1) There Will Be Blood
2) Phantom Thread
3) The Master
4) Inherent Vice
5) Magnolia
6) Hard Eight
7) Punch-Drunk Love
8) Boogie Nights
Saturday, January 20, 2018
Friday, January 19, 2018
a house that does not change is a dead house
"She would of been a good woman," The Misfit said, "if it had been somebody there to shoot her every minute of her life." - Flannery O'Connor
The days move from good to good, from glory to glory. And they do so by undergoing darkness (sleep, death) before the next day arrives.....Phantom Thread is a masterpiece. There Will Be Blood is the greatest American film of the aughts. Phantom Thread is the greatest American film of the twenty-teens. I think that makes Paul Thomas Anderson our greatest living film director.
What is important to see is that death and resurrection is never, in Biblical religion, a way of returning to how things used to be. It is not mere resuscitation. The resurrected life is always a transformation of the life before death. Each day of creation was more glorious than the one before. Adam was glorified when he was given a wife. And each new covenant in the bible is more glorious than the one before. This fact stands in opposition to all the "dying and rising" myths of paganism, which only assert the return of an endless cycle, and bring about no change in history. - James B. Jordan
I don't know how to write about the film without spoilers. I expect you guys to see the film soon. Read this or don't. I'm not getting into many specifics, but I do riff on what I think is the main theme, which is a minor spoiler. I went in completely blind (except having watched the trailer once whenever it first dropped several months ago) and was happy to do so.
Phantom Thread is a story of a man who breaks out of a cycle, who through a glorious death and resurrection (a series of them, in fact) learns to move from good to good, from glory to glory, whose life is transformed through the experience of death.
When we meet Reynolds, he has disposed of his most recent lover. It is strongly implied and easy to imagine that this incident is yet another in a long line of such. Reynolds is stuck in a pagan "dying and rising" myth. Every time he does the same thing. Every time he gets the same results.
When he meets Alma, there is no reason for us to expect anything except more of the same. Except maybe we do. Because PTA has inserted a framing device into the film that structures the film. The first shot of the film is of Alma, speaking to someone, speaking to us, of what it is like to love this man and be with this man. We suspect that she may be the one to break the cycle.
Reynolds is full of life. He is full of himself. Those who enter his circle as lovers submit themselves to him. Alma instead challenges him. She eventually kills him. Because this is what Reynolds needs. He needs to be emptied of his own life, to lose his self, to learn to live beyond himself. He needs to die to self.
And this is the film's genius. And the film's joy.
The film is slyly funny. Sometimes it's in the dialogue. Sometimes it's in the camera movement ("tracking shots are a question of morality") and/or the way that an actor is placed and moves in the frame.
In the end, we learn with Reynolds that life is fleeting, that we must live memento mori, that we are at our best when we keep death near. When we admit that we are weak. When we know that we are dust.
Some of us are harder hearted than others, insisting on a pretended strength.
May an Alma rise up, loving, kind, to kill us when we won't kill ourselves. Then we might experience New Life. Glory to greater glory, each day more glorious than the one before.
Thursday, January 4, 2018
only a gentle yoke, o mediator
Well, I asked for it.
I confess that I wasn't expecting Brandon to pick a Lanthimos film.
It's amusing to me that I enjoyed this one more than Brandon. I still didn't like it, but I didn't hate it the way I hated Dogtooth (a film which I still respect in many ways) or shrug it off as stupid the way I did with the half-watched The Lobster or ignore it altogether like Alps.
The Killing of a Sacred Deer
Lanthimos immediately caught my attention, not with the beating heart (more on that soon), but with the opening notes over darkness that open the film. Lanthimos had appropriated a "sacred" choral work from the Christian tradition and was using it for his own nefarious purposes. My immediate response was anger and disgust, followed by curiosity--what would Lanthimos do with these very Christian themes of suffering and sacrifice coupled with glory and bliss?
As the apostle Paul puts it, "For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God."
Could it be possible that Yorgos Lanthimos was seriously exploring this "folly"?
Of course, it turns out that the answer is NO. Lanthimos is not so serious. And I can hardly fault him for that. I am sympathetic to what Brandon quotes him as saying. I can't do anything "straight-forward" either. I can't seem to ever be 100% serious about anything. There's always a joke, always an irony, always some wrinkle that queers things; strange-forward. There's always a second and third and fourth level of mental questionings and twistings, the always aware that is crippling. Does this mean that I (along with Yargos) am reduced to gimmick? It feels that way sometimes.
What really strikes me as impressive in Sacred Deer is the direction of the actors. Every line is delivered flat. Every action seems somehow inevitable, even feeling morally neutral because it all rings so loudly of fatalism.
Every film is an artifice. Artificial. Constructed. Not natural. One strength of this film is that it lays that artifice completely bare. We never get "lost in the narrative" the same way we might with a great pop film because we are always aware that the narrative is completely in control of the narrator. It is in this anti-realism that Lanthimos is most successfully close to his ancient Greek fathers. Bresson is often brought up for his use of actors-as-models. Lanthimos' intended expression is different than Bresson, but the method seems to be similar. By stripping his actors of personality and emotional affect, Lanthimos does achieve something not quite the same but close to the effect of a mask, which of course it was always common for actors to wear on a stage. Actors should be masked. The stage should be fantastic and not realist. It is only us moderns who fail to understand this.
You will guide your models according to your rules, with them letting you act in them, and you letting them act in you. -Robert Bresson
I confess that I wasn't expecting Brandon to pick a Lanthimos film.
It's amusing to me that I enjoyed this one more than Brandon. I still didn't like it, but I didn't hate it the way I hated Dogtooth (a film which I still respect in many ways) or shrug it off as stupid the way I did with the half-watched The Lobster or ignore it altogether like Alps.
The Killing of a Sacred Deer
Lanthimos immediately caught my attention, not with the beating heart (more on that soon), but with the opening notes over darkness that open the film. Lanthimos had appropriated a "sacred" choral work from the Christian tradition and was using it for his own nefarious purposes. My immediate response was anger and disgust, followed by curiosity--what would Lanthimos do with these very Christian themes of suffering and sacrifice coupled with glory and bliss?
As the apostle Paul puts it, "For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God."
Could it be possible that Yorgos Lanthimos was seriously exploring this "folly"?
Of course, it turns out that the answer is NO. Lanthimos is not so serious. And I can hardly fault him for that. I am sympathetic to what Brandon quotes him as saying. I can't do anything "straight-forward" either. I can't seem to ever be 100% serious about anything. There's always a joke, always an irony, always some wrinkle that queers things; strange-forward. There's always a second and third and fourth level of mental questionings and twistings, the always aware that is crippling. Does this mean that I (along with Yargos) am reduced to gimmick? It feels that way sometimes.
What really strikes me as impressive in Sacred Deer is the direction of the actors. Every line is delivered flat. Every action seems somehow inevitable, even feeling morally neutral because it all rings so loudly of fatalism.
Every film is an artifice. Artificial. Constructed. Not natural. One strength of this film is that it lays that artifice completely bare. We never get "lost in the narrative" the same way we might with a great pop film because we are always aware that the narrative is completely in control of the narrator. It is in this anti-realism that Lanthimos is most successfully close to his ancient Greek fathers. Bresson is often brought up for his use of actors-as-models. Lanthimos' intended expression is different than Bresson, but the method seems to be similar. By stripping his actors of personality and emotional affect, Lanthimos does achieve something not quite the same but close to the effect of a mask, which of course it was always common for actors to wear on a stage. Actors should be masked. The stage should be fantastic and not realist. It is only us moderns who fail to understand this.
You will guide your models according to your rules, with them letting you act in them, and you letting them act in you. -Robert Bresson
Back to the "heart" of the film. As I've already mentioned, the film opens in darkness accompanied by the sounds and words of "Christ hovering on the cross," bringing to mind a crucified king ruling mysteriously from this position, revealing in this bizarre action the central truth of all creation.
We're immediately given a "hovering" shot, a top-down view of a beating heart. The perspective we are given is godlike, both observing life but also so clearly exhibiting a power over life and death.
The next shot is of a doctor disrobing, literally removing the robes of his office. In this shot, coupled with the last, we understand that the role of doctor is a priestly role. When the doctor is acting in his liturgical role (performing his service) he is given a trust and holds a responsibility. He is a minister of life and death.
This disrobing is practically just a shot of a surgeon finished with his surgery, but because of this film being what it is, freighted with symbols, the shot also carries much more resonance. The film begins with a "priest" who has in some sense been "defrocked." He is no longer qualified for the office.
The next scene involves this doctor and another talking about wristwatches. The camera distances itself. Our defrocked doctor talks of buying a new watch. He has been wearing the same watch for many years, operating under the same time. He now feels that he needs a new watch, a new time. It is highly significant then that this new time does not represent his own change. As soon as he purchases this new watch (establishing a new time), he hands it over to the young boy Martin, clearly indicating that it is now Martin's time, that what will now happen proceeds from Martin and is under the control of Martin.
Let's do a silly bit of namesplaining.
Steven - crown, garland
Martin - of Mars, warlike
Anna - gracious, full of grace
Then the generic diminuatives of Kim and Bob, probably meaning:
Kim - precious
Bob - bright fame
The family surname Murphy = sea-warrior or sea-battler, establishing them as Irish, yes (and therefore connecting them to a world of folk spirits and magic commonplace), but also suggesting the turbulence of the specific combat they are engaged in in the film, never sure, always shifting like the sea.
Now, I don't want to make too much of the names, but surely they are no accident and are not random. Martin being Mars being Ares being pretty much a male counterpart to Artemis makes sense. Besides Artemis' sacred deer, the snake was sacred to her as it was to Ares.
Steven, the medical professional operates under the symbol of the upraised snake, a symbol he profanes when he dares to operate as priest of his guild while under the influence of strange spirits.
Brandon makes light of the doctor's drinking. But depending on the temple cult, being drunk on the job is a death penalty offense. Even stripping the priest aspect of the job that I have been stressing, we should all agree that a surgeon performing a procedure after having a couple of drinks (I imagine double bourbon in this case, and that "a couple" is most likely the understatement of a chronic abuser) is a form of criminally negligent homicide.
In the film, Steven's guilt is established. And yet he is never repentant. He makes excuses about his drinking behavior and puts the blame off on another (a simple accident of nature, the possible misjudment of his co-worker). He never once takes responsibility. He insists that his crown is still in place.
Martin insists on responsibility. But he insists on mediation, a sacrificial substitute. That just as Steven has killed someone special to Martin (I think that the father-killing is secondary to the betrayal of the medical office; that's my current read of the film), so Mars insists on the killing of something special to Steven.
At no point does Steven offer up himself. It doesn't even seem to cross his mind. He first fights against the idea of killing one of his family, but he finally gives in. Skipping over a lot, in the end an acceptable sacrifice to atone for his sin has been made and he can resume his life unstained.
There are some Christian themes in this, but what is remarkable is how ruggedly, insistently Hellenistic the film is. To whatever extent an audience rejects this film, it rejects Greek philosophy and Greek religion, and it does so because of the Morning of Christ's Nativity. The Killing of a Sacred Deer turns out to be a Christmas movie after all. Huh.
https://youtu.be/E8Ot-KPVZVE
https://youtu.be/E8Ot-KPVZVE
Back to the artifice. Lanthimos introduces an element of dread, this terrible fatalism which comes from the capricious will of the gods. A god (Martin, whodathunk?) is offended and a human must bow before the will of this god. Resistance is futile. The will of the god will be achieved regardless.
As dread events begin in the film, we want to call bullshit. Screw you, Lanthimos. The guy has a choice. Something can be done. Fight it. Fight. THIS IS ALL ONLY HAPPENING JUSTBECAUSE YOU SAY IT IS, NOT BECAUSE IT IS NATURAL. IT IS BULLSHIT. IT IS A BETRAYAL OF OUR EXPECTATIONS. STOP IT.
And yet it never stops. It gets worse. And finally we come to the fated conclusion, the god is satisfied, and life can move on.
The film ends with Bach's St John Passion. And I'm not sure if it's a twisted irony or a desperate prayer. Or most likely both...
O Lord, our lord.
It is an impressive piece of filmmaking. Writing all of this has had me re-evaluating it even further, grudgingly convincing myself that I like this one after all.
Lanthimos reminds me of von Trier. Both are tortured provocateurs trying to communicate with audiences who no longer feel anything. Both are working so obviously in the Shadow of the Cross, haunted and hounded by a violent grace, severe mercies; they try to account for these peculiar glories amid a grimy world, a world that has stripped away all of their tools for doing so-- they work on the edges of an artistic culture which has already given up on meaning, which has no basis for anything. I can only sympathize with their struggles even when they result in cinematic tantrums and childish outbursts of violent creativity, sometimes hurting themselves as they lash out.
Go figure. Happy 2018. Film Club is dead. Long live Film Club.
Thursday, December 28, 2017
2016
1. Love & Friendship
2. Paterson
3. Fences
4. The Founder
5. Hacksaw Ridge
Honorable Mention: Doctor Strange
All of these films are not only my favorite from the year, but I believe that each of these represents the best work these respective directors (all of whom I find interesting and worth following) have done in their careers.
Top tens are pretty silly. We all know that. But I've found myself resisting them more the past couple of years.
These five (maybe six) films are the ones from 2016 that I want to re-visit. Maybe it's telling that I haven't re-watched any of them yet (I did fall asleep to partial re-views of The Founder and Doctor Strange).
I'm planning on re-watching Rogue One because I just read a good essay on it which made me re-consider it somewhat (and honestly, we all know that I'm a sucker for this childhood pop franchise that won't let me grow up). But it wasn't and isn't a favorite from the year.
There were a lot of good movies in 2016, including some trashy stuff and some art stuff. I was entertained more in 2016 than I was this year or the year before it. Maybe that's a good thing. Maybe not. I'm content with my current discontent.
The thing is that I don't care about the rest of the films from 2016. I don't want to re-watch them. I don't feel like discussing them. Was Nocturnal Animals better than Finding Dory better than The Purge:Election Year? How do I rank them? Why would I? I don't know. I don't care. I saw 53+ films from the year and I can only think of 3 (after looking at a list--otherwise I wouldn't have remembered them at all) that I feel were a complete waste of time: Star Trek Beyond, Neon Demon, and Tarzan, for the record. I couldn't force myself to pay attention to either of the first two and the latter has the distinction of being the only film to make me fall asleep in the middle of the morning.
I guess I'd re-watch any of the films from the year if it meant an opportunity to discuss aspects of them with you guys. But it's been a long time since we've all been "in sync" with our viewing habits. It's been at least as long since we've all committed to faithfully engaging with one another here about films.
I'm actually talking myself into an interest in a renewed attempt at a CR5FC "movie of the month" club. I'd be up for it if you guys are.
2. Paterson
3. Fences
4. The Founder
5. Hacksaw Ridge
Honorable Mention: Doctor Strange
All of these films are not only my favorite from the year, but I believe that each of these represents the best work these respective directors (all of whom I find interesting and worth following) have done in their careers.
Top tens are pretty silly. We all know that. But I've found myself resisting them more the past couple of years.
These five (maybe six) films are the ones from 2016 that I want to re-visit. Maybe it's telling that I haven't re-watched any of them yet (I did fall asleep to partial re-views of The Founder and Doctor Strange).
I'm planning on re-watching Rogue One because I just read a good essay on it which made me re-consider it somewhat (and honestly, we all know that I'm a sucker for this childhood pop franchise that won't let me grow up). But it wasn't and isn't a favorite from the year.
There were a lot of good movies in 2016, including some trashy stuff and some art stuff. I was entertained more in 2016 than I was this year or the year before it. Maybe that's a good thing. Maybe not. I'm content with my current discontent.
The thing is that I don't care about the rest of the films from 2016. I don't want to re-watch them. I don't feel like discussing them. Was Nocturnal Animals better than Finding Dory better than The Purge:Election Year? How do I rank them? Why would I? I don't know. I don't care. I saw 53+ films from the year and I can only think of 3 (after looking at a list--otherwise I wouldn't have remembered them at all) that I feel were a complete waste of time: Star Trek Beyond, Neon Demon, and Tarzan, for the record. I couldn't force myself to pay attention to either of the first two and the latter has the distinction of being the only film to make me fall asleep in the middle of the morning.
I guess I'd re-watch any of the films from the year if it meant an opportunity to discuss aspects of them with you guys. But it's been a long time since we've all been "in sync" with our viewing habits. It's been at least as long since we've all committed to faithfully engaging with one another here about films.
I'm actually talking myself into an interest in a renewed attempt at a CR5FC "movie of the month" club. I'd be up for it if you guys are.
2015
2015, Ten,
Five Groups of Two
1. The Force Awakens
2. Entertainment
3. Results
4. Irrational Man
5. Knight of Cups
6. Hateful 8
7. High-Rise
8. Stinking Heaven
9. Ex Machina
10. Crimson Peak
You all know how I feel about The Force Awakens. It succeeded in awakening the child in me. It *entertained* me. Which is why it feels right to pair it with Entertainment, the film that captured my own despair in regards to art and culture. Entertainment apes the forms of the arthouse, making it clear that the cheap and easy entertianments of the masses is not its easy target. It is just as much if not more so a statement against the empty gestures of a spiritually dead aestheticism.
I still love Results, but its faults are starting to wear through for me. Each re-watch, I see a little more clearly how it conforms to our culture of death in little ways. Its center is still an affirmation of love and life, but there are creakings at the seams. Irrational Man, on the other hand, has risen in my memory's estimation. I really do need to re-watch it. Woody Allen is at his most self-critical here, but critics dismiss this one because it features crime and philosophy instead of smarmy sex talk and social silliness.
Knight of Cups and Hateful 8 are two films that I respect and want to love, but don't love. Malick and Tarantino are both Masters, but I'm not sure that I want to follow either one. Malick is too serious, trying to escape it all. Tarantino is too smug in his commitment to wallowing in the trash.
High-Rise and Stinking Heaven both explore what it means to live together. I've forgotten most of what I liked about either one and find myself not caring to defend them now. My Top Ten ends at 6. Or maybe even at 4. The Top 4 are the only ones I would re-watch right now, this very minute.
Ex Machina and Crimson Peak get the end of the list nod because I find myself still impressed with the visual storytelling in each. Even if I had problems with both of them, they both featured compelling worlds fully realized.
Five Groups of Two
1. The Force Awakens
2. Entertainment
3. Results
4. Irrational Man
5. Knight of Cups
6. Hateful 8
7. High-Rise
8. Stinking Heaven
9. Ex Machina
10. Crimson Peak
You all know how I feel about The Force Awakens. It succeeded in awakening the child in me. It *entertained* me. Which is why it feels right to pair it with Entertainment, the film that captured my own despair in regards to art and culture. Entertainment apes the forms of the arthouse, making it clear that the cheap and easy entertianments of the masses is not its easy target. It is just as much if not more so a statement against the empty gestures of a spiritually dead aestheticism.
I still love Results, but its faults are starting to wear through for me. Each re-watch, I see a little more clearly how it conforms to our culture of death in little ways. Its center is still an affirmation of love and life, but there are creakings at the seams. Irrational Man, on the other hand, has risen in my memory's estimation. I really do need to re-watch it. Woody Allen is at his most self-critical here, but critics dismiss this one because it features crime and philosophy instead of smarmy sex talk and social silliness.
Knight of Cups and Hateful 8 are two films that I respect and want to love, but don't love. Malick and Tarantino are both Masters, but I'm not sure that I want to follow either one. Malick is too serious, trying to escape it all. Tarantino is too smug in his commitment to wallowing in the trash.
High-Rise and Stinking Heaven both explore what it means to live together. I've forgotten most of what I liked about either one and find myself not caring to defend them now. My Top Ten ends at 6. Or maybe even at 4. The Top 4 are the only ones I would re-watch right now, this very minute.
Ex Machina and Crimson Peak get the end of the list nod because I find myself still impressed with the visual storytelling in each. Even if I had problems with both of them, they both featured compelling worlds fully realized.
Saturday, November 4, 2017
Horrible?
More Horror
I'm not feeling all that inspired to write anything. Here are some brief copy and paste comments from the end of my bgg horror challenge:
October 24th: It Comes at Night (2017, Trey Edward Shults)
Basic plot: A mysterious plague has killed off almost everyone. Which is worse, death or survival?
Seen before? N
Recommend? Yes
This film is a slow burn, focused on characters and relationships. Then it is frustrating (enjoyably so) in that what is revealed about the characters is often as mystifying as it is revealing. It is much more about human behavior than it is about unknown monsters threatening us (though it has an element of that too). I can't really talk about what I like about the film without going into deep spoilers (though there is no real twist or deep surprise, just a constant thrum of despair). It's probably my favorite film so far of an otherwise mostly disappointing 2017. That said, I think it's only good, not great.
---
Well, I finished out the month with only 7 films watched. Not too bad, I guess. I also watched one non-horror film, getting out to the cinema to catch Blade Runner 2049 (eh, ok). And over the course of the month, I probably watched a few hours of board game media videos. And parts of episodes of kids stuff (Voltron, Ronja) with my kids.
I finished out the month by watching Stranger Things 2. It took me 5 days to "binge watch" the whole season. After seeing the trailer, I was prepared to be disappointed as it looked like the show had gone in a much bigger, blockbuster direction. It's true that the show is bigger and more expansive, but it also stayed true to what makes it so special, capturing perfectly the feeling of childhood friendships, the kind of magic bonds that some of us were lucky enough to experience firsthand in the 80s, providing some relief as it seemed like much of the world was hostile to outsiders and freaks like us.
Anyhow, Stranger Things 2. Highly Recommended.
---
Reflecting on Stranger Things 2 with a little distance now, I'll add my usual disclaimer that films starring kids make me uneasy. I think that there's almost always an element of exploitation going on. This is most evident in the presentation of sexuality (there's one scene in Moonrise Kindom for example that definitely crosses the line and tarnishes the film); this is a minor spoiler-- there are a couple of kisses at the end of ST2. The one female star was not told about this kiss until the day of filming. The male star as well. It was a "first kiss" for both of them. "It's just a kiss," but it's also disturbing to see these children engaging in something they otherwise would have discovered in an organic way for the sake of entertainment. The actress playing El commented that she was emotionally distraught during one psychologically harrowing scene in the film. That's another example.
The thing is that Stranger Things is not a kids show. Some elements of childhood are fantastically displayed in the show, but it is highly crafted (the artifice is clear; there is at least no attempt at deception in this regard) by ADULT hands.
Acting involves masks, putting on personas, becoming a person. The difference between the stage and "real life" is that the mask is always imposed from without. I guess that this can be good or bad, depending on the quality of the mask. Overall, I guess that I do believe that the roles that the Duffers have created for the child actors are positive ones, heroic and self-sacrificing. The real life children will learn to he noble by "acting" noble. But I still have a few reservations.
Tuesday, October 24, 2017
Realm of Chaos: The Lost and the Damned
October.
I've never strongly associated it with horror anything. The increasing commercialization of fright as it is tied into our cultural cycle is probably worthy of study. I don't understand why or exactly how the ghoulish partnered with the greedish. Candy companies want to sell candy. Costume companies want to sell costumes. Lawn decorations want to be on lawns. People, I guess, just want to have some naughty fun. Mostly, though, I find it all tacky and lacking any real resonance.
This annual celebration of scary things means very little to me. But there is another annual celebration at the end of October that I pay very close attention to every year. It also involves a great deal of manufacturing, selling, and buying. It is definitely a commercial holiday. I am of course speaking of the Internationale Spieltage SPIEL'17!!! That's the official name. Almost everyone in the U.S. refers to the event by the name of its city: Essen. This event at Essen is the biggest board game fair of the year, where most companies release their newest and best games for the year.
The past several weeks, I've scrolled through long lists of announced games. I've read previews and reviews. Later this week, as the fair is happening, I'll have a livestream of video coverage on throughout the day. This is all an annual ritual for me. (I also pay attention to Origins and GenCon, but Essen is really the highlight of the year). Eventually, throughout next year, I'll get a chance to play a tiny fraction of the nearly 1,000 new games released. I've already pre-ordered 5 games which will probably be delivered in November or December. I'll likely buy at least another half dozen or so over the next few months. And I'll get to try many, many more if I make it out to any cons next year.
I'll spare you all my Top Ten Most Anticipated Essen Games 2017 List. Moving on...
All of that is an introduction to the fact that I'm on boardgamegeek.com a lot, especially this time of year. It's the only website that I check nearly daily, and have been doing so for 12+ years. But BGG isn't all games. There is a lot of social activity there all over the map. At the end of last month, I stumbled upon a "geeklist" dedicated to watching horror movies in October, watching a film a day. I hadn't been watching much so figured this might be a good impetus to get me to watch some stuff. And watching horror movies specifically means that I probably get to argue with Brandon, right? The Giants win 17-17. This one was a no-brainer for me. Because the zombies got my brain....ha ha groan.
I haven't kept up the pace of a film a day. Not even close. Here's what I have watched. I'm copying and pasting my quick comments from over on BGG:
Oct 2:
I re-watched Lost Boys this morning for the first time in a loooonng time. It was one of the first horror movies I ever watched, at age 9, at my friend Dave's sleepover birthday party. Between this film and the new video game he had received (Castlevania!), this night is burned into my memory, now and forever.
Re-watching it now, so many years later, I'm struck by how much of a kid's movie it really is. It's r-rated, but it has the same vibe as many of the pg-rated films of the 80s (which usually contained more swearing at least than a pg film could get away with today), where kids band together against unknown evils.
I don't recommend the film unless you're 9, at which age you shouldn't be watching it.
Oct 3:
Little Evil
Basic plot: Your stepson is the spawn of Satan.
Seen Before? N
Recommend? N
This one was more of a comedy in horror trappings. There were a few good moments in which I smiled or chuckled, but mostly it didn't work for me. I called the story arc from the beginning. There were no real surprises for me, so it was all about how it got there, and the humor just landed flat for me most of the time.
October 3rd: Les yeux sans visage (d.Georges Franju)
(English title is Eyes Without a Face)
Basic plot: A brilliant skin surgeon's daughter has a mangled face. He steals new faces for her from young girls off the streets.
Seen before? N
Recommend? YES!
This isn't just one of the best horror films I've ever seen. It's one of the best films that I've ever seen. There are no real "jump scare" moments, but there is a steady ratcheting up of dis-ease, an atmosphere of despair and decay that is suffocating. There is very little gore, but the subtle moments of violence are deeply disturbing.
October 24th: The Driller Killer (1979, Abel Ferrara)
Basic plot: A struggling painter goes insane. A power drill is involved.
Seen before? N
Recommend? I don't know
I don't really recommend this one, but I don't know, maybe I do. Abel Ferrara has always been a frustrating filmmaker for me. I can't help but be drawn into the dirtiness of his New York. There's something authentic about his violent and sexual aesthetic (the two are often tied in his work, as perhaps they too often are in NYC itself) that is lacking elsewhere. The Driller Killer is the most raw punk rock film I've seen in a while. It does what it wants. Its ballsiness, its flaunting of horror conventions, its i-dont-care-ness, demands some level of respect. It's not the straight slasher film that the title makes it out to be. It's really more of a psychological horror film.
There's a decent case to be made that all of the violence that occurs in the film takes place only in the head of the increasingly insane protagonist.
That's it for the horror. Besides the horror, I started the month by watching Things to Come and Destination Moon, two classic science fiction films I hadn't seen before. I was on a panel at RoberCon with a couple of BCF friends on the history of science fiction films. It went really well.
Both of those films are pretty amazing. You could have heard what I thought of them at the panel. I don't feel like writing about them now.
I saw Blade Runner 2049 last week. I forced myself to go see it. Was it worth seeing? I guess so. I'm glad I saw it. But it's not so great.
I recently completed my full re-watch of Breaking Bad. This has been a slow affair over the course of most of this year. I've now seen the entire series three full times (with some episodes seen much more than that). There are flaws. I was especially mindful of how grating some of the handheld camera work was this time through. Sometimes the plotting seemed too tidy, sometimes it seemed to almost lose itself. But mostly the show is still a glorious success. Its highs are really freaking high and its lows are dirty down-dogged low. Vince Gilligan and his crew are the best. I am so happy to have Better Call Saul to look forward to each year. I pray for Gilligan's continued good health and long, active career!!!
In other TV Club news, I've been watching....
The Gifted. Three episodes of this. I know that I should give up on it. It's not good. Three whole episodes have passed and nothing has happened. Just a lot of mutant shuffling and huffing and puffing. I'll probably drop it sooner or later, but right now I'm stubbornly holding onto it as my guilty superhero pleasure since I've dropped all other superhero shows (I made it a few episodes into last year's Flash season before finally giving up on it for good).
Star Trek: Discovery. It's not an accident that this show shares initials with sexually transmitted diseases. So, so bad.
The Orville. This, on the other hand, is the Star Trek show that I have been waiting 20 years for. I've never been a Seth MacFarlane fan. I've never been able to watch a full episode of family guy. I ruthlessly mocked the Ted Laugher. I didn't know anything else about the guy. But it's fall and there's new TV on, so I had my antenna out and randomly caught a new show called The Orville one night. And I've since gone to track down and watch the previous 4 episodes. The Orville is not perfect. But it's so much fun that I forgive it all of its imperfections and immaturities. I'm almost embarrassed to admit it, but it's the show that I am most looking forward to on a weekly basis right now.
I guess that's it. I've watched some more bad tv not worth mentioning. I'm looking forward to Season 2 of Stranger Things in a few days, but based on that trailer, I'm prepared to be disappointed big time. I was pleasantly surprised by Stranger Things last year and fell for it, enjoying every bit of it. But I haven't wanted to revisit Season 1 since then. And I'm not sure that I feel the need for a sequel any more. I definitely don't want one that opens up to a bigger mythology. The show was at its best when it was about small things, small relationships.
I still haven't seen mother! I couldn't get myself to care. Same with It. And Chris' and Brandon's recent posts havn't done anything to convince me otherwise.
And Brandon, I'm still not on the Spielberg wagon. I do think that most of his "legacy" consists of "products." Everyone has their Schindler's List lunch pails and Catch Me If You Can travel thermoses. And I still can't care. Even his best work does feel like so much corporate product to me. Maybe I've fallen for the PR line.
I've never strongly associated it with horror anything. The increasing commercialization of fright as it is tied into our cultural cycle is probably worthy of study. I don't understand why or exactly how the ghoulish partnered with the greedish. Candy companies want to sell candy. Costume companies want to sell costumes. Lawn decorations want to be on lawns. People, I guess, just want to have some naughty fun. Mostly, though, I find it all tacky and lacking any real resonance.
This annual celebration of scary things means very little to me. But there is another annual celebration at the end of October that I pay very close attention to every year. It also involves a great deal of manufacturing, selling, and buying. It is definitely a commercial holiday. I am of course speaking of the Internationale Spieltage SPIEL'17!!! That's the official name. Almost everyone in the U.S. refers to the event by the name of its city: Essen. This event at Essen is the biggest board game fair of the year, where most companies release their newest and best games for the year.
The past several weeks, I've scrolled through long lists of announced games. I've read previews and reviews. Later this week, as the fair is happening, I'll have a livestream of video coverage on throughout the day. This is all an annual ritual for me. (I also pay attention to Origins and GenCon, but Essen is really the highlight of the year). Eventually, throughout next year, I'll get a chance to play a tiny fraction of the nearly 1,000 new games released. I've already pre-ordered 5 games which will probably be delivered in November or December. I'll likely buy at least another half dozen or so over the next few months. And I'll get to try many, many more if I make it out to any cons next year.
I'll spare you all my Top Ten Most Anticipated Essen Games 2017 List. Moving on...
All of that is an introduction to the fact that I'm on boardgamegeek.com a lot, especially this time of year. It's the only website that I check nearly daily, and have been doing so for 12+ years. But BGG isn't all games. There is a lot of social activity there all over the map. At the end of last month, I stumbled upon a "geeklist" dedicated to watching horror movies in October, watching a film a day. I hadn't been watching much so figured this might be a good impetus to get me to watch some stuff. And watching horror movies specifically means that I probably get to argue with Brandon, right? The Giants win 17-17. This one was a no-brainer for me. Because the zombies got my brain....ha ha groan.
I haven't kept up the pace of a film a day. Not even close. Here's what I have watched. I'm copying and pasting my quick comments from over on BGG:
Oct 2:
I re-watched Lost Boys this morning for the first time in a loooonng time. It was one of the first horror movies I ever watched, at age 9, at my friend Dave's sleepover birthday party. Between this film and the new video game he had received (Castlevania!), this night is burned into my memory, now and forever.
Re-watching it now, so many years later, I'm struck by how much of a kid's movie it really is. It's r-rated, but it has the same vibe as many of the pg-rated films of the 80s (which usually contained more swearing at least than a pg film could get away with today), where kids band together against unknown evils.
I don't recommend the film unless you're 9, at which age you shouldn't be watching it.
Oct 3:
Little Evil
Basic plot: Your stepson is the spawn of Satan.
Seen Before? N
Recommend? N
This one was more of a comedy in horror trappings. There were a few good moments in which I smiled or chuckled, but mostly it didn't work for me. I called the story arc from the beginning. There were no real surprises for me, so it was all about how it got there, and the humor just landed flat for me most of the time.
October 3rd: Les yeux sans visage (d.Georges Franju)
(English title is Eyes Without a Face)
Basic plot: A brilliant skin surgeon's daughter has a mangled face. He steals new faces for her from young girls off the streets.
Seen before? N
Recommend? YES!
This isn't just one of the best horror films I've ever seen. It's one of the best films that I've ever seen. There are no real "jump scare" moments, but there is a steady ratcheting up of dis-ease, an atmosphere of despair and decay that is suffocating. There is very little gore, but the subtle moments of violence are deeply disturbing.
October 7th: The Green Inferno (2013, Eli Roth)
Basic plot: A group of idealistic student activists go to the jungle to save a village from bulldozers. They get eaten by the tribe they're trying to save.
Seen before? N
Recommend? No
I wanted to like this one. I did like it up to a certain point.
My biggest problem was when the activist leader was revealed as a selfish, compromised jerk. This is a twist that takes the edge off of the horror of do-gooders realizing that their conception of the world was way too simplistic. Being confronted by this betrayal becomes worse than being eaten alive by cannibals. This is especially clear in the way that the rest of the film plays out and especially in how it ends. Ugh.
I was also bored by much of the body horror/gore. The first kill is staged pretty wonderfully, almost comically, but it gets old fast. And the film completely lost me in the scene of almost but not quite saved at the last minute female genital mutilation. It's not that I wanted to see this depicted onscreen, but the staging of this and the way it is resolved just led me to believe that Roth was acting cowardly, playing it safe in the land of horror conventions instead of doing anything really scary. The fact that our privileged point of view character gets away lets the viewer get away. We're able to feel good about ourselves and log another film on the BGG Slashing Through Cinema geeklist.
Oct 12th:
DAY OF THE DEAD.
Seen before? Nope
Recommend? Yup
I never knew that I was such a huge Romero fan until I watched Dawn of the Dead several years ago. Day isn't quite as good as Dawn, but it's pretty danged good.
Basic plot: A struggling painter goes insane. A power drill is involved.
Seen before? N
Recommend? I don't know
I don't really recommend this one, but I don't know, maybe I do. Abel Ferrara has always been a frustrating filmmaker for me. I can't help but be drawn into the dirtiness of his New York. There's something authentic about his violent and sexual aesthetic (the two are often tied in his work, as perhaps they too often are in NYC itself) that is lacking elsewhere. The Driller Killer is the most raw punk rock film I've seen in a while. It does what it wants. Its ballsiness, its flaunting of horror conventions, its i-dont-care-ness, demands some level of respect. It's not the straight slasher film that the title makes it out to be. It's really more of a psychological horror film.
There's a decent case to be made that all of the violence that occurs in the film takes place only in the head of the increasingly insane protagonist.
That's it for the horror. Besides the horror, I started the month by watching Things to Come and Destination Moon, two classic science fiction films I hadn't seen before. I was on a panel at RoberCon with a couple of BCF friends on the history of science fiction films. It went really well.
Both of those films are pretty amazing. You could have heard what I thought of them at the panel. I don't feel like writing about them now.
I saw Blade Runner 2049 last week. I forced myself to go see it. Was it worth seeing? I guess so. I'm glad I saw it. But it's not so great.
I recently completed my full re-watch of Breaking Bad. This has been a slow affair over the course of most of this year. I've now seen the entire series three full times (with some episodes seen much more than that). There are flaws. I was especially mindful of how grating some of the handheld camera work was this time through. Sometimes the plotting seemed too tidy, sometimes it seemed to almost lose itself. But mostly the show is still a glorious success. Its highs are really freaking high and its lows are dirty down-dogged low. Vince Gilligan and his crew are the best. I am so happy to have Better Call Saul to look forward to each year. I pray for Gilligan's continued good health and long, active career!!!
In other TV Club news, I've been watching....
The Gifted. Three episodes of this. I know that I should give up on it. It's not good. Three whole episodes have passed and nothing has happened. Just a lot of mutant shuffling and huffing and puffing. I'll probably drop it sooner or later, but right now I'm stubbornly holding onto it as my guilty superhero pleasure since I've dropped all other superhero shows (I made it a few episodes into last year's Flash season before finally giving up on it for good).
Star Trek: Discovery. It's not an accident that this show shares initials with sexually transmitted diseases. So, so bad.
The Orville. This, on the other hand, is the Star Trek show that I have been waiting 20 years for. I've never been a Seth MacFarlane fan. I've never been able to watch a full episode of family guy. I ruthlessly mocked the Ted Laugher. I didn't know anything else about the guy. But it's fall and there's new TV on, so I had my antenna out and randomly caught a new show called The Orville one night. And I've since gone to track down and watch the previous 4 episodes. The Orville is not perfect. But it's so much fun that I forgive it all of its imperfections and immaturities. I'm almost embarrassed to admit it, but it's the show that I am most looking forward to on a weekly basis right now.
I guess that's it. I've watched some more bad tv not worth mentioning. I'm looking forward to Season 2 of Stranger Things in a few days, but based on that trailer, I'm prepared to be disappointed big time. I was pleasantly surprised by Stranger Things last year and fell for it, enjoying every bit of it. But I haven't wanted to revisit Season 1 since then. And I'm not sure that I feel the need for a sequel any more. I definitely don't want one that opens up to a bigger mythology. The show was at its best when it was about small things, small relationships.
I still haven't seen mother! I couldn't get myself to care. Same with It. And Chris' and Brandon's recent posts havn't done anything to convince me otherwise.
And Brandon, I'm still not on the Spielberg wagon. I do think that most of his "legacy" consists of "products." Everyone has their Schindler's List lunch pails and Catch Me If You Can travel thermoses. And I still can't care. Even his best work does feel like so much corporate product to me. Maybe I've fallen for the PR line.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)