The Best Movies I've Never Seen Before: Red Dessert (1964)

Red Desert (1964) ****

Directed by: Michelangelo Antonioni.

Written by: Michelangelo Antonioni & Tonino Guerra.

Starring: Monica Vitti (Giuliana), Richard Harris (Corrado Zeller), Carlo Chionetti (Ugo), Xenia Valderi (Linda), Rita Renoir (Emilia), Aldo Grotti (Max), Valerio Bartoleschi (Giuliana's son).

We all know that by the late 1930s, color films were possible. Yet, for years afterwards, only big, expensive epics used color. Most of the great films of the 1940s were in black and white, and it was really only in the 1950s, that we started to see some major directors first use color. European art films were even later with making the change – not coming until the 1960s. Michelangelo Antonioni’s Red Desert (1964) was his first foray into color movies – and it is worth noting that he did it before other international icons like Ingmar Bergman, Federico Fellini and Akira Kurosawa. I don’t think audiences today really realize how big a transition it was to move from black and white to color. It is not a different art form per se, but it certainly requires a different set of skills. Which is one of the reasons why Red Desert is such a remarkable film – his first time out of the gate using color, and Antonioni uses it masterfully.

Red Desert came on the heels on Antonioni’s trilogy – L’Aventurra, La Notte and L’Eclisse – and it certainly shares some similarities with those films. All three of those films were about the emptiness of modern existence, and Antonioni’s masterful black and white camerawork was a perfect choice for those films. Red Desert is also, in a way, about the emptiness of modern existence, yet it is also a little different. For the first time, Antonioni’s heroine (Monica Vitti, who was in all three of the previous films) is dealing with mental illness as well. The emptiness she feels is not solely due to everything around her, but something inside her as well. From the opening frames of the film – huge, towering industrial smoke stacks – there is also a strange tone to the movie, almost as if Antonioni is making a science fiction film set sometime in the future, although one that is closely related to the present. It’s a tone he maintains throughout the film.

In Red Desert, Monica Vitti plays Giuletta, who has just been released from a mental hospital, after she tried to commit suicide. She is married to Ugo, and they have a young son together, but Ugo doesn’t seem to understand her, and is in fact fairly cold towards her. His business associate Zeller (Richard Harris, who is dubbed into Italian), is drawn to her though – and perhaps understands her. Many have criticized Harris’ performance over the years as being wooden, but I quite liked it. He suggests the same sort of depression and alienation that Giuletta feels, but it is something that he hides. The two spend much of the movie together walking and flirting – and in Zeller, she finds some form of release – sexual yes, but also something deeper.

People have often said that Red Desert is a criticism of the modern industrial age as dehumanizing, but Antonioni rejected that idea – saying that he wanted to show that anything, even those factories, can be beautiful, and that human are incredibly adaptable. Although Giuletta is alienated from her surroundings at the beginning of the film – so much so that she has tried to kill herself – but the end, she has come to grips with it.

The film is a technical marvel. The images in the film are striking and haunting at the same time. The sound design is equally complex – with a strange electronic score, distant whistles and horns, and an almost overwhelming industrial soundtrack, that bores into your skull. The film is anchored, in every scene, by the remarkable performance by Vitti, who doesn’t shy away from her character, and embraces her, contradictions and all.

Antonioni was one of the most highly regarded filmmakers of the 1960s – and into the 1970s. I don’t know much of his work beyond that period (other than his horrid contribution to the omnibus film Eros). But in the 1960s, he was a master – and Red Desert is one of his best.

The Best Movies I've Never Seen Before: The Servant (1963)

The Servant (1963) ****

Directed by: Joseph Losey.

Written by: Harold Pinter based on the novel by Robin Maugham.

Starring: Dirk Bogarde (Hugo Barrett), James Fox (Tony), Sarah Miles (Vera), Wendy Craig (Susan).

Joseph Losey and Harold Pinter collaborated on three movies in the 1960s and 1970s – the first, and perhaps most highly regarded of these three was 1963’s The Servant. This is a devastating movie about a manservant named Barrett (Dirk Bogarde) who takes it upon himself to destroy his new employer – Tony (James Fox). The film was seen at the time of its release as a statement on Britain’s crumbling class system – with Fox’s Tony an oblivious, idle rich twit, still clinging to the old ideas of British aristocracy in taking on a “manservant” in Barrett, when the whole profession was already outdated. That Barrett so thoroughly and completely destroys Tony, was read as a victory of the working class. I’m not so sure that’s what is really going here. I may know little about Harold Pinter, but what I do know is that his work favors personal relationships over political commentary. That his work (like Accident, the second Losey-Pinter collaboration) which I will review shortly for this series) is more about the horrible things people do to each other while maintaining an outward visage of civility. That certainly applies to The Servant.

When the movie opens, we are presented with Tony as an upper class young man, who has just come into his inheritance. He has “very important” business dealings, that take up all of his time – although he still finds time to nap at three in the afternoon – and has bought a fashionable house, but needs someone to take care of it. In walks Barrett, who seems to be a gift from heaven. He oversees the decorating of the house, so Tony does not have to bother, and everything else. He cooks, he cleans, he locks up at night, he in short, does everything, leaving Tony with little to do. Tony loves Barrett for doing all of this. The only problem is that Tony’s fiancée Susan (Wendy Craig) hates Barrett. Why she does, is something that even she cannot put her finger on. After all, he is only doing his job – but he just always seems to be there – hovering around the house. She wants Tony all to herself, and asks him to fire Barrett. But that would mean Tony would have to do everything that Barrett does himself – and we can’t have that can we.

Having already succeeded in driving a wedge between Tony and Susan, Barrett goes one step further and convinces Tony to hire his “sister” Vera (Sarah Miles) to be the housekeeper. Vera is the opposite of Susan in every way – unrefined and clumsy – and yet she is undeniably sexy. Barrett practically throws her at Tony, but of course in a subtle way. The affair will be just what Barrett needs to blow up Tony’s life.

Dirk Bogarde is one of those actors who was capable of doing so much, while seemingly doing nothing. In the scenes at the beginning of The Servant, he seems to be the most prim and proper manservant in movie history. So attentive to detail. And yet, there is something supremely unsettling about him as well – something that we catch in his eyes, in quiet moments of him going about his work. Like Susan, we don’t trust him, but we do not know why. It truly is a terrific performance by Bogarde, and without it, the film wouldn’t work. For his part, James Fox is perfectly cast as the upper class twit Tony, oblivious to his own fate even as everything comes crashing down around him. Sarah Miles is terrific as the “sister”, manipulating Tony with her brash sexuality, but also being manipulated in return by Barrett. And Wendy Craig, although she has the most thankless role in the film, fills out the cast nicely.

Joseph Losey was blacklisted in the McCarthy trials of the 1950s, and found his way to England, where he struggled to get his career going again. But when he teamed up with Harold Pinter, he found his dream collaborator – the two of them perfectly suited for each other. Losey finds the perfect visual match for Pinter’s screenplay, which has buried meanings and at times sparse dialogue. Losey experimented with different styles in the same film. The Servant has visual elements of film noir, and yet also seems naturalistic at times, and surreal at others. It’s fair to say that Losey pushed himself, because he knew just how good Pinter’s screenplay was.

The Servant is a strange, disturbing, creepy film. It is one of those films where everything seems to come together – Losey’s brilliant direction, Pinter’s brilliant screenplay and Bogarde’s brilliant performance – to make one of the most memorable British films of the 1960s. Almost 50 years after the film was made, it still has the power to shock and amaze.

DVD Review: Beginners

Beginners *** ½

Directed by: Mike Mills.

Written by: Mike Mills.

Starring: Ewan McGregor (Oliver), Christopher Plummer (Hal), Mélanie Laurent (Anna), Goran Visnjic (Andy), Kai Lennox (Elliot), Mary Page Keller (Georgia), Keegan Boos (Young Oliver).

Beginners is a perceptive film about two men, from two different generations, and how they learn to get out of their own way. Only once they do that, can they truly open themselves up and be happy. The first is Hal (Christopher Plummer) who was married for more than 40 years, and 6 months after his wife dies, comes out of the closet. He has always known he was gay, but could never be open about it before his wife died. No free of that burden, he has a few short years when he can live the way he always wanted to. The other is Oliver (Ewan McGregor), Hal’s son, who was shocked and confused by his father revelation – but doesn’t act like many movie characters would act – which is to be angry. He accepts his father, and spends a lot of time with him in the last few years – especially after he gets sick and is dying. We get the feeling that Oliver always suspected something – that there was always something between father and son that didn’t allow the closeness either one of them wanted, until his father finally admits who he is. Perhaps this is why, following Hal’s death, Olivier finally lets his guard down and becomes involved in a truly meaningful relationship with Anna (Melanie Laurent) – an actress he meets at a party.

Beginners is not a movie with a villain, or even the type of traditional conflict we expect to see. It flashes back and forth between three times periods – the last few years of Hal’s life, when he becomes involved in a committed relationship with Andy (Goran Visnjic), a few months after Hal’s death when Oliver is starting his relationship with Anna, and flashbacks to Oliver’s life as a child – where Hal is unseen, and his mother Georgia (Mary Page Keller) is deeply unhappy. Oliver know has the benefit of hindsight, to see that Georgia was trapped in an unhappy marriage to a gay man, but as a child it was confusing. Out of the three family members, we feel the most for poor Georgia. While Hal at least gets a few years of his life to be free and happy, and Oliver should have the last half of his, poor Georgia never got a chance. No wonder she acted they way she did.

Beginners is a pleasant film – in fact, it may be just a bit too pleasant for its own good. Whatever troubles Hal has coming out, and finding a partner, are pretty quickly glossed over, and he finds just about the perfect man in Andy. We feel at the beginning that perhaps Andy is a gold digger – there for Hal’s money and little else – but as the relationship progresses, it’s clear that there is a deep love between these two. And the trouble Oliver has with commitment is dealt with a little too quickly and neatly when he goes through problems with Anna. The messiness that comes with romantic relationships isn’t quite there enough in Beginners.

But it’s hard to complain too much when the performances are this good. Ewan McGregor has always been a talented actor, but I’m not sure I’ve seen him as open, vulnerable and subtle as he is in this movie. And Christopher Plummer is starting to get great roles again in the late stages of his career. He makes Hal lovable and sweet, almost naïve, as he whole heartedly embraces the gay lifestyle. Their scenes together are the highlight of the movie – something wholly different from just about any other father-son relationship I’ve seen before. Melanie Laurent is female perfection personified in Anna, and it’s a lovely little performance. As is Visjinic’s as Andy. And then there’s Arthur the dog, giving the best animal performance of the year.

Written and directed by Mike Mills, based on his own life, Beginners is pleasurable viewing experience. It’s almost like a life affirming fable, preaching that it’s never too late to start fresh, and embrace who you really are. It’s better late than never, because if you don’t, you may just end up like poor Georgia.

Should the LA Kings Fire Terry Murray

Just 10 days ago, the Kings looked like one of the best teams in the Western Conference. They were 6-2-1 after 9 games. Now, they are winless in their last five, and have dropped 6-5-3 after 14 games. It is still early, and the Kings are somehow still in a playoff spot (barely), so they shouldn’t panic too much. But one has to wonder if perhaps this start has shown GM Dean Lombardi what many of us have long expected – that Terry Murray may no longer be the right coach for this team. Over the first 14 games, the Kings have only managed 3 goals or more in just 4 games – and two of those took to overtime to record the third. Coaches around the league talk about games being a “race to 3”, because the stats are clear – you win more games than you lose when you get 3 or more goals. And you lose more games than you win when you get 2 or less. And Terry Murray’s teams cannot score.

It is easy to find scapegoats. Many have already pounced on Dustin Penner, who has yet to get a goal this season, and has scored only 3 goals in over 30 games as a King since coming over at the trade deadline. Dustin Brown had almost 30 last year, and has just 3 so far this year. Mike Richards only has 2. Drew Doughty hasn’t scored at all. Jarrett Stoll had 20 last year, and only 1 this year. In short, unless you’re Anze Kopitar (who amazingly is still among the league leaders in points this season), or his line mates Simon Gagne and Justin Williams or Jack Johnson (who is playing the best two way hockey of his career right now), you need to score more. But how much is due to the players themselves, and how much is due to Murray’s extremely rigid defensive system? I don’t know the answer to that, but what I do know is this: Teddy Purcell and Matt Moulson couldn’t score to save their lives under Terry Murray, and know they are among the offensive leaders on their new teams. Dustin Penner is a fairly consistent 25 goal a year man, and he’s gotten 3 since being acquired. Mike Richards should be good for 25-30, and he’s gotten 2 this season. Alexi Ponikarovsky is usually good for 15-20, and last year he got 5. Alexander Frolov was a fairly consistent 20 goal scorer for LA before Murray took over, and he saw his numbers decline. So what’s more logical – that all of these players just hit slumps when they were under Murray, or that Murray’s system is stifling too much offense in favor of defense?

The Kings system makes it far too easy for opponents to shut them down. They play defense first, and wait for the other team to make a mistake so they can capitalize offensively. When they’re tied or if they manage to get a lead, the Kings play pretty well. But when they fall behind, they are hardly ever able to make a comeback. They continue to sit back and wait for the other team to make a mistake – which they often don’t do. Less than 10 minutes to go and trailing, you’d think the Kings would step up the offensive pressure and take some chances. After all, it doesn’t really matter if you lose by 1 goal or 2. But they don’t. They have one gear, and that’s what they play from beginning to end, regardless of the score. And this makes them easy to defend against.

When Murray was hired, he was the right coach at the right time. After two stern taskmasters in Andy Murray and Marc Crawford, the young Kings team needed a more laid back, fatherly figure as coach, and Terry Murray provided that. He imposed structure on the young Kings team, and Anze Kopitar and Drew Doughty are the players they are today in large part due to Murray’s coaching. But this is no longer that young team, with a ton of kids and lots of cap space just trying to squeak into the playoffs. This team is now full of veterans, and spend close to the cap. They are supposed to be a cup contender this year. And right now, they don’t look like it.

So, would I fire Terry Murray? I was in favor of doing just that at the end of last season, when these same problems existed. I suggested bringing in Ken Hitchcock or Peter DeBoer. Both now have other head coaching jobs, so I don’t know who I’d get now. The Kings do have John Stevens as an assistant coach, and he was once the head coach of a good Flyers team not that long ago. He is also a defense first coach, but perhaps he would allow for more in game adjustments, and let the forwards loose just a little bit more – something that Murray seems unwilling or unable to do. To be fair, it is very early, and it is only 5 games. And the Kings have a tendency to alternate between long winning and losing streaks, so perhaps I’m making too much of this. In short, I don’t know if I would fire Murray right now or not – but I would at least consider it.

What I would do is immediately place Trent Hunter and Davis Drewiskie on waivers. Hunter apparently had a great camp, which is why he earned a spot on the roster after showing up on a tryout basis, but he has been bad in his games so far, and for the most part has been a healthy scratch. Drewiskie has played only once this season, and I would shocked if he plays more than 5 games all year. If they get claimed, no big loss. If not, send them to Manchester. In their place, I’d call up Andrei Loktinov, who has been tearing up the AHL this season, and Slava Voynov, who looked great for the Kings when Doughty was injured. Bench Alec Martinez, who has been average this year, and put Voynov in his place. Put Loktinonov on the third line alongside Jarret Stoll (who would move to the wing, but take faceoffs) and Scott Parse, who has looked good since coming off the bench. The Kings need to generate some offense, and these guys could only help in that regard.

One thing is clear though – something needs to change. The Western Conference is far too deep, and every point means far too much, for the Kings to continue losing for much longer.

Oscar Update: Animated Films Shortlist

There will be 18 films eligible for the Animated Film Oscar this year, which means there could be 5 nominees this year, as the number exceeds the 16 film limit required to be eligible. Sadly, I have only seen four of the films eligible – Rango, Kung Fu Panda 2, Cars 2 and Winnie the Pooh. Of the others, Rio, Hoodwinked Too!, Gnomeo and Juliet and Mars Needs Moms are all available on DVD, but I probably won’t watch them unless they end up getting nominated – then I will. The other 11 films, they fall into a few categories for me – The Smurfs and Puss in Boots have already been released, and I would like to see both (I remember The Smurfs from childhood, so I’ll be renting it). The Adventures of Tintin, Arthur Christmas and Happy Feet 2 have yet to be released, and I will try to see all three. Alvin and the Chipmunks three I’ll wait for the DVD. That leaves four films – Alois Nobel, A Cat in Paris, Chico and Rita, Wrinkles – that are smaller, foreign releases (as far as I know anyway), that may or may not ever really get released.

I am interested in a few things here. One is whether Pixar will fail to get nominated for the first time since the category was brought in and they had a film eligible to be nominated. Cars 2 was popular, but critically drubbed. I think the odds are good that they won’t get in.

The second thing is whether Steven Spielberg will succeed where his friend Robert Zemeckis has so far failed in getting a motion capture animated film nominated. The Polar Express, Beowulf and A Christmas Carol all did not get nominated, and all had animators saying it wasn’t “real” animation. But The Adventures of Tintin is said to be better than those films – and of course, Zemeckis is no Spielberg. I think the odds are good that Tintin sneaks in.

Right now, I’m rooting Rango, which I absolutely loved earlier this year. A non-sequel, non 3-D movie from a major Hollywood studio that paid brilliant homage to one of my favorite genres – the Western. Obviously, it’s early still, but that’s my current fave.

When the Academy announces the shortlist for docs and foreign films, I’ll be back.

Here is the complete list:

1. The Adventures of Tintin
2. Alois Nobel
3. Alvin and the Chipmunks: Chipwrecked!
4. Arthur Christmas
5. Cars 2
6. A Cat in Paris
7. Chico and Rita
8. Gnomeo and Juliet
9. Happy Feet 2
10. Hoodwinked Too!
11. Kung Fu Panda 2
12. Mars Needs Moms
13. Puss in Boots
14. Rango
15. Rio
16. The Smurfs
17. Winnie the Pooh
18. Wrinkles

Movie Review: A Very Harold and Kumar 3-D Christmas

A Very Harold and Kumar 3-D Christmas ***

Directed by: Todd Strauss-Schulson.

Written by: Jon Hurwitz & Hayden Schlossberg.

Starring: Kal Penn (Kumar), John Cho (Harold), Neil Patrick Harris (Neil Patrick Harris), Tom Lennon (Todd), Amir Blumenfeld (Adrian), Paula Garcés (Maria), Danny Trejo (Mr. Perez), Patton Oswalt (Mall Santa), Bobby Lee (Kenneth Park), RZA (Lamar), Da'Vone McDonald (Latrell), Jordan Hinson (Mary), Elias Koteas (Sergei Katsov), Yasen Peyankov (Yuri), John Hoogenakker (Gustav), Eddie Kaye Thomas (Rosenberg), David Krumholtz (Goldstein), Richard Riehle (Santa Claus).

The Harold and Kumar movies are among the crudest, gross out humor movies in the past few years. The difference between them and most of the others of its ilk is that they are also funny. Very funny. As I grow older, I don’t find that much humor in bodily fluids, not that I ever really did but it’s even less now. But somehow, these movies have always made me laugh. They are clever, and the play with the genre just a little bit. Here, for example, is a 3-D movie that knows just how ridiculous 3-D movies are. They don’t try to hide from it, and rather they embrace it. While many 3-D movies hurl things at the camera in an attempt to make things look cool, this movie hurls things at the camera to let you know that they know just how ridiculous it is to hurl things at the camera. I liked that.

It’s been a few years since Harold and Kumar escaped from Guantanamo Bay, and got high with President Bush. In that time, Harold has gotten married to the object of his affection Maria, made a success of himself on Wall Street, and has moved into a big house in suburban New Jersey. Kumar has done very little except get high, staying in the apartment he used to share with Harold. The two haven’t even seen each other in a few years. But on Christmas Eve, a package arrives at the apartment addressed to Harold – and Kumar decides to deliver it to his old friend. And as always happens when Harold and Kumar get together, things go horribly wrong, and Harold Christmas tree is burnt to cinder. This wouldn’t normally be a huge deal, but that tree was grown by Maria’s father (played by Machete himself Danny Trejo), and he already hates Harold, and made a big deal about the tree. Harold has until his in laws return from Midnight Mass to replace the tree. And of course, Kumar says he’ll help out. What happens from there, I’ll let you discover, but needless to say, it involves drugs, alcohol, violence, Neil Patrick Harris, Russian gangsters, nudity and waffle making robot.

By this, the third movie, Kal Penn and John Cho have their characters down cold – so much so, that they will forever be associated with these roles. Penn has moved on from acting, into working in politics for the White House, but I guess he couldn’t resist one more movie Harold and Kumar outing. I see John Cho pop up in small supporting roles once in a while, but this may just end up being the only starring role he gets. That was part of the reason why they made the movies in the first place – because they were not making any movies like this with actors like Penn and Cho. They have an effortless chemistry together that simply works. The rest of the cast comes and goes – often for only a scene or two – but they seem to be having fun. And as a result, so do we.

I really don’t have much more to say about the movie. This is not the pitch perfect, anti-Christmas comedy that Terry Zwigoff’s Bad Santa (2003) was. That film went for broke, and cheerfully tried (and succeeded) in offending just about everyone – but was also hilarious. Harold and Kumar is less offensive, and more good hearted. I couldn’t help but enjoy myself while watching the movie.

DVD Review: Trespass

Trespass *

Directed by: Joel Schumacher.

Written by: Karl Gajdusek.

Starring: Nicolas Cage (Kyle Miller), Nicole Kidman (Sarah Miller), Ben Mendelsohn (Elias), Liana Liberato (Avery Miller), Cam Gigandet (Jonah), Jordana Spiro (Petal), Dash Mihok (Ty), Emily Meade (Kendra), Nico Tortorella (Jake).

There are some movies where you just simply shake your head and wonder why a group of talented people even got involved with it in the first place. Trespass is such a poorly written movie that I cannot imagine what director Joel Schumacher or his talented cast ever thought it would work – or why anyone gave them the money to even attempt it. Schumacher may not be the best director around, but he’s better than this dreck. I understand why Nicolas Cage in the movie, I guess, because even though I remain a fan of his, I have gotten used to the fact that for every off the wall, brilliant performance like Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans, I have to suffer through five or ten movies this horrible. And I kind of see why talented supporting players like Ben Mendelsohn (so good in last year’s Animal Kingdom), Dash Mihok (who has always been good, no matter how bad the movies are) or Liana Liberato (amazing in Trust earlier this year) got involved. After all, this must have seemed like a mainstream movie for them. The one I’m really struggling with is Nicole Kidman. She has shown herself to be a fairly good judge of material in the past 10 years, and has taken some rather huge chances that few other movie stars like her would have attempted (Dogville, Margot at the Wedding). Was she really this desperate to make a movie?

Trespass is a ridiculous little thriller starring Cage as Kyle Miller, an apparently wealthy diamond dealer, living in a huge home with his beautiful wife Sarah (Kidman) and their teenage daughter Avery (Liberato). Kyle has just returned home from a business trip, when a group of thugs get past his security system and into their home. They want his money and his diamonds, and make it clear that they will not be leaving without them. Of course, it’s all in the wall safe, and Kyle refuses to open that. He thinks, correctly, that as soon as he does, the whole family will be killed. But as long as he refuses, they can’t kill him, because then they will have gained nothing. The robbers, led by Elias (Mendelsohn), include the violent Ty (Mihok), the pathetic Jonah (Cam Gigandet), who gives away way too much in the way he looks at Sarah, and the drug addled Petal (Jordana Spiro). So essentially, everyone is at a standoff – and not much happens. They talk, they threaten each other, and over the course of the movie one “shocking” twist after another comes along, although I didn’t find any of those twists all that shocking, and even less plausible.

There is nothing good about Trespass from the time it begins until it ends. The direction by Schumacher is over the top – utilizing slow motion, freeze frames, and other tricks to try and disguise the fact that there is nothing all that interesting going on in the movie. The screenplay is ridiculous, full of either clunky dialogue, or dialogue that doesn’t even make much sense. The performances are awful. At times, I think Cage was trying for the same clipped voice as in Bad Lieutenant, but at other times, he seems to forget that. Kidman really does seem like the mindless, expressionless robot that her detractors have long since claimed she was. Worst of all is Cam Gigandet, who I cannot figure out why he keeps getting work. He has yet to deliver a good performance, and yet he keeps getting hired.

Overall, I cannot say there is anything worthwhile in Trespass. It is rare for a movie to debut at the Toronto Film Festival in September, hit a few theaters in October and then go to DVD in November. After watching Trepass, I know why, despite the presence of two big stars, this movie was dumped by the studio. They should have done everyone involved a favor, and simply put it on a shelf.