Kes (1969)

At the age of seventy, Ken Loach directed one of the greatest films of the past decade. That film - 2006's the Wind that Shakes the Barley - is an impressive feat of filmmaking ingenuity and narrative heart; a masterpiece that many filmmakers are striving to achieve in their thirties, their formative years, and an achievement that is very rare for anyone to produce in their later days. Yet somehow Loach did it. Kes (1969), on the other hand is Loach's second film (it should be noted that he came onto the scene with a docudrama about homelessness in Great Britain, called Catherine, that was incredibly relevant for that time period and that he also had a hand in a smattering of television programs and plays before he became enamored by feature film) and over the years, the wear and tear shows. The score is outdated, the acting is sometimes questionable - though near the end we can divest ourselves completely in Billy Casper's quiet, despairing gait. However aged Kes might feel, there are leagues of cinematic brilliance that prelude, and maybe feed into, the enormity of Loach's later seminal film. The lighting in Kes is amazing. It's many scenes and the way that angles, props, and actors are staged (the movie's mise en scene) to compliment the fall of natural, pallid light recall the great works of certain painters. For me, I couldn't help but feel that Johannes Vermeer or even Edouard Manet were influences in Kes' cinematography. Also the editing technique of quick fade-to-blacks were wonderfully maneuvered  This coordinated scenery lends itself to documenting the sooty realism of working class England in the nineteen sixties, a time when a significant portion of that country's population lived in poverty. Because of this, Kes was a shock to film-going audiences of the time because they weren't used to seeing the truth of their country strewn so unapologetic-ally onto celluloid. Weighing a movie's merits against it's reputation can, especially after decades, be a tricky thing to handle. Acknowledging that Kes is considered a classic (and rates #7 on the British Film Institute's list of the greatest movies their country has ever produced), we must still hone in on it's weak points in the modern cinematic curriculum. I have already mentioned the score and the decent, but not 'elevated' acting (outside of the work's protagonist) - it could also be noted that, like Trainspotting, the thick regional dialect makes it difficult to catch everything that's being said so subtitles would probably be beneficial while watching Kes. Outside of these concerns the film also suffers (though this depends on the viewer's unique perception) from deviation from the central plot to focus on society at large. This doesn't necessarily have to be a fault: to understand the protagonist's story, it would help to know the background from which his story is mined. But this is something that Loach has done time and again. He tends to briefly concentrate on the macro and shove into the background the primary anatomy of his stories - in this case, the outcast Billy Casper, from a poor mining community, and the kestrel that he finds and befriends and trains in falconry. These deviations, namely the soccer game and the scenes in the classroom, do showcase one of the film's themes: the pulverization of hierarchy, the overbearing heft of authority; this is reflected in Billy's relationship with his drunken, at times sadistic older brother. Still, Loach loses some of the heart of Kes with these sociological examinations - surgeries that work better in Barley. The rampant heart in Kes is Billy and his kestrel, and perhaps in Billy's English teacher who, for a time, takes an interest in his pupil's life and hobbies. In it's tragic close with Billy flinging his empty rope expectantly in a field, or with him slowly lifting his murdered companion from a trash bin, I found myself tearing up. Kes is integral in British filmmaking but also in understanding the hardships and loss of adolescence. It falls short of being a truly great film due to it's director's (interesting) diversions, but it's still very well executed. 

CAMERA *****

EDITING ****

WRITING ****

PRODUCTION ****

ACTING ***

Total: 20/25 (Good)

************************************************************************

Kes (1969) 8.5
I don't know why I had such a hard time with Kes. Maybe another viewing would be worth while. Maybe I simply wasn't in the right frame of mind when I saw it. I don't know. I know that I liked it. There weren't any cinematic flaws. It just didn't stay with me and the longer I go without writing this review the less I remember about it. The question is whether or not that makes it a bad film. Is the affect that a film has on its audience a reflection of how great the film is? On one hand a powerful film like for example another Ken Loach film, his 2006 "The Wind That Shakes the Barley" could easily justify this significance. At the same time films such as Annie Hall, Dr. Strangelove, or Raising Arizona might be great films without any real deep content to grab a hold of its audience, surely this can't be counted as a weakness on the part of those mentioned or hundreds like them. 
Its hard to express what I felt was lacking with the film, but basically after watching it I felt like I learned more about the 15 year old Billy Casper from reading the plot description on the NetFlix sleeve than I did from the movie. I felt like though Billy had many hardships I didn't feel much for his character as though time was never taken to develop the character past that vague description in the plot summary.
I certainly feel as though there were some strong performances by all the actors. The camera work had no faults, its just that nothing grabbed me and demanded my attention, nothing that stood out. The most enjoyable thing about it was how incredibly 60's it was. The score, the video production, the wardrobe. Which brings me to my next and maybe most important point: Mike did you notice the Hofner Colorama in the film? When they are at the concert/or whatever with the band playing? It wasn't red, but it was the exact model or darn close to the old girl we had! Which figures since it was a British film shot in the 60's, they were crazy for the Hofners back then, just ask Paul McCartney!
And one last comment to make before I wrap this up. Why did I have to watch an English film with the subtitles on? And did everyone else have too as well? Felt like I was watching a bloody foreign talkie!
-Scott-

***********************************************************************

Scott !! - You pose a great question at the start of your review, one that I've harped on quite a bit during my 'career' as an avid filmgoer. There are a number of movies that I would prefer to watch again and again, that I consider good - or maybe great, but something like Kes might technically be executed better. How does one weigh this dilemma? You could argue from the point of view of plot versus film mechanics or vise-versa, but then, as you also mention, when you set Kes against the Wind that Shakes the Barley - both really good film that employ great film mechanics, Wind wins out. Does this have to do with pacing, believability, relatability, character-sympathy..? All? None? I haven't quite narrowed that down in my mind yet, but great question. I guess one could argue that Kes lacks an emotional pull to it - until near the movie's end. Maybe too late we sympathize with Billy Casper. It's great that this happens, but it should have happened a lot sooner.

I did think that guitar looked familiar but, for some screwed up reason, didn't realize it was a Hofner! Awesome and good eye.

Trainspotting is also a difficult film when it comes to understanding dialogue. This has to do with regional dialects. Movies like Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels and Nil by Mouth have characters speaking in dense cockney accents, whereas I believe Kes is supposed to articulate the Yorkshire accent? It's funny - Pierce Brosnan and Sean Connery make you think you can understand a more 'native' English (this term, I am aware, is a fallacy too) but you can't. It was like this for me in Wales. The welsh are goddamn imperceptible. I wonder what the American equivelant of this is.. Maine English?

***********************************************************************

Rashomon (1950)

Akira Kurosawa has directed some of the great cinematic works in the medium. Ikiru (1952) and the Seven Samurai (1954) are often hailed as masterpieces, and his samurai adaptations of Shakespeare's plays (namely Throne of Blood [1957] and Ran [1985]) are incredible, visceral movie-going experiences. Be that as it may, I was pretty dismissive the first time I watched Rashomon (1950), some five - six years ago. Part of my 'rejection' was due to the excessively dramatic performances of the cast--save for the storytellers who wander the long-dead atavistic ruins of some former empire like men lost in a state of perpetual fog, or bad dream--and the booming, abrasive soundtrack. Yes, Rashomon seems rather stage-y and theatrical; in fact, the plot's set-up, where each captive or witness confesses their version of events to an unseen authority, could have played just as well to an open forum of theater attendees. We become the focus of the witness's pleas, the source of their confession. I believe that this technique is intentional--Kurosawa's admiration of Shakespeare should serve as enough proof. More interestingly, Rashomon employs the literary technique of the unreliable narrator in a way that, if not pioneering (I can't at this moment think of an earlier auteur of this process in filmmaking, but one may exist), is certainly used more tremendously and is more inspiring--think of Bryan Singer's the Usual Suspects (1995) and what that narrative stood to gain from movies like Rashomon--than some of the written efforts from which it is derived. The viewer is meant to question everything: purpose, motive, their own inflections upon particular characters based on how they might have acted in similar situations. The set-up is simple. A man is dead in the forest and there are two witnesses/suspects - one a bandit, the other the dead man's wife. What transpired? The answer plumbs the depths of the human condition and intriguingly delves into social issues that were years from breaking the fleshy celluloid surface. The wife's speech in the fourth confession about what it truly means to be a women in society is a condemnation on the contradictory patriarchal rule that makes her a captive, a possession, is certainly an earlier, albeit brief, precursor to the argument of feminism in motion pictures. Beyond the story, there are some beautiful examples of camera work that pulsate this film: the wife illuminated by a ray of sun in the utter dark of the woods, the spinning glimpses of the forest canopy while she is being attacked/raped, the ruins where the story-tellers speak in hushed misery ravaged with torrential rain, and the wonderfully edited sequence in the third confession where the husband is portrayed committing his own murder flashing back to the medium conjuring his words as both fall slowly to the ground - one in the forest, days past, the other on the 'stage' before our eyes. The twist of course is that every storyteller is unreliable - but every storyteller also reveals something of themselves in their false confession. The dead man's confession is one of denial, the wife - one of blame and torment, and the bandit's false admittance is one of pride. "I didn't want to get involved," speaks the storyteller who stumbled upon the man's body in the beginning and with these words we can open a window into his mind via his first false telling - he is a man who is lost, who searches in circles for answers that are not there. For me, a second viewing of Rashomon, though many years later, was crucial to understanding the psychology behind the film. Yes, the medium sequence alternates between campy and genuinely freaky, and yes, the film's end feels tacked on to create some kind of moral resolution to the gloom that preceded it, but watching it twice has diminished my scruples with this film. Kurosawa has done better, but what Rashomon has given to cinema, its mechanics and mentality, is remarkably innovative considering its era.

CAMERA          *****

ACTING            **

WRITING          ****

EDITING           ****

PRODUCTION ****

Rating: 19/25 (Good)

xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxox

Mick

The film was a little slow going, but as it got into the story or the various versions of a single story it got more and more interesting. The opening credits show rain pouring down and the water washing over everything followed by a man swiftly moving towards a decrepit building. To begin with, the shots of the rain and water are amazing and the rain acts as a good background to allow the three men to converse.

Recently, I’ve been getting into paying attention to how people tell stories so I like the set up here: three people around the fire telling stories…kind of cliché, but believable. What I’m not so convinced of at this point in the film and to some extent at the end of the film is the extreme despair of the two men who are recounting their stories. I think there may be some things lost in translation here, because I’m not convinced that the story is as earth shatter as the two characters.

The film continues with the first man recounting how he was walking through the woods when he found the body. I like the shot of him standing there looking down on the samurai’s body; we are in the samurai’s head looking up at the man and what we see on the screen is the samurai’s cold dead hands and the horror on the mans face. The next interesting moment in terms of the way the story is told is with the following scene where they are being interviewed. What is interesting about these scenes is that we never see nor here the interviewer, instead the one being interviewed ends up repeating the question that the interviewer asked or answer a question we did not hear. I’m not sure why Kurosawa did this, but it’s interesting.

The second person to be interviewed is the man who caught the bandit. The man gives an account of how he came to capture the bandit, which begins the films dive into how different people recount the same events. The man claims to have found the bandit after he had been thrown from the horse he stole from the samurai, but the bandit interrupts with that death stare and that maniacal laugh. I love the bandit’s acting and character. In the first telling of the story, he does all these erratic things either to mess with the samurai and the wife or because he is a manic! In more subtle ways he does these things that make his character real like swatting at bugs. I initially thought the character was a little too over the top, but this thought subsides though when we get to the second, third and fourth telling of the interaction or the Event between the bandit, the samurai and the wife.

The bandit’s description of the Event shows him killing the samurai because the women cannot stand her shame to be known to two men. The women’s story has her killing the samurai because of his uninterested stare while the samurai’s story has the women wanting to run away with the bandit and ends with the samurai killing himself. I love the final story because of the way it stands all the traditional roles in the previous stories stand on their head. It has the women acting maniacal-similarly to the bandit in the bandit’s version of the story-while the bandit and the samurai are goof balls who can barely hold their weapons without shaking.

Finally, I love the existential moment between the common man and the woodcutter. The common man goes to take the cloths and amulet and the woodcutter disparages him for being selfish and making excuses for himself. The commoner accosts him questioning him on how can a bandit call a bandit a bandit…after all it was the woodcutter that took the dagger.

Though I found the overall film to be a little to slow for my liking, the plot, the camera work, some of the amazing shots, the diverse characters and acting made up for it.

8/10

****************************************************************************************

Rashomon (1950) Rating 7.5 out of 10

Rashomon is an extremely simple and interesting idea for a film. The telling of the same story by different characters has been done many times since but I can’t recall an example of this being done in cinema earlier than this, and for that I do give the film great appreciation.

The question becomes whether or not the films execution matches the ambition of the plot. In some ways I feel it does, the camera angles is satisfying enough, and the writing is solid. It’s interesting to note that everyone blames themselves for the murder, is it lies as the storytellers claim or is it guilt.

Where the film loses me or maybe never fully attracted me to begin with is that it’s all so theatrical, and over the top. The acting of course is, along with the fact that the story starts with two men staring in disbelief at how terrible the crimes were yet they both claim to have seen many more killings than this. So why does this murder stand out so much to them? I feel that is one of the films biggest flaws, it never does anything to prove to the audience that it was uniquely horrific.

So the question I pondered before posting was this, does the age of the film make up for its weaknesses? It seems to me that there was a time that films were much more theatrical perhaps this is because of early actors/film makers being influenced by the stage. But despite Rashomon’s age there are much earlier films with much more believable acting, Citizen’s Cane, On the Waterfront, and It Happened One Night are examples of great film that preceded it by decades and were not “too theatrical to be realistic.”

In the end I find Rashomon an ambitious and interesting film, but that unfortunately has some flaws in its execution.

-Scott-

***************************************************************************************

Mick

I agree that the acting was theatric and at first I was a little weary of it too, but I think after the fourth telling of the story the acting comes together. So, when we first meet the bandit he interrupts his captor to interject his telling of how he was captured and of the event. His antics are a little crazy and theatrical, but when we see his character in the woodcutter’s version of the event as a wimpy, scared bandit who, like the samurai, can barely hold a sword it is then that his over the top character makes sense. I do not think the over the top acting is a weakness, but is intentional in order to create a clear and comical difference in the differing accounts of the event. Either way, I think the acting is better than Mike gives credit.

I do agree with the idea that the two in the woodcutter and the priestly person make the story seem more severe than it appeared to me. However, I think the significance of this particular murder is not so much in the murder, but in the telling of the tale. If each of those people who were there experienced the event differently, then that throws our concept of what is ‘truth’ into question.

   XOXOXOXOXOOXXOXXOXOXXOXOXOXOXOXOXXOXOXOX

Yes, I graded the acting the weakest - but I also feel that, as I mentioned, Kurosawa takes a lot from the theater and particularly Shakespeare in how he puts his characters out there. I also feel that the men in the beginning are so entrenched in dispossesion because they can't understand the natures of the crime and how strange the situation of it was, not necessarily how horrific the crime supposedly was. This part gave me pause in the beginning too, but seeing the psychology of the characters play out in the end made me reassess my thoughts on the opening. Also Scott, On the Waterfront came out later than Rashomon. :) I found this film to be very admirable, whilst speaking of literary techniques, of the "show and not tell" format. We can discern a whole lot from the characters without Kurosawa spelling it out for us. .. Consequently, you'd think that I wouldn't be commenting on this thing while I'm in France, but I've just returned from Montmarte, am slightly drunk (Kirsten's occupied), and I needed to waste some time. I believe it's only 2 pm east coast time. Odd! I read a little about the Rashomon gate after watching this film and this added another layer to the history and human degradation playing out on film. Wikipedia would be a good starting point for interested parties..

***********************************************************

Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore (1974)

When I watched this film--Scorsese's fourth I believe--I was under the influence of some amount of coffee and gin (albeit, not simultaneously).. However! I feel competent enough now to proceed, so here we go: Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore, despite some admirable film mechanics, suffers from tonal inconsistencies that need to be examined. For example, the film's feminist appeal--Ellen Burstyn's attitude, seeming independence, and frank way of talking in her portrayal of the titular character--are offset by her character's continuation to be enamored by, and dependent on men; men that are disturbed, who she cowers from, and makes excuses for. She does have period of clarity regarding these motions, but always seems to fall back into similar predicaments and in the end, a tempestuous child-beater is rewarded. Furthermore, the opening sequence (possibly an homage that contrasts the 'traditional ideal' of womanhood against the monolithic presence of Burstyn's Alice) feels strange, out of place. Mechanically, and because this is a Scorsese film though it is lacking his regular motifs of self-condemnation and renewal through violence, there are exciting things happening on screen. Scorsese has peopled his 'road-trip-film' whereby after the death of her husband, the protagonist takes her son on a journey across the Southwest United States, with regular looking people who seem harvested from the very landscape where this story is being told. Also there are interesting rapid-editing moments that are fascinating. One of these, after the death of Alice's husband--where the scene of her grief is cut to maybe a few seconds later--reminded me of an editing technique that Lars Von Trier is notorious for. In fact, the camera movement throughout this film is exciting. It reminded me of a technique that is under-used in modern cinema and reminded me in some moments of Antonioni's Blow Up (1966), an exercise in tremendous camera work. Alice lacks the overall machismo of Scorsese's preceding and following films and also places an emphasis on the stark and chaotic back-drop of the New Mexico and Arizona wilderness surrounding small towns and places of human drama and rejuvenation. The scenes of dialogue with Alice and her son are the most appealing segments, as is a scene in a windy pasture between Burstyn and Kristofferson where they share an emotional moment. Unfortunately, much of this doesn't pierce the film's more problematic fabric. Burtyn's performance, and her role is supposed to carry this movie, is subtle at times but noticeably over-the-top during others. This plays to the inconsistency I mentioned earlier. It should be noted that Burstyn was nominated for her performance in this film (though she's done better work, namely 2000's Requiem for a Dream) and she did have a hand in choosing Scorsese to direct this movie but each end up playing off of the other's faults--actress and filmmaker--to create something that is compelling, but is also under-developed though it should be given credit for its place in socially conscious movie making. 

ACTING             ***

CAMERA            ****

EDITING             ***

WRITING            ***

PRODUCTION   **

15/25 (Average)
******************************************************************************

Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore (1974) Rating 8.2 out of 10

I found Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore to be the most difficult of the films so far to put a grade on. Despite some great scenes, great performances and good camera work it feels somehow inconsistent overall.
The movie’s opening scene of Alice as a child seems to be placed there for humors sake alone setting a tone that it has to work at to recover from. The film is full of subtle whit but unfortunately this opening scene as well as many others rides a bit too close to slapstick.
It would have been far more beneficial, in my opinion, for the film to start with a scene of Alice singing in her early twenties before she was married, showing the viewer the real Alice.
As natural and improvised as some of the scenes are, there are others that seem forced, specifically some of the more emotional moments that seem abrupt and over the top.
Despite these problems there is so much to like. The dialogue, camera work and Scorsese’s direction alone is enough to make it a classic but what makes it exceptionally memorable is the great performances by the cast and how well they play off of each other. Alice (Ellen Burstyn) and Tommy’s (Alfred Lutter’s) interaction with one another is fantastic. Often times at each others throats, other times so caring. In the same way there is so much depth to their characters. Tommy is often young and innocent and other times obnoxious and overbearing, just as I know I and every other boy was at his age, no matter how much we wish to forget it. Alice is often times strong and independent other times scared and vulnerable, as I’m sure many mothers are.  
Roger Ebert wrote about the film, “The movie has been both attacked and defended on feminist grounds, but I think it belongs somewhere outside ideology, maybe in the area of contemporary myth and romance.” I totally agree with this, of course we could praise the film for showing us a strong female character that is able to overcome the loss of her husband without missing a step. Or we could discredit it as being sexist showing us a woman that seems to need a man in her life to complete her. But I don’t think either of these things are the case. If art imitates life then I don’t think everything shown to us in art has to have a political or social agenda. I find the film to be an honest portrait of life for many women, especially for the generation that it was made in, that dare to dream and dare to try and find happiness even despite mistakes they might make along the way.
-Scott-

******************************************************************************
Something I had neglected to consider--that was pointed out to me later and made sense--was that Alice's personality is pretty symptomatic of a certain kind of oppressed character: solid and strong one moment, weak the next. This is not so much a sign of inconsistency in the film's character development as I had perhaps thought before.
******************************************************************************

Mick's Opinion

I did not enjoy the film much, but I think I understand the significance of the story at the time when it came out. The film follows the relationship between Alice and her boy Tommy traveling towards Monterey, Ca after her deadbeat, shit-bag husband dies in a car accident (they show him hunched over the steering wheel of his wrecked Coca-Cola truck perhaps a symbolic suggestions that Coca-Cola will kill you…). The only job she ever had was as a singer, then she got married and had no need to work. So she struggles forward stuck between trying to be some-what independent and falling into the arms of some random man, which always turns out to be a dead beat. The film shows Alice being a strong female character, which feminists are suppose to identify with, but at the same time betrays that message by her constant need to be in a relationship. Perhaps, more can be pulled from the film to argue for a more feminist message. The film made me think of the tv show MADMen, which has an obviously sexist protagonist, but to hark on this point would be to miss the point that the show, like the film-Alice, shows what it was like and, in that, it can act as a social critique.

Given the time period this film is significant, but, that notwithstanding, I could not get into this film. I didn’t find the plot interesting till about the second hour and I didn’t start to care about the characters until ¾ of the movie was complete. I enjoyed the corky relationship between Alice and Tommy, but these characters were not developed enough to make them more than 2D stereotypes. However, I thought the Alfred Lutter-Tommy-did an excellent job acting.

I really liked the opening scene; the red effect was awesome because it created this dark old-time feeling, which I think captured what they were going for. However, with the exception of the scene where Alice tries out for a gig the first time (the camera focuses on Alice while panning around the room 360), I was not particular impressed with the filming.

I give it a 5 out of ten because there was nothing in particular that really made this film stand out.

5/10

*********************************************************************************

Wow Mick that is a pretty rough review. Reading what you wrote I can hardly believe that what you are talking about is a classic film directed by one of the greatest film directors of all time, that won the BAFTA Award for Best Film and that’s lead actress, Ellen Burstyn won the Academy Award for Best Actress.

It seems our taste in film is quite different. The one scene you mentioned liking - the opening of her as a child - was in my opinion the worst scene in the film, and what I praised the film for - the dialogue and character depth - you called "2D stereotypes." Perhaps we watched different films? Maybe you accidently rented Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland by mistake? 

Ellen Burstyn, as Alice, shows us the life of a bored house wife, who sometimes despises her husband, yet other times longs for his admiration. A mother who is sometimes at the end of her rope with her son, and yet other times cares so deeply. A widow who sometimes fears the worst, but other times is full of excitement for the possibility of a new life. She shows us happiness, sadness, love, hatred, anxiety, and fear. This is in your opinion two dimensional? 

You said in your review "she struggles forward stuck between trying to be some-what independent and falling into the arms of some random man, which always turns out to be a dead beat." One of those men (there were only two) was David (played by Kris Kristofferson), a man who owns his own ranch with cattle, chickens, and horses, teaches guitar lessons, and falls in love with Alice and tries to be a father figure to Tommy despite conflicting personalities, perhaps because he has missed out on his own children’s lives. To sum up this character as "a dead beat," is as preposterous as when Mike called the character in his review, "disturbed," and a "child-beater." Why? Because he open-hand slapped a child on the butt once, after that child screamed at him and hit him in the face. Let us not forget that this film was made in 1974, you know what parents disciplined their children by slapping them on the butt in 1974... all of them. When I was in first grade, in a public school, the principle had a paddle in his office, this was 1989-1990. This isn't an argument about child abuse, this is an argument of you two reading into something that there is nothing to read in to. I simply don't think Scorsese intends for the audience to walk away from the film thinking that Alice fell in love with a dead-beat, child-abuser. 

I was thinking about the ending of the film the other day, where Alice and Tommy are walking and discussing staying in Tucson, and I thought this was a perfect ending for the film. Alice, Tommy and David make amends with one another making it a happy ending, but it’s by no means a fairytale ending. They never do make it to Monterey, Alice never does become a singer. It’s a happy ending, but a realistic one, in life we dream, and we make plans, but so often we don't follow through with our plans, yet we are happy despite it.  

-Scott-

**************************************************************************************************************
I stick by my review - my overall rating reflects the film's inconstencies. It's a decent movie, but I do not find it entirely cohesive and that is why I do not feel that it is a good or great movie. Good movies have flaws, I understand this (as follows with my review of Rashomon) but some films are more 'rounded' than others. I also debated my labeling of Kristofferson's character based on the time period.. This is something that I have thought about more since seeing the movie and was probably too harsh but I still find him, at the very least, tempestuous. His character does seem to turn on a dime, and with someone who can change emotions so dramatically from one moment to the next, it's no wonder that Alice rejects him for quite a long time after she witnesses his treatment of her son.

I didn't find the characters two dimensional.
************************************************************************************************************

Mick

My ‘2-d’ comment might be too harsh, but I still think the characters lacked depth. You suggest that because Alice displayed all of those emotions that she has depth, but I don’t see it. Lets look at what you say: (she is) a bored house wife, who sometimes despises her husband, yet other times longs for his admiration”-this is true, but this is also a generic description. What about Alice in particular makes this sort of stereotype come to life? Perhaps it is in your next claim: “(she is a) mother who is sometimes at the end of her rope with her son, and yet other times cares so deeply”-well, sometimes my mom was frustrated with me, yet at other times, she was not. I think there needs to be more than just a display of a wide range of emotions to break out of a typical character and I don’t think it happens here.

My comment about her struggling forward towards independence and being co-dependent on a man I think is justified even if in the film we only saw two dead beats and then the guy she ends up with because what I’m trying to draw out is that this sort of behavior is indicative of a group of people that she represents. The end result does not seem to challenge her behavior in the beginning in the film so she is simply returning to where she began. This is where I think a more radical critique of women/men relationships is necessary.

Although I really enjoyed the intro scene with Alice as a girl, I also agree that it is out of place and doesn’t contribute much to the overall film.

My review was rough, but I honestly was not impressed with the film. I found it to be really boring; it took me three tries to watch the film all the way through. Perhaps, this film is just over rated in general…but I do agree that the ending was pretty good.

xoxoxoxxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo
 

We are going to have to agree to disagree on this one, I understand that this film doesn’t have a lot of wow factor, it’s not fast passed, nor are the characters always likable.

What I have a hard time accepting is that both of you rated it as the worst film we have watched thus far. I stand by the opinion that Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore was more original, and did more for film in 1974 than Pariah did in 2011, or the Dark Knight Rises did in 2012.

I agree Mike that it is inconsistent, but let me be clear, by that I mean that some scenes are exceptional and others are a bit forced and over the top. By no means do I think the script or characters are inconsistent. The characters may make mistakes, or bad decisions, but people often do, this makes them more human, more real, more dimensional, by no means should this be considered a film weakness, it’s a success because it shows people as they are, with flaw, with weakness.  

The scene of Alice and David in the kitchen of his house where she is telling stories of her and her brother is amazing, one of the most natural and realistic scenes I can recall in film. The bar scene where she starts to cry and the bar owner keeps repeating, “I don’t even have a piano,” you can see the struggle that he is having with his conscience, trying to talk himself out of doing the “right thing.” Other scenes aren’t as natural, like the opening scene of her as a girl. Or the scenes of her interacting with her husband, these are the only inconsistencies I see, that some scenes aren’t as perfect.

Mike more than anyone knows that realistic characters and dialogue is what I love in film, he also knows that I love “dramedies” (or dramatic comedies) so I don’t think he is surprised to see that I enjoyed this film more than you two. I was not bored at all, and I watched it twice, and have to admit that I felt better about it the second time.

Now let’s talk about what is really important, like whether anyone else thought Jodie Foster was a boy at first and laughed when she said her name was Audrey. And whether anyone else thought that Tommy looked like Mick when Mick was that age.

-Scott-

******************************************************************************************************************************

I disagree with some of this. I don't believe that the filmmakers have done a great job making the character inconsistencies natural or believable. This is why I docked the writing. They haven't sold me on this. But this isn't just it. I found the direction to be inconsistent (sometimes there are glimpses of Scorsese's mastery, but there are other scenes that, for me, look haphazardly shot or like the director was  bored and just trying to do something neat and whimsical with his gear [I get the impression of an over-caffinated, coked-up Scorsese here and based on what I read about him during the seventies, this might not be too far off the mark]). Like Mean Streets (1973) before it, Scorsese hasn't yet mastered his craft and I feel that, again, Alice is compelling but also a juvenile effort. I found the acting to be inconsistent too, but I already went into this in my original review.

Against all of this, you'll notice how much I did admire about this movie. This film showcases impressive talents 'on their way up,' and there are mechanics and scenes that have great potency and I will remember for a while. I would not compare Alice against the Dark Knight Rises; I feel that is unfair - they are in a different genre and these films are working to achieve different things. But even put this way, I stand by what I've said. If I was on a five star rating system--which, when boiled down, I kind of am--this movie would have been awarded three stars from me and Pariah and the Dark Knight Rises would have been awarded four. As my system stands, I was only one star off of awarding this film in the same category as the other two. I'm beginning to question its originality too against a film like Pariah and the effects of Pariah have yet to be seen on the medium, though its undercurrent has been sizeable considering (in some ways, Pariah has a more authentic, personal, and rebellious vibe than Alice). It was a close call for me, and Scott - I can see why you feel so strongly about it. I might note that the gin I drank while watching this did not cheapen my perception and forthcoming critique!

I also thought that Jodie looked like some wily Missouri river-born chap.

************************************************************************************************************

Mick

Oh, that scene with Alice and the bar owner (“I don’t even have a piano”) was really good!

Like I said, I really wasn’t into this movie, but you have to understand that my rating is more heavily influenced by the plot, and message more than anything else. So, I enjoyed Piriah and The Dark Knight Rises more because of their plots. I haven’t mastered the art of noticing editing, and direceting an all those other things you two have pointed out. I hope to get closer to that as our reviews continue. Also, I’m still working out my rating system.

********************************************************************

The Dark Knight Rises (2012)

MIKE -

As the title suggests, the very fibrous and thematic anatomy of Christopher Nolan’s third and final installment in his Batman trilogy is one of resurrection and restoration. The film begins with a Bruce Wayne who is physically and ideologically divorced from his alter-ego; a derelict ghost who is confined to his manor in a state of self-exile following the deaths of his childhood love and the moral figurehead of whom he placed his and Gotham’s hope. Wayne (played again with a sad resignation by Christian Bale) will endure a painful cycle of rejuvenation as the film progresses losing nearly everything he holds most dear to him—he loses Alfred (a bold move on the filmmakers’ part; this cinematic bond had been unbreakable in previous adaptations), his city is gutted and pillaged, he is betrayed—with a few exceptions—by those he trusts, and he is physically bested in combat by the savage, atavistic Bane. Yes, the Dark Knight rises, but at the excruciating toll of many small deaths, however metaphorical or ambiguous. At two hours and forty-four minutes, the Dark Knight Rises has been called bloated by some and while it doesn’t register the same pulse that its predecessor did (I found the Dark Knight to be tonally similar to Heat [1995] or the Departed [2006]), it still gets many things right. The chemistry between Anne Hathaway’s Selina Kyle and Bale’s Wayne is delightful to watch—indeed, Kyle’s seemingly amoral perspective and her elusive nature are what make her such an interesting and intense character to watch. Likewise, following Heath Ledger’s performance as the Joker might superficially appear to be a thankless job, but Tom Hardy (an actor whom, like Ledger, tends towards diverse, performance driven roles) makes a genuinely cruel and terrifying monster very articulate and genuinely unnerving. This is a character that has such a proximity with death that he treats the act of taking a life as something ritual: a thing to be savored without maniacal enjoyment—Bane, for me, represents the inevitability of death, he needs to feel life passing, to squeeze it, to let it pass through his fingers. This approach can come only from a being who has lived a violent and dispossessed life and we are shown a fragment of Bane before he adorns his mask and we are shown just how close to death absolute this man has come. All of the old cast continues to perform terrifically and Nolan has carried-over some of the cast from Inception into the Dark Knight Rises, all of whom deliver what is needed from them admirably: Marion Coutillard (an Academy Award winner whose performance in La Vie en Rose [2007] is sublime), and Joseph Gordon Levitt join Hardy and series staple Caine (who also has some ‘series highs’). The editing and cinematography in the Dark Knight Rises continue in the palette of Nolan’s previous films: random scenes flash back to recall small, emotional moments and the camerawork permeates with darkness and foreboding. In the last hour and a half Nolan also centers his set-pieces on New York City (along with the appearance of snow in these scenes, I can’t help but feel that this is a nod to Burton’s Batman films), moving away from Pittsburgh—where many of the earlier sequences of the film were shot—and Chicago which doubled as Gotham for the first two films. For better or worse, Nolan has made the transition from indie-drama director to action filmmaker, but he still knows how to instill the unsavory, the morally complex, and a kind of searching speculation into his blockbusters. While there are marvelous and edgy sequences in the Dark Knight Rises, the film is not without flaw. I find the last half an hour to be problematic—one character’s twist is unnecessary (though it neatly ties the first movie to this one), there is one stupid gag, and the explosive finish bored me and was cliche. Still, there is enough awe and frenzy to make this an excitable and worthwhile close. In fact, one of the closing sequences, which serves as a eulogy to the Bruce Wayne story, is so subtle and so pleasing that I was hoping that the film would end with this moment an hour before it played out in front of me. Many people have taken a look at the Dark Knight Rises and discussed the seeming political nature of this film but what stayed in my mind afterwards were the interactions of characters, their cruxes, their denigrations, and of course, their renewals.

A footnote: Lest this review be viewed as too glowing, there were some troubling aspects to consider regarding the material: 1.) Christopher Nolan and his writing team seem to be treading old ground as to the opening sequence--the opening scene is good, subtle, but we are quickly launched into an opening sequence/introduction-to-the-villian that is similar to the Dark Knight; unmasking and all. 2.) Even more disturbingly repetitive is that Nolan cannot seem to ditch the 'dead-girl' motif, whereby the death of a female character is used as a plot pivot point or character arch locus for the protagonist. While there are only glimmers of this in the Dark Knight Rises I feel it is still valid. In fact, Batman Begins might be his only film that negates this theme. 3.) The more I consider the pro-capitalist innuendos in the film, the more I feel that this potential subtext could merit some dicussion. The movie has been lauded as both a pro-conservative and pro-liberal film to different degrees even though Nolan has called the story apolitical and that his team was simply "throwing things at a wall to see what would stick," but there are subtextual devices that might be folly to ignore..

ACTING                        ****

CAMERA                      ***

WRITING                     ***

EDITING                       ****

PRODUCTION            ****

Overall Rating: 18/25 (Good)

**********************************************************************************

The Dark Knight Rises (2012) Rating: 8.0 out of 10

Like all of Christopher Nolan's films, The Dark Knight Rises has lots to like. The writing, the great performances by much of the cast, and the editing and cinematography is everything you would expect from him. Looking at the film by itself one would have to praise Nolan for his ability to take the all too common plot of super-villain holding Gotham city at his mercy, out of the pages of comics and onto the big screen in such an exciting way that you may actually be able to forget all the "Bangs" "Pows" "Bams" cod pieces and rubber nipples that preceded Nolan reinventing the series. Even if only for 2 hours and 45 minutes.
However I don't think that we can talk about The Dark Knight Rises on its own, without talking about its predecessor. And I don't think we can talk about its predecessor, without talking about Heath Ledgers portrayal of the Joker, and Maggie Gyllenhaal as Rachel Dawes. If Ledger and Gyllenhaal were the highlights of The Dark Knight, then the highlights of The Dark Knight Rises were the performances by Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Anne Hathaway.
After The Dark Knight was released there were a lot of fans speculating who the villain in the third film would be, and whether or not it could live up to the Joker. After seeing the film I have to say no, Bane does not live up to the Joker. And in my opinion is the weakest villain in the entire series. But it should be noted that this is by no fault of Tom Hardy who is able to convey great emotion in his eyes without ever needing to show us the rest of his face. The weakness of the Bane character for me lies within the writing itself. We are lead to believe lots about the character only to have it all amount to nothing when it is revealed to us that it was not the origin of Bane, but rather that of Miranda Tate. Leaving the viewer with more questions than answers. Bane tells Batman during the first fight scene that he was born in darkness, but we learn that he was not the child in the prison. Bane's goodness is proven by finding that he sacrificed himself to protect the child, but then what drives him to allow the killing of so many innocent people? Nolan took such great lengths with Batman Begins to show the viewer the origin of Batman, and then with the Dark Knight to show us the motives of the Joker and Two Face, that I can't help feeling let down not fully understanding what would drive Miranda and Bane to want to nuke an entire city, to somehow seek revenge for the death of Ra's al Ghul. Except perhaps that by destroying Gotham City they would be killing the only thing that Batman ever loved.
The films greatest weakness for me lies within the last 30 to 45 minutes, which again made me feel let down that Nolan who started this series the unorthodox way that he did, always emphasizing good film technique, acting and story, would allow it to in the end degenerate to cliche twists, turns, an edge of your seat bomb countdown, and ultimately a happy ending, and hinting that the story could continue with a different hero taking the now retired heroes place.
That said my score clearly indicates a positive one, why? Its the third film in a comic book trilogy, a comic book trilogy that raised the bar so high with the first two films that it would seem almost impossible for any film of the genre to live up to. There may be some missed marks but it still manages to be great at what it is. 


-Scott-

**********************************************************************************

MICK

The Dark Knight Rises

“Where are they!!!!!?!?!?!” Of course, this was my favorite part of the film (to understand this silly joke watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Svd4fe8HEZI ). But on a more serious note, I enjoyed the film, though it rests in the tall shadow of Heath Ledger’s performance and a much stronger, more thoughtful plot-driven The Dark Knight (TDK) Film. The Dark Knight Rises (DKR) was better than the first film, but in no way compares to TDK film.

I’ll begin with a short description of Frank Miller’s Batman: The Dark Knight Returns (1986). The comic is great; the artwork and plot are directed towards a more mature audience following the trend to turn comic books into graphic novels that demand to be taken seriously. That being said, Frank Miller appeals more to a conservative (perhaps, fox watching) audience. Miller’s Batman begins with a new gang called the Mutants causing all kinds of chaos via rapes, murders, drugs, thefts…etc in Gotham. A horribly aged Bruce Wayne, now 55, has been in hibernation for a number of years since the death of his partner Robin. The crime in the city makes Wayne feel disgusted, but he feels too old to dawn the batman outfit, again. However, there has been an effort to release two of Batman’s former enemies-Harvey Dent (two-face), and the joker, by a psychologist or a physiatrist. The ‘doctor’ (I think Miller would want us to put doctor into quotations, or would prefer I use the term ‘quack’) believes that two-face and the joker can be and are reformed and are ready to rejoin society. But, of course, as soon as they are released they revert to their old ways or as conservatives would have you believe to their true ‘natures’ and they kill, again.

Now, here is the connection between the comics and the films; to be clear, the films are not strictly based on Frank Miller’s Batman, but here are some of the similarities. First, Miller wants us to ask the question of whether or not we like Batman and if we think he or vigilantly ‘justice’ is necessary given the restraints placed on the police; this same sort of question is posed in a similar manner by the Dirty Harry films (specifically Magnum Force). Second, the Mutants, along with the joker and two-face, tend to not make any sense; likewise, Bane and his associates, like Ras Al Gul in the Batman Begins, do not make sense or at least their motivations are not convincing. Third, the comic and film make the cops look like hero’s (even though Batman beats them up a bit in both they still come out looking good-more so in the film) and they require a vigilantly like Batman because of the constraints, red tape liberals have placed on the police making them unable to do stop crime effectively.

On the first point, the comics and the film set up a scenario in order to make this argument and this is what good writing does-it makes us ask questions. We look at fiction as possible albeit usually extreme situations that we could see ourselves in or at least sympathize with. However, we must also see the limitations of these sorts of scenarios. The scenarios in the film require extreme measures and heroic figures to make decisions that fall outside of law and everyday moral behavior, but these are not realistic scenarios so they cannot be applied to real life scenarios. What I have in mind here is the “Terrorist” scenario presented by Dershowitz (or is it Horowitz) where a ‘terrorist’ is in custody and we know that they have placed a bomb in a highly public place and the bomb is going to go off in a relatively short amount of time. In this scenario, he argues that we should abandon our stance on civil rights and use torture to get the info. So to summarize, the film and Dershowitz setup scenarios where you really only have one option and that is to choose the conservative way of doing things or to torture, or kill, or suspend civil liberties’..etc.

To add to the above idea we can explore the second point made above: the Mutants in the comic and the bad guys in the first and third film do not make sense or their motivations are not convincing. I exclude the second Batman film, TDK; I do this because I think the Jokers character works, not as a realistic enemy or (a real) terrorist, but as the incarnation of evil par excellence. Recall the scene where Joker burns that huge pile of money, which demonstrates that he is no mere human who is actually after something, but just wants to watch the world burn. I think Miller would want to say that the joker is the quintessential terrorist, but what real ‘terrorist’ (if you read any of academic literature on terrorism you might ask yourself if ‘terrorists’ even exist) is not motivated by something tangible like freedom, money, national liberation, security….etc? Of course, I want you to say none, every person has motives that add up to more than they just want to set the world on fire assuming they are not crazy or mentally deranged or something. This is where the bad guys in the other two batman films do not make sense.

First, Bane’s character is way underdeveloped and does not amount to much; the film does not explore the reasons as to why he has that mask on or its purpose (I don’t think it has any purpose in the film. The purpose in the comic is that the mask administers venom every twelve hours, which is a drug that enhances his strength. If he does not get a ‘hit’ every twelve hours he will experience great pain from withdrawal). His character is more or less a tease or a way to entice Batman/Bruce Wayne to come out in the open so Miranda Tate can stab him in the back. Perhaps, this focus on Bane is unfair because really the villain is plural; the villain is the league of shadows organization. While Bane is instrumental in arranging much of the components for the destruction of Gotham, he does so at the direction of Miranda Tate, whose purpose is to fulfill her father’s goal of destroying Gotham. The question is why-why do they want to destroy Gotham? If most of the violent crime had been stopped by the Dent act why did the League of Shadows still want to destroy the city?

The Cops

So, of course, I’m not happy at the way the cops are portrayed in the end of the film courageously (maybe triumphantly) fighting in the streets against what I think was dubbed a ‘revolutionary’ group, though I may be mistaken. The film began by showing how the cops are seemly corrupt, but then forgets all of that when those poor police officers get trapped underground and hunted down by the people during the ‘revolutionary’ period. First, the cops kill people all the time and they always support the status quo via protecting property, making, beating, and/or shooting at protesters, providing ‘protection’ for business or keeping ‘criminals’ away from ‘stealing’ food from grocery stores…etc, so maybe this is why they are hunted down-there is an example of this in the film when Bane breaks into Wall Street and starts to steal lots of money and that Wall Street person demands the cops protect his money. Also, the only reason the cops are fighting the ‘revolutionary’ group is because the cops want to be the biggest gang or the gang that controls the city like they normally do.

The Ending…

I liked when Batman picked up the nuclear bomb and flew off into the distance leaving us to believe that he perished in order to save Gotham. I liked the idea of the film and the trilogy ending on a very dark note. I’m not disappointed by how it actually ends, but it does feel a little forced or too cliché.

I don't have a grade/rating yet...

**********************************************************************************

Some additions: Bane wears the mask because it administers a drug that keeps his pain-tolerance-threshold to a manageble level so that he can function. I thought this was evident in the film, but maybe I read more into the character's backstory via character write-ups before and after I saw the movie. The way that police are portrayed is interesting.. Both Batmen Begins and the Dark Knight explore police corruption to different degrees (in the first film Gordon is singled out by Batman as being a 'good cop;' seen as a rarity and worth his partnership with Batman, and the second film alludes to police officers who are inside-men for the mob). Maybe because Nolan had examined this line-of-thought previously, he decided to mostly veer away from it this time..? Not that this would be the appropriate manuever.. Bane is woefully underdeveloped and the objective of the league, which is what it has always been, seems like a humongous plot hole in light of the Dent Act 'cleaning up' Gotham's streets. They've either lost their way, are persistent, want to destroy the one thing Batman loves for the death of their leader in the first film, or it's an inexcusable plot gap. Personally, I think it might be the latter. I assumed the revolutionary group you're speaking of was Bane's army or the remnants of the league from earlier in the film.. I could definetly be wrong here though. Assumingly they would have picked up reinforcements from regular Gotham citizens during their seizure of the city.

*****************************************************************************

Hey Mick, just a reminder, this is a film blog! How did you feel about the film? Specifically acting, writing, cinematography, editing, etc. 

-Scott-

*****************************************************************************

One could also look at the "triumph of the police officers" as an extension of the themes of rejuvenation and resurrection that I mentioned earlier. They are shown as redeeming themselves of their gangrenous and corruptible past. Scott brings up a good point..

***************************************************************************

Haha, Scott, I used the relationship between the comic’s and the film’s plot or writing in order to critique it so there is relevance!! Since the plot is what I usually pay attention to and because I cannot watch the film again, it is hard for me to comment on the other things, but I’ll try.

As I said before, unless the acting or cinematography really stand out (in a good or bad way) I tend not to notice it too much. I thought the scene where Bane breaks the back of the Batman was exceptional, but I cannot recall any other scene that were really that interesting. I did enjoy C. Bale’s and T. Hardy’s performances though as I said the film really didn’t develop Bane’s character as much as it should have. 

**************************************************************************

What about Hathaway and Bale's scenes and their chemistry..? Or Gordon, whose performance is pretty against-type compared to his usual indie roles... Actually, Hathaway is also working against-type: compare her role as Selina Kyle to the role she played in Rachel Getting Married; but you probably haven't watched that. As for editing; how about the subtle and quick flashback sequences that also play against what is typified in action movies. Just some things to consider.

****************************************************************************

I did enjoy Gordon’s character and performance, but like I said I would have to watch the film again to provide feedback on any other elements. 

Pariah (2011)

The first film we will be watching is Pariah (2011)  Directed by Dee Rees
 A Brooklyn teenager juggles conflicting identities and risks friendship, heartbreak, and family in a desperate search for sexual expression.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1233334/
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/pariah_2011/

***********************************************************************

MIKE -

Early in Dee Rees' Pariah (2011), the protagonist's mother tells her, "It's your skin." Alike, the seventeen year old gay female at the center of Pariah's maelstrom of anxiety and discontent, spends the rest of the film trying to claim what is rightfully hers--her mind, her body, her 'choice'--as she alludes to through the poem that she reads at the close of the movie (though advocates of gay rights would benefit from seeing Alike's choice lyrical stanzas as something personal and not a synecdoche for the gay/bi/transgendered movement on the whole). Pariah could easily be a pretty typical protest film; instead the film focuses on how a youth can feel ostracized not just from their family and from the world at large, but how they can feel exiled from their own community; detached from the very support system that gave them confidence to 'be themselves,' and not fake it. Dee Rees' film becomes a movie about alienation--a message movie that should be able to appeal to people all across the sexual spectrum because everyone has known separation and what it is to be alone, however brief. The film benefits from using unknown actors who can assimilate into the film's background (Fort Greene, Brooklyn) without drawing attention to themselves. Adeperu Oduyo (Alike), Charles Parnell, and Kim Wayans (who play Alike's father and mother respectively) deserve particular praise for portraying a family on the brink of dissemination; whose 'problems' transcend traditional (conservative) African-American society's unwillingness to accept the gay lifestyle as part of their family's fabric--this can be seen in a particularly touching scene where Alike's friend Laura tries unsuccessfully to re-connect with her mother. The subject matter, which is, at its heart of hearts very difficult, is shown with much sensitivity and lacks the kind of dramatic whims that could and has sunk movies that delve into this kind of material. Maybe the background of the screen-writer/director comes into play here: Dee Rees is a black Lesbian who grew up in a community that could not accept her identity as something tangible. Mentored by Spike Lee, she has brought a very personal story (whose subject matter, influenced through its 'creator,' cannot help but feel part-and-parcel; of the same flesh as the living, breathing person who imagined it), out into the light and has done it with a kind of natural ease--as I said earlier, lacking the dramatic flare that could have made her effort more uneven. The camera stays closed in on the story's subjects--even when they want to look away, there is no way they can escape their isolation, their frustration, their brief moments of tender connection. Pariah's camera-work is saturated with bright and dark colors and is always zoomed-in, always forcing us to focus on emotions and situations of self discovery and self mastication, but again, all with sensitivity. Alike's sometimes awkward will to fit in, her taste of first love, and first heartbreak--shortly following--add further layers that a general audience can relate to, that keep the story's varied elements in rotation and doesn't push in to make this movie which was made from protest material, origins, about any one central conflict besides maybe alienation. Otherwise, Pariah is simply a window into the trajectory of a gay youth's life. She has already discovered and come to accept herself before the film begins--she has already acted. Pariah then, shows us the reaction.

Pariah (2011)

Camera ***

Editing ***

Writing       ****

Acting        ****

Production ***

17/25 (Good)

***********************************************************************

Scott-

Pariah (2011) Rating: 8.0

Pariah is a film that manages to hit on everything that I love about independent film making. Unknown actors (Charles Parnell, who played Alike's father, particularly stuck out to me), a mostly diegetic score (though there are brief moments of non-diegetic music), realistic (and many times uncomfortable) dialogue, hand-held camera work, etc. The story too was well written and allowed for enough character development to show growth within the short time frame that the film documents but without making the characters seem too spontaneous or unrealistically forgiving. 

Yet despite all that the film has going for it, I didn't feel grabbed by it in the same way that I have by other films of the same genre. At times it almost feels stale seeming to play too close to the independent film playbook, and in the end didn't seem to show me anything new that I hadn't seen in other films of the same style. 

All said Pariah is still a very respectable first (fictional) film for Dee Rees.

***********************************************************************

Mick-

MICK WARD

Pariah

I found Pariah to be slightly uninteresting up until the anticipated, highly predictable love spark between Pariah and the girl her mother forced her to accompany on her walk to school. The film takes place in Brooklyn, New York, but the characters seem to represent the lifestyle, trials and tribulations of Christian middle-class life, and their expectations of what a ‘normal’ family should be. The father works too much, there is the allusion that he might be unfaithful (in the sexual sense), the mother is subservient, and unappreciated by the father, she is overprotective of her daughters, the daughters are well-dressed and studious students. However, the seventeen-year old Pariah is staying out late, mixing with the ‘wrong’ crowd, and betraying her assigned gender role and traditional dress.

The story is predictable: Pariah’s mother attempts to ‘protect’ her from bad influences, but inadvertently pushes her into the arms of a curious peer who “wants to do her thing”. Of course, she leaves behind her best friend who appeared to be in love with her, but the heartbreak she experiences when her curious peer denies her a relationship allows her to grow. This heartbreak, however, helps to sets up the climatic showdown between the daughter and mother. The exchange between Pariah and her mother was expected, but still a bit shocking. This sort of exchange, although with some variation, is probably not all that uncommon (I know of at least one example). What I liked most about the film was the final conversation between the father and Pariah when she explains to him that she needs him to sign paper work so she can go off to college early. She makes it clear that she is  not running, but choosing. Although I enjoyed the film over all especially this final exchange and the commentary on dress (see the scene where Pariah is getting ready to go to church and the more subtle cloths change before and after school) I would argue that the film caters to a specific demographic making it less interesting. For example, the relationship between Pariah and her mother are nonexistent at the close of the film. The relationship between Pariah and her father is open and presumably this is who will finance her trip across the country, the early start program and the rest of her college stay… 6/10

***********************************************************************

MIKE - Sorry to interrupt before Mick has written his take about the film.. But I was thinking about what Scott said about feeling 'grabbed' by certain movies and was wondering if we could get into a conversation--if it's even possible to articulate--what makes us emotionally invested in certain movies, and not others than employ the same mechanics. Scott, you mentioned a 'staleness' in the movie; so maybe that could be elaborated on, though I feel I know what you are talking about.. If this is something worth getting into, I'll pick up off of you and Mick's cues.

***********************************************************************

MIKE - Hey Mick: a few thoughts on your post; these are just my opinions.. I'm not sure which path would have been more predictable - if Alike's family accepted her for who she is, or if they 'exiled' her (this might be a stretch - as you pointed out, the schism between her and her mother seems more severe than the one between her and her father). I'm not sure how much this matters though; I take the film to probably be a little bit of an exercise in autobiography and since Dee Rees likely went through some of the things that her protagonist has in the movie, that should add to the air of authenticity. As for the 'catering to a demographic,' I suppose we'll just agree to disagree here: I found the anxiety and alienation in Alike's story poignant, relatable which showcases the talent of the filmmaker because (unless I surprise you all at a later time!) I am not a black, teenage lesbian. I also feel that the scene showing the distance between Laura (Alike's friend) and her mother towards the end of the film is a kind of foreshadowing of what Alike and her mother's relationship will be like; also, if you rewind some of the scenes from Pariah in your head, you might find that Alike's mother was always more standoffish about her sexuality than her father was--this is also present by the close of the film. How do you feel about the mechanics of the film - the acting, dialogue, etc. You've spoken a lot about the film's plot and how this has made you feel, and this is fine of course, but I was wondering if you picked up on any of the film's 'angles,' or if any of them held any importance to you...?

************************************************************************

Scott - I agree with both of you and hearing both of your thoughts has helped me to really put my finger on what my feelings about the film are. What I said in my review "Yet despite all that the film has going for it, I didn't feel grabbed by it in the same way that I have by other films of the same genre." is true but before I had difficulty figuring out why it hadn't grabbed me, mechanically it was good, good acting, good dialogue, etc. I think this is why I am split on it, on one hand I agree with Mike, the film is well done, on the other hand I agree with Mick, the film is filled with cliche's and like I said before felt stale.
The love interest blossoming from the seemingly heterosexual "good" girl was predictable, still that girl using Alike and throwing her aside with no regard of her feelings is something I think happens a lot with young gay females, and I can't recall seeing that aspect on film before. Its a bit of a stereotype maybe but from the women I know that are gay I have heard stories of younger girls who are "bi-curious" using openly gay girls for experimental exploits in youth without caring about their feelings. This and the relationship with the father and the "Cats in the Cradle" themed ending on the roof top were probably the most successful scenes of the film for me.

************************************************************************

MIKE - It is true, this movie is not without formulaic/cliche plot devices.. But then, finding one that is void of these stereotypes or expectations has got to be rare. All stories can be broken down into "character goes on a journey," or "stranger comes to town." With that in mind, and since this story has both original (to some degree) and formulaic plot points, is it even necessary to look at these things while judging this particular film? As Scott mentioned above: considering the mechanical scope of the film and that there is a lot of good work being done 'film-making-wise,' why does it matter that a movie that hits the right notes so often has predictable moments? You could say that it should matter, that complete originality should be strived for when discussing the truly great motion pictures, but I bet that if we were to toss out the names of some of our favorite movies, all of us could (or should) find predictable or 'seen-that-before' scenes here and there. It seems like I'm sticking up a ton for a movie that I only gave a 17/25 (good) rating to, but I feel that some of the things we're pointing out need to be discussed if we're to continue to approach future movies in a like manner. 


*************************************************************************
Mick
I realize now, embarrassing enough, that I really didn't pay attention to the names of the characters. I apologize and will keep a log next time haha. My comment about the 'middle-class'ness of the film is just to acknowledge that the ability of the film to perhpas represent the gay 'community' is limited by factors like class. Its a reference to some of the criticism raised by people like Bell Hooks, but I did partially overlook the story and situation of Alike's friend whom she goes to the Club with in the beginning. This person, like Alike, has been shunned by her mother, however, unlike Alike, she does not seem to be receiving any sort of financial support from her family. There were some other things that also played a part in my low rating, specifcally plot points that I feel were not adequately explained or hinted to-the relationship between the father and mother was not resolved or dissolved on camera.


Mike, I don't think we are being unreasonable about our emphasis on the cliches and certainly these devices are not all or always bad. I happen to love watching all the Indian Jones, Dirty Harry, and Die Hards, etc Films even though they follow a blatantly obvious formula, but those films are not attempting to accomplish the same task.


I agree with you Mike that I don't think you are a Black female homosexual despite the obvious, substantial, and convincing evidence to the contrary. That notwithstanding, I agree that the film is relatable and captured some of the feeling and experiences I had in my adolescence. The scene where the bi-curious girl is playing music for Alike and then starts to 'play' with Alike's hair or touches her with a stuffed animal or something reminded me of awkward situations where I was trying to 'play' in order to get someones attention. So, I agree that parts of the film were relatable, but I still did not love the film. 
Sorry Mike I didn't pay attention to the cinematography or the acting all that much; if it didn't stand out either way, I don't tend to notice it. I'm making notes for things to pay attention to for our next film. What is our next film by the way? 


*********************************************************************

MIKE - Mick!!! If you had articulated before, what you just said now I might not have been so quick to 'go for the jugular.' These are all points worth pondering on--some of which I'd realized before, others might have passed me by.. I guess I'd just assumed that your take on the predictability of the film (or any cliche parts) alone factored into your 6/10 rating without considering camera work, acting, etc. - some things that you said above you'd keep an eye out for next time. Anyhow, I believe the next pick is Scott's.


**********************************************************************
Mick Haha, I didn't feel your knife at my throat so its ok. I'll be a 'better' film crit. next film....Which is????? and when is our next date?


XOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOX


************************************************************************

Dammit Scott, answer the man! Hey, if we stick to our colors, no need to start our segments with our names, eh..?


************************************************************************