Just Get Up Off The Ground, That's All I Ask: Mr. Smith Goes To Washington (1939)

Much like Capra's other revered classic It's A Wonderful Life, there is a heavy cloud of nostalgia that covers Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, which affords it a place high on top film lists one that is hardly questioned and deservedly so, since it is nothing short of perfect.  Yet, when one considers the holy grail element of this specific film, it becomes problematic to think that given its understanding as a great American film it is often set aside for rewatching or referred to with any critical seriousness.  Sure, it gets mentioned as a joke here and there, most recently I believe in a tip of the hat to Senator Davis' epic filibuster, but it seems as though Mr. Smith Goes to Washington is not earnestly considered for its invective look at the state of American politics, one that considers the many flaws of "business as usual politics" that are run by a ton of old white guys who are purely in it for the side money they receive from maniacal tycoons with wild capitalist endeavors.  The movie I am describing sounds as though it would have come from the heart of New Hollywood, or would equally have been the product of an Aaron Sorkin script, but no, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, in all its forward looking criticism and indictment of a corrupt American legislative branch was made in 1939, some eighty odd years ago.  It is one thing to look at the civil rights movement and feel frustration at the lack of change in a fifty year period, but it is literally doubly troublesome to realize that political corruption has been a topic of condemnation within American popular culture rhetoric for almost a century, the problems of which have seemingly gotten worse.  Indeed, much like Capra's other previously mentioned Stewart vehicle, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington spends much of its time with a narrative that is bleak and seemingly lacking in any resolve, yet it is during the final moments of the film that all is saved through the good in humanity, which as idealistic as it may be is sold with such earnestness through the ever amiable acting of Jimmy Stewart and the melodramatic leanings of Capra.  Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, unlike a political film of the new era, lays on the indictment, only to suggest that even in its darkest moments, good can and should prevail.  Tragically, if anything, that is what betrays this film to a bygone era.  Were this film to be released today, it would undoubtedly fail in the face of a crippling sense of disillusionment about the American political machine.

Mr. Smith Goes to Washington begins with an announcement of rather unfortunate news regarding the loss of a senator in a non-specified Western state.  This untimely death leads a group of party politicians in a frenzy attempting to find a replacement for the senator that will not only make constituents comfortable, but will also prove to bend to the will of the powers that be, as such the "elective" body calls upon Jefferson Smith (James Stewart) a wide-eyed idealist who is most known for his community outreach regarding orphaned boys as opposed to possessing any sort of intelligence.  Initially reluctant to take up such a task, Smith realizes that such an appointment will allow him to pursue a lifelong goal of creating a national boys camp wherein both well-off and underprivileged kids can attend camp by paying whatever pocket change they can afford.  Of course, the blind sense of idealism Smith brings to the senate is quickly challenged when both the long standing legislative officials and media alike use him as a battering ram for their own self-advancement.  Nonetheless, Smith assures himself that if he is to prove successful in his position he must learn to play by the rules to the most specific details, therefore, recruiting the help of his secretary Clarissa Saunders (Jean Arthur) in the process.  Initially, Saunders is rather hesitant to aide in Smith's idealism, particularly since she is afforded financial gain by his mockery, however, when his passion captures her heart, not to mention Smith's good looks, she yields to his request and begins an equally driven attempt to pass his bill.  The bill in its seemingly innocent nature, comes up against opposition by members of his own state, whose vested interests in the wealth of a local tycoon, are challenged since Smith plans to build the camp on a creek that is home to a prospective dam.  It is at this point that the entirety of the senate turns against Smith, including his own party, tricking him into not only being absent during the voting of the bill, but also blackmailing him with false papers about the profits he would gain from such a camp being built.  Knowing that he has truth on his side, Smith pushes on engaging in a filibuster that he hopes will show not only the power of democracy, but also speak to his honesty in the situation.  While attempts are continually made to discredit Smith, one of his colleagues who was in on the corruption eventually succumbs to his own guilt and admits to Smith's honesty.  After a full twenty-four hours of expounding upon freedom and the constitution, Smith has successfully proven his case and assumedly earned the camp he greatly desired, as well as a symbol of democracy working for the people, as opposed to a singular person.

Corruption in politics is certainly not an infrequent theme in cinema, both within and American and global context, however, much as Capra considers the multiple facets of spirituality in It's A Wonderful Life, here his camera focuses on the layers of deception and indifference that result from a split-party elective body in the United States that is solely focused on assuring one's own skin through continual re-election.  The running joke throughout the film is the notion that once a politician lands a seat on the senate he is solely concerned with assuring that he keeps that position until death, the only way of which to do so is to keep his (I use the masculine because the film clearly calls attention to the problematic patriarchal element of politics) mouth shut and nod in agreement to his senior colleague.  This silencing bars any sort of idealism from sprouting within the hallowed halls of the capitol, so much so, that when a person does speak out it is met with opposition.  The idea of opposition, is not simply an attempt to discredit one's character in a ethics committee, but within the media as well, which is portrayed in an equally scathing manner.  In fact, it is the media who seem intent on maligning Smith solely for their own humor, painting him as a wild man who is coming to chop away at the absurdity of government, although to be fair at least one of those accusations proves to be true.  The corruption is further problematized when it is shown that a reputation can be ruined even before a man is allowed to defend himself, as is the case with Smith when he attempts to have his constituents speak on his behalf, only to be outpaced by a financial strong arm that controls all the media in his area.  The brilliance results not from Smith's refusal to bend to the will of corrupt power, but from the fact that it is through a small, non-profit youth paper that his truth is spoken.  This sort of grassroots moment is wonderful because it shows that with a sincere message and the zeal to deliver it one can truly accomplish things politically.  This is not the misguided frustration of an Occupy movement, or the throw money at the problem focus of big money charity-based lobbying.  It is a simple idea of speaking truth to both visible and hidden power, a pertinent message if ever one existed.

Key Scene:  For all the amazing diatribes that Stewart throws down in this movie, it is the small and rather unusual moment that involves a close-up of Smith fumbling with his hat that is the highlight of the film.  Not only is it unusual for a film of this era, it also happens to be a telling sign of his character which would evolve in assertiveness throughout, his hat and his control over it continually serving as a parallel.

Buy this movie. NOW.

I Haven't Lived. I've Died A Few Times: Harold and Maude (1971)

Harold and Maude has been one of the many films I was ashamed to admit to having not seen,  I intended to watch it some time ago, but then Criterion eventually announced that they would be releasing the film which caused me to wait even longer to view the work, not to mention actually purchasing the bluray which meant even longer of a wait.  Thankfully, and much to my elation, I have finally viewed what is perhaps the greatest dark comedy ever realized.  Harold and Maude is a harbinger of everything we as collective viewers have come to love about indie romantic comedies.  The influence on directors like Wes Anderson and The Duplass Brothers is not just likely, it is pretty damn obvious.  Within the narrative world of Harold and Maude we have two characters who simply cannot exist in a normal society for their actions and ideals are far to absurd and in some cases to dysfunctional to prove malleable with a strictly conservative social outlook, one that is brilliantly referenced throughout the film with various images of Nixon, Nathan Hale and a variety of pious religious figures.  Fortunately, for the films main characters, nobody else existing in Hal Ashby's world seems particularly normal either, even those who claim to the the torchbearers for respectable values.  Quirky is not the right word to describe this film, nor is off-beat quite right either, for the film is realized and is certainly aware of its rhythm and nature, all be it one that is not particularly traditional, however, I would argue that to be more of its historical place in American cinema than anything else.  Perhaps the Criterion put it best in the movie description by calling the film idiosyncratic, because it is essentially about two definitively idiosyncratic individuals coming together and learning not only to deal with their competing idiosyncrasies, but inherently different world philosophies, as well.  All heightened by some exceptional cinematography and a great, then Cat Stevens, soundtrack, Harold and Maude is a film that transcends its movie space into a greater vision.

Harold and Maude begins with title character Harold (Bud Cort), aimlessly wandering about his house, only to engage in what appears to be a hanging, an act that receives very little acknowledgement from his mother Mrs. Chasen (Vivian Pickles).  It is revealed that this is by no means Harold's first faux-suicide and much to the dismay of his psychiatrist and uncle the young man is quite obsessed death, going so far as to attend funerals in his free time and spending his inheritance money on what is perhaps the hippest hearst every filmed.  Realizing that her son is a social outcast, Mrs. Chasen attempts to set her son up with various blind dates, all of which fail miserably when Harold engages in various fake suicides while in their presence.  Finding no other alternative then to send Harold into the Army.  Along the way Harold meets a woman who also seems to have a penchant for crashing funerals, one who continually approaches him while at the various services.  The older woman, Harold comes to learn is an eccentric woman named Maude (Ruth Gordon).  Maude's carefree attitude and love for life instantly rubs off on Harold, who takes more than a liking to the old bohemian and begins spending a considerable amount of time with her, engaging in everything from the stealing of plants and cars to having picnics at wreckage sites.  As Harold begins to fall for Maude harder, he informs his mother of his feelings, leading her to completely reprimand Harold for his desires, sending him to various male figureheads to receive chastising remarks, the most unusual ones coming from a priest.  Fortunately, the two are able to spend a considerable amount of time together and on Maude's eightieth birthday, Harold throws a big celebration and opens up about the intensity of his feelings towards Maude, who informs Harold that she has taken poison and never intended to live past eighty.  Frantically, Harold attempts to save Maude by taking her to the hospital, only to get bogged down in paperwork.  Eventually, Maude dies and Harold is distraught.  The film juxtaposes him driving his hearst towards a cliff, only to exit right before the car flies over the edge.  Harold then plays a banjo he received from Maude as he walks back towards the road dancing.

The conservative oppressive commentaries are all to clear within Harold and Maude.  As noted the ever present images of Richard Nixon, Pope John Paul the Second and various other historically conservative figures inundate the mis-en-scene, often reflecting the issues facing Harold throughout the film, we see this quite uproariously in his initial conversation with his uncle about joining the armed forces.  It causes clear identity issues within the young man, particularly considering that he has some sort of detachment from his father, who we as viewers are to assume passed away prior to the point in which we are introduced to Harold.  However, another larger issue of maternal longing problematizes the narrative, something that is reinforced by a picture of Freud present in his psychiatrists office, as well as a unusual scene involving a wooden sculpture in Maude's train car residence.  Not only does Harold lack a father figure, his connection with his mother is so fractured, as well that he find himself constantly reflecting on death as a means to be buried and arguably return to the womb.  However, this is not to suggest that his relationship with Maude is a mother son one, because it does have a very sexual component to it that would make their relationship incestual and far less romantic.  It is by no means such a thing, if anything Harold is very much asexual and void of desires, the encounter between himself and Maude was a means of loving intimacy arguably transcendent of the act of sex.  Harold, and the same argument could be made for Maude, are seeking some sort answer to the longing in their lives, for Harold it is accepting life, while for Maude, despite seeing death while in the Holocaust, nonetheless, must accept that she cannot escape its inevitability.

Key Scene:  The moment where Harold and Maude share in a song at the piano might be one of the best filmed occurrences of two people falling in love ever .

Buy the bluray to this masterpiece, it is one of the best releases by Criterion in quite awhile and well worth owning to watch and revisit multiple times.

Free Your Mind, And Your Ass Will Follow: Platoon (1986)

Over the years Oliver Stone has sort of gained a reputation as being an abrasive director who often loses sight of making a good film due to his penchant for making politically scathing commentaries within his work.  Fortunately, on a few occasions Stone manages to keep the criticism focused enough to create a spectacular work, this is the case with Wall Street and is certainly the case with Platoon.  In the same vein as war movies like Saving Private Ryan and Thin Red Line, Platoon is loaded with a veritable who's who of emerging Hollywood actors, and a few veterans colliding together in brilliantly stacked performances, ranging from a smile-wielding Forrest Whitaker to a soft-spoken, yet suave Johnny Depp.  A film with a frenzied pace and incoherent editing structure, Platoon depicts a film about war as though the viewer is actually amidst the action, perhaps due to the fact that Stone himself was a Vietnam veteran, helping to explain the vehement and focused rage of his films.  At no point in the film does the narrative fall stale and having known the plot to this film well before its viewing, I found myself nonetheless blown away by its cinematic presence and general enjoyability.  Trying at times and poetic at others, the mix of cinema verite and exploitative grandiosity comprises what could well be one of the best war films I have ever seen, if it were not for the existence of Stanley Kubrick.  Platoon is an American classic and deservedly so, it like Citizen Kane or Easy Rider has a very real place in the historical landscape of American cinema and society.

Platoon introduces us to the hellish experiences of one enlisted soldier named Chris Taylor (Charlie Sheen), who has done the unthinkable and actually volunteered for service.  Along side a gang of lively soldiers, Taylor experiences the emotional and physical drains of war.  This includes amongst other individuals King (Keith David) a wise-cracking African-American man on the lookout for a means to leave the jungle, Sergeant O'Neill (John C. McGinley) who strives to gain promotions within his squadron despite being overlooked multiple times, as well as the less than authoritative Lieutenant Wolfe (Mark Moses) who is clearly scared by the entire Vietnam ordeal.  However, much of Taylor's war experiences are contentiously battled between two sergeants, one the hippy, hash smoking Sergeant Elias (Willem Dafoe) who clearly tries to befriend those around him and wants nothing more than to leave and Sergeant Barnes (Tom Beringer) who is ruthless and maniacal, seeing the war as a means to purge the earth of lesser beings.  Constantly confronting one another over the "soul" of Taylor, Barnes and Elias become incredibly confrontational to the point that Barnes kills Elias in cold blood during  a shootout, ultimately, leading to the squadron being disbanded.  After a short rest, Taylor is sent back out to war and, after yet another skirmish, finds himself with an opportunity to exact revenge for Elias and act he quickly undertakes, killing Barnes.  Ultimately, the film reminds us that war often pits allies against one another, leaving the enemy secondary, at least this is how Oliver Stone remembers Vietnam.

I could go into detail about how Platoon focuses on the intensity and sporadic nature of war, or I could talk about the racial vision of Stone's Vietnam.  More so I could talk about this film's political nature as it relates to other Stone movies, however, none of these approaches quite matches the idea of possessing souls as it relates to Platoon.  In this context, Barnes and Elias represent two reapers of souls, Barnes for the evil and Elias for the good, or so it seems, it could be said that both are simply corrupt soldiers seeking to validate their existences.  Furthermore, both Barnes and Elias have their assumed apostles, the various troops in the squadron siding with whom they find the most reflective of their own ideals.  It is saturated with religious metaphors and imagery from the presence of crosses, to somewhat ironic ankhs, as well as the now famous and oft-parodied death of Elias, which is all to Christlike.  Furthermore, it is, in my belief, no accident that Christ Taylor, becomes Christ T., a bit on the nose but quite fitting with Stone's religious study of war.  Overall, the film reads as a glorified study of The Golden Rule, one that is, ultimately, questioned, revisited and undermined in two hours of cinematic perfection.

Key Scene: Guns and smoke...and not from firing said gun.

This is a classic, and undeniable stamp on the greatness of American cinema, and while I watched it on Netflix, I would venture to say that the bluray is worth looking into, I know I intend to grab a copy.

You Know Billy, We Blew It: Easy Rider (1969)

When the powers that be that controlled Hollywood from the onset of the silent era to well into the 1950's fell out of control, what happened to American filmmaking would forever change viewers understandings of cinematic narrative.  With non-linear narratives and Soviet style montage sequences American moviegoers, thirsty for something revolutionary were enthralled by the psychedelic and cool stylings of New Hollywood filmmaking and while Easy Rider was not the first film to offer such imagery and commentary it has, undoubtedly, come to represent the era more so than any of its contemporaries.  Between its drug-induced soundtrack, Odyssey-like quest story and its purely disparaging commentary on the state of youth in America, it represents the 60's masterfully and manages to still say something honest and uncomfortable about the state of society, regardless of being almost fifty years old.  One of the many contenders on my "coolest movies" list, Easy Rider makes you want to jump back in time and strap on an American flag leather jacket and simply cruise the highways of America, not because you are out to prove yourself a bad-ass, but because you truly hope to find the meaning of everything between a cup of coffee in a diner and a revelatory trip on lsd next to some cacti.   However, just like Jack Kerouac's prolific novel On The Road, Easy Rider takes away the coolness of nostalgia, by slapping on a harsh reality that the ideal world of the past is easily disrupted by those who interfere out of irrational hostility and a loathsome fear of change.  Easy Rider is hardly a story of redemption and it is certainly not intended to be taken lightly, but between the magnitude of such a low-budget film and the fact that it was ever produced in the first place is something to celebrate in itself and let us not forget that the film is in the AFI Top 100 film list for a damn good reason, it is with little argument one of the most American films ever released.

Easy Rider follows the exploits of Wyatt (Peter Fonda) who also refer to himself as Captain America, in honor of his motorcycle and jacket adorned with the stars and stripes and Billy (Dennis Hopper) a leather jacket long haired hippy who is preoccupied with making money and getting stoned.  After a successful drug sale, Wyatt and Billy decided to take their newfound fortunes and travel across The United States, with the ultimate intention of stopping in at Mardi Gras.  Along the way, they meet a variety of individuals who provide them with details about the American experience, one that is clearly muddied by disillusionment.  The first individual they encounter is simply known as The Stranger on the Highway (Luke Askew) and asks for a ride to his compound in the desert of the Midwest.  There Wyatt and Billy witness an "off the grid" community of youth that have left the city in hopes of ascending their corporeal existence into something more spiritual.  However, it is clear that their existence is more focused on orgiastic free love and heavy drug use than anything else.  Itching to get to Louisiana Billy cuts their stay there short and they continue on the road towards the southern state.  Along the way the are arrested for interfering with a town parade and are forced to spend a night in jail, there they meet a functional alcoholic named George Hanson (Jack Nicholson) who just happens to be a well known lawyer and helps the duo out of jail in exchange for tagging along with them on their trip.  Donning his old football helmet, George becomes a pseudo-guide through the south and all seems fine until they enter into a local diner, only to be ridiculed and ignored by the servers due to their unconventional attire.  Distraught the three spend the night in the woods outside the town and are eventually attacked by a group of locals, which results in the death of George and injuries to both Wyatt and Billy.  Enraged the two continue on their quest to New Orleans and eventually make it to an infamous brothel. There they meet two girls and spend the night together, partaking in acid and having a crazy trip.  After this experience Billy and Wyatt hit the road again and have become quite upset with the state of their trip and decide to call things off completely, however, before they can return from where they came they are gun downed by two rednecks who think it a fun game to fire a shot gun at the passing motorcyclists.  The film then ends not with a nostalgic remembrance of the two travelers, but instead, just an image of the flaming motorcycle as the screen pans out in an incredibly reflective moment.

Easy Rider is not the first motorcycle movie released by any means, nor is it even the first movie with either Peter Fonda or Dennis Hopper that places its central focus on the experiences of motorcycle driving rebels.  What Easy Rider is the first to do, however, is to condense all the concerns, commentaries and dilemmas that plagued young America post-1968 into one film and boy does it make a lasting impression.  While it is never fully acknowledged, we can come to assume that Wyatt is a Vietnam veteran, his choice to wear the American flag being an ironic homage of sacrifice to an ungrateful nation.  His relatively clean look suggests a man traveling cross-country in the hopes of finding an answer to his existential sense of loss.  He seems to interact earnestly with each person he encounters; hoping that they will provide him a reason to continue on, sadly this never seems the case.  In opposition then, is Billy, whose constant state of intoxication and anger suggest a man who is trying to outrun something.  If we find ourselves confused about Wyatt's past, even less is known about Billy aside from the fact that he really wants to get laid and retire with money in Florida.  In fact, it is quite clear that many of the characters within Easy Rider combine into a pastiche of the collective disillusionment of sixties America.  Whether it be the stranger who desires a complete disconnect from technology, or George who is so overwhelmed by his parental expectations that he spends his days drinking himself into oblivion, simply because he cannot stand to reside in the harshness that is reality.  The film is problematic in that it only focuses on the narratives of white males, but there is certainly a possibility that Hopper intended this as another layer of commentary on the issues of America during the time, it is impossible to say, but worth considering.

Key Scene: The drug trip scene in the New Orleans mausoleums, as filmed by Laslo Kovacs is hands down the best drug sequence in a movie ever....and I mean ever.

I was ecstatic when Criterion released its box set of the "America: Lost and Found" series and was finally able to purchase it about a month ago.  This is one of many films in the set and is well worth purchasing, the Bluray transfer of Easy Rider looks phenomenal.

Please, A Lady Never Admits Her Feet Hurt: Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (1953)

The more Technicolor films involving Marilyn Monroe I watch, the more I realize their rather grand influence on the whole of cinema.  Whether it be the obvious examples like the cultural knowledge of a song like "Diamonds Are A Girl's Best Friend," or less obvious things like Howard Hawks making a veritable lesson plan on how to direct a musical.  Gentlemen Prefer Blondes is as much a textbook example of how to make a musical as it is something entirely detached from its lavish and extravagant predecessors.  It is easy to attach an explanation to its lasting success, because simply put it is one of those rarely made films that are in essence perfect.  Ignoring the possibilities for social criticism, all of which can be chalked up to the societal standards at the time of the films release, there is hardly a flaw to be found in a film like Gentlemen Prefer Blondes.   I found myself relishing in the glorious colors, zany dance numbers and down right hilarity of the script more than I tend to for musicals of this era.  It is certainly a feat of filmmaking and easily one of the best films to emerge from America in 1953.  However, what is perhaps the most important attribute of this film, like The Seven Year Itch, is its ability to help me detach myself from the cultural ideal of Marilyn Monroe to better understand her as the marvelous actress she was, without the lingering tragedies of her life off screen.

The film opens unabashedly with two showgirls performing on stage. These women are Lorelei (Marilyn Monroe) a woman who is almost entrepreneurial in her quest for wealthy men and her friend Dorothy (Jane Russel) who is longing to find an intimate relationship with a man that is both meaningful and void of false pretenses.  The duo is about to engage in a trip to France that is sponsored almost entirely by Lorelei's beau the foolish and rich Gus Edmond (Tommy Noonan).  Before the trip, Lorelei hopes that Gus will propose to her only to discover that he plans to hold off his asking.  While boarding the ship we are shown Gus Edmond Sr. (Taylor Holmes) demanding that private investigator Ernie Malone (Elliot Reid) watch over Lorelei to catch her in an act of infidelity.  Ernie agrees to this task but also admits to an instantaneous attraction to Dorothy, who he begins to engage with the moment they both are on the ship.  Once the ship sets sail it is apparent what the two girls are after, Lorelei is after a new suitor and Dorothy is on a quest for love, which seems impossible despite having a ship full of male athletes.  Ernie continues his quest to frame Lorelei, a task that is proving rather simple given her recent attraction to a wealthy diamond tycoon appropriately nicknamed Piggy (Charles Coburn), despite the ever-invasive presence of his wife.  However, Ernie fails to efficiently trap Lorelei in the act of infidelity, because of his preoccupation with Dorothy who becomes aware of Ernie's double life quite quickly.  Lorelei succeeds in convincing Piggy to give her a diamond tiara which belongs to his wife, an action with dire consequences as it results in both Lorelei and Dorothy's banishing by Gus to the streets of Paris with not money or residence.   Trying to free himself of trouble Piggy manages to steal back the tiara, although this does not happen before Dorothy attempts to pass as Lorelei in court, making a complete mockery of the judicial process.  Piggy manages to free the women of their assumed guilt by appearing at the courthouse with the tiara.  The women leave court and are later approached by Gus's father who is irate with Lorelei for her desire to marry his son, although Lorelei in a moment of brilliance states that her desires are no different from men wanting to marry a pretty girl, it is a matter of social status.  The film then closes on a rather high note in a double wedding of Lorelei to Gus and Dorothy to Ernie, implying that, despite their new relationships with men, the girls will still engage in their wily ways as independent women of the world.

I had the fortune of reading a few insightful articles regarding Gentlemen Prefer Blondes after viewing the film.  Both were excerpts from an older edition of Issues In Feminist Film Criticism, which focused on how positive the film was concerning its images of women.  One would be surprised to discover that the individuals that authored these articles found the women to be positively portrayed.  It would seem that the overarching patriarchal dominance that closes the film would nullify any sort of liberated image, but this is not the case when the film is taken as a whole.  As one article argued through a Marxist lens, the film is about trading commodities, and the character of Lorelei should not be seen as a woman using her body sexually for money, because it was simply a respected job for a fifties era woman.  Lorelei should be seen as an entrepreneur who engages in business transactions, all of which she gains financial advances, without ever officially giving up her commodity, which is in this film her body.  The other article discusses the two women's relationships to the filmic space, noting that they both dominate it throughout the film and serve as the focal point for most every scene in the film.  Take for example the dance and song number in the swimming area, it is clear that Dorothy dominates the men in the scene and is aggressively pursuing sexual power, a truly liberating act for women in this era.  Finally, I have mentioned The Bechdel Test on here before concerning women's images in films and it may surprise you that this film passes all the sections of the test, something films still fail to do, but something that rarely happened in 1950's films.  It is amazing to section a movie like Gentlemen Prefer Blondes in such a pro-feminist place, because when one looks at a movie poster or simply recollects this era in Hollywood it is easily assumed that this occurrence was impossible.

Gentlemen Prefer Blondes is a majestic film from the fading years of Hollwood grandeur.  It is a Technicolor masterpiece that has tragically yet to be released on Bluray.  Given this, a regular DVD will have to suffice for this must have film to any respectable collection.

Experiments In Film: 14 Video Paintings (1981 and 1984)

For some time I had it set in my mind that nothing profoundly artistic could occur as a result of home video recording.  Simply put, the gritty, blurry and amatuerish quality of such a format was not intended to be used cinematically.  This was the opinion I felt until stumbling upon a set of experimental films created by ambient music pioneer Brian Eno.  His filmic studies titled Thursday Afternoon and Mistaken Memories of Mediaeval Manhattan are perhaps some of the most portrait-like pieces of cinema I have ever seen.  Created by slowing down recordings of his New York skyline and women engaging in everything from smoking to bathing, Eno's work is meant to be enjoyed by multiple senses in an almost unconscious manner.  The film image moves quite slowly and each little details pops and fades as though it were an impressionist painting.   It would be quite fair to call Eno's works ambient, because like his music they are meant to on the atmospheric elements of cinema, as opposed to the narrative or singular aspects of cinema.  It is meant to be something that can be enjoyed slowly and obsessively without distractions, as well as passively in the background of a party or other activities.  In essence, it is purely experiential cinema that is viewable in a variety of manners.

The mastery of Eno's experimental cinema is that it works as a literal piece of art.  Mistaken Memories incorporates notions of landscape painting, while Thursday Afternoon is clearly a rethinking of portraiture.  However, what separates Eno's work from a traditional painting is that it does in fact move, even if the movement is nearly undetectable.  Furthermore, the simple placement of ambient music to his pieces elevates the work to a new level of experimental art in that it is a hybrid of visual and aural experience that simply does not occur enough in the avant-garde community.  Finally, and perhaps most surprising is Eno's use of filters and camera effects in Thursday Afternoon to distort his images.  This technique was so overused with the onset of home video that I had become disdainful of anything involving its use, however, as should be little surprise Eno makes it seem poetic, provocative and fresh.  Simply put, Eno is, as with his music, very aware of each subtle detail in his films that it becomes a thing of both grand beauty and obsessive minutia that is fantastically mesmerizing.  I know that I am gloating on Eno's films to great length, but having already loved his music, 14 Video Paintings only makes me admire the man more and more.

For more information on Brian Eno or to watch an example of his work click either of the film stills below.  A warning that Thursday Afternoon technically contains nudity, although it is more in lines with a nude painting:

 

The Chair Is Not Gay, Obviously: Beginners (2010)

I recall having a conversation with a friend and filmmaker who discussed the issues of many indie comedies lacking a heartbeat.  He stated that while many films were visually stunning or narratively advanced they still lacked that life that separates a good indie film from its lesser competition.  Mike Mill's critically acclaimed and extremely personal film Beginners is an movie with a steady and very apparent heartbeat.  I can foresee this film becoming a timeless classic on the study of family and self-acceptance in the face of midlife existential malaise and I am also imagining that it is going to rake in nicely at whatever awards ceremonies it is involved.  This film along with Lena Dunham's Tiny Furniture are bringing me back around to the world of independent cinema that I had ruled lost with the new millennium.  Beginners is a fresh, quirky and real study of life as one person experiences it and is a touching cinematic reminder of how fleeting a person's life can be and that they should live said life to the fullest with the fewest illusions possible.  I would be hard pressed to find a more bittersweet collage of images, than what Mill's offers in this film.

Beginners, though non-linear in its narrative, is a relatively simple story.  It begins with the thirty-eight year old Oliver (Ewan McGregor) packing the final belongings of his late fathers house.  This act alone leads him on a reflection of his own relationships with both of his deceased parents. The film, and Oliver's reflections, paint his mother Georiga (Mary Page Keller) out to be a depressed and drugged out woman whose relationship with her son and husband are distanced and meaningless, leading Georgia to act out in public to spite them both.  It would appear as though Georgia's actions are selfish and loathsome, until Oliver is told in another flashback with his aged father that he had, in fact, married Oliver's mother despite being gay.  This confession on the part of Oliver's father Hal (Christopher Plummer) leads Oliver to question everything he has understood about his life, including his own relationship with his dad.  Fortunately, for Oliver he is able to rekindle his relationship with his dying father purely out of providing support for him and accepting his lifestyle change as a desire that had lingered long before he arrived in the world.  Tragically, Hal does die and Oliver is left to clean up what remains, acts that range from dumping out his father large amount of medicine to caring for his telepathic dog.  Oliver seems content to graze through life unattached to those around him with only a dog as a companion, until he runs into a mute girl at a costume party who hits on him by writing notes.  This woman, Oliver discovers, is a French actress named Anna (Melanie Laurent) and her lack of voice is due solely to a case of laryngitis.  The two begin a head on collision of romance and therapy that leads the two down a confusing path of love and fear, which seems doomed for failure until a last minute change of heart makes Oliver realize that he cannot live his life in fear like his father did, because to do so would be to dismiss a chance a true love, even if such love is momentary.

This film is sweet and beautifully shot, but what is perhaps the most captivating element of the film is its ability to seriously deal with contemporary issues without loosing its artistic edge.  Beginners clearly has an agenda, particularly its concern with reminding viewers of the unfortunate struggles gay Americans face prior to the new millennium.  In freeze frames, Oliver reflects on notions of beauty, politics and family between two years, often using the 1950's and 1960's and a comparison to the year of 2003 in which the film is set.  Through this duality Mill's makes it quite clear that for a character like Hal to have been openly gay would have meant his public banishment and a life of solitude.  The fact, that he had to hide his own sexual desires until his last months alive are tragic and a character like Oliver helps viewers to comprehend how truly baffling such a ridiculous demand was for people living fifty years ago.  More than this though, the film is also a beautiful observation of the seemingly limitless boundaries of love.  As I noted earlier, the character of Georgia is painted rather bitterly and shown to be pathetically lost in her own world of ennui.  However, in a very touching scene Hal reminds Oliver that he loved his mother and she loved him, their being together was an act of friendship and loyalty.  She know of Hal's sexual preference, but agreed to marry him regardless, because she knew the social consequences if he were to remain unmarried.  This moment helps Oliver to comprehend much of his confused youth and he grows to respect his mother, as well as the obstacles his father continued to face even in his dying days.  Oliver also comes to realize that he cannot expect happiness to emerge through finding his father love, but instead in supporting his decisions while searching for his own source of happiness, a feat that appears to happen in the films closing shot.

This movie is magical and heartbreaking.  I am standing behind this as one of the best films in this award season and cannot recommend it enough.  Buy a copy and share it with those you care about.

It's A Bad Day To Be A Rhesus Monkey: Contagion (2011)

The masterful filmmaking that has become synonymous with Steven Soderbergh, makes his recent retirement announcement all the more troubling.  However, that has not stopped me from enjoying the work that he is still producing.  His paranoia inducing and Hollywood heavy film Contagion is a pseudo sci-fi masterpiece.  It is apparent at this point that Soderbergh has developed a style that is both accessibly mainstream and avant-garde in its visionary cinematic advances.  With a stark opening, techno fueled montages and rather conventional character development Contagion is a work of composed brilliance that manages to create a shockingly accurate landscape for a global pandemic.  It manages to honestly confront both the large scale and intimate issues of a rampantly spreading disease without losing sight of sound movie making.  It is a shame that this film was not popularly received because it is considerably better than many of the films released this year, excluding The Tree of Life of course.  A few directors and whole genres of filmmaking could take a few notes from Soderbergh's playbook before endeavoring to make their own dystopic thrillers.

Contagion, as the title suggests, follows the spreading of a disease through contact.  However, the disease in question proves not to be a simple flu bug, but a seizure-inducing virus with fatal effects.  In classic Soderbergh fasion the film involves several narratives that loosely intersect, but never seem to fully connect.  The characters in the film are all attempting to avoid contracting the virus while also assuring their own personal goals whether they be like the character of Mitch (Matt Damon) whose major concern is the safety of his daughter or Alan (Jude Law) who sees the virus as an opportunity to unmask government conspiracy while also cashing in on paranoid internet users.  Others like Dr. Ellis Cheever (Laurence Fishburne) and Dr. Erin Mears (Kate Winslet) employ their scientific understanding of disease prevention full force in an attempt to subdue the virus.  However, as these, and other, characters realize their personal goals are made nearly impossible in the face of a growing global pandemic, which leads to illogical and often barbaric behavior ranging from small scale robbery to fully enacted kidnapping.  Problems are only heightened by the realization that a vaccine for the virus cannot exist in a large enough amount to assure immediate availability.  This leads to an even larger amount of rioting, global political confrontations and a considerable amount of class consciousness.  Ultimately, and rather unusually for Soderbergh, the film reminds viewers that with time things will eventually become normal and diseases can only spread so far when people are consciously preventing their occurrence.  A nice moral message blanketed by a well-made thriller, yet it is in no way obnoxious, a difficult feat to perform, take my upcoming review of Birdemic as an example.

I tossed around what type of critical reflection to provide for this film, given that so many critics have drawn upon the films realistic portrayal of the rise and fall of a global pandemic.  I considered mentioning something else about this film, but all I can do is offer a resounding agreement to these claims.  The film does a damn good job of focusing on the cogs turning as a simple case of virus related deaths turn from something personal to a large-scale issue that involves large scale government actions both privately and publicly that posses dire consequences.  Contagion absolutely catches the bureaucracy of dealing with an invisible disease both in regards to politics and science, while reminding viewers that sometimes the best action for an individual or even a group of individuals does not necessarily mean that it is good for the whole.  This is clear in the approach to dealing with quarantined victims in the film.  It is made clear that quarantine is necessary to the safety of cities in the film, yet the problems of financing said quarantine have bureaucratic strings that must be tied in order to provide services.  Furthermore, the act of providing vaccines would prove terribly problematic, as it does in the film, given that limited supply would inevitably lead to arguments over who "deserves" the first right to vaccination.  It is a film about the problems of dealing with a problem, a very pertinent commentary given our current economic state.  Contagion reminds us that when it comes to dealing with world issues neither bureaucrats or Occupy Wall Street members have the idea entirely correct.

Go watch this film now...It is terribly underrated right now and I am begging you to help that change.

I'm Wildly Unhappy, And I'm Trying To Buy It, And It's Not Working: Crazy, Stupid, Love (2011)

Crazy, Stupid, Love is a decent film.  It is very funny and incredibly well-acted, but it will inevitably suffer from falling to the wayside in the face of a rather respectable season of film releases.  It is incredibly star heavy and a surprisingly well-executed plot that takes a frank, and considerably post-modern, look at the decaying of the American nuclear family.  This subject has certainly been worked and reworked, however, I am here to tell you that Crazy, Stupid, Love is a very enjoyable film and well worth watching if only for the humor.  However, I am also here to say that this is perhaps Steve Carell's best performance since Little Miss Sunshine and I would not be surprised to see the comedic actor snag some Oscar nominations for mature performances in the coming years.

There are a lot of characters present in this films so I will attempt to discuss their presence and role in the film, as opposed to simply relaying the plot, because that would not only spoil the film.  It would also miss a lot of what is going on in the film, which focuses heavily on the effects of a person who is acting crazy and stupid as a result of their love.  The main character of the film Hal Weaver (Steve Carell) is faced with the news that his wife Emily (Julianne Moore) is seeking a divorce from him because she feels that not only has their love gone sour, but also she has found herself becoming intimate with a suave and rather toolish co-worker named David Lindhagen (Kevin Bacon).  Both Emily and Hal are severely depressed with their lives which in effect, cause their own children to become socially troubled causing their daughter Molly (Joey King) to become in essence a mute and their son Robbie (Jonah Bobo) to smart off at school and create an unhealthy attraction to his babysitter Jessica Riley (Analeigh Tipton), who incidentally has formed her own crush on Hal.  In the same film, the viewers are introduced to Hannah (Emma Stone) a up and coming lawyer who is expecting her pretentious lawyer boyfriend Richard (Josh Groban) to finally propose to her upon her graduation.  Finally, and perhaps most hilariously, there is the character of Jacob Palmer (Ryan Gosling) who is a young, attractive man who has created the perfect formula for attracting women and spends his evenings making quick work of sleeping with them.  Now if this is not a diverse set of narratives, I do not know what would be such.  Now imagine all these characters interacting in various manners often undermining and supporting each other as it proves necessary.  I would love to tell you how brilliantly they all end up connecting together, but that would ruin some rather excellent plot twists...so I will just leave it up to your viewing, I promise it will make you laugh during multiple instances.

So, I mentioned this being a post-modern focus on familial decay and I feel as though this would be an excellent time to elaborate on the post-modern portion of that statement.  It is not post-modern in the sense that a film like (500) Days of Summer narratively speaking, but I cannot help but feel that the casting choices were intended to reflect such a notion.  The film is drenched with notable actors, whose careers outside this film severely contradict the characters they play.  The obvious is the rather implausible relationship between a person like Steve Carell and Julianne Moore given that she is considerably more attractive than he is, and in this instance his character is by no means charming thus making the relationship even more unlikely.  Next is the character of Jessica played by former America's Next Top Model competitor Analeigh Tipton who is considerably well-spoken and social aware, unlike her character in the film.  This is and added level of absurdity considering a character like her could obviously find affections outside of members of the Weaver family.  Finally, and perhaps most post-modern is the casting of openly staunch feminist Ryan Gosling as a womanizer.  He plays the character expertly, yet with a subtle sense of absurdness as though he is telling viewers it is all a big hoax.  It is not breaking the fourth wall technically, but it is certainly implied.

This film is solid, but probably not a necessary purchase.  I would suggest renting it from one of the various sources it is available and watching it with some friends.  It is likely to be right outside of many critics top ten lists for 2011.

Appearances Can Be...Deceptive: Burn After Reading (2008)

I am coming to realize a very tragic flaw with The Coen Brothers as they relate to popular cinema.  This being that their most provocative and provocative films have proven to be the least well received to regular cinemagoers.  Their Oscar winning film, No Country For Old Men, while spectacular is far inferior to their existential drama A Serious Man, which failed to prove as profitable as the previously mentioned film.  The same fate occurred with Burn After Reading, which was released shortly after No Country For Old Men and proved relatively unsuccessful as far as the Coen's films are concerned.  Burn After Reading is certainly not as thrilling as No Country For Old Men and arguably lacks the same unique characters, but to dismiss this film entirely is certainly a tragic action.  What is offered from the Coen's with Burn After Reading is a very intimate look into a group in American society that many seem to deem unfilmable.  Yet as this film shows, this group, which I will discuss later, provides some of the most joyously fantastic humor available in a dark comedy and it really makes me want to revisit the entire Coen Brothers' oeuvre to find similar subject matter.

Burn After Reading, like so many of Joel and Ethan's movies, involves multiple narratives which by some unseen fate become cruelly intertwined.  The film opens with an aging CIA agent named Osbourne Cox (John Malkovich) discovering that he is being asked to resign from his job, due to various reasons, most notably his continually problematic alcoholism.  This announcement comes at a terrible time for his wife Katie (Tilda Swinton) whose vanity becomes threatened with a sudden cessation of money.  Instead of supporting her ailing husband, Katie decides to pursue her affair with Harry Pfarrer (George Clooney), a sex-crazed employee of the state department, who dismisses not only Osbourne, but his own wife Sandy (Elizabeth Marvel) as nothing more than an author of tacky children's stories.  This entire narrative of infidelity is arched by the discovery of Osbourne's memoirs at a local gym by two mundane employees, the jockish Chad (Brad Pitt) and the aging Linda Litzke (Frances McDormand) whose desire to get plastic surgery challenges even Katie's vanity.  This group of characters began to cross each others paths', assuming that large scale spying is occurring and that Osbourne's memoirs are a major component to refueling the Cold War ideologies in the United States.  Despite being arbitrary, Osbourne's memoirs being leaked, prove to lead to larger amounts of infidelity, murder and political corruption.  All of this blows up in the faces of the characters involved and proves rather tragic.  Yet as the film shows in its closing monologue of a CIA Superior (J.K. Simmons) while  stating that the group "tried its best" that the lives of those men and women involved in this conspiracy were indeed full of sound and fury, but as always signified nothing.  It is a truly existential film that has an equally bleak ending, similar to its predecessor No Country For Old Men, but so much funnier.

As I noted earlier, this film is concerned with a very specific group of the American demographic.  Burn After Reading is preoccupied with middle-aged ennui, a great subject given that it likely reflects The Coen Brother's own personal struggle to stay relevant in an ever evolving world of cinema.  Burn After Reading is all about individuals staying relevant when younger generations are vying to take their place.  From the onset Osbourne reflects this given his removal from the CIA for younger agents.  Instead of proving his worth to the CIA, he quits and commits to discussing the better days of the agency, a classic action of middle aged individuals to become nostalgic as opposed to relevant.  Similarly, both Katie and Linda find themselves loosing their relevance in very physical terms, a particularly notable issue given that both of the characters are women.  Yet, neither attempts to adapt to the situation, but instead rely on medical advancements to rekindle their youth.  Finally, even George Clooney and Brad Pitt's characters, which are implied to be relatively young, are preoccupied with being hypermasculine to a fault, with Clooney being a philanderer and Pitt being fanatical about working out to a fault.  The ultimate problem in the film is that each character's desire to remain relevant becomes hazardous to the group as a whole causing very physical problems in their realities and their inability to acknowledge that they are not indeed "doing their best" is a very dire problem.  With that being said, I should note that I think The Coen's are doing their very best at their age and their relevance is undeniable, certainly in their ability to reflect on a film of ages gone by and rethink it for a new generation, this being of course their glorious adaptation of True Grit.  Burn After Reading is a call to adapt, or else flail in a new generation with differing ideologies which manifest themselves in a variety of forms.

This is an excellent Coen Brothers film that I strongly suggest owning.  Getting a cheap copy of this film is relatively easy and you will not regret it, I promise.

I Do Hope You're Going To Favor Us With Something Special Tonight: Singin' In The Rain (1952)

I mentioned this when I reviewed King Kong a few weeks back and want to take a moment to mention this again.  There are a handful of movies that I assumed I knew everything about before viewing and expected to find little enjoyment when watching Singin' In The Rain.  Was I ever wrong.  Stanley Donen, the genius behind Charade, brings forth something that is not just fantastic, but monumentally brilliant.  I can definitively say that I was, and still am, more enamored with this musical than anything made before or after.  It is the perfect combination of wit, musicianship and narrative that keeps the viewer occupied, and for being a musical made in the early fifties, it is pretty well-acted.  Gene Kelly is a hilarious actor and I am shamed to say that this is my first experience with the late actor.  If none of these elements were not enough, the film is magnificently shot in technicolor and edited to make the hectic and frantic narrative seem illustriously extravagant, while maintaining a very composed structure.  Somehow, Singin' In The Rain manages to adhere to all the traditions of a Hollywood Musical while simultaneously being one of the most avant-garde musicals ever made, excluding Guy Maddin's The Saddest Music In The World of course.

Singin' In The Rain, for those unfamiliar with its plot, is set up as a memory play of sorts, focusing on Don Lockwood (Gene Kelly) a well-respected and much-loved silent film actor who is finding difficulties transitioning to a life in talking films.  Furthermore, his leading lady, and unwilling companion, due mostly to media speculation, Lina Lamont (Jean Hagen) is having greater difficulties transitioning given her grating voice and inability to adapt to new technologies.  Luckily for Don, his long time friend Cosmo Brown (Donald O'Connor) comes up with the idea to change their newest picture into a musical, allowing for Don to exercise his performance skills which granted him his breakthrough in Hollywood.  This is good news for everyone except, Lina whose singing and dancing are even worse than her acting.  Don, however, has recently discovered a young dancer named Kathy (Debbie Reynolds) who he thinks is perfect for the part and sees this role as a chance to return his own luck in Hollywood, as well as a chance to win Kathy's affection.  A problem arises when Lina explains to the producer that her contract allows her near omnipotence over the film despite her failure to perform up to expectations.  Realizing her control Lina demands that Kathy sing her vocals and voice over her acting scenes while receiving no credit for her actions.  Reluctant to do so, but realizing that she has no alternative, Kathy succumbs to the demands and rescinds to her leading role in favor of keeping the love and affection of Don.  The film, titled The Dancing Cavelier, is a huge success and both Don and Lina are asked to give encore performances.  In a moment of hubris, Lina blows her guise and it is revealed that not only has she been lip-synching, but that her voice is unbearable to the audience as well.  Don quickly rushes on stage and reveals Kathy to be the real star of the film to which the audience celebrates appropriately.  The film ends on a joyous note for everyone involved, excluding Lina of course who has learned a very valuable lesson about the ever-fading nature of beauty.

The real magic of Singin' In The Rain comes not in its story or musical numbers, but instead in its editing and post-filming elements.  Sure, it is well-acted and beautifully shot, but the composition of images and use of sound make this film something special.  I would imagine that audiences viewing this film in theaters had the same sort of awe-inspiring experiences as those who viewed The Jazz Singer, a film that is mentioned constantly within Singin' In The Rain, perhaps to let viewers know that Donen was creating an homage of sorts.  It was something new and amazing that lacked explanation, Singin' In The Rain is the truest example of magical cinema.  The perfect hybridity of editing with story telling occurs during the scene when Lina and Don are attempting to film, the then titled The Dueling Cavelier and find the burdens of recording sound unbearable.  The film track often drops out during their speeches to reflect the microphone being out of range and during one scene Lina moves back and forth constantly and the sound wavers with her movements, a moment that was undoubtedly very difficult to recreate in the sound studio.  Having a bit of experience with contemporary sound editing I can confess that this is still a difficult effect to recreate.  In fact, the only film I can recall that even deals with sound in a similar manner is Blow Out.  Furthermore, the entire pace of the scene is frantic, between the constant jump cuts and re-creating of the same scene it is hard to fathom how many takes this scene required.  Despite this, the scene seems flawless and is perhaps one of the most enjoyable moments of the film.  Such dedication to perfection reflects the work of Stanley Donen and he is slowly becoming one of my favorite directors despite having made mostly musicals. 

I am baffled as to why there is no Blu-Ray for this piece of art that is a film.  However, I imagine that they may do something in the upcoming year to celebrate the film's sixtieth anniversary.  I would suggest holding off until that release, but if not, purchase a copy, because it is a landmark film that I wished I had seen much earlier in my life.

They Said, We'll Come Back For You Paw-Paw: The Future (2011)

There are only two names in American Cinema that reflect truly unique and standalone filmmaking that reflects a director pouring their inner most insecurity into their work.  The first is Harmony Korine with his abrasive imagery and bizarrely accurate portrayals of the effects of those disillusioned by the American dream.  The second is the director/author/musician/performance artist Miranda July whose rapidly growing cult following is becoming more evident with each film and novel she releases.  Her most recent directorial offering The Future combines all the indie fueled art-house elements of her first work You, Me, And Everyone We Know (2005) along with a much heavier dose of what I can only describe as magical nihilism.  For those familiar with Miranda July it is easy to expect a sad movie that leaves the characters at the most debased, showing little advancement for themselves...and humanity in general.  At times, Miranda July's scathing criticism of our internet-laden society is hard to watch.  Yet, as is always the case with July's work, some heartbeat ticks deep below the film making the experience transcendental causing the viewer to realize that what they have watched is much grander than a social critique.  The Future is a self-reflective and fully realized poem about the tragedies of aging in a society where individuality is manufactured and intimate relationships are as much about cohabitation as they are about love.  However, the nihilist that is Miranda July reminds us that no amount of change will allow us to escape from this trap and that sometimes death is a far more rewarding alternative.

The Future is a non-linear narrative of sorts and borders on being a time travel film.  It begins with the introduction of a talking cat named Paw-Paw, voiced by the films director, who longingly awaits the return of her soon to be owners, a thirty something couple named Sophie (Miranda July) and Jason (Hamish Linklater).  The couple who was intent on adopting the cat discovers that they must wait an additional thirty days before they can take the cat, because it has suffered a rather serious fracture.  Upon returning to their apartment, the couple decides that their lives are terribly uninspired for pushing forty and vow to make serious life changes before adding Paw-Paw into their lives.  For Jason this means taking up environmental activism and meeting up with Joe (Joe Putterlik) an old man who sells severely used hair dryers in the penny savers and writes raunchy poetry for his wife.  Incidentally, the man who inspired July's entire narrative for the film plays Joe.  Sophie, on the other hand, finds herself attempting to reinvigorate a flailing dance career by performing "30 Dances for 30 Days" following the inspiration of other Youtube sensations.  Sophie also finds herself entering into a sexual relationship with a divorced man named Marshall (David Warshofsky), who, while obviously only concerned with sexual conquest, provides Sophie with attention that she finds lacking in her relationship with Jason.  Both Sophie and Jason continue to "find themselves" as a narrative from Paw-Paw reminds viewers that he too is awaiting a major change in his life.  Happiness, tragically is not the end result for the couple, as Jason discovers Sophie's infidelities and decides to end his relationship with her, while Sophie, similarly realizes that her own eccentricities and attachments to unusual things are bizarre to Marshall, yet endearing to Jason.  Sadly, the couples own turmoils cause them to forget abut Paw-Paw who was euthanized due to the couples failure to pick him up in time.  As the couple notes, they both went back for the cat, yet, as is often the case in life, it was simply too late.  The result leaves the viewers watching the couple return to their previous state of co-habitation as Jason literally turns the next page in their rather bleak life, implying that the future is indeed very unexciting.

As is the case with Miranda July, criticism is tricky.  Her films live in a world that dances wildly between purely artistic outpouring and finely crafted social critique.  However, the commentary in the film is rather apparent, given the film's title and subsequent narrative.  July's work is preoccupied with living in the future and assuming stupidly that positive change will simply happen to those who wait.  This is apparent in both Sophie and Jason's career choices.  Sophie, an aspiring dancer, works as a children's dance instructor and shows no pride in her work and actually realizes in a rather hilarious scene that if she were to stay at the dance academy she would inevitably teach the children of the children she currently instructs.  Jason's job is no more satisfying, given that he works as an at home tech-support agent.  He mocks his job and is completely blocked off from the natural word, yet when he takes up his job as an environmental activist, he realizes that the rest of the world is equally indifferent and chooses to ignore nature freely.  Even Paw-Paw waits illogically, he idealizes his future life with Jason and Sophie, only to realize that no matter what happens in the world only two things are for certain, darkness and light...a rather existential realization for a talking cat.  Finally, in one of the films most brilliant scenes Marshall's daughter Gabriella (Isabella Acres) attempts to bury herself neck deep in the ground to grow like a tree, only to realize in the dark and cold night that she is inextricably stuck in the present and no amount of change can stop the ebb and flow of these things, except of course the work of a talking moon and the tai chi moves of Jason, but even those are futile.

I have seen The Future and it was good. The film is still making its way through some indie theaters, and is well worth checking out if you get the chance.  I am certain it will make my top films of 2011 and will likely only be succeeded by Terrence Malick's Tree of Life.

There's A Thousand Sides To Everything: Zabriskie Point (1970)

I often think that I am the only person on earth who does not appreciate Michelangelo Antonioni's L'Avventura.  To me it reeks of bourgeois pretension and lacks any real underlying value aside from a couple of aging men and women coming to existential realizations within themselves.  I was dreading the possibility of having the same experience with Zabriskie Point, particularly in the films opening scenes, which consist of nothing but debates amongst angst ridden college kids.  However, as the film picked up and began to gain some pacing I found myself infatuated within its eccentricities and stunning visual pondering (something that I can credit to L'Avventura).  I thoroughly enjoyed Zabriskie Point, which is funny given that it is one of Antonioni's less respected films.  Perhaps I just do not get Antonioni, but to me this is a far superior film to L'Avventura in its believability and subsequent accessibility.  It could of course have everything to do with Pink Floyd helping create the soundtrack, because after all they are one of my favorite bands.

The narrative of Zabriskie Point is incredibly disjointed involving a vague story about a group of college students revolting against "the man."  This is problematic, because the only image of "the man" we are given is that of a corporate organization whose aim is to sell homes in an idealize suburb that is so fabricated that the commercials use mannequins in place of humans.  It is obvious that these kids are revolting against capitalism, the irony, however, is that these kids are inextricably stuck inside the capitalist beast, an image that Antonioni reinforces by placing characters in the corners of frames that consist of large advertisements and corporate imagery.  This seems to be the case for every character until Mark (Mark Frechette) appears.  Mark is a spitting image of Peter Fonda's character in Easy Rider and matches him in his indifference and desire to rebel at any cost.  His rebellious nature is so strong, in fact, that he commits murder in response to what he believes to be an unjust murder at the hands of local law enforcement.  Realizing he has committed a crime, Mark flees, by plane, to the desert.  While flying he views a women fixing her car on a long desert road.  After a aerial game of cat and mouse, Mark lands and meets the girl named Daria (Daria Halprin), a woman who works for the corporate group shown earlier and is on her way to meet them at their desert abode.  Deciding that Mark is a far more interesting character the duo decide to traipse through the desert that includes intense political debate and what can be read as an LSD-induced orgiastic sexual encounter.  The result is that the couple is now reunited with the earth, Mark returns to the city with the plane he has stolen and Daria continues on to her job.  The only difference now is that Daria realizes her place in this capitalist machine and decides to sabotage the cogs in the only way she sees fit, explosive obliteration.  Thus, the film ends with images of consumer goods being literally blown to smithereens, implying that a destruction of capitalism is possible, and a very beautiful thing indeed.

I incorporated my bit of analysis into the plot, because I have a different issue to bring up as it relates to this film.  I noted that this film, to me, is far more enjoyable than L'Avventura.  This led me to reconsider the notion about a director having an undeniable masterpiece.  Many people point to L'Avventura as Antonioni's masterpiece.  While I am at no point to say that Zabriskie Point may be his best work, it does have me reconsidering the validity of a masterpiece.  For example, Kurosawa's Seven Samurai is often cited as his best film, but I am of the opinion that is simply his most widely viewed and recognized, to me The Bad Sleep Well or Kagemusha are far more realized films than his early work.  This action also occurs with directors like Orson Welles whose most widely acclaimed work is Citizen Kane.  While Citizen Kane is certainly a crowning cinematic achievement, it often cast a shadow over his other fantastic works, most notably his late film Touch of Evil.  I am in no way trying to dismiss these directors other films, but I find it disconcerting that many people will cite one film as a directors best work without truly considering their entire body of work in the process.  I guess I am being a bit idealistic, but I am at a point in my film viewing life that I can say what I am about to say.  A person should not be able to definitively claim a director's best work until they have seen each of their films, it just seems illogical.  Sure, you can have a favorite, but that choice should not become the standing decision for the entirety of film criticism, and I believe this may be the case with a director like Antonioni.  Be what it may, Zabriskie Point is a better movie than L'Avventura, and I plan on viewing the rest of Antonioni's work before claiming it to be his best film.

Ignoring that rather long tangent into essentializing a director's films, I do strongly recommend getting this film, if only for its intensely captivating cinematography.  Sadly their is only a DVD copy available, but we can always hope that Criterion picks it up in the near future.

I Am Here To Protect You. You Have Nowhere To Go: THX 1138 (1971)

I had heard many positive things about THX 1138 prior to viewing it, particularly its technical achievements.  Given this, I expected the film to be visually amazing but lacking in narrative.  I am here to tell you that THX 1138 is far more than fancy cinematic magic and is definitely an enjoyable film.  I know it is a brave statement to make, but I find the film to be equally as good as Star Wars, if not better.  It represents a moment in independent American filmmaking that relied on directorial vision over producer's demands and it certainly reflects artistic vision as something of greater importance than inherent financial success.  In the vein of Plato's Allegory of the Cave, THX 1138 combines minimalist artistry and dystopian lyricism to make a film that stands alone as a work that has clearly inspired many of its predecessors.

As stated, the film is clearly inspired by Plato and as such, the narrative follows a society that literally exists underground.  The people, more insect-like than human, follow the orders of speakers, robot police officers and a print screen image of Jesus.  From the onset things appear to be forever entrenched in logical oppression, until a couple identified as THX (Robert Duvall) and LUH (Maggie McOnie) engage in solicit sexual activity that is for non-reproductive purposes.  This causes the couple to become political dissidents within their society, leading to their detainment in a stark border-less white world.  THX is separated from LUH and makes it his quest to rejoin her.  THX then joins with another member of the community named SRT (Don Pedro Colley), a former holographic actor who finds his job meaningless and seeks something new.  Together they attempt to find LUH while also escaping the city.  The duo quickly discovers that LUH has been captured and sent to organ donation, which leads to a bizarre sequence in which THX breaks down upon the discover of a fetal version of LUH.  Ultimately, THX is separated from SRT and continues his escape from the city, climbing towards the surface as the government pursues him.  Realizing that it is costing more money to chase THX than is allowed the government calls off the chase moments before he reaches the surface.  The film closes in the final moments with THX looking off into a large a blistering sunset that leaves his future uncertain.

I could elaborate on the obvious critiques here as they relate to bureaucracy and fascist ideologies, but it has been done, and to be honest it is rather obvious in the film.  Instead I want to touch upon how truly important this film is to American independent cinema.  Sure, it is not the iconic film that Easy Rider became, but it is the only production released by the powerhouse that was American Zoetrope.  Led by the burgeoning director Francis Ford Copolla the group included the young genius of George Lucas and editor Walter Murch, the two whose names are most closely associated with THX 1138.  They, as a group, took an image from their days as college filmmakers and created a fully realized film that is magical, critical and enjoyable.  It is an intimate fully realized film from a very famous director.  In fact, I would argue that were THX 1138 never made, the world would never have received Star Wars down the line.  This film represents an incredibly significant moment in filmmaking and it is well worth watching for that, the enjoyability is just an added bonus.

I recommend this film highly and there is an excellent two-disc version that covers the American Zoetrope years in great length.  Any film scholar will benefit from this viewing.