I'm still in San Francisco for one more week. I'm posting from a terminal in the public library.
One of the main things I've been doing here is seeing movies that might not make it to Honolulu. One of you guys has said that you find my movie reviews very useful. I don't have much time right now here at the public library, but let me give you a quick indication of the things I've seen.
First of all, there are a bunch of movies that are very character-oriented. They work because the characters --- usually mostly one character --- are compelling. At the top of my list here is Bertolucci's new film Besieged, which I put in the ``must see'' category. One of the reviews said something like, ``The plot is so delicate that it threatens to disintegrate at any moment and is held together only by atmosphere.'' I would say rather that it's held together by fascination. You must strongly identify with the character played by Thandie Newton and identify with her fascination towards the male lead, otherwise you will find the film incredibly boring. Thandie Newton carries the film and I hope she got paid a whole lot for it.
The fact that the plot of Besieged was ``delicate,'' i.e. almost non-existent, was something I was not aware of at all while I was watching the film. It very strongly held my attention. It was only after I read the critics that I thought back on the movie and thought, ``Yeah, that's right, it didn't have much of a plot, did it?''
Thandie Newton plays a young African woman who has come to Italy because her husband was arrested for political reasons back in Africa. Italy and big city life are quite alien for her. She's working as a live-in housekeeper for a spoiled rich man in his thirties --- a composer (the actor's name is David Thewlis). This man is fascinated by and infatuated with the character played by Thandie Newton, but for quite a while she doesn't understand this. Since he's essential not only to her livelihood but to her continued legal residence in Italy, there is what psychologists call a ``power differential'' here, and we (or I, at any rate) expect the situation to become sinister and we expect the landlord/employer to eventually take advantage of her.
The power of the film is that we (or I, at any rate) continue to be fascinated by this situation even though for quite a while it doesn't develop any further. And when it finally does move to a conclusion, it goes in a quite unexpected direction. It's a very ``European'' (especially Italian) story, meaning that the character winds up acting in a very unexpected way, almost quirky, without the film making any attempt at a psychological explanation for this.
Very similar in this respect is Xiu-Xiu: the Sent Down Girl, a Chinese film set during the Cultural Revolution. A beautiful and moving (and tragic) film which works solely because of the wonderful acting of the female lead, played by a Chinese actress named LuLu. She's an absolute delight to watch. It was directed by Joan Chen, her first experience at directing. Joan Chen (and if you don't at least vaguely know who she is, drop me a line and I'll delete you from my mailing list!) herself lived in China as a young girl during the Cultural Revolution. However as a child actress favored by the government, she never suffered the fate of Xiu-Xiu and other ``educated people'' of being sent into the countryside, away from her parents, and then abandoned there by the government.
Xiu-Xiu was filmed in large part in China, mostly in the border region between China and Tibet, but definitely not with permission of the Chinese government. At this point, it would definitely not be a good idea for Joan Chen to return to China.
In Honolulu before I left, I saw another film made without the permission of the Chinese government: Wind Horse, filmed in large part in Tibet. This is not a great film, but it's moderately good and is interesting for political reasons. Unlike Xiu-Xiu, it was made in large part with local (i.e. Tibetan) cast and crew, and in the credits, several cast and crew are listed as ``Name Withheld for Reasons of Safety.''
Unlike Xiu-Xiu, Wind Horse was not filmed primarily in the outlands, but in large part was shot via videocamera in Tibet's capital city. Pretending to be just another of tourist with the now inevitable video camera, the director worked by giving hand signals to the cast and crew.
Another film which works because of our fascination with one main character is My Son the Fanatic. I also consider this a ``must see film.'' The main character, who sustains our interest in the film and is played by Om Puri, is a middle-aged Pakistani long-term immigrant to England. The film really puts this character in a vise and tightens the screws. There are really two different stories, one represented by the title, i.e. the lead's relationship with his son, who is becoming an Islamic fundamentalist fanatic, and the other represented by the previews which made me want to see the film, namely the protagonist's relationship (mostly friendship, but possibly with a sexual component) with a young London prostitute, played by Rachel Griffiths (Hillary and Jackie).
John Sayles's new film Limbo is somewhat in the same category, but with two important and compelling characters (or perhaps even three) rather than one. It's a good thing, in fact, that the characters are so compelling, because the plot isn't very well constructed and in fact, breaks into two pieces, so that about two-thirds of the way through one suddenly finds oneself in a different movie. I liked the first half better, but in any case, I definitely recommend Limbo.
The power of both Limbo and My Son the Fanatic is that the characters (played by Mary Elizabeth Mastrononia and David Straithharn in Limbo) are so completely credible as ordinary people. This was the thing that first got me interested in independent films maybe fifteen years ago when I saw John Sayles's film The Return of the Secaucus Seven. In these films made for small budgets and, at that time, distributed only to a handful of theatres (I usually saw them at the Honolulu Academy of Arts), I was encountering characters who were like people I had known in my own life and who I had never encountered in studio films.
I'm not one to say that all studio films are crap. I love, in particular, Jack Nicholson, Andie Macdowell, Barbra Streisand, Robert Duvall, Meg Ryan, and even Julia Roberts, who caught my attention right away in Mystic Pizza. But there's something wonderful about seeing a film that has characters I can recognize right out of my own life.
The Dreamlife of Angels is a minor French film which is also worthwhile because of the interesting characters.
The Winslow Boy is a David Mamet film based on a Terrence Rattigan play set in England in the Edwardian period. Very much a filmed play, in fact. I definitely liked it and was glad that I saw it on the big screen and found myself regretting that more films like this aren't made: very good plays made into movies. Then it occurred to me that in fact there are a lot of movies of this sort; it's just that usually one sees them on Masterpiece Theatre or elsewhere on Public Television. Then I started wondered why they'd decided that this one was worthy of theatrical release. Because it was made by David Mamet, I guess. Anyway, as I say, I liked it and am glad I saw it one the big screen.
Three Seasons. Shot in Vietnam, starring Harvey Keitel and a bunch of Vietnamese. Do see this. Very beautiful, with several different stories which are interwoven to some extent.
Tea with Mussolini. I shouldn't need to tell you about this. A ``charming'' film. I was certainly charmed by it and was glad I saw it. It doesn't go in my category of ``important'' films though. I thought that Cher's performance was good but by no means as remarkable as everyone else seems to think.
The King of Masks. Chinese, set in the Thirties. Another extremely ``charming'' film (much more than Tea with Mussolini). A real crowd pleaser.
Central Station. Another charmer. It works because of the performance of one actress, Fernanda Montenegra (Portuguese), although the little boy is good too.
Dry Cleaning. A French film that most of you probably won't get a chance to see. I liked it, but it's not one of the really important films on my list. A strongly sexual (bisexual, actually) theme.
I Stand Alone. French. Supposedly a grimmer version of Taxi Driver (Scorsese). Actually a rather boring pale imitation of Taxi Driver, as far as I'm concerned. The only movie I've seen this summer that I can't recommend.
The Harmonists. German, set in the early days of Hitler, actually before Hitler actually took power, I believe. Sort of a grimmer counterpart to Life Is Beautiful. Worth seeing, but not memorable. Nobody winds up getting sent off to a concentration camp in The Harmonists. But there is a quartet of extremely talented male singers (maybe comparable to the Ink Spots, in their own way, except that their singing has a strong element of comedy in it), who struggle hard to become successful, and then at the height of their success are forced to disband (and most of them to emigrate) when it's discovered that, by terms of the Reich's Racial Laws, several of them are Jewish. The Harmonists one will probably show up on television. See it.
The Loss of Sexual Innocence, made by Mike Figgis (director of Leaving Los Vegas). This was a must-see film for me, but it's an experimental film, not something to go to on a Saturday night. Most critics liked it much less than I did, and I liked it only moderately well. Some beautiful images. Critics mostly attacked the story line. I just ignored the story line, myself. It didn't seem like an important part of the film.
eXistenZ. I liked it, but it's not really my kind of movie. About virtual reality and reportedly much better than Matrix, which I didn't see. The trouble is, once you put yourself in the realm of virtual reality then you're saying that anything whatever is possible, and for me, this keeps the story from having real interest. The director has given himself the license to arbitrarily pull the rug out from under you at any moment. David Lynch style, I guess. It was directed in fact by David Cronenberg. It's worth seeing, in my opinion, because it stars Jennifer Jason Leigh at the top of her form.
If you have access to a decent video store or library, I suggest watching a number of Jeniffer Jason Leigh's films. Last Exit to Brooklyn, Washington Square, Mrs. Parker and the Vicious Circle, among others. See what a truly versatile and great actress she is. (Confidential to Karen: You'd hate her, I'm sure.)
The Thin Red Line. I was late in seeing this one. It was okay, but I didn't see what was supposed to be so great about it. The battle scenes were more like Rambo than Saving Private Ryan: the good guys almost never get hit despite dozens of people shooting at them, but on the other hand almost every one of their own shots scores.
Following. British, I think. An existentialist film that rather disconcertly turns into a clever thriller at the end. As an existentialist film, I liked it a whole lot. A good film for those (like me) who like Camus or Colin Wilson's book The Outsider. Not good entertainment for Saturday night.
The Trial (Orson Welles, 1958). Interestingly enough, I had watched this on video, seeing it for the first time, just shortly before I left for San Francisco. I liked it on video, but I got a whole lot more out of it on the big screen. Orson Welles did a really wonderful job of conveying the flavor -- the mood -- of Kafka. If you like this, then you'll probably like Following, and vice-versa. See this if you ever get the chance.
The Red Violin. Another ``charming'' film, but I wasn't as charmed as many were. As a writer, though, I had to admire the craftsmanship of the narrative structure, using flashbacks and flashforwards very effectively (and not at all confusingly). Five stories, over a period of about three centuries, about a violin. The trouble for me was that with so many stories, each so brief, I couldn't really get interested in any of the characters. And I wasn't interested enough in the violin to keep me interested in the movie. The ending of the movie was the only part that really caught my interest. I liked the movie, but for me it was a very minor entertainment.
Run, Lola, Run. I don't have time now to write as much about this film as it deserves. I think that it represents an essential step forward in filmmaking --- in the language of film --- in the same way that Star Wars did and as some of Hitchcock's films (especially Psycho) did. A must-see film for those with a serious interest in the language of cinema. But probably a lot of people who are looking for a good story are going to be as annoyed as hell by it.
Coming Apart, 1969 with Rip Torn. A really nice film for voyeurs. Although it was made with professional actors and actresses, the ``conceit'' is that it was made by a hidden video camera in a living room, showing various sexual encounters by the tenant of the corresponding apartment. This is done very effectively, so that the whole thing seems quite amateurish, including sound recorded by a fairly crappy cheap mike. Many of the actresses in the film are quite effective in giving a look of, ``Okay, so here I am with my blouse off and I know this is supposed to be exciting and a really big deal, but nothing exciting is happening so what do I do now?'' In 1969, this film was really pushing the envelope. Now, maybe only people like me like it.
That's all I have time for now, guys. More when I get back to Honolulu.
--Lee
July 8, 1999