13 TZAMETI

13 Tzameti (2007) dir. Gela Bubluani
Starring: George Bubluani

**

“13 Tzameti” is the first film from director Gela Bubluani, a Frenchman of Georgian heritage. Gela shows good promise with some salacious subject matter, but the film is so heavily weighted on the premise alone unfortunately without full realization of suspense or character.

A quiet unassuming labourer (Sebastien) is doing work on the roof of a young woman living with her grandfather in a quaint country home. He’s a nosey eavesdropper whom we catch spying on them and listening in on their conversations. He overhears of a package to arrive which could lead to a grand sum of money. One day, the grandfather dies suddenly of a drug overdose. Despite the work he’s done, since his employer has died he will not receive payment. Instead Sebastien takes the package in hopes of getting rich. There’s no money inside, but a note with detailed instructions – a veritable breadcrumb trail into the unknown. Unfortunately, the package turns out to be Sebastien’s pandora’s box.

NOTE: Below are spoilers which may ruin a shocking surprise which is the crux of the entire film…. Be warned.

Sebastien is lead into a game where he is the participant – a high stakes underground game of Russian Roulette – 40 men are gathered by a group of high-stakes bourgeoisie gamblers seeking the highest thrill – a civilized “Fight Club” There is no escape for Sebastien, he is part of the game for good. The contestants stand in a circle, load a bullet, spin the chamber and cock the pistol. Unlike “traditional” Russian Roulette, like we’ve seen in, say, ”The Deer Hunter” where the person is forced to shoot themselves, these contestants shoot the person beside them. Round by round goes by eliminating a few people at a time. Eventually it comes down to 2 people. The winner will receive a large sum of money.

There are a couple of fundamental faults with the film. The writer/director hangs his hat on the premise and the sole image of a group of men pointing guns at each other – aka a ‘Mexican standoff’. Indeed the first time we see it, it’s startling. But the one trick pony uses up its cinematic energy quickly, as each subsequent firing scene is the same as the previous. We know Sebastien will make it to the end – and most likely win and we know all the other characters will be killed off. So, therefore, there’s no suspense. And to bring back the comparison to “The Deer Hunter” – whose Roulette scenes tower in comparison – we are emotionally invested in those characters because they are voluntarily shooting at themselves. There’s a choice to make. The Tzameti men have no choice or even a strategy, its blind luck for them and the gamblers. Once they’re in, they’re in for the long haul. And so, as I said, all suspense and tension is zapped from the story.

Bubluani never even tries to sympathize or get to know the other characters - the “Deer Hunter” had about 2 hours of character development before unveiling its roulette scenes. It’s all played without emotion or self-reflection. Bubluani was so enamoured with the roulette, he forgot the simplest rule of filmmaking – tell a good story. Unfortunately, there is no story here.

That being said, I’m curious to see what the director’s next films will be. If he irons out some kinks in his work, there may be a good filmmaker here. Use your own discretion.

Buy it here: 13 Tzameti

ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST

Once Upon a Time in the West (1968) dir. Sergio Leone
Starring: Charles Bronson, Claudia Cardinale, Henry Fonda, Jason Robards.

In 1966 Sergio Leone filmed, arguably, the greatest western ever made, “The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.” What could he possibly do to top it? The result was his even grander epic “Once Upon a Time in the West.” The title is legendary as it is now used by other filmmakers to title their own personal epics (ie. “Once Upon a Time in China,” “Once Upon a Time in Mexico,” “Once Upon a Time in India” etc.)

The title is appropriate because it refers to a type of timeless, yet stylized storytelling that contains universal themes of good & evil, romance, time-spanning arcs etc. Sergio Leone’s film has it all – though not all filmmakers adhere to these standards (maybe there should be a Dogme-95-type jury administering licenses for this title).

Much of what we think about what the “west” was like are impressions formed by myths created by Hollywood and it’s ironic that it was the Italians who expounded these myths into the spaghetti western. The creation of the film was a conscious effort of Leone and his partners (and great filmmakers in their own respect), Bernardo Bertolucci and Dario Argento, to combine elements of all Hollywood westerns into the ultimate western mythology.

“Once Upon a Time in the West” tells the story of three characters, Cheyenne (Jason Robards), a notorious outlaw and prison escapee on the run, Jill McBain (Claudia Cardinale), a beautiful newlywed moving out west to settle her family and a mysterious harmonica player (Charles Bronson) looking for revenge. In their way stands Frank, a ruthless assassin, dressed in bad-guy black, played against type by none other than Tom Joad himself, Henry Fonda. Each story begins mysteriously, and in the classic Leone style motivations and true identities of the characters reveal themselves slowly. Each character is a caricature of a Western archetype. Bronson’s harmonica man hardly speaks a word, but talks with his sharp shooting pistols. Jill is a beautiful bride, but later revealed to be a former prostitute. The evil land developer Morton is a cripple.

The film is style over plot, as it contains scene after scene of stand-alone cinematic power. The opening title sequence is legendary – 15 minutes played in virtual silence as three gunmen wait at the train for Bronson’s arrival. It sets up the style for the entire film – moments in time drawn out and lengthened for maximum dramatic effect. For those unfamiliar with Leone’s work, it can be off-putting, but it pays off beautifully and no other filmmaker (perhaps Hitchcock) has consistently done it better.

The film is elegance-personified, from the gorgeous figure of Claudia Cardinale shot with luminous godlike reverence to the majestically sweeping wide-lens camera moves to Ennio Morricone’s grand score. In fact, film is worth renting or buying just to listen the score alone.

The lengthy drawn-out moments of drama are punctuated and paid off by moments of startling violence. One of the greatest screen introductions is Frank’s shooting of Jill’s husband and children in the second scene. After a slow Hitchcockian build up, Leone unleashes Henry Fonda and his gunmen with some of loudest gunshots we’ve heard on film. Even when people get shot they die in a Leone-signature way – a violent spin and fall. It was a year before the “Wild Bunch” and “Peckinpah blood,” but it’s still shocking and arresting.

“Once Upon a Time in the West” is a must-see, though it might take a couple of viewings to appreciate it fully. The film runs 2 hours and 45 minutes so save up a couple of days in your lifetime, it will be worth it. Enjoy.

Here are two scenes to whet your palette. They are lengthy, so watch it on lunch or something:





Buy it here: Once Upon a Time in the West

THE QUIET EARTH

The Quiet Earth (1985) dir. Geoff Murphy
Starring, Bruno Lawrence, Allison Routledge, Peter Smith

***1/2

“The Quiet Earth” is a largely forgotten-about New Zealand sci-fi film from the 80’s. The premise is the frequent ‘what-if’ scenario of science fiction - what would you do if you were the last man on earth?

This question has sparked a whole subgenre of sci-fe ie. “The Omega Man,” “28 Days Later,” “several Twilight Zone episodes, and “The Stand”. Of course, it was Richard Mathieson’s seminal novel “I am Legend” that spawned all these interpretations – we’ll see how the Will Smith version of turns out…

A stark naked man, Zac (played by Bruno Lawrence) wakes up in his bed and goes about his everyday routine. Making coffee, showering, breakfast, his morning commute. Soon he realizes there’s no one else around. It’s as if people literally disappeared in a split second, there’s no dead bodies, cars are left derelict on the streets, a plane has crashed to the ground, a baby carriage left empty, a gas station washroom is left locked and occupied. Everything else in the world seems to work – electricity, radio frequencies, water. He wanders the streets aimlessly looking for someone, but to no avail.

As the days and weeks go by Zac accepts the world he lives in. In a series of fun sequences we see Zac pass the time by changing cars everyday, driving a train, drinking champagne for breakfast, moving into a mansion as his home and declaring himself emperor of the world. But the materialism of our society is no substitute for the need for community and social interaction. He’s on the brink of total madness when he meets another survivor, a young red-haired ‘beauty’ (hey, it’s the 80’s), Joanne (Alison Routledge).



Their companionship develops, though they never consummate – come on, they’re the last couple on earth, that’s the easiest pick up line. Anyways, I digress, Zac (a scientist in his former life) conducts scientific tests on the sun and discovers an anomaly in the universe, which could cause the earth's total destruction in a matter of days. The science of it all makes as much sense as launching Bruce Willis into space to stop of a hurdling meteor from crashing into earth, but for some reason you just play along.

Soon a third man, Api, shows up, which completes the love triangle. Joanne and Api fall in love thereby alienating Zac. They discover their common thread. They all died, of one way or another, at the moment of the disaster and were miraculously reborn in the solitude of the earth. It’s not Kierkegaard, but the explanation gives the characters context and meaning for their existence. It’s a second chance to rediscover life and love.

The film’s strength is when it stays away from the dramatic presumption of the post-apocalyptic world, that all our social morals would disappear and we, as Darwinist beings, would devolve into a carnal animalistic world of kill-or-be-killed. The opposite happens as the effect of their solitude enforces the characters’ need for companionship and love.

The three of them eventually settle their conflict and develop a plan to stop the further destruction of the world by blowing up the scientific testing facility from where the anomaly originated. It’s interesting that the film doesn’t answer the questions it poses, it’s told from the survivor’s point of view and instead asks the audience to interpret meaning religiously or philosophically or whatever term you wish to describe events outside the realm of physical explanation.

In the end Zac makes a selfless sacrifice in order to save Api and Allison. The final moments are particularly enigmatic, which may leave some feeling shortchanged, but we are left with an awesome image – perhaps an homage to “2001: A Space Odyssey,” of man entering a new world and a new life with so much more to discover. Enjoy.

Buy it here: The Quiet Earth

NOTE, this is the awesome ending shot (contains spoilers):

32 SHORT FILMS ABOUT GLENN GOULD

32 Short Films About Glenn Gould (1993) dir. Francois Girard
Starring: Colm Feore

****

Review by Blair Stewart

32 Reasons to Watch This Film:

1.The opening shot, which is the most appropriate visual expression of the Canadian psyche that I've seen and in my opinion, on equal standing with John Wayne's arrival/departure in John Ford's 'The Searchers'. I know that's pretentious crap but to watch it makes me a 7 year old kid riding across Alberta's prairies on a cold, clear, sad winter’s day in the back of a station wagon with blue mittens and a Boxer named Max. In fact, here you go-



2.Colm Feore's performance as Glenn Gould, a pianist with great music running through his blood who shot to fame in the 1950's and wilted into the seclusion of mental instability, which doesn't settle for imitation but gets right under the skin of an unconventional genius and "enfant terrible". The fact that Feore has to pay the bills acting in 'Paycheck' and playing second-fiddle to the Zellweggers of the world in 'Chicago' makes me want to smoke crack in indignation.

3.The brilliant idea to not play a straight biopic method like "Ray" or "Walk the Line" of exploring a music icon as a straightforward narrative with predictable results, but to break up his identity into small individual moments throughout his life and work and his life's work. We see reenactments of his successes, interviews with his friends and collaborators and animation sequences from contemporaries like Norman McLaren that compliment the story,
we're taking a stroll through his memory.

4. Its concept and construction likely inspired the film adaptation of "American Splendor" which is a swell movie too.

5. I'm not a classical music aficionado, but the 32 Goldberg Variations of J.S. Bach by Gould is an amazing interpretation.

6. The editing by Gaetan Huot in the 'Pills' section is an excellent precursor to Aronofosky's "Requiem for a Dream" memorable drug quaffing sequences. If a smart DJ were to sample the narration in this scene with a sweet backbeat and Ghostface Killah spitting lyrics, I'm buying the album.

7. The wooden acting of some of the secondary characters is comforting in the sense that it harkens back to countless years spent watching awful CBC productions. If you were living, bland and Canadian between the period of the invention of TV and the present day, you would have had a decent-paid speaking part on “The Beachcomers” no doubt. Bruno Gerussi, take a bow!

8. Glenn getting so wrapped up in his music that he becomes overwhelmed and loses his perception of his surroundings, which is a beautiful sight to see if you dig artists.

9. Director Francois Girard is superbly talented across all visual and auditory fields in this film and is finally coming out of an eight year hiatus at Cannes this year with “Silk” starring Michael Pitt and Keira Knightly.

10. My English buddy Sam pointed out that Keira Knightly never closes her mouth throughout many of her films, which is off-topic but a hilarious observation. I digress.

11. You could watch the entire film on youtube.com at work right now, but the viewing would be sporadic and compromised. Just a thought. Buy the DVD instead if it's a good transfer.

12. Glenn Gould has the same speaking cadence as HAL 9000 ("2001: A Space Odyssey"). Eerie, both were flawed superb machines.

13. This film's intelligence and dignity will help you wash off the post-coital shame you feel after watching "300" . Awesome graphic novel and all, but, come on.

14."SPARTANS, TONIGHT....WE DINE IN HELL!!!" Sorry, couldn't resist.

15. The rude, bitchy performance by the magazine reporter who dives a little too deep into Gould's privacy when she doesn't get what she wants.

16. This quote about him from the conductor George Szell whom he performed with: "No doubt about it-that nut's a genius."

17.

18. He hummed loudly when he was playing despite himself and can be heard in the background on many of his recordings.

19. The Simpsons episode "32 Short Films About Springfield" was partial inspired by this and "Pulp Fiction", kind of like a car-crash at the three intersections of great pop culture.

20. At no point in this film does Glenn Gould ‘triumph over adversity’ like in lesser films. He was a prodigy from an early age who along with his gift had obsessive compulsive disorder, extreme hypochondria and maybe a mild form of autism. Just about anything he worked towards was with passion, ingenuity (see the "Idea of North" for proof) and single-minded focus. From this film I took away any great message other than occasionally someone is born to do a task that they were born to do - a quiet, graceful film for a quiet, graceful man.

21. The Movie Tagline on the poster: The Sound of Genius. Who came up with that?

22. Canada's dawning age as a culture in the 1950's and 60's is evoked finely by Alain Dostie's camera work, which captures the good angles of Toronto.

23. Since its 9 numbers higher than "The Number 23" it must be 9 times better. Just a hunch.

24. The fact that you've gotten this far in the review. Congrats.

25. He's Hannibal Lector's favorite musician. A fictional character yes, but cool regardless.

26. The film was nominated or won at the Toronto, Sao Paolo, and Prix Italia Film festivals plus the Genies and Independent Spirit Awards.

27. Don McKellar's script is the best work he's done, no offense to "Last Night" intended. Smart, funny at times, honest and observant. He's collaborating Fernando Meirelles of "City of God" acclaim right now, good on em'.

28. Music critics still get all pissy about his flights of fancy and eccentricities while performing, despite the fact that he's been dead since 1982.

29. Gould very well may have taken more medication then all of Motley Crüe.

30. The "leaving" sequence with Bach's "Sarabande from French Suite No.1" playing in the background.

31. The film that resulted from his legacy is worthy of the work that he produced.

32. The last shot is better then the first.



Buy it here: 32 Short Films About Glenn Gould

GLENGARRY GLEN ROSS

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

THE DEAD ZONE

The Dead Zone (1983) dir. David Cronenberg
Starring Christopher Walken, Brooke Adams, Martin Sheen

***

“The Dead Zone” was Cronenberg’s first venture into mainstream films. After a series of uniquely gruesome horror films (“The Brood,” “Shivers,” “Scanners”), in 1983 Cronenberg took on Stephen King’s bestseller.

Despite the auspicious pairing of King and Cronenberg, the film is cerebral and brooding as opposed to a gorefest which one might expect. Bloodletting is kept to a minimum, instead the psychological impact of predicting someone’s own death keeps up the intensity.

Christopher Walken plays Johnny Smith (one’s cinema’s lamest screen names), plays a schoolteacher, with a good career, and burgeoning relationship with his girlfriend, when suddenly all that topples down when he’s involved in a near fatal car accident. He wakes up from a coma to discover, not only has been under for 5 years and his girlfriend remarried, but he’s developed an extra sensory perception. When Johnny physically touches someone he’s able to see their future, pasts and darkest secrets.

Johnny’s ability is more a curse than a gift. Not only does he see their secrets, he also experiences it. Therefore his premonitions are painful and utterly frightening for him. Johnny knows he will never be the same person he was before – he will forever be exploited, abused and misunderstood. And he can never have a true relationship with another woman. The physical intimacy would be a little frightening for him.

So Johnny’s new life progresses toward an selfless act of sacrifice he chooses to make in order to save the world. The ending is tragic considering the investment the audience makes in this unique hero.

“The Dead Zone” is one of Christopher Walken’s definitive roles. His twitches, pauses and voice cadence are in peak form. And this is before he became a parody of himself, and so it’s a job to see Walken in a serious role. Cronenberg gets great emotion and intensity from him in this film. Rumours have it that Cronenberg would actually fire a pistol during some of his lines to keep Walken on edge. Also watch for Martin Sheen’s comically over-the-top performance as the southern Republican Senate candidate, Greg Stillson.

Cronenberg tells the story plainly without his trademark sex and flesh. It’s a simple progression of scenes and events that lead up to Johnny’s fateful decision at the end. If it means anything, apparently it’s Stephen King’s favourite adaptation of his novels. Enjoy.

Buy it here: The Dead Zone

STEVEN SODERBERGH vs. SPIKE LEE

Dropping the Gloves Part 1: Steven Soderbergh vs. Spike Lee

This essay is the first of, hopefully, a series of fun hypothetical tête-à-tête matchups of great filmmakers. With each essay I’ll choose two directors of similar quality of films and compare a number of their films. The intent is to stir up some commentary on both filmmakers and encourage readers to revisit their films.

In this corner… Spike Lee, a cultural figurehead in filmmaking from the late 80’s to today. Other than Sidney Poitier, no one has helped further the enhancement of African-American filmmakers than Spike. After series of success short films his auspicious feature film debut 1986’s “She’s Gotta Have It”, made for $175,000, instantly established Lee on Hollywood’s radar. His first breakout hit was “Do the Right Thing” in 1989, which stirred up much controversy for its depiction of racial tension in contemporary America. Spike has been outspoken and controversial on all matters of race on film ever since.

In this corner… Steven Soderbergh, a renaissance filmmaker who’s a writer, director, producer, cinematographer and sometimes actor. He has a remarkable output of films, including directing 7 films in 5 years from 1998 to 2002. Steven was the youngest filmmaker to win a Palm D’Or in 1989 for “Sex, Lies & Videotape”. Steven is also famous for his lengthy sophomore slump after “Sex, Lies”, which saw him produce 3 unsuccessful films, before bouncing back with “Out of Sight.” Since then, he’s been a major player as a director and producer. His fruitful producing partnership with George Clooney has resulted in films such as “Good Night and Good Luck”, “Syriana”, “Far From Heaven”, and “A Scanner Darkly.”

Enough preamble, let’s get it on:

Round 1: Do The Right Thing(1989) vs. Sex, Lies, and Videotape (1989)
This is an interesting comparison. Both films were the breakout films for Lee’s and Soderbergh’s careers and both competed for the Palme D’Or in 1989 with “Sex, Lies” taking the prize. In hindsight, which film is better? “Do the Right Thing” has become a cultural landmark for black cinema and has influenced a whole generation of filmmakers. “Sex, Lies” though not as influential on the cultural radar, established Miramax’s reputation as a major Hollywood distributor. On a creative and filmmaking level, “Do the Right Thing” pushes the boundaries of filmmaking and creates the perfect mix of art and politics. Winner: Lee.

Round 2: Malcolm X(1992) vs. Traffic (2000)
“Malcolm X” is Spike Lee’s epic, a three-hour plus opus about the controversial black muslim leader. “Traffic,” also Soderbergh’s grandest film, is the Oscar-winning saga of drug trafficking in modern America. Spike’s film arrived with much baggage and controversy, but it was hailed by many most critics, including Roger Ebert as “one of the great screen biographies.” Some criticized it as overindulgent and cartoonish especially in the portrayal of its white characters. It’s virtually impossible to find a flaw in “Traffic.” It will likely stand the test of time (7 years) as an engrossing study of the effects of drugs from the politicians finding it to the kids on the street who buy it and use it. “Malcolm X,” though grand and majestic, perhaps suffers most in its nobility. “Traffic” seems to exist naturally and is more provocative. Winner: Soderbergh.

Round 3: Crooklyn (1994) vs. Out of Sight(1998)

Each of these films would represent the “lightest” and most audience friendly of each director’s body of work. “Crooklyn’s” one of Lee’s most personal films inspired by his own childhood in Brooklyn in the 70’s. It’s a refreshing colourful burst of life, about his beloved city most often portrayed for its seediness. It’s brimming with fresh visual ideas and wonderful characters and, sadly, is an underrated and lesser-known film. “Out of Sight”, Soderbergh’s “comeback” film, was based on an Elmore Leonard novel and is also colourful and fun. The affability of George Clooney and the sultriness of JLo make a great pairing, but the film lacks the originality of Lee’s film. It feels like a hodgepodge of “Pulp Fiction,” “Get Shorty” and other better crime films. Winner: Lee

Round 4: 25th Hour(2002) vs. The Limey(1999)
The “25th Hour” is one of Lee’s better and more recent films. It came out in 2002, to critical acclaim but it failed to excite voters at awards season. As a result it disappeared quickly from the map. It starts off as fun romp of a trio of college buddies on the town. The film changes emotional gears when it’s revealed that one of them is to be sent to prison the next day. “The Limey” is about a man, released from prison who seeks revenge for the murder of his daughter. “25th Hour” works best as a one-nighter-slice-of-life, but when it tries to “say something” it gets bogged down in dogmatic preaching. “The Limey” stays on target as a journey into a crime underworld and into the psyche of a man who will not stop until revenge is exacted. Winner: Soderbergh.

Round 5: Inside Man(2006) vs. Erin Brockovich(2000)

Wow, it’s tied. Let’s throw down two of their most popular and successful films. “Inside Man,” which made $88 million in the box office last year, and Spike’s most successful film – an unabashed heist film without an agenda. “Erin Brockovich” has a very clear agenda – the triumph of one insignificant single mother against big business in favour of the environment. “Brockovich” made $125 million at the box office and garnered 5 Oscar nominations, including Julia Roberts win for best actress. Despite the Oscar “Brockovich” exists soley as the Julia Roberts vehicle. “Inside Man” is succinct and compelling from start to finish. Winner: Spike

Steven Soderbergh 2 - Spike Lee 3

Perhaps a surprising winner, but Spike Lee deserves full acclaim. He’s also a talent waiting to burst out with a critical comeback and reestablish himself. His controversial remarks often make him out to be a bitter filmmaker, but filmmaking skills should be separated from his politics. Soderbergh, on the other hand, is often overpraised. Though slick and gorgeous, often his films lack the personal edge that separates Spike from the pack. Soderbergh is a technical filmmaker who more often than not seems to imitate rather than originate. A challenge to Mr. Soderbergh: I want to see your personal film, without the nostalgic wink to the audience.

BUFFALO 66

Buffalo ’66 (1998) dir. Vincent Gallo
Starring Vincent Gallo, Christina Ricci

****

“Buffalo 66,” Gallo’s first film reminds of us of the early work of Martin Scorsese raw, urban, stylish and personal.

The place is the great city of Buffalo (Gallo’s hometown) 1996 – still reeling after the Bills lost the Super Bowl to the New York Giants (this features prominently in the film). Vincent Gallo’s character, Billy Brown, has just been released from prison as a result of some gambling on that fateful Super Bowl game. The first thing he needs to do is take a leak and proceeds to comb the city for a toilet which he has trouble finding. His next stop is his parents house – only problem is that he’s covered up his prison time with a story that he’s been employed by the CIA for 5 years. He also claims to have a wife, and when he’s asked to bring her over for dinner, he has no choice but to kidnap the first girl he sees. Enter Layla (Christina Ricci), a girl-next-door-alluring tap dancing student who happens to overhear Billy’s conversation with his parents. She is kidnapped by Billy and forced to attend his family dinner as his wife.

Despite the brutal kidnapping, Layla is smitten with Billy’s sad vulnerability and pathetic insecurities. Like a caring mother she actually reaches out to him and helps him in his plan to ‘impress’ his parents.

Enter Billy’s mom and dad – the ultimate deadbeat parents (hammed up by Angelica Huston and Ben Gazzera). Both are despicable parents who’ve alienated their son his entire life in favour of their beloved Buffalo Bills. The lengthy scene in their house is a classic, and obviously inspired by off some repressed emotional real life experiences.

Billy’s life is a shambles and the only way he feels he can do something about it is by taking revenge on the person who caused such hardships – Scott Woods (a thinly disguised Scott Norwood), the kicker who missed that final field goal in the Super Bowl. But Layla is in love with Billy and pleads for him to stay with her. Ah there’s the rub, the dilemma of the ages – he must therefore decide his future path – is he a lover or a fighter?

The film feels like an early Scorsese film – ie. “Mean Streets”, or “Taxi Driver”. – it’s grainy and raw, edited with New Wave jump cuts and 70’s rock music. In many ways Billy Brown feels like a Travis Bickle – naïve, unsure of his place in the world, a loner and social outcast. Billy doesn’t know how to love, but unlike Bickle, he is loved. Layla truly loves him and turns him away from the dark side of life. So the film turns into a love story. In fact, it’s is one of the great unconsummated love stories (ie. “Lost in Translation” or “In the Mood For Love”).

In many ways the film is a series of distinct and artistically rendered scenes reminiscent of Godard’s “Vivre Sa Vie” –ie. The dinner scene, Billy and Layla go bowling, Billy and Layla at Denny’s, Billy and Layla at the hotel, Billy in the strip club.

Billy’s confrontation with Scott Woods in the club is so good, though perhaps out of style with the rest of the movie but great as a piece of pure cinematic goodness. Set to the driving music of Yes, Billy enters the strip club in slo-mo (like De Niro entering the bar in “Mean Streets”) looking for Woods. The end of the scene is violent and boasts the first-ever use of the Matrix’s “Bullet time” effect. It’s beautiful and brilliant and worth the price of admission.

The final final scene of Billy in the donut shop has always puzzled me – it’s a virtual carbon copy of the scene in PT Anderson’s “Boogie Nights” towards the end when, Don Cheadle buys donuts for his wife. Though “Boogie Nights” was released only 3 months prior to Gallo’s film, I don’t know who stole from whom.

“Buffalo 66” is a classic auteur film – written, directed, starring and scored by Gallo himself. Gallo, who was a musician first, then an artist, then an actor then a director clearly has a unique artistic perspective. “Brown Bunny,” his next film, though intriguing, doesn’t live up to the promise of “Buffalo 66”, but Vincent Gallo still has the potential to be one of the great American filmmakers. Let’s hope his next one will wow us. Enjoy.

Buy it here: Buffalo '66

Please excuse the French dubbing of this clip:

ZODIAC

Zodiac (2007) dir. David Fincher
Starring: Jake Gyllenhaal, Robert Downey Jr., Mark Ruffalo
****

“Zodiac” is David Fincher’s second turn at the serial killer genre, but this one differs because it’s based on real events. As a result, the film isn’t about dramatic manipulation or exploitation instead it’s a lengthy examination of the uncovering of the facts very much akin to “All the President’s Men” (see my previous review).

From 1969 to 1979, the Zodiac killer terrorized the San Francisco Bay area with a series of random and indiscriminate murders. The killer had no modus operandi or motive, and, as a result, the killings remained unsolved for a long time. The film, event-by-event, recounts the hours, days and years spent by the cops and reporters involved with the case.

The first half of the film deals with the first 5 years of the case and centres on the chief detectives, Mark Ruffalo and Anthony Edwards (good to see him back on the big screen) and the newspaper reporters writing about the case, Robert Downey Jr. (Robert Avery). In the background but uninvolved, is Jake Gyllenhaal, a cartoonist (Robert Graysmith) who silently observes the case over people’s shoulders.

The depiction of the murders are grisly – though not as gruesome or dramatic as “Seven,” but perhaps more terrifying knowing that they actually occurred. The point of view is always with the facts of the case, and therefore we only see the killer during the killing scenes. As a result, he remains a mysterious figure throughout the film and when the police confront a potential suspect, we, the audience, judge their faces and unconscious actions as if we’re the investigators as well.

The second half of the film centres on the obsessive “JFK”-style reinvestigation of the case in the latter 70’s by Graysmith (who went on to write 2 true-crime bestsellers). With the killer dormant, the case had remained unsolved, but without new evidence no one is rushing to pursue it. As Ruffalo’s character says, there have been 200 murders since the last Zodiac killing, why should he devote his attention away from these? So why is Graysmith pursuing the case? What’s his angle? Is it for justice, or is it because, as he says, he likes solving puzzles?

The compression of time would seem to present a challenge, as the film jumps through the weeks, months and years with speed. Traditional methods of identifying new time periods are thrown away in favor of a simple on-screen text like “three weeks later”, or “3 years later.” The characters don’t change, nor should they have to. They are real people and professionals at their jobs and it all works.

“Zodiac” is one of the most purely procedurals films ever made. The film doesn’t shy away from bombarding the audience with too much information (aka ‘exposition’ which is considered ‘lazy’ screenwriting). But as with “All the President’s Men,” the facts, or in this case, the evidence, are as important as the characters in the film.

"Zodiac" runs two and a half hours but feels like an hour and a half. Like a roller coaster ride, I wanted it to go longer. But the ending is natural and provides sufficient closure. You’ll know it by the post-script crawl. And you certainly won’t forget the hypnotic use a Donovan’s “Hurdy Gurdy Man” which bookends the film – in fact it’s still in my head as I type this.

As an aside, if anyone’s interested in the technical side of the film you'll know David Fincher’s films always look crisp and sharp. This is his first film using HD Video, and it’s a perfect match. The results are superb, thanks in part to the new Viper camera system and the great cinematographer, Harris Savides, who gave the film a classic cinemascope look. Unlike, say, “Miami Vice” it’s the best looking HD film I’ve seen. I’m officially sold.

Please don’t go into the film expecting a gruesome extension of “Seven” or a twisty-turny “Fight Club”, it’s “All the President’s Men” through and through - consummate professionals who live and die by the details and procedures of the job. Enjoy both films.

SONGS FROM THE SECOND FLOOR

Songs from the Second Floor(2000) dir. Roy Andersson
Starring Stefan Larson

****

Review by Blair Stewart

It is the end of the world and the salarymen are selling their stocks in Jesus. Traffic jams stretch into the horizon and board meetings are interrupted by the rude intrusion of tumbling buildings. Corporations have fallen back on pagan rituals in order to boost their portfolios. We're all going to die, what do we do?

Laugh?

Rare is a film in which you can take every moment, every frame, snip it, enlarge it, nail it to your wall and then marvel at the eye that captured it, a singular work of art. Kubrick had that quality, much of Antonioni, Fellini too. And after a quarter-century hiatus following a commercial failure in the 1970’s director Roy Andersson emerged from the wilderness of Scandinavian advertisements to join them with this unique work.

It is a challenge to tell you what this film is about, or even what it is. And the best way that I could best describe it is 'The Capitalist Apocalypse in Sweden interpreted by Gary Larson's "The Far Side.” That is my description, but I fail to do this movie justice in its sadness and dark humor and bitter social commentary. Andersson captures his deadpan Rapture with astonishing deep-focus framing and forced perspective, the camera never moves, leaving your eyes to wander a surreal canvas as a baffled civilization copes with the death of materialism. You could be mistaken for thinking that to view this would be a depressing experience, but if you have an affinity for wry poker-faced satire, if you find joy in an artist coming out of nowhere and showing his full potential, if you ever wanted to experience a film that you could previously only comprehend viewing in your dreams, here you are.

One last thing, you'll never, ever, ever forget the subway scene.



Available on DVD: Songs From the Second Floor

THE DEPARTED

The Departed (2006) dir Martin Scorsese
Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio, Matt Damon, Mark Wahlberg,

****

It was a dream project when we all first heard Martin Scorsese was remaking “Infernal Affairs”, with cast of DiCaprio/Damon/Nicholson/Wahlberg, and so the anticipation was large. What kind of a film could Marty make of this? This question is answered when that Dropkick Murphy’s track kicks in in the first five minutes. We know we are in for a ride.

Matt Damon and Leonardo DiCaprio, respectively, play a mobster and a cop. DiCaprio’s character, Billy Costigan, is assigned from the day he graduates from the force to go deep undercover within the Irish mob in Boston. Damon’s character, Colin Sullivan, enters the police force to become a mole for his mob kingpin Frank Costello (Jack Nicholson).

Gradually the dueling moles learn about each others existence, and are assigned to find the other. This is when it gets confusing. Every cell phone call requires a good minute or so of thought before deciding which lie to tell and to whom. Both actors fall deep into their roles and we as the audience often forget who’s good and who’s bad. The burden of being undercover weighs heavily on Costigan. DiCaprio plays him with a nervous edge - he looks like he’s about to fall to pieces at any moment. Damon (the more modest of the two actors) by contrast, has the less-showy performance and plays Sullivan like a machine – focused, poker-faced, and single-minded. The scene in the elevator is a perfect example of the ruthlessness of his character. Sullivan has a brief moment to figure out what to do and performs an action that shocks us all.



Scorsese directs with cinematic machismo. The body count is high. Marty’s on fire reinventing his trademark ‘Scorsese’ scenes – DiCaprio’s mob initiation scene, for example, recalls the old’ ‘head-in-a-vice’ scene in “Casino.” The plot machinations are complicated, yet rarely are we confused with what’s going on. Though we, as the audience, have the ability to ‘pause’ the film to rethink a piece of the plot, somehow the characters can keep everything straight and make split second decisions.

“The Departed” is by no means a perfect movie – and perhaps the brevity of “Infernal Affairs” (a good 30mins lighter), makes it a better film. Arguably Nicholson is miscast, or perhaps mishandled by Scorsese. It’s a shame De Niro had to go and make “The Good Shepherd,” because a Scorsese/De Niro reunion on this film makes me salivate. I also wish Scorsese would update his record collection, “Gimme Shelter” and “Comfortably Numb” again? Both are good songs, but not appropriate for a film that takes place in present day. And the last shot of the film, perhaps an homage to Hitchcock or a wink to the audience, sadly takes away from the film.

Despite the minor criticisms, let’s applaud the Academy for choosing the first crime/thriller genre film to win Best Picture since “The French Connection.” “The Departed” is available on DVD. Please rent it and enjoy.
The Departed (Two-Disc Special Edition)

THE KING OF COMEDY

The King of Comedy (1983) dir. Martin Scorsese
Starring: Robert De Niro, Jerry Lewis, Sandra Bernhard

***1/2

Since Scorsese’s name is all over the place let’s revisit one of his under-the-radar films – “The King of Comedy”.

“The King of Comedy” is a film about Rupert Pupkin, a boob of a man, and a pathetic wannabe comedian who idolizes a Johnny Carson-type of talk show host, Jerry Langford, played by Jerry Lewis. One night after a taping Rupert hangs around the throngs of press and fans all trying to catch glimpse of Langford. During the scrum Rupert manages to sneak his way into Langford’s limo and drive off with the star. This is Rupert in a nutshell, an annoyingly persistent mouse, able to sneak through the tiniest cracks. While in the limo Rupert feels this is his “big break”, and pitches Jerry on his comedy act. Jerry is accommodating but also straight with him and tells him the value of earning one’s success. Jerry leaves the door open though by taking Rupert’s audition tape, which is just the inch Rupert needs to take a gigantic mile.

Rupert drops off his tape, but then proceeds to spend day after day in Langford’s office waiting for a response. The scenes of Rupert sitting in the waiting room are quietly frightening. Prior to being thrown out of the building Langford’s producer gives Rupert the bad news. This sends Rupert into further delusions of grandeur.

The rest of the film escalates from incident to incident culminating with Rupert kidnapping Langford and extorting from him an appearance on his show. Rupert does manage to make it onto television which incites a great twist which I won’t reveal. The climax and denouement changes your perspective on De Niro’s character and the whole film itself.

It’s De Niro’s movie and one of his finest performances. Scene after scene we see a side to De Niro we haven’t seen before, or since. His bravura moments are in his mother’s basement where he has set up his own talk show studio set. He plays himself, Langford and his other guests all at once, moving from seat to seat. It’s as good as the famous "are you talking to me" scene in “Taxi Driver.” The dream sequence where he’s having lunch with Langford is also a classic.

The title is perhaps a misnomer as this fourth re-teaming of De Niro with Scorsese is not so much a comedy but a disturbing black comedy that teeters closely into “Taxi Driver” territory. Travis Bickle and Rupert Pupkin are alike (both great screen names). They share the same neuroses. They’re both loners and social outcasts who yearn to be famous or important in society, yet lack the social behaviour skills to succeed. Thinking back, the film was ahead of its time, when in 1983, there was no such thing as reality TV, or instant pop culture stars. Rupert Pupkin would have made a great Survivor contestant, or at the very least achieve William Hung-type success – the ironic celebrity.

Maybe I’m overreaching, but imagine a golfing foursome of Rupert Pupkin, Travis Bickle, Max Cady, and Jake LaMotta. In many ways they are the same - all of them boast an impressive gift of obsessiveness and for perfecting the art of enduring pain and humiliation. Enjoy.
The King of Comedy

THE AURA

The Aura (2005) dir. Fabian Bielinsky
Starring: Ricardo Darin

**

“The Aura” is Argentinean director, Fabian Bielinsky’s follow-up to his indie hit “Nine Queen’s”. Sadly a year after its release Bielinsky died of a heart attack at 47. The film continues Bielinsky’s examination of the neo-crime genre. Whereas “Nine Queens” was a classic con-game, “The Aura” is harder to pin down. It’s set up and structured as a traditional crime/noir thriller, but is paced like a Kieslowki drama. These two qualities unfortunately compete with one another and cause the film to fail.

Esteban (the Argentine star, Ricardo Darín) is a detail-oriented introvert who works as a taxidermist in a museum. During a trip to the bank with his colleague, he observes the motions of the security guards and bank staff and describes to his friend a scenario of robbing the bank. Of course, he would never go through with it, but he finds joy in the possibility of him doing it. It’s a neat sequence as we see the hypothetical heist in progress as Esteban describes it. Unfortunately, it’s just a show-off set piece which could have been left on the cutting room floor.

We also learn that Esteban has a photographic memory, in addition to a bad case of chronic migraines (hence the title ‘Aura’). Not knowing anything about the film, it seemed to be setting up a ‘Memento’ or perhaps “Dead Zone”/Stephen King type of story. Instead it continues as a straight-ahead crime thriller.

Esteban and his colleague travel to woods to go hunting – this will take his mind off his troubles at home, which includes his wife who has just left him. Despite his job and his daydreams of criminal behaviour Esteban can’t shoot the animals. His colleague calls him soft - shattering his ego. Later on in the day, by accident he shoots and kills another man – a local hunter. Esteban is shocked, and decides to hide the body, instead of calling the police. Upon investigating the man’s possessions Esteban learns of a bank heist which the hunter was trying to set up. With the adrenaline of the kill still racing through him, he decides to enter the game of crime and deception and participate in the felony.

Esteban succeeds in this dangerous new world with his gift of observance, but of course, the thrill comes with the risk. The cool, slick elements are all there, mysterious keys, fragments of handwritten notes to decipher, hidden hand guns, casino chips and dog-eared maps. The plotting and execution of the crime is standard, and of course, he’s eventually found out and is forced to dig his way out of the mess he’s covered himself in.

The faults of the film surprisingly are fundamental. The film runs 2 hours and 15mins – and smells badly of an ego-film by a director with final cut authority. Pacing is very slow (it takes 25 min before the inciting action occurs), each scene could have had a 2-3 mins trimmed at the beginning and the end. In fact, it’s editing 101 to enter and end a scene at the precise moment in order to capture plot, character, and mood. It’s the apparent the director fell in love with his shots and couldn’t part with them. Esteban’s migraine auras doesn’t contribute to the film in any constructive way, it seems more an technical exercise for the director to show off. There are innumerable long lingering shots on trees, Esteban’s eyes or a dog’s snarl. On many occasions I wanted to yell, “Cut, Print, Check the Gate, Let’s move on!”

As a result a thriller which should have zipped along like a ‘Blood Simple”, “Red Rock West,” or even his own “Nine Queens” instead stumbles and staggers like a flat tire. Pass.

UNITED 93

United 93 (2006) dir. Paul Greengrass
Starring: J.J. Johnson, Cheyenne Jackson, Ben Sliney

****

In time “United 93” will be considered a landmark of filmmaking. Never before has a film so punishingly put the viewer into a film and removed all walls between cinema and audience. It feels like a documentary, like you’re actually there watching the action as it unfolds. Director Paul Greengress recounts the events of September 11 from the point of view of the air traffic controllers, military air space commanders and the passengers of the doomed Flight 93 itself. Painstakingly written for accuracy from the information known from passenger cell phone calls, black box information, air traffic flight logs etc, we are quickly brought back 5 years to that eventful morning.(NOTE: Please don't confuse this with the bad A&E Made-For-TV Movie, "Flight 93")

First we eavesdrop on the terrorists in their hotel the morning of the attack. The camera hovers away from the men as they pray. It’s as if someone else is in the room, filming unseen. The characters are not sensationalized, there’s no evil-doer plotting. It’s matter of fact, which is even more terrifying.

We see the working class air traffic workers and flight crew going about their business as usual. The dialogue is natural, perfunctory, no melodrama, no obvious foreshadowing. But since we know what is going to happen, the tension is thick. Subtle music instrumentation simmers underneath the film complementing the mood of the scenes without over powering them.

The first half of the film concentrates on the confusion between the military and the air traffic controllers. How many planes are been taken, which ones have hit Trade Center, which ones are left? So many questions, and no one seems to have the answers. The military has requested air support, but has been redirected in the wrong direction. It’s chaos.

Ben Sliney, who plays himself, the chief who’s at the centre of the information and the decision making, has the largest role and most likely the most speaking lines. And there’s over a dozen more roles played themselves. His performance is a triumph, a non-actor, with such a demanding role – perhaps only Haing Ngor’s Oscar-winning performance as himself in the Killing Fields is better.

When, in the second half, the story moves to the events on board Flight 93, we enter into a different realm of intensive filmmaking. It’s a harrowing experience and reverential to the heroic participants, without sensationalizing them.

The experience is exhausting and will not be for all tastes. Some say it’s too early to tell story, but it’s better to know “they got it right”, and its on record for whenever they’re ready to see the film. Enjoy.