Bande à part (Band of Outsiders) (Jean-Luc Godard, 1964)

Well, this was a good film − not great but ok (and it's tough to say this, given Godard is one of my favourite directors).  But the reason I say it because looking back there wasn’t anything especially engaging for me, as I felt that none of the three major protagonists really drew my attention. Odile (Anna Karina) was very up and down − sometimes she was naïve and frustrating other times entertaining, I expected more from Franz (Sami Frey) and Arthur (Claude Brasseur), well I didn’t like his poor, criminal character. Also, the plot made the film a lot more coherent and flowing than the usual fragmented Godard − it wasn’t so avant-garde, which is unusual seeing as though this was his seventh film.

There were however some fine Godard moments. I liked the beginning when the title came up on screen (of course) superimposed over rapid jump cuts of the faces of the three characters. It was sort of echoing what the medium of film does; that is − quickly play images in succession − and it looked good (and also worked to set up the love triangle in the film). Also, there's a very telling moment when Godard’s name appears in the opening credits as “Jean-Luc Cinéma Godard” − that’s probably as obvious as you can get in highlighting Godard’s relationship with cinema − he lives it, he is it.

The plot centres on the two young men who plan to steal money from Odile’s aunt’s house though they end up killing the uncle and Arthur gets killed as well (we find out the aunt was faking her death after being locked up in the closet). Godard sums up the plot himself near the beginning when he says statements like “two young men”, “a romance”, “a house by the river”. Although Odile is initially for the plan, she alternates between hesitance and helping the two guys out so I guess that’s where I would’ve liked to see her as a stronger character − though I suppose that’s pretty rare for a strong female lead and that would severely change the film’s dynamics, as well as the story. The film is commonly classified as a gangster film and we see the characters pretend to shoot each other (until they actually do use their guns later on). At one point, when the characters are discussing when to steal the money, Godard’s voice-over narration says that Arthur wants to wait for nightfall, “in keeping with the tradition of bad B movies”, which is ultimately what this film becomes.

I like the scene in the English class near the beginning of the film, where the teacher writes on the board: “classique = modern” and Karina recites a quote by Eliot (which apparently is paraphrased from one of his essays): “Everything that is new is automatically traditional”. These phrases bring up interesting ideas about the New Wave and how it sought to be different from the classic, traditional past of the cinema. Also in the class, the teacher recites Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, which ever so plainly, foreshadows the plot of the film itself, the two lovers (Arthur and Odile) and the death. The film becomes a sort of tragedy although not a melancholic one, almost a tragicomedy as Karina though upset at first, seems to quickly leave that all behind her − almost as if tragedy is a thin layer of the film. That’s the impression I got anyway, especially in moments that were almost parodying the gangster/crime genre, such as the scene with the ladder, as the two criminal (with their faces covered in Karina’s stockings) struggle to set it up.

There also seemed to be minor themes surrounding lying and deceit − a lot of things were mixed up (such as the glasses in the café and the individuals themselves, who keep changing seats). I like how in that same café, when Karina goes to the bathroom downstairs, we hear music playing from the film Umbrellas of Cherbourg (which was premiering at the time Godard was filming Band of Outsiders) and Franz also whistles songs from the musical too. I have to say, I was just stunned when Karina went into the bathroom and there we see a girl who looks like Chantal Goya (and I’m convinced it’s her even though she’s not in the credits), putting on eyeliner in the mirror, just like in Masculin, Féminin, which was to be filmed a few years later. Very cool. Also I found a few times in the film we see Karina go off-screen but we still see her in a reflection, echoing Vivre Sa Vie, a film she had starred in earlier. Speaking of other Godard films, I swear the kitchen where Arthur takes out his gun is used in another Godard film and I’m pretty sure it’s La Chinoise.

Given the overt presence of music, I like the minute silence in the café, when all sound, even the atmosphere, is muted. Also, I really enjoyed the famous dance scene, where Godard’s voice-over tells us what each character is thinking as they dance the routine, which by the end of the long shot, I think I had the routine memorized myself!



Other references/interesting trivia: they meet at a café called Tout va Bien, the character of Franz is named after writer Fran Kafka (as apparently the actor looked like him), they walk past a clothing store called “Nouvelle Vague”, as well as run through the Louvre, which is a nice setting to utilise I think. These titbits I learnt from the very useful special features’ visual glossary, which describes various references in the film.

Other features include: interviews with a young Godard, an older Karina, as well as Raould Coutard (cinematographer) and the usual trailers (which I don’t know if it’s just me, but they seem to give away the whole film, pretty much a visual summary of the main clips in the film). Oh and there is also a short film by Agnes Varda, Les Fiancés du Pont Mac Donald, which stars Karina and Godard, as a sort of Buster Keaton figure, in a great little classic silent film − complete with cute comedic music. It's a rare glimpse of Godard at a younger age, and as an actor − it's great! Here it is:



3.5/5

Juno (Jason Reitman, 2007)

I was a little late to getting on the Juno bandwagon but I’ve been eager to see this film for a while, after hearing all the hype about it. Unfortunately, it wasn’t terrific but it was fresh, creative and original − which are quite rare qualities in films made nowadays. Beginning from the cartoon-ish opening sequence, this film seemed to cater to a modern and I think, younger audience with some contemporary editing and overall style. However, I did find what I thought was a little over-the-top use of teenage slang in Juno’s phone call to her friend quite grating. Nevertheless, it was a delightful film, which interestingly had John Malkovich as one of its producers.

The film had a number of tensions and contrasts in it, which I guess gave it its colour and uniqueness. For instance, Juno at some points was quite immature and didn’t seem to grasp the significance of her pregnancy, such as when she has some biting remarks to the adopting parents and her “boyfriend” Paulie Bleeker. The encounter with Bleeker in the corridor, when she was jealous that he was going to the prom with another girl, well, that was just scathing and real bitchy. Maybe it was part of the hormones in action during her pregnancy but at that point I really sympathised with Bleeker. Then at other times Juno is quite mature, such as when she organises adoptive parents herself and is quite independent. The character of Vanessa (one of the adoptive parents) also flips between a seemingly cold person and a warm, nurturing figure. Like Juno, I also didn’t seem to get the problem of her hanging out with Mark (the other adoptive parent, who eventually divorces Vanessa). He was chilled out and obviously relatable to Juno, with his musical interests. There is an obvious age-difference but I think it was an unusual part of the plot.

Speaking of the plot − I am pleased that Diablo Cody won an Oscar for the script of Juno, as it is “different”. I admire the fact it took a subject such as teen pregnancy and changed the way it was viewed, though some people have criticised it as glamorising teen pregnancy. Another thing that struck me was the “imperfect” adoptive parents. As Juno remarks, it was supposed to be a perfect family for the baby − Vanessa and Mark end up divorcing − but Vanessa ends up with the child as a single mum. So the film clearly challenges ideas about these topics, which is part of its unique appeal.
 

4/5

Don Juan DeMarco (Jeremy Leven, 1994)

A fantastic little story, completely different to what I expected. I thought I was going to be watching a drama of some sort and then when the film opened with Depp putting on a Don Juan DeMarco outfit, I thought it was going to be set in a traditional village in Mexico. So turns out, this is a comedy set in modern-day New York. Johnny Depp plays a man who believes he is the famous lover Don Juan DeMarco and who undergoes psychiatric treatment with Dr Jack Mickler (played by the legend Marlon Brando who is almost unrecognisable), after attempting to commit suicide. The film is mostly made up of Don Juan telling the doctor about his life in the form of flashbacks.

Don Juan is an intensely romantic character who had spent his life seducing women but has been deeply troubled after being rejected by the girl he thought was “the one” (which happened, not surprisingly, after he admitted he slept with 1502 women!). But as Don Juan tells his story (in Depp’s flawless accent), which seems to get more believable as the film progresses, we see changes in the doctor. Don Juan’s idealistic notions of love and adoration for women inspires the doctor to try and spice up his own relationship with his wife Marilyn (played by Faye Dunaway). Though this plot is vulnerable to flaws, it didn’t seem to matter, as I was entertained and engrossed in the film for what it was − a delightful story.

I like the nice interweaving of Don Juan’s flashbacks, which added to the film and weren’t just boring attempts to fill the plot holes and provide background. Neither were the discussions between the doctor and Don Juan boring, as they moved from light conversation to deeper themes of love. While Don Juan has these romantic notions, his ideas of love seem to differ. In one scene, we see how after he leaves his first love in Mexico and ends up in a harem in the Middle East, he seems unable to overcome the feeling he had for the previous woman. Although, a few minutes later he is happily entertaining the sultaness. He also says to the doctor: “I am not limited by my eyesight”, which I think sums up his attitude to life. Brando also gave an enjoyable performance, which, honestly I don’t think would be too difficult for him in this role. Nevertheless, after telling Don Juan he is Don Octavio de Flores, a relative of someone he knows (in order to convince him to step off the ledge where he wanted to commit suicide), it was interesting to see how he almost began to feed off Don Juan’s stories and ideas and started applying them in his own life. Some entertaining moments include near the start of the film, when Don Juan is with a woman and when she is about to scream with pleasure, it cuts to a Mexican singer performing (a cameo by the famous Mexican singer Selena). I also found it amusing the way the nurses at the psychiatric hospital were so immersed in Don Juan − offering to walk him to the next room or look after him. And then, noticing this they put a tough-looking male nurse in charge of Don Juan (who we later see dancing with him outside). At one point, the doctor wants to have a deeper conversation with his wife and asks her about her hopes and dreams, to which she replies, “I thought you’d never ask!” − a charming yet poignant moment.

I admire the script, which manages to combine both a modern-day environment with the legend of Don Juan, written by Lord Byron. The ending is also really creative, as the retired doctor travels to the remote island, where Don Juan said his true love was, and we see her emerge and embrace him. So while this may suggest he was in fact telling the truth (though he is living in the wrong era to be the real Don Juan), the doctor, who is now narrating, says something like, “And was she waiting there for him?... Why not?” So immediately this turns the tables and the doctor is now in control. So rather than solving the question of whether the young man was indeed delusional, the ending actually focuses on the doctor’s life or perhaps what is his fantasy.
This film, which was actually produced by Francis Ford Coppola, is a great story to just relax and be entertained by. Now I really want to watch The Brave, which was released three years later and also stars Brando with Depp, who are a real mega-actor combination.

4.5/5

Dying Breed (Jody Dwyer, 2008)

I haven’t seen many Australian horror films, so this was going to be an interesting experience. I happened to change the channel and this film was about to show and the main reason I was drawn to it was that it involves the Tasmanian Tiger (an animal which is said to be extinct but nevertheless intrigues me). The film is about a zoology student, who along with three others, goes to Tasmania on a search for the Tasmanian Tiger. However, instead they come across cannibal descendants of Alexander “The Pieman” Pierce.

The film wasn’t terrifying but there was enough suspense and curiousity to sustain me through ‘till the end. The end was probably the best part of the film. Unusually, none of the four main characters survive (well, we hear the screams of the last two survivors being tortured and seeing as their captors are cannibals, the survivors are likely to become a nice meal for them).

The film had the eerie yet beautiful Tasmanian forest which provided the stereotypical isolated and dark setting of this horror film. It was a good attempt at what is a mysterious film genre − Australian horror, although I probably won’t be watching it again (unless I’m pointing out the gruesome props used in the film to someone else).

3/5

Bram Stoker’s Dracula (Francis Ford Coppola, 1992)

In the spirit of Friday the 13th, I settled down to watch this film. I am a big fan of the book, which I read about a month ago, so not surprisingly, I had high expectations for a film that refers to the original book’s author in its title (and the fact it was made by Coppola only increased those expectations). I was curious to see how it would compare with the visuals I created in my mind while reading the novel and how it would unravel in a two-hour film.

I don’t know if it was because I really wanted it to be faithful to a novel I consider one of my favourites − which is kind of an impossible feat − but I was slightly disappointed in this film. The main problem for me was that the complex plot line was condensed into the film in such a way that made it seemed like it was constantly moving to the next event. As a result, you never really understand the characters or get to know them. The book was full of suspense but this film didn’t have that same level. For instance, it’s not long after Jonathon Harker goes to Count Dracula’s castle that he starts to suspect his strange behaviour.

Unfortunately, the Dracula portrayed by Gary Oldman was also not how I imagined the character from reading his description in the book. To me, in the novel Dracula initially seemed like a gracious, intelligent, perhaps misunderstood and isolated character. There are descriptions of his curiosity about the world and the discussions he had with Harker. He was a good host to Harker in the beginning, whereas in the film we immediately see this old, frightening unhuman creation in front of our eyes, who seems to make almost no effort to be hospitable. Both the physical appearance and behaviour were just surprising for me, although, it does fit in with the stereotypical image of Dracula and vampires. I guess in my mind, Dracula was more relatable and as a result, Harker doesn’t immediately suspect him as some evil being (unlike in the film). In the book, I almost felt sympathy for Dracula in the beginning and was more realistic I suppose. Instead of the wild, hairy beast and bat-like creature we see in the film, I think the book gave him this slightly supernatural element (and that’s why Harker just deems him a little strange when he first sees him). He seemed decent enough in the book (at least at the beginning) but in the film we don’t even get a chance to understand him − this man with big grey hair, long nails and freaky white skin leaves you with almost no choice but to despise him as your typical villain.

Also, there’s no way I can’t mention the other actors in the film. Winona did quite a good job, particularly near the end, and Gary Oldman showed his mastery as Dracula, although I was slightly lost when we first see him talking to Mina on the street (as a Prince) and then meets up with her various times later on − I don’t remember that in the book or maybe it wasn’t that explicit. I found that personally, the book wasn’t that much about love and seduction. so maybe I missed some undertones in the novel but there was no doubt of this raw lust in the film.

But I have mixed feelings about Keanu Reeves as Harker. Whenever I see him I always think The Matrix and it was just hard to relate to his character because he seemed a little cold and it was just a little odd to see him in such a role. Anthony Hopkins brought his own representation of Van Helsing to the screen, however, though the character was one of my favourites in the book, I didn’t particularly like him in the film. The moment when the men are about to set off to kill Dracula, Van Helsing says something about Lucy being the demon’s lover and is so upbeat about it just really put me off.

However, on a more positive note, I admire the film’s artistic vision and the cinematography was pleasing to watch. I like Coppola’s unique interpretation of the atmosphere and tone of the film, with some surreal scenes, such as Harker being seduced by the female vampires in Dracula’s castle. Each time a victim is bitten, it is definitely not your stereotypical bite on the neck but a sensual and otherworldly experience that just mesmerises you − clearly this is not meant to be a grounded interpretation. Other interesting features, were Dracula’s shadows on the wall, which had a life of their own, as well as the clever cuts and fades in the film, such as the match cut between the severed head and the roast on a table.

The film had a positive reception when it was released and I think it was largely because as a film it is sufficiently engaging and has some admirable camerawork. However, that saying about books being better than films seems to hold true for this movie and I think many fans of the book would agree. Maybe the title should have been “Coppola’s Dracula” instead?

3/5