to act determinedly to find the real killer, but solving the crimes does not sit well with the Nazi authorities. Public disclosure of the truth would harm official propaganda, as the culprit does not belong to those declared by the regime to belong to 'inferior races', and the recognition of judicial errors as well as the fact that so many serial murders were committed and remained unpunished during the years of Nazi rule would mean that the regime is not infallible. A strange complicity is born between the criminal and the system that tries to cover him, and those who still believe in justice in an unjust system are in great danger.
I have seen many films set in Germany during the Nazi years, but most of them were not German or were made many decades after the events. 'Nachts wenn der Teufel kam' is different. It is a documentary in its own way, as it was made only 12 years after the fall of the regime, filmed in the same Germany where the story takes place and played by actors who lived through the era. The script is based on a real case made public by a series of articles published a year before. The descriptions of the decadence and corruption of the regime are based on testimonies and direct experiences. A scene such as the party that takes place in the villa of the high Nazi official has a Fellini tinge, but is actually based on historical reality. The action unfolds fluently, the characters are well described and the relationships between them built from few but well placed words. Images of buildings about to collapse, if not already in ruins, evoke the state of Germany in that final year of the war. There is also a love story that provides the necessary sentimental counterpoint. The most impressive of the performers is Mario Adorf, an extremely prolific actor whose career of over 200 films continues to this day. His role is part of the series of serial killer characters that began in German Expressionist films (some silent) and continues through Hannibal Lecter and his successors. 'Nachts wenn der Teufel kam' is not only a film that deserves the label of 'important' but also a story on the screen that gives many reasons for satisfaction to the viewers of today.
The Death of Stalin (2017)
history as a farce
One of the most famous quotes attributed to Karl Marx (who in turn was commenting on Hegel) is the one that claims that history and its personalities repeat themselves twice: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce. Marx (Karl) did not live to see the invention of the cinema, but the genre of film comedies - parodies, satires, farces - dealing with the darkest characters and moments of history seems to be one of the exemplifications of this phrase. Cinematic versions in comic registers of tragic periods of the past have not infrequently generated interesting films and more often also controversies. This is also the case with 'The Death of Stalin', the 2017 film by Armando Iannucci, a screenwriter and director who is not afraid to satirically attack taboo subjects or monsters of history. The script is inspired by a French comics book and the production is a collaboration of the Gaumont studios with other European and North American film houses. The result is a film that cannot help but spark discussion, bringing one of the turning points of 20th century history into the debates of the present.
The last evening of Stalin's life and his agony after the cerebral attack he suffered, alone in his room due to his own order not to be disturbed under the threat of death, are known facts and recounted in numerous documentary and fiction books. Quite a lot is also known about the events that followed, about the internal struggles in the Politburo between Khrushchev and Beria that ended with the latter's arrest, conviction and execution, and about the de-Stalinization process that would culminate with Khrushchev's famous speech at the 20th Congress of the CPSU in 1956. The script of 'The Death of Stalin' preserves the essential lines of the conflict, but compresses the entire story into a few days, from the evening fateful to the dictator to the day after the lavish funeral. Released from the permanent terror in which they lived, the characters around Stalin wake up to the new reality sooner or later and begin the struggle for power in parallel with the preparations for the official ceremonies. They are all products of the system of corrupt and violent dictatorship that Stalin had built during the 30 years he was at the helm of the USSR. The psychological profiles, as they appear in the film, are diverse: Beria is a sadistic and cunning psychopath, Khrushchev is an opportunistic arriviste, Malenkov is indecisive and half-senile, Molotov is weak, blackmailed for years by the arrest and deportation of his wife, and Marshal Zhukov with his chest laden with decorations looks like a caricature of militarism. They all fear everyone else, hypocritically embrace each other while planning criminal alliances to eliminate their opponents before those eliminate them, mime democracy while setting the apparatus of repression in motion. Meanwhile, terror, arrests, executions continue outside the Kremlin walls. Until a certain moment, when everything stops. But even this sudden change is unreal, as it is impossible to erase the traumas, the sufferings, the deaths.
Approaching such tragic moments of history in a satirical register cannot but arouse controversy. Nostalgics of the Soviet system and its successors may be outraged. Victims and their descendants may question the approach. Armando Iannucci could not avoid controversies, nor does he seem to have intended to. He mostly kept (to my knowledge) the gist of the events, but changed their timeline to create something close the temporal unity of classical drama. He thickened the characters as or historical farce, but not as for cheap parody. The words spoken by them sometimes resemble absurd theater texts, but many are actually extracted from transcripts of historically attested meetings or scenes. The cast is international, most of the actors are English or American, and they were asked to use their native English accents and not imitate a Russian accent. Steve Buscemi as Khrushchev and Simon Russell Beale as Beria are far from the physiognomy of the historical figures, and no make-up effort was made to change them. Jeffrey Tambor as Makenkov was the only one I found excessively caricatured. I thought the background was very well presented, with some real-life scenes that set the historical farce in the context of the tragedy that the peoples of the Soviet Union were experiencing, in the empire of fear. One of the scenes is downright brilliant. A KGB-style execution is depicted, in which the convicts are gunned down one by one. In the middle of the line comes the order to stop mass executions. Four men among those condemned to death remain standing as the executioners flee. The four will be the first survivors of the terror.