Review CVII - Raising Arizona

Review 107
Raising Arizona (1987)

I remember when I watched The Big Lebowski and said I didn't particularly like it. I even reviewed it! Ahh, the days when I didn't really look into the hidden agenda of films. I haven't watched The Big Lebowski since then, but let's just say that review probably isn't as accurate as it should be in its present-day form. But hey, learning about the complexity of their films (including The Big Lebowski which even gives a reason as to why the Dude drinks white Russians) made me interested in watching the Coen brothers' Raising Arizona starring Nicolas Cage (have I gotten your attention now?), Holly Hunter, Trey Wilson, and Randall Cobb.

H.I. McDunnough meets the love of his life, police officer Ed(wina), after getting his mugshot for robbing a convenience store. Several arrests later, the two get married and attempt to start a new life and new family together. However, after releasing Ed is infertile, the two decide that the Arizonas don't need one of the quintuplets they have just had. But could this child really be the solution to their problems?

Raising Arizona was a little quirky. It was funny, though nothing particularly groundbreaking. I was worried this was going to take on a Baby's Day Out feel when we see H.I. trying to choose a baby and they're all getting out. Thankfully, it doesn't take that turn. But the film was still cute and colourful like a, dare I say it, Wes Anderson film. But the way the plot goes about is different, so while it's cute and has these bright colours, it's not exactly a Wes Anderson movie. But the nice cinematography is still present. The Coen brothers really liked giving point-of-view (POV) shots and moving the camera throughout the film. For example, we get the baby's POV while Nicolas Cage coos at it from the window. Another example is when a chase ensues and the camera follows behind the running characters. I liked that. I liked that the Coen brothers got the camera moving and really became part of the action instead of just used to capture the action on screen. So kudos for that!

Now, I didn't do a full-on analysis of the film and, while I read a few perspectives/analyses, I didn't find anything that deconstructed every scene. Nonetheless, we can discuss some common and more obvious aspects. I totally recommend looking for more detailed analyses if you're interested in learning more about the film. And finally, beware, this paragraph will have spoilers. The movie focuses on H.I., a recidivist thief who never actually fills his gun with ammo while he goes to rob convenience stores. This is brought up in the film twice, but make sure to remember that. Right off the bat, H.I. explains that prison life is very "structured, more than what most people care for". Yet, he explains the comradery - a support system - that exists in the prison. Already we can see why H.I. probably continuously goes back to prison. The life is structured and the people support his back. The second time he goes in - the time Ed says he fiancé ran off with another woman - he says he isn't exactly happy to be back, but prison life is just familiar and almost homey. This would explain why he does leave the institution, but always finds his way back. In the second psychological evaluation, the psychologist (or therapist or whatever) tells H.I. he should be getting married and having kids, while the Snoats (John Goodman and William Forsythe) say that sometimes work comes in front of family. And, at least on the surface, this is what the film is discussing. It goes from H.I. having to choose his "career" as a thief and the family life he makes for himself with Ed. He goes through the idea of stealing the baby not because he necessarily wants to, but because Ed wants to. When H.I. explains in voice over that the two "started in" with the child-rearing almost every day, you see H.I. doesn't seem particularly fond with the idea. He tells his wife to calm down. And it's only propogated later when Ed invites friends over and H.I. sees what marriage and children have done for their future. He's scared and has to make a decision - his career or his family? And the way he faces this is by creating his criminal self - Leonard Smalls, played by Randall Cobb. He may be real, but I like to think he's just H.I.'s alter-ego. But I think this is an obvious point given the shared tattoo. Plus that ending - can we really trust H.I. in his telling of the story?

The film just ends up revolving around this family notion and possibly the stigmas families may face. Why is it that Ed and H.I. can't have a single child, but a famous, rich man can? And in fact, he has five. Yet he doesn't know their names... I'm also not sure why Dr. Spock's Baby and Child Care is so prominent in the film. The only thing I can think of is that it pokes fun at these people reading the book since Dr. Spock did mention famously to, "Trust yourself. You know more than you think you do." Yet the characters in the book refer to it as the "instructions". The book ends up basically destroyed in the end, but still there. So maybe the Coen brothers pointed to it as saying that you have to trust yourself in handling a child ("Trust yourself to do the things that only you know best" - thank you, Bob Dylan!)? I'm not sure. I'm sure there are clues laying around to understand why, but I haven't analysed it enough to know. And other things, well, I'd like to leave it up to you to explore (like the baby itself, for example).

While I saw there was a more detailed meaning (the Coen brothers spent months writing the script - no doubt there are some real detailed things going on), I can't say the film's more superficial side was all the best. It was a fun film, with nice little comedy, nice shots, and an interesting way to analyse family, but it was a bit... random. And this was a complaint I think I had with The Big Lebowski if I recall correctly. I don't recall thinking this while watching No Country for Old Men, but even then... I don't know. Maybe that's just their style and, while things might tie in with its more symbolic meaning, the surface is a little too... odd for me to have completely enjoyed it. I would watch the movie again, but it was not a spectacular movie. The Coen brothers have definitely improved. This was their second commercial film together, so they could only go up from where they were. And it did. So while I'd give this one a watch for the little quirkiness it has, don't expect the same level of brilliance they may have shown in other movies. I'd like to take it as a film used to explore script, directing, and camera action.

Was this a messy review? Probably. I'm tired, but I did want to talk about it. So for those who don't like to read too much (why are you here?), Raising Arizona is a nice piece of cinema identifying the ideas around family, but definitely not the best of the Coen brothers' films.

Review CVI - Relatos salvajes

Review 106
Wild Tales (2014)

You know when you want to go see a movie in theatres, but you can't find anything worth watching because Hollywood just regurgitates and throws up the same ol' film ideas every year, changing them only slightly to promote the latest craze/politically minded ideas, like homosexuality? Well, I had that problem last week, but thankfully, there's one theatre a little ways away that plays some older films or foreign films that I always check out to see if I can watch a film that day. In this case, I came across Damián Szifrón's Relatos salvajes, or Wild Tales as it is known in English. I hadn't heard of the film before this, but when I saw it had been nominated for an Oscar and a Cannes (awesome!) and was Argentinian (don't ask), I was down. One of the people I went to see the movie with asked if it'd be an Amores perros type of deal, with the stories all connected. It didn't end up like that, but... Anyway, we'll check it out.

I can't exactly make one big summary of the film because there were six separate stories. So how about we talk about each one briefly, yes?

Pasternak
A model boards a plane and begins talking to the man next to her. After coincidentally discovering they know a mutual "acquaintance", things go from lucky to abnormal.

Las ratas (The Rats)
A man walks into a diner. The sole waitress serving him realises he is a loan shark that led to her father committing suicide. However, will she be able to kill him, even though her family was destroyed by his actions?

El más fuerte (The Strongest)
While cruising in the country of Argentina, a man driving a new, luxurious car messes with a hillbilly (tip 10: don't mess with hillbillies), only to lead to a fight of the fittest.

Bombita (Little Bomb)
After getting screwed over by the city's towing company, his wife, and his job, a demolitions expert might just have the solution to his problem.

La propuesta (The Proposal)
A father must decide whether to allow his son to take the fall for killing a pregnant woman in a hit-and-run incident or implement a whole scheme to put the blame on someone else, even if this means spending more money than he would like.

Hasta que la muerte nos separe (Until Death Do Us Part)
Discovering her newly husband's affair wasn't part of the plan, but this bride is ready to make her husband pay in the craziest wedding party of their lives.

So, I guess that just about summarises each story. I was going to go through each story and talk about it, but honestly, it would just be long and probably redundant. Instead, let me say that the film was fun. The prologue, Pasternak, really set up the film well, made you expect the violence, the suspense, the (dark) humour. It was only a continuing roller coaster of emotions throughout the rest of the movie. The stories don't connect like in Amores perros, but it works well. Each story was short enough to not drag on too long, but long enough to really connect and understand the story. It also made the movie seem less than the two hours it was. I remember being surprised at what time it was when we walked out of the theatre just because it felt like I had just started the movie. I think the short-stories-following-a-common-theme idea really works, and I liked this common theme of vengeance (and family?). I'm not surprised this film was nominated, and I'm glad I happened upon it!

Cinematography was great. I mean, there were some shots that were damn creative. Without saying anything, notice the opening of doors in La propuesta and Hasta que la muerte nos separe - it makes for a cool way of giving movement to the characters and the environment. The Argentine outback is also damn beautiful and I liked how El más fuerte showed that off. And, well, Bombita was totally my boyfriend, so we had a good laugh with that one. But I think we all feel like a little vengeance every now and then, no? This film sometimes takes it overboard, but I think if driven to our cracking point, we could all end up doing some pretty crazy things.

The film also looks at Argentine life, I'm sure, but having never been there/knowing few Argentinians, I can't make a comment about it. Still, you can see little bits that make it Argentinian (apart from it being spoken in Spanish with the Argentinian accent), even from a foreigner perspective. But the film is accessible to everyone, and while I'm sure I miss out on the film a bit, it nonetheless is a great piece with great cinematography, great actors, and I'm sure a deeper meaning that I have an idea about, but haven't fully developed. Plus the acting was super legit from Darío Grandinetti to María Marull, from Rita Cortese to Leonardo Sbaraglia, from Ricardo Darín to Érica Rivas, from... You get the idea. Let's say the movie passed my expectations and then some.

If you come across this movie in the theatres and are debating watching it or [insert Hollywood franchise here], watch this. Trust me, it's worth it, and you might actually get a bit more out of it.

Review CV - Lekce Faust

Review 105
Lesson Faust (1994)

It's been difficult finding films to watch lately. Maybe because the weather has been improving (somewhat) and I've been less willing to sit down and watch a film, but I've been slowing down for the month of May. Consequently, I haven't been able to review a film in a little while. However, while attempting to learn some German, I recalled the story of Faust and, consequently, remembered the ever-wonderful Jan Švankmajer had done a version, Lekce Faust, or Lesson Faust. I also haven't reviewed a Švankmajer film in a while (let's just say Alice was terrifying and Conspirators of Pleasure, even more so), so I think it was due time, mmm yes?

Our "Faust" of the story (Petr Čepek) exits the metro when he comes across two men distributing a map with a red marked spot. Ignoring it at first, "Faust" eventually gets curious enough to visit the spot after a supernatural event.

I can't even continue a synopsis because it's really hard to give a serious-sounding explanation of an empty egg inside bread causing a great gust of wind and suddenly our main character being played as if he were a puppet. It's Jan Švankmajer - what do you expect? If you know of the original Faust tale, it won't help much. I watched the film with someone who had seen the 1926 version of Faust, based on the original story from Goethe, and, while some parts were straight from the legend, it really did borrow from some other versions of the story, as well as just Švankmajer's imagination. But I guess you weren't expecting a copy of the Faustus legend since the movie is called Lesson Faust. There's some bit about it just being called Faust, but I like the official English title - it distances it from the original. And I wish I had known this prior to watching the film because I thought it was a version of Faust. Sigh. I guess with having watched Alice, I should have known better.

Now, while the film diverges from the original, that doesn't mean it is bad. Because it isn't. It's a typical Švankmajer film with such creativity I feel absolutely jealous that I don't have such an imagination. The way it goes from a normal plot to a crazy, surreal one is amazing. How "Faust" goes from being one of our characters of our movie to a character in a play being watched by an audience in the film is pretty ingenious. And it does it smoothly, even if it is odd. And really, this is what sells the film. The acting was nothing spectacular, but that's something in Švankmajer's films. You don't really watch it for the acting - you watch it for stop-motion, claymation, the surrealism. Honestly, usually I complain about surrealism because it serves no purpose and is just so cryptic that you don't even understand what's going on. But with Švankmajer's surrealism, you get it. You have to pay attention, but his meanings, his message, is obvious enough that it isn't like the white canvas with the three dots on it at the art show which could mean just about anything. His shorts are obvious in what they're conveying and instead of making you guess, give you the general idea and let you figure it out. And I am so for this, especially since Švankmajer does it so, so well.

Leske Faust is an interesting take on an old legend while combining it with modern life. It can be a bit slow at times and, while the acting is not the best, if you're into surrealism, definitely check it out. And if you haven't heard of Jan Švankmajer, watch a short from him and decide if it's for you. Happy watching!

Review CIV - Deliverance

Review 104
Deliverance (1972)

Pop quiz! Who came up with the idea of "survival of the fittest"? Many of you may be inclined to say Charles Darwin, the man who pushed the idea of evolution and natural selection; however, you would be wrong (though Darwin was still also on this page). This Social Darwinist idea is attributed to Herbert Spencer. He figured that some human beings are superior over others - like those who were Caucasian, rich, and educated - given their genes and, in the end, they will be the ones that stand up tall. Well, then comes along John Boorman's Deliverance which decides to show us how big white man's burden really is. It stars Jon Voight, Burt Reynolds, Ned Beatty, and Ronny Cox.

Lewis Medlock (Burt Reynolds), Ed Gentry (Jon Voight), Bobby Trippe (Ned Beatty), and Drew Ballinger (Ronny Cox) all decide to take a canoe camping trip up by Cahulawassee River in Georgia, United States, which will soon be flooded by a dam being built nearby. However, their trip may turn out to be more than just a weekend getaway. What did happen on the Cahulawassee River?

I debated reviewing this film, buuuuut then I decided why not? The film is relatively well known given one particular scene in the film, so I thought it must be worth a watch, right? Wrong. Burt Reynold's character starts, right off the bat, bringing up this idea that only the strong will survive. Already you know where this film is going. And then we see the hillbillies and we know, without a doubt, what's going on. Because seriously, who trusts hillbillies (I don't know any hillbillies personally, so maybe they're not all that bad, but in horror/thriller films, they're bad)? Honestly, I... don't really have much to say. The film was predictable, where the white guys are all disconnected from nature and carry white man's burden because they're so privileged, but it comes to bite them in the butt (or other things in the butt). But seriously, there's a difference to being naïve about nature and being complete idiots. I'll talk about one scene - the most popular scene of the film. So spoilers for the next paragraph!

Prior to the scene, we see Ed attempting to shoot a deer with a bow-and-arrow, but he can't because he can't see himself killing a living creature. I can't hate on him because I wouldn't want to shoot a deer in any way unless I was starving and had to, though I will say that the acting in this scene was ridiculous. He was shaking like a Parkinson's disease patient. I know they're trying to show his fear, but seriously? We're not daft. Anyway, we see this guy is soft, right? Now the infamous scene. Well, later on, him and Bobby canoe ahead of Lewis and Drew and, while stopping, they come across these two hillbillies. These hillbillies smell the fear on these guys and proceed to harass them until one of them rapes Bobby. Guys, this was ridiculous. Ed, who we know is soft, and Bobby, who, because he's overweight, must be soft, comply to the hillbillies' commands without any resistance. None. Sure, they have a gun, and I'd be scared shitless, but there's one gun. One of them could have tried to do something. There's not even an attempt. Again, I think of myself in that situation, and I'd be scared shitless, but at the same time, I doubt I wouldn't do anything either. I would try and talk my way through. I'd try and fight or something. And if the person I was with didn't try to defend me in any way, I'd be pissed, let me tell you. Especially if it was my friend. And of course Bobby's the one that gets raped. Ed is a title character, so no way we can see him get defiled in that way. The whole scene made me cringe, but just because it was so pathetic. I can't disagree that people have gone soft, but to the point where not one of them does anything? "You can't know how you'd react in a situation." No, you can't, but if something was threatening your life, trust me, you'd fight for it. You definitely wouldn't just gladly pull down your pants to get raped.

Done with spoilers. Anyway, that scene was a major letdown, and it just got worse from there. The whole film just made you hate everyone because really, in a life-or-death situation, I would hope you would try in some way to live. But the stupidities that these guys do... I can't believe it. All the film shows is white man's burden and how his privileges have made him soft. It's complete shit, seriously. I'm not saying I would be able to survive in the wilderness by myself, but what Man has accomplished shouldn't be something that should be pushed aside. We can live in any climate, and we can do it well. I don't agree with destroying the environment and I do believe ecologists should be asked for their opinion when development occurs, but again, this film seems to undermine everything Man has accomplished. And it especially points out the hell hole white man has built himself. But it does in such an obvious manner, such an uncreative and shitty manner, that this film makes me shake my head. Maybe you'll think differently, but I barely followed the final bits of the movie because it was so ridiculous.

Deliverance attempts at this "survival of the fittest" message, but it's just awful. Don't watch this film. It's not worth your time. The only thing that got me through this review was some awesome metal.