One Swede Ride: Musings on The Phantom Carriage (Korkarlen)

Let me get one thing out of the way right from the start. I am giving this film a higher grade than my pure enjoyment of it might lead me to give it because I was unable to watch it under optimal conditions. Not having access to a DVD or online copy of the film, I was forced to watch it on YouTube. More than that, the only visually correct form I could find was not translated into English. I had to ignore the subtitles and simply read a synopsis of the film so I understood what was going on. Furthermore, this version of the film had a score that, while creepy and appropriate, was not the original score of the film. I feel confident that if I had not faced all of these difficulties and distractions I would have enjoyed the film more, so I am grading it on a curve, so to speak.

This is not the first film in which I have seen the great Victor Sjostrom. It is the first film that he directed and wrote which I have seen, but I saw him act in the Ingmar Bergman film Wild Strawberries. His performance in that film at the age of 78, of an old professor reminiscing about his past and struggling with his relationship with his son, daughter-in-law, and how he is partly responsible for their misfortunes, was heartwarming, powerful, and bittersweet, one of the finest acting performances I have had the pleasure to see. He certainly does not disappoint in this film, The Phantom Carriage, either. This film was a major influence on Bergman, one of my favorite directors, and the main reason he asked Sjostrom to be in his film. Seeing this film 80 years after its initial release, I can see how it could be a huge influence on a young man with an interest in film.

If a modern film watcher is going to watch a silent movie, he/she had better have an appreciation of one of two things: slapstick comedy and/or melodrama. This film certainly serves up a great deal of the latter. The film focuses on the life of one David Holm, played by Sjostrom himself. Holm is a violent, hateful drunk. He has caused great pain for two women we learn. One, Sister Edit of the Red Cross (Astrid Holm) is dying and wants to see Holm before she dies, because she hope her prayers that he might turn his life around were answered (so far, they haven't been). The other is his own wife (Hilda Borgstom) who is filled with misery because of his treatment of her and their children. The drunken Holm is so heartless that even when a friend comes to him and tells him of the dying woman's request, he will not come. He would much rather spend his time drinking and playing cards with his friends.

"Hey buddy, you're just in time! We were just about to start a game of Strip Poker. Care to join?"

Holm will soon change his tune, however. You see, it is New Years Eve, and Holm recounts to his drinking buddies an old folk tale his friend George once told him. Supposedly, at the end of the year, if you are the last person on Earth to die, you must spend the next year of your life working as Death incarnate, traveling the world in a ghostly carriage taking the dead into the next world. A big coincidence is that this same friend, George, happened to die right before the stroke of midnight last New Years Eve. Another big coincidence is that, when his friends try to force him to go see the dying Sister Edit, one of them accidentally kills Holm right before midnight. And, wouldn't you know it, Death (aka George) shows up to reap the soul of his former friend, now his replacement.

Fun Fact: He has a bumper sticker in back that reads, "My Other Carriage is Corporeal."

 

George is shocked to find that his old friend Holm will be his replacement, and is saddened at the state of his life. He himself is filled with regret that the two of them wasted their lives drinking. George spends the whole night showing Holm how his life has gone horribly wrong, and how he has hurt many people, even those close to him, through his drinking and self loathing which turns into hatred of everything. We see how when Edit tried to help him get up from rock bottom he laughed at her, wanting to act as if he needed no one's help. We see how in his drunkenness he hurts his wife and his children. In a fantastic use of editing, we see how his life was turned around by drinking. One moment we see Holm playing with his children and having a picnic with his wife, clearly loving life. The next minute, in the same spot, we see a flashforward of his sitting on the same ground, but now with alcohol in his hand, his clothes shabby, drinking it up with other worthless bums.

"You're dead to me David! Well, technically, you're dead to everyone now..."

While this film can seem a little overlong at times, it is filled with scenes such as this which show true brilliance and still have the power to touch audiences. The scenes of the Phantom Carriage itself, crossing mountains, plains and even the mighty ocean itself to reap immortal souls, whether they be suicides in studies or drownings at the bottom of a raging sea, are all chillingly fantastic. Another great edit occurs when we see Holm first refuse to go see Sister Edit, and then we cut to Edit jumping up in bed and clutching her chest as though wounded. Most famous of all, and most terrifying, is the scene in which a drunken Holm is locked away in the kitchen by his wife, who is attempting to protect the children from his tuberculosis, and Holm decides to use and axe to chop his way through the door. This chilling scene was directly parodies in my favorite horror film of all time, The Shining.

"I simply must stop locking myself out of the house. Or at least figure a way of getting inside that is less costly than chopping down the door. I mean it's not as if doors simply grown on trees! Well, I guess since they're made of wood they technically do, but you get my point."

Another thing which makes this film great is the acting. Sjostrom is fantastic at playing both the violence, drunken, uncaring version of Holm, as well as expressing believable horror as he sees the damage he has done, even driving his wife to try and kill herself and their children. Tore Svennberg as George is haunted, intimidating, and yet somehow still very human. However, it is Borgstrom (a long time Sjostrom collaborator) who steals the show as the pained and miserable Mrs. Holm. The scene in which she is brought before Edit, who tried to get her back with David in order to help him find redemption, only to have his remain remain a drunken brute, is marvelous. She leans over the dying girl with a look of anger, of hatred. She leans down, her hands outstretched and curled like claws, seeming to want to strangle the woman who brought this monster back into her life when she though she had escaped him. However, when Edit, the pure angel, rises and kisses her saying, "Poor Mrs. Holm," she breaks down and weeps. The scene in which she first sees David again, the pain and disbelief in her eyes, is wonderful. And, of course, when the drunken David messes with her children, throws a towel in her face, and then breaks down the kitchen door to get at her, her fear is palpable.

Yet what makes this film truly great and groundbreaking are its special effects. Huge amounts of post production work were done overlaying images on top of one another. This allowed all of the "ghosts" in the film to appear to be see-through. The actors and objects that are ghostly can stand in front of object, and we can still see those objects, yet we can also see the ghost. Nothing like this had been done up to this point in cinema in 1921. The effects are visually stunning even today when we are spoiled with CGI. No wonder it impressed future filmmakers like Bergman so much.

No joke this time, I just think this image is really freakin' cool.

Again, I had many limitations put up in the way of my enjoying this film. However, the fact that I still loved it speaks volumes. I cannot even imagine what it would have been like to see this film in 1921. Even today it is impressive. Visually stunning and quite moving, showing true brilliance of direction, this is certainly a landmark film. I consider this film to be Amazing and give it an 8/10.

Were Gonna Be Doin' One Thing and One Thing Only...Reviewing Inglorious Basterds

Quentin Tarantino sure has a hard on for Revenge, doesn't he? I mean there was both Kill Bill movies, which were all about The Bride getting revenge. Then there was this film, Inglourious Basterds, which is essentially a Jewish Revenge Fantasy. Now, if rumors are true, Tarantino is making a "Southern," a film set in the Old South, about a former slave taking revenge upon his old master. Why is he so fascinated with this subject? Is it because revenge as a motive allows audiences to quickly sympathize with a lead without needing too much character development on either side? Is it because it allows Tarantino to use as much stylized violence as he wants without making audiences worry about whether the violence is "moral" or not? Is it because the desire to seek revenge taps into our darkest and strongest desires to cause pain and destruction in those we do not like? Did somebody kill his mum or something? The answers is probably all of the above (except the last one of course) but whatever his motive may be, making revenge movies has done nothing but good for Tarantino so far.

As a (comparatively) young director, Tarantino has always drawn upon films and genres he loved from the past to inspire his films. This time around, Tarantino is borrowing from old favorites like Spaghetti Westerns (borrowing his title from and giving a cameo to the director of the Italian movie The Inglorious Bastards) and exploitation films, as well as new genres like the WWII film. By combining these elements, Tarantino gives us a film which uses the best of Postmodern WWII films that focus on the victimhood of Jews and other groups, while also wallowing in the adrenaline-fueled Nazi-slaughtering violence of older WWII films. To me, the feel this creates works both for and against the film, as I shall explain, but you cannot deny that it makes a fun movie.

This time around the film is mostly shown in chronological order, though it is still split into chapters. We open up with a scene of an SS Officer Hans Landa (Christopher Waltz) interrogating a French man because he is harboring Jews in his home. Right away you see why Waltz won the Best Supporting Actor Oscar for this film. With every word he says, with every look, he has a perfect combination of menace and charm. Tarantino has feared that this role, a charming but scary Nazi, would be unplayable. However, thanks to Waltz, it became the best acted role in the film. When I heard that Leonardo DiCaprio was first slated to take on the role, it marked the first time I had ever been glad DiCaprio was not in a film.

Even if that pipe was a lollipop, he'd still be scary.

 

When Landa kills the hiding Jews, he decides to let the young daughter escape, a fatal move, as Shoshana (Melanie Lauren) becomes the proprietor of a movie theater in Paris which, thanks to the unwelcome interest of a Nazi war hero, becomes the theater where a film by Goebbels himself, starring the young hero, will be premiered, with high-ranking Nazi officers all the way up to Hitler himself attending. Shoshana and her young Black assistant/boyfriend Henri then plot to burn down the theater with all of the Nazis inside, effectively ending the war in one night. Now, though I like this film, it is in many of the scenes with this character that flaws come out. Firstly, I was unimpressed with Lauren's acting. There is a great scene of tension where she is being interrogated by Landa, who may or may not recognize her, where I felt all of the work was being done by Landa. To me, it seemed like Tarantino had written another role for Uma Thurman before realizing she was too old to play the part. Also, as a history major, I know that Black people would have been taken from France just as the Jews were, and having that character in the film was only a needless attempt to make our heroine seem even better by having here in an interracial relationship while fighting Nazis. In fact, it's actually rather insulting. This film in general portrays the French as heroic and believing in racial equality when, in fact, France was one of the most antisemitic nations in Europe, with many being overjoyed that the Nazis were taking the Jews, and of course most Blacks in France were there as a result of the brutal colonization by France of African and island nations. Nitpicks, perhaps, but they bothered me.

Melanie Lauren doing her best Uma Thurman impersonation.

The best parts of the film are when either (or both) Waltz was on screen or when the infamous Basterds were on screen. A group of Jews from around Europe and America, led by a Lieutenant from Kentucky (Brad Pitt), launch a guerrilla offensive throughout occupied France and attempt to kill as many Nazis (pronounced Nat-zeez) as possible. Most importantly, the Basterds are trying to instill fear into the heart of the Nazis, by killing huge numbers, by being incredibly brutal, and by letting some survive to tell others of their exploits. One of their most potent weapons of terror is that they always scalp the Nazis they kill (each soldier owes Pitt 100 Nazi scalps...and he wants his scalps), and even the survivors have a Nazi cross cut into their skull so that future generations will always know whose side they fought on.

"Aww shucks Fritz, I'm sure your momma raised you better than this. I mean, look at all this dandruff you got here! Well, since we ain't got no Head and Shoulders on us, looks like we'll just have to take care of that problem the old fashioned way..."

Perhaps their most potent weapon of fear is the legends that have evolved around each of the Basterds. One Basterd named Stiglitz is known for having killed 14 Nazi officers himself before being caught by the Nazis (and let out by the Basterds). Brad Pitt's character Aldo Raine is known as "The Apache" because he bases his tactics on the native American tribe of his ancestors. Most fearsome of all is "The Bear Jew," a massive Jewis boy from Brooklyn who beats Nazis to death with a baseball bat and relishes every moment. This character is played by director Eli Roth, and both he and Pitt do a fantastic job. You can't really say their acting is "good acting" in the traditional sense. However, they are so over the top and psychotic that they are totally enjoyable. They are funny as well. One of the best scenes in the movie is when you first hear Pitt and Roth try and convince the Germans that they are Italian by speaking only the most basic Italian phrases in incredibly thick American accents ("Bon-jure-no, Graat-zee"). Finally I must say that even though I am no fan of Roth's work as a director, when I heard that this role was originally offered to (shudder) Adam Sandler, I was overjoyed that he was an actor in this film.

Yes, he is. Now, if only he was also a decent director.

So essentially the story that follows these characters is a big Jewish Revenge fantasy about Jewish soldiers taking massive vengeance upon those nasty Nazis (Roth called the film "kosher porn"). Other characters are added to the film as well to share this goal. A British officer/German film critic is added to the mission. We get a sexy German actress working as a collaborator. We even get to see Mike Meyers as a British officer and Winston Churchill. Add Shoshana and her boyfriend to the mix, and that is a lot of people trying to piss off Hitler.

This was Hitler's reaction when he found out that Inglourious Basterds grossed over $300 million at the box office.

So, over all, this film was a ton of fun, where almost every scene was incredible. However, I must say that this film was only really great for me the second time I watched it. When I saw it in theaters, there were a lot of things that bothered me about it that made me think it was overhyped. They bothered me less the second time, but I think I should mention these problems here. Firstly, Tarantino has a lot of personal touches that he adds to films, and while usually they improve a film, I felt they got in the way here. Of course his dialogue is amazing as always, but little things bothered me. The way he would bring up name cards next to characters occasionally did not fit the film at all, especially when it was done in big bold letters only once, or when it was done in pencil only once. 2 times in the film, and only 2 times, he had a narrator come on, and these were clearly shoved into the film to give Samuel L. Jackson and Harvey Keitel cameos, and they made these sections of the film appear sloppy. Even the soundtrack was often (though not always) needless and interrupting to the films tone. 

 

Most damning of all, however, is the moral ambiguity that I found in the film, along with ambiguity in the motives of many characters. Tarantino made a clear tradeoff of adding more violence to the film at the expense of making it more moving or relatable. Ok, sure, having the Basterds torture German soldiers, not caring about their families or back stories, is understandable. I might be an elitist intellectual and prefer that we create stories that show how German men were fed propaganda to make them believe in an Aryan national and a cult leader, how many were just young men fighting for their country, and how this could have happened in any nation with crippling debt and a strong political movement fueled by racism (which I might add was prevalent in all of Europe and America at the time), but if a film just wants to say, "Fuck it, they're Nazis, they deserve it," I'm not going to complain. However, at time they do seem to go for making the Germans sympathetic, just to make scenes more dramatic. When Shoshana kills that German soldier who was hitting on her, even though it looked like he was close to just raping her to get what he wants, she has a moment of regret that causes her to get shot herself, despite never showing anything but contempt for the boy before. Other characters go out of character senselessly to add violence as well. For example, when Waltz's character discovers that the German actress betrayed her country to the Americans, he loses his (up until then unbroken) cool and just strangles her. At first I thought, "OK, he's filled with rage that this whore would betray the Fatherland." However, in the next scene, he does the same thing she did! Why would he be so angry that she did something he was planning to do? It makes no sense except to give the audience more torture porn of a woman being strangled to death by a man. Also, there is a scene where the German actress shoots a young German officer to death after he has surrendered. She and the audience knows that he just had a baby. Why would she shoot him? I could understand that Basterds not caring and just killing another Nazi, but why did she do it? Was it because he called her a traitor? She was! Why does she hate him so much? For that matter, why is she even betraying her nation in the first place? I guess maybe she is doing it purely for personal gain, but she is popular in Germany. Is she afraid the Allies will win the war and wants to be on the winning team? Does she hate the Nazi party for some reason? None of this is explained. Perhaps they left out her motivations so as not to add to the already 2.5 hour running time, but I really wanted some answers especially because I had started to really feel for that young German soldier. 

"Ho ho ho, vhat fun vwe are having! I am becoming so characterized and sympathetic to ze audience. I sure hope this Bitch here doesn't kill me for no adequately explained reason!"

One controversial decision Tarantino made though was right up my street: he ended the film with the Jewish protagonists killing Hitler. He literally said, "Fuck historical accuracy, we all know how the story really ends, I'm giving my audience some freakin' catharsis!" I loved this ending and totally did not expect it the first time I saw it. What a great surprise! This has all the enjoyment of those Golden Age comics where Superman of Captain America would just punch Hitler right in the face. It's just so fun to see Hitler get shot in the face by Jewish soldiers as a house full of Nazis is burned to the ground. As John Ford said, "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."

"OK boys, its time for the big dance number! 1...2...3! Springtime/For Hitler/And Germanyyyyy!"

So, the film really was incredibly enjoyable, especially the second time around. After the first time I watched it, I probably would have given it a six. The second time, I was poised to give it and eight. Now that I have ruminated more on its successes and flaws, I feel I should split the difference and give it a 7/10 or a Great by my standards. It is a really great film that I would recommend, but I would not consider it a true return to form for Tarantino and his early greatness. It does however give me confidence that his next film will truly be something special!

Gorgeousness and Gorgeosity Made Flesh: A Review of A Clockwork Orange

From my username, Kurosawa_Lover, it should be very clear that my favorite director of all time is Akira Kurosawa. However, my second favorite director, and also my favorite English-Language director, is the great Stanley Kubrick. Except for his first three films, every film he made from Paths of Glory (1957) to Eyes Wide Shut (1999), ten films over 42 years, has been in The Book. No other director can claim a record like that of consecutive entries in The Book, and only Hitchcock and Bunuel can match those years of his making great films. I have seen all of these films except the last and absolutely loved each and every one of them. However, there is no doubt in my mind that this film, A Clockwork Orange, is his finest film. It could easily fit in my top ten favorite films of all time, and it showcases everything that is great about Kubrick films.

Firstly, this film clearly has one of the greatest opening scenes in the history of film. The reveal of Alex DeLarge (Malcolm McDowell) in a facial closeup is perfect. Everything about the character is revealed in his sinister smirk, in his mischievous eyes. As the camera pulls away, it is slowly revealed that we are viewing some perverse future bar, with naked statues dispensing bottles of milk. As Alex literally toasts the audience to welcome us into the fantastic world, we hear his voice explaining to us that this bar gives patrons milk filled with futuristic drugs, and that he and his "droogs" are drinking up for "a night of the old ultra-violence." For you see, Alex is not giving us a typical narration in plain English, he is speaking to us in Nadsat, a language created by the write of the novel, Anthony Burgess, that is a mix of Russian, Yiddish, cockney slang, and pure imagination.

Never has a man wearing a Bowler and too much mascara been so terrifying.

This opening scene truly shows the brilliance of Kubrick's directing, the kind of directing that makes you say, "wow, if this director had not directed this film, no one could have." Firstly, the only thing in the scene that really moves is the camera as it goes backwards to give the reveal. So many scenes are like this, resembling photographs more that motion pictures, and this is due to the fact that Kubrick started as a photographer. Many directors have these quirks, where their work before film colors the way their films are made (for example, Kurosawa was an accomplished painter, and painted nearly all of his storyboards, and this influence can be seen especially in his later color films). Secondly, it is a major achievement that the Nasdat language actually sounds completely awesome in this film. Obviously the language was created by Burgess and was fantastic in the novel. However, things that are brilliant in novels do not always translate well onto film. The language might sound good in a book, but when you see people actually speaking it it could appear ridiculous. But, thanks to Kubrick's directing (and McDowell's acting) the use of the language both in the narration and on screen creates this atmosphere of oddity and perverse delight that perfectly fits the mood of the film. Thirdly, it needs to be acknowledge that this scene could have appeared completely ridiculous, but not in a purposeful or good way. Back in the early 70s when this film was made, before CGI and many special effects technology, physical props had to be created more often for scenes. So many exploitation films looked ridiculous with the lameness of their props. A shot with a bunch of naked statues and men standing around in white leotards could have been to silly to be taken seriously. However, something about the way Kubrick creates this scene stops it from being ridiculous and makes it fascinating.

Essentially every scene of this film is brilliant. Alex and his droogs beating up the old man. The gang of would-be rapists interrupted so they can face Alex and "come and get it in the yarbles." Alex killing a woman by shoving a giant phallus down her throat. Alex bending over to have his anus examined by a stuck-up prison guard. On top of all those scenes and many more, this film contains one of the most disturbing scenes in film: Alex and his droogs raping a woman and beating an old man while Alex sings "Singing in the Rain." This scene is perverse on two levels. Firstly, it is perverse within the context of the film, because hearing someone sing while they rape someone brutally, clearly enjoying it with so much abandon, is just deeply disturbing (and the creepiness is heightened by the droog Dim repeating after Alex is his thick, stupid drawl with an animal-like expectation). Secondly, it is perverse on a meta level, outside of the film, because it takes one of the most cheerful and innocent songs in the history of film and irrevocably corrupts it. For lovers of film, seeing this innocent song used in this perverse setting must either be perceived as brilliance or sacrilege.

"Thank you, thank you, and now, as an encore, I will sing Over The Rainbow while kicking a puppy."

Another fantastic touch to this film which is pure Kubrick is the incredible use of classical music. His score to his previous film 2001: A Space Odyssey is very acclaimed for adding great atmosphere by using old classical music in a futuristic setting, and this film continues this trend (his next film, Barry Lyndon, would put classical music in its contemporary setting, also to great effect). However, this score has a bit of a twist. The score takes classical music but occasionally puts a futuristic twist on it thanks to composer Wendy Carlos. For example, perhaps my favorite scene in the film is when Alex takes two devotchkas back to his place and gives them the old in-out in-out in a scene that took 28 minutes to film, but is sped up to about 30x its speed while a sped up version of "William Tell Overture" plays.

Dick-shaped lollipops and classical music. Geez, kids these days have weird tastes.

 

In the end, however, above all the style and grace, the thing that makes this film great is its fantastic, biting, darkly comical social commentary. This is a film about freedom of choice. There is nothing more inhuman than taking away a person's individual autonomy. The film in the end is not primarily attacking Alex for his evil ways. Alex at least is honest about his desires. No, the film is attacking the system around all of us, for being just as self serving as Alex is, but without his honesty. Every single authority figure Alex encounters directly abuses him to fulfill their own desires. Firstly, there is his juvenile parole office Mr. Deltoid (stealing his two short scenes thanks to superb acting by Aubrey Morris). Mr. Deltoid is supposed to watch over Alex to help him learn the error of his way, but it is clear that his only concern in that Alex stay in line so he does not get a "black mark," and he clearly enjoys sadistically causing Alex pain when he whacks him in the yarbles unexpectedly.

Mmm yeeeees, I certainly do love a nice game of Rochambeau, don't you? I think I'll go first, mmmmmmm yeeeeeessssss

Then there are Alex's parents, who are always touted as being wonderful, but clearly are neglectful. Oh sure, they feed and clothe him, but there is clearly no true emotional connection. They know nothing about him and try their best not to know. How, could he continue murdering and raping and bringing home stolen goods, how could he have even got the way he is, without emotional neglect. Clearly, when they effectively throw him out upon his return from jail in favor of a surrogate "good son" who is now their lodger, its clear their care for him is skin deep. Then at the jail he is given a number and has orders barked at him by the Chief Guard (another fantastic performance by Michael Bates). The Chief clearly has no expectation that Alex or any of the other prisoners can reform, loves to call them scum and in a later scene when Alex is forced to lick a man's boot he clearly enjoys his suffering.

Somebody should look up his ass and pull out the big stick he has stuck up there.

Alex learns to lie and act good and put on fake smiles and crocodile tears to get the other authority figures to like him. This gives him the opportunity to be part of a radical new treatment where criminals are "cured" of their desire to commit crimes with drugs and aversion therapy (just how rapists are "cured" of their lust by chemical castration). This gives the Minister of the Interior and several doctors the chance to abuse Alex to advance their own political and scientific goals by forcing him to watch films of sex and violence while taking chemicals so that these scenes make him sick, which will late make him sick when he trick to rape or attack people.

Ben Stein: For dry, red eyes, try Clear Eyes, now with a free promotional Eyepopper Headset for easy administration.

When the now "cured" Alex released back into the world, we get to see just how hypocritical society really is. For, as much as members of society decried Alex for attacking people, now that Alex can no longer defend himself, society at large has no problem abusing him to their hearts content. His parents kick him out. A bunch of old bums beat him up, partly out of revenge and partly out of bitterness against youth in general. In perhaps the greatest attack on "proper society," we see that Alex's old droogs, the ones who attacked him and let him go to jail while they got off scott free, are now actually police officers, little better than thugs hired on the cheap to rough up the riff raff. Hey, as long as it keeps those hoodlums off my street, who cares what happens to them, right?

"Guys, why are you beating me up now? Is it because of the whole kicking your asses into the water and slicing up your hand thing? I thought we were past that!"

 

For a while you think this film might only be attacking conservative society. However, in a cruel twist of fate, after Alex has been beaten by the police, he stumbles upon the home where he raped that poor woman. She killed herself afterwards, but the old man is still there, albeit in a wheel chair. This guy is a very liberal writer. He sympathizes with Alex, and wants to use his story to attack the conservative government for hiring thugs and taking away a man's ability to defend himself. His purpose is good. Sure, he says something ominous about the "common people" needing to be led so that they do not give up essential liberties for the feeling of security under a tyrant, but heck, that statement is kind of true. However, once he discovers that Alex is the one who raped his wife, he loses all thought of doing good, and merely wants to take revenge on Alex by forcing him to kill himself. All of us, even the supposedly high minded, are in the end driven by our personal desires, even at the cost of the suffering of others.

Ever seen a man get possessed by Satan and then take a huge dump right above you? This is about as close as you will get to that image.

 

That's what is truly great about this film: it conveys its message not by making us feel bad for the suffering of some morally perfect character, but for a clearly evil character. This sadistic, murdering, selfish, violent, awful rapist who fantasizes about beating Jesus Christ is actually the victim in this story!  As evil as he is, the greatest evil is the system he lives in. It is this system that teaches him that all that is worth having in life is fun and money. It is this system that uses and abuses people for its own benefit. In an attempt to make others feel safe, the system is willing to take away the most human aspect of all of us, our free will. The system has no concern for right over wrong, just order over chaos. Even then, it all boils down to achieving the desires of those with power. The leaders of the government are perfectly happy to let Alex return to his "normal" violent rapist state and set him free on the streets, so long as he does a publicity stunt for the party in power first. Alex clearly learned all of his violent ways as a way to survive and get ahead in the society that surrounds him, just as he learned how to lie and deceive to survive in jail, and as soon as he cannot defend himself, society is perfectly happy to crush him to fulfill its own desires.

 

Why do I say this film is Kubrick's greatest film? Because it has all of the style and brilliance of his classics like 2001 and The Shining, but it is also less emotionally detached than those films, because it actually has a moral message and deep character development (like his earlier Paths of Glory and Lolita), as well as much of the dark humor that Dr. Strangelove had. In short, it is a collection of the best of everything Kubrick has to offer as a director. I love this movie. It is one of the greatest films ever made, with every scene, every actor, being spot on at all times. I give this Essential film an official grade of 10/10

The Piano: Music of the Mind, Music of the Soul

The world of film making has many faults and short comings. Perhaps the most grievous fault is the fact the vast, vast majority of well known film directors are White males, to any even greater degree than many other art forms which are also White male dominated. Anyone who denies that this predominance has greatly colored the world of film making and led film goers towards a certain definition of what is and is not a "good film" is fooling themselves. Seeing the film Do the Right Thing opened my eyes to how different the world of film could be with more Black directors. Now, Jane Campion's The Piano has shown me how much shallower the world of film is for its lack of female directors.

The Piano was an absolutely incredible film. I admit that going into this film I expected it to be over-hyped. I thought that this film might have garnered more acclaim than it deserved simply because it was directed by a woman, which is so rare (and also because it is a film about someone with a "disability," another favorite of the Oscars). However, now that I have seen the film, I can say that is one of the most deeply layered, passionate and emotionally powerful film watching  experiences I have ever had.

I think the best way I can summarize this incredibly dense film is to say that is about Walls: The walls between those who can speak and those who cant/wont, the walls between the female world and the male world, the walls between the White world and the world of native peoples, the walls between the animal world and the human world, the walls between the adult world and the world of children, and of course the various walls that separate individual people.

At its heart the film is about a young woman who cannot, or will not, speak. This causes her to be disconnected from many of the people around her, as they cannot communicate easily. However, this does not entirely bother our heroine, played by Holly Hunter in an Oscar and Golden Palm winning role. As her daughter, played by the also Oscar winning Anna Paquin, informs us, "Mommy says that most of what people have to say is rubbish, and isn't worth listening to." If she must talk, she will write something down or speak through her daughter. The only person whom she initially wants to talk to, her daughter, she can communicate with through sign language. Still, it does bother her that most people think her muteness means that she is dumb or insane (film buffs might notice similarities here to the film My Left Foot). So, to protect her emotions from the cold, uncaring, not understanding outside world, she remains silent and distant from most people, and is very austere.

 Well gee, she doesn't really stand much of a chance at looking happy wearing all that black, now does she?

The barriers between the male and female worlds is brought up in many ways throughout the film. At the very start we learn that Hunter is being forced into an arranged marriage by her father. She arrives in New Zealand surrounded by male sailors who curse, spit and piss with abandon. When she meets her husband (played by Sam Neill), it is clear that he does not understand her at all. He will not take her piano back home with them, even though it is clearly important to her. As she continues in her austerity towards him, he makes no effort to understand her emotions. He merely makes vague references to his servants about how he hopes she will become more "affectionate" over time (sexual frustration is another big motif of the film), as if love will simply develop from nothing. Later, when one of the husband's servants (played by Harvey Keitel) takes her back to the piano, he sees that the main way this mute woman expresses herself is through playing the piano. Infatuated with her, he buys the piano and asks her to come teach him how to play it. In reality, he only wants to watch her play and, as time goes by, get her to show off more and more of her body, an hopefully get to sleep with her. This starts out very creepy, and Hunter's contempt is clear at first, but they slowly begin to understand and love one another, with Neill being at first none the wiser.

"What do you think Harvey? She seems a little to short and pale for me." "Meh, I'd do her."

So many other groups fail to understand each other in this film. The native Maori people do not understand the ways of the Whites around they (attacking an actor in a play thinking he is really hurting another woman in the play) and Neill makes no attempts to understand their culture. Keitel plays a White man who knows the native's language and acts as translator, which is appropriate, as he is also the character who acts as translator between the male and female worlds and the world of speakers and non-speakers through his relationship with Hunter. When Hunter's daughter sees her having sex with Keitel, her child's mind does not understand what is going on, and interprets the situation by creating a game where she and the native children hump trees in the forest. This leads to a hilarious scene where Neill, claiming she has "shamed these trunks" forces her to scrub down every tree trunk she touched in such a way. In a hilarious switching of places, Neill's character himself is put back into the role of a child throughout the film. It is clear that, though he thinks of his mute wife as being dumb, he is the dumb one, being completely emotionally and sexually stunted. When he discovers his wife having sex with Keitel, he watches through the door in the same way that Paquin had done before, and it is clear that he is just as confused and attracted to the sight as she was. He allows himself to be controlled by his emotions like a child. And, when his wife does start make sexual advances towards him (due to her frustration that she cannot be with Keitel) the way she treats him is almost as if he were a child himself.

"Ohhhh, so that's where the penis goes! Huh, you learn something new every day!"

The film even shows that, despite how much proper Anglo-Saxon society in the 1800s tried to separate itself from the "savage" world of natives and animals, it was no different at heart from either of those groups. When their passions are inflamed, the men and women of this White world act little different from the more emotionally and sexually free natives. As for animals, when one servant woman squats in a bush to pee, despite the fact that she asks the other ladies to cover her with blankets, when she is done the camera focuses on the way she scrapes the dirt in which she pissed with the foot, the same way a dog might do. When Neill watches Keitel eat out his wife, a dog comes up and licks his cupped hand, again showing the lack of difference between the human and animal world. I could write an entire term paper on how this motif of walls between groups and people plays out in this film, but I will try to stop here.

The acting in this film is absolutely superb from all actors. Harvey Keitel plays a coold and in control Italian-American gangster who... wait, I'm sorry, I've confused Keitel's role in this film with his role in every other film he has ever made. Yes, I must say, despite the fact that Keitel does give a great performance, at first I though he seemed out of place here. Seeing him with native Maori paint on his face, speaking in a Scottish accent, was quite disconcerting at first. Also disconcerting was his constant tendency to get naked in front of the camera. 

You get to see a LOT of Keitel's dick and ass in this movie, whether you want to or not.

Sam Neill also gives an incredible performance. His sheer emotional stupidity, his lack of ability to understand the emotions of those around them, his lack of desire to even attempt to get to know those close to his, his sheer dumbfoundedness and confusion at the actions of people that seems completely understandable to anyone with some connections to human emotion, is played very well by Neill. He is at turns laughable, pitiable, ridiculous, and terrifying. 

Anna Paquin as the daughter gives one of the best performances by a child actress ever put on film. This was a role that, if done poorly, could have ruined the film, and her ability to realistically display a range of emotions while still being believably childlike is phenomenal. He relationship to her mother is key to the film. At first, she is the only person her mother is close to. Paquin's character clearly resents it when her mother becomes closer to Keitel. The times when her mother is with Keitel are the first times in her life where she is not welcome to share in her mother's inner life and emotions, and when her mother forces her to do things she does not want like deliver messages to him for her. She is so upset by this that she gives a love letter meant for Keitel to Neill, a grand act of betrayal. The whole changing dynamic of their relationship raises an important question: "Can a woman be truly a woman and truly a mother at the same time? Are the two really compatible? Does the sacrifice of being a good and loving mother force a woman to sacrifice her own personal sexual and emotional fulfillment?" I am sure these questions have been asked in countless Women's Studies classes, hopefully after viewing this film. 

"La la la, look at me, I'm so full of whimsy, you know you just want to smoosh up my pretty face and give me an Academy Award, I'm just so pwecious!"

Of course the finest performance of the film comes from Holly Hunter. Without speaking a single word on camera she conveys a depth of emotion that most actors could never obtain in a thousand monologues. The incredible layers of her emotions are expressed through looks, body language, sexuality, facial expressions, and other means. So many other films with romances in them rely on cheesy and cliched dialogue to get their fake emotions across. The powerful emotions in this film, ranging from love to pure lust, are made so much more potent often because they are not directly spoken of. Myself, I found the sexual and emotional awakening of the main character in the book The Awakening to be very poorly done, and for a long time this caused me to have a lack of respect for much of feminist literature on the subject. Seeing the same motifs play out here shows me how powerful they can be when done well, and the talents of Hunter have much to do with the film's success.

God damn you Keitel, you lucky bastard!

This film would, I believe, have been vastly different if made by a man. So often male directors and screen writers fail to portray female characters in a way that seems realistic to me, especially in sexual situations. The feminine quality of this film allows it to be more emotionally impacting than most films I have seen. The layers of emotions are so dense and yet so clear in a way I though impossible. Multiple layers of symbolism are piled on top of each other, yet a keen viewer can understand it all because the emotions they are meant to symbolize are made so clear and understandable by the fantastic story and direction. The film is also more beautiful than most I have seen as well. Many shot seem like fantastic paintings, with objects focused one by the camera both to establish their symbolic meaning and simply to revel in their inherent beauty. This is, flat out, one of the greatest films I have ever seen, a must watch, must repeatedly watch film. I consider it an Essential film, and give it an official rating of 10/10.