Change Your Image
walkinginmysleep2129
Reviews
Hard Core Logo (1996)
Much better than Spinal Tap
Hard Core Logo is a mockumentary about an aging rock band struggling through a tour. Having said that, it is nothing at all like This Is Spinal Tap. It is a million times better. Plus, it's Canadian. What's not to like? The film features excellent music that stands on its own very well. Any fan of punk music would enjoy it, certainly on that level. Headstone's front man Hugh Dillon gravelly vocals lend themselves perfectly to the music, leaving one to wonder why Dillon didn't make his way in the punk genre, as he seems perfectly suited to it. Or maybe that's just great acting.
The four main characters, members of the has-been rock band Hard Core Logo, are each fantastic to watch, and could not be more different from each other. The mean-spirited and self-destructive lead singer Joe Dick is played to perfection by Dillon. After being aggressively pursued for the part by director Bruce McDonald, Dillon finally agreed to play the part after McDonald promised him creative input. Drawing upon his own experiences touring, Dillon creates a fascinating and sympathetic anti-hero. Joe Dick is not a good guy, as we realize in the course of the film. He is, however, totally committed to his dream and admirably gives his all in an attempt to realize it. Callum Keith Rennie brings a lot of subtlety to his role of Billy Talent, the above-it-all lead guitarist who humors his old friend while courting fame elsewhere. While the mentally unbalanced John Oxenburger and the flat-out stupid Pipefitter are both well-played, they stay in the background, giving excellent support to the unfolding dynamic between the two main characters.
While Hard Core Logo is shot in documentary style, McDonald frequently strays from this for dramatic effect, for example, the acid trip scene. This combined with limited input or reference to the documentary crew makes for what is more of a straight-up drama than a mockumentary. The genre just provides some opportunity for interesting editing, such as the four-way split screen scene that would be difficult to fit into a conventional style film. Another example is a scene in which the band has a roadside argument in the early morning. All of the actors are seen in silhouette, preventing us from seeing their faces during an important and emotional scene. Such a stylistic choice would be hard to fit into a conventional film, but can be excused in the context of a documentary.
Although this film, and all other rock-and-roll mockumentaries, will always beg comparison to the high standard, This is Spinal Tap, there really is no comparing them. Where Spinal Tap is slapstick and goofy, Hard Core Logo is smartly funny and primarily dramatic. Where Spinal Tap is over-the-top, Hard Core is small and real. Most importantly, where Spinal Tap is boring and unfunny, Hard Core is a fantastically well-written and acted look at strained friendships and dreams that will never come true.
M - Eine Stadt sucht einen Mörder (1931)
eerily relevant
The interesting thing about M is not that it was Lang's first film with sound, but that he was able to use sound so effectively with no prior experience with it. Rather than just adding another layer to the visuals, sound is often completely divorced from the visuals, creating two distinct elements working in concert. Another thing that marks M is its' subject matter, which was many years ahead of it's time and influenced countless other films while making Fritz Lang an enemy of the Nazi party.
From the very beginning of the film, characters are heard before they are ever seen. We hear children playing and singing a violent nursery rhyme as they camera tilts down to reveal them on an eerie downward angle. Hearing the voices off screen, and without music makes for a haunting, almost ghostly screen presence that Lang will use again and again throughout the film, particularly with the killer Beckert.
Borrowing a technique from opera known as Leitmotif, Lang first introduces Beckert by having us hear his whistling "Hall of the Mountain King" off screen, then representing him as a shadow on a wanted poster. From this moment on we understand that when we hear this tune, the killer is prowling. In fact, this is how the blind balloon seller recognizes Beckert in the end.
One particularly memorable scene occurs shortly after the first child is abducted, when the child's frantic mother calls out for her repeatedly, with increased panic as we are shown several dark, empty scenes culminating in a small, childlike balloon figure caught in power lines before coming free and silently floating away.
Almost as important as the technique used in this film is it's content. While much of our entertainment today involves psychotics and dark, violent stories, it goes without saying that in the late 20's and early 30's, the subject matter of film was somewhat tamer. M received heavy criticism from the Nazi party not for this however, but for the scenes in which the narrative switches back and forth between the police and the criminal element as they both discuss ways in which to catch the dangerous serial killer. This, along with the fact that the criminals beat the police to Beckert, supposedly degrades law enforcement by showing it as incompetent, although this is debatable, as the police would have caught Beckert soon anyway.
There are also undercurrents of socialism in the film, which undoubtedly made the Nazis a little nervous. The criminals talk of pooling their money and using it to support the families of members temporarily incarcerated. At one point a policeman even says, "each individual is responsible for what happens to the poorest child on the streets". At another time someone is heard to lament the effects of fear on a desperate population, " there's no privacy anymore". For a government built on fear after the Reichstag fire, this might have been seen as sly criticism.
Impressive films wisely use new technology in ways that push the boundaries of film. Classic films use bedrock principals of good storytelling to keep our interest and stay relevant even many years after their creations. While it's not often that a film can combine both of these elements to create a truly great film, Fritz Lang's M definitely qualifies. This is a groundbreaking film with a potent message that touches on debates about the nature of criminality and the ultimate responsibilities for actions. Debates that are still occurring more than 70 years after this films release.
City Lights (1931)
A touching film made with obvious passion
In 1914, Charlie Chaplin created one of the most recognizable and beloved movie icons of all time. With City Lights in 1931, the world said goodbye to him. In this context, it is easy to see how anyone even remotely a fan of the tramp would hold this film dear to their hearts and quietly champion it as one of the best films ever made.
Now, to be clear, City Lights wasn't actually the tramp's last appearance in cinema. That came five years later, in Modern Times. However, by looking back to the time in which this film was made, and with the benefit of seeing it from our perspective in history, we can see why it was considered a bittersweet goodbye to the lovable tramp. With the advent of talkies in 1928, it would be a great understatement to say that film was forever changed. To this day some still debate whether that was a positive change or not. One thing is certain, that a great number of careers were ruined by the advent of sound. One of the biggest stars of the silent era was Charlie Chaplin's Tramp. As the years went by and talkie productions began outnumbering silent films ten to one, the world waited with bated breath to see how Chaplin would adjust to this major change. Finally, he answered with City lights. What everyone was expecting was for Chaplin to present the tramp in his first talkie, and in fact Chaplin was under immense studio pressure to do so. He stuck to his guns though, and presented them with what he must have felt was a goodbye letter to the silent era.
All things considered, silent films could not have asked for a more elegant farewell. City Lights is an excellent example of everything that makes silent films superior to talkies, according to some. There's the trademark slapstick comedy, which still leaves audiences in stitches. This brand of comedy simply wouldn't work in a film with sound. Replaced two years later with the first Three Stooges short and their brand of somewhat cruder slapstick, Chaplin's humour necessitated silence. The acting in city lights was superb. The kind of subtlety that is called for in silent films is used to perfection here, displaying plot and emotion unmistakably without ever seeming to be overacting. This is due, no doubt, in part to the legendary perfectionism displayed by Chaplin during the filming of City Lights. Shooting 342 takes of one scene illustrates a level of passion for the film, which is evident in every frame.
This is a film without a villain, really. The two main characters are extremely likable. The closest it has to an antagonist is the millionaire, however this is only half the time, and without him the Tramp would not be able to pursue his courtship of the flower girl. The tramp acts as a sort of guardian angel to his millionaire friend, saving him from suicide on several occasions. In almost every other scene, he is struggling to provide for the flower girl who holds his heart. She is the classic picture of noble poverty, never complaining, selling flowers everyday to provide for her grandmother and herself. The two of them are outsiders, struggling to find acceptance and love while being trapped by poverty, and in the flower girl's case, physical disability. In one memorable scene, when we first see her home, she seems jealous of a couple next door and the shot lingers on an image of a bird in cage. Later on the Tramp is literally caged when sent to prison for theft. In the ending, which is touted by some as the most perfect conclusion in film history both are freed from their respective cages when the Tramp is released and the flower girl is cured of her blindness. Now that they are free they can finally find acceptance within another.
While not a true silent film, as it has a music track and sound effects, City Lights is in many ways the quintessential silent film. It was also one of Chaplin's last. After this he went into semi-retirement and made only a handful of films before passing away. Given this, and the fact that every scene drips with semi-sweet sentimentality, it is little wonder that fans of the era treasure it much the same way that fans of TV shows get misty-eyed thinking about the series finale of their favourite show. This is not to belittle it, as even non-fans can appreciate its message and storytelling. As James Hamilton said, "If you don't like this movie, there is just something wrong with you".
Goodfellas (1990)
Godfather vs. Goodfellas
When speaking of gangster films, the argument will always come down to the relative supremacy of the two best offerings of the genre, Godfather and Goodfellas. The interesting parallel between these two films is realism. After the release of Godfather, writer Mario Puzo was approached by several Mafioso who assumed (incorrectly) that he was involved with the mob due to the level of perceived realism. Meanwhile, one of the biggest complaints against Goodfellas is that the violence is over-the-top and unnecessary. However, unlike Godfather, Goodfellas is based on a true story and the real Henry Hill has stated the film is 99% true. In fact, the real Tommy actually yelled "Shine these f**king shoes!" as he stomped Billy Batts. Disturbing scenes like this draw a lot of criticism for the film, however this is all an accurate depiction of mob life, so if you don't like that, then why are you watching mob films?
The story of Henry Hill is a familiar one; a young boy growing up in a tough neighborhood becomes seduced by the flashiness, respect, and perceived success of the mob. What makes Goodfellas a classic, and better than the countless others, is the stylish and effective camera-work of director Martin Scorsese. As we trace Henry's New Jersey childhood, the camera continually centers on a star struck young boy watching his heroes with admiration and wonder. This is continued throughout the film even as Henry moves into adulthood, he still looks up to Paulie like a little kid. Then there is the narration. In lesser films narration would be used to cover plot holes and force the film along. In Goodfellas, the narration is probably unnecessary, as the film would flow fine without it, but Scorsese uses it the way it is supposed to be used, to provide added insight into the characters and why Henry participates in amoral activities with such zeal. It also helps that Ray Liotta's delivery is just about perfect.
The usual theme of gangster movies is otherwise good people getting seduced into a bad lifestyle of doing horrible things for money. The interesting thing about Goodfellas is that under Scorsese's expert direction, we are the ones being seduced. An excellent example of this is the famous Copacabana date scene. In this three-minute long steadicam shot, it is almost as if we were on a date with Henry as we follow he and Karen wind their way through the back door of the famous nightclub, eventually coming out on top, as it were, into a choice spot right in front of the stage. Throughout the film, we are confronted with extremely intimate camera-work that brings us into their inner circle as they lean together conspiratorially to plan their Air France heist and others.
However, no discussion of Goodfellas would be complete without addressing the violence. Yes, it is horrible. Yes, it is graphic. Yes, it is disturbing. One thing it is not, is glorifying. The opening scene foreshadows the brutality of the last half of the film as we see a man, in a trunk, get shot multiple times, then stabbed with a kitchen knife. But once the opening credits rush across the screen, and the narration starts we can push that out of our minds and get lulled into a false sense of security by Henry's adoring praise of the wiseguy father figures who populate his childhood and the darkly humorous way the violence is handled in the first act. This all changes, however in one instant as Henry pistol-whips Karen's neighbor with the wandering hands. We are definitely made to feel as though this attack is justified, but it marks a turning point in the mood of the film. We can draw a line right at this point to divide the movie into two halves. Where as before we see the mob life through rose-colored glasses, we now begin to see the downfall of the characters that before were invincible. From here we see brutality after brutality as their situation gets more desperate and they try harder and harder to keep things together. The difference between the mood of the two halves can also be seen in the first two times Henry finds himself in court. When, as a child, Henry keeps his mouth shut and takes the fall, he is praised and congratulated by Paulie and the others. The event is seen as a rite of passage. The second time, however, no one is laughing, foreshadowing the final scenes of the film.
Goodfellas is everything Godfather is not. Where Godfather focuses on kings of the underworld, Goodfellas shows us the lives of the low level soldiers under them. When Godfather is grandiose and operatic, Goodfellas is gritty and intimate. Even though they actually have similar running times, Godfather comes off as hard to sit through, while Goodfellas is accessible, almost to a fault, as in the nearly heavy-handed technique of freezing the frame to make sure we pay attention to the particularly important moments. By drawing us into the life of one of the most mysterious and fabled aspects of American society, the mob, Martin Scorsese earns his title as the greatest living American director, and Goodfellas earns its place as the best gangster movie ever.