BLOOD BROTHER (Steve Hoover, 2013)

       Documentaries are starting to have a real problem: They're all the same. Most directors prefer to stay a certain distance from their subject, even if they have every reason to move closer. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a secret committee who only approved of one type of documentary, forcing 99% of them to have the same construction.
       Blood Brother is a movie that's probably going to get a 98% on Rotten Tomatoes. Like most social documentaries, who wouldn't like it? It's a great story. Rocky Bratt, a  somewhat troubled young American, goes to India and finds himself loving his life at an HIV orphanage. Bratt really engages with the kids, gets his heart broken nearly as often as he succeeds, and loves the country in general.
       So what's not to like? The film seems empty, in a word. The entire opening is Rocky doing nothing in particular in America. The footage is great, but assembled in such a way that I don't know what the aim was? Rocky? The kids? Rocky's relationships? HIV? It's just bogged down, and deemphasizes the kids in such a way that it falls dangerously close to the "White Savior" treatment.
       The film's structure is just odd, having the imprint of a traditional narrative, but ultimately cannot put it all together. It's like a few strips of tape were slapped over the entire thing. Rocky is the only true character in the film. The kids are like props, occasionally being brought out and held up to the camera. The frustrating thing is that we certainly see enough footage that could really illustrate certain children and bring them to the spotlight. The one boy, who gets dangerously sick towards the end, is said to "always be around" yet we see him twice- in his sloppy introduction, and when he's near death.
       The music, combined with the editing, adds another depth of irritation to the film. The mythical Documentary Committee I mentioned earlier apparently only approves of films that have a few "happy" montages of people dancing and running, and scored by a strummy string quartet piece. If we're having a flashback, better have some animated sketches.
        Documentary has really become flavorless recently. Sure, there's exceptions that really try to do something interesting and "represent the truth"in an honest and engaging way- I'm thinking along the lines of Restrepo, Exit Through the Gift Shop, Smartest Guys in the Room, Inside Job and Waltz with Bashir. But the vast majority seem to fall under the vanilla production line aesthetic of Jiro Dreams of Sushi, Hell and Back Again, and now Blood Brother.
        The real tragedy of Blood Brother is not just that's its bland, typical, and out of focus, it's that it could easily be good. There are editors and directors that could take the innumerable hours of raw footage shot and make something truly engaging, intelligent and downright interesting. If  Blood Brother told a bad story, it wouldn't be as infuriating as its end result: A good story told in a bad way.

BLUE JASMINE (Woody Allen, 2013)

       Woody Allen has recently been quite hit-or-miss, but he truly makes whatever he wants, be it dramas (Match Point), vignettes (To Rome with Love) or experimental narratives (Melinda and Melinda). However, really nothing he has made has been terrible. Allen's last massive success was Midnight and Paris, a wackily set human comedy that drew great attention for its historical aspects, even though it had some weaknesses.
       However, with Blue Jasmine, Allen scores his best film in some time, and truthfully, one of his best period. Cate Blanchet's performance is simply unreal, and without a doubt the highlight of the film. It actually becomes uncomfortable to watch the nervous breakdowns of Jasmine about her state of life, relationship issues, and unsure future.
       Forced to move in with her sister after her husband is imprisoned for financial fraud a la Bernie Madoff, Jasmine moves to San Francisco, claiming she's out of money despite her first class plane ticket and refusal to sell her designer clothes. Alec Baldwin, in flashback, plays Jasmine's husband, and Baldwin may be the weakest link in the film. Not because of his performance, but  simply because of his underutilization. Baldwin doesn't do anything in particular, but really, this is an issue that only arises in retrospect.
       Great performances dot every minute of the film. Sally Hawkins is brilliant as Jasmine's meek "lower-class" sister. Bobby Cannavale is great as her current boyfriend, while her fling is portrayed by Louis C.K., who is good enough to not be completely distracting. However, the best performance in the film is by Andrew Dice Clay, the critical scorned abrasive comedian, as Jasmine's ex-brother-in-law, resentful towards his entirely family and emotionally reeling both times we see him- first trying to fit in with Jasmine's high society, and then hurt financially by Baldwin's money games. Michael Sturburg is both pathetic and unsettling as Jasmine's temporary employer.
       Allen structures the film in a certainly peculiar manner, abruptly changing from past to present. In fact, I was lost for a few seconds in a time change, although I quickly recovered and dove back into the film. Allen creates an interesting tone as well, mixing emotionally raw drama with dry humor, kind of like his typical style mixed with Cassavetes. It's a unique blend, and one I can't think of having seen before. Unflinchingly, I would declare Blue Jasmine as Allen's best film since (at least) Hannah and Her Sisters, which is no small feat, considering the strengths of Match Point, Mighty Aphrodite,  and Midnight in Paris. Allen creates a very real portrait of modern emotional turmoil with Blue Jasmine caused from betrayal, snootiness, and culture shock.

Spike Lee- Power through Freedom

       Currently a hugely controversial figure for his commentary and actions, Spike Lee is, for some reason, hated on the internet, although really, they should love him. Currently, it's hard for me to think of a filmmaker whose voice through his films is so loud and consistent throughout his body of work. However, that's not saying every film is the same, in fact, the truth couldn't be further from that.
       Lee's real-life, and thus cinematic, home is Brooklyn, and thus most of his films are not only set there, but reek of the attitude and life of Brooklyn. Lee got his start from independent filmmaking, and despite a relationship with Universal Pictures, has remained very much an independent filmmaker, denying the industry of content that would typically be consumed by the masses. Because of this, the "controversy" the internet brewed over his kickstarter is particularly absurd. The internet seemed to have zero problem with the Veronica Mars movie, even though that was being made by more people and asked for much more money. Lee has stated that he crowd-funded before Kickstarter existed, and that is very much true. 2012's Red Hook Summer was self-funded, and the film is truly very good.
      However, RHS, like much of Lee's work, features a trademark of his style some would see as a weakness- his pacing is a bit odd, and some aspects of the story are rushed or simply forgetten. FOr example, the revelation about the reverend in Red Hook Summer comes out of seemingly nowhere, while a building of a ten-year marriage of Bleek and Indigo in Mo' Better Blues is rushed at the end, allowing the story to end in a cycle, a neat technique but one that isn't needed.
         Lee is one of the rare modern filmmakers who constantly feels the need to innovate and experiment with his work, adding in odd camera angles and story structures. Perhaps one of the best example of this appears in Mo' Better, where Bleek calls the two women in his life by the others' name. the scene is shot as if they were in the same room, with Bleek turning different directions to address the different woman.
       Lee's career can be best defined by two films- Do the Right Thing, which I previously discussed at length, and Four Little Girls, a powerful documentary about the bombing of the Birmingham Baptist Church at the peak of the Civil Rights Movement. Lee understands this to a degree. After DtRT, Lee made MBM, certainly a good film, but far from the sprawling, powerful, and poignant the preceded it. Lee's career may have been in jeopardy if he followed Do the Right Thing with Jungle Fever, a similarly themed film that pales in comparison due to some hokey and goofy moments, despite some really great scenes and powerful performances.
        Lee does not get the reputation he deserves, often just criticized for controversial statements. Lee currently takes heavy heat because of his remaking of Oldboy, an inexplicably popular Korean film with a cheap, stupid ending. Even if one likes the original film, one should realize that it's not an unbridled masterpiece, and how interesting it would be to see Lee tell the story in his own way, with his own characteristic flair

MEDIUM COOL (Haskell Wexler, 1969)

       Hollywood, eternally five years behind culture because of long production schedules, finally caught up to the social revolution in the late 1960's, birthing the New Hollywood movement with films like The Graduate and Easy Rider. Haskell Wexler, famed cinematographer, decided to get to the heart of the issue of America and start a revolution in film at the same time. The film tells the story of a devoted and moral cameraman, John, who is placed amongst real footage.
        Medium Cool revolutionary technique was fictional use of cinema verite, blended with real documentary footage that aided the plot, as well as Easy Rider-esque editing and structure. John attempts to get the footage he wants to shoot, not the footage his unscrupulous boss desires so it can be sold to the police and FBI.
        The film bluntly states its mission in one of the earliest scenes, which is a long, documentary styled sequence in which a party discusses the merits of television as a medium and the moral responsibilities of a camera man. The opening shows John and his sound cooly looking at a highway wreck, and only after getting footage so they call the police. At the film's abrupt conclusion, we are once again presented the situation. However, Wexler does not give us an answer explicitly, as we must find our own. Should a cameraman be more camera or more man?
       The first half is John operating as a camera, going to various locations and filming what he is assigned. However, his humanity undercuts everything, forcing him to focus on a human interest story of a black man who returns money found in the cab. The story is unpopular with the man's friends, who see him as interested in the man because of his race and accuse John of attempting to make a circus out of the act ("Human Interest? Are humans going to be interested by us, or we humans?") while John's television boss finds the story bland, and eventually fires John.
       The next half shows John's humanity, undercut with his profession. He falls for a woman, Eileen, with a young son, Harold, who he cares deeply for. John takes a break and falls in love with Eleen, although he stays interested in society. One incredibly scene involved shaky, free footage of a hippie nightclub, using bright colors and odd cuts in harmony.
       The film's most memorable scene is the very end, in which Harold runs off while Eileen looks for him amidst the Democratic National Convention Riots. While Eileen is there, we see real footage of police brutality. Wexler predicted a riot at the convention, yet not the fact the police instigated the incident. The riot sequence is more a historial document that a part of the film's narrative, though it feeds the environment and tone of the film. It is edited in such a way that we never forget where we are: The convention, yet still with Eileen. The plot still lives even through the reality of the footage, a feat nearly impossible to pull off.
       However, Medium Cool is mainly remembered as a time capsule rather than a work of film. Truthfully, I admire its structure greatly, as well as the risks it took. The film succeeds at its ambitious reach, standing as both a history and a work of art.

LIFEBOAT (Alfred Hitchcock, 1944)

       I must apologize, non-existent readers, for missing a few days. I'll be busier now, as I'm returning to University in a few days, but I'll try to keep up. And what a way to get back- Hitchcock's birthday. I figured since I looked at Bunuel (and hopefully I'll look at his films one by one soon) I should cover old Hitch, a director everyone should admire. Covering all of Hitchcock is too much, so for this week I'll look at a few of his films, starting with one of his strangest and weakest.
       Lifeboat instantly had me hooked with the premise- survivors from a  WWII attack are stuck on a lifeboat, and take on a German from the U-Boat that sunk them. Hitchcock utilizes the limited setting well, as one would expect, allowing us to grow attached to the characters and the setting. The film is well directed and shot certainly, like all of Hitchcock, but surprisingly it feels bare, and even downright ugly under the surface.
       Perhaps the biggest problem lies in the script, based on a story by John Steinbeck, although the acclaimed novelist was supposedly displeased by the adaptation. The film is solely a product of its time. Bill, the African-American man on the boat, or portrayed as a weak stereotype, forever grateful to his white saviors. Even for the forties, where a modern audience needs to have some patience with stereotypes on screen, its exhausting and off-putting.
       But the biggest issue is even more of a remnant- the total villainization of Germans. The U-Boat captain is simply an evil twisted man, but is meant to resemble all Germans in an incredibly ugly caricature. The Captain attempts to steer out boat directly to his own ship, leading all of the survivors into capture, and freeing himself, and also hoards water from the others. The film concludes shockingly, as the survivors straight up beat the man nearly, if not completely, to death, throw him off the boat, and bash him with an oar to prevent him from boarding.
        However, the ugliest and most dated scene of the film is when the lifeboat is spotted by a Nazi ship, which is soon bombed. The lifeboat picks up another German, a young sailor, who draws a gun on the survivors. Now, doing this is not only pathetic, but also cowardly, further bringing down the reputation of the German in Lifeboat. And of course, the German in ultimately weak when confronted, seen when the survivors strip him of the gun easily, leaving his fate to them as they swarm him, and ending with the question:

"What do you do with people like that?"

       Even for a piece of propaganda, that's pretty terrible, especially with the Hitchcock and Steinbeck names attached. I know I dealt mainly with the plot, which is unfair in a way, since the film itself, from a technical standpoint, is pretty outstanding, exploring a small space well and bouncing back between characters, and films like Birth of a Nation get passes for controversial content because of their merit. While I think that could be true and one needs to look at the time period to analyze a film, Lifeboat's importance isn't on par with BoaN. However, Lifeboat should still be seen as a technical piece and viewed through the lens that the film is a trumped up propaganda piece when analyzing the messages.
     

MONSIEUR VERDOUX (Charles Chaplin, 1947)

       Today, Charlie Chaplin is perhaps the most recognizable icon in film history, and at least silent film's most recognizable icon. Chaplin is pretty much only remembered for his tramp character, which he lived under for his entire career. Even his 1940 transition to talking pictures, The Great Dictator, a highly political comedy which satirizes Adolph Hitler, uses a tramp-look-alike, even though Chaplin insisted that this was not the tramp. Chaplin only completely left the charcter behind in the dark comedy Monsieur Verdoux.
       Chaplin is the title character, a french family man who, after being left jobless in the stock crash, began to wed and murder wealthy woman, feeling completely justified in his actions to acquire money for his family. The idea was first conceived by Orson Welles, who was very close to directing (and partially writing) the film, but Chaplin grew uncomfortable with the notion of not having total control. Welles later said that his version would have been better, not that Chaplin's was bad. Welles, I believe, was right on both counts.
       Chaplin, of course, shows his acting brilliance as Verdoux, and the film shines at several moments. Perhaps the most blatantly hilarious scene involves Verdoux trying to kill a wife while fishing, and failing miserably at every attempt. Some supporting characters, like the family of one of his victims, are just fantastic, as the entire family seems to be completely incompetent.
       However, Chaplin was not a great director, and is stuck in the silent era with his flat images and closed spaces. Sure, its not bad, but Welles could have certainly made a more visually interesting film. Chaplin also seemed to struggle with the other side of film creation, not knowing what to do with the story of the actors. The plot of Verdoux's family is woefully underdeveloped, and has zero closure. It's assumed they die, or at least leave, but we never know. They simply evaporate from the film. The beautiful swedish ex-convict has zero development, and we hardly know her. It is fine when Verdoux lets her go, but when she reappears at the film's end, it is hard to care about her now. Another issue lies with the ending. Like the Great Dictator, we have another monologue, this time in the form of a closing court statement, but it now seems detached from the film. Dictator's monologue is seperate from the film as well, but at least has some ties. The sweeping statement from Verdoux, where the character points out society's acceptance of war and soldiers but condemns those that murder "one, instead of millions" is powerful, but oddly inserted.
       It is easy to see why Verdoux was unpopular at the time and resulted in a hit to Chaplin's reputation. Not only is the hero a murderer and without remorse, he is anti-religious, anti-war, and anti-nationalist, and is depicted as a certain gentleman. Chapin was later exiled for his communist sympathies, after Limelight. Despite Verdoux's flaws, and the fact that it could have been a masterpiece with a Welles-Chaplin collaboration, it is still a solid and entertaining film.

ONLY GOD FORGIVES (Nicholas Winding Refn, 2013)

     

         Maximization is the easiest way to hide terrible craftmanship. If you have nothing except sex, you have porn. Nicholas Winding Refn tries to prove that with nothing but violence you have art. Well, in a way, of course you do. Porn is art as well.
        Now, Refn wants us to believe there is a deep meaning behind the pretentious mess that is Only God Forgives. Sure, there's some "symbolism" alluding to a man's anger towards an ultimately powerful God, and futile attempts to betray God, and an ultimate penance. However, everything is so blunt and obvious, it requires zero work from the audience member. Now, people claim OGF gets bashed because people didn't expect an art film. True critics can adapt their expectations, as I did, but OGF  is just shallow and full of itself. But really, that shouldn't shock me.
        Like Refn's other work, OGF is flooded with bright colors and pulsing electronic music. The characters talk stiffly, and here, its essentially a self-parody of the language in Drive and the awful Valhalla Rising. While not awful, I must say that Drive is not the masterpiece many claim it is. The atmosphere is cool as hell, but the film is pretentious and dopey, obviously striving to be remembered as the "unconvential classic" that college pot heads have posters of in their dorm rooms. OGF lacks the cool atmosphere. The color pallet actually becomes boring as hell. However, the soundtrack is interesting, but unfortunately its piled upon layers and layers of uninteresting. Its like a layered dip made of rancid meat, curdled sour cream, acidic and slimy beans, soggy chips, wilted lettuce, and some pretty good Cheddar. Who the hell cares if the cheese is good? No ones going to notice.
         The film is just so obvious yet striving to stay edgy and mysterious, its just goofy. The violence, most of the time, means nothing. The Kareokee scenes are just goddamn stupid, as are scenes of Chang, one of the blandest villains I've ever seen, possibly even trumping the gangsters in Mud. Yeah, he's a warlord, but look how he treats his daughter!!! I mean, how many times have we seen that? I don't even think it's possible to count.
        I don't even know how else to convey that this film is awful, yet I understood every goddamned second of it. It's so shallow, yet think's its the deep end, and you an practically imagine a stoned Refn sitting at an end of a bed, explaining to you while using his hands animatedly "Yeah, but, Chang, man, he's like a God, and Ryan Gossling, I mean Julian, man, he's like, I don't know, uh, working for Satan. His family, they're sinners, man, and he fights and fights, until he realizes 'Oh shit, man.' But then God, I mean, Chang, man, his brand of forgivness is sacrifice. His hands, man. I'm gonna show his hands, cuz that's all he has, man. Oh, and red. I'm gonna show a lot of red. And Blue. Because of, like, satan and god, man." I am actually offended that Refn wants people to buy into this obvious, insulting, exceedingly violent for violence's sake piece of neon coated shit, and just depressed that people do.
       Refn has proven to me, without a doubt in the world, that he is a hack. Refn's filmography is a bastardized orphan of Kubrick, Lynch, Michael Mann, and Quentin Tarantino, yet has no idea what to do with his influences, so throws everything into a blender and pours out goddamn messes every time. At least Drive is watchable, even re-watchable, despite it's flaws and annoying tendencies and tones, but OGF is just unbearable.