Review CXLII - Django

Review 142
Django (1966)

I've been binge watching westerns for some reason, and, well, I decided to check out Sergio Corbucci's Django, starring Franco Nero, Loredana Nusciak, and Ángel Álvarez. Instead of boring you with an intro, let's go ahead with this review. Also, I don't know why I keep finding these wonderful Japanese posters for films, but whatever - accept it!

Django (Franco Nero) carries a coffin with him as he journeys the desert, only to happen upon a young prostitute, Maria (Loredana Nusciak), about to be executed. Saving her only opens a can of worms he hoped to avoid.

What can I say about Django? Guys, it was awesome. It is considered one of the best Westerns out there, and I must say, it deserves that status. Of course we all know the brilliance of The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly and the other classics Sergio Leone threw at us, but honestly, Django is brilliant in its own way. I know the film is considered a loose adaptation of 用心棒 or Yojimbo, and as I mentioned in my review of the film, A Fistful of Dollars is basically a rip-off in terms of plot. However, Django really does have an originality to it. The elements of 用心棒 are there with a town being plagued by opposing factions, but otherwise, we actually have story in our protagonist that separates it from our protagonist in the Japanese classic. 用心棒, with its quirky music and jokester antics, made you smile and laugh. I would say A Fistful of Dollars was more serious, but they kept a little bit of hilarity with the grave keeper. However, Django keeps the serious tone throughout the film. The film starts with a man carrying a coffin for Christ's sake and the abuse of a woman. It presents itself completely different in tone. This really sets it apart from the strictly-following-用心棒 A Fistful of Dollars already.

Next, the story itself. As I said, the plot of Django does contain the primary theme of its Japanese counterpart, but it isn't quite the same. Slight spoilers here for the rest of the paragraph, so stop if you want to be completely surprised. Right, so, in the original, Kuwabatake sends the two groups to finish each other off all while getting a reward from them - just as is the case of Joe the stranger in A Fistful of Dollars. However, our protagonist in Django strays from this and instead has actual history with the ex-Confederate military occupants, particularly the leader (Eduardo Fajardo). He also knows the leader (José Bódalo) of the opposing Mexican revolutionaries and helped him out once. Django himself is a Yankee, and so he helps out the Mexicans. He only decides to doublecross them when he wishes to seek a new life with Maria and General Hugo tells him he has to wait until he overthrows the Mexican government. So we see that Django is really just trying to seek revenge on Major Jackson, or at least trying to get over his first love.

Really, in the end, what sets Django sets apart is the humanization of his character. There's a story, there's a man. A lot of westerns deal with this badass who has immense skill and is trying to earn a quick buck. There might be some romantic affiliation, but we never get a fully developed character. Granted, there is some in For a Few Dollars More, but this one is not revenge. Django denies his love because he was hurt once, all while Maria tells him to give up his fantasies to be with her. I dunno, to me, it just showed a vulnerability not present in most other westerns. You feel like Django could lose everything and that not everything goes his way. It was just so great. Positively and utterly fantastic. And I will give a great, huge nod to Franco Nero for catching this because with any less acting, with any less emotion, this character would have been wasted. The glee on his face, the cries of pain, the poker face... Sigh! Just great, absolutely great!

I should also mention that, while Maria is not a huge focus and her character is developed less, she nonetheless has some type of characterisation that pushes her to seek her needs. But given that she wasn't a big focus and her face rarely changed from poker face, Django still stands out as the most developed.

The cinematography was average, not as stupendous as in The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, but it nonetheless tells the story. Scenes have nice colours at least, right? As for music, well, the theme is brilliant. Definitely worthy.

My only major complaint with the film actually lies in one scene which, honestly, I wasn't sure if it was placed for fetishistic purposes or what. Basically there's a scene where the prostitutes are arguing over Maria being the source of their troubles, and they start fighting in mud. It went on for way too long - plus they fight like shit. It was pointless and I think they could have easily have taken all that out.

In the end, Django is a no-mercy powerful telling of a man who is stuck in the past and needs to move on. You watch this for that story and to see the brilliance of Franco Nero. Anything less from the man would have produced a mediocre spaghetti western, but his story and portrayal, as well as ballsy violence, really put this film on the high shelf for me. Watch this - you won't regret it!

Oh, and postscript - I checked out the dubbed version as it was the only one available, and it was really, really bad. Please watch the subbed version, even if you aren't a fan of reading. The dub really takes away from the movie and had me laughing at serious moments.

Trailer is the Italian one because that dub DESTROYS ME.

Review CXLI - The Girl on a Motorcycle

Review 141
The Girl on a Motorcycle (1968)

I really have been on a roll with reviews this month! It does help that I have been watching quite a few films during the week as background noise to some art pieces I've been working on. This time we have an Alain Delon film going for us because, well, I never would have checked it out if it wasn't for Alain Delon. It is Jack Cardiff's The Girl on a Motorcycle starring yours truly, Marianne Faithfull, and Roger Mutton. Let's jump right in.

Rebecca (Marianne Faithfull) has recently married Raymond (Roger Mutton), but finds herself riding her motorcycle to meet her lover, Daniel (Alain Delon).

I... literally have nothing else to say in terms of plot. It really is as simple as a love triangle where we're shown how impotent Raymond is and how erect Daniel is. Meanwhile, everyone is drooling over Rebecca given her thin frame fitting like a glove into the leather suit. She criticises the attention she receives, but criticises the men who ignore her. "He must be a homosexual," she claims of one of them. So honestly, in terms of plot, it really just follows a woman who is egocentric, knowing she is stunning and falling into place with Raymond as a "protection" against Daniel. Why? Because Daniel doesn't love her as he lost his true love once.

Really, this film has nothing going on. I know there's some type of critique on the Vietnam War in one scene when Rebecca sees armour recruitments riding around on tanks with "flowers on their heads" as she claims. What was it saying? Probably that the war was bad given Rebecca's statements. Otherwise, we mostly get a view of Daniel criticising love and asking his students whether or not marriage is even worth it when you can have your cake and eat it too, that is, have sex but never commit. But it was very downplayed in my opinion since Daniel was in love with a woman once. I mean, Rebecca most love him given that she keeps going back to sleep with him, so maybe this is showing us that women think they can get a man by sleeping with them? Also that she is a complete jerk for marrying Raymond? I mean, it's implied he knows, but I don't get why he wouldn't say anything.

I'm grasping on straws here, so really, the only thing going for this film is the erotic tension from Marianne Faithfull, but even that is barely used. I mean, the opening scene of her putting on the catsuit was nice, but if I was a guy, I would be pissed. You literally get barely anything else. And since I'm a woman, did I get Alain Delon? Well, yeah, but I'd rather watch Le samouraï where the focus is on him and I have an interesting story. Here, it's just boring and uninspired. I feel like Jack Cardiff wanted to make a film with just some visual appeal and tried to get everyone in by having Marianne Faithfull and Alain Delon (Roger Mutton was good-looking too, but whatever) starring in it, and then delivered absolutely nothing.

In the end, The Girl on a Motorcycle is summed up in the title. If you're looking for a sexy film, go elsewhere because this one really doesn't give you anything you wanted.

Review CXL - Wasabi

Review 140
Wasabi (2001)

When my boyfriend happened to not be working this weekend, I hopped in a car to visit him. Physically and mentally drowning, he proposed we watch a Jean Reno film, particularly Gérard Krawczyk's Wasabi, starring, well, Jean Reno, 広末涼子, or Hirosue Ryōko, and Michel Muller. I was pretty damn surprised he recommended this one, especially since he based his recommendation from a Vietnamese friend of his. Regardless, we plopped in front of his computer to check out Wasabi.

Hubert Fiorentini (Jean Reno) is a pretty get-your-hands-dirty kind of cop, but he has a soft spot after having been abandoned by his one true love nineteen years ago, a Japanese spy named Miko. However, when it turns out Miko left him everything in her will after an abrupt death, including a daughter, Yumi (広末涼子), he travels to Japan to find out whether or not Miko was murdered.

Number one comment is that I didn't realise our main actress was the girl from Departures. Whaaat! Then again, I watched that film years ago and only really remember something about morticians and bathing. Still, check it out - it was good! My second comment was, what the hell, Jean Reno was Spanish?! Obviously I don't know much. But anyway, that has nothing to do with the film, so I digress.

Honestly, Wasabi was not a bad film. I was expecting it to be really cheesy and just an overall bad action film. I mean, if there's something that kills a film really fast, at least for me, it would have to be a club/dancing scene. And Wasabi opens with one! It just dates the film and makes me feel uncomfortable. I think of how The Social Network had a club scene and I didn't mind it, but I think that's just because I liked the remix of The Sound of Violence (although listening to it now, it's not great). Otherwise, man, it just looks awkward as hell. But yeah, after seeing Jean Reno walk in and disrupt the party with a punch to a person's face, I breathed a sigh of relief. Seriously, though, the humour was not bad. My boyfriend and I had our little giggle every so often. I mean, Wasabi is not taking itself that seriously, so I didn't either. It's campy, but the initial scenes made me laugh. The whole "she left nineteen years ago" joke wasn't beaten into the bush too many times, so it stayed fresh enough to be cute.

Once Hubert travels to Japan, it was fine. I thought Michel Muller was fine - I liked the little bond the two had, although it really did remind me of Les visiteurs with Jean Reno as the macho machismo with a quirky sidekick on the... side. Although in this case, Michel Muller's character, Momo, was not as played. But guys, couldn't you have hired a half-Japanese actress instead of the full-on one we got? The whole time I was shaking my head since, if I was Hubert, I would have abandoned that girl the moment she walked in. So it was pretty unbelievable that Yumi was Hubert's daughter, but whatever, we'll pretend otherwise. I wasn't a big fan of Yumi's character, although thankfully she wasn't over-played as this Japanese cutesy girl. However, the atmosphere between her and Hubert was very odd at times. She was coming across as playing with him, which, I mean, she doesn't know he's her father, but it makes it off because Hubert is not sitting there telling her to cut it out. I dunno, man, maybe this was just me because afterward, when Yumi realises Hubert is her father, she doesn't find it weird at all. Still, it was just an awkward pairing in my opinion. When I was nineteen, I wouldn't be parading around with this older guy, even if I was told he was a protector or whatever. Yumi is rebellious and doesn't care, but she gladly brings him to an arcade to hang out with friends. Seemed really plot-driven and not making sense with the character's personality.

My only other complaint is that Hubert didn't know what wasabi was. What the hell? It seems odd to me that he would know some sake company and play oriental music in his apartment, but wasabi? Nah, man, that's obscure. It didn't make sense to me at all.

In the end, Wasabi is kind of awkward and it is not masterful in the least, but you'll get some chuckles. It isn't very action-y, so you're relying more on the little jokes to get you through. Recommended? Eh, it was okay. It passes, but don't expect much.

Review CXXXIX - Panique au village

Review 139
Panique au village (2009)

For some reason, I keep finding myself watching family-friendly films this year. I guess after a particularly stressful semester, I had to resort to child's entertainment to find the necessary love and humour. I mean, seriously, guys, I have never reviewed this many kids films! Regardless, I am here to talk about Stéphane Aubier and Vincent Patar's Panique au village, or A Town Called Panic in English, although the proper translation should be "Panic in the village". Aubier et Patar lend their voices for Cowboy and Cheval (Horse) respectively, and Bruce Ellison voices Indien (Indian/Native). Now, there also exists an animated television series for Panique au village, but I will focus on the film. I watched an episode from the show, which can be found here (no subtitles, sorry guys), but it really is in the same style, so regardless, you'll get the idea. Onwards!

Cowboy and Indien room with Cheval and after they find out it's Cheval's birthday, they decide to make him a barbeque. But when the delivery goes wrong, the trio are thrown into a bigger mess than anticipated, all while Cheval tries to make it to his piano lesson with Madame Longrée (Jeanne Balibar).

I was already familiar with Aubier and Patar's work given that I had watched Ernest et Célestine with my boyfriend about a year ago. I had enjoyed it, but I can't say it had left an impression considering I barely remember the film... Anyway, I still remembered the film being beautifully animated, and while Panique au village is different in its animation style, it's superb. Oh my god. Guys, I loved this film. Sticking with the discussion of its animation style, I am a big sucker for stop-motion. And to be honest, the style presented was reminiscent of Robot Chicken. While I've never been a fan of the humour of Robot Chicken, I have no beef with the animation. I used to live on Klay World growing up thanks to my cousin, and I guess it could only go up from there. So if you're a sucker for stop-motion animation, Panique au village is one hundred percent your thing.

Now, the film is for kids, but that doesn't mean I didn't have a great laugh with it. I have a feeling once I get my boyfriend to watch this, I'll be yelling, "Cowboy!" much more often. I loved the voice acting which got me laughing each time. Oh my god, Steven, voiced by Benoît Poelvoorde had me dying. There's something about yelling that gets me every time (watch and you'll understand). Anyway, the voice acting was there, it was great. Then the violence was there, but given it's stop-motion, it just gets me so much more. Something about Indien getting thrown in a wall and crashing head-first just made me die. I guess the real-not-real element just makes it real without making the violence too much for little kids. Anyway, the slapstick was there and it was well executed. The plot, going everywhere and nowhere, was interesting, and brought you to different imaginative scenarios, which I really appreciated. It kept me guessing and smiling and laughing. It was just awesome.

Otherwise, what else do I have to say about Panique au village? Not really much else. It was a funny watch, and I highly recommend it for the child in you. I will definitely show my kids this one day. I guess my only issue is that it's very difficult to find online, and I actually only found a French version, which for me wasn't a problem, but makes it unavailable to the anglophones, hispanophones, lusophones, and all the other -phones potentially. However, a quick search seems to produce a subtitled Blu-ray copy available on Amazon in English. But for those who are looking to see if it's their thing, you do have the series available on youtube, although it isn't subtitled. Nonetheless, if you can somehow find a subtitled version - or you speak French (it is pretty basic French) - check it out. I highly, highly recommend it.

Review CXXXVIII - Melancholian 3 huonetta

Review 138
The Three Rooms of Melancholia (2004)

I actually watched Pirjo Honkasalo's Melancholian 3 huonetta, or The Three Rooms of Melancholia in English, wow, almost three years ago, I think. I know it was one of the early films my boyfriend and I watched together. I never reviewed it since I remembered thinking it was mediocre and meh, but I recently gave it a re-watch after my friend gave me a fictional book focusing on the second Chechen War called A Constellation of Vital Phenomena by Anthony Marra (I can't really say much about it as I've been going through it really slowly and am now close to finishing, but I guess that can give you an idea of how I feel about it). So let's check out this Finnish documentary, shall we?

I suppose I can give a little context to the situation since I'm assuming quite a few of you may never have even heard of Chechnya. I'm also going to note that I'm going with a simplified version that I got from reading from some sources, not from any Russian or Chechen individuals. So if you're Russian or Chechen and ready to point fingers on my inaccurate description, my apologies - I'm always ready for corrections.

The Soviet Union was finally destroyed in 1991 when previous Soviet republics, like Estonia and Kyrgyzstan, finally gained independence (little shout out to Lithuania for getting out in 1990 - and check out Underground from Antanas Šileika for a nice read on the rebellion during the Soviet Union's occupation. My grandfather, who was born in Lithuania, enjoys telling me that sixty percent of the book is accurate). While everyone was celebrating, Chechnya waited patiently to gain independence, but Russia denied them. The reason? The country had never been recognised as an independent state within the Soviet Union unlike like Latvia, for example. Russia also feared that other now Russian states would want to leave if Chechnya was granted permission, so they were told they had to stay. Well, Chechnya was not about to let this go without a fight, leading to the First Chechen War from 1994 until 1996 where they received temporary independence from Russia. However, given the complete economic and structural ruin of the country, Russia still provided some type of aid. I'm fuzzy on the details here, so I'd rather just skip to the Second Chechen War, which started in about 1999/2000 until 2009. The Islamic International Brigade attempted to invade another Russia republic, which in turn, led to a military attack from Russia which pushed into Chechnya. War waged, but given the state Chechnya was in, ultimately, Chechnya faced defeat and are currently occupied by Russia. ... I feel like my explanation was really poor, but I think knowing that the film takes place during the Chechnya war and the republic wanted to seek independence provides enough context.

The documentary focuses on children from Russia and Chechnya in three chapters - Longing, Breathing, and Remembering. Chapter one looks on the Russian side, the second, about a woman, Hadizhat Gataeva, who seeks lost children in Chechnya in order to care for them at an orphanage, and chapter three peeks into the life of the children at the orphanage run by Hadizhat Gataeva. The first and last chapter are in colour, whereas the middle one is in black and white.

Honestly, Three Rooms really does hit hard. I'd say I felt it harder this time around than the first time I saw it. Nonetheless, I can't say the documentary was extraordinary. I found the introductions of most of the children, especially in chapter one, was kind of fast and not personal. I felt like it wanted to focus on all the children, then focused on a few, then didn't focus on any by filming all the children. It was very impersonal, even though I still shook my head when one of the boys begs his mom to come and get him so he could leave for winter vacation. The second chapter was probably the most effective for me as you met Hadizhat Gataeva and then followed her through her job for the duration of the chapter. The third chapter again lost this sense of person, but to a lesser extent. There were less children, so it was hard to lose focus, but I still thought the little introduction of the girl nearing the middle/end of the chapter was kind of delayed. I think instead it should have been made up front and then we could have focused on the three children introduced. It just seemed weird getting this connection with two of the boys and then it's like, "Yeah, here's this girl, by the way." Instead, I think it would have been more effective to just discuss all of them because the girl had an awful story, and just kind of showing her because she happened to be at the prayer meeting and then telling her story seemed off-beat and weird.

As for aesthetics, it was fine. I personally didn't see anything crazy in the film that I really loved, but then again, both times I watched it, the quality was pretty awful, but camera angles never did anything super interesting.

I wanted to make this review mostly because I think it's a documentary you may not have heard of, but provides something new. It really is depressing and I appreciate that the director chose to show both the Russian and Chechen sides instead of just one because war does meet consequences on both sides. My beef is the character introductions seem sporadic and so I lost a lot of personal connections with them. I think better editing and maybe some increased monologue could have helped. Maybe?

The Three Rooms of Melancholia is not stupendous documentary making, but it is different since I had never heard of the Chechen wars prior to this film. It might not be great, but I'd still give it a watch anyway.

Full film available on youtube with English and Italian subtitles hard-coded in.

Review CXXXVII - Grand Piano

Review 137
Grand Piano (2013)

Hey everyone! I'm sorry for my absence - it's been kind of a wild ride around here. I also haven't really sat down to watch any films, and then I re-watched Martin Scorsese's Cape Fear. I really wanted to review it, but my heart wasn't there. Sometimes I'm down to do a huge-ass review of the thing and look into it and analyse it, but it just means way too much time out of my day. So instead I opted to review Eugenio Mira's Grand Piano starring Elijah Wood, John Cusack, and Kerry Bishé. My sister's boyfriend brought up this film probably a year or two ago - I almost thought it was 2015 for a second, shit - and kept asking if I had watched it. I studied piano for years and, while I am no where close to being a concert pianist, I'm still kind of knowledgeable on the subject a bit. Anyway, I finally sat down to watch it last night after needing a film to play in the background as I prepped a card for my boyfriend. So onward!

Tom Selznick (Elijah Wood) is a well-renowned concert pianist who, five years prior, had screwed up a performance, leaving him with terrible stage fright. Deciding to break from his spell with the encouragement of his famous wife, Emma (Kerry Bishé), he returns to play on the piano of his great teacher, Patrick Godureaux, as a homage to his life after his recent passing. However, his usual stage fright is taken to a whole new level when a mysterious man threatens to kill his wife if he plays one wrong note.

So, yeah, it was cool. I thought it was a fun film. I think it goes without saying that the hand postures were a bit... strained in my opinion at times, but honestly, I was paying half a mind to it, so I think I missed a lot of the times where I got shots of Tom playing the piano. Of course there's the single one I knew from the trailer, but whatever, man - the point of the film was not the technical details of the playing of the piano. Just like in films, gun action is never accurate, but you don't pay mind to it, unless the film was about guns. In which case, maybe you might be upset. But there was some shit that bothered me if only because it was flat-out no. Number ONE - concert pianists don't use sheet music. I mean, maybe it happens on occasion, but seriously, this is not common. You're told of the performance and you memorise that shit, man. Even I memorised my piece for the last piano concert I did, and half the audience was under five (this was last year, so I was not under five, sniff). I know this was literally for the sake of the plot, but it was so bullshit. When he walked to the piano and the guy stops him and he's like, "You almost forgot your partitions!" I was more baffled that Tom even needed them than he'd forget them. Apparently the director studied piano, so this is a big no-no. I would have tried to implement the threats in another manner than the sheet music because seriously. That was too bullshit. Fake the piano playing, cool, but not the sheet music! Here, check this video of Marc-André Hamelin, a well-known and super famous pianist, playing an all Liszt concert. Liszt has some pretty technically difficult pieces, and do I see any sheet music? No. Here's Yundi Li playing at a famous competition at eighteen years old (skipped to my favourite part). Any sheet music? No, and here he was making a name for himself. Just...

Now, again, you practice like crazy before the concert to memorise that piano piece, yet Tom does a three-sixty when the killa asks him to change the final piece. First, the orchestra's like, "Yeah, cool, man, no problem." And Tom just memorised the piece once he realises he doesn't have the sheet music. So you can't play the freakin' piece you're playing for the concert and you need the sheet music, but the most difficult piece in the world - which you haven't played in years and is, again, the most difficult piece - no worries, that one is down. I think I remember the killa saying the thing is fast and technical and les accords plaqués are huge or something, but anyway, you really take away from the difficulty of the piece if Tom just has it memorised. I know he played that concert five years ago, but five years is a long time! I'm not saying Tom wouldn't remember anything, and I'm sure there's a theoretical aspect to the piece where he might be like, "Yeah, man, it follows the cycle des quintes," but BULLSHIT. This guy is also not at all distracted by the fact people might die around him and performs extraordinarily well, but you know, whatever, it'll help him remember. You would still need to practice it. And the orchestra - Jesus, are you kidding me? If you were willing to believe that Tom somehow knew the whole thing, then how does the orchestra know their bit down one hundred percent? And honestly, that conductor - the most jokester one I've ever heard, but it's okay, I liked it. Still, seems off to me.

I know I'm butchering this shit, but honestly, I couldn't review this film without mentioning anything. I mean, I understand it was necessary for plot, but I need realism here! And I guess I have one other point to mention - the killa's like, "You play other people's music. You're so unimaginative!" I know this isn't supposed to be taken as a literal argument, but this isn't a Beatles cover band, man. If we didn't have concert pianists and musicians to record this stuff, we'd never get to hear the beautiful works of Ravel, of Vivaldi, of Messiaen (oh, Messiaen and Pierre-Laurent Aimard). We could never go out and enjoy concerts of lovely (and not so lovely) pianists interpreting wonderful music. And let me tell you that pianists - and musicians in general - never take a piece and spew out something exactly like everyone else. Compare Gould's performance of Sonata No. 3, Op. 58, fourth movement from Chopin and Blechacz's performance. Different, isn't it? I took polar opposites here since Gould is always Bach-ing things up, but even if that is too subtle for you, listen to Led Zeppelin's live performance of Stairway to Heaven and then Frank Zappa doing a cover. Damn, son, kind of different, eh? Now, the point of grand pianists is to stay true to the original musician, but if the piece was written five hundred years ago, there is room for some interpretation. So don't listen to this locksmith talking shit. I'm guessing no one else particularly cared about this, but whatever, I still wanted to make a point.

Now, in the end, if you look at face value, the film does make a great point that, in my experience as an amateur pianist, the audience doesn't hear when you make mistakes. You can't play a piece perfectly - if you get it down technically, you could be missing soul. If you add soul, you maybe miss out on a note or a proper pause. But in the end, the little errors mean nothing to the audience. Granted, if I was in the audience and I knew the piece and the last note was a mistake, that would probably be different, but otherwise, you're there to play the music and enjoy it, not worry about making mistakes. The audience is mostly made up of noobs who enjoy the music, not teachers hounding down on you for screwing up somewhere. So that message really was great for pianists and musicians alike, I'm sure. Slight spoilers but honestly, the whole time I was wondering, "Couldn't he just play the last four bars slow...?" What if it wasn't exactly exact given everyone has a different interpretation of playing a piece? But whatever, I think I thought about this film too much.

Grand Piano was pretty flawed in its technical aspects, but it was still an interesting thriller. And I was dying, i.e. laughing, when I found out who the killa was (I literally knew nothing going in). To be honest, the voice was pretty nice - the deepness was just right, especially with the noise of the microphone, and the threatening speech just enhanced the beauty. I don't think I'll ever look at the actor the same ever again... Sigh.