Juliet of the Spirits 1965

Federico Fellini's female-perspective remake of his own "8 1/2" is another showcase for the director's sensitivity, extravagance, libido and philosophical brain farts. Fellini is famous for capturing the existential crisis in visual terms first and arguably better than anyone. His films from this period are filled with dreams, flashbacks, hallucinations and this film debuts the possibility of a supernatural realm. His influence on world cinema is obvious but I think its too overlooked by Americans how much he influenced their favorite Italian genre-meisters like Fulci, Argento, Bava, etc. Fellini's humor, style, technical brilliance and animator's eye is seen in so many Hollywood films and some of his biggest admirers are Terry Gilliam and David Lynch. I wonder what Hitchcock thought of him.

Fellini is certainly a fan of Hitch. They both have similar preoccupations: female characters, fashion, trauma, repression, the world of dreams. But Fellini was of his generation and took things further into the world of neurosis, sexual liberation, transcendental mysticism. I think you can make a fair comparison between Fellini's Juliet and Hitch's Marnie. These films are deep psychological journeys into the lives of women who are terrorized by the freedoms of their director's worldviews; Sympathetic portraits of women they love but don't quite understand. Critics say that these male directors failed to capture things realistically but I think both films do an amazing job in intentionally abstract, non-realistic ways. They are expressionistic parodies of female troubles and mirrors to the male problems of the directors and their past male characters. Its too easy to say Juliet is a lazy rehash because the changes in context ARE the story. From Fellini's perspective, a woman's aging, her female acquaintances, her social status, her home, her sexuality, her religious beliefs, her paternal figures are oppressive psychic forces that can be compared to the disastrous production of a movie in his previous masterpiece.

Is Juliet as great at 8 1/2 or La Dolce Vita? Maybe not in execution or inventiveness but the ambition is there and quite successful. As his first color film, its a game-changing matrix of Technicolor psychedelia. Fellini's films grew in scope, texture, design and progressive elements continually and that makes his career fun to watch even if he's less inspired. And all of his films mix an urgency and sincere emotionalism with a relaxed painterly control of its many, many elements. You get the sense he's playing to audiences, loved ones, critics and rival artists (well, we know he is from his) and he does it  with such a diplomatic panache. He's saying that is what his job is. He is inseparable from his life as a director and his characters are inseparable from him. Juliet was meant to represent his wife and maybe he is conceding that he is inseparable from her and she is inseparable from his art. Out of his trilogy of existential films, this is his most romantic and personal I think and maybe his most finely tuned, but its magic rests on its continuity with the other 2 like the finale of any trilogy.

That Obscure Object of Desire 1977

Luis Bunuel's last film is regarded as his masterpiece. I was shocked to see some arthouse magazines and critics rank it as high as "Top 10 films ever". Its an elegant, perfectly executed, playful, experimental film, like all of his films. Most of it plays as an intentionally predictable study of delusion and abuse, very akin to Kubrick's Lolita (although this film is based on an earlier story), but somehow this film gets more respect. Its not as well shot or well acted or cleverly written... until the climax. "Obscure" has an ending that brilliantly recontextualizes every single moment into MORE than a ripoff or cliche love tragedy. A classic Bunuel "fuck you" moment that is surreal, political, upsetting and well earned. It seems so close to copping out and becoming the bourgeois fluff piece it appears to be and then it becomes a bitter battle cry and call to arms. I've said enough. Maybe not his best and maybe it is, but its essential viewing.

Valerian and The City of a Thousand Planets 2017

What a refresher! Luc Besson directs a film that feels like his own personal answer to the Disney-fication of Star Wars. His classic Fifth Element was a tribute to the original trilogy and the SW prequels were inspired by Besson and it seems Besson repays Lucas with what feel like a 2017 Lucas film. Its a simple kiddie plot, but its helped by not straining for dramatics or false complexity. We get a cute romantic buddy action film set in an alien future with a great message of ecology and equality. Can't knock the only film this year with a graphic non-imperialist message.

The film is gorgeously designed, shot and directed like a Technicolor cartoon. Its a wonder that this film was independently financed as it resembles the best Hollywood had to offer. Obviously the scope isn't quite as grand and it doesn't have the cast of millions or wall-to-wall explosions, thus focusing on undervalued artistic tools like costume, staging, lighting, etc. The cast are not as established but they appear inspired and in the groove. Surreal cameos from Rihanna, Ethan Hawke and Herbie Hancock are badges of honor that this film was done out of love and not out of profit.

American media were embarrassing in their dismissal and celebration of Valerian's domestic failure. Thats where we're at. Folks are such brainwashed corporate consumerists that they root against potentially entertaining experiences so their team wins. Bizarre. And yes, Valerian is better than The Last Jedi.

The Phantom of Liberty 1974

Bunuel is cinema's first official surrealist and so he has a head start on exploring the subgenre's parameters even if he is naturally its most dated example. But he also grew into a a powerful narrative director who could restrain himself to commercial and technical prowess to sell a message. Here he is in the twilight of his career (the man started in the 1920s!) and Phantom is a radical mixture of seemingly normal, bland TV style cinema and Luis' roots in dream logic and absurdist satire. This and Discreet Charm were immensely popular arthouse hits in France & America, so some of it is not expected but in keeping with the aesthetic trajectory we associate with the 70s, or at least its counterculture.

The film is a loose anthology of episodes tied together by characters and themes but not having a central plot. It may have been influenced by Monty Python's Flying Circus but Bunuel is an obvious influence on SNL's early years. Each sketch is hip, sexy, political and ironic, but not played for easy laughs. Bunuel doesn't care if you don't find it funny. Thats actually the point: to find this absurdity depressing and too real to be funny. Its an amazingly successful exercise to be as ridiculous or gross or awkward while still holding a mirror to the audience. Maybe the points will fly over the head of the layman but the keen veteran director lets the film still work on an infantile level as pure entertainment.

I've seen only 4 films from Bunuel and I can't think of a director with such a broad command of narrative. With Un Chien Andalou he captures the insanity of dream analysis with silent footage. With Viridiana he explores the dark psyche of the feminist condition. With Death in the Garden he presents a great American-style thriller with radical political implications and with Phantom he takes us on a mellow, formal experience of the immaterial & the unfathomable curiosities of human behavior and polite society. He's one of the true masters of the form.