Day 109 - Cries and Whispers

Cries and Whispers (1972) directed by Ingmar Bergman

After watching a couple lightweights lately, I decided to dig into something a little heavy...


About five or six years ago I watched Ingmar Bergman's The Seventh Seal and I was not that impressed. It was too slow, too intellectual, too philosophical, too artsy, etc for me. I chalked it up to my young age and lack of exposure to these kinds of movies. Perhaps I would acquire a taste for such films as I got wiser with age and had more movie watching under my belt. I don't know if I'm any smarter now but I have definitely watched more films and I'm sad to report I'm none the wiser about them. I simply haven't gotten into these types of movies, including today's film Cries and Whispers.

What makes this film a heralded classic? I'm not asking to be confrontational or to say that I hated this movie (I didn't) but I'm genuinely curious and want to understand. I want to become a better thinker and a better movie watcher, but I lack the training and learning to fully appreciate a film like this. I understood the basics and I even got some of the symbolism but I was still more "Eh" than "Ooooh" about it. I wasn't emotionally devastated or deeply moved like the movie description said I would be and afterword I wasn't sure how I was supposed to feel. After reading an excellent analytical essay and a half dozen reviews I can see what the big deal is, but even then I still don't really see Cries and Whispers in that light, though I certainly appreciate it more.

Okay before I get more into why I'm so confused I better talk a little more about the actual movie. A woman named Agnes is dying of cancer and is being looked after by her two sisters, Karin and Maria, and her faithful servant Anna. They are living together in this giant mansion with bright red interiors. The color red plays a significant role in the film as it represents the soul, blood, pain, death, and the raw emotion of the characters. In fact, many of the scenes fade in and out in red rather than the traditional black. All the characters are deeply wounded individuals who have confronted pain and death, particularly Karin and Maria who come across as vile people. Maria attempts to seduce the doctor who is caring for Agnes and in a flashback, it is revealed that they had an affair some time ago. This led to Maria's husband to attempt suicide, in which he begs for her help, to which she responds coldly, "No." Karin is perhaps even worse. In a disturbing flashback she cuts her own vagina with a piece of broken glass because that is how much she hates her husband. That is how much she hates to be touched. She triumphantly smears the blood across her face and gives an all knowing smile. Disturbing and totally weird. Karin is so cold that in a time of vulnerability and openness she tells Maria to her face that she has always hated her. The third sister, Agnes, seems to be innocent. Her pain is more literal and physical and she writhes and screams in agony. Anna's role is a confusing one. She too has suffered pain and loss. She lost her daughter at a young age and Agnes, whom she is quite affectionate with, is also dying. However, she lacks the cynism of the sisters perhaps because of her faith in God and humanity.

If I had to describe Cries and Whispers in a word, it would be pain. Everyone suffers and in the cases of the sisters, they afflict pain upon others. It is a rather bleak and depressing picture filled with dread and dispair. It is definitely not a fun experience. I suppose the primary concern for me about this film is that I wasn't really affected by watching it. Maybe I just wasn't in the mood. I could see the dread in the film but I didn't really feel it; I felt more anguish in having to sit through this more than anything. I certainly appreciate this movie on a more intellectual and artistic level after reading up on it but as far as an overall package goes, it didn't totally fly for me. You can explain in the greatest detail how technically great a painting is, how certain brush strokes are meant to evoke this emotion or that idea, but in the end you wouldn't be caught dead with it hanging on your wall, if that makes any sense.

Actually thinking more and more about this movie, the more I can understand why it might be great. Unfortunately for me, my entire appreciation for the film comes from reading about it after the fact rather than watching it. I know this says a lot about my capabilities as a film critic, but I think it has to at least say a little something about the film itself. After watching it, thinking a little about it, reading about it, and writing about it for over an hour, I'm still at a loss on how I should feel. Perhaps that is a good thing though.

Question: I'm still not sure what the title is in reference to. Regarding the scenes of the close ups of the women's faces where whispers can be heard, what do they mean?

Grade: B-

Day 108 - Cowboys & Aliens

Cowboys & Aliens (2011) directed by Jon Favreau

As soon as I heard the title of this movie, I was sold. Cowboys and aliens. Say it as "cowboys (long pause) and aliens" and you realize just how absurd a concept it is. There's no doubt this movie is ridiculous in every conceivable way, but that's the whole point, isn't it? It's just a matter of how ridiculous they make it. Not ridiculous enough, IMO. The problem is that the title suggests something fun and silly but instead we get something slow and serious. When you have this awesome premise you might as well make the most out of it and make it as outrageous as possible. Instead this movie is silly in a whole different way, in how serious it takes itself. That isn't to say this movie doesn't work, just that it wastes its potential.

The film opens with Daniel Craig waking up in the desert, not knowing who he is or where he came from, wearing a mysterious metal bracelet. He gets to town where people look at him a little funny. It doesn't take long before the aliens come swooping in blowing stuff up and snatching people up to their spaceships. Harrison Ford is the big man in town with a vendetta against Craig, but the two must work together to save the people who got taken, including Ford's son. They are joined by bartender Sam Rockwell, stranger Olivia Wilde, who has some of the greenest eyes I've ever seen, a preacher, an Indian scout, a little boy who must find his courage, er, grandfather, and a trusty dog. Along the way they meet up with a band of outlaws and of course, Indians. They must all learn to work together to defeat the aliens. It's like the entire wild west versus outer space, which actually sounds like a cool name for a sequel.

Why are aliens so disgusting? I wonder if any of the slimy creatures are considered the Brad Pitt of their planet. I wonder if they find humans even more repulstive. Also they are advanced and smart enough to travel light years across the universe and to do what, steal our gold? As Harrison Ford's character says, "That's ridiculous. What are they going to do? Buy something?"

Within the cornball plot and absurdities are the mandatory action sequences which will satisfy the summer crowd. There are thrills, chills, and spills, though surprisingly few laughs making for a kind of flat experience. It's cowboys and aliens, but unfortunately it doesn't quite live up to the expectations of the title. Mildly enjoyable, but mindless and ultimately forgettable fare.

Grade: C

Day 107 - Rise of the Planet of the Apes

Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011) directed by Rupert Wyatt

For those of you unfamiliar with the Planet of the Apes franchise just know that sometime in the future (or actually on another planet, I don't remember), the world has been overtaken by intelligent apes with the humans locked up in cages or hiding in the wilderness. Rise of the Planet of the Apes serves as a sort of prequel (hence the title) explaining how such a thing might happen.

Will Rodman (James Franco) is a scientist working on a cure for Alzheimer's. The drug is shown to drastically boost all the stuff that goes on in the brain. They've been testing on monkeys. Do you see where this is going? The movie proceeds exactly as you'd expect it so it's just a matter of ironing out the details and making sure the special effects and action sequences are up to par.

This isn't necessarily the movie you might expect though coming in. It is not a crazy action orientated picture, but a rather slow burning character study. Well, clearly not of the humans because every one of them has the depth of a sheet of paper. James Franco and Freida Pinto get top billing, but the real star of the movie is Andy Serkis who plays Caesar the chimp. Caesar is highly intelligent and shows emotion and self awareness. He is raised by Will as if he were his child, even dressing him in clothes. However, Caesar is also clearly a chimp and not a human, a fact made well aware to him when he gets sent away after an incident, sewing the seeds for the inevitable progression of the movie.

The special effects are quite spectacular and easily the best part of the movie. While watching it I had no idea if it was some combination of actual monkeys, CGI or dudes in suits. Either way, Caesar and the rest of the monkeys look highly detailed and very convincing. Serkis, the man who played Gollum in The Lord of the Rings trilogy, plays Caesar in what I assume is one of those skin tight blue (or is it green?) suits with white balls on it. The computer does the rest in remarkable fashion. Serkis and the special effects team does a great job in showing what Caesar is thinking and feeling, a task that is harder than it seems. What they create is a memorable and sympathetic hero despite being, well, you know a monkey.

The same cannot be said for the humans in the film. They are all pretty useless. Yes, even Will. James Franco wasn't given much to work with. No one is. The bad guys in these things are always impossibly dumb and/or malicious. Tom Felton (Draco Malfoy from the Harry Potter series) plays a cruel animal keeper who treats the monkeys like prisoners and takes pleasure in tormenting them. I can't say for certain if it's a direct quote from the 1968 original, but his character has the honor of saying, "Take your stinking paws off me you damned dirty ape!" Pretty hilarious, but kind of cool that they're throwing a shot out.

ROTPOTA is entertaining even if it is a little stupid. It's predictable but doesn't disappoint. You know it has to progress and end in a certain direction; you just want to see how it gets there. Once the apes go wild there is good solid summer action with the city of San Francisco as its backdrop. This movie serves as a prequel to the Planet of the Apes mythos and it would not surprise me at all if this was just the first installment of a planned series. For those who might be looking for something a little deeper, it may or may not have a message regarding animal testing.

Grade: B-

Day 106 - Triad Election

Triad Election (2006) directed by Johnnie To

Two years have passed since the events of Election, meaning another election for chairman of the Wo Shing society is at hand. The tradition states that there are no second terms, you bow out gracefully and let the next guy have his shot, so who are the candidates this time around? Based on the events of the previous movie, we know what kind of guy the current chairman Lok (Simon Yam) is. He is ruthless and cunning and driven by power. One gets the feeling he does not want to relinquish his title just yet despite the tradition. A democracy is just one strong leader away from being a dictatorship and that is what Lok envisions even if he doesn't admit it to his peers.

His opponent is Jimmy (Louis Koo), a supporting character in the last movie but now the leading candidate to be the next chairman. Bitter about how the last election went, Jimmy wants out of the life to focus on legitimate business. Every gangster seems to have that dream, but if there's anything you've learned from The Godfather is that you're in it for life. When he realizes that his future as a business man depends on his position in the triad, he reluctantly accepts the nomination and runs against Lok. (Actually everything happens before the elections even take place. It's never clear if Lok is even allowed to run again in the first place.) Naturally, Lok does not like this. This means war, again. Given the propensity for violence in the triad world and the dirty business of politics to begin with, you have to wonder about the wisdom of having these things every two years.

Jimmy, despite not wanting to be a gangster, is pretty damn gangster. His philosophy is that if you're in it, you might as well win it and his behavior here is even more grotesque than Lok's ever was. The primary difference between Triad Election and its predecessor is the amount of violence in this film. There is a sequence in the middle where Jimmy and his crew round up a bunch of Lok's men and cage them in a dog kennel trying to get them to turn on Lok. If throwing money at them doesn't work, why not try a sledgehammer to the hands, or the face. I cringed yet could not stop watching. The violence is gratuitous but done with style that would make Quinten Tarantino proud. And when sledge hammers don't work, try machetes. Ouch.

This film feels much more artistic than Election and has some of the visual flair of Vengeance which was ultra sleek. I really appreciated how well crafted the movie felt on top of being an interesting story with a nice dosage of bloody violence. I don't know if To works with the same cinematographer on his films but Triad Election and Vengeance in particular look really good and of course a lot of it has to do with To's artistic vision as well.

That leads me to wonder when you see something aesthetically pleasing on film, is that the director at work or the cinematographer? Who is responsible for how shots are set up? Is the cinematographer simply following the director's instructions or does he listen to what the director wants and say, "Oh I have the perfect looking shot for what you're going for."?

Triad Election improves upon its predecessor in just about every facet, save for Election's great ending. It can actually be seen on its own, but obviously I would recommend watching the first before this one. Together they make up quite an interesting if not riveting crime saga.

Grade: B+

Day 105 - Election

Election (2005) directed by Johnnie To

I decided to watch Election after watching Johnnie To's stellar Vengeance and I'm happy to report a pleasant if not thrilling experience with this triad crime drama. I will say though that it is a sort of uneven experience. I almost wrote it off as a mixed bag with unrealized potential, but then came the final twenty minutes which is completely stunning.

The title of the film refers to the upcoming election for the chairman of the Wo Shing society, a Hong Kong triad. Every two years a new leader is elected and the two contenders in this election are the level headed Lok (Simon Yam) and the power hungry and ill tempered Big D (Tony Leung). How smoothly do you expect the democratic process of criminals to work? Needless to say, the election is hotly contested with some last minute campaigning and bribery going on. And how does the loser take the news of the results? Just how any African dictator might take it; ignore the results, intimidate the voters, demand a recount and if all else fails, stage an all out coupe.

The first third of the film focuses on the election process. Early on, it is evident that the seemingly unassuming Lok will win. Big D, in a fury, kidnaps two of the uncles, cages them in wooden boxes and kicks them down a mountain over and over until they change their minds. When it is clear to him that he will come out on the losing side, Big D becomes desperate, threatening to break off from the society and start his own triad, meaning all out war.

The middle of the film sort of lost me as it focuses on the retrieval of the an ancient baton, the symbol of power for the triad. The tradition is that the baton is passed down from the old chairman to his successor, so it has a particular significance to this election. Both sides race to claim it as a matter of face and power. I feel like these scenes are unfocused and don't hold the tension well enough to build upon. I kind of didn't care and just wanted to see the two guys go at it personally. I wish the film just focused more on the characters of Lok and Big D who we actually do not learn that much about throughout the film. We don't know their history, we don't know what makes them tick, we don't really know their qualifications, honestly we don't even really know which side is better suited for the job, although it is clear throughout that you should be rooting for Lok.

The fact that we don't know which side is better suited for godfather is actually one of the hidden beauties of the film which reveals itself at the end of the film. Automatically we dislike Big D because he is brash, hot headed and prone to violence. We see how he treats people and can only shake our heads. Lok, on the other hand, looks mild mannered, more of an accountant than the head of a criminal organization. In fact he even says as much, the triad should be run like a business a la Stringer Bell from The Wire. One of the knocks on Stringer is that people, Avon included, thinks he may be on the soft side, but behind the smart looks and calm demeanor is a cold calculating gangster who is not afraid to get his hands dirty.

The ending of the film is just so stunning because it is so unexpected and completely changed how I viewed the rest of the movie. Obviously I cannot reveal it, but I literally sat with my mouth open.

This film has a great premise. It sort of gets muddled in the middle, but by the end I was thoroughly satisfied. It is sort of strange that in a triad crime film, the violence is rather kept at a minimal. Anybody familiar with Hong Kong action films knows just how ridiculous they can be but the random spurts of violence are rather subdued here. But when it comes, it comes hard making it all the more effective.

Apparently, Triad Election, this film's sequel is even better (holds a 96% rating on Rottentomatoes). It picks up two years later at the next triad election. If this film's election process and, really, any election in the history of the world, is any indication then I can only imagine how the sequel may top it.

Grade: B

Day 104 - The General

The General (1926) directed by Clyde Bruckman and Buster Keaton

Keaton and Chaplin...
This is my first look at the other great silent star, Buster Keaton, who draws comparisons to Chaplin for obvious reasons. However, their styles are actually quite different. Chaplin was so famous and his Tramp so renowned that he became a figure greater than the movies he starred in. You are drawn to him when he is on screen because of his strange appearance and awkward mannerisms. You observe his quirks, you know his sentiments, and you're familiar with his traits. No one else in The Tramp's world is like him in any way. Buster Keaton, on the other hand, looks normal and unassuming. That doesn't mean he isn't unique or special, but rather that his characters are drawn from regular folk and in many ways more relatable. While The Tramp has his obvious drawing points, he is clearly his own man. We can relate to his sentimentality but we can never really be him. There is only one Tramp and that's Charlie Chaplin. For everyone else, there's Buster Keaton.

So what could Keaton do? For one, having only seen this one film I can say that he was every bit the stunt man that Chaplin was, likely even better. In The General, he hops from car to car on a moving train. He jumps straight onto a bicycle and starts peddling in one fluid motion. He drops thirty feet off a bridge into water. The stunt work in this film looks quite dangerous and he executes them flawlessly. While I didn't have the same kind of laughs as I did watching City Lights and Modern Times, I could see that Keaton could handle comedy easily.

The actual film...

The General is about a railroad engineer Johnnie Gray (Keaton) and the two loves of his life, Annabelle Lee and his locomotive The General. The Civil War breaks out in the South and men line up to enlist. Johnnie, in his best Steve Rogers impersonation, tries valiantly to join the fight but is rejected because he would be more valuable as an engineer for the South. Of course, being an engineer is not manly and thus poor Johnnie loses the respect of Annabelle who tells him, "I don't want to talk to you again until you're in a uniform." As luck would have it, both loves of his life get taken from him as Union spies commandeer The General with Annabelle on it. It is up to Johnnie to show his bravery and get them back.

The primary plot of the film is told in the chase. Johnnie must chase The General and once he gets it back, the Union soldiers chase him. While I enjoyed these scenes, unfortunately it could only hold my attention for so long. It essentially becomes an hour long action scene on tracks. There are only so many things you can do. That being said, I was pretty impressed by the array of stunts and action shots. I was actually quite impressed by the technical aspects of the film, as it uses a wide variety of angles and shots to showcase the action.

I also liked several shots. The most interesting one is when Johnnie is hiding underneath the table. There is a hole in the tablecloth and he peers through it with one eye and through this hole he is able to see Annabelle. We get a good look at her as if we were him staring out through that hole. I also liked the scene when Johnnie and Annabelle are escaping at night. Lightning strikes around them in a kind of cheesy special effect, but the memorable part of the scene is the lighting that reveals a bear in the background in brief flashes. A flash reveals the bear and then darkness, the flash reveals him a little closer then darkness again.

I don't know if it was the original score or not for the film (watched the Netflix stream), but the music was really great. It is dramatic when it needs to be, cheerful and bouncy in lighter moments and even a bit scary when you're nervous for Johnnie and Annabelle. It just reminds me how important music is in films. A soundtrack can really make or break a scene. This seems even more important in silent films when the music is the only thing you can hear.

Once it is clear that Johnnie and Annabelle would be safe, I feel like the film kind of dragged on in the end, which doesn't really bode well for a film that's only 75 minutes long. But overall, the film was enjoyable to watch, particularly in seeing Keaton for the first time. I will say that it's not a particularly funny film despite being labeled as a comedy. I'd categorize it more as an action drama with comedic elements.

Grade: B

Day 103 - Driving Miss Daisy

Driving Miss Daisy (1989) directed by Bruce Beresford

I'll tell you what I didn't like about Driving Miss Daisy. It sets itself up to be an important emotional movie with a message but has virtually none of those qualities. It offers minimal insight to anything meaningful and its subdued drama lacks any real punch. Its premise feels promising but fails to deliver upon it. I just felt it was an uninspiring and bland movie.

The film opens with Miss Daisy (Jessica Tandy) backing her car into her neighbor's yard. Her son Boolie (Dan Aykroyd) decides she should no longer drive for herself and gets her a chauffeur, Hoke (Morgan Freeman). Miss Daisy is a fiercely proud independent woman who doesn't like to be catered to. As for Hoke, well, I'm not exactly sure what he brings to the table other than to serve and cater. The rest of the film chronicles their relationship together spanning over 25 years.

Buddying up an old Southern white woman with an older black man in pre-Civil Rights Georgia, you'd assume the film has something poignent to say about race relations or prejudice but Driving Miss Daisy
glosses over these subjects ever so briefly and unconvincingly. There are no heated arguments or big confrontations, no moment of outrage or injustice. There is a scene in the film when Hoke and Miss Daisy drive to Mississippi and are met by police officers on the side of the road. They approach Hoke and call out, "Hey boy." Perhaps this is where Miss Daisy defends Hoke, perhaps this is where she sees the discrimination against blacks? Nope, nothing happens and the two are allowed to drive off. As they disappear in the distance, one officer turns to the other and says, "A nigger and a Jew..." Am I outraged? No, because the comment feels thrown in at the end of the scene. Nothing comes out of it other than to remind the viewer, "Hey, look at what these two characters must go through!" Except they do not go through anything of that sort. Yes, Hoke is not allowed to go to the white only bathrooms and must go in the side of the road. There are little instances throughout the film where Miss Daisy is presented with these facts but she is either too stubborn to notice or isn't much of a friend to Hoke. The film spans 25 years, but do we see any real growth in her views? Not really.

So maybe this film isn't supposed to really be about that. It is about the friendship between Miss Daisy and Hoke. Okay, that's fine, and it does work a little better in this regard, but we don't really learn anything about this friendship. We don't learn anything from this friendship. There is no real heart to heart moment. Miss Daisy doesn't really confide to Hoke and she learns virtually nothing about Hoke but bits and pieces. In their 25 years together, does she ever ask him about his family? Does she ever ask him what it was like growing up or where he came from? Does she ever invite him to eat at her table? We are shown fragments of their time together. Time passes unannounced, they slowly grow older and more fond of each other. It shows that if two people are around each other long enough then perhaps they can get along. Um, okay.

There are obviously key moments to the film to signify their friendship. One comes when Hoke admits to Miss Daisy that he cannot read. As a former teacher, she is incredulous. She gives him a one minute lesson right then and there. Now he can read. Deep sigh, eyes roll. In a film about small gestures and subtleties, it probably would have been better if they just threw out this scene all together or at least present it in a softer manner.

I am probably in the minority here, but I found the portrayal of Hoke offensive. He is shown as a man of infinite patience and thoughtfulness on an almost unrealistic level. He seems far too eager to please as if his life's mission was to serve. I don't mean to presume how other people think, but I wonder how African Americans might view Hoke. (I know what Malcolm X would have thought.) Undoubtedly he is kind and good natured but he seems to lack any other dimension. I cringed the first time he spoke in his aw shucks gee golly manner. Why is it that his humanity is defined by his relationship to Miss Daisy, or better yet, white people? In this film it should be the other way around, but it isn't. I might go as far as to say that I was a little appalled.

It is remarkable how Miss Daisy slowly ages in the film. On a personal note, I was a little saddened to see it because it reminded me of my own grandmother who recently celebrated her 90th birthday. I cannot help but wonder in the back of mind how many more she may have left. But regarding Miss Daisy's character, I've already mentioned she does not grow in the manner that you'd expect. It is never clear why she is worthy of Hoke's faithfulness. What is it that she actually learns from her friendship? What do we learn from this friendship? Not much.

Grade: C-