Notes on other films over lockdown (pros and cons)

Pan’s Labyrinth

• The balance and juxtaposition between reality and fantasy and the way they seamlessly intertwine: both through the skill of the direction (moving foreground wipe-edges of the same frame) and the unerringly strong narrative thread – notwithstanding location (and tight-knit confinement accentuates this), each scene has same atmospheric potency. Scene where Ofelia opens the book to find it blooded and is brought back to her mother’s situation a great subtle example of how films grounded and parallels the two different realms together
• Film effectively ruminates on and examines a number of themes: duty (both forced and willing) – the Captain’s maniacal pursuit of rebels, as well as Ofelia’s undertaking of the three tasks/Mercedes and doctor within the household; entrapment: Ofelia within the house and on a wider scale the fantasy realm lying below what is a pitiable and much less worthy one above and co-dependence: most starkly Ofelia and the fantasy creatures (she revitalises the kingdom and they help save her mother whilst opening her eyes up to otherwise intangible experiences).
• Another great aspect of the film is the perception of fairy tales as a light escape from the darkness of the real world but the film expertly shows (through scenes like the Pale Man one, as well as the sombre design of the Labyrinth) fairy tales are equally as dark
• So many emotionally touching moments: Ofelia speaking to her unborn brother, the deaths of the doctor/Ofelia’s mother, and of course the end: hits home hard
• Great irony of Captain’s facial injury – juxtaposition of the opening shaving scenes to him stitching his mouth up – externally as well as internally he’s become disformed and monstrous – dark manifestation blending two worlds together figuratively
• Ending brings things full circle – til-this-point lack of emotional attachment between Ofelia and her brother is turned on its head – self-sacrifice paying dividends. Incredibly eerie and disconcerting juxtaposition between the harsh melancholia of her death in the real world and the joyous reincarnation of her homecoming – FUCKING TERRIFIC CLOSE: WOW
• Performances: Sergi Lopez is straight-up terrifying as the evil Captain: there’s a metronomic and cold nature to his sinister-ness that makes it all the more chilling: headliner in my eyes. Ivana Banquero puts in one of the best child performances I’ve ever seen as Ofelia: most noticeable aspect is the extent of her bravery amongst the wide-eyed innocence. Maribel Verdu brings a haunting perpetual sadness to Mercedes and Doug Jones transforms del Toro’s crazy ideas into material manifestation: exertion and physicality of his performance not lost beneath all the prosthetics

• The CGI for some of the creatures is a bit ropey: that’s it

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

• Film is largely a real treat – cos of the surreal and unconventional way it depicts a romantic relationship – through the inauspicious means of the two trying to erase each other from their memories; film is very balanced in taking us through the good and bad experiences they shared together
• The initial mini-section of Joel’s memory identification and subsequent wiping is very well directed – evokes serious overstimulation from audience POV and basically puts us in Joel’s shoes
• When characters become self-aware and fight to resist the memory erasing process – film blends genres to become a sort of thriller (that’s how I saw it) on top of a rom-com. This also acts as another device to explore the nooks and cranies of Joel/Clem’s relationship – provides a much more engaging alternative from simply going through the memories
• Even though it’s clearly signposted, the chalk-and-cheese aspect of Joel and Clem’s relationship doesn’t feel forced/caricatured – mainly due to the excellent performances from Carrey (considering he’s playing against type) and Winslet especially (nearly steals it), as well as the effortless chemistry they are able to convey
• The fact that the characters of Howard and Stan are quite dumb, and in the case of the latter relatively flippant about the procedure suggests to me that the film’s aware of the silliness of its central concept and is not taking itself too seriously – another reason why it works
• Also – note how the memory world is grounded in some form of concrete structure – augments credibility and means it holds together
• Memory of Joel and Clem’s first meeting is tremendous – the balance of reliving the actual memory and self-aware rumination/conversation between the two maximises emotional impact
• End is excruciating and doesn’t pull any punches – Joel and Clem trying to weave out a connection/understanding whilst being battered with respective raw emotional outpourings of contempt for one another – the ugly side of a relationship that is normally not seen/heard until things go tits up. The treacly ending is earned after all the shit they go through first
• Blend of Gondry’s ambitious and visually transformative direction in creating the imaginary world and Kaufmann’s bonkers storytelling and witty, ultimately romantic dialogue – a wonderful concoction is formed

• Section with 4-year-old Joel and knee-high boots Clem seems to be where film kinda overreaches its silliness and loses its track slightly
• Not to pun but romance triangle side plot between Howard, Mary

Once Upon a Time in America

• The entire childhood section is arguably the most important part for many reasons: firstly the first con/sleaze trick that Noodles and Max pull on the policeman is purely entertaining and excellently staged. The section deals with a lot of important themes e.g. loss of innocence, power balance, naivety, brutality etc in a short space of time whilst also providing all the emotional groundwork and sympathetic investment for the rest of the film: especially in relation to Noodles and Deborah. All the child actors were brilliant (particularly Rusty Jacobs as young Max)
• The film is slowly directed but juxtaposes this with intertwining moments of real harshness: sometimes entertaining e.g. scene with Carol at Fat Moe’s, sometimes cut-throat e.g. Noodles raping Deborah – this scene is also true to his character: impulsiveness and lust are clear recognisable traits starting from his childhood
• Whilst being limited, the score is quite beautiful and moving; has a lingering effect which allows you to not tier of it in a 3hr 40 min film – special appreciation for the Deborah theme
• In terms of adult performances De Niro is standardly solid but James Woods provides the best turn – there’s a real edge and menace that he adds to Max which makes his psychotic elements more believable
• The film does a consistent job of subtly scrutinising the power dynamic between Max and Noodles and how their contrasting aspirations (Max is more ambitious, Noodles more practical and conventional) force them apart from each other
• Manages time shifts very deftly – if you concentrate you shouldn’t get lost, and dropping in some old Noodles scenes through the course of the film adds something extra to the end. Also very strong narrative consistency
• Revelation of Max stealing Deborah is ultimate sucker punch for Noodles: considering he spends so much of the film torn between her and the gang – Max displaying that he can get everything while Noodles get nothing
• This is what makes the ending so awesome – Max is so certain that his plan to have Noodles kill him will work, considering the former point as well as all the false pain and guilt Noodles has pent up over the years thinking his betrayal cost Max’s life: Noodles’ resistance shows character development over the course of the film. As a side note – love how Noodles kept addressing Max as Mr Bailey – made the moment even sweeter

• Adult Deborah is underdeveloped – not helped by quite a wooden performance from Elizabeth McGovern. Shame considering Jennifer Connolly was so good as young Deborah
• Film takes 35 mins to fully start – preamble is important but it can slightly wear patience thin when looking back with hindsight
• Film introduces Frankie (Joe Pesci) in what looks like a decently sized role before discarding him without a second’s thought

Paths of Glory

• Kubrick’s anti-war message/agenda here is so successfully invoked/integrated precisely because of the humane and stripped down nature of the narrative – he attacks militaristic bureaucracy and exposes its unempathetic nature, alongside extreme internal division as some of the harshest realities of war – also ones which aren’t prolifically examined cinematically
• Here’s a film that displays Kubrick’s affiliation with the extended camera movement but he utilises this with variety e.g. narrow lens as Dax passes down the trench, wider angles as the men swarm over the top like mice into No Man’s Land. Other excellent examples is the tracking shot visually facing the three condemned men – Kubrick showing how clinical camera work can mine substance as well as style and dig deep into our emotions
• Kirk Douglas gets perfect balance of subjugation in the face of cold, ruthless, unaccountable authority (everything starts from the top and works its way down) and visceral exclamations of anger and hunt regarding the injustice of the condemned – an unshowy yet commanding performance
• Also props to George Macready as Paul Mireau – captures the megalomania of a character capable of ordering the murder of his own men whilst believing with complete conviction that he is a moral bastion to be followed
• Nice cathartic touch in making Lieutenant Roget carry out the execution – Dax compelling him to confront the irony of his own cowardice that is responsible for the men’s deaths
• Closing scene appears contradictory to everything movie has thus shown – but it’s genius, as it exposes the bone-headedness and futility of blind patriotism – shrouds the end in forlorn melancholia

• This film is very close to flawless – if I’m reaching I’ll say that the guy who plays Roget isn’t a great actor and the Major General character is a bit of a caricature

Double Indemnity

• Film is dripping with noir-type atmosphere: for a number of reasons. Script: the ratatat-type hardboiled dialogue and voiceover flashback generally works brilliantly in establishing necessary rapid pace and proving how this film was the Godfather of the noir genre
• Particularly effective in relation to first convo between Neff and Phyllis – clearly transmits how both are impulsive, ambitiously forward-thinking individuals who would have the balls to pull this off: film’s great credit is that it is very nuanced about their respective motivations for acting: surface level is material greed and lust but neither seem massively aspect in romantic aspect or the financial reapings that result. In this respect, they are characters that massively value style over substance – thrill of committing the crime more intoxicating than any benefits it might bring. Despite moral reprehension, film finds a way of making us root for them as a collective until it begins to fracture
• Large part due to two lead performances: Fred MacMurray pushed to the limit in terms of delivering huge chunks of rapid-fire dialogue and channelling the frayed nerves of a guilty man whose match-end is shortening towards the film’s end. Despite her iffy accent, Barbara Stanwyck is a nuancedly forceful screen presence as Phyllis – that close-up on her face as her husband is being murdered is simultaneously cold and playful: kind of character who is both capable and comfortable manipulating everyone around her. Edward Robinson gives great kinetically bullish performance as Keyes, who’s effectively an antagonist throughout the majority of the film
• Retrospective praise for loomingly haunting repeat image of man on crutches in opening credits
• Film’s tense grip is pretty vicelike: largely due to watertightness and relentlessness of narrative and the rather foreboding score
• You only realise it right at the end but the voiceover is the tangible thread of emotional connection between Keyes and Neff: despite these guys being on opposite teams for most of the film, there’s a casual banter and deep mutual respect between them almost resembling a father-son relationship

• Occasionally, hard-boiled dialogue is just slightly overbearing
• Miner quibble but Phyllis speaks with pretty identifiable Brooklyn accent despite being a native Californian

Memento

• Intelligence of the opening shot – such a subtle yet brilliant way of forecasting the nature of how events will unfold
• Narration that Leonard gives through black and white sequences solves the plot hole of how he knows that he has the condition – conditioning and repetition. This is juxtaposed against the story of Sammy Jankis – which establishes wider audience understanding for anterograde amnesia as well as a moral complication for Leonard
• Narrative craft and control that Nolan possess is ridiculous – balancing two contrasting threads, one of which being told reverse chronologically, whilst maintaining an overall semblance of coherence. It’s all in the service of character and story as opposed to just being pretentious – puts the viewer inside Leonard’s mind through the colour sequences; best sign of a noir is that you piece together info at the same time as the lead character does – but Leonard’s disability adds a tension and intrigue that elevates this narrative genre to special heights
• Film has surprising number of witty, humorous moments considering dark and tense story that unfolds – multiple ways of exploring/dramatizing Leonard’s memory
• On top of memory, manipulation is another major theme of the film. Three characters that Leonard interacts with exploit Leonard to some degree (Teddy by convincing him John G is still out there, Natalie by getting him to force Dodd out; even Burt for something so simple as charging an extra room fee). Leonard at odds with those closest to him, as well as himself and his own psyche
• The three billed performances are all noteworthy; Guy Pearce especially gives as astoundingly consistent and convincing performance considering he’s on screen for nearly the entire film – inherently captures the fractured nature of a man trying in vain to piece his life back together. Carrie-Anne Moss is enigmatic and fascinating as the unconventional femme fatalle, while Joe Pantoliano is connivingly sinister as Teddy.
• Great thing about the ending is that as we’re still seeing things from Leonard’s POV, Teddy’s statements/twists have a layer of ambiguity within them – we don’t really know who to believe
• Ending does not massively stunt emotional drive of the film – discovering the futility of Leonard’s investigation hits hard, considering it is the one thing he’d been clinging onto/we’d been following throughout the film’s narrative progression. Love how Leonard uses Teddy’s words against him in embedding his distrust of him into his psyche – lying to himself gives his actions meaning in terms of righting wrongs done against him – cathartic that he is able to retain some agency

• That being said – the Usual Suspects-type twist still leaves me generally more confused than fulfilled – and that’s on two viewings
• Convo with Teddy in the car the one instance where film kinda loses its nuance – especially regarding Teddy’s motivation and why he would disclose all that

Psycho

• In the first 30 minutes, we see Hitchcock doing what he does best – visual storytelling and the setup of guilty ordinary person trapped in criminal situation. The combo of invasive, close-ups of Marion and the subtle camera movements as she tries to suss out whether she’s being tailed all amalgamate into a vibe of serious paranoia
• Bernard Hermann’s score honestly elevates this film several notches: just leaves you feeling perennially uneasy/apprehensive and the famous screeching strings is an iconic film moment
• From the initial conversation between Norman and Marion, through its barefaced honesty, we glean both a tangible feeling of discomfort as well as a strange element of common ground between the pair (like they’re gonna be long-term players for the rest of the film). Clever because it makes the famous shower scene less predictable whilst building up enough of an air of creepiness that it’s still quite shocking
• The staging of Norman meticulously cleaning the bathroom and eradicating all evidence of the murder really does add to its chilling nature – again great direction
• Again, in regards to direction and camerawork, it consistently feels like an illicit observer – variety of styles/types of shot as well so its not one-track in its focus but as informative as the general narrative is to the situation
• Quite like the directness of how Sam approaches the convo with Norman (even tho it lacks a certain logic) cos it allows Hitchcock to keep playing with the relative red herring of the $40,000 and its relevance to Marion’s murder
• Sequence of the sister discovering skeletoned mother and Norman in drag wielding the knife maniacally is genuinely quite frightening
• Reason why Anthony Perkins’ performance is so excellent is that he appears normal, and, at a stretch, likeable, for so much of the film – the jitteriness that he displays seems indicative of someone who’s just a bit socially awkward but his character is very well-written just in terms of some of the odd little things he says in casual conversation: retrospective evidence of the two sides of his personality constantly fighting and how one constantly serves the other. Great turn (smile at the end is eerily sinister) – Janet Leigh brings a sultry persona to Marion as well which fits with the more mature nature of the film. Psychoanalytical aspect of film is subtly but uncomplicatedly drawn through the illusion of domestic normality: both with Norman and his mother (Freudian) and Marion and Sam’s inability to get married
• Just because I knew a lot of the story, shouldn’t take for granted how excellently manipulative Hitchcock’s narrative thread is, and the extent to which he leads us in one direction, then pulls the rug out from under us

• 60s quick-cut editing during certain stabbing sequences really doesn’t hold up that well
• Agree with Ebert that the psych painstakingly explaining everything is a small stumble: less should be more in this case and hearing the truth from Bates himself would’ve been 10x more effective and terrifying

Forrest Gump

• Narrative is a perfect example of magical realism within the context of 20^th century American history
• Tom Hanks and Robin Wright are both equally outstanding considering the risks involved with both characters: Forrest could just be laughed at a stupid idiot who you can’t engage with, but Hanks’ performance means you’re consistently rooting for him
• Similarly, Jenny can be argued to treat Forrest pretty badly but the chemistry between the two and the emotional tenderness of Wright’s performance eradicates these potential readings
• Film has strong thematic connotations in relation to fate, and how, as Hanks himself puts it “our destiny is also defined by how we deal with the chance elements (good and bad) of our life
• Despite BS claims that its conservative, film brilliantly balances the Alabama, conservative-type background of Forrest by bringing him together with Jenny’s deep interest in counter-culture, experimentalism of 1960s – political neutrality allows you to just simply be absorbed in the magic of the narrative
• Script is polished – there’s a reason there are so many quotable lines from the film
• Film’s message is ultimately commendable – honesty, loyalty, kindness and self-belief/trust are the pillars by which you should live your life by
• Climax with Jenny’s death is emotional AF (I cried)

• Is the film too sentimental? Probably. But I don’t care

Alien

• Early visual joy – juxtaposition between massive external shots of Nostromo and the narrow and tightly claustrophobic interior which the cameras slowly and cautiously moves through – danger impending from this moment on alongside a disconcerting sense of scale
• Prolonged nature of the transmission investigation is great cos it just incrementally but consistently filters tension in – both amongst the crew and the uncertainty of their surroundings – alongside some fucking great production design and cinematography in this particular section
• Chest-bursting scene really is exhilaratingly horrifying – accentuated by minute or so of casual banter beforehand – false sense of security
• Serious props to prosthetics team; from the facehugger, the cheat-bursting micro version to the fully fledged xenomorph – each stage is visually creepy and increasingly overwhelming in scale and spectacle
• Performances are generally strong and embody gritty realism (workers over adventurers) – interplay between Ripley and Ash is captivating (Holm in particular getting the nuances of a disguised android pretty spot on) before the climax, and Yophet Kotto gives a real underrated turn as the wisecracking and self-serving Parker
• One of the best things about the film is the economical use of the xenomorph – means that it never loses that sense of initial terror/dread from when it first appears: consequently makes the last 30 mins a truly nerve-jangling and viscerally scary experience – really where Sigourney Weaver shines as well

• Incredibly minor quibble but doesn’t seem logical that the operating officer would be sent to explore potential organic matter ahead of the chief scientist (Kane instead of Ash)
• Couple of iffy performances: Tom Skerrick doesn’t quite have the magnanimity of a crew leader and Veronica Cartwright is a one-note hysterical wreck as Lambert

Silence of the Lambs

• Film throws you head first into the action – first exchange between Starling and Lecter really does set the tone: first with subtly in terms of Lecter mimicking Starling’s accent and then the famous FBI/Fava beans section; breath-holding tension immediately
• Underlayer of film that really impressed me is its examination both the extent of sexism, passive or otherwise, that Starling faces within the Bureau (done intricately through script or camerawork: shows how she shares a similarity with Lecter, in that they are both ostracised by worlds they want to inhabit). On top of this, also delves into objectification of female body: both in relation to the case and Starling’s prejudices – but never falls into exploitation
• In regards to the twist within Lecter’s escape, I had a premonition but the setpiece was so intricately well-crafted that this didn’t matter: genre-bidding elements to metamorphosise into a proper thriller
• Technically an extremely well-directed film – Tak Fujimoto’s cinematography is extraordinarily skilful (use of angles and piece-to-camera close-ups – augments intensity of exchanges between Starling and Lecter); production design for Buffalo Bill’s lair is properly creepy, as is the sensory juxtaposition that occurs during the finale
• The exchanges and rapport between Starling and Lecter have been fundamentally entrenched in honesty and something approaching trust which, as well as allowing film to explore psychological angle and play the two off intensely against each other, informs how Starling makes her significant breakthrough
• These motherfuckers earned their acting Oscars; thing with Hopkins is its a role that could dangerously overreach itself into overacting idiosyncrasies but his hold on the performance is iron-strong (illustrated by his erect physicality and piercing arrow-like look when camera focuses on him).
• Jodie Foster likewise – particularly because her character is constantly fighting on uphill battle in terms of her intellectual inferiority with Lecter and her subjugation as a woman in the FBI – captures these pains in a layered, and equally strong performance. Also props to Ted Levine for creating a genuinely loathsome and self-misunderstood psychopath in Buffalo Bill – emasculating voice astute touch as well

• Crawford’s plan in terms of Bs quid pro quo was more than a role of the dice – plan was decently full of holes considering self-serving nosiness of Dr Chilton
• Ignorable but actual mechanics of Lecter’s escape are shoddily yadda-yadded; mini moment of pure plot movement

Spirited Away

• First 5 mins so concisely efficient in establishing Chihiro as a character; a high-strung and scared kid who is somewhat emotionally neglected by her parents. Helps contextualise the transformation that she undergoes – from the former description to someone with enough bravery and conviction to try and save Haku
• Narrative is a great spin on the traditional Alice on Wonderland fairytale – prejudice Chihiro faces as a human alongside the hard labour and mass intimidation orchestrated by Yubaba shows extent to which everything is stacked against Chihiro – adversity breeding sympathy
• Can’t not praise the animation – there are a lot of things going on in this world – imagination licence in terms of creatures in cranked up to 11 (really like the oy oy oy green heads in particular) and Ghibli’s animators capture every single detail with incremental precision and beauty (it is a fucking aesthetically gorgeous film)
• Miyazaki’s hypothetical condemnation driving narrative thread – if spirits existed, the human presence on the world is such that instead of blending in amongst them, they feel the need to come to a massive bathhouse to properly unwind and relax. One of many interpretations – either way makes you think and shows how Miyazaki manages to ground humanistic concepts within a very fantastical world: admission that it was made for 10-year-old girls perfect: specificity with no compromises = spellbound
• Another theme that is subtly evoked by the greed/gluttony of both the humans and the spirits potentially is humans’ vast/uninhibited consumption of resources (natural – environmental link?). Another interpretation (considering how everyone begs/revers the spirit) is massive corporations – again links with greed. Depth potential of material is a good sign
• Piano soundtrack is a bit simple but fits well with the fantastical child-like setting and subject matter
• Stripped down/earthy setting of Swamp Bottom stark contrast to commercialised Oil bathhouse – plays up juxtaposition between the two twins well; visual storytelling at its best
• Fact that this film’s climax comes down to Russian Roulette with pigs (and one of the main characters turns out to be a river spirit) is the best possible summary for it – wears its weirdness proudly and if you run with it, rewards you completely

• While the stink spirit sequence is a great setpiece, visually and emotionally entertaining/draining, it does sidetrack the film a touch

The Godfather Part II

• Opening scene in Nevada perfect juxtaposition from wedding scene in Part 1 – clear absence of familial harmony and standards have seriously slipped: shows how the early menace Michael rules with has a wider effect
• Within this, there’s a clear rearrangement in terms of the stability of the Corleone family: ease of control so identifiable in G1 is missing and the fact that Michael is sacrificing blood connections for business interests hints at developing rootlessness (relation to Italian identity in his leadership; also link to Fredo’s betrayal)
• Consequently why prequel aspect works so well: aside from providing really interesting information about genesis of Corleone dynasty, it serves as a lovely metaphor for how Michael seems consistently weighed down by the legacy of his father: young Vito by comparison has impunity to pursue his desires and act on his impulses: film stays very ambiguous as to what these actually are for Michael but by the end he’s lost his common touch – shows duel structure is co-informative
• Cinematography is beautifully periodised: rich and vivacious colour of Miami/Cuba in the 50s compared to the grimy and moderate colour scheme of Little Italy; production design transformative here as well.
• Sneaky/cheeky duality with cake-cutting scene; Coppola displaying directional flair
• Giving film leeway with this one: extent of symbiosis between mafia business and family means mere sight of Frankie’s brother prevents his testimony – loyalty thematic thread continued from G1
• Film finally delves into nitty-gritty emotional conflict between Michael and Kay (Diane Keaton finally gets some acting rope to play with) and some greater padding of this relationship either in G1 or start of this would’ve strengthened impact even more (abortion reveal still shocking tho)
• Performances: Pacino again is top-notch – amplifies cold and calculated side that we’d seen glimpses of in G1 with more sporadic bursts of both uncertainty and Pacino-esque fury whichever side he selects, he’s in full control. Also John Cazale gives a much better turn as Fredo: despite pathetic desperation of his betrayal, he mines a decent amount of pathos. Robert Duvall as clinical as always and somewhat underused IMO.
• Really short but poignant scene with Fredo teaching Anthony (Michael’s son) how to fish – all I’m thinking here is that it should be Michael – desire to kill all your enemies results in unconscious losses/sacrifices being made
• End less of a straight knockout compared to the first but somehow more psychologically disconcerting: Michael’s path seems pre-destined but ends with nothing but melancholic solitude
• Nino Rota’s score is an oral triumph – essentially compels us to feel deeply for murderers: perfect amount of sadness without manipulation

• Minor consequence of flashback sequences is that there is noticeable pacing disparities; doesn’t alter focus significantly tho

• In regards to Michael’s side of narrative, it occasionally feels like the film is trying to juggle a few too many balls at once