Friday, August 31, 2012

On Dangerous Ground (Nicholas Ray, 1952)


There was theatre (Griffith), poetry (Murnau), painting (Rosselini), dance (Eisenstein), music (Renoir), Hencefort there is cinema. And the cinema is Nicholas Ray.
            --Jean-Luc Godard on Bitter Victory (1957)



We don’t talk enough these days about Nicholas Ray.

I can’t recall watching any of his films in class, which is a shame. Ray’s films are startlingly modern, his innovations, while subtler, are as radical as those of Citizen Kane and less schematic. He is perhaps, along with Howard Hawks[1], the greatest director America ever produced.

With Ray, American narrative cinema for the first time breaks free from the nineteenth century theatre in a way that it hadn’t with any other American director except for Buster Keaton. Ray's films such as Johnny Guitar and In A Lonely Place, are at once unsentimental and brutally romantic, filled with a cinematic exuberance while fatalistic about existence. He is equally at home in both adolescent and middle-aged angst. No wonder the nouvelle vaguers idolized him.

On Dangerous Ground is a picture that speaks volumes within its frames. The bleary opening shots of New York City over a Bernard Herrmann score anticipate Taxi Driver by nearly a quarter century. They signify Robert Ryan’s Jim Wilson’s alienation from both his environment and work that have degraded his soul, setting him up to be reborn in the jagged whiteness of wintry Colorado playing upstate New York.[2] Ray elicits the tenderness within Ryan’s ferocity with the same delicacy with which Eric Rohmer elicited the kindness in Trintignant’s reticence, in My Night At Maud's.

Ground starts with a traditional Robert Ryan role, introducing his Jim examining mug shots alone in his spartan apartment. His calm exterior masking an inveterate rage at the city, criminals, and his peers. This is a man who is incapable of compartmentalizing. This is a man who has internalized the violence that surrounds him. What makes the story unique though, is that the story of is less about redemption or growth, but about healing.

Initially, the film’s narrative structure feels unwieldy. The film's first act is all character exploration. We follow Jim as he does his job, and come to understand just how deeply alienated he is. Then the film takes him to the snowy north. Ray uses this time to set up elements in both the mise-en-scène and the action that will be contrasted by the legato second section. This is especially apparent in two contrasting scenes of interrogation. The first in which Jim uses a mask of kindness to elicit information from a prostitute about the location of her abusive boyfriend, and in the second where the mask becomes a reality in the alien space of Ida Lupino’s blind Mary Malden's living room.[3]



As he recognizes her blindness, his eyes open to the moral gray area he has entered. What begins as an interrogation slowly turns into a narrative of mutual self-examination. The camera traces the actors’ movements throughout the living room. While this stifling urban "city" is portrayed in stark perpendicular lines, Mary's living room is filled with broken rococo surfaces and talismanic objects (the tree that grows in the center of the living room, a piece of wood, a small bust and a hanging plant). Ray portrays Mary's space as tactile rather than visual[4] and has Jim adapt himself to this alien situation. His Manichaean perspective ebbs away and rediscovers his empathy as he adjusts to the delicate asymmetry of a new space. 

Once removed from the tyrannically rigid city and placed in Mary's openly free-flowing home, even if for a few days, he begins to transform and heal.

Ironically, in this new space, the story becomes unsettled at the very time it becomes spatially centered, as it boils itself down to two people in a room talking. The exchange ushers in compassion for Mary, making him a more insightful detective and a better person.

Ray’s unique sensitivity to environment is what elevates his work to greatness. Much is made of his architectural background (he was a pupil of Frank Lloyd Wright). But this understanding is much broader and totally filmic. His sensitivity to space and character are not two separate facets of his genius, but the same. He sees so clearly how environments can both express and transform characters as well as be transformed by them. Once seen who can forget James Mason on the stairs, the way James Dean, Natalie Wood, and Sal Mineo create a makeshift familial space in a decaying mansion, or Humphrey Bogart and Gloria Grahame forming a bond across the Hollywood courtyard before they even speak to each other. Ray’s craft goes deeper than a mastery of mise-en-scène. The inner space of Ray’s characters is defined or expressed by their environs. They are their environs.

On Dangerous Ground isn’t Ray’s greatest work but it is representative and therefore utterly brilliant.



[1] Both of them Midwesterners, natch; so I guess that’s a win for flyover country.
[2] Calling to mind the nothing so much as the opening of Larisa Shepitko’s The Ascent.
[3] I want to note what a marvelously perverse choice it is to cast Lupino, so known for the expressivity of her wide eyes as a blind woman. Her airily stylized performance creates a special tension when paired with Ryan’s brusque naturalism.
[4] Note the way that Lupino touches the hanging plant when she enters the room.

Wednesday, August 1, 2012

The Dark Knight Rises (Christopher Nolan 2012)


In which I pay my dues to the zeitgeist…

At a key point in The Dark Knight Rises the villains take the Gotham City stock exchange hostage, in order to upload some kind of program that will make some kind of sale that will fuck up Bruce Wayne/Wayne Enterprises. The details of which escape me--and I saw this picture like two hours ago. Anywhoo, these shenanigans leave Bruce Wayne without a penny to his name, except for maybe tangible assets to the tune of…let’s say…eight figures.[i] This all leads to a pretty sweet chase scene where Batman reemerges like Kaneda in Akira on that bike with the wheel that spins sideways when it needs to make a fast turn, and makes me happy whenever it does that. The point is though this is a stupid way to ruin someone. If the entire stock exchange was raided by a super terrorist I’m pretty sure that would invalidate any trade made that day. Also, unless it’s the middle of winter it seems like by the time the program finishes loading the trading would have closed. This bothered me until I forgot about it because of the cool motorcycle doing that thing I just mentioned, but then bothered me again whenever it was mentioned. Usually this kind of thing doesn’t bother me. For example, I wasn’t bothered by the fact that Prometheus didn’t make a lick of sense and just enjoyed as it snowballed into a giant avalanche of crazy awesome. I bring this up though because Christopher Nolan’s pictures demand that you analyze them narratively and marvel at how clever he is. Basically, Nolan is a director who dumb people think is sophisticated. His films play with extended narrative gamesmanship. But his method never surpasses the merely clever. I’m inclined to say that his is the cleverness is of a crossword puzzle maker, but the fact is that his is closer the cleverness of a sudoku creator. It’s all in the larger story-arc. So while he has an interest in a syuzhet[ii] he has no interest in the mechanics of the fabula. So the example above demonstrates how at a scene-by-scene level his films don’t stand up to scrutiny. Aesthetically and narratively, there’s simply no there there.

The thing is though I actually liked this movie while I was watching it.3 Then again. Batman is basically Jesus, James Bond, and Phillip Marlowe all rolled into one. Nolan’s big innovation is basically to take Batman seriously. Which is not to say as some critics do that his interpretation of Batman is realistic or gritty—does gritty even mean anything at this point? Rather, that as a mythical figure he represents…err…something. But there’s a lot to enjoy; Imax, Batman punching people and taking out criminals, the motorcycle, that opening kidnapping (which again, makes no sense) especially that one part where the plane falls away and Bane and the scientist dude are just hanging over the landscape, etc. The thing is though that the film leaves a bad aftertaste. It just thuds along in the thrall of its own lugubrious crypto-fascism. Not just in content but in form. The fast-cutting, giant Imax imagery, and marshaling score crush the viewer’s critical faculties into a not entirely unpleasant but still pernicious puree. Its moments of pleasure come, not from human moments, but the work of technicians. Its appeal is pornographic. There’s no room in these films for sensuousness or pleasure that comes from the mechanics of a heist, fight, or a conversation. But then again what should I expect from a tent-pole superhero movie? Well, how about Batman doing some goddamn detecting? He is after all, along with being the Dark Knight, the World’s Greatest Detective. How about a villain with a coherent (not necessarily logical or realistic) scheme to bring Gotham to its knees? How about a Batman movie where every dialogue exchange didn’t involve some character expositing the films empty themes? Nolan gets away with it though because American cinema is so enraptured with perpetual adolescence that his own adolescent[iii] signifying is taken seriously. Christopher Nolan isn’t the auteur we need. He’s the auteur we deserve. 

Come at me nerds!


[i] From a figure I just totally made up.
[ii] God, I hope I’m using that correctly.
[iii] The adolescent worldview is demonstrated in the way that Batman cures Catwoman’s deviant (sexual and delinquent) lifestyle with his Bat-cock. Except, no one in a Nolan picture has genitals. 

Wednesday, July 11, 2012

Love Exposure (Shion Sono, 2008)


I’m a fan of long movies. For one, it makes you feel like you’re getting your movie moneys worth. For two, it provides the viewer with a fully engrossing experience. Which is why it’s worthwhile in our age of ‘cool’ media to occasionally devote three to five hours to a picture such as this, or say Lawrence of Arabia, Carlos, Histoire(s) du Cinema, and to watch it in one sitting.Anyway, this is basically a disclaimer to say that I’m predisposed to take a shine to a nearly four hour Japanese romantic comedy (the director’s own description). You should be too though, because this picture is like five movies in one, often all at the same time. An incomplete list of elements and themes this movie includes: Jesus as pop-star, kung-fu, up-skirt photography (panchira), Kung-fu panchira, coming of age, familial trauma, cross-dressing, cults,and castration. If this picture seems—on description—to be merely a crazy grab bag of inchoate ideas. It isn’t. The characters are grounded, despite their rather extreme neuroses, in credible trauma. For all its tangents, break-neck pacing, and whiplash tonal shifts the film ends up being a serious and seriously moving exegesis of Corinthians 13. In the rather desolate landscape that is the contemporary romantic comedy; where love is equated with consumerism, divorced from any moral universe. Where sentimentality is equivalent to romance. Where shoe mad shrews fall for gym rat man-boys. Love Exposure provides hope for the future of this stagnating genre. Simultaneously, it succeeds in my least favorite genre2 the cumming-of-age story (I even hated Adventureland, because my heart is two sizes too small). Love Exposure ultimately works so well because, as in Paul’s letter to the Corinthians, it ties love not to grand romantic gestures (although the film contains plenty of those) but to selflessness. That to love as an adult is to take responsibility for that love. Not to revel in mutual neuroticism and shared taste in awesome bands, but to overcome selfishness in order to be with another person. Not to possess, but to see face to face. Which is work. The picture’s conclusion, while positive, provides no pat happily ever after. It portrays beginning the work of being together. The protagonists, at the end, see face to face, which makes the final romantic gesture affecting and moral. In conclusion; Stanley Cavell would dig this picture.

1You need a break to pee, or fix another scotch? Fine, you can have that. But did you ever think that maybe you wouldn’t have to pee so much if you didn’t spend the entire movie guzzling scotch? At least do it at a natural break in the film. Gawd!

2I have prejudices and they are legion

Monday, July 2, 2012

Rio Bravo (Howard Hawks, 1959)

When people find out I’m a movie geek, they ask what my favorite film is. I’ve come to the conclusion that I’m just going to say Rio Bravo. This is at once true and a lie of convenience. It’s true because it contains certain values of cinema that are dear to me and seem in danger. It has a perspective on masculinity that is still valuable (in its own way it is a film as mythic—if not more so—than Ford’s The Searchers). It is a film of totemic wisdom unadorned by sentimentality. Perhaps it will convert someone to an initiate. Lastly, why not Rio Bravo? It is a lie though because to name a single film as my favorite or even to name ten (or fifty) would be to deny the essential pluralism of cinephilia. We don’t go to films for a single type of experience. We take in films (and all art for that matter) in order to explore and deepen our understanding of life. Which is not to say that I don’t believe that there are objective categories with which to determine whether a work of art is “good.” But, rather that to name one film as the best or even my favorite would be to deny that very pluralism. The frame that we use in order to determine what is the best compounds this problem. Breathless is Jean-Luc Godard’s most important film. Although, I’m more partial to Jim McBride’s interpretation. However, McBride’s picture is not as powerful or ‘great’ as Contempt, Masculin Feminin, Week End, etc.  So while Godard’s Breathless may the most important film of the last sixty years, does that mean it’s the best.  Our understanding of greatness is also determined by numerous historical factors: availability, impact (“The first Velvet Underground album only sold ten-thousand copies but everyone who bought it formed a band.”), critical consensus, scope, ‘seriousness.’ The act of creating a canon, which is essentially the function of these lists, flattens the discourse around an entire medium. In doing so it not only denies the medium’s pluralism, but also denies a pluralist discourse, critically and artistically, around that medium. The thing is though; I love lists! I love making them. I love reading them. I’m just all about lists, categorizing, indexing, codifying, classifying, rating, evaluating, itemizing, enumerating. Lists lead us to discover something new, especially the further down one goes. Lists lead to arguments, or new avenues of thought which can be more valuable than the list itself. Most of all though, lists are fun!

With this in mind I decided to create a list of the ten greatest films of all time using Ignatiy Vishnevetsky’s method. The first time I did it I felt that I had relied too much on what is considered canonical alongside the films that I thought were the best. Or do I mean greatest? Or do I mean favorite? On this go round I just decided to do it completely off the top of my head, and imposing a time limit, and using a perpetually shifting metric that was different for each film:
  1. Five Easy Pieces (Bob Rafelson, 1970)
  2. A.I. Artificial Intelligence (Steven Spielberg, 2001)
  3. Carlito’s Way (Brian De Palma, 1993)
  4. Empire Strikes Back (Irvin Kershner, 1980)
  5. Notre Musique (Jean-Luc Godard, 2004)
  6. Contempt (Jean-Luc Godard, 1963)
  7. Mystery Train (Jim Jarmusch, 1989)
  8. Hard Boiled (John Woo, 1992)
  9. I Know Where I’m Going! (Michael Powell & Emeric Pressburger, 1945)
  10. The General (Buster Keaton & Clyde Bruckman, 1926)
Hey look at that the first four pictures were made under the auspices of the movie brats. Well I couldn’t let the boomer hegemony stand so I made another set of integers and came up with another list from the same master list:
  1. Duck Soup (Leo McCarey, 1933)
  2. The Passion of Joan of Arc (Carl Theodor Dreyer, 1928)
  3. Winter Light (Ingmar Bergman, 1962)
  4. Vertigo (Alfred Hitchcock, 1958)
  5. Marriage of Maria Braun (Rainer Werner Fassbinder, 1979)
  6. Mystery Train (Jim Jarmusch, 1989)
  7. Holiday (George Cukor, 1938)
  8. They Live By Night (Nicholas Ray, 1949)
  9. A Matter of Life and Death (Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger, 1946)
  10. Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy (Adam Mckay, 2004) 
This one is more satisfying to me.  Especially since it starts with Duck Soup is followed by two grave religious dramas and finishes off with Anchorman. Neither list may reflect any kind of canon, but the second one especially strikes me as a great list.

Thursday, June 21, 2012

White Heat (Raoul Walsh, 1949)


The usual route for Walsh is to slow the development by increasing specificity. It is very cunning: by the time his gangster comes apart, is shot down, or shoots his way through an ambush, Waslh has slyly doubled and tripled every move that the gangster makes in terms of height, texture, path, angle, and sound. Cagney’s psychotic break in the penitentiary dining hall involves a messy noisy tantrum after he hears his beloved Ma has been gunned down. Every move Cagney makes has been counterpointed and varied. His incredible frenzy literally swimming through cutlery and china down the length of a table has been twice anticipated with a slow camera dolly down the table and back, picking out each diner who gets splashed and shocked by Cagney’s tantrum crawl across the table. Cagney’s running battle through a half-dozen guards spaced at crucial spots around the hall has been anticipated by a quiet over-the-hall long shot as the prisoners file in and angle off into the various aisles. The battle itself is a frenzy improvised with perfect Cagney instincts: characteristically it is a mesh of variations on pace and height ending with Cagney being carried by the guards down the aisles and out the hall, above their heads like a frantically struggling fish on a tray.


Manny Farber, “Raoul Walsh,” in Farber on Film (Library of America, 2009), 702-03.

Minority Report (Steven Spielberg, 2002)


How did I miss what a dense and knotty picture this is? So I have the good people over at Reverse Shot (seriously why aren’t you reading their amazing Spielberg series) to thank for that. The film in its repeating motifs: eyes, mirrors, shifting perspectives, images doubling and overlaying each other call to mind DePalma making a futuristic Hitchcock wrong man picture. On repeated viewings the film’s metatextual concerns surface as Spielberg’s usual concerns (the reunification of the family) fade into the background.  So if A.I. is Spielberg’s most thematically audacious film, Minority Report is his most formally audacious. With A.I. Spielberg was interrogating his themes, whereas here he interrogates his method.

Filled with elaborate sequences, from a director who knows his way around elaborate, Report transcends the merely byzantine by crafting these sequences with a wit and playfulness that belies the film’s essential darkness, while simultaneously expressing a complex understanding of the nature of film, and moreover an understanding of how we construct reality through vision.  Moreover how images within cinema are constructed to create understanding. So while it the connection between the way John Anderton analyses, chooses, and discards images generated from the pre-cogs is represents how a film is edited, the entire films is constantly addressing seeing and crafting images. Most especially in the films greatest sequence, wherein Anderton and Agatha escape through the mall by directing their movements based on where the police are going to be. The scene perfectly encapsulates the way in which editing and camera placement determine the interplay of the objective and subjective views. Yet the camera is always subjective, even though it is essentially an objective recording device. It is through the editing of images that meaning is derived. What one is left with is the picture’s profound ambivalence about the nature of this process. So that while Spielberg in the opening of the film demonstrates how this process can illuminate truth, he spends the remainder of the film, undermining his initial hypothesis. Nowhere is this more readily apparent than in Agatha’s desperate inquiry “Is this now?”

Thursday, April 19, 2012

A Matter Of Life and Death & Black Narcissus (Michael Powell & Emeric Pressburger, 1946, 1947)

Britain’s masters of above board perversity produce two dissimilar yet singularly representative works. In the former, David Niven’s very David Niveny pilot fights to remain on Technicolor earth than the black and white afterlife when he survives a bomber crash. In the latter, a bunch of nuns are sent into an erotic/nostalgic reverie in their new exotic environment and by the sight of David Farrar’s shorts. Both films seemed filled with formal contradictions to accompany their narrative ones, the depiction of Life and Death’s aforementioned afterlife, Narcissus’s cold hothouse, whereas most stories of eroticism are enacted in claustrophobic interiors, this one’s is positively agoraphobic, despite being shot entirely on studio sets. Kathleen Byron’s Sister Ruth becoming more beautiful the more nutso she gets (although that could just be me). What sticks in the minds eye the strongest in the films are the moments of sheer beauty, a beauty borne out of neuroses (which is perhaps what links Scorsese so closely, explicitly and implicitly, to their pictures). Images as broad as the vastness of the Himalayas or as intimate as small town projected through a camera obscura, or as heartbreakingly unsentimental as Niven dictating a telegram to his family knowing that he’s certainly going to die. The irony of course is that he doesn’t but falls in love. It is not the auratic impressiveness of Wagner or Malick, but an interior vision depicted on the screen in otherworldly Technicolor. Driven by a veddy English brand of neuroticism their films are at once immediate and distant. Like I said, contradictory. The Archers give credence to the idea that films are the embodiment our collective dreamscape.

Friday, April 6, 2012

Liebelei (Max Ophüls 1933)

I saw this picture at the historic Portage Theater (in need of saving), in a perfectly fine 16mm print with rather eccentric subtitles. All in all it was an experience of viewing the past through a concatenation of filters. In 2012 watching a print of a film that I would guess was struck in the 70s of a film from 1933 of an 1895 play by Arthur Schnitzler. What makes this particularly unique is that every moment stands it seems at the brink of an entirely new epoch, historically and cinematically:
1895 End of the 19th century, the publication of the Freud and Breur’s Studies on Hysteria, and the birth of the cinematograph.
1933 The rise of fascism, with Hitler’s ascendance to power. Since they were Jews, Schnitzler and Ophüls’s names were removed from the credits, So this a film that was neither written nor directed and instead appeared on the screen from nowhere. I would also note that this is around when sound cinema reached maturity.
2012 Digital age, death of film/cinema as a mechanical medium, as well as the mechanism itself?
The effect is one of seeing ghosts. The sense we are watching the shadows of the dead reanimated. Which is both true and untrue, the mechanistic/chemical medium so tied an external reality (the players, the sets, etc.). But it’s not re-presenting reality, they aren’t moving on the screen. It just looks like that. Who you gonna believe? Me, or your lying eyes? Still though I can’t shake the feeling that I was seeing a dream of the 20th century that is about to become a nightmare. All this begs the question; what the fuck am I talking about? I don’t know. Film has aura.

Wednesday, April 4, 2012

The Raid: Redemption (Gareth Evans, 2011)

A work of anti-humanist cinema of space and movement made all the more exhilarating for its lack of irony or bloat vis-a-vis the essence of its technique. Art expressed through the collision of mechanized men cut and choreographed to within an inch of its life. The argument has been made that the film resembles a video game, point being that it lacks significant character development and the plot is thin; which are both true, but miss the point. Proof that, by and large, critics are still tied to Aristotelian (by way of Robert McKee bullshit) concept of dramatic construction, and dramatic construction-period as the cinema’s only appropriate mode. You can’t just make a picture where a bunch of guys kick the shit out of each other. However, I would posit that you can make a picture where a bunch of guys kick the shit out of each other artfully. And artfully they do. So while the camera may be shaky and the cutting may be fast; this is not the chaos cinema that everybody won’t shut up about. It takes skill, craft, and yes art to shoot these things right. All of which Evans has in abundance. An intuitive formalist, he knows that this picture doesn’t need anything more, so outside of a few half-hearted stabs at feeding the audience some pathos, he just lets the premise play out without gussying it up. And play out it does. Like an adrenaline shot to the gonads. Who could ask for anything more!