A trio of Sean Baker films

Notes on a trio of Sean Baker’s films:

Take Out (2004, co-directed with Shih-Ching Tsou)
Starlet (2012)
Red Rocket (2021)

As I await Sean Baker’s Anora, the Cannes 2024 Palme d’Or winner, I realized I had no notes on his earlier films that I had seen as Tangerine, The Florida Project and missed seeing a few of his other films. As a means of correction, here are notes on 3 films I had not seen previously.

Slice of American life

One aspect of Sean Baker’s cinema is his ability to show a slice of American life that commercial Hollywood studio ignores. He sheds light on those people / stories not covered by mainstream cinema and does so in a natural realistic manner. That doesn’t mean his films are devoid of drama but instead his film shows reality without any of the dressed up glamour that Hollywood indulges in. In addition, his films feature characters directly or indirectly involved in the adult film industry or associated with them. Take Out is an exception to that.

Food and Delivery

Take Out came out a year before Ramin Bahrani’s Man Push Cart (2005) was released and both films shed light on different aspects of American food delivery in New York. While Man Push Cart highlights the one-man food cart, Take Out focuses its attention on door-to-door food delivery. The main character in the film, Ming Ding (Charles Jang), waits for the restaurant food to be made and immediately get on his bicycle to deliver that food, no matter the weather. Take Out is shown with a high degree of realism and approaches aspects of Cinéma vérité documentary style.

Take Out, co-directed with Shih-Ching Tsou, stands apart from the remaining Sean Baker films in not having any association with adult film industry/sex workers as his later films would. The film does contain Baker’s now expected signature in trying to humanize his characters and inviting audience a glimpse into the everyday harsh realities of people doing whatever it takes to make a living.

The Mikey connection

Starlet and Red Rocket are two different films but they are connected by the character Mikey even though the character is played by two different actors in each film and it is never truly spelled out that Red Rocket is the next chapter in Mikey’s life. As Red Rocket describes, the term Mikey is slang for “suitcase pimp” which captures the essence of both Mikey’s in the two films, the character played by James Ransone in Starlet and that by Simon Rex in Red Rocket. A few dialogues by Mikey in Red Rocket (such as installation of pole in living room) seem to indicate that he may be the same person who lived in LA in Starlet and has now left to move back to Texas City in Red Rocket. In Starlet, Mikey’s character is on the fringes even though he is indirectly pulling the strings which impact the lives of the two female characters Jane (Dree Hemingway), Melissa (Stella Maeve) who share an apartment with him. Starlet is Jane’s film about an unexpected friendship with Sadie (Besedka Johnson) while Mikey is in almost every frame of Red Rocket. Even though Red Rocket is about Mikey, the film shows the toxic and damaging impact he has on the female characters around him including his wife Lexi (Bree Elrod) and 17 year old Raylee (Suzanna Son).

Red Rocket's Mikey is a dangerous male who is the perfect description of a slime ball and whose predatory behaviour can wreck the lives of anyone in his path. The film shows how he impacted Lexi via the adult industry but Mikey never thinks about anyone else. He is only thinking of himself and his next pay check and that is why he tries to groom Raylee into being an adult movie star.

Other directors would have treated Mikey’s character (Red Rocket) in a different light and would have focused on his villainy right up front. However, Sean Baker’s style allows him to present situations and characters as naturally as possible. This way, audience can watch the characters go about their lives, their daily hustles, and then can form their own conclusions via the actions of the characters.

Triple Bill of Alexander Mackendrick

The Man in the White Suit (1951)
The Ladykillers (1955)
Sweet Smell of Success (1957)

I was already a fan of Alexander Mackendrick as evident by the ranking of his two Ealing studio films The Man in the White Suit and The Ladykillers at #22 and #35 respectively in my Top 60 Comedy films list. I associated Mackendrick with Ealing Studios and the Comedy Genre especially since four of the five films he directed for Ealing Studios were comedies with Mandy (1952) being the exception. All five of his Ealing Studio films: Whiskey Galore! (1949), The Man in the White Suit (1951), Mandy (1952), The Maggie (1954), The Ladykillers (1955). 

However, a recent viewing of Sweet Smell of Success led me to rethink Mackendrick’s films in a new light. The 1957 American film starring Burt Lancaster, Tony Curtis, Susan Harrison is dark look at human nature and on the surface is far removed from the comedic framework of Ealing studio films. Even though, The Man in the White Suit and The Ladykillers have a predominant comedic note, they aren’t pure comedies but contain dark notes. The Ladykillers is a dark comedy laced with crime while The Man in the White Suit is draped with shades of tragedy and irony along its sleeves. Sweet Smell of Success heightens the dark and tragic undertones from these two films and mutes any comedic element to a whisper. 

In Sweet Smell of Success, Tony Curtis’ Sidney Falco character is constantly joking, laughing but his character has an air of desperation about him while the entire film has tragedy written all over it. Sidney is a press agent who gets promotion money from owners to promote their club. All he needs is a good review or a mention of the club in a newspaper article from J.J. Hunsecker (Burt Lancaster). Sidney would go to any lengths to get on J.J’s good side including trying to fulfill J.J’s request to breakup his sister’s (Susan Hunsecker played by Susan Harrison) romance with a jazz musician. As Sidney tries to do whatever it takes to break up the romance, he starts to cross moral and ethical boundaries from which there is no turning back.

Sweet Smell of Success is a brilliant portrayal of American society at a time when newspaper reviews meant the world for financial survival for restaurants, theatrical plays and even movies. While traditional newspapers have been in decline in recent decades, some of the core elements of the film such as a smearing someone’s reputation, publishing false stories or personal affairs have sadly been amplified in our contemporary social media dominated world. In that sense, Mackendrick’s film and script co-written with Clifford Odets and Ernest Lehman is still as relevant today as it was back in 1957.

Sweet Smell of Success belongs to a different genre but it is unified via 2 threads to Mackendrick's two Ealing Studio films. All three films are a keen insightful observation of characters while also provide an overarching commentary on society. The Man in the White Suit highlights the invisible hand or supply-demand forces that make things work. All the clothing textile company owners want the invention of an indestructible and dirt repellent fabric to fail as that would make people buy their clothes less. In The Ladykillers, the bank robbers try to justify their crimes as saying that no one would be hurt by the missing money because it would be a blip for the banks since insurance would cover it all while the robbers can use the money for their families benefit. There is a financial truth to what the robbers say as has become evident with all the banking and insurance frauds that have become much more commonplace since the film was released. Sweet Smell of Success shows a world where favours can open doors for people and the scenarios in the film are aptly described by the phrase “you scratch my back, I scratch yours”. This phrase still makes the world go around and allows careers to flourish and is at the core of our broken political machine.

I was a fan of Alexander Mackendrick before but after seeing Sweet Smell of Success, I am an even bigger fan. He clearly was one of the best directors to have worked in cinema, yet not as widely appreciated as his peers.

Sidney Lumet's Network

The rage. The ever increasing rage that has been increasing across the world over the last decade. The rage increased its speed after the 2016 US presidential election and truly accelerated in 2020 at the start of the pandemic and hasn’t let up since then. Certain politicians, media, TV hosts encourage this rage and profit off it. Some of these politicians take that most fascist of approaches where they tell their fans that only they can solve all the problems of society, problems which are always the other party's fault. A lot of TV networks have long dispensed with news. Instead, they fill their air time with angry hosts giving out opinions and asking people to get angry, get very angry. Yet, this angry TV host first appeared in a scripted film, almost three decades ago.

Sidney Lumet’s Network (1976) is a brilliantly acted, scripted and directed film. The film is labeled a satire yet given the rage of last few years, the film can be considered a documentary of our times. Over the last decade, certain TV networks have constantly ensured that their hosts are always ANGRY and promoted rage. The blueprint for these shows and their methods can be found in Lumet’s film which shows how an upcoming TV show programmer Diana Christensen (Faye Dunaway) wants to program a show with Howard Beale (Peter Finch) for the sole reason that she believes Howard’s on-air anger will get their TV network more viewers and improve their market share. As Howard continues to let loose his anger on the show, people tune in and Diana is proven right. Things take a turn when Howard directs his anger at the wrong people thereby threatening a corporate deal. Howard is put in his place by the TV exec Arthur Jensen (Ned Beatty) who explains how the world works and Howard’s place in it. Of course, Arthur Jensen uses anger, immense anger, to get his message across thereby even scaring Howard. Jensen's anger is also in keeping with our times in showing that free speech is acceptable only when it is used against one's opponents.

Frederick Wiseman's Films

 doc·u·men·ta·ry
noun: documentary; plural noun: documentaries
    a movie or a television or radio program that provides a factual record or report.

A documentary film is a un biased non-fictional motion-picture intended to "document reality, primarily for the purposes of instruction, education, or maintaining a historical record”. Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_film
 

Frederick Wiseman’s name can be put against the definition of documentary because his films have documented places, people, cities, organizations, institutions, communities and buildings. He is highly prolific and has directed almost one film per year since his debut documentary in 1967 (Titicut Follies). The recent City Hall (2020) is his 45th feature documentary. However, for the longest time, it was hard for me to see his films in the same year as it was released. This is because his films were released at select film festivals and their length of 3-4 hours ensured that they never made it to my local city. In the years between 2005-2013, the gap between his film getting released and my time to see it got reduced to 2-3 years. Then in 2014, I finally saw a Frederick Wiseman movie in a cinema (National Gallery) in the same year of its release. That good fortune continued in 2015 when I saw In Jackson Heights a few months after its release. Finally, this year’s City Hall (released on PBS Dec 22) is the 3rd Wiseman film I have seen in the same year as its release. On top of that, his films are now more accessible than ever. Since 2018, all his films are  available to stream via Kanopy, which means anyone with a library card (at least in North America) can see his movies.

I planned a mini-spotlight which included re-viewing Titicut Follies after more than a decade and seeing a few other films for the first time. The goal was to finish viewing all films in time for premiere of City Hall on Dec 22.

Titicut Follies (1967)
Welfare (1975)
Canal Zone (1977)
Public Housing (1997)
Belfast, Maine (1999)
City Hall (2020)
 

Of the above films, Welfare is a remarkable film that left me in awe. The film came out in 1975 and shows the challenges in trying to judge/handle individual welfare cases. The problems related to housing, unemployment, welfare have gotten much worse since the film came out as the gap between rich and poor has widened in the last 45 years. On top of that, the topic of welfare has been heavily politicized in America with politicians and certain media outlets dehumanizing those on welfare over the last few decades. The welfare system is shown be struggling to handle all the cases in 1975. It is hard to image how this system has coped in 2020 and will cope in 2021 with more job losses and a government that isn’t interested in helping address the core issues of poverty. The political parties and their media mouthpieces are not interesting in providing any solutions related to retraining people who have lost their jobs or how to diversify jobs.

There is a hint of a solution to some job creation provided at the end of Public Housing  (1997) which contains ideas on how residents can form their own businesses to generate some wealth. It is not clear how much such ideas made a difference or if they gained traction because one of the stats mentioned in City Hall (2020) shows that the average wealth of African Americans is substantially behind those of White Americans. This disparity is related to other minorities as well. In City Hall, a hispanic contractor mentions his plight in trying to win big contracts and not getting anywhere over 30 years. He says that there is clearly a disparity in how city council awards its contracts to companies but the film shows discussions and ideas on how to make things better.

The films of Frederick Wiseman shed light on relevant topics of economic disparity but are these films seen by anyone who is in the power to mount a change? Are these films merely meant to be praised by those on the left but they lead to no policy or political change? The protests in the aftermath of George Floyd’s killing raised topics of systematic racist policies that have existed for decades and some of these policies are indirectly reflected in Wiseman’s films but only the recent City Hall shows a mayor with some words about making a relevant change.

It isn’t only economic disparity that has gotten worse in America but racism has gotten worse in the last few decades. In Welfare, a racist man speaks his mind to a black security officer. The racist is shown to be an isolated individual in the context of the film because everyone else in the film is shown to treat the welfare cases with some degree of patience and compassion. However, the words spoken by that racist have sadly now become part of the mainstream American landscape in 2020.

Location, Location

The films of Frederick Wiseman certainly help to give a sense of life in a community. Even though sometimes we only see a subset of a community, we can still get a feel for how people go about their daily jobs, their routines, their struggles and beliefs. Sometimes, the omissions tells a story in itself. One reason I wanted to see Canal Zone was to see how the way of life would be shown and what amount of history would be covered. The day-to-day canal operations related to the Panama canal locks and logistics around ships are fascinating but none of Panama’s history is shown. Instead, what we get is a very American way of life as the film mostly shows Americans involved in running the canal and going about their lives in exile. This shouldn’t be a surprise as the  film came out in 1977 and the US was still in control of the Canal. Hence, the overly American perspective devoid of the history of how the Canal came to be and the US’s involvement in Panama’s history.

After years of negotiations for a new Panama Canal treaty, agreement was reached between the United States and Panama in 1977. Signed on September 7, 1977, the treaty recognized Panama as the territorial sovereign in the Canal Zone but gave the United States the right to continue operating the canal until December 31, 1999. Despite considerable opposition in the U.S. Senate, the treaty was approved by a one-vote margin in September 1978. It went into effect in October 1979, and the canal came under the control of the Panama Canal Commission, an agency of five Americans and four Panamanians. Reference: https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/panama-to-control-canal

Reality fiction/Cinema vérité/Direct Cinema/Actuality

A few locations in Wiseman’s films made me think of Allan King. Wiseman’s Titicut Follies set in Massachusetts Correctional Institution came out in 1967, the same year as Allan King’s Warrendale set in Toronto’s Warrendale mental treatment facility. Wiseman’s Near Death (1989) is set at Beth Israel Hospital in Boston and looks at staff providing care to those in their final moments, an aspect covered in King’s Dying at Grace (2003) which looks at terminally ill cancer patients at Toronto Grace Health Centre.

As it turns out, the overlap in location and topic is only on the surface. It is clear after watching the films, there is a different method at work in Wiseman’s films compared to Allan King. When it comes to Allan King’s films, they can be called ‘Direct Cinema’ or ‘Actuality films’ (as per the Criterion Eclipse Series 24: The Actuality Dramas of Allan King).

By definition:

The actuality film is a non-fiction film genre that, like the documentary film, uses footage of real events, places, and things, yet unlike the documentary is not structured into a larger argument, picture of the phenomenon or coherent whole. Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actuality_film

The above doesn’t apply to Frederick Wiseman’s films which indeed are structured “into a larger argument”. Instead, Wiseman called his film “reality fictions”.

He has called his work “reality fiction,” an acknowledgement that even nonfiction is usually a narrative form and that narrative is one person’s method of storytelling.

In an early interview for the American Bar Association, Wiseman explained his method. “There’s no such thing as an ‘objective’ film. I try to make a fair film. By that I mean that the final film is in a sense a report on what I saw and felt in the course of the shooting and editing.” Many hours of footage are edited down to a few hours of final film that is, he says, “subjective, impressionistic, and compressed.” Reference: https://daily.jstor.org/frederick-wiseman-realty-fictions/

He never liked the term ‘cinema vérité’:

Frederick Wiseman never liked the term cinema vérité — it is “just a pompous French term that has absolutely no meaning as far as I’m concerned,” he once said — but his kind of non-fiction filmmaking is a case study in the philosophy and practice of its ideals. Reference: https://www.pbs.org/independentlens/blog/cinema-verite-the-movement-of-truth/

The editing and selection of interviews, subjects, locations indeed add up to a picture that Wiseman intends to show.

Useful reading:

1. Mark Binelli recently in NY Times:

“The fact that Wiseman’s half-century-long project is a series of cinéma-vérité documentaries about American institutions, their titles often reading like generic brand labels — “High School,” “Hospital,” “The Store,” “Public Housing,” “State Legislature” — makes its achievement all the more remarkable but also easier to overlook. Beginning with “Titicut Follies” (1967), a portrait of a Massachusetts asylum for the criminally insane that remains shocking to this day, Wiseman has directed nearly a picture a year, spending weeks, sometimes months, embedded in a strictly demarcated space — a welfare office in Lower Manhattan, a sleepy fishing village in Maine, the Yerkes Primate Research Center at Emory University, the flagship Neiman Marcus department store in Dallas, the New York Public Library, a shelter for victims of domestic violence in Tampa, Fla., a Miami zoo — then editing the upward of a hundred hours of footage he brings home into an idiosyncratic record of what he witnessed. Taken as a whole, the films present an unrivaled survey of how systems operate in our country, with care paid to every line of the organizational chart.” Mark Binelli, NY Times 

2. A.O. Scott and Manohla Dargis, NY Times, 2017

“One of the most important and original filmmakers working today, Frederick Wiseman has been making documentaries for 50 years. His movies are about specific places — institutions, organizations, cities and communities: the New York neighborhood of Jackson Heights; the coastal town of Belfast, Me.; the Alabama Institute for the Deaf and Blind; American Ballet Theater; the National Gallery in London. What interests Mr. Wiseman is how these institutions reflect the larger society and what they reveal about human behavior.” A.O. Scott and Manohla Dargis (2017)

3. Ben Kingsberg NY Times 

4. Michael Ewins, BFI, 10 Essential Films 

5. Louis Menand on City Hall

Sundance Film Festival

2014 marked the 30th anniversary of the Sundance Film Festival, a festival that has been the launching pad for many exciting cinematic voices over the years. The festival’s importance in discovering new directors was nicely highlighted by the trailer shown before all the films which gave a glimpse of some of the stellar titles that played at the festival. The first Sundance was held in 1985 but it is acknowledged that the festival shot into the limelight in 1989 with Steven Soderbergh’s Sex, Lies and Videotapes which changed the perception of the festival. Besides being the launching pad for Soderbergh, Sundance ushered the discovery of many other American directors including Quentin Tarantino (Reservoir Dogs, 1992), Kevin Smith (Clerks, 1994), Kelly Reichardt (River of Grass, 1994), Paul Thomas Anderson (Hard Eight, 1996) and Darren Aronofsky (Pi, 1998). All of these directors, plus many more, have made the jump from Independent to Commercial cinema thanks to their discovery at Sundance. Even James Wan’s Saw premiered at Sundance before it transformed into a multiplex franchise. 

The success of certain Sundance films or genre means the media attention seems to gravitate towards a similar subset of the festival’s output. One hears plenty about how a certain work is a “Sundance film”, words which paint the festival in a single light. In recent years, that term has been associated with Little Miss Sunshine or Sunshine Cleaning, two films that seem to embody the kind of films that Sundance loves. But these films are not representative of the entire body of carefully programmed films that make up the Sundance film festival. Over the years, documentaries and a growing list of foreign films have premiered at the festival. Although, one would not know that from the media coverage. As this year showed, the films at Sundance represented a multi-tiered global outlook, not only in terms of the foreign film selections but the topics covered in many American films as well. Even though many films were American productions, they were shot in foreign locations or featured topics that were universal in theme. And as it turned out, through a series of intriguing choices, I ended up with many films which were tied together despite coming from different parts of the world. The 13 films I saw can be grouped together in the following 5 categories.

The Arab Spring 

Talal Derki’s Return to Homs embodies the characteristics of the “Direct Cinema” movement that originated in the 1950-60’s. Just like the pioneers of Direct Cinema, including Michel Brault, Derki shared the same quarters as his subjects and thereby put himself in harm’s way to get footage of the Syrian Revolution. Once the Syrian Revolution started in 2011, most of the Syrian media were not allowed in the country. Derki was a rare person who was able to capture the events which makes the footage essential in understanding what went on while the rest of the world continued to sleep. Derki and his crew continued filming even when bullets were fired in their direction. Such vérité footage results in many gut wrenching moments when people are on the verge of dying on-screen. By keeping the focus on a few key people, Return to Homs shows the human impact a revolution has on people. But one can also extrapolate these personal experiences to a larger scale and understand what motivates people to act the way they do. In essence, the film focuses on a few streets in a city but this microscopic focus helps shed a light on similar struggles going on in other streets not only across Syria but the rest of the Middle East.

While Return to Homs views the Arab Spring from a street level, We Are the Giant takes a few steps back and looks at the Arab Spring from a bird’s eye view not only in the present but even from the past. We Are the Giant inserts quotes and pictures from the past which frames the Arab Spring in context of past revolutions and the inclusion of tweets and social media footage shows the currency of protests. Social media is the new weapon of protest. Previously, the printing press allowed people’s revolutionary messages to be distributed but as We Are the Giant shows, social media manages to accelerate the revolutionary process by distributing live video with text to portray events in real time. And just like how the printing press threatened those in power, the same applies for tweets and blog posts. A blog post or a single tweet can land a person in jail and subsequent torture as shown by We Are the Giant. The film examines the Arab Spring from a larger scope but it highlights three stories about families from Libya, Syria and Bahrain whose loved ones are impacted. The stories are shattering but help one to understand the reason why the Arab Spring revolution started and why people are taking to the streets. We Are The Giant is the only Sundance film that I saw which got a standing ovation for its director, Greg Barker, which it rightly deserved.

Return to Homs and We Are the Giant pack a heavy emotional punch but both are essential viewing that allows one to see the world in a new light. In 2013, The Square, a documentary about the Egyptian revolution, premiered at Sundance. 2014 saw the world premiere of We Are the Giant while Return to Homs got a North American premiere. The programming of these three films shows a different side to Sundance, one that is going beyond the traditional media coverage to highlight relevant stories.

Neo-Noir: blood spilled to defend a family 

Blue Ruin (USA) and To Kill a Man (Chile/France) come from different countries but they compliment each other and present a complete picture of what happens in a society where the innocent are left to protect themselves.

An alternate title for Blue Ruin could easily be “To Kill a Man” because a killing takes place early on in the film. Dwight (Macon Blair) has no choice but to kill in order to protect his family. The killing dates back to a family feud and his murder is a further addition in a cyclic act of an “eye for an eye”. Blue Ruin wastes no time in jumping right into events and moves at a rapid pace while maintaining the tension on a knife’s edge for much of the film. A few moments of humor are sprinkled throughout the film which provide a welcome relief as the humor releases some of the tension. Blue Ruin is a perfectly realized neo-noir that depicts some of the same spirit that has made Justified such a worthy show. The film debuted in Cannes 2013 but will only get a wider American release in April 2014. As it stands, Blue Ruin is the best American film of 2013 that I have seen.

To Kill a Man can be called a precursor to Blue Ruin because the film shows the path a man is forced to undertake when contemplating murder. Jorge (Daniel Candia) is bullied and humiliated by a local gang to the extent that his family is no longer safe. The law cannot act fast enough and as a result, Jorge has no choice but to take matters into his own hands. To Kill a Man contains many sequences which defy belief and just when one expects the film to end, it continues and further astounds. When all is said and done, the words “Based on a true story” appear just before the closing credits. The decision to show these words at the end of the film is masterful as it manages to put the entire film in a different light. Without the appearance of those words, one would question the decisions that took place in the film. Yet those words lend reality to the events and instead manage to make the film a larger case study of what can happen in a society where the innocent can no longer be protected by the law, the same law which makes it easier for the guilty to always evade capture.

Hostile World, defending oneself 

Liar’s Dice and A Girl Walks Home Alone At Night, debut films directed by women, also depict a hostile world where women are potential prey to men. But the two films take radically different approaches in how the female characters handle their situation.

In Geethu Mohandas’ Liar’s Dice, Kamala (Geetanjali Thapa, mesmerizing) travels from Chitkul to Delhi in order to find her husband whom she has not heard from in 5 months. She takes her daughter and their family goat along the journey. However, a woman traveling without a male companion in India, especially in Delhi, is never safe from men’s constantly prying eyes; a fact that has gained a lot more exposure in the last 2 years with the huge number of documented rape cases. Kamala meets a completely untrustworthy stranger (Nawazuddin Siddiqui) but the film shows that given the dangerous setting, even this stranger becomes a rope to cling on. Liar’s Dice manages to stay away from the usual romantic attitude that Bollywood and foreign films depict India in. Instead, harsh reality is allowed to filter in. The cinematography is breathtaking and shows snowy parts of Northern India rarely seen on screen. The acting is also memorable with Geetanjali Thapa properly expressing her character’s anger and fear while Nawazuddin plays his dishonest persona to perfection.

A Girl Walks Home Alone at Night beautifully turns the table from a girl who could be an easy prey and makes her the hunter instead. As per the title, a girl does walk alone but she is not the one in danger. Instead, every man in her sight is. This is because the black and white Iranian film is a contemporary take on a Vampire story. The fact that the girl wears a hijab when attacking men can clearly be read as a subtext on the treatment of women not only in Iran but the Middle East. But instead of being subdued by the men, the girl bites back. Ana Lily Amirpour’s film is seductive and features a pulsating soundtrack which combined with the Californian setting gives the entire work an American feel, except that it is in Farsi and takes place in a fictitious place called “Bad City”. Plenty of touches of Jim Jarmusch can be found plus a nod towards early David Lynch as well.

Natural Resources: Corporations, Cycle of Boom and Bust 

A few films highlighted the methods that corporations go about in extracting natural resources from nations and the impact it has on local residents of a city/nation.

In Marmato, the gold mining methods in a small Colombian town are shown and how the Canadian corporation’s decisions play a part in the resident’s lives. The town residents have been gold miners for centuries and they live close to the mines on the mountains. However, the corporation wants to instead use an open mining technique which would level the mountain, thereby displacing the residents. The residents try to fight the corporation but their plight faces a tough political battle as depicted by the film. One could easily replace gold with oil, shale, silver or any other natural resource and the film would still be relevant in the unfolding of events.

We Come as Friends examines the newly formed nation of South Sudan and depicts how colonialism still exists but hides in a new mask related to resource exploitation. In the film, the resource in question is oil which governs the level of foreign interest in the nation. One can imagine that the rest of the world would not have have cared about what happened if there was no oil.

The cycle of boom and bust related to resource discovery has been repeated throughout history and many films have shown towns that fall in either categories. The Overnighters shows the impact on the local economy when an influx of workers arrives. Williston, North Dakota is the site for a new gold rush to speak, that of shale gas. The town cannot accommodate the hundreds of new arriving workers who have no place to sleep. On top of that, the residents of Williston are wary and fearful of the strangers, who are Americans moving from different states.

A local pastor, Jay Reinke, puts up as many workers in his church as possible and helps find accommodations for others. But some of the workers are ex-convicts or felons which causes the town residents to fear them more. Reinke goes out of his way to treat every worker equally but that puts his reputation on the line. As the film progresses, the pressure of the town and the overnighters takes its toll on Jay Reinke, who is almost on the brink of losing everything, his faith and reputation. In fact, events threaten to make Reinke an overnighter as well. The film shifts from the larger focus of the town to a personal story about the pastor’s life because what happens is not foreseeable. The film was awarded a Special Jury Prize for intuitive filmmaking and that is justified as events take an unexpected turn but director Jesse Moss trusted his instincts and continued filming. Also, Jay Reinke and his family deserve credit for allowing the camera to stay on in their households even though many personal conversations were taking place. In many moments, Moss achieves a Direct Cinema style of intimacy and the camera becomes one with Reinke’s household. When all is said and done, The Overnighters leaves one shaken at what they have just witnessed. Such was the case with many audience members at the sold out show.

Young Ones shows a future when water has become a scarce resource and where humans fight for every drop of water. The film is sci-fi but the desert surroundings and theme of revenge evoke a Western genre. The story unfolds in three chapters, with each chapter highlighting a key character. Michael Shannon stars as the father, who is willing to fight for his family’s benefit, a theme shown in other films at the festival. The film highlights the battle of survival that ensues when a society is on the verge of collapse.

Cutter Hodierne’s Fishing Without Nets shows a Somali village where all jobs have dried up and the only real money that can be made is by piracy. The film covers a similar topic to Captain Phillips and A Hijacking but Fishing Without Nets is told entirely from a Somali perspective. The feature film is an expansion of Cutter Hodierne’s award winning 2012 short film by the same name which also debuted at Sundance. It is a wonderful time in cinema when three films such as A Hijacking, Captain Phillips, Fishing Without Nets can exist in a similar timeframe. The three films are directed by men from three separate countries but they present a 360 degree view of events. There are many scenes where the three films directly reference each other and show an opposing perspective. For example, in Captain Phillips, events are seen from Tom Hanks’ character’s point of view such as when he sees the pirates approaching on boats and boarding the ship. In Fishing Without Nets, the camera is instead in the pirate boats and events unfold from the pirates’ perspective when they are climbing onto the ship. Another example is regarding the negotiations between the pirates and the shipping company. A Hijacking shows the parent ship company offices when the pirates phone to demand ransom while in Fishing Without Nets, only the pirates are shown talking on the phone and we never get to see the company on the other side. Therefore, these three films paint a complete picture of the entire piracy operation including the men who fund the process and provide supplies to those who kidnap the hostage and those that make the deals.

Portrait of an Artist 

Tim Sutton’s Memphis is a beautiful contemplative film set in the city that has fulfilled many musical dreams. However, the film is not about an artist who is on the verge of discovery. Instead, it looks at an artist’s life when the lyrics stop. Willis Earl Beal plays a famous musician who is struggling to finish his new album. He is told by his agent that he needs to come up with something but as Willis indicates, lyrics escape him. He is suffering from the equivalent of a writer’s block and as a result, the film applies to any artist struggling to produce a work. Willis procrastinates, wanders the city and manages to find solace among the unemployed people who can barely make ends meet. Yet, Willis has a talent. A close friend advises him that Willis has a responsibility to God, to realize his artistic duty. Willis has the keys to the kingdom, he is at the state that thousands other want to be. But he decides to turn in his keys to the kingdom and goes on a less traveled but difficult journey. Casting Willis is quite the coup as the film shatters the boundary between reality and fiction. The film is not autobiographical but there are some moments which depict Willis’ working methods regarding his music recording. The decision to withhold music for most of the film is also smart because that makes one thirst for Willis’ songs. And when we finally listen to Willis’ voice, it is magical! The music and words of “Too Dry to Cry” are sprinkled throughout the film, elevating the film and giving the entire work a soulful momentum. Memphis is a worthy addition to Contemporary Contemplative Cinema and is one of the most original American film in years.

Mr. Leos CaraX is a documentary that demystifies Leos Carax and allows a window into his style. The film is an ode to the director and includes plenty of clips and interviews which help shed a light on Carax’s references and usage of citations. Denis Lavant is featured prominently and his interview is quite useful in understanding his growth as an actor over the years in working with Carax. Kiyoshi Kurosawa, Harmony Korine, Richard Brody, Kent Jones, Gilles Jacob also provide insightful critical analyses. Tessa Louise-Salomé’s documentary makes one want to revisit Carax’s films while eagerly awaiting his new work; which hopefully is not another decade away.

Top 5 Films: a tie for 5th means 6 films

1. Return to Homs (Talal Derki)
2. Memphis (Tim Sutton)
3. Blue Ruin (Jeremy Saulnier)
4. We Are the Giant (Greg Barker)
5. The Overnighters (Jesse Moss) and A Girl Walks Home Alone at Night (Ana Lily Amirpour)

I missed many other wonderful films due to scheduling conflicts or sold out shows. Whiplash (winner of both Jury and Audience Award for US Dramatic film), Imperial Dreams (Audience Award, Best of NEXT) and The Green Prince (Audience Award, World Documentary) were high on my see list. Discussing with dozens of other cinephiles, there were a few common titles that popped up on many other top lists. Richard Linklater’s Boyhood was #1 on many lists as was Mike Cahill’s I-Origins, talking about which made some people giddy with excitement. I-Origins was the winner of Alfred P. Sloan Feature Film Prize, a prize which Cahill also won at Sundance back in 2011 with his first feature Another Earth. Raid 2 was #1 on few lists and almost everyone was certain that the film’s extreme violence meant the film would not be released without some cuts in North American cinemas. Other films that got plenty of buzz were E-TEAM (Winner of the Cinematography Award: US Documentary), Wetlands, Watchers in the Sky (Winner of two awards for Animation usage and Editing), Alive Inside: A Story of Music & Memory (Audience Award for US Documentary) and Happy Christmas. We Are the Giant is the only film from my list that featured on two other’s list at #1.

An overall festival experience is made or broken by one’s choices. In this regard, almost all my choices delivered, which helped! Of the 5 films that I bought advance tickets to, 3 won top prizes. To Kill a Man won the Jury Prize for World Cinema Dramatic category, Return to Homs won the Jury prize for World Documentary while Fishing Without Nets bagged the Best Directing prize. Along with Return to Homs, Memphis, Blue Ruin and A Girl Walks Home Alone at Night were on my must-see list before the festival started. Therefore, it was especially delightful to discover that these films were worth attending.

The only disappointments were Young Ones and We Come as Friends, but only because the films could not build on an early impressive setup. In the case of We Come As Friends that is understandable as the film was clearly impacted by the degrading situation in South Sudan. The film won a Special Jury Prize for Cinematic Bravery which recognizes the effort of director Hubert Sauper who tired to cover as many different angles to the South Sudan nation creation story as possible. We Come As Friends shows that making a documentary in a dynamic and constantly changing landscape can be challenging. This was also demonstrated in Marmato when the situation of the town residents worsened. However, Marmato ends before the tensions rose to a boil. One of the producers mentioned that they had to leave the country when there were concerns about their safety, something which helped give the film a natural ending. In the case of The Overnighters, the reason why the change in direction worked was because the main subject Jay Reinke was part of the film early on. As a result, he provided a continuation thread when the film changed course.

Return to Homs, We Are the Giant, We Come as Friends and Marmato depict a window into current events which are getting worse and changing constantly. As a result, these films don’t offer a natural conclusion because the ending of these struggles has not yet been written. But these films are essential because they serve as a living breathing digital document.

Sundance is interchangeable with American cinema and will always be a place where new American directors will be discovered. However, as this year’s festival showed, Sundance is giving a peek into the wider world outside of American shores by including films which are relevant and timely. No matter what category a film was programmed in and how different it was, it still fit in the overall program and showed that there was careful attention paid to ensuring all the films had a purpose.

The festival gets a lot of attention for its distribution side along with the celebrity presence. There are many private parties around the festival which feature celebrities and grab a lot of media coverage. This gives the appearance of a large closed-off film festival. But that is not the case as the festival has successfully managed to bridge its larger media aspect with a smaller independent feel. This is evident not only from the film selections but from some of the panels. I attended the Film Church on the final day of the festival where the Festival Director John Cooper and Director of Programming Trevor Groth talked about their festival highlights. Both John and Trevor were candid about some of their programming decisions and challenges that took place. The panel made it hard to believe that Sundance is the media crazy festival that some publications make it appear. Instead, Sundance felt like an intimate festival that is open to film lovers from all walks of life. This is also reinforced by talking to many of the volunteers and other festival patrons. There were many volunteers and patrons who have been attending for decades and shared a zest for cinema. In fact, every single volunteer I came across was a bona-fide cinephile, something I have not seen at another festival. One of the volunteers was a documentary maker and I learned that many of the volunteers working at one of the venues also worked regularly at the Toronto International Film Festival. Overall, Sundance proved to be a more open and inviting festival than I expected. And the variety of programming choices meant the festival balanced both artistic and commercial cinema while keeping its ears tuned to global events.

---

Cross-published at Wonders in the Dark.

Walter Hill

Back in February, I had planned a spotlight on Walter Hill to coincide with the release of his new film Bullet to the Head. But unfortunately, the film didn’t last too long in the theatres so I postponed the spotlight until the film’s July DVD release. In the few months in between Feb-July, a discussion on Vulgar Auteurism (link to Girish’s excellent post) popped up and Walter Hill’s name was included in the mix. But a lot of the heated discussions & subsequent articles focused on other directors and I didn’t come across any substantial material on Hill. Instead, the best article that I have read about the director and his films has come courtesy of Filipe Furtado prior to the VA discussion.

Filipe’s article is not in English but if the following link is put through an English translator, one is still able to get Filipe’s informed points about Walter Hill’s films, especially the following stellar opening paragraph.
http://revistacinetica.com.br/home/sobrevivendo-em-terreno-hostil-o-cinema-de-walter-hill/ 

The best films of Walter Hill express moral conflict in a universe that drowns in the wilderness, survival in a world about to get out of control. It's a feeling attraction for a filmmaker who, over four decades, has been seeking ways to remain viable in an industry in constant motion. Roy Del Ruth John Flynn, going by names such as Andre de Toth and Phil Karlson, being an author-oriented action without apparent pretensions does not get you very far in American cinema. At most, the occasional retrospective and the nickname master after the fact. It is tragic to note the number of promising careers interrupted or lost lushness after half a dozen long. The universe of action film medium is one of the most expendable of the American film industry, because it is after all to make a product to occupy rooms between major releases without large returns of reputation, whether commercial or critical. It is a path with few outlets, but perfectly suits the temperament of some artists like Walter Hill.

The idea for the spotlight was to view Walter Hill’s first 5 features and then finish out with his newest.

Hard Times (1975)
The Driver (1978)
The Warriors (1979)
The Long Riders (1980)
Southern Comfort (1981)
Bullet to the Head (2013)

This was more as a catch-up with his initial works as I had previously seen his late 1980’s and 1990’s films. And it turned out to be a worthy spotlight as Walter Hill’s initial films are probably the best films he has made.

Hard Times

It is incredible to believe this is Walter Hill’s first directed feature as it is far more worthy than most contemporary works. The premise is simple, a stranger (played by Charles Bronson) arrives to town and hooks up with a fixer to fight one-on-one matches. The attention is focused on the fights and the film is as trim as Bronson’s body with no extra ounce of fat present. A little bit of romance is hinted but the film does not waste any emotions on it.

The Driver

The driver character in Nicolas Winding Refn’s Drive owes a lot to Walter Hill’s The Driver as the two characters share a quiet yet strong personality, able to speed in the blink of an eye and slow down immediately when required. A surprizing discovery from watching this film was learning that the following car park sequence inspired a similar scene in Tinnu Anand’s Kaalia (1981) starring Amitabh Bachchan.

 

The Warriors

The opening speech by Cyrus (Roger Hill) in The Warriors is one of the most impressive seen in cinema as Cyrus tries to unite all the gangs by mentioning if all 20,000 members worked together, they can rule the city.

 

But Cyrus is shortly killed after this speech and his murder is blamed on the Warriors, who are forced on the run lest they get killed themselves. In a time before cellphones and the internet, the location of the Warriors is broadcast by a radio station host.

The Warriors is the first example of "Video Game Cinema" as the characters battle rival gangs while traveling through the streets of New York. The plot is kept simple as the end goal of the Warriors is to make it to Coney Island without getting killed. Like in video game levels, each rival gang increases in threat as the film moves along. Also, the music notifies of an approaching gang’s arrival and threat.

Note: If the members of the gang simply removed their jacket, then they can walk away free as no one would be able to recognize them. But no character one ever mentions removal of their jackets as all the gangs in the film are one with their jacket/clothing which is their identity.

Southern Comfort

Once again, a Walter Hill film provides inspiration for a Nicolas Winding Refn work Valhalla Rising. In Southern Comfort, a National Guard unit goes for a training exercise in the swampy lands of Louisiana. But as it turns out, they are in Cajun land and the men’s senseless acts cause them to get hunted by an invisible enemy. Such an invisible enemy is also depicted in Refn’s Valhalla Rising when the characters are killed by arrows fired from an unseen enemy. The fact that the enemy is kept off-screen in both films allows tension to build.

The Long Riders

The Jesse James story is depicted with a unique cinematic experiment by using real life brothers to play the various characters. There are 4 sets of brother used as David, Robert & Keith Carradine, Dennis & Randy Quaid, James & Stacy Keach, Christopher & Nicolas Guest play the main roles.

This film was also seen as part of the Western spotlight and watching this at the tail end of 82 Westerns didn't help as many other Westerns covered similar material. As a result, this film didn't leave much of an impression.

Bullet to the Head

The biggest surprize of the film is the politically incorrect dry humor used by Stallone’s character James who has no problem in speaking his thoughts, even if they are racist or offensive. Sung Kang’s Taylor Kwon is at the end of some of James’ words and the presence of his character results in the film feeling like a mismatched buddy comedy often seen in cinema. Yet, as predictable as events are, Stallone makes this film watchable as he plays a character similar to his age, someone who has seen it all and has scars of past battles.

Overall

Walter Hill has worked in a diverse range of film genres from Action, Thriller, Sci-fi, Comedy to Western. As a result, one cannot detect an easily identifiable directorial signature when looking at an individual film. However, patterns can be detected by stepping back and looking at his whole collection of films which results in links between few of the films. For example, both The Warriors & Southern Comfort feature characters navigating their way through a hostile territory, with an urban jungle in the former and an actual forested terrain in the latter. Survival can also be used to explain The Driver as the main character is on the run while both Hard Times & Bullet to the Head show tough physically fit characters willing to do whatever in order to get by.

William A. Wellman's films

In early 2012, Sam Juliano’s excellent round-up of William A. Wellman’s films was an eye opener as it highlighted the need to visit Wellman’s films. This is the first of a multi-part examination of the cinematic works of William A. Wellman.

The Ox-Bow Incident 

No film perfectly illustrates the phrase “Shoot first, ask questions later” than The Ox-Bow Incident. As a result, this film is essential viewing in understanding how blind revenge can override common sense and result in a serious crime. In the film, this thirst for blood possesses a group of men who go hunting for a rancher’s killers even though they have not seen the rancher’s body or verified any details of the crime. The men are repeatedly asked to show patience and calm down but those words fall on deaf ears as the men’s desire to kill overrides any shred of common sense.

The Ox-Bow Incident is an uncompromising film that never lets any glimmer of hope creep in and shows how a group of men can become vicious savages when their heart is set on revenge. One can extrapolate this blind revenge quality of a small group to a nation and understand why certain nations march into war with the slightest of pretexts. This may be a 1943 film but it is highly relevant in explaining the war mentality that exists in today’s world and how nations and groups of people can easily be forced into an act of violence without any evidence of a crime.

A true masterpiece. I placed this #3 on the Top 60 Western countdown.

Yellow Sky 

A visually stunning Western that features some of the most rugged and brutal terrain ever shown on cinema. After a group of bank robbers go on the run with their latest loot, their journey brings them face to face with a flat endless unforgiving landscape. They don’t have a choice to turn around so they head off into the flat land only to slowly get beat up by the heat. The horses start collapsing and the men are on the verge of death. Their spirits are lifted when they see a town in the horizon. But as it turns out, the town named “Yellow Sky” is a ghost town. The once prosperous town is empty and falling apart, mirroring the men’s situation. A young woman with a gun appears and tells the gang that a spring is nearby. After the men have had some water in their system, they start getting their strength back and discover that the young woman lives with her grandfather in a house. Examination of the surroundings leads the gang to conclude that there is gold buried in the mountains which is why the grandfather and the girl have not left. The thirst for gold results in fissures in the group and loyalties are put to the test.

Placed at #14 in my top 60 Westerns.

Track of the Cat 

This 1954 film features the most unusual villain in any Western film because the killing is not done by a human but instead by a panther. As a result, this film takes on a man vs animal scenario plus the cold snow background adds a man vs nature conflict to the mix. On top of that, family fights and tensions result in plenty of internal turmoil and personal demons which have to be conquered. This could have been a very dark feature but the color cuts through some of the tension.

The Conquerors

The rise and decline of America from the 1880’s to 1930’s is illustrated through the fortunes and struggles of a single family. Using a few characters, the film manages to depict the rise of a banking empire, followed by a stock market rise and crash, the backdrop of war and the progress caused by the railway. As family members age, the nation goes through a recursive pattern of excessive growth followed by an economic crash, immediately followed by another growth. After each crash, people call it the end and claim that America is finished but the nation recovers again. This 1932 film can be used to draw a lot of parallels with America post-2008, especially in showing the closed factories, no help wanted signs and people struggling to find work after a stock market crash. The stock market bubble is shown literally when a stack of money is shown growing until it bursts and in another sequence, money is shown to be piling up to become a large tower that comes crashing down.

CUFF 2013

This past April marked the 10th anniversary of the Calgary Underground Film Festival (CUFF) and the festival celebrated it by having the strongest lineup in their history. The remarkable aspect about the selection was that it felt like someone read my mind in booking the films. 7 titles from my must-see list played at the festival. I had been eagerly waiting to see Berberian Sound Studio, Computer Chess, Frances Ha, Pieta, Sightseers, The Act of Killing and Upstream Color. So I was delighted CUFF booked them. Unfortunately in the end, I could only see 5 of those titles:

Berberian Sound Studio (2012, UK, Peter Strickland)
Upstream Color (2013, USA, Shane Carruth)
Pieta (2012, South Korea, Kim-ki Duk)
The Act of Killing (2012, USA, Joshua Oppenheimer)
Computer Chess(2013, USA, Andrew Bujalski)

I also missed out on Clip, Vanishing Waves, The Rambler and The Final Member, films that got really strong word of mouth buzz.

Here are some brief notes on the films, arranged in order of preference.

1) The Act of Killing

Even though the documentary is rooted in Indonesia, it is universal in depicting how men kill with the aid of media and politicians. The depiction of torture/killing could easily be set in Latin/South America/Africa while the media manipulation applies to most nations. But no individuals will ever admit their crime with such brutal honesty as those in The Act of Killing, making it a living digital document. The killers walk about the city freely, sometimes boasting about their murders. Such honesty ensures the film hits like a ton of bricks but it is one of the most essential and relevant docs ever made.

2) Computer Chess

A playful look at various computer programmer personalties, ranging from the very shy to those whose supreme confidence borders on arrogance. The black and white visuals coupled with the video footage give the film a 1980’s look and feel, at a time when computers were bulky machines that required some effort to transport from room to room. The humor is derived from the collection of eccentric personalities and as a result, the scenarios feel natural and not forced. As a bonus, the film also literally depicts HAL's birth.

3) Berberian Sound Studio

An eerie slow-burning film that smartly uses sound manipulation & cues to abstract a horror genre. As a result, one can appreciate the few elements that make a horror film nerve racking and terrifying. This aspect is reinforced by the decision to not show the film-within-film, thereby letting viewers fill in their own worst images.

4) Upstream Color

A multi-shaped puzzle that assembles the look and feel of a Lynchian nightmare with a Malickian landscape. The film manages to find a balance between sci-fi, horror and nature by rapid fire editing and a score that contrasts the mood of the images that the viewer is seeing. The film’s two editors, Shane Carruth and David Lowery, cover a lot of ground in the opening minutes. One can make 2-3 features from the opening 20 minutes of Upstream Color. After the fast paced opening, the film settles down a little, allowing viewers to get a brief footing before heading off in a different direction altogether.

Credit must be given to Andrew Sensenig whose wordless performance speaks volumes and lends the film a graceful covering. Also, Upstream Color also extends Godard's quote: "All you need for a movie is a gun and a girl" plus some pigs & worms.

5) Pieta

I believe Kim Ki-duk made this film on a bet. He must have wagered with friends that he could make a sloppy film in a few days and throw enough heavy references to fool critics into thinking the film meant something. And his ploy appears to have paid off with the top prize at Venice 2012, even though festival rules prevented The Master from getting that prize. Still, it is hard to imagine that jury, which consisted of Michael Mann, Matteo Garrone, Pablo Trapero, Marina Abramovic, Ursula Meier, Ari Folman, Peter Ho-Sun Chan, Laetitia Casta, Samantha Morton, could not have picked any other film if they could not select The Master. Maybe the jury picked Pieta to prove a point that if they could not pick the best film in the competition, they would pick the worst. But given the praise Pieta has gotten in some quarters, it does feel like maybe some in the jury gave the prize on merit.

The entire film feels like a joke on the audience. Pieta contains shocking scenes for no reason other than to get a reaction from people while the acting and editing give it a B-grade appearance. As painful as the experience proved to be, I managed to get through it. Thankfully, the many other stellar films at CUFF quickly washed away the experience of Pieta.

The Cinema of Neveldine/Taylor

With the exception of Ghost Rider, the remaining three films of Mark Neveldine & Brian Taylor are perfect examples of Video Game Cinema.

Crank (2006)
Crank: High Voltage (2009)
Gamer (2009)
Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance (2011)

The premise of Crank is setup like a video game where the main character Chev (Jason Statham) can only go for a limited distance before he needs to recharge himself otherwise he will lose his single life, thereby ending the film. The reason Chev needs to recharge is to keep his adrenaline level up otherwise the drugs injected in his body will slowly stop his heart. He can keep his adrenaline level up either by natural or artificial means such as usage of epinephrine. Such a premise allows the movie to freely incorporate whatever is required for him to survive. This means Chev pumps himself full of drugs, gets into fights, steals a car (Grand Theft Auto anyone?) in order to move to a new location in search of an antidote. The script also includes Chev’s attempted rape of his girlfriend Eve (Amy Smart) so that he can keep his heart from slowing down. Chev’s aggressive sexual act starts out as rape but is turned into a semi-consensual act after Eve stops fighting back, much to the shock of an onlooking bus of tourists.

By giving the film a video game premise, the directors get away by including any over the top sequence in the script which ends up making the movie critic-proof. Any questions about the film’s logic can be countered with the explanation that Chev’s desperate need to survive mandates inclusion of abundant excess and crudity. For example, if Chev doesn’t try to rape his girlfriend, then it is game over. If he does not inject himself with drugs, then lights out. On a scale of 1-10 for crudity, Crank breaks the scale with a whopping 11. Incredibly, Crank 2 shatters the scale even further and outdoes the first movie. Although, Crank 2 just follows the template laid out by Crank and the only variation is to ensure every aspect from the first movie is super-sized in the second one. And to hammer the point home, a mock Godzilla like fight scene is included in Crank 2.

Crank and Crank 2 are single player video games where one character has to navigate his way through an urban jungle filled with danger at every corner. Both movies also contain moments when Chev is depicted like a pixelated 1980’s style arcade game. On the other hand, Gamer is a multi-player game designed to follow the structure of a MMORPG, a game style which allows multiple players to control different online characters. A movie based on MMORPG would have been complicated enough but Neveldine & Taylor layer the movie with a “Simulation” style video game & wrap everything around a hyper-interactive social media world. The end result is a movie that bombards a viewer with a stream of information which is delievered in tiny chunks via fast cuts. Such an editing style requires a viewer to take some time to absorb the material and get used to the style. Only once the gaming style is absorbed, the smart social commentary becomes apparent. The directors want to convey a world where the line between an online virtual personality and a real persona is slowly erased. One can even say that the current world is close to what Gamer shows but the movie was released back in 2009, at a time when online gaming was growing substantially but bandwidth sucking smart phones and tablets were still in their infancy.

Fast Cuts

Crank, Crank 2 & Gamer all feature rapid-fire editing which at times appears to contain multiple cuts every second. Such an editing style results in a disorienting effect which does not make for easy viewing. These three movies are on the opposite spectrum of Slow Cinema and demonstrate that hyperactive films which can’t maintain focus for even a second result in an experience where the movies running time appears a lot longer than it actually is. One can only painlessly finish watching these movies if one is able to tune in to their rhythm.

On the other hand, Ghost Rider has no such accelerated video game style. Of course, given the material’s comic book source, such a style would not have made sense. Still, nothing in Ghost Rider indicates any whiff of Neveldine-Taylor's work. The only way one can even form a link to this movie with the directors is by the ending of Crank 2 which features Chev completely in flames showing the finger to the camera. The image of Chev’s head in flames evokes Ghost Rider so it is not a surprize that the directors next project was the Marvel Comic book character.

One can understand what the directors are trying to do with their style but the movies require an investment from a viewer. The blistering style also makes it is hard to recommend their films to anyone. Although, there are plenty of excellent articles that one can read about the directors style and save the trouble of watching any of their films.

Essential Reading

Adam Nayman article perfectly summaries the cinema of Neveldine & Taylor.

Ignatiy Vishnevetsky on Gamer.

Steven Shaviro has a 10,000 word entry on Gamer!

3D challenge

Ghost Rider was in 3D but thankfully the other three movies were in 2D.  The first 15 minutes of Gamer are far more challenging to keep one's headache in check than any 3D movie out there. However, Crank 3 will be in 3D and that will result in a massive viewing challenge for those who see it in a cinema.

Universal Soldier

Like most friends, I saw the first Universal Soldier (1992) and ignored all subsequent sequels, including the official ones (three after 1992) and two TV movies. However, intrigued by some of the critical traction that Universal Soldier: Day of Reckoning got in 2012, I decided to see both of the Universal Soldier films directed by John Hyams and revisited the first film to put everything in context.

Universal Solider (1992, Roland Emmerich)
Universal Soldier: Regeneration (2009, John Hyams)
Universal Soldier: Day of Reckoning (2012, John Hyams)

Universal Soldier starts off in the Vietnam war, a starting point for many cinematic stories over the years, where a fight between two soldiers Luc Deveraux (Jean-Claude Van Damme) and Scott (Dolph Lundgren) results in both of their deaths. Both dead bodies are indoctrinated into a US military program and brought back as Universal Soldiers or UniSols, android fighting machines. The concept of UniSols follows the Robocop pattern in reanimating a dead character to fight justice. In Robocop, Murphy is meant to fight crime on the streets and keep civil justice. Whereas, UniSols are meant to safeguard nationalistic interests. Both Murphy and Luc are also united by their desire to return home. Despite the efforts of scientists to erase both Murphy & Luc's memories, a tiny portion of their past lingers on and manages to guide their moral compass. This makes both of these characters heroes, who try to do some good despite being programmed to kill without question. At the end of Universal Soldier, Luc does reach home. But a happy ending in Hollywood is never a guarantee for conclusion and Luc was called into action in 1999’s Universal Soldier: The Return.

Two TV movies filled the gap without JCVD and Dolph Lundgren until John Hyams resurrected the series in 2009. Hyams rightly decided that both JCVD and Dolph Lundgren are not as young as they once were and instead made Andrei Arlovski’s UniSol the central character. Arlovski’s character is a pure representation of what a Unisol was originally meant to be as he has no moral compass and is free to kill without any filters. Regeneration is certainly a major improvement over the 1992 movie and takes the series into a much darker territory. Still, the 2009 film cannot predict the direction that Day of Reckoning jumps towards.

If Regeneration showed shades of darkness, then Day of Reckoning is a full blown nightmare that is only connected to the Universal Solider series in name. The 2012 film does feature Luc Deveraux and Scott but Luc is nothing like the past films. He is more like Tony Todd's Candyman character who appears either inside John’s (Scott Adkins) head or in his house. The Candyman sequence is shown early in the film and follows a point of view nightmarish start reminiscent of Gaspar Noe’s Enter the Void. Day of Reckoning then stitches a David Lynch feel and mood throughout the film and includes nods to conspiracy stories and a few horror films along with the way, such as the famous axe breaking door scene of The Shining. It is impressive how many diverse ideas and sub-plots Day of Reckoning incorporates and it might have been better if the film had shed the Universal Soldier tag. As it stands, the UniSol reference will prevent others from checking out the film. The open ended nature of Day of Reckoning suggests a future possibility of another film but more importantly, it will be curious to see what John Hyams directs next.

Related Reading

The following three articles played a big part in my viewing these films.

Ignatiy Vishnevetsky's excellent mubi review.
Ian Buckwalter's review in The Atlantic.
Bilge Ebiri.

Paul Verhoeven

It is easy to label Paul Verhoeven’s films as a cinema of excessive sex, blood and violence. However, these tags just refer to the surface of the films. Revisiting the following three films revealed the presence of multiple layers underneath:

Robocop (1987)
Total Recall (1990)
Starship Troopers (1997)

Robocop and Starship Troopers are razor sharp satires that are packed with social, economic and political commentary. On first glance, these references are overshadowed by over the top sequences which grab all the attention and become the film’s major talking points, such as the extremely violent killing of Officer Murphy (Peter Weller) in Robocop. Murphy’s killing is brutal but it fits in the film’s context of portraying a society where violence is used to drive all social, economic and political policies. For example, brutal force is used to evict the poor out of their homes in order to build a safer and cleaner new Detroit. And the residents have no choice but to use violent means to fight back. The rise of violence & crime is in turn used to justify the need for building more destructive killing machines so that peace can finally be achieved. RoboCop shows a society that is constantly in war with itself and depicts how once the war machine is started, it will never stop. The faces making the political decisions will change but an endless cycle of building bigger weapons will continue. In this regard, the film correctly anticipates the rise of private corporations in getting lucrative government contracts to protect society.

RoboCop not only targets private security firms but throws its net over all corporations. The appropriately named Omni Consumer Products (OCP) has its hands in every aspect of society and citizens can’t escape its influence. OCP not only thrusts its products down citizens throats but also creates weapons for them to kill or be killed. The media is not spared either and the hilariously depicted fake newscasts in both RoboCop and Starship Troopers shows how a culture of fear is created and controlled by a small group. When RoboCop was released back in 1987, news channels didn’t run 24 hours / 7 days a week. So the film can be credited as correctly predicting the state of contemporary news channels which repeat the same stories over and over again.

RoboCop and Total Recall also show that policies which deny basic equality to all citizens will force the have nots to fight for their rights. And when these citizens demand their rights, they will be labelled as troublemakers and attempt to be crushed by those in power. The enforcement of force is made possible by a collusion between government, corporations and certain elements of the police.

Even though Paul Verhoeven didn’t direct RoboCop 2 and RoboCop 3, those later films continue the story, themes and style explored by Verhoeven’s film. For example, in RoboCop 2 Murphy’s programming is altered by those in charge to make him more friendly so that he is not seen as a cold killing machine but instead a friendly killing machine. This example is another piece of witty satire which shows how corporations use media spin and public relations to shift public opinion.

Other related reading

Aaron Light has an excellent essay about Verhoeven & his "Cinema of Excess".

Robert Koehler’s interview with Paul Verhoeven.

Remake

It is not surprizing that the remake of RoboCop (2014) will be directed by José Padilha whose Elite Squad films contain a biting social commentary about violence between the poor and the police. Padilha’s films don’t feature any satire so his selection appears to indicate that the remake will be a more serious and darker examination of society.