This film is still fresh in my mind. I'm a big fan of mid-career Arnold Swarzenegger but I'm just now delving into its deeper ideology. This film warns of a class-divided capitalist state that has wiped out all libertarianism, right or left.
Quite obviously, Arnold represents the white male rightwing anarchist hero, a total Ayn Rand ubermensch created in a lab somewhere, but he finds great allies in his leftwing anarchist buddies. Ok, they are useless, ineffective minorities who get brutalized masochistically, but then Arnold delivers swift, violent and witty justice to these state puppet capitalists. Its meathead entertainment but true to American conservative democracy. It even questions notions like capital punishment, collateral damage and media propaganda.
Its not as leftist as I would make it, but its a firm bit of ideological fluff from a less enlightened time. It also foreshadows Arnold's becoming a fairly likable republican ally to moderate leftists. Shit, I'd say films like this are extremely helpful to the far left in keeping the rightwing away from Nazism and aware of un-Marxist Communism. While the audience is meathead, Arnold was definitely a thinking, passionate actor with integrity, morally and artistically. If only he valued peace over the freedom to make money.
Showing posts with label 1987. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1987. Show all posts
Saturday, April 28, 2018
Monday, October 30, 2017
Anaconda / The Barefoot Contessa / Empire of the Sun / Dr. Strangelove
"Anaconda" is a blatant reworking of Creature/ Black Lagoon. The channel I caught it on even played them back-to-back. Its an essential piece of filmmaking as a clever camp deconstruction of a classic but largely dated film & as a pioneer of CGI effects. The FX in Anaconda aren't just wildly creative and eye-catching, but they are merged with live stunts giving the film a uniqueness. What has to be praised is Jon Voight's excellent over-the-top villain acting, the diverse cast of young stars like Ice Cube, Owen Wilson and J. Lo in very revealing performances. Its a largely by-the-numbers film but it doesn't have the woodenness of "Black Lagoon". Even though the racism is simmered down, its still there. How is Eric Stolz MIA throughout the entire conflict but gets the girl and rides into the sunset as the leader & main viewpoint for the audience? A good genre film for 1997, but its still behind the cultural evolution of today. A multi-million dollar exploitation film. At least it wasn't a remake.
"The Barefoot Contessa" is the best kind of 1954 Hollywood entertainment: A melodramatic Technicolor dream about Romantic women with a sly feminist/communist/leftwing edge. Yet totally supported by & amplifying the best of the conservative post-WW2 climate. Its somber and introspective as it is elevated & artificial. Painterly. Films like this feel painted by a modern master. Written & directed by the very successful Joseph L. Mankiewicz who is well-versed in creating a universally accepted product for what was then a booming economic upswing & prolonged patriotic pride.It seems like a tribute or farewell to a glorious but outdated style or genre. Also it feels inspired by the garish theatrical "prestige" films that brought in color. High in emotional characters, visual splendor & well-paced storytelling. It was a time where standards were changing on-screen positively, merging filmmaking with filmwatching in this great shared human experience of art & reality within it and without it. These films were usually about the sense of living wildly and vividly. That restored peace after tumultuous war and all its suffering and bitter victories. People were relieved but appreciated drama more than ever. I put over so much of the style because this film encapsulated that vibe strongly. It is so much style and commentary on style, but like a Gone With The Wind or even the black & white Casablanca, "Contessa" works because we love a film which delivers a message of substantial equality, justice, honesty and reality.
Its an honest work of smart entertainment from an early fan of cinema. But it does have holes and moral failings that may seem obvious in our far removed point in time.
There is the question if the film's plot is correct politically for being a tragic depiction of a Latin woman's sexuality, a longstanding and generalized knock against the spread of minorities in white cultures. I think it works for 1954, but today's young Latin women will find it either incredibly respectful & relating or supremely presumptuous, "damsel" victim-worshipping & unfairly sexualizing of this "ideal" women of color. It serves a very white racist agenda of "us Vs. them". But like the other great retro films of the earlier ages, it has aged, shown outdated rhetoric and social programming. Thats just a part of our collective race's slow development of unity and move against intolerance.
Like Hollywood's first superstar director D.W. Griffith, the major films of yesteryear (and the future films inspired by them) are very bogged down in offensive ideas, views and propaganda. LUCKILY, "Contessa" allows us enough vagueness and context that any mature viewer can handle and appreciate the story as a universal story of femme fatales, sexual victims, troubled women & feminist martyrs. Unfortunately this stereotyping typically cast "exotic" women, minority women and non-Aryan brunette actresses. Ex: Carmen Jones, Imitation of Life, Pandora's Box and most versions of Wedekind's Lulu.
It fulfills an almost Nazi post-WW2 complex through younger Americanized goggles, while masked in sophomoric cultural appropriation & subtle brownface. Its damned by all of these things, but they were the rule for popular entertainers and public conformity. The problematic and unevolved sentiment of this still-extravagant film is that it tried to be more sympathetic and liberating from its rigid origin, than other films of its ilk. And its inspired more learned and accepting fans to make art that finishes its sentences. This very infantilized work of modernism, pop culture & democratic morality will impress with its foresight even if its offensive in its dated-ness.
Mankiwicz crafts a film that relishes in the high standards of its day and embraces a less strict Conservatism that seems quaint, romantic and even a bit leftist in today's darkly radical political stratus. This is just a movie, but films like these pushed hard politics and now we must view it as a political tool to be tempered like steel into a universally benefiting social infrastructure for education, ever-evolving technological/artistic tradition and a public showcase of creative brilliance. "Contessa" is mostly that. A product of an offensive time with some marks to prove it, but a film with its heart in the right place and enough smarts to not be too irresponsible. The film shows much respect for women of color, you only wish it had input or education about the humanity and reality of them.
"Empire of the Sun" boosts Spielberg in my eyes even higher than he already was. His films always show a deep admiration for the forefathers of cinematic history, but he's always right on the cutting edge of thought-provoking and positive social healing. "Empire" comes from Spielberg's period of adult maturation and works a kind of re-affirmation of this "kid" director as a filmmaker with as much philosophical deepness & genius computation as you could ask for. Especially in comparison to every directors ever, save for Hitchcock & Kubrick. He capitalizes on his massive ego, power, talent and ability to give back as much as he can. His haters distrust this sense of love in his films. They cowardly write him off too easily as a lofty idealist, totally unrealistic and unwise on global messages or lacking some cynical scope to process real tragedy and grief. His earlier films dispute this and Empire flat-out refutes it. This is a film that is both an answer to critics and a darkly reflective journey for Spielberg. He faces so many recurring personal themes through a very specific historical text because he sees the universal ingredients to life.
He melts away division and cowardice to leave only the truth as best as he can show it. But he asks "Why not make it still funny and cool?". Every inch of the movie is an intelligent bit of serious drama that never bogs down in navel-gazing or pretentiousness. While his critics will snidely comment that his vision is too pre-conceptualized or pandering, they will miss that preparation and audience-pacification is the correct job of a major filmmaker. And to Spielberg's artistic credibility, he creates so much in-camera or in acting moments or with subtle inflections of tone, subtext, reference and respect. This is the exact kind of review Spielberg achieved the film for and I can't say he doesn't earn it. But I can admit it may be disheartening that he made these films for such a trivial prize as an Oscar or a glowing Ebert review. But he's avoids exploiting the audience or the subject matter for anything cheap, tasteless, unlikable or mean.
Maybe he cops out by making it a white male child's experience of what was a horrifying moment in specifically Chinese history, but that artistic choice draws the type of audience who needs to see it most. Spielberg is de-powering the over privileged and softening the most hard-hearted of Westerners. The guy is so tuned in to what film-directing encompasses and its astounding how he sustains so much taste and professionalism on such a grand scale with what feels like ease. Maybe he just loves cinema more than the other directors. Like his protagonist here, Steven accepts the responsibility and guilt of the privileged life he has within and before Hollywood and makes an extended hard journey to write the wrongs of the world with a smiling soul and commitment to quality work.
As I type this, America is experiencing the greatest federal investigation of an elected official ever. Our current president is morally bankrupt, sexually juvenile and essentially heartless warmonger who is escalating nuclear arms tension to apocalyptic levels without any management or contact with reality. Stanley Kubrick predicted these factors precisely in "Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb" and its a haunting thrill to experience such a topical film with such relevancy. Unfortunately the circumstances have made our connection with the bleakest and most deadpan comedy imaginable.
Kubrick holds back nothing. It is a grotesque reflection of the artificial intelligence that amateurs to govern our cosmic fates, country to country. Kubrick doesn't have to make a cartoon out of his target. Only to present them factually and let the audience see the Emperor has no clothes. Kubrick sees the Cold War as the ultimate meltdown of the white male majority's neuroses and self-destructive psychosis. He knew then what every progressive knows now and what the politically bankrupt are slowing learning. We are heading to a Nazi's wet dream of destruction
Absolute power is lampooned and Kubrick laughs at this God complex that keeps us nothing but hilarious apes in nice suits. No other director could use the depressive, oppressive, "square", drab and ultimately sick in such a beautifully arranged design to say something profound in still simple visual and auditory terms. This film is a masterpiece, one of the first I ever watched, and it will continue to serve this world long after I'm gone (I hope).
"The Barefoot Contessa" is the best kind of 1954 Hollywood entertainment: A melodramatic Technicolor dream about Romantic women with a sly feminist/communist/leftwing edge. Yet totally supported by & amplifying the best of the conservative post-WW2 climate. Its somber and introspective as it is elevated & artificial. Painterly. Films like this feel painted by a modern master. Written & directed by the very successful Joseph L. Mankiewicz who is well-versed in creating a universally accepted product for what was then a booming economic upswing & prolonged patriotic pride.It seems like a tribute or farewell to a glorious but outdated style or genre. Also it feels inspired by the garish theatrical "prestige" films that brought in color. High in emotional characters, visual splendor & well-paced storytelling. It was a time where standards were changing on-screen positively, merging filmmaking with filmwatching in this great shared human experience of art & reality within it and without it. These films were usually about the sense of living wildly and vividly. That restored peace after tumultuous war and all its suffering and bitter victories. People were relieved but appreciated drama more than ever. I put over so much of the style because this film encapsulated that vibe strongly. It is so much style and commentary on style, but like a Gone With The Wind or even the black & white Casablanca, "Contessa" works because we love a film which delivers a message of substantial equality, justice, honesty and reality.
Its an honest work of smart entertainment from an early fan of cinema. But it does have holes and moral failings that may seem obvious in our far removed point in time.
There is the question if the film's plot is correct politically for being a tragic depiction of a Latin woman's sexuality, a longstanding and generalized knock against the spread of minorities in white cultures. I think it works for 1954, but today's young Latin women will find it either incredibly respectful & relating or supremely presumptuous, "damsel" victim-worshipping & unfairly sexualizing of this "ideal" women of color. It serves a very white racist agenda of "us Vs. them". But like the other great retro films of the earlier ages, it has aged, shown outdated rhetoric and social programming. Thats just a part of our collective race's slow development of unity and move against intolerance.
Like Hollywood's first superstar director D.W. Griffith, the major films of yesteryear (and the future films inspired by them) are very bogged down in offensive ideas, views and propaganda. LUCKILY, "Contessa" allows us enough vagueness and context that any mature viewer can handle and appreciate the story as a universal story of femme fatales, sexual victims, troubled women & feminist martyrs. Unfortunately this stereotyping typically cast "exotic" women, minority women and non-Aryan brunette actresses. Ex: Carmen Jones, Imitation of Life, Pandora's Box and most versions of Wedekind's Lulu.
It fulfills an almost Nazi post-WW2 complex through younger Americanized goggles, while masked in sophomoric cultural appropriation & subtle brownface. Its damned by all of these things, but they were the rule for popular entertainers and public conformity. The problematic and unevolved sentiment of this still-extravagant film is that it tried to be more sympathetic and liberating from its rigid origin, than other films of its ilk. And its inspired more learned and accepting fans to make art that finishes its sentences. This very infantilized work of modernism, pop culture & democratic morality will impress with its foresight even if its offensive in its dated-ness.
Mankiwicz crafts a film that relishes in the high standards of its day and embraces a less strict Conservatism that seems quaint, romantic and even a bit leftist in today's darkly radical political stratus. This is just a movie, but films like these pushed hard politics and now we must view it as a political tool to be tempered like steel into a universally benefiting social infrastructure for education, ever-evolving technological/artistic tradition and a public showcase of creative brilliance. "Contessa" is mostly that. A product of an offensive time with some marks to prove it, but a film with its heart in the right place and enough smarts to not be too irresponsible. The film shows much respect for women of color, you only wish it had input or education about the humanity and reality of them.
"Empire of the Sun" boosts Spielberg in my eyes even higher than he already was. His films always show a deep admiration for the forefathers of cinematic history, but he's always right on the cutting edge of thought-provoking and positive social healing. "Empire" comes from Spielberg's period of adult maturation and works a kind of re-affirmation of this "kid" director as a filmmaker with as much philosophical deepness & genius computation as you could ask for. Especially in comparison to every directors ever, save for Hitchcock & Kubrick. He capitalizes on his massive ego, power, talent and ability to give back as much as he can. His haters distrust this sense of love in his films. They cowardly write him off too easily as a lofty idealist, totally unrealistic and unwise on global messages or lacking some cynical scope to process real tragedy and grief. His earlier films dispute this and Empire flat-out refutes it. This is a film that is both an answer to critics and a darkly reflective journey for Spielberg. He faces so many recurring personal themes through a very specific historical text because he sees the universal ingredients to life.
He melts away division and cowardice to leave only the truth as best as he can show it. But he asks "Why not make it still funny and cool?". Every inch of the movie is an intelligent bit of serious drama that never bogs down in navel-gazing or pretentiousness. While his critics will snidely comment that his vision is too pre-conceptualized or pandering, they will miss that preparation and audience-pacification is the correct job of a major filmmaker. And to Spielberg's artistic credibility, he creates so much in-camera or in acting moments or with subtle inflections of tone, subtext, reference and respect. This is the exact kind of review Spielberg achieved the film for and I can't say he doesn't earn it. But I can admit it may be disheartening that he made these films for such a trivial prize as an Oscar or a glowing Ebert review. But he's avoids exploiting the audience or the subject matter for anything cheap, tasteless, unlikable or mean.
Maybe he cops out by making it a white male child's experience of what was a horrifying moment in specifically Chinese history, but that artistic choice draws the type of audience who needs to see it most. Spielberg is de-powering the over privileged and softening the most hard-hearted of Westerners. The guy is so tuned in to what film-directing encompasses and its astounding how he sustains so much taste and professionalism on such a grand scale with what feels like ease. Maybe he just loves cinema more than the other directors. Like his protagonist here, Steven accepts the responsibility and guilt of the privileged life he has within and before Hollywood and makes an extended hard journey to write the wrongs of the world with a smiling soul and commitment to quality work.
As I type this, America is experiencing the greatest federal investigation of an elected official ever. Our current president is morally bankrupt, sexually juvenile and essentially heartless warmonger who is escalating nuclear arms tension to apocalyptic levels without any management or contact with reality. Stanley Kubrick predicted these factors precisely in "Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb" and its a haunting thrill to experience such a topical film with such relevancy. Unfortunately the circumstances have made our connection with the bleakest and most deadpan comedy imaginable.
Kubrick holds back nothing. It is a grotesque reflection of the artificial intelligence that amateurs to govern our cosmic fates, country to country. Kubrick doesn't have to make a cartoon out of his target. Only to present them factually and let the audience see the Emperor has no clothes. Kubrick sees the Cold War as the ultimate meltdown of the white male majority's neuroses and self-destructive psychosis. He knew then what every progressive knows now and what the politically bankrupt are slowing learning. We are heading to a Nazi's wet dream of destruction
Absolute power is lampooned and Kubrick laughs at this God complex that keeps us nothing but hilarious apes in nice suits. No other director could use the depressive, oppressive, "square", drab and ultimately sick in such a beautifully arranged design to say something profound in still simple visual and auditory terms. This film is a masterpiece, one of the first I ever watched, and it will continue to serve this world long after I'm gone (I hope).
Thursday, May 4, 2017
Evil Dead 2 1987
Here's a beloved film that was seminal to my film-viewing as a teenager. It captured my imagination because this was an adventure/comedy in the Spielberg/Lucas vein but filled with gore, monsters and spooky settings. And it was so much more fun and flashy than the original Evil Dead. But its not one of those films that I revist often and this last viewing revealed that its not as great as I and others remember. It sucks when nostalgia wears off.
I went back to this movie because there is internet debate on whether the film is a sequel or remake. People who worked on it have called it both or just a remake, while its fans are outraged at the idea that its not "the greatest horror sequel ever". I can now confirm that the film is a remake and not a traditional sequel. To be more precise, its a reboot and maybe the "original" reboot.
Evil Dead 2 starts with a flashback but not to Evil Dead. The events in the original Evil Dead didn't happen (because Sam Raimi couldn't get the rights), so similar events happen to this film's version of Ash but he's not the same Ash. The characters and hellish torture he went through is erased and replaced with a condensed 10 minute version of some scenes from the original. This film's Ash then goes through a scene-by-scene recreation of the first film (this is what makes it a remake and not a sequel) including a possessed witch in the cellar, man-eating trees, a bridge thats been destroyed and finding a book to send demons back to Hell. Notice how ED2's Ash finds the bridge and book as new discoveries. Because he is not the original Ash.
Losing continuity really spoils the fun for me. It was a clever trick to hide that this isn't a real sequel, but the appeal was that the same universe had suddenly shifted its tone to a more comic and action-driven one and that Ash had to re-live the horrors he experienced. Now I see that this Ash is really a comic book copy of the original and the plot is just a lazy re-telling to cash-in on the original film. The charm has worn off and the cynicism is pretty thick as Raimi does a fairly shabby job with much of the film, only showing interest in trying new camera tricks and playing with a bigger budget. He's obviously looking towards his future Hollywood career and mining old ideas to prep for it. Its a very kinetic, wild and weird movie, but not nearly as effective, sincere and artistic as the original. The rubbery FX and cheap laughs were so cool 15 years ago but now come off as boring. I'm really turned off at the lack of thrills and suspense. It tries to be scary a few times and fails miserably. The action is there but its so dated by today's standards. Kudos to being ambitious and very high quality in its day.
To Raimi's credit, he has done much more with the premise of a action-comedy Evil Dead with his new Evil Dead TV series, which is just Evil Dead 2 done over and over again. But the best continuation of the original Evil Dead, ironically, is the 2013 reboot. That film was much more original and simultaneously faithful to the 1980 classic. (Evil Dead 2's sequel "Army of Darkness" has nothing to do with the other Evil Dead's, but is a fun horror movie for kids and delivers more of the Monty Python/Three Stooges worship).
Evil Dead 2 has earned a huge reputation as an entertaining and over-the-top follow-up to a film that was very hard to top. It does not top the original, but its a very unique spin-off. But its not the best horror sequel. I think it works best as a standalone film, which is why its very popular with people who don't necessarily enjoy the original. Like I said, this is the original reboot.
I went back to this movie because there is internet debate on whether the film is a sequel or remake. People who worked on it have called it both or just a remake, while its fans are outraged at the idea that its not "the greatest horror sequel ever". I can now confirm that the film is a remake and not a traditional sequel. To be more precise, its a reboot and maybe the "original" reboot.
Evil Dead 2 starts with a flashback but not to Evil Dead. The events in the original Evil Dead didn't happen (because Sam Raimi couldn't get the rights), so similar events happen to this film's version of Ash but he's not the same Ash. The characters and hellish torture he went through is erased and replaced with a condensed 10 minute version of some scenes from the original. This film's Ash then goes through a scene-by-scene recreation of the first film (this is what makes it a remake and not a sequel) including a possessed witch in the cellar, man-eating trees, a bridge thats been destroyed and finding a book to send demons back to Hell. Notice how ED2's Ash finds the bridge and book as new discoveries. Because he is not the original Ash.
Losing continuity really spoils the fun for me. It was a clever trick to hide that this isn't a real sequel, but the appeal was that the same universe had suddenly shifted its tone to a more comic and action-driven one and that Ash had to re-live the horrors he experienced. Now I see that this Ash is really a comic book copy of the original and the plot is just a lazy re-telling to cash-in on the original film. The charm has worn off and the cynicism is pretty thick as Raimi does a fairly shabby job with much of the film, only showing interest in trying new camera tricks and playing with a bigger budget. He's obviously looking towards his future Hollywood career and mining old ideas to prep for it. Its a very kinetic, wild and weird movie, but not nearly as effective, sincere and artistic as the original. The rubbery FX and cheap laughs were so cool 15 years ago but now come off as boring. I'm really turned off at the lack of thrills and suspense. It tries to be scary a few times and fails miserably. The action is there but its so dated by today's standards. Kudos to being ambitious and very high quality in its day.
To Raimi's credit, he has done much more with the premise of a action-comedy Evil Dead with his new Evil Dead TV series, which is just Evil Dead 2 done over and over again. But the best continuation of the original Evil Dead, ironically, is the 2013 reboot. That film was much more original and simultaneously faithful to the 1980 classic. (Evil Dead 2's sequel "Army of Darkness" has nothing to do with the other Evil Dead's, but is a fun horror movie for kids and delivers more of the Monty Python/Three Stooges worship).
Evil Dead 2 has earned a huge reputation as an entertaining and over-the-top follow-up to a film that was very hard to top. It does not top the original, but its a very unique spin-off. But its not the best horror sequel. I think it works best as a standalone film, which is why its very popular with people who don't necessarily enjoy the original. Like I said, this is the original reboot.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)