film

Old School Review: Nostalghia (1983)

Written by Tonino Guerra and Andrei Tarkovsky and directed by Tarkovsky, “Nostalghia” is the first film (of his final two works) that the Russian filmmaker made outside of the Soviet Union and out from under their oppressive censorship. Though many audience members will consider this film to be an oppressive viewing from the director most known for his glacial pacing. This one was, admittedly, a difficult watch. I’ve come to truly appreciate Tarkovsky’s films, my favorites being his two strides into the science fiction genre in “Solaris” and “Stalker”, but even for me, who wanted to dive into the filmmaker’s notoriously long one shot takes and philosophical debates- I found it to be a challenge. A word to the wise, this should not be the first Tarkovsky film you watch.

The story follows Russian writer Andrei Gorchakov (Oleg Yankovsky) who travels to Italy to research the life of 18th-century Russian composer Pavel Sosnovsky who had lived there for awhile before returning to Russia where he later committed suicide. He’s guided around the Tuscan countryside and through the large metropolitan expanses by Eugenia (Domiziana Giordano), his interpreter- though he understands and can speak Italian well enough to get around. After his guide becomes disillusioned with him Andrei becomes consumed by a burdensome nostalgia and wanders the streets of an ancient village famous for it’s hot springs. Amid his maelstrom of loneliness and and existential dislocation, he cannot return to Russia for one reason or another, the muddled writer stumbles upon a sort of mad prophet in the form of Domenico (Erland Josephson). Andrei finds kinship in this fellow spurned-from-society figure and follows him through the village listening to his ramblings.

Eventually Domenico mentions of a task that he claims might possibly save the world. Domenico’s claim to fame in the village was his many attempts to cross the hot springs’ waters from end to end with a lit candle without losing its flame. He never could accomplish his goal, and he leaves Andrei his candle in the hopes that this seemingly meaningless act could be fulfilled in his stead. So while Domenico is off in Rome giving his final speech about the failures of mankind before his final act of fiery self-immolation. Andrei finally makes his way to the hot springs, but he finds it empty. Andrei commits to completing this tribute to his mad friend’s symbolic ritual anyways, and thus begins the infamous nine minute shot of Andrei walking across the pool’s floor with lit candle in hand. He fails a few times before finally reaching the other side and collapsing. Maybe I wasn’t exactly in the right mindset to appreciate the scene, so here’s a quote where Tarkovsky explains the scene’s importance to Oleg Yankovsky before production, “According to Yankovsky, when he first met Tarkovsky to discuss the filming, the director asked the actor to help him fulfill a grand idea to “display an entire human life in one shot, without any editing, from beginning to end, from birth to the very moment of death.” Tarkovsky visualized life in the form of a candle. “Remember the candles in Orthodox churches, how they flicker. The very essence of things, the spirit, the spirit of fire.” And so the act of carrying the candle across the stagnant pool was nothing less than the effort of an entire lifetime encapsulated in one gesture. “If you can do that,” Tarkovsky challenged Yankovsky, “if it really happens and you carry the candle to the end–in one shot, straight, without cinematic conjuring tricks and cut-in editing—then maybe this act will be the true meaning of my life. It will certainly be the finest shot I ever took—if you can do it, if you can endure to the end.” (https://filmmakermagazine.com/85124-tarkovskys-nostalghia-as-a-cinematic-candle/#.XFpuo1VKjcs).

So, you might be asking yourself “Why should I watch this film?”, and I have a few answers to that. This film wasn’t exactly my cup of tea, it was the least immersive of Tarkovsky’s films for me- however, it definitely has value, especially for those invested in the craft of film-making. The cinematography, direction, performances, and use of associative dream-state imagery all combine to craft a particularly fascinating film when it comes to the technical skill on display. It was just wrapped in a story that is understanding given the director’s life at the time, but there is a very specific time and mood prerequisite for viewing this film. If you’re ready to settle into a moody and laborious dive into depression, loneliness, and longing for home and familiarity- then this film will be for you.

This is my favorite shot in “Nostalghia”, and the thesis of the film in my opinion. A typical Russian farmhouse nestled inside a giant Italian cathedral. Russians may leave Russia, but Russia does not leave them.

Final Score: 1 Candle in the wind

Advertisements
film

Old School Review: Harold and Maude (1971)

*Disclaimer* Given that this film is 48 years old, there will be spoilers! 

Written by Colin Higgins and directed by Hal Ashby, “Harold and Maude” is a weird little romantic dark-comedy from the early 1970’s with the spirit of the 1960’s very much still intact. The film rests on the relationship between Harold (Bud Cort), a twenty-something introvert who’s become obsessed with death and infected with a general malaise, and Maude (Ruth Gordon), a 79 year old wild woman living life on a whim without following any of the rules dictated by society. The film is a strange balance between dark humor wrapped in whimsy with an absurdist and warm-hearted tone.

Bud Cort plays Harold, the son of a wealthy family who’s become disillusioned with life. In the opening scene Harold is seen milling about the living room lighting candles and going about an unseen task, until we see him hang himself. As his mother enters the room she remains unimpressed by the hanging body of her son, makes a quick phone call and nonchalantly chides Harold on her way out of the room- this is, we soon discover, just one of many fake suicides that he performs to get a rise out of his haughty mother. Mrs. Chasten (Vivian Pickles) finds her son’s behavior unsavory and begins to set him up for several blind dates, to which he hilariously (and creatively) performs increasingly macabre “deaths” with each new attempt. Being as quietly obsessed with death as he is, Harold frequents local funerals for deceased people he doesn’t know. At one such funeral he notices an older woman similarly separated from the families and eventually they take notice of each other.

Ruth Gordon’s performance inflects Maude with the usual hippie maxims bound to the previous decade’s counterculture, but imbues them with an authenticity hinting more towards wisdom rather than the potential kookiness that the character could have been in lesser hands. As a devout outsider of societal norms Maude is a refreshing cannon blast of life-affirming philosophies for Harold. After one of their funeral visitations Maude offers to drive Harold home, he declines at this initial offer, but as she drives away one of the funeral-goers seems almost awestruck as he watches a little old lady drive off with his car. Maude’s disregard of ownership over the material world may seem like a silly character trait at first, but after a quick shot of Maude’s forearm revealing concentration camp numbering, we’re more apt to understand her ideology on the fleeting nature of material things.


Once Harold and Maude’s relationship blooms into more of a romance than a simple mentor-to-student scale Harold informs his family of his intent to marry Maude. Which leads into one of my favorite parts of the film, where his mother, his uncle Victor (Charles Tyner portraying a dedicated Military man as a sort of one-armed comedic relief), psychiatrist (G. Wood), and the flabbergasted family priest (Eric Christmas), all lecture Harold on the woes of this decision. The film could have taken these asides as a sobering lecture on poor decision making for practicality’s sake, but instead portrays these established adults as loonier than the two leads- firmly keeping us on the side of Harold and Maude. On Maude’s 80th birthday, he asks her for her hand in marriage- but to the surprise of Harold, she had already decided to take her own life by pill minutes before. In her dying moments she’s decidedly upbeat about the notion- and Harold becomes the most animated we’ve seen him yet once faced with the death of someone he cares deeply for. Harold takes Maude’s life affirming philosophies to heart in the last scene. After Maude’s death Harold is seen ferociously speeding in his hearse towards a cliff-side. For a moment, I really though he was finally going to kill himself- but not so, he was simply stripping away his obsession with death. He then wanders off as the credits roll, strumming on the banjo Maude gave him.

Final Score: A whole soundtrack of ‘Cat Stevens’ songs

film

Old School Review: The Fisher King (1991)

Written by Richard LaGravenese and directed by Terry Gilliam, “The Fisher King” is a fantasy drama about tragedy and guilt set in New York City before the revolutionary clean up process that the city underwent before the late 90’s and into the 2000’s. Within that dirty and chaotic realm we find our protagonist Jack Lucas (Jeff Bridges) doing what he does best, delivering his fork-tongued critiques against the ‘yuppie’, high society, peoples of New York City. Think of him as a mesh between Howard Stern and Rush Limbaugh (Less invested in pushing the taboo boundaries of broadcasting than the former, but with more inherent heart behind his words than the latter). One day Jack’s crazed rants lead him to specifically naming a restaurant where the rich and so called elitist gather. One of his listeners greatly agrees with the motor-mouth-shock-jock so much so that he shows up at the establishment with a shotgun, after all, like Jack Lucas said, “It’s us against them”.

Jack hears about the shooting and becomes completely unraveled by the actions that his words inspired. Fast forward three years later and we find Jack in the midst of an alcohol fueled, self-despising, slump where he works at his girlfriend Anne’s (Mercedes Ruehl in an Oscar winning performance) video store. One night on a drinking bender, Jack contemplates suicide, even going so far as to tie cinder blocks to his feet and looking out into the Hudson river. At the last second some thugs assault Jack, drenching him in gasoline and beating him. Fortunately for Jack, Parry (Robin Williams) arrives on the scene with a few fellow homeless nomads. They swarm the thugs with lights and singing until they disperse.

After saving his life, Parry consorts with the “Forty tiny, flying, invisible, fat men” to agree that Jack is “The One”. Naturally Jack is freaked out about all of this, hangover or not. Parry then explains that he’s a knight ordained by God to find the Holy Grail, which he believes to be in the possession of a billionaire on the upper east side. Initially Jack is reluctant to help Parry, until he learns that he’s responsible for ruining Parry’s former life. Parry, once named Henry, had been a college professor and happily married before the massacre. Henry and his wife were at that restaurant, where he watched her die horrifically right in front of him triggering a psychotic break. From that psychological wreckage, Parry was born.

“The Red Knight”

Parry is driven by both love and fear. Jack discovers this after learning Parry’s true past and attempts to redeem himself by helping Parry. He does not simply want the grail though, he also sheepishly follows a young woman around the city on her daily routine. Parry has fallen in love with Lydia (Amanda Plummer), a quiet young woman who works at a book publishing house. So, Jack goes to great lengths to set them up on a dinner date with both himself and Anne. Jack also learns of Parry’s greatest fear, “The Red Knight”. The Red Knight appears whenever Parry is brushed by reality or when things seem too good to be true. After Parry has a particularly intense breakdown he’s attacked by the same thugs that accosted Jack earlier. This puts Parry into a catatonic state, which forces Jack to go search for the grail in an attempt to save Parry’s life.

There were a few specific aspects of this film that I found fascinating. Granted, Robin Williams drew me to this one as he’s probably my favorite actor of all time, so I’m always game to find another hidden gem of his work. But the film doesn’t go absolutely bananas with style over substance, if you’re familiar with Terry Gilliam’s work you can see flourishes of his guiding hand throughout the run-time. This is most obvious with the Red Knight, but also with the depiction of New York City itself. Gilliam uses framing, specific angles, and has the production dressed down in a sort of dirty and mythic fashion that transforms the feel of New York City into a place where the impossible seems optimistic and not so far away. The cinematography seems to be fairly character oriented in how it represents mood, how characters change over time, and how isolated or sociable a scene is for the characters. However, the single best aspect of the film is for me how the story treats trauma and how it can affect a person for a very long time. This aspect of Robin Williams’ performance was heartbreaking and how the filmmakers and crew decided to represent Parry’s fractured self was both tragic and it felt accurate. Paranoia and fear can strike at a moment’s notice, all emotions can run high at any time, and triggering events can be devastating.Fantasy Element. This was an interesting film from the early 1990’s and worth a watch in my opinion.

Final Score: 2 thugs and 40 tiny flying invisible fat men

film

Old School Review: The Manchurian Candidate (1962)

Written by George Axelrod and directed by John Frankenheimer, “The Manchurian Candidate” is a political thriller about an international conspiracy forged by communists during the Korean War to brainwash American soldiers for use as unwitting assassins. This was the first film I saw in 2019, and not knowing the general plot of the infamous film kept the tension intact as an audience member. I went into this movie with a clean slate and my viewing experience was all the better for it and I recommend seeing it that way if possible. However, this film has been around for a long time, therefore we will be covering spoilers. You’ve been warned. Frank Sinatra stars as Major Bennett Marco leading his team of soldiers through the horrors of war. After the dust settled Major Marco kept tabs on all of the men in his unit, especially after having suspiciously realistic fever dreams of their time in the war.


After returning from the war a hero, for saving his men from capture over enemy lines, Raymond Shaw (Laurence Harvey) was also experiencing an existential angst from similar nightmares. Though everyone back home seems to love and appreciate Shaw, he feels disconnected. He remembers being a more prickly and grumpy person that wasn’t particularly loved or appreciated. The film dives into the psychological profile of Shaw and how he operates as an individual, the relationships he has with those closest to him, and how he can be manipulated by emotional triggers. It then turns into a game of cat and mouse with Shaw working as an assassin for a foreign power without even realizing it, as Major Marco tracks down the clues his friend left in his bloody wake.

One of my favorite parts of the film were the brainwashing sequences and how the editing and cinematography inform the audience of the truth of the scene. Jumping back and forth between the perceptions of the captured soldiers and their manipulative masters was brilliant! The captured soldiers were on a stage, being presented to other potential “buyers” who were seen by the soldiers as little old grandmothers at a flower shop. I thought it was particularly clever when they switched to an African-American solder’s point-of-view where all of the grandmothers were also African-American. The performances were a lot of fun, they really pulled from the paranoia and suspicious nature of the heights of the Cold War. Frank Sinatra’s casting as Major Marco was a surprise for me, I had never looked into Sinatra’s acting history so I was unsure of his acting caliber going into the film, but he was surprisingly good for playing outside of his art medium. Khigh Dhiegh was particularly entertaining as Yen Lo, I like to think of him as the carnival barker of brainwashing experiments. Angela Lansbury portrays Raymond’s mother as a boundary crossing, overbearing, and self absorbed character with gilded power gleaming in her eyes. Alongside her is James Gregory as Senator John Iselin, Shaw’s stepfather and ‘useful bulldog’ for his mother’s manipulation. This triangle of relationships is immediately established when Shaw lands back in America only to be used for political gain by his mother for Senator Iselin’s campaign, nothing more patriotic than having a picture taken with a war hero thereby framing his support for the candidate- when in reality, Shaw despises Iselin and his mother’s authoritative political nature.

“The Manchurian Candidate” is a fascinating political thriller and a classic film that I highly recommend. If you’re looking for a snowstorm movie this winter- you can’t go wrong with this one!

Final Score: 52 Queens

film

Old School Review: Wild Strawberries (1957)

Written and directed by Ingmar Bergman, “Wild Strawberries” is the famed Swede filmmaker’s twenty-fourth film and one of his most humanistic and compassionate. Isak Borg (Victor Sjöström), an esteemed medical scientist in Stockholm, is to be celebrated for his contributions to the field with an honorary degree in Lund. Accompanying Isak on the 400 mile road trip is his daughter-in-law Marianne (Ingrid Thulin). During the drive Isak is disturbed by several dreams which cause him to reexamine his past for better, or for worse. They stop occasionally to stretch their legs, check on old family vacation spots, and even to pick up a few hitchhikers.

In reviewing “Wild Strawberries” I tread on well worn pathways walked upon by generations of indie art kids, collegiate film fans, and those genuinely taken by the love that celluloid gives- but also every single hipster-trash-baby looking to be perceived as “Cool” by simply being aware of the works of Ingmar Bergman. So, I get it. Reviewing old films- especially old films that reside on a litany of lists and boxes waiting for the day it can be checked off or filled in, they can come with the baggage of appearing pretentious and reeking of seeking validation. Speaking of baggage, this whole film is essentially about just that. How does one reconcile with not just the existential issues of strangers, but of close family members, or even lovers? Not to mention the baggage that comes with simply being human?

Isak Borg, being the distinguished scientist in the medical field that he is, has become cynical over the years. His dreams force him to reexamine what was and what could have been, how his regrets and mistakes have forged who he is today. These dreams, or nightmares really, coerce the doctor to question how he treats others, to ask himself whether or not he has become calloused and cold-hearted. There are two groups of hitchhikers that inspire this reevaluation of the doctor’s life. One of these groups consists of a troupe of three college-aged youths, two men with quarreling ideologies and a woman, Sara (Bibi Andersson), that has both of their hearts in her hands- who coincidentally looks exactly like Isak’s lost love- who just so happened to marry his brother instead of him. The other pair of hitchhikers are a stubbornly vicious married couple that wreck their car nearly hitting Isak and company. After awhile the married couple become so absorbed by their contempt for each other with vitriol that Marianne pulls over and leaves them to be toxic on their own time. Both groups mirror parallels in Isak’s life and continue his assessment of self as the journey carries onward.

The other parallels of the film lie not only in Isak recognizing similar patterns in his past, but also in those closest to him. In the beginning of the trip Isak and Marianne visit Isak’s elderly mother for a few minutes, and after arriving in Lund nearing the end of the film, the pair meet up with Isak’s son and Marianne’s husband Evald (Gunnar Björnstrand). Isak recognizes this same aloofness and lonliness that plagues him in both of them. He gradually accepts who he is, connecting his past self with his present, and acknowledging his time left in this world. If you haven’t seen this film, I encourage you to give it a chance. There’s a reason the name Ingmar Bergman is still relevant in the world of cinema today.

Final Score: 5 Hitchhikers and a patch of Wild Strawberries

film

Old School Review: Solaris (1972)

Directed by Andrei Tarkovsky and co-written with Fridrikh Gorenshteyn, “Solaris” is a sci-fi film based off of the novel of the same name by Stanislav Lem. The opening of the film begins on Earth in a future where the Soviet Union (or Humanity in general) has achieved interstellar travel. Off in a faraway star system resides ‘Solaris’, the titular ocean planet, where an orbiting space station has been experiencing strange and mysterious phenomena. Our lead, the psychologist Kris Kelvin (Donatas Banionis), is briefed on what they know about the developing situation by cosmonaut Burton (Vladislav Dvorzhetsky), at Kelvin’s father’s home in the countryside. Once aboard the station Kelvin finds Dr. Gibarian (Sos Sargsyan) dead, while the other two scientists, Snaut (Jüri Järvet) and Sartorius (Anatoliy Solonitsyn), were distraught and deeply disturbed by the events unfolding on the space station.

“Solaris”, like all of Tarkovsky’s other films to some extent, is slow. Whether or not you have the patience to sit through the film’s very long shots, sometimes seemingly trying it’s very best to test your will to finish it, will inform your decision to attempt the film or not. While not the slowest pace among Tarkovsky’s films- there are several sequences that can test the rigor of any cinema-goer. Having spent the summer of 2017 getting acquainted with one of the last great American arthouse filmmakers in David Lynch’s third season of the series “Twin Peaks”, I’ve had time to digest the merit of slowness in cinema. I’m not always in the mood for such storytelling- but when I am there is hardly any greater filmmaker than Tarkovsky for such things. No one films the quiet humility of nature as he does, placing almost more emphasis on the environment than what’s happening within it.

It appears that when the station sent down X-rays to probe the planet for intelligent life, the planet responded to this by reflecting certain memories and perceptions of the remaining scientists’ minds into real physical forms. Kelvin is also quickly effected by the radiating phenomena as his dead wife Hari (Natalya Bondarchuk) materializes after his first night aboard the station. She is exactly as Kelvin remembers her, therefore she only has access to information that Kelvin would expect Hari to be aware of. At first he is bewildered by her presence as he expels his wife’s double into outer space in one of the escape pods. Another double of Hari appears a few hours later and Kelvin accepts this new Hari after awhile. She needs physical proximity to Kelvin’s brainwaves, and when left alone the clone punched through a steel door because she panicked and couldn’t figure out how to open the door manually. Now, that’s a bad case of monophobia!

Much like another sci-fi favorite of mine, “Blade Runner 2049”, this film debates the very notion of humanity. It asks what it means to be human, and whether or not you have to be born to be able to understand humans entirely. For Kelvin, it did not matter that this Hari was only a biological response to his literal proximity to an alien planet’s intelligence-aura. This recently formed aberration behaved as Hari would based on Kelvin’s memories of her, and the return of a departed loved one can be a powerful motivation, especially considering the circumstances of Hari’s death ten years prior. For Kelvin, this proved to be enough in the end.

After the space station goes through it’s scheduled weightlessness stage Doctors Snaut and Sartorius project Kelvin’s brainwaves towards Solaris. After awhile, the other doubles and “guests” disappear and Kelvin decides to go home. However he’s revealed to actually be on an exact copy of his father’s countryside home and estate as Solaris forms an island out of Kelvin’s memories. Now that’s a satisfactory ending!

Final Score: 2 scientists and 1 dead cosmonaut

film

Old School Review: Rashomon (1950)

Written by Shinobu Hashimoto and Akira Kurosawa, and directed by Kurosawa, “Rashomon” is a film about the complexities of human nature surrounding a murder with four contradictory eye-witness accounts. In the film three men find solace from a torrent of rain under Kyoto’s Rashomon gate. In the opening a woodcutter (Takashi Shimura) and a priest (Minoru Chiaki) are discussing and processing the differing accounts of an event recently taken place nearby. A commoner (Kichijiro Ueda) comes in from the storm and joins the conversation. He’s brought up to date on the situation at hand; a samurai (Masayuki Mori) has been murdered, his wife (Machiko Kyo) raped, and a local bandit (Toshiro Mifune) is the suspect. The woodcutter happened upon the crime scene and was the first to report the incident.

What follows is a series of revolutionary flashbacks to describe the tale as each character remembers it. All retellings of the same event differ, while remaining both true and false. True in that it is how they remember the events, but false in objective truth. The only scenes that are objectively true in what they show us are the ones taking place at Rashomon. Every flashback is an amalgamation of fractured memories, every scene in the forest broke new ground by showing the audience unreliable retellings of the past. This wasn’t a new idea that “Rashomon” originated, but rather a storytelling device that the film popularized. In fact the film is so connected to the idea of contradictory interpretations of past events that they became entwined with each other until ‘The Rashomon Effect’ became part of the cultural zeitgeist.

Each suspect questioned by an unknown official, which leads into each one’s version of the truth. The bandit gives his testimonial first, then the wife, and then the dead samurai- who speaks through a spirit medium, with the woodcutter’s tale kept until the end. All claim to be guilty to varying degrees, and all describe the situation with varying representations of themselves and the others involved. The three men under the Rashomon gate have differing reactions to the events and various recollections of those involved. The commoner is the most cynical of the three, at one point he posits, “Is there anyone who is truly good? Maybe goodness is just make-believe.” The woodcutter is visually distraught by these stories as he tries to reassemble the truth of the matter, while the priest seems to be placing the weight of his faith in humanity upon the outcome of the tale.

The film ends on a high note when the fog of ambiguity is lifted by the sounds of an abandoned child crying out. The woodcutter lifts his spirits and takes on the responsibility of this orphan, proving to the priest that humanity still has hope left in its spirit. The simple act of selflessness gives the film’s end a beacon to strive towards, even if humanity is muddled, complex, and not always truthful- we still strive to be better than our worst habits.

Human beings are unable to be honest with themselves about themselves. They cannot talk about themselves without embellishing.“- Akira Kurosawa

Final Score: 1 samurai ghost, 1 over the top bandit, and 1 woodcutter