Top Posts
Madeline’s Madeline: An Unclassifiable Panic Attack Maybe-Masterpiece
Shoplifters Steals Moments of Wonder from the Mundane
Burning and Forgetting What’s Not There
Kusama: Infinity Expands Beyond The Canvas
Mandy Risks Little, Wins Little
In We The Animals, The Children Are Away...
The Seagull Isn’t Quite Chekhov, But It’s Still...
5 Million Ways Boots Riley Isn’t Sorry To...
American Animals’ and the Queasiness of the Heist
A Star Is Born In Hearts Beat Loud
  • Reviews
  • Commentary
  • Great Movie Project
    • Great Movie Project
      Bride of Frankenstein is a movie for and…

      January 25, 2018

      Great Movie Project
      The Enduring Appeal of Nick and Nora in…

      November 29, 2017

      Great Movie Project
      The Ahistorical Fever Dream of The Scarlet Empress

      August 2, 2017

      Great Movie Project
      Dreams, Mundanity, and the Anarchist Yearnings of L’Atalante

      July 12, 2017

      Great Movie Project
      Duck Soup Is And Will Always Be A…

      April 19, 2017

  • Counter Programming
    • Great Movies: The Counter Programming
      Walking and Talking in the Shadow of Kanchenjungha

      March 7, 2018

      Great Movies: The Counter Programming
      A Brief Encounter in My Mother and Her…

      February 9, 2018

      Great Movies: The Counter Programming
      Horror’s Refusal in Farrokhzad’s The House Is Black

      October 13, 2017

      Great Movies: The Counter Programming
      The rage and beauty of The Cloud-Capped Star

      October 3, 2017

      Great Movies: The Counter Programming
      The daylight noir and social issue empathy of…

      June 22, 2017

  • Vegan Horror
    • Vegan Horror
      Julia Ducournau doesn’t think her film Raw is…

      June 7, 2017

      Vegan Horror
      Licking our wounds: The vampiric masculinity of Ravenous

      December 13, 2016

      Vegan Horror
      Eggertsson and animals: An approach to horror cinema

      September 15, 2016

      Vegan Horror
      “It’s Not My Nature” – Vegetarianism, Body Horror,…

      August 30, 2016

      Vegan Horror
      Bodies and Carcasses in Predator 2

      August 23, 2016

  • Interview
    • Interview
      Jasmine Leyva’s doc The Invisible Vegan aims to…

      May 3, 2017

      Interview
      Bridging The Abyss: An Interview With The Directors…

      November 28, 2016

      Interview
      7 Days in Ohio: An Interview with Nathan…

      September 12, 2016

      Interview
      Film Critic Phil Dy talks New Filipino Cinema

      June 17, 2016

      Interview
      “I Love Seeing Film Projected.” A Conversation with…

      March 22, 2016

Luddite Robot
Film critique, theory, and assorted nonsense.
CommentaryFilm

China Girls, Death Proof, and the Hidden Face

April 14, 2019

Old News: Old Noise Edition

April 8, 2019

Old News: April 1, 2019

Nicolas Winding Refn, Marginalia, and the Deaths of Cinema

CommentaryFilm

And now, let us praise Kanopy

January 24, 2019

Warren Sonbert and the Relief of Anti-Narrative

January 14, 2019

The World Is Ending and It Doesn’t Matter

The Best Films of 2018

FilmReviews

Madeline’s Madeline: An Unclassifiable Panic Attack Maybe-Masterpiece

December 21, 2018

Shoplifters Steals Moments of Wonder from the Mundane

December 11, 2018

Burning and Forgetting What’s Not There

Alien, Musicology, and Reading Soundtracks

CommentaryFilm

Shocktober III: Halloween 2018 Edition

October 24, 2018

Shirley Jackson’s The Lottery Traumatized Schoolkids in 16 mm

October 18, 2018

Shocktober 2018 II: Another Reshockening (of Horror)

Häxan is a movie made by a movie character

CommentaryFilm

Shocktober 2018

October 7, 2018

Unprofessional! Spring Night, Summer Night

October 3, 2018

The Wild Boys: A Luddite Robot Conversation

Kusama: Infinity Expands Beyond The Canvas

CommentaryFilm

The Unexpected Influences of Detective Bureau 2-3: Go to Hell, Bastards!

by Lark July 31, 2018
written by Lark

“We aren’t in some American TV show. We don’t need any private detectives,” a policeman tells Joe Shishido (the chipmunk-cheeked tough guy from Branded to Kill and A Colt Is My Passport) early in Detective Bureau 2-3: Go to Hell, Bastards! He’s not quite right: they are actually in a Japanese movie, but one almost perfectly modeled on American TV.

Here there are very few of the traits that would characterize Seijun Suzuki’s late career insanity and that would get him fired from Nikkatsu. Like Dorothy Vallens’ apartment in Blue Velvet, there’s only one place in the film lit with Suzuki’s to-be-iconic color washes; instead, most of the style comes from the ludicrously elaborate suits everyone is required to wear.

Seijun Suzuki's Detective Bureau 2-3: Go to Hell, Bastards!At its core, this is a Red Harvest-style “get hired by one gang and play them against another gang to destroy them both” plot. Ironically, Suzuki would release another version of the same plot, Youth of the Beast, in the same year (1963).

But where Youth is a grim story of revenge, Go to Hell is lighthearted series-fodder. We are no more surprised when Joe Shishido makes it through to the end OK than when Joe Friday does. The extended cast is a little too big and too well-fleshed out not to themselves feel like they are borrowed from a longer, more established series (especially his expert-in-blackmail assistant, who is for me a style icon).

Seijun Suzuki's Detective Bureau 2-3: Go to Hell, Bastards!

What we end up with is not necessarily what people might expect from the legend of Suzuki. The plot is coherent and the action easily followed; there is a traditional love story involving a gangster’s moll that ends with her going straight and driving off with Joe into the sunset (for vacation, of course – he has to be back for the sequel).

Seijun Suzuki's Detective Bureau 2-3: Go to Hell, Bastards!

But on top of being tremendously fun on its own, Go to Hell reveals how much more Suzuki is than just a shocking weirdo who made a couple weird movies and one very weird one (if you haven’t seen Branded to Kill, you’re in for a ride). He was much cleverer than that, taking American influences and taking them to their furthest possible point in the way only a non-native speaker of a genre-language can.

Seijun Suzuki's Detective Bureau 2-3: Go to Hell, Bastards!

July 31, 2018 0 comments
1 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
The Seagull
FilmReviews

The Seagull Isn’t Quite Chekhov, But It’s Still Very Good

by Lark July 24, 2018
written by Lark

The first performance of The Seagull is one of the legendary disasters of the theater. The audience booed — but, perhaps more tragically for Chekhov, they laughed, and they laughed in the wrong places. They laughed at the young writer Treplyov’s symbolist play with which the story opens and at the pretensions of the younger characters. It seems to me sometimes that, like Treplyov himself, Chekhov could have dealt more easily with boos than laughter.

It was only Stanislavski’s production of it that made it the modern classic it is today, but Chekhov wasn’t wholly satisfied with it, either. Stanislavski (who also played Trigorin, the older established writer whose appearance complicates everything) turned The Seagull into a tragedy. And how couldn’t it be a tragedy? The play, after all, ends with a suicide — what else could it be than a tragedy?

It’s hard to figure out exactly what Chekhov wanted out of a performance — probably something about the nature of being an artist, given the number of characters involved in the arts and the number of personal details he lent to Treplyov and Trigorin. Ultimately, most versions of the play, including Sidney Lumet’s dull little 1968 adaptation (which led Vincent Canby to say that “there are times where you could swear that [like Treplyov himself] the movie had shot itself”), shoot for something like the Stanislavski tragedy interpretation.

Saoirse Ronan in The SeagullAnd it’s understandable. If you want to do a film, you have to cut a lot out; as in much of Chekhov, there are a lot of speeches that aren’t quite monologues, but do just go on in a way a film can’t. If you’re going to strip The Seagull down to — well, maybe not the bone, but down to the muscle, at least, you have to stick to the main story of the thing: Treplyov trying to be a writer, his “muse” Nina leaving him to go off with Trigorin, Trigorin abandoning her and her failure to be a superstar actress.

Michael Mayer’s 2018 adaptation (yes, we’re finally getting to the movie) hits all those notes, especially towards the beginning and the end. The latter isn’t his fault: the play simply does end like a melodrama, and it’s hard not to shoot it that way. But it doesn’t quite work as one, not just because the rest of the play isn’t one. (For starters, Nina is not a catastrophic failure — she’s doing alright as a working actress, making ends meet, a place the workmanlike Chekhov would have appreciated.)

But outside of those moments, the film — helped by a very good script adaptation from Stephen Karam — hits something else than melodrama. Karam freely divides scenes up between locations and moves dialogue around, transplanting lines from one act to another quite freely and quite well. It ends up being something closer to a Whit Stillman-esque comedy of manners, in which nothing really happens except the characters trying to figure out what to do next.

Elisabeth Moss in The SeagullIt all helps that the cast is fantastic. In a more traditional adaptation, Saoirse Ronan and Billy Howle’s flat versions of Nina and Treplyov would be deal-breakers (and it doesn’t help that most of the latter’s longer speeches are cut way down, and the strange decision to base the script on the censored version performed instead of Chekhov’s original removes some subtext too). But Elisabeth Moss as Masha, the goth, day-drinking, snuff-taking daughter of servants is fantastic; Annette Bening as Arkadina does the clever trick of channeling Ingrid Bergman in Autumn Sonata — a character and performance modeled on Arkadina as a character; and Corey Stoll of all people (sorry to any Stollheads) is absolutely perfect as Trigorin (until he has to do any serious dramatic scenes, and he doesn’t have to do many).

Mayer does suffer from a reliable disease for which only the Germans could find a succinct name, that peculiar anxiety directors adapting a play feel that leads them to show off in awkward ways. And the last act is, ultimately, botched. But it can’t help but be, in some way, botched. Chekhov wanted to “start [his] play fortissimo and end it piano”; the film makes everything too funny, too light, to start fortissimo, so the end just feels damp and pointless.

But maybe that’s all we can expect from a modern film of The Seagull. It would be very difficult for us to feel emotionally connected to the artistic struggle between the middlebrow Trigorin and the avant-garde Treplyov, or to quite understand what it means for Arkadina to appear in plays like Camilla (although I think we would figure out the brow level of her other mentioned performance in Surprised by Sex). I mean, without an “avant-garde” — there’s no shortage of experimental art, but no assumption that they are the forward guard everyone is following — what sense could any of it make?

So is it a good adaptation? I feel it’s just a hair off from the straight-to-senior-English class adaptation, but (to quote the very good Jon Tenney as Dorn) there’s something to it. Which is, if anything, more than we had any right to expect from another attempt to film Chekhov.

July 24, 2018 0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Turkey Shoot trailer image
CommentaryFilm

What Did You Watch This Week?

by Sam and Rick July 22, 2018
written by Sam and Rick

Like most movie enthusiasts, we watch more films than we ever have time or occasion to single out for longer, more in-depth discussion. Rather than cobbling together, as we have in the past, lists of currently streaming titles — there are plenty of astute critics already doing a wonderful job at this uniquely pain-in-the-ass endeavor — we’ve decided to just assemble some highlights from our week.

What Did You Watch This Week? Liz’s Highlights

Christian Slater and Morgan Freeman in Hard RainHard Rain (1998): There is no getting around it: I have a weird affection for the 90s thriller I can’t explain. Something about the shooting, the performances, the lighting — which is, objectively, terrible — just speaks to me on some level. So when you show me the pile of bad reviews for Hard Rain, I won’t disagree, but the simple fact is: I really like this dumb movie. The Hurricane Heist avant l’ouragan, it stars Christian Slater as an unlucky armored car security guard whose car is held up. The only wrinkle is, it’s held up in the middle of a city at the base of a dam, and as such it regularly floods to a depth dependent on the plot. It’s a goofy movie (although the third act twist legitimately caught me off-guard) that mixes disaster and heist loosely — and stars Morgan Freeman as a villain, for a change. But what really sticks out is the same thing that sticks with me from movies like The Poseidon Adventure: those strange moments where rising water levels change the way we treat the dimensions of the world around us, like in a thrilling prison cell escape or in the wonderfully strange scene where the robbers drive jet skis through a high school.

Henri-Georges Clouzot's The Murderer Lives In Number 21The Murderer Lives at Number 21 (1942): We stand on the precipitous brink of a Clouzonaissance, in which we will finally appreciate the great French director Henri-Georges Clouzot. Clouzot is one of the handful of directors referred to as the “French Hitchcock,” but if so the case is better made by films like Les Diaboliques than the delightful The Murderer Lives. The Murderer Lives is more like a French version of The Thin Man, but one in which Nora is truly the equal her cultural prestige has led her to be; Suzy Delair, as the girlfriend who vows to solve the string of serial killings before her detective husband, gives a hoot of a performance. If Clouzot truly is the French Hitchcock, it comes with a shift in tone: Clouzot is far better at comedy than Hitchcock because, as a Frenchman, he can say those things to which the repressed Hitch could only allude, which naturally turns psychodrama into comedy. The final reveal may not be too surprising, but it is too legitimately funny to care.

Edie Sedgwick in Andy Warhol's Poor Little Rich GirlPoor Little Rich Girl (1965): Andy Warhol was truly, in the most complete sense, a conceptual artist. It would be easy to do something like Borges, and, when he came up with a clever idea for a piece, put something together that gives the consumer the idea of the piece, and not bother to make the thing itself. Instead, Warhol followed his concepts to the absolute finishing point, for better (Poor Little Rich Girl) or for worse (the dull-as-dishwater Blood for Dracula and Flesh for Frankenstein). The idea for Rich Girl came partway through production: after filming a reel of Edie Sedgwick lounging around her house, improving the extremely loose plot of the film, they realized they had shot it out of focus. Instead of reshooting it, they simply shot another reel of footage, fully in focus, a move that can almost change how you look at women on camera. Suddenly, halfway through the hour-long film, after trying to track shapes across a film seemingly shot through a cataract, Sedgwick pops into perfect focus and we see her in her self-consciously draggy makeup, giving a strange performance that we now retroject into the film from the beginning. It’s a fascinating idea and one worth seeing — although, like all experimental films, seeing it in a real theater is a crapshoot; the bros behind me chortled the whole time as I wished death upon them.

What Did You Watch This Week? Rick’s Highlights

John Garfield in Abraham Polonsky's Body and SoulBody and Soul (1947): John Garfield‘s first collaboration with writer (and future Hollywood Ten member) Abraham Polonsky, who would direct him in the superior Force of Evil, one of the greatest of all noirs, the following year. Body and Soul has plenty to recommend it too, though: Garfield is excellent as the working-class boy rocketing to dubious success, the script sizzles despite being a bit overstuffed, and master cinematographer James Wong Howe casts his trademark pall over everything; even the light moments seem suffused with danger. (He also insisted on filming inside the ring, purportedly on roller skates, setting a template that every other boxing movie – including its most obvious descendant, Raging Bull – would strive to emulate). That Body and Soul is first and foremost a genre pic — rigged fights, the lures of crooked promoters, family and romantic melodramas — allows Polonsky ample oppotunity to sneak plenty of anti-capitalist strains into the Hollywood machine, including perhaps its most succinct, bitter summation, a bomb thrown from within by “a very dangerous citizen” who would be mercilessly targeted by the state in the years to come for his refusal to apologize, much less name names: “Everything is addition and subtraction. The rest is conversation.”

Ida Lupino and Humphrey Bogart in Raoul Walsh's High SierraHigh Sierra (1941): The best thing about this nasty crime film is its obliviousness to its own content. Raoul Walsh, working from a John Huston script, seems convinced that this is a film about Bogart‘s Roy Earle, a one-last-job pro headed for a reckoning born of hubris and self-delusion. Bogart obviously seems to think so, and the film itself proceeds as though it were the case. But the structure of the narrative, and especially its Code-required third-act death, makes clear that this is entirely Ida Lupino‘s film. Her ex-dancing girl Marie — “a character trapped by the revolving door of double standards that plague countless women like her,” in Kristen Lopez’s formulation — is the one who undergoes an ambiguous transformation in High Sierra, she’s the one to whom we relate most intensely, and she’s the moral center of the grim proceedings, despite literally and figuratively being cast to the margins. It’s a fascinating case study in the way texts can elude their authors, as well as a tribute to the sheer force of intelligence in Lupino’s screen presence.

 

Olivia Hussey and Steve Railsback in Turkey ShootTurkey Shoot (1982): There have been many adaptations of The Most Dangerous Game, but this Ozploitation entry from Brian Trenchard-Smith (Dead End Drive-In, um, Leprechaun 4: In Space) is almost certainly the only one featuring a circus werewolf introduced wearing a top hat. Set in the kind of future dystopia that only a 28-day shooting schedule can produce, and starring the black hole of charisma that is Steve Railsback alongside Zefferelli’s Juliet Olivia Hussey, Turkey Shoot is, to put it gently, kind of a mess. But once the interminable first half is through clumsily establishing that future prison is future terrible, we are treated to 45 minutes of chase hijinks through Queensland and our Australian Z-movie folks doing what they do best, namely blowing shit up. Did I mention the werewolf? There’s also a werewolf. (Look for this on an upcoming episode of We Love To Watch, where Rick, Pete, and Aaron talk in more detail about Turkey Shoot than anyone involved in Turkey Shoot ever considered doing.)

July 22, 2018 0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Lakeith Stanfield and Tessa Thompson in Boots Riley's Sorry To Bother You
FilmReviews

5 Million Ways Boots Riley Isn’t Sorry To Bother You

by rick July 20, 2018
written by rick

Boots Riley‘s sense of humor has always tended to the pointedly outlandish, indignant outrage paired with a much goofier sensibility. Case in point: the class-conscious dance track “Five Million Ways To Kill A CEO” from his legendary Oakland hip-hop ensemble The Coup, in which Riley, voice swaggering over the groove, lays out the case against a ruling class who “own sweats shops, pet cops and fields of cola / Murder babies with they molars on the areola,” before suggesting a number of ways to rectify the situation. Physical attacks and work stoppages are invoked, but there’s also turning the boss’ greed against him by telling him “that boogers be sellin’ like crack / He gon’ put the little baggies in his nose and suffocate like that.” Sorry To Bother You, Riley’s celebrated debut film, draws on both the militant and the very silly in a similar way. The result is the definition of an ambitious mixed bag, which is to say, it’s a must-see.

Sorry To Bother You‘s plot involves the working-class trials and tribulations of Cassius Green (Lakeith Stanfield, all off-kilter shamble and weirdo charisma); the gleefully unsubtle, “fuck it, that’s going in!” aspect of his name serves as a hint at the film’s more general aesthetic and approach, which works more often than not. Like Riley, Cassius is an Oaklander, though unlike Riley (I think), he lives in his uncle’s (Terry Crews) garage. Hard up for money, he takes a job at a telemarketing outfit called RegalView, an absurdist class microcosm where the grunts toil away in the basement under a sign bearing the firm’s motto – Stick To The Script, hilariously presented as the awkward acronym “STTS” — while the execs and “Power Callers” ride a gold elevator to a nebulous “upstairs”.

Lakeith Stanfield in Boots Riley's Sorry To Bother YouCassius’ early failures to make a sale are some of Sorry To Bother You‘s funniest bits, as Riley plops his protagonist and his desk down, as if by magic, in the living rooms of his would-be marks. No one is having it, or even staying on the line, until a fellow worker (Danny Glover) advises him to use his “white voice”. By projecting not just whiteness but aspirational whiteness — a voice, thick with conspiratorially chummy good humor and carefree, entitled ease that white people wish they had, and sometimes do, underscoring the constructed nature of “whiteness” in the first place — the sales start soaring, and the film’s racial satire is off and running.

Cassius’ success propels him through the ranks to Power Caller, puts him at odds with his friends downstairs (Jermaine Fowler‘s Salvador and Steven Yeun‘s Wobbly-like rabblerouser Squeeze) who are organizing for increased wages, strains his relationship with his performance artist girlfriend (a very good Tessa Thompson, sporting instantly iconic accoutrements), and causes nothing short of an existential crisis. For a Black man in Oakland who now sounds (exactly) like David Cross, selling all manner of evil commodities to international gangsters and being celebrated for it, it’s a world turned upside down.

Of course, that’s not even the half of it, thematically or narratively, and in case no one has spoiled Sorry To Bother You‘s mid-film pivot to out-and-out absurdism for you yet, I won’t be the one to do it. Still, the roots of that later madness are all tangled up in the film from the start: Riley juggles tones and throws out manic jokes like only a first-time director can, and there’s an infectiousness to its lunatic energy. Some jokes don’t land at all (I’m sorry, but saying “40 on number 2” at the gas station and leaving 40 cents is pretty weak) and others made me giggle way more than they should’ve (I could’ve watched people plug in the apparently 75-digit secret code into the gold elevator for even longer). The “surrealist” shorthand has been thrown out a bunch, but Sorry To Bother You would seem much more at home alongside the works of Tristan Tzara (or, more appropriately, Robert Downey Sr.) than Dali and his descendants. That makes for a sometimes uneasy pairing with Riley’s Marxism, but perhaps that’s what the absurdity of the Black experience of late capitalism requires.

Strike in Boots Riley's Sorry To Bother YouThe film’s final pedagogical thrust emphasizes the importance of collective action rather than attempting to beat the bastards at their own game; even the most damaging revelations Cassius presents to the public are quickly recuperated by capital. The revolution still will not be televised. Here, Riley draws on some familiar images and sounds: the recent experiences of Occupy Oakland, in which he was something of a de facto public face, hang heavy over the film’s Oakland streets and scenes of pitched confrontation. There’s a rich engagement between screen and street throughout Sorry To Bother You: not just shoutouts to recognizable locales like the downtown buildings, The Layover where they get drinks, or the Grace Beauty Supply sign hanging over Broadway, across the street from where Thompson’s character stages her post-art performance, a block off from the 19th St. station, along a corridor through which we ran through tear gas late at night not very long ago.

Not just that. Riley sometimes constructs Oakland as a shadow realm of possibility and intrigue: as in Ryan Coogler‘s superhero flashback, we’re never far from an awareness that this is “the land where the Panthers grew / You know the city and the avenue.” And other times, the Town is portrayed more like the locus of absurd contradictions that it also is; Riley didn’t need to create the homeless tent cities that line many Oakland streets for his tracking shots, for instance, because those tent cities are really there. Displacement and gentrification and the routine economic violence of white supremacy, all part and parcel of Sorry To Bother You, are crisis norms in the shadow of a downtown cop station that looks like it belongs in Gotham. It can be a weird fucking place, Oakland, and Sorry To Bother You stakes a solid, kaleidoscopic claim as its weird fucking movie.

July 20, 2018 0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
King Vidor's The Crowd (1928)
CommentaryFilm

The Crowd and the Crowd

by Lark July 17, 2018
written by Lark

There are all sorts of divides between us and the early silent days of Hollywood: assumptions about gender and race; the differences in our ability to fill in what is unsaid (to put back in the implicit sex they had to leave out, for instance); and even the ability to perform the simple act of holding an actor’s face in mind for the seconds until the title card comes up, then retroactively making the face make sense with the words.

But I wonder if we have also lost something bigger that is omnipresent in early Hollywood: a sense of “the crowd”.

The idea of a crowd is, obviously, the core element of King Vidor‘s silent The Crowd (1928). The melodrama’s hero (John, played by James Murray) could not be more clearly signaled as the American everyman of a new century, literally born on the Fourth of July, 1900, and travelling to New York City on his 21st birthday to make a fortune.

The exact parade of positive events heralding his great future (his sudden marriage to Mary (Eleanor Boardman), the birth of two children, and an $8 raise) and standard melodramatic tragedies (the sudden death of a daughter and John losing his job) aren’t, in their particulars, important. The visuals are stunning — the famous shot of a crane up the side of a building, in through a window, to John’s work desk is still extremely neat — but I felt a distance from all of it, like I couldn’t quite make sense of it.

http://pmd.cdn.turner.com/tcm/big/tcmweb/FILMCLIPS/2010/02/crowdthe28_johnsims_FC_133a_24f_iphone.mp4

It made me wonder about that question: what is the crowd now? Is there a sense — in our films, at least — that there is a coherent “them” the characters need to prove themselves to?

I don’t think we are used to thinking in these terms. The “them” in modern movies, especially the modern corporate movie, is usually clearly defined: there is the terrible boss, or the good boss, or something in between, but the one measuring the hero’s success is particular and specific, not miasmic.

It seems to me that some of the sense of that “we” comes from the act of watching a movie itself. Home video is now the default way to watch movies or TV. We as viewers are nuclear, either by ourselves or with a few other people.

King Vidor's The Crowd (1928)And that sense of a nuclear unit comes with us to the movie theater. We get upset if other people’s phones or talking interrupt our experience. A reminder that other people are in the theater with us is as irritating as a loud neighbor interrupting our Westworld time.

I saw The Crowd at University of Chicago’s famous Doc Films program. It was truly a silent film — no soundtrack at all. In that silence, every sound every other person in the audience made was amplified. Every seat adjustment, every mouth sound, every trying-to-be-quiet fart felt like it was pulling me away from the film itself.

But Vidor’s intended audience would not have brought these home video assumptions to the film — it would have been a collective experience. And that loss of a collective experience might be why the “crowd” who watches and judges John as he goes through his melodrama-mandated tragedies felt alien and non-specific to me.

If the crowd — the real crowd, the one that breaks down nucleic boundaries, where we all interact freely with one another, the kind of crowd most of us only see now watching horror movies in the theater — is absent in the room, it’s harder to feel its presence in the screen. And if we want to understand classical Hollywood films, we have to actively counteract that, and find a way to re-invest that energy ourselves.

July 17, 2018 0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
American Animals
FilmReviews

American Animals’ and the Queasiness of the Heist

by rick June 28, 2018
written by rick

Increasingly, our mainstream cinema seems consumed with the act of storytelling itself. We can add American Animals to a list that already includes recent films as different as I, Tonya and Bisbee ‘17. This inward turn is nothing new for the avant-garde and the art-house, long characterized, from Bergman to Godard to Kiarostami, by the foregrounding of artifice. (Feel free to sub in literally dozens of others, and then move on to theater, literature, and beyond. Take your time.)

But there seems to be something particular in the air right now, a dubiousness about representation itself, or an implied belief that honest art ought to make clear that art itself isn’t the whole story – that our stories are always, at some level, about the conditions of their telling, Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle-style.

Barry Keoghan and Evan Peters in American AnimalsAmerican Animals is a sporadically clever but underwritten contribution to his trend. Its narrative – the true-ish story of several bored kids who plan an art heist as a stab at generating a sense of grandeur, the epic kind we know from the movies and which their lives otherwise lack – is less the point than its formal interventions. The real players show up on screen to provide Errol Morris-like contradictory accounts, for instance, and briefly even share space in the frame with the actors portraying them, one-upping I, Tonya’s detail-minded re-enactments for bonus frisson.

It’s all very meta, and the script seems to hope this will be enough. Otherwise, jokes fail to land and purple prose comes out the mouths of people we’ve been given no indication would talk this way. Perhaps that’s another nod to its artificiality? In any case, American Animals doesn’t draw you in so much as awkwardly sit next to you, watching itself watch itself.

Evan Peters in American AnimalsWhat American Animals does do very well is puncture the consequence-free fantasy of the heist movie. I can’t remember the last time a film placed so much emphasis on the person the robbers tie up as a matter of course, as part of their larger plan. We’re rarely encouraged to think of them except as the protagonists do; an obstacle to be removed, hopefully without much violence, and never considered again. We’re often encouraged to laugh at the hijinks: the pitiable, surprised exclamation, the bonk or bag over the head, the darkly comic struggle over the shoulder as they’re carried out of the story.

Played here by Ann Dowd, that perennial figure of narrative disregard takes center stage instead: her fear is the point. She doesn’t know these kids mean her no harm; no one told her they’re the main characters of a lark of a robbery born of boredom and self-indulgence. The camera lingers on her pants, soiled with urine. We spend an agonizing amount of time listening to her muffled cries. That she won’t be murdered by idiot children is, presumably, little comfort in the moment. Most of the movie struck me as too cute, but there is nothing cute about this rawness. American Animals succeeds enormously in that moment of shattered escapism.

Incredibles 2Incredibles 2

Brad “Don’t Call Him An Objectivist” Bird has “always thought the Ayn Rand comparison lazy & inaccurate at best,” and with Incredibles 2, he has a point. As Inkoo Kang noted in Slate, the narrative is far too muddled to count as a treatise on anything, really.

Not that it’s lacking in themes for viewers to tease out and analyze. There’s the perpetual “superheroes needing to justify being superheroes” motif, the fount of all Randian critiques but also a by-now de rigeur trope in this particularly anxious cultural mythology. There are the curiously retrograde gender examinations. (Can women work outside the home, while men share household responsibilities? Incredibles 2 thinks – prepare yourself for the biggest surprise of 1973 – that they can!) And then there’s something about the problematic distancing caused by our ubiquitous screens, which both make us easily duped, disempowered plebes and also help us control our children, but in a good way.

Well, good luck to those viewers. These are less ballasts keeping Incredibles 2 thematically stable than curios for adult viewers to parse while the kids are laughing. And there are some good laughs, along with some even better action set-pieces. The 60s-spy pastiche sits uncomfortably alongside the technophobic villainy, but everything looks great, and the whole thing floats by with a breeziness that undercuts the painfully unnecessary introductory assurances from the cast that we will enjoy the spectacle. (Who is that thing for? It’s a very strange mark of cinematic insecurity to assume viewers need a pinky-swear from Craig T. Nelson that the film we already paid to see is, in fact, worth seeing.)

As for what we, and the laughing kids, learn from Incredibles 2? Well, that women can have jobs, too, I guess; that fathers should hang out with the kids sometimes; that phones are bad, except when they’re not; that even superheroes need some help sometimes; that if siblings run a corporation, at least one of them is bad; that Anthony Lane never actually saw the 50 Shades movies, but cartoons give him a boner and that’s nice for him and also don’t eat popcorn with Anthony Lane.

Side note: Incredibles 2 screens with Domee Shi’s Bao, which is an absolute goddamn delight, and much more worthwhile than any given 8 minutes in the feature it accompanies.

June 28, 2018 0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Nick Offerman and Kiersey Clemons in Brett Haley's Hearts Beat Loud
FilmReviews

A Star Is Born In Hearts Beat Loud

by rick June 25, 2018
written by rick

Calling it “the season’s most huggable film” shortchanges the charm of Hearts Beat Loud, but it’s not entirely wrong.

There are undercurrents of deep melancholy beneath all the indie-rock, Red Hook whimsy that ground it in something real, relatable, and honest. Writer/director Brett Haley’s narrative strains, not always successfully, to integrate the loose ends on the periphery – Blythe Danner’s klepto grandma is especially stranded, though Ted Danson’s friendly neighborhood barkeep, Toni Collette’s landlady / potential love interest, and Sasha Lane’s girlfriend-for-now are underused, too. They all make the most of their time, but this isn’t their gig anyway.

Kiersey Clemons and Nick Offerman in Hearts Beat LoudThe beating heart of Hearts Beat Loud is the father/daughter relationship between Nick Offerman and Kiersey Clemons, and they carry the day. The film feels effortlessly of the moment; not just the matter-of-fact biraciality (and bisexuality), but the gentrification, the tenuousness of stability, financial, romantic, and otherwise. Hearts Beat Loud also poignantly foregrounds the ways our desires shape perception. The pair’s overnight (and surely fleeting) Spotify success is interpreted by record store owner Offerman as a sign of potentially impending mini-stardom: a return to the music career he left a lifetime ago, but mostly a way to keep his daughter close, doing something they love together. The pragmatic, college-bound Clemons, meanwhile, imbued with a skepticism her generation is usually faulted for, recognizes the perils of dubious internet fame, even if there are undeniable draws to believing in it. Watch this conflict play out on her face, the desire for proximity’s closeness and the world that beckons. “L.A.’s not New York,” Lane points out. Clemons nods: “No, it’s not.” It’s a star-making gesture.

Hearts Beat Loud is a big-hearted movie about such small moments, and about the need to hold on in other ways, to mark time and place, even as we confront change. There’s a lot of wisdom in its earwormy pop hooks.

Westwood: Punk, Icon, Activist

Vivienne Westwood in Lorna Tucker's Westwood: Punk, Icon, ActivistThe problem with Westwood: Punk, Icon, Activist is all there in the over-stuffed title. Lorna Tucker’s engaging and admiring portrait of renegade fashionista Vivienne Westwood aims to be all-encompassing, something its 83-minute running time can’t possibly achieve.

Still, it’s not for lack of trying. We learn about Westwood’s working-class upbringing and the “spatial intelligence” which, exhibited since early childhood, would eventually land her on high-fashion catwalks and at the top of a fashion empire she fears has expanded past her ability to rein it in. Her early collaborations with Malcolm McLaren and their invention of the Sex Pistols – the ultimate pre-fab band that birthed a movement – is Westwood’s most fascinating section, at least to me: the notion that there aren’t just “fashion punks,” but that “punk” itself self-consciously sprang from the fashion world, is a deep well of irony that never runs dry.

“I don’t want to talk about the Sex Pistols,” Westwood complains to the unseen interviewer. “We can’t go on about that.” And so we don’t. (Westwood’s constant, prickly complaints that the world doesn’t need this movie is one of the movie’s more charming inclusions.) Tucker subsequently brings in examinations of her complicated, devoted romance with a much-younger collaborator, the scorn she endured from the fashion world, the rise and fall and rise of her fortunes (deeply intertwined with McLaren’s legendary assholery), and her late-in-life commitment to climate change activism – all dutifully depicted but never coalescing, or even sitting comfortably in the same room.

Westwood is a snapshot that wants to be a mural, but there are plenty of fascinating details scattered throughout, and Westwood herself is clearly a force of unbridled, scattered energy and puckish enthusiasm. Perhaps there’s no other way this film could turn out.

June 25, 2018 0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
CommentaryFilm

Learning to Read Opium and the Kung-Fu Master

by Lark June 20, 2018
written by Lark

There are certain rich veins of cinematic tradition that we as film writers find hard to tap into. The perfect filmic tradition for critics is one that has enough coherence that readers are interested in reading new articles about it, but enough uniqueness to each film that we can justify writing about them separately. (For a case study, you can look at anything that’s ever been called a “New Wave”, mostly unconnected movements given consistency by a Westerner’s idea of a country discovering artistic freedom, with each film given uniqueness by the different ways each filmmaker explored that freedom.)

Shaw Brothers' Opium and the Kung-Fu MasterThat’s why, I think, it is hard to find a lot of critical writing about the Shaw Brothers’ incredibly prolific output. The Hong Kong company defined what a “kung-fu movie” is, down to the goofy sound effects, but because so much of their body of work varies on a granular level, it is hard to find the “good ones” in the sea of very similar movies.

1984’s Opium and the Kung-Fu Master is, in many ways, an excellent introduction to the Shaw Brothers’ body of work. As far as the action goes, it’s not far from a hundred other kung fu movies, and it doesn’t have the Grand Guignol bloodworks of a movie like Master of the Flying Guillotine.

But what does make it unique for a Western audience is the incorporation of a distinctly Western narrative tradition: the “problem” story. A kung-fu movie about the horrors of opium, Opium fits in to the “drugs are bad” morality tale tradition of Reefer Madness and Requiem for a Dream.

Shaw Brothers' Opium and the Kung-Fu MasterWe meet our titular kung fu master (Ti Lung, who Hong Kong film fans might know from A Better Tomorrow) fending off thieves. But when he receives his reward, the scene is a little less traditional: we see him and the mayor smoking. It’s a strange scene that interrupts the standard rhythms of the impossibly virtuous kung fu master, and one that sets the entire film off-balance.

It takes about an hour of some of the highest quality melodrama before he gets the commitment to go cold turkey and defeat the leader of the drug dealers. Many problem films are happy with the drug causing one death, hopefully of an impossibly innocent character (a death that often serves the double function of relieving us from their irritation).

Opium gives us a classic example of the scene, when one of the ne’er-do-well followers of the kung fu master becomes so addicted that, when his friends drag him from the opium den and return him to his house, they find his wife and children dead from rat poison. (To complete the scene, he promptly kills himself.)

Shaw Brothers' Opium and the Kung-Fu MasterBut it isn’t content with just one tragedy. Seeing the tableau, another of Ti’s followers attempts to burn down the opium house and is, in classic Hong Kong action style, dispatched by a particularly evil goon with a villainous weapon. (We know the weapon itself is villainous because it is very pointy, it is covered in metal, and it is completely unclear how it could ever actually harm a person.)

And even this tragedy is not enough: Swearing revenge, Ti attempts to go cold turkey, but can’t restrain himself. Pitying him, the virtuous love interest (now somewhat vestigial, her lover being dispatched) attempts to steal some opium for him, and falls prey to her evil brother and that most murderous of the melodramatic home’s features, a stairway.

Between all of this is a handful of fights, all goofy and fun and very Shaw Brothers. But endless martial arts fights come and go, and the simple fact is that at least two-thirds of the average martial arts film is not actively taken up by martial arts. We as critics and fans (and the curious hybrid critic-fan that so many of us are these days) need to learn how to read this rich and complex and goofy and fun tradition if we want to understand East Asian film, and if we want to avail ourselves of a great source of pleasure.

June 20, 2018 0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Cast of Ocean's 8
FilmReviews

Ocean’s 8 Manages To Make High Fashion Robbery Boring

by rick June 12, 2018
written by rick

As in Steven Soderbergh’s much-loved Ocean’s Eleven, Gary Ross’ Ocean’s 8 begins at a parole hearing for our protagonist. She’s making nice and saying all the right things, arguing for a rehabilitation we genre fans know hasn’t occurred. This time, it’s Debbie Ocean (Sandra Bullock), and like her brother Danny before her, there’s a sly edge to her appeal. Of course she’ll commit a crime the minute she walks out the door, if not before then; she’s had five years to chart it out in her head after all. Plus, as the film will argue, crime-doing is just in her blood. The whole family’s a bunch of crooks.

This opening implicitly makes a promise: Ocean’s 8 will do the sorts of things you might expect of an Ocean’s 8 sort of affair. Do not fear. The following two hours will dutifully see this promise through, lifelessly and with all the panache (and some of the aesthetics) of a PowerPoint presentation.

Double-crossed by ex-lover / current art dealer / all-around narrative device Claude (Richard Armitage)), Debbie has used her forced sabbatical to dream up an epic heist of a rare necklace from the Met Gala, and, wouldn’t you know it, get a little revenge. Upon release, she promptly enlists her crew — as one usually does, in montage. With relevant, mostly exhaustive descriptors affixed, they are: , her former partner and owner of nice suits (Cate Blanchett); a passé fashion designer (Helena Bonham Carter) in tax trouble; a weed-smoking hacker (Rihanna) who has a sister; a diamond expert (Mindy Kaling) looking to get away from her parent’s store; a skateboarding pickpocket (Awkwafina); and a suburban mom she knows (Sarah Paulson), who seems to generally enjoy stealing. The cast is rounded out by unwitting accomplice, a vain model (Anne Hathaway) who will get the necklace through the door.

You don’t need to know anything else about these people. They have names, allegedly, but really, who cares? Ocean’s 8 does not care.

Ocean's 8 full castIt is a mystery how Ross and co-screenwriter Olivia Milch could lose, numerically, several supporting characters from the central team and somehow end up fleshing out the ones who remain even less. An extraordinarily brief interaction between Kaling and Awkwafina, the latter providing Tinder tips, is a highlight, simply because it provides a glimpse of some human relatability missing from the rest of the rote proceedings. The fact that a scene which occupies less than five seconds of screen time stands out isn’t a tribute to the small moments of Ocean’s 8 so much as a testimony to how empty the other 109 minutes and 55 seconds are.

In Soderbergh’s trilogy, there were identifiable individual motivations that breathed life into the larger group interactions, things like the drive of Matt Damon‘s Linus to prove himself and garner the others’ respect, which both humanized his character and frequently made him a comic foil. Even Lewis Milestone‘s quite terrible original, for all its Rat Pack machismo and meandering “hard-drinkin’, occasionally singin’, casually racistin’ Army Buddies out on the town” plotting, went out of its way to set up internal dynamics.

Sandra Bullock and Cate Blanchett in Ocean's 8Ocean’s 8 has nothing along these lines, rendering the entire cast a set of interchangeables and draining any personal stakes. (Another brief interaction, this one between Bullock and Blanchett, indicates that the film remembers it ought to have subtext but can’t be much bothered with it, figuring that alluding to this structural need is the same as developing it.) Similarly, previous entries presented antagonists who structured the action, pricks to kick against, and who also grounded the films in an aspirationally criminal, eat-the-rich ethos appropriate to their historical moments. Ocean’s 8 simply posits a backstabbing ex and assures us he deserves what’s coming to him.

Both this vengeance and the heist itself seem beside the point, which begs the question, “What are we even doing here?” Perhaps it’s a hangout movie? But there’s no consistency to Debbie Ocean, much less charm. It’s fine to set her apart from her icoinc brother, but it’s never clear who she is or how we’re supposed to feel about her. It’s not even clear how Ocean’s 8 feels about her. Is she the hardened criminal who threatens her ex with a blade to his throat and jokes about intentionally getting put into solitary because it “gave her time to think”? Or the wounded soul who suddenly shifts to describing prison as a difficult trial, specifically citing the indignities of solitary? Was the first characterization a feint to cover up this pain, and the steely resolve to get revenge that it nurtured? Over the course of five years in the slammer, has she never ran across a Black person or someone with a name like “Nine Ball” or someone who speaks in a patois or someone who smokes weed – all of which leads to eye-rolling incredulity and a cringy hesitance to allow Rihanna into the crew? Or she has encountered these mysteries of the wider world, but she’s fundamentally conservative and somehow sheltered, despite apparently also running contraband behind bars? Or she’s worried about stoners messing up the gig? Or she’s just racist? And what value does she place on her pilfered poshness? “You are fascinating,” she tells Awkwafina, apparently bewildered by the notion of … what? A lack of reverence for finery? Skateboarding? Phones? Asians? Bullock’s impenetrability and contradictions don’t read as complexity; they just reflect another lazy facet of a lazy script.

Sandra Bullock in Ocean's 8So much for the characters; at least there’s a spectacle to look forward to, something high-wire and clever. But the heist itself is almost aggressive in its insistence that nothing go wrong. It simply happens, and then it’s over. (Though not before multiple trips to the bathroom; this is easily the most bathroom-focused heist in history.) Nothing breaks up its easy flow: no silly costumes, no impressive stunts, no thinking-on-their-feet or unexpected snags. It mostly hinges on a 3-D scanner and a secret lockpick, both of which are provided with all the difficulty of placing an Amazon order.

The Met Gala ought to stun with the ludicrous grandeur of high fashion, but it’s a dimly-lit, indifferently photographed room perfunctorily padded with blink-and-you’ll-miss-‘em cameos. The direction and editing smother any vicarious thrill the setting or costumes might offer. In fact, the only high thing about the Gala are the busboys who briefly discuss, at a pivotal moment, smoking weed on the loading dock, in what passes for suspense here.

Some of the stars fare better than others – Paulson is always welcome, and James Corden gets the best lines, in a last gasp of narrative imported from Soderbergh’s more recent “Ocean’s 7-11” heist, Logan Lucky — but there’s just something weary in the telling and strikingly clunky in the execution. It’s a curious tone for a franchise characterized by its light, fleet tone, and for a reboot that ought to be blazing out of the gate on the charm of its cast.

“It’s the attention to the small details that really make the whole thing sing,” Hathaway, the meta-chorus of Ocean’s 8, tells us, quite meta-ly. She’s right, but she’s thinking of a different movie. Maybe Ocean’s 9? Just please put someone else in charge of the team. (And maybe make that someone one of the many, many women directors with the visual flair and energy for the material? Crazy idea, I know. Just spitballin’ here.)

June 12, 2018 0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
FilmReviews

Out to Sea with The Eagle and the Hawk

by Lark June 11, 2018
written by Lark

I can’t confirm for sure that the minds behind The Eagle and the Hawk (Washi to Taka, 1957) saw John Ford’s The Long Voyage Home (1940) — a number of shots seem to duplicate ones from the earlier film, although on a ship the number of places from and at which to shoot is certainly delimitable — but I couldn’t stop thinking of the two films next to one another. (In fairness, I saw them at the same theater.)

Both films deal with the standard melodramatic structures of the sea voyage, which literature made unfortunately passé and cultured before film could fully sink its teeth into it. But although they may share certain tropes (the level-headed de facto leader, the booze-soaked party, the secret load of dynamite in the hold), the Japanese film takes every potential seagoing trope to its highest possible level.

The Eagle and the Hawk (Washi to Taka, 1957)The Eagle gives us, recounted in short, two female stowaways (one high culture, one low-class), a love triangle that expands over time into a pentagon, a secret cop, a secret criminal, a dark backstory for the captain and his first mate nephew, a revenge plot, insurance fraud, a climactic typhoon (apparently filmed in a real typhoon), a repeated musical number that becomes plot-relevant, a common-man trope character who wins the lottery while at sea and manages to lose his ticket, and a man-with-a-past one day away from passing the statute of limitations for a long-ago murder.

Revealing all of this could be considered a spoiler. But while the epic scope of the melodrama (which manages to fit within a post-Thanksgiving-dinner-stuffed two hours) is certainly based around shocking revelations, they are revelations one hears treading heavily long before they are revealed.

That is, the handsome youngster with a strong right hook (if this film has no point other than getting handsome men to barely wear shirts, it does its job well) will, in fact, be involved with the mysterious murder that opens the film; the shifty captain will ultimately be revealed to be filled with guilt; and the amiable fool who wins the lottery will, in the last half hour, manage to lose his ticket. These beats fall with as little surprise as a tonic chord following a dominant.

But does it matter? Are we so emotionally inexperienced as to need a narrative curtain to keep us present in the scene we are in — that is, to stay present with the deck-set love serenade between ruffian and captain’s daughter that, we know, will not end well? I’m not sure we need such an explicit tool to justify our fantasies.

If The Eagle and the Hawk is unique, it is only in the fullness of its bursting fantasy. But we should not emptily look only for the historically significant and unique fantastic melodrama to justify our interest in an uncomfortably out-of-fashion, rather predictable genre. If there is a film type that helps us learn how to feel — and that is a smaller category than many critics, and fans, accept — it is something like this film.

June 11, 2018 0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Newer Posts
Older Posts

About

About

Towards a provisional theory of the cinema, or, failing that, just some shit about movies

Authors
Rick Kelley
Lark Lundberg

Keep in touch

Facebook Twitter

Categories

  • Conversation
  • Film
  • Film By Film
  • Great Movie Project
  • Great Movies: The Counter Programming
  • Guest
  • News
  • Other
    • Commentary
    • Film
    • Interview
    • Reviews
    • Song for a Sunday
  • Streaming Selections
  • TV
  • Uncategorized
  • Vegan Horror

Archives

  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • August 2009
  • September 2008

Recent Posts

  • China Girls, Death Proof, and the Hidden Face
  • Old News: Old Noise Edition
  • Old News: April 1, 2019
  • Nicolas Winding Refn, Marginalia, and the Deaths of Cinema
  • And now, let us praise Kanopy

Recent Comments

  • Franklin Kat on Michael Shannon shines again in Frank & Lola
  • Sean Tempesta on Cinema and dream-logic in Meshes of the Afternoon
  • ludditerobot on The Left-Wing Slapstick and Iconic Songs of 1937’s Street Angel
  • Franklin Kat on The Left-Wing Slapstick and Iconic Songs of 1937’s Street Angel
  • Arijit Mukherjee on Great Movies Project: The Counter-Programming
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

@2021 - All Right Reserved. Designed and Developed by PenciDesign


Back To Top
Luddite Robot
  • Reviews
  • Commentary
  • Great Movie Project
    • Great Movie Project
      Bride of Frankenstein is a movie for and…

      January 25, 2018

      Great Movie Project
      The Enduring Appeal of Nick and Nora in…

      November 29, 2017

      Great Movie Project
      The Ahistorical Fever Dream of The Scarlet Empress

      August 2, 2017

      Great Movie Project
      Dreams, Mundanity, and the Anarchist Yearnings of L’Atalante

      July 12, 2017

      Great Movie Project
      Duck Soup Is And Will Always Be A…

      April 19, 2017

  • Counter Programming
    • Great Movies: The Counter Programming
      Walking and Talking in the Shadow of Kanchenjungha

      March 7, 2018

      Great Movies: The Counter Programming
      A Brief Encounter in My Mother and Her…

      February 9, 2018

      Great Movies: The Counter Programming
      Horror’s Refusal in Farrokhzad’s The House Is Black

      October 13, 2017

      Great Movies: The Counter Programming
      The rage and beauty of The Cloud-Capped Star

      October 3, 2017

      Great Movies: The Counter Programming
      The daylight noir and social issue empathy of…

      June 22, 2017

  • Vegan Horror
    • Vegan Horror
      Julia Ducournau doesn’t think her film Raw is…

      June 7, 2017

      Vegan Horror
      Licking our wounds: The vampiric masculinity of Ravenous

      December 13, 2016

      Vegan Horror
      Eggertsson and animals: An approach to horror cinema

      September 15, 2016

      Vegan Horror
      “It’s Not My Nature” – Vegetarianism, Body Horror,…

      August 30, 2016

      Vegan Horror
      Bodies and Carcasses in Predator 2

      August 23, 2016

  • Interview
    • Interview
      Jasmine Leyva’s doc The Invisible Vegan aims to…

      May 3, 2017

      Interview
      Bridging The Abyss: An Interview With The Directors…

      November 28, 2016

      Interview
      7 Days in Ohio: An Interview with Nathan…

      September 12, 2016

      Interview
      Film Critic Phil Dy talks New Filipino Cinema

      June 17, 2016

      Interview
      “I Love Seeing Film Projected.” A Conversation with…

      March 22, 2016