He Used to Be Such A Good Director...

This post is definitely NOT an entry into the Bizarro Blog-A-Thon hosted by Piper at Lazy Eye Theatre. I believe everything I say in this post, and whatever you do, you should not go to the hub of the Blog-A-Thon, because it is an incredibly boring read.


It's hard to deny David Lynch's place among the greatest living directors. This is the man who gave us Eraserhead, Blue Velvet, Wild at Heart, The Straight Story, and Mulholland Dr.. No matter how you cut that, it's impressive. Lynch has become a master at telling linear stories in a non-linear manner, culminating in the masterpiece of the new millenium, Mulholland Dr. However, Lynch has taken it a bit too far. His latest work, INLAND EMPIRE suffers from what everyone accused Tideland of: auteurism unchecked. This leads to various problems with the film, and serious questions about both Lynch and his very vocal supporters.

I would go into a plot description, but any attempt beyond the film's tagline of "A Woman In Trouble" is an exercise in futility. The film meanders between an undefinable number of "plots" that revolve around Nikki Grace (Laura Dern) and a cursed film production. Dern, over the course of the film, plays a number of roles, at least 4 by my count, through we never know which one she is playing at any given time.

Dern has received great praise for her performance in this film, but the only positive thing I can say is that she managed to survive the movie. This isn't meant to be a slight against Dern, who has done some great work, and some of that for Lynch (Wild at Heart comes to mind), but the film butchers any sort of consistency she could have given to the role. It hardly seems possible that any of the characters Dern plays could exist as aspects of one whole character, as some would claim.

One of the great successes of Mulholland Dr. was the presence of an omnipotent being at its core. No matter how odd the film got, we could feel that Lynch was carefully controlling everything we saw. Everything is there for a reason, and Lynch's camera never leaves that in doubt. Such a presence is lacking in INLAND EMPIRE, and that greatly damages any faith I could put in the film. Knowing the construction of the movie (Lynch shot scenes immediately after writing them, only later beginning to connect them into a whole) only weakens my trust in Lynch. The film doesn't play by any rules, as Mulholland Dr. does, and the freedom, while admirable as an experiment, doesn't cohere properly into a solid movie.

The quality of the images doesn't do the movie any favors, either. Lynch says that he will never return to film again, and that is unfortunate. The images are grimy and, though atmospheric, they take away from the overall impact a film like this could have. INLAND EMPIRE seems allergic to sunlight, and that feels much more a result of Lynch's use of digital video than any symbolism he may have intended.

INLAND EMPIRE is an embarrassment to David Lynch, and it should be to anyone who truly loves his work. Lynch has gone off the deep end, and he shows no signs of coming back. Please do, Dave. I miss the control you once possessed over your worse instincts.

Bizarro Sundae Monday

Piper over at Lazy Eye Theater has declared a Bizarro Blog-A-Thon. As of this point, every entry in the blog-a-thon has been in praise of a film/actor who is generally disliked. I hope to take this the other way. I plan to take David Lynch's INLAND EMPIRE down a peg, despite the fact that it was my number 1 for 2006. I will try to make the best argument I can without resorting to cheap sarcasm in an effort to better appreciate a film I already love. That is what I hope these bizarro days can bring out in people: the ability to reevaluate a film or actor so that they can better appreciate the film on its own terms.

But enough pompous speeches. BIZARRO!!!



And no Bizarro video collection would be complete without a little Sealab 2021.

No Speak-a di English

If I'm going to be completely honest, I'm a little hurt that I wasn't included in the nominating committee for the Top Foreign Language Films List as organized by Edward Copeland of Edward Copeland on Film. But then again, he was probably right. My knowledge of foreign film is pedestrian at best, though I'd like to think I could have helped, say Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown or The Virgin Spring get one step closer to the list. But what's past is past, and there are 121 wonderful options to choose from. For complete rules and regulations, click here.

I've been attempting to expand my knowledge of film a lot in the past few weeks, but little of that has come in the field of foreign film. The convenience of TiVo and Turner Classic Movies has allowed me great access to old Hollywood, and I need that as much as foreign films at this point in my life. It's a constant choice, one which I hope becomes easier as I need to see fewer Tracey and Hepburn films and more Godard and Fellini. In fact, of the 121 nominees for the list, I have only seen 30. I cannot in any good conscience select 25 films to be the greatest of all time when I haven't seen 91. And so, having learned Piper's lesson, I will not be participating in this poll. I will, however, list below the 91 films I have not seen and the ballot I would submit if I were submitting. Feel free to skip over them and watch Sunrise. Better yet, please give me some tips on which to tackle first. Other than Breathless and 8 1/2, I have no idea where to begin.

The 91 films that have now significantly risen on my To-See List:

Ali: Fear Eats the Soul directed by Rainer Werner Fassbinder
Amarcord directed by Federico Fellini
Amores Perros directed by Alejandro González Iñárritu
Andrei Rublev directed by Andrei Tarkovsky
Ashes and Diamonds directed by Andrzej Wajda
Au Hasard Balthazar directed by Robert Bresson
The Battle of Algiers directed by Gillo Pontecorvo
Beauty and the Beast directed by Jean Cocteau
Belle de Jour directed by Luis Bunuel
The Bitter Tears of Petra von Kant directed by Rainer Werner Fassbinder
Three Colors: Blue directed by Krzysztof Kieslowski
The Blue Angel directed by Josef von Sternberg
Breathless directed by Jean-Luc Godard (Okay, this one can't rise any more. It is #1 on my To-See List)
Celine and Julie Go Boating directed by Jacques Rivette
Chungking Express directed by Wong Kar-Wai
Cleo From 5 to 7 directed by Agnes Varda
Come and See directed by Elem Klimov
The Conformist directed by Bernardo Bertolucci
Contempt directed by Jean-Luc Godard
The Cranes Are Flying directed by Mikheil Kalatozishvili
Cries and Whispers directed by Ingmar Bergman
Das Boot directed by Wolfgang Petersen
Day of Wrath directed by Carl Theodor Dreyer
The Decalogue directed by Krzysztof Kieslowski
Dersu Uzala directed by Akira Kurosawa
The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie directed by Luis Bunuel
The Double Life of Veronique directed by Krzysztof Kieslowski
8 1/2 directed by Federico Fellini
Exterminating Angel directed by Luis Bunuel
Eyes Without a Face directed by Georges Franju
Fanny and Alexander directed by Ingmar Bergman
Farewell My Concubine directed by Chen Kaige
Forbidden Games directed by René Clément
The Gospel According to St. Matthew directed by Pier Paolo Pasolini
The Great Silence directed by Sergio Corbucci
High and Low directed by Akira Kurosawa
Hiroshima Mon Amour directed by Alain Resnais
Ikiru directed by Akira Kurosawa
La Dolce Vita directed by Federico Fellini
La Strada directed by Federico Fellini
Last Year at Marienbad directed by Alain Resnais
L'Atalante directed by Jean Vigo
Late Spring directed by Yasujiro Ozu
L'Avventura directed by Michelangelo Antonioni
L'Eclisse directed by Michelangelo Antonioni
The Leopard directed by Luchino Visconti
Le Samourai directed by Jean-Pierre Melville
Lola Montes directed by Max Ophuls
The Marriage of Maria Braun directed by Rainer Werner Fassbinder
Masculin-Feminin directed by Jean-Luc Godard
My Night at Maud's directed by Eric Rohmer
Nights of Cabiria directed by Federico Fellini
Nosferatu the Vampyre directed by Werner Herzog
Open City directed by Roberto Rossellini
Ordet directed by Carl Theodor Dreyer
Orpheus directed by Jean Cocteau
Persona directed by Ingmar Bergman
Pickpocket directed by Robert Bresson
Pierrot le fou directed by Jean-Luc Godard
Playtime directed by Jacques Tati
Raise the Red Lantern directed by Zhang Yimou
Three Colors: Red directed by Krzysztof Kieslowski
The Red Desert directed by Michelangelo Antonioni
Rififi directed by Jules Dassin
Rocco and His Brothers directed by Luchino Visconti
Sansho the Bailiff directed by Kenji Mizoguchi
Satantango directed by Béla Tarr
Scenes from a Marriage directed by Ingmar Bergman
Seven Beauties directed by Lina Wertmuller
Shoot the Piano Player directed by Francois Truffaut
Smiles of a Summer Night directed by Ingmar Bergman
Sonatine directed by Takeski Kitano
Stolen Kisses directed by Francois Truffaut
Story of the Late Chrysanthemums directed by Kenji Mizoguchi
Suspiria directed by Dario Argento
Tampopo directed by Juzo Itami
Throne of Blood directed by Akira Kurosawa
The Tin Drum directed by Volker Schlöndorff
To Live directed by Zhang Yimou
Ugetsu monogatari directed by Kenji Mizoguchi
Umberto D directed by Vittorio de Sica
The Umbrellas of Cherbourg directed by Jacques Demy
The Vanishing directed by George Sluizer
The Wages of Fear directed by Henri-Georges Clouzot
Three Colors: White directed by Krzysztof Kieslowski
Wild Strawberries directed by Ingmar Bergman
Wings of Desire directed by Wim Wenders
Woman in the Dunes directed by Hiroshi Teshigahara
Yi Yi: A One and a Two directed by Edward Yang
Y Tu Mama Tambien directed by Alfonso Cuaron
Z directed by Costa-Gavras

The first 11 features on the next list made my own personal Top 100, but they were not the only ones. It's too bad that El Topo or Hard-Boiled didn't make the nominees . . .

1. The Seven Samurai directed by Akira Kurosawa

2. The Bicycle Thief directed by Vittorio de Sica

3. Yojimbo directed by Akira Kurosawa

4. In the Mood for Love directed by Wong Kar-Wai

5. M directed by Fritz Lang

6. Day for Night directed by Francois Truffaut

7. Aguirre, the Wrath of God directed by Werner Herzog

8. Band of Outsiders directed by Jean-Luc Godard

9. Viridiana directed by Luis Bunuel

10. Talk to Her directed by Pedro Almodovar

11. The Seventh Seal directed by Ingmar Bergman

12. The Rules of the Game directed by Jean Renoir

13. Black Orpheus directed by Marcel Camus

14. The Earrings of Madame De... directed by Max Ophuls

15. Rashomon directed by Akira Kurosawa

16. The Enigma of Kaspar Hauser directed by Werner Herzog

17. Children of Paradise directed by Marcel Carne

18. Spirited Away directed by Hayao Miyazaki

19. The 400 Blows directed by Francois Truffaut

20. Grand Illusion directed by Jean Renoir

21. Tokyo Story directed by Yasujiro Ozu

22. Army of Shadows directed by Jean-Pierre Melville

23. Ran directed by Akira Kurosawa

24. Jules and Jim directed by Francois Truffaut

25. City of God directed by Fernando Meirelles and Katia Lund

Sundae Monday

I think I have struck the motherlode. The YouTube silent film democracy has taken up the cause of uploading entire silent films in 10 minute clips (unfortunately, that is the limit YouTube has placed on the length of a video). Most of these films are more obscure, such as A Woman of Affairs and Jesus of Nazareth. However, this person has also uploaded one of the most famous silent films of all time, which I present below. Yes, the 9 videos below are Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans. Enjoy. I know I will.

You've Got Mail Around the Corner

It's always fascinating to discover the original after the remake. Even the experience of watching a film like Angels With Dirty Faces at this point is informed by The Departed. And so, having seen Nora Ephon's You've Got Mail more than once (that comes with having two sisters and no brothers to override the vote), I approached The Shop Around the Corner.

Blogger's Note: I have seen The Shop Around the Corner and Trouble in Paradise, but no other Ernst Lubitsch films. Any comments I make concerning Lubitsch is only with the knowledge of those two films. I'm sorry. I'm working on it.

Of course there are notable differences between these two films. You've Got Mail puts a considerable anti-corporate spin to its story, missing the irony in its release by Warner Brothers. However, there are more important differences in dissecting the films' quality. And no, I hope this won't end as merely bashing Nora Ephron and raising Lubitsch to the heavens. I found The Shop Around the Corner to be lacking, especially when compared with Trouble in Paradise.

The Shop Around the Corner focuses on a relationship built on anonymous letters. The letters are barely read, but their snippets are eloquent. Alfred Kralik (James Stewart) is too smart for his job, and so sprinkles his letters with literary quotes (only Victor Hugo is read aloud). This relative mystery leaves our characters as idealisms of their genders. They are smart, witty, and charming, as most people would like to appear on paper. This, along with the fact that the film is set in Hungary, lends an air of fantasy to the whole thing; a good movie is a time away from our boring lives and with the people we wish were with us.

You've Got Mail is entirely of its time. Modern enough to have the internet, yet old enough to be naive about it, the film treads a careful line that couldn't be followed today. Anonymous chats online are now much more in turn with the dark side and obvious potential for false identities, ala Perfect Stranger (no I haven't seen it, but the trailer told me more than I needed to know). This sort of innocence creates its own fantasy. Unfortunately, this film lets us into its characters' heads. We get to see much more of the conversations, and they are decidedly lesser than those in The Shop Around the Corner. Godfather references are supposed to come across as an insight into the minds of men, but it just sounds like an embarrassing generalization of the opposite sex. Of course, it's a welcome change from the traditional reverse, but that doesn't excuse the cliches.

Next is the characters themselves. One of the defining moments of The Shop Around the Corner, at least for me, is the introduction of Klara Novak (Margaret Sullivan). She is introduced both through her credentials and her impressive skill as a saleswoman. She is clearly someone who deserves our respect for her intelligence and charm. Kralik, though not nearly as charming, has the courage to stand up to his boss and the innate ability to know what is right in any given situation. Kathleen Kelly (Meg Ryan) is defined by her job and the conflict of her small shop versus the big bad corporation. Joe Fox (Tom Hanks) is given more, but that's only because of his position in life. Joe is in a relationship with a superficial bimbo (Parker Posey), and he comes from a long line of rich old men who have children in their 70s. He gets to realize that his life is bizarre in all the wrong ways. Kathleen gets to fight the inevitable closing of her small, personal shop.

It's the usual dichotomy. He gets the humor and she gets the pathos. Both actors are well suited for their roles, and I will give credit to the film for nailing the way that Starbucks has consumed so many people. Of course, obvious product placement like that is a problem in and of itself, but it almost feels justified here. The Starbucks monologues are actually well thought out and insightful, unlike tired Godfather generalizations. However, You've Got Mail still lacks the otherworldly fantasy that The Shop Around the Corner achieves. I'm still unsure if this is a good thing or not. It is certainly indicative of the era.

Neither film simply relies on cliches to describe their main characters, though both have an overreliance on cliches to define the rest of the cast. It's easy to knock Greg Kinnear for playing Greg Kinnear, but the problem is that the criticism is, for the most part, true. Most of his roles are very similar, and only recently has he begun expanding, with roles in The Bad News Bears. Parker Posey always creates interesting characters, but her character acting leaves little room to get to know her Patricia. Similarly, Joseph Schildkraut is deliciously slimy, but we never really get any motivation. Each character, outside of the main couple, can be easily summarized in a sentence or two, but maybe that's the point.

We don't want Dabney Coleman to steal too many scenes or to give William Tracy too much screen time (he really does steal every scene he's in). These are ultimately stories about couples. Each character stands out from their surroundings yet can easily fit in when needed. Kralik, when necessary, can become the yes-man that Hugo Matuscheck Frank Morgan), but he always strives for more. Novak is smart enough to read Tolstoy, yet she funnels her brilliance into her job and her letters. Joe Fox, though he accepts the trappings of his lifestyle, would still rather go to Kathleen's shop than his own chain. Kathleen tries to control her emotions, to fit in with the heartless society around her, but she cannot. Her emotions make her recognizably human, especially when she goes to Fox's bookstore. She goes to Starbucks, but she doesn't want to be defined by her latte. It's understandable.

Each of these films works within the realms of romantic fantasy, but You've Got Mail has much tighter boundaries. Instead of pre-War Hungary, we get New York City. Instead of two closet know-it-alls, we get two semi-ordinary people from different classes. The modern film must be grounded in some sort of reality in order to connect with us. The Shop Around the Corner is free to fantasize. Its audience expected it. Before film noir and WWII darkened the mood of film, the medium was more about transportation. What girl wouldn't want to end up with Jimmy Stewart? Every guy wants a girl who's smart but still needs some protection. With The Shop Around the Corner, you can imagine yourself there. With You've Got Mail, you're already there. These people are you. It takes some of the fun out of it.

Sundae Monday

I am sorry, dear readers, for I have lied to you. Well, I did not realize that what I was saying was untrue, but I have proven myself wrong. A couple of weeks ago, I stated that I was anticipating The Simpsons Movie more than anything else this year. Only a few days after that, I was reminded of something I wanted more. In fact, I literally started salivating at the thought. That's right, folks. This week marks the DVD release of the Best Film of 2006, INLAND EMPIRE. I really want to see the film again, this time more removed, as well as David Lynch making quinoa. The whole thing is very exciting for me, so I present some random David Lynch videos to hopefully excite you too.

First, David wants you to clean up New York before the rats take over.



Next, David welcomes you to the Third Place.



The famous Red Room Dream from Twin Peaks . . .



. . . and of course, like everything else in pop culture, the Simpsons parody.

I Feel the Need. The Need to Feed . . . On Blood

It's hard to accurately describe Cronos. I found myself reminded, at various points, of David Cronenberg, Terry Gilliam, and The Maltese Falcon. That's fairly lofty company for the third film from suddenly "it" director Guillermo del Toro. Does the film deserve it? Yes and no.

One of del Toro's strong suits (as he showed last year with Pan's Labyrinth) is his ability to work with children. This is a rare skill, and I might venture to say that he is the best director of children this side of Gilliam or Spielberg. Even though Tamara Shanath doesn't speak a word until the final scene, she conveys her emotions perfectly, and she gives a portrait of a young girl entering a world that seems unbearable. Of course, she has adapted to this harsh world enough to save her grandfather in the final scene, her innocence yet another casualty of this cruel world. In this way, the story is reminiscent of Kafka's "The Metamorphosis." I am of the belief that the true transformation in that story is that of Grete, Gregor Samsa's sister, from caring to cruel, and that is echoed in Cronos. Though Jesus Gris (I'll get out the subtlety hammer) undergoes the literal change from the Cronos device, the story's true arc follows Aurora's initiation into the adult world.

There's more to the story than just a young girl's entrance to a strange world. Cronos puts a unique spin on the vampire genre. In fact, Jesus never actually attacks anyone out of bloodlust. He merely tries to find loose blood wherever he can, including a Christmas party. The look in his eyes when he does see the blood recalls not Dracula, but a lowly junkie in a drug movie. Like in David Cronenberg's Rabid, the story's main focus is on someone who, for reasons beyond their control, feel a compulsive hunger for blood. Though Rabid reaches for more storylines (to great success), Cronos barely leaves Jesus. We watch him suffer as he attempts to maintain his composure in society, barely able to keep from licking the blood off a man's broken nose. Instead we watch him degrade himself as he licks blood off the floor. For all that it matters at this point in the story, he might as well have been snorting cocaine off the lip of the toilet. It's the same level of degradation, and it has the same harmful impact on his family.

The first time he uses the Cronos device deliberately, we are given the point of view of Aurora, watching from the stairs above him. What we see is as foreign to us as heroin would appear to Aurora. Though Aurora never prepares the Cronos device, she remains as complacent as Jeliza-Rose in Tideland with her grandfather's use of this dangerous drug. After that first time, when she tries to hide the syringe, er I mean Cronos device, from Jesus, she hides the Cronos device for him, unaware of anything except that it makes him feel good.

This film is far more fun than this plot lets on. All the somberness of the drug addiction and maturation is lightened by an amusing subplot featuring a wonderfully over-the-top performance from Ron Perlman. Perlman plays the nephew of the only man who knows the secrets of the Cronos device. Dieter de la Guardia, as played by Claudio Brook, is like an uncharismatic, terminally ill Kasper Gutman, lusting after the Black Bird, I mean Cronos device. Perlman's character, Angel, is alternately charming and vicious. He is a man who, despite his light colored suits and sensitive demeanor when dealing with Jesus and Aurora, shows the capability to do terrible things. Angel's desire for a nosejob, in retrospect seems to exist for the sole purpose of a late punchline (expected but still funny), but it also adds a dimension to the character that was desperately needed. This desire shows a weakness in the character, and it serves to underline his self-loathing. Angel hates his life, serving his uncle's wishes, and he hates his appearance. It his his hope to escape from both and achieve a fresh start. Of course, since he is an underling, he fate was sealed from his first moment on screen.


Therein lies the main problem with Cronos. It is a very good rehash of genre characters and cliches, but it still relies on those cliches too often. It lacks any siginficant originality that would separate it from the designation of second tier Cronenberg. The idea of combining the insect world with the Catholic world is would be worth fleshing out (pardon the expression), but del Toro sees little use for it outside of a deep thought to throw in with the vampirism and addiction. Cronos is a very good genre film. It doesn't aspire to be much more than that. Unfortunately, this sort of genre film has already been done, and better.

Kentucky Fried Sundae Monday

As I was browsing the circulars for this week, I noticed a steal. Circuit City has Kentucky Fried Movie, along with some other good movies, on sale for dirt cheap, at least by DVD standards. I don't know if you know Kentucky Fried Movie, but it was directed by John Landis before he made Animal House and The Blues Brothers, and it was written by the Zucker brothers and Jim Abrahams before they went on to craft Airplane! and then go steadily downhill. The format almost fails as a film, but succeeds greatly as pure sketch comedy. The format is an awkward combination of fake movie previews and TV news interruptions (there's urine in your popcorn. Film at 11).

The centerpiece of the film is a Samuel L. Bronkowitz production, A Fistful of Yen, a direct parody of Enter the Dragon. Of course, Samuel L. Bronkowitz won't make much sense unless you know Samuel L. Bronston, the mastermind behind "Not 3 or 4, but ALL the known emotions!" And now I present to you, A Fistful of Yen:

I Am the Problem

I'm sure you've read about it. Everyone has something to say about the OFC Top 100. Almost all of it is negative. My first response upon reading these criticisms was one of personal offense. After all, I included All About Eve, Pandora's Box, and two Pedro Almodovar films on my original list. Clearly I am not at fault, right? Sadly, I am. I am a 20 year old white male. I included The Usual Suspects (#22) and The Incredibles (#74) among my original list, excluding, say, The Passion of Joan of Arc or The Rules of the Game, which I recently watched and rewatched, respectively. Without a doubt, after a third viewing of The Rules of the Game, it would make my Top 100, but that latest viewing came after I submitted my original ballot. I am sure that in a year, my list will be more adventurous. Films like Men at Work will fall by the wayside as I discover more about films.

It's interesting though, to see which films people complain about when they talk about how this list isn't what it could have been. I've heard Ed Wood, The Shawshank Redemption, and American History X thrown around, but not The Big Lebowski or Fight Club. If we're going to blame the shoddiness of the list on the demographic, then why not talk about all the "mistakes" that were made.

I personally think It's a Wonderful Life shouldn't be on that list, but that's just one opinion. Do I fault the voters? No. Most people like that movie. I'm just heartless. I do wonder, though, how Ghostbusters ended up on that list while the collective works of the Marx Brothers and Mel Brooks didn't. More than anything else, though, I found this list helpful in raising some films on my "To See" list. 8 1/2 and Nosferatu are now at the top of my Netflix queue, or they would be if I had a Netflix queue. But this sort of list can help someone like me actively seek out films.

My movie-watching habits are very passive. I wait for something to come to theaters or appear on TCM. TCM is helping me significantly connect with old Hollywood, but the foreign films are much harder to come by. Occasionally, I will seek out a film, but it must be something I really want to see. This sort of a list helps greatly in giving me reasons to be an active consumer. For that reason alone, I think this list is a good idea.

I have ideas for experiments involving this list. First, I think it would be interesting to take the same 55 people who contributed to this list and ask them a year from now to resubmit lists and go through the procedure again. See if the adolescence that many people complain plague this list slowly dissolves. Second, I think we should open it up more. Truly make it an event. I only knew about it because of Edward Copeland, and the whole process felt a bit rushed (we had one week from the announcement to submit our original lists). If we open it up more, publicize it for everyone to know about, and give more time for people to think about the films they've seen, then the list can be even greater. And maybe then less people will blame the young white men for dooming the list.

At least this list has more than one Orson Welles film. What about that? If we're going to complain about The Princess Bride, then shouldn't we praise the few risks that were taken? Complain if you want that only one Howard Hawks film is on there and it's at #95. At least it's on there. Maybe now someone will look at him who wouldn't have done so before. That's all we can hope for. And really, that's what this list is about.