→ June 24, 2024
→ By

EO.

EO was one of the five nominees for the Academy Award for Best International Feature Film in March of 2023, losing to the incredibly overrated All Quiet on the Western Front, which was so obviously going to win that it deterred me a bit from seeing all of the nominated films. (I have one left of the five, Close, and still want to catch a couple of the other submissions from other countries.) EO is a bold film that has a very clear point of view and uses an unusual perspective to set it apart from just about anything else I’ve seen in the last few years, although it does meander at many points – like its protagonist – leading to some pacing issues that made me a little lower on the film as a viewer than I would be if I were a professional film critic. (You can watch it for free on Max or rent it on Amazon, iTunes, etc.)

EO is the main character in the film, and he’s an ass – literally. He’s a donkey who is in a traveling circus when the film begins, but when the circus goes bankrupt, he’s packed up and sold, which leads to a whole series of adventures, some funny, many tragic, and eventually lead to violence both against him and against some of the humans and other animals he encounters. The woman who minded him at the circus finds the farm where he’s living after he’s been sold off, but their drunken encounter – she’s inebriated, not EO – leads the donkey to escape and wander of into the woods, which starts off as a sort of modern picaresque story until he runs into the wrong people and things begin to turn darker.

You can’t possibly watch this film and miss its message about how badly we treat the animals that we meet. It’s not your typical animal-rights screed, like all of the documentaries out there that aim to convince us to be vegetarians (which, to be clear, is fine if that’s your choice; I don’t eat cow or lamb any more, and that’s my choice) or otherwise shock and horrify us with how we mistreat animals we raise as food. EO takes a completely different tack, and it’s more powerful as a result. It focuses on a single animal, anthropomorphizing him by making him the main character and through some of the things that he does – pin that tail for a moment, please – so that we will see him more as an individual, sentient being with feelings who deserves more consideration than we give most animals who aren’t pets. There are at least a few people who see EO as at least worthy of some kindness, but he runs into more people who treat him like they might an inanimate object or, worse, a target for their anger or something for the slaughterhouse.

Unfortunately, the film overdoes the humanizing aspects of its main character, such as a scene where EO appears to be crying. The only animals that cry as a response to emotions are humans. Donkeys may feel basic emotions such as fear, joy, sadness, and so on, but they don’t cry, and it’s one of the ways in which EO lays it on a little too thick when it didn’t need to do so. There are some real scenes of emotion here, not just for EO but for us as the viewer; there’s a hunting scene, for example, where you can grasp EO’s fear through context, rather than, say, having the donkey turn to the camera and say “I’m scared.” (He does not actually do that in the film.)

There’s a whole history to EO that I don’t know, from its director Jerzy Skolimowski’s extensive filmography to its inspiration, Robert Bresson’s Au Hazard Balthazar, itself inspired by a passage on Dostoevsky’s The Idiot. I haven’t seen or read any of those works, so perhaps I missed some of the context here and didn’t appreciate the way the film built on the earlier works. The cinematography is very strong, from close-ups of the six donkeys who played EO to some of the broader shots that create the perspective of EO as a smaller part of a larger scene. There’s also a short appearance by Isabelle Huppert that is somewhat ridiculous but, also, it’s Isabelle Huppert, still looking incredible at 71 and commanding every bit of her scene. (I still can’t figure out how that scene with her and her stepson fits into the larger whole without making a whole bunch of leaps of logic.) I do recommend EO and think it deserved its nomination – and was much better than the winning film – but some lapses in the execution keep it from reaching its full potential.

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: , ,
→ April 3, 2024
→ By

Perfect Days.

Perfect Days is a beautiful, lyrical slice-of-life story from veteran director Wim Wenders, making his first film in Japanese, with a superb performance from K?ji Yakusho as a toilet cleaner in Tokyo who seems to find happiness in the simplicity of his daily routine. It earned Wenders his best reviews since his signature film, Wings of Desire, came out in 1987. I just wish it wasn’t so monotonous and inert, even with such a fantastic lead. (You can rent it on iTunes, Amazon, etc.)

Yakusho plays Hirayama, who cleans public toilets in a fancy neighborhood of Tokyo and lives a spartan life built around reading, eating, and listening to music. He’s a solitary person and seems to want it that way, barely talking to anyone through his daily route – especially not his incredibly annoying co-worker, Takashi – and visiting the same few restaurants and the same used bookstore and the same park to eat lunch, and while he’s driving he listens to the same small set of cassette tapes of music from the 1960s and 1970s. He takes tremendous pride in his job, using a tiny mirror like a dentist’s to make sure the undersides of fixtures are clean, and appears to have his route and work timed to the minute. His routine is interrupted a few times throughout the movie – his whiny, arrested-development coworker Takashi, who barely cleans anything, cadges money and a ride off him; his teenaged niece shows up, having run away from home – but he’s mostly stoic throughout. That is, he’s stoic until two encounters shake him enough to get him to show some real emotion: a visit from his sister, whose appearance makes it clear that Hirayama has chosen to live this somewhat ascetic existence; and an incident where he sees the restauarant owner who seems to flirt with him whenever he comes in hugging another man, which leads to a very surprising meeting that I thought was the film’s strongest scene.

In many ways, Perfect Days should be right up my alley: It’s small in scope and story, with a modest character list, and the emotions it generates in the viewer are real and well-earned. The script has a ton of heart and respects its protagonist. But after seeing Hirayama get up and go through his morning routine for the fifth or sixth time, my attention started flagging. The film may very well be asking you to ask whether this is a man who’s found happiness in a simpler existence or whether there’s something pathetic about someone who has chosen to partake so little in the modern world or enjoy the company of others. If so, it doesn’t push hard enough in that direction, even with the two scenes at the end that should at least give the script a chance to explore more of Hirayama’s character; instead, all we get is seeing him cry, the first time he shows any real emotions other than annoyance or mild pleasure in the entire film.

The film has few side characters, and the one with the most screen time, Takashi, is the most annoying character I saw in any movie other than maybe May December. He’s ridiculous, but not in a funny way. He exists just to give Hirayama something more to do than eat, sleep, and read, but he wears out his welcome before his first scene is over – and then he comes back multiple times. Hirayama’s niece has the opposite problem – she’s almost a cipher, with very little personality of her own. There’s the hint that perhaps she’s more like her uncle than she is like her own mother, but the film doesn’t explore that angle before she returns home.

Perfect Days does have a great soundtrack, comprising mostly the songs that Hirayama listens to in his van, with tracks from The Animals, The Velvet Underground, Patti Smith, The Kinks, and Nina Simone. There’s nothing in the film from later than about 1979, so we can infer that Hirayama has no interest in newer music and prefers the music of his youth – perhaps feeling that those songs are enough for him, or perhaps because he just has no interest in anything more modern. There are ideas in here, certainly, but the script doesn’t show the curiosity to learn more about its main character. Takusho’s strong turn is largely wasted here in a film that looks beautiful but never fully engages with its subject. I had high expectations for Perfect Days, but in the end, it just couldn’t hold my attention all the way through.

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: , , ,
→ January 28, 2023
→ By

All Quiet on the Western Front.

All Quiet on the Western Front took home nine nominations for this year’s Academy Awards, including Best Picture, Best Adapted Screenplay, and Best international Feature (as Germany’s submission). It is, as you might know, adapted from Erich Maria Remarque’s 1929 novel of World War I. It’s big, and epic, and certainly lets you know where everyone involves stands on the subject of war. (They think it’s bad.) It’s also a film that doesn’t have any good reason to exist.

Paul Bäumer (Felix Kammerer) is our protagonist, an idealistic and nationalistic 17-year-old in Germany who signs up to fight for the fatherland in 1917, more than halfway through World War I. He and his schoolmates are quickly disabused of any notions of war as heroic or noble, as they’re thrown right into trench warfare and find one of their number dead before they can fire their first shot. We follow them through the next eighteen or so months, till the Armistice, as one by one they’re killed in battle, often in circumstances that might be ridiculous if they weren’t so tragic. Along the way, we see them hungry, disillusioned, bored, and filthy, along with occasional reminders of the use of chemical weapons that marked World War I for particular brutality. The film cuts away to scenes of negotiations between German and French leaders or discussions among German brass, all of which take place in relative luxury – and clean, dry conditions – compared to the sodden trenches in which Paul and his mates fight and die.

I had to read Remarque’s novel in high school and hated it, yet somehow, despite looking incredible, this film doesn’t do the book justice. There’s a key passage in the book where Paul goes home to visit family from the front and finds that he’s already changed enough that he can’t relate to his relatives and friends any more. They don’t understand what he’s been through, and he’s not the same person they knew before he went to fight. The film omits it entirely, in favor of those stolid scenes of generals and diplomats. The latter provides that strong contrast – there’s a scene where one of the men is upset because the croissants were clearly not baked that same morning – but it also wrecks any momentum the war story has, and it doesn’t help the character development in the way that the book’s scene where Paul goes home would have, something he doesn’t really get until a bit much later in the film when he’s trapped in no man’s land with a French soldier.

The movie does look fantastic, though, even when it’s gruesome. There are tremendous aerial shots of the battlefields, tight shots of the men in battle that put you uncomfortably close to the action, and trenches that I assume they just reused from 1917. One of the Oscar nominations came for Makeup and Hairstyling, and you can see why; these men look disgusting. There’s a clear commitment here to verisimilitude, and while I can’t say this is what World War I really looked like, it’s definitely what I think World War I really looked like.

All Quiet on the Western Front is about two and a half hours long, and not brisk, which gave me a lot of time to think about the bigger picture (pun intended), and I couldn’t escape the conclusion that this film doesn’t need to exist. We don’t really need an anti-war movie, not of this sort, at least, when war hasn’t looked like this in a hundred years, and so much fighting today is done via drones that separate killer from victim. We don’t need another World War I movie, especially since we just had one four years ago, and that war doesn’t have the more enduring lessons to impart that World War II or Vietnam or Iraq (the second one) do. And this movie has nothing new to say about war or the book, which has been filmed at least twice before, including the 1930 American version that won Best Picture. New takes on existing films should bring something new, and this one can only offer better cinematography and makeup.

I can’t believe this film got nine nominations while Decision to Leave, South Korea’s submission for the Best International Feature Film award, was shut out. There’s no comparison here – Decision is an original story, a better story, better acted, and with more to say. Argentina, 1985 is better. La Caja, which didn’t even make the shortlist, is better. All Quiet is more technically ambitious, but it’s nowhere near as compelling as those films, and I don’t think the point of the Best International Feature award, where countries from all over the world should be competing on equal footing, is to reward the film with the biggest budget. This is a big movie, and a fine one, but it is absolutely not a great one.

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: , , , , , ,
→ January 16, 2023
→ By

Argentina, 1985.

Argentina, 1985 was the surprise winner of this year’s Golden Globe for Best Foreign Language Film, beating out Decision to Leave and RRR, perhaps because of the power of its story. It’s a tight, well-acted film, a great antidote if your palate was still seared by last year’s bombastic The Trial of the Chicago 7, but in the end it also has a limited ceiling – this is a courtroom drama, and no matter how important the subject is, that genre constrains any film, show, or book. (It’s streaming free on Amazon Prime.)

Argentina, 1985 is based on the real-life case in a civilian court where Argentina’s democratically elected government tried several leaders of the military dictatorship that collapsed in 1983 after the country’s humiliating defeat in the Falkland Islands War. That dictatorship ruled for seven years and murdered thousands of its own citizens as part of the Dirty War against supposed leftists, with the total number of people the government ‘disappeared’ estimated between 9,000 and 30,000. In 1985, the government’s truth and reconciliation commission wanted to bring some of the leaders of the dictatorship to justice, in a case that became known as the Trial of the Juntas. The military tribunal kicked the case over to civil court, which meant that the state had to find lawyers willing to try a case that would likely see their families threatened and perhaps their careers ended if they failed. It fell to prosecutor Julio César Strassera (Ricardo Darín) to assemble a team of lawyers, with the aid of the young and inexperienced attorney Luis Moreno Ocampo (Peter Lanzani), capable of winning the case, which they did by finding survivors of the regime’s campaign of imprisonment and torture who were willing to risk their lives by coming forward and testifying against the junta’s leaders.

As courtroom dramas go, Argentina, 1985 hits the right notes without resorting to excessive sentimentality or big gotcha moments. This isn’t a police procedural where a surprise witness or a clever objection turns the case on its head, or some event outside the courtroom derails the case; it follows a clear, mostly linear narrative, where Strassera and Ocampo assemble a misfit group of extremely young attorneys who have very little baggage related to the case and are willing to work long hours trying to track victims down and then convince them to talk. It’s a rousing story given how they put that team together, and how, if there were such a thing, the oddsmakers would have given them a snowball’s chance of winning based on their resumés. We don’t get to know any of the lawyers in any depth, seeing a little of Strassera’s home life and tension with his bosses, and the other participants in the trial are ciphers – which is fine for a courtroom drama, again, but limits how far the film can go. Nobody needs to humanize a murderous dictator, but it’s also a less interesting film when the people on trial are irredeemable monsters.

The power of Argentina, 1985 comes more in the testimonies themselves than anything about the characters or even the overall narrative, since the convictions are part of history and would certainly be known to anyone watching the film in its native country. And these are the survivors, with no one there to speak for the dead and disappeared, a common problem for such reconciliation attempts in the wake of dictatorships and genocides. The stories are horrible enough to carry the heart of the film, and give it weight that I would imagine helped it with the Golden Globe and a slew of other honors so far in the 2022 awards cycle, as well as making the 15-film shortlist for this year’s Academy Award for Best International Film. I couldn’t vote for this over Decision to Leave, though, which also made the Oscars shortlist and seems very likely to earn a nomination for the award. Argentina, 1985 is about as well-made as a film can be, with solid lead performances and a tight script that even injects some levity into a difficult story. It just can’t be a truly great film within the confines of its genre and subject.

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: , , ,