In the seventeenth chapter of “The Voyage of the Beagle,” Charles Darwin turned to the mating habits of the giant Galápagos tortoise. “When the male and female are together, the male utters a hoarse roar or bellowing, which, it is said, can be heard at the distance of more than 100 yards,” he wrote. This is also the most accurate description that we possess of the duet performed by Mick Jagger and Christina Aguilera in “Shine a Light,” Martin Scorsese’s documentary on the Rolling Stones. [link]

Mr. Lane is – as usual – on the money.

In an interview with the cast and filmmakers of the upcoming Coen Brothers’ film, No Country For Old Men, Javier Bardem (and the Coens) talk about how his hair came to look the way it was in the movie.

Lisa Schwarzbaum (Moderator): I think there are two things that dominate this film – one is landscape and the other is hair. It is the hair of your character. How was that decided?

Javier Bardem: I think it was a decision taken by the brothers and Paul Le Blanc, no? And i was just the victim. I just had to live with it for the next three months.

LS: So you didn’t come in and say this is how I like it?

JB: No. No, I’m not that sick.

And later, Josh Brolin recounts an off-set remark made by Bardem.

Javier got his hair cut and then we went to the Cowgirl Cafe, which is kind-of a lesbian bar in Santa Fe. And he was sitting there, and he was kind-of depressed and I said,

“You know, it’s all good. It’s the Coens. You know, you love their movies.”

He looks to me and he goes (in a spot-on Bardem impression),

“I’m not going to be laid for three months!”

It’s from a whole series of videos on YouTube culled from one show by IFC News. Watch the ‘hair’ part of the interview:

Milos Forman’s (One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest, Amadeus) latest movie can be divided into two halves: The first half being intellectual masturbation for the anti-war groups; and the second half, a historical melodrama. Putting the two together results in a political soap opera which is as intellectually compelling (and just as easy on the eye) as two attractive undergraduates in a fancy restaurant, discussing politics with a vaulted rally of typified liberal clich?s.

The movie is more about Brother Lorenzo (Javier Bardem) than it is about Goya (Stellan Skarsg?rd). The latter is relegated to the background, perhaps symbolic of his real-life role as passive chronicler of history. Goya survived several vacillations in Spain’s political climate by agreeing to paint for anyone in power, including the church. At the same time though, he created etchings which were dark and satirical and show up frequently through the movie.

So while Goya is painting portraits of In?s Bilbat?a (Natalie Portman) and Brother Lorenzo, the latter, armed only with his ambition and (for some reason) an overtly dulcet tone leads a movement for increased action against heretics. This results in the official summoning of In?s who is under suspicion of following “ancient Judaistic rituals” since she was spotted refusing to eat pork at a tavern one night. And in a scene transition that New York Times critic Matt Zoller Seitz calls “an early candidate for transition of the year” she is “put to the Question” (a euphemism for torture), confesses to being a heretic, and is imprisoned. She is, in reality, a devout Christian but simply doesn’t like pork.

Goya Unveils a Painting of Queen Mar?a Luisa (Blanca Portillo)

In?s?s father, Tom?s ( a rich merchant), asks Goya for help, who arranges for Brother Lorenzo to dine at their residence one night. As we learn, Tom?s has other intentions and though the evening starts with a civilized dinner argument about “the Question,” it ends with Lorenzo hanging upside-down from the chandelier suspended by his wrists, and ultimately agreeing to sign a confession that he is the “bastard child of a chimpanzee.” As far as entertainment value goes, this was the movie?s climax, with everything after this being soporific in comparison.

Bardem acted well, despite a shallow characterization, but Skarsg?rd was miscast as a background character. Goya surfaces in the second half only insofar as the Portman characters of In?s and her daughter physically resemble characters from his etchings. If only her portrayals were as interesting.

Forman survived Nazi and Czech communist rule and that probably played a part in the creation of the movie. He is most famous for his riveting and thought-provoking depictions of real-life geniuses and rebels – those who exist on Society’s fringes (McMurphy,Mozart, Flynt, Kauffman). Here, though the production is slick, he provides us with only a very brief glimpse of the inherent conflict and drama associated with such personalities. The script, co-written by Forman and Bu?uel regular, Jean-Claude Carri?re, might work as a Dadaist feature, but fails as a historical drama, and is even more disappointing as a biopic.

Pacino increasingly sought out big, shouty parts and then inflated them past their already outsized proportions: He out-Sataned Satan in The Devil’s Advocate (1997), spontaneously combusted at regular intervals in Two for the Money (2005), and imitated a disgruntled spaniel in this year’s Ocean’s Thirteen.

The victory of shtick over craft is disheartening. It’s important to remember, though, that the man is a populist, whether he’s communing with admirers outside the stage door or directing Looking for Richard, a film obsessed with making Shakespeare accessible to a mass audience. [link]

[There is a video that cannot be displayed in this feed. Visit the blog entry to see the video.]

From the trailer, it looks like they are back with a bang and are bringing on all the blood, noir, edginess, and “edge-of-the-seat”-iness from their Blood Simple days. After Ladykillers, I think it’s about damn time. And the fact that Javier Bardem is playing the bad guy definitely can’t hurt. Release date is 21 November, 2007. I can’t wait!

Ms. Jolie is now more of a brand than a person, and she comes in six flavors:

1. The celebrity.
2. The sexpot.
3. The Brad handler.
4. The mother.
5. The world saver.
6. Oh yes, the actress.

[link]

He talks about Jolie in a review of ‘A Mighty Heart’. And in doing so, he has yet again proved his adroitness at turning the lowly film review into a full-fledged Art Form. Here’s the unabridged version of #4:

4. The mother. Official estimates as to how many children Jolie now possesses, and from how many continents, change on a weekly basis. When not giving birth herself, she likes to order in. How this has affected Mr. Pitt is unclear, but his expression is sometimes that of a man who stepped out to hail a cab and got run over by a fleet of trucks. [link]

[There is a video that cannot be displayed in this feed. Visit the blog entry to see the video.]

I just saw The Departed. A few months late and a few dollars short (thanks to Netflix) but it was on purpose, because I wanted to watch Infernal Affairs first. I’m glad I waited. It?s unfortunate that Martin Scorsese has resorted to making big budget blockbusters in the last few years, because it has diluted his body of work.

This is not to say that there?s anything wrong with big budget blockbusters; it?s just that the ones that Scorcese has been making in the last few years are pretty flat compared with his earlier stuff. While it was tightly shot, with decent cinematography, The Departed seemed shallow and unreal overall. More importantly, it did not fare well against its elder twin Infernal Affairs for three main reasons.

First of all, the plot for the latter was completely original ? something that very few moviegoers had ever had the chance to see. Secondly, the actors brought out an incredible level of depth and complexity in their characters, which was not seen with The Departed. And third, and most importantly, the concept of loyalty ? on which the entire plot hinges ? seemed so much more culturally believable in Hong Kong, than it was in Boston. As a bonus, audiences for Infernal Affairs had no soft landing in the end – the finale was more powerful, more realistic and consequently, more cynical than The Departed‘s. When comparing the two, Infernal Affairs comes out head and shoulders above The Departed, all of its Oscars notwithstanding.

While Infernal Affairs has had the privilege of being remade by Martin Scorsese, not all films coming out of East and Southeast Asia share this honor. Over the last ten years or so, especially since the economies there have started to pick up, the film industries have been booming. As a result, there have been some real gems that have been created on that side of the Pacific. Too many other films deserve the exposure that Infernal Affairs received, and quite frankly, almost all of them are not going to get it.

Most likely, several of you reading this will miss out on some examples of excellent cinema only because you never get the chance to hear of a particular film. Readers in the Bay Area however, need not despair. An excellent opportunity is only a few days away. I?m talking, of course, about the Asian American Film Festival that?s showing in San Francisco, Berkeley and San Jose, from March 15th through the 25th. Some of the finest films shot in the last decade are going to be previewed there, including some which have never received any prior western exposure, either in the form of widespread DVD availability or in the form of theatrical release.

The Day A Pig Fell Into The Well

One of the striking features of the festival is a Hong Sang-soo retrospective. Sang-soo is a South Korean filmmaker who received critical recognition with his debut directorial feature The Day A Pig Fell Into The Well released in 1996. His latest feature is Woman on the Beach which was released last year. The Festival is featuring a complete screening of all his films.

A recurrent theme in all of Sang-soo?s films is the alienation and stunted emotional growth experienced by his characters. They all relate to others in a unique and particular way, which clearly shows how they can be members of society but yet remain completely detached from it. These people are sociopaths on some level, creating a world for themselves which is completely isolated from the real world. What is interesting is to see how they react to each other, and to their own handicap especially since they themselves are unaware of it.

What is disturbing is that if their detachment were not so extreme and their emotional void not quite so empty, they might just be people like you or me. If you believe in accidents, then it is a small twist of fate that has made these characters the way they are and it is just as likely they could have gone another way, in which case, ended up quite normal. This fragility is what makes Hong?s movies so enticingly repulsive. If you are interested in the complexities of human nature, Hong?s films are for you.

Blackout

But we need not delve into the seamy underbelly of the human unconscious to enjoy a good movie. The Festival is also showcasing some of the best action thrillers. Of note is the Filipino film, Blackout about an alcoholic, single father who wakes up to see his rear bumper bloodied after one of his blackouts. Directed by whiz kid Ato Bautista, the movie blurs the line between reality and unreality as we unravel the mystery.

Also showing is Chris Chan Lee?s Undoing, a neo-noir film based in (where else?) LA, about crooked cops, blackmail and a fugitive who returns home for some revenge. It stars Sung Kang of The Fast and Furious: Tokyo Drift fame, in a strikingly different role.

And finally, the Canadian drama Dragon Boys tells the story of a Chinese Canadian cop who wants to take on the Vancouver triad. Directed by Jerry Ciccoritti, it showcases talent from the US, Canada and Hong Kong, and has been compared with The Sopranos and The Wire.

The Year of the Fish

For the more romantic types, we have David Kaplan?s The Year of the Fish, a rotoscoped fantasy film about a young Chinese immigrant, showcasing New York City like you?ve never seen it before. There?s also the racy and sexually charged Summer Palace which has director Lou Ye tell the story of two Beijing University students over the period of ten years. Noteworthy documentaries like Duc Nguyen?s Bolinao 52 showcase the story of a boat of ill-fated Vietnamese refugees who leave the country in the hopes of escaping persecution in 1980 Vietnam. There are even shorts from South Asia like the striking chapters from Sita Sings the Blues which takes stories from the Indian epic, The Ramayana, and retells them in short, animation form.

It?s impossible to highlight every good movie showing at the festival. This is just a handful of noticeable films and for each one mentioned here, there are about three or four films which are just as good. My only advice is: If you?re in the Bay Area, check it out. You won?t want to miss it.

Mira Nair’s The Namesake follows the life of Ashoke Ganguli (played superbly by Irrfan Khan) as he goes to the US to get a Ph.D., and returns to look for a wife in Calcutta. He finds Ashima (portrayed excellently by Tabu), they have an arranged marriage, replete with all the colors and exotica of an Indian wedding, and return to New York (this is changed from the book) for Ashoke to finish his graduate studies. The story then follows them as they adjust to life in this country and move on with their lives. Soon they have a boy, Gogol/Nikhil (Kal Penn), and shortly thereafter, they have a girl, Sonia (Sahira Nair). They move into a house in suburbia, as Ashoke becomes a professor and Ashima gets a job at the local library. Then, watching Gogol grow up, we follow him as he begins to live his adult life – choosing a career, a girlfriend and then a wife – and all of the trials and tribulations that he faces, being a second-generation Indian in America.

Ashoke (Irrfan Khan) and Ashima (Tabu) pose with a new-born Gogol

The film had a few good moments, especially in the interplay between Ashoke and Ashima. Their relationship was poignant, stirring and sweetly humorous. Another scene was also good: In the bridal suite after Ashoke and Ashima’s son, Gogol/Nikhil marries Moushumi (Zuleikha Robinson), they both do a short, Bollywood-style dance, inserted in there clearly as a parody. Other than that though, the movie was mildly entertaining.

Carried mainly by the superlative acting of Irrfan Khan and Tabu, it was tender and emotional at moments. Overall however, the movie falls flat. Nair caters to a Western audience and spends some time in the exposition of Indian customs and clarifies their purpose for the average Western viewer. This is necessary, to some extent, but perhaps a little subtlety might have made it more palatable. Also, some of the shots of Calcutta are straight from the Textbook of the Exotic – a kid flying a kite, a statue of Durga being hoisted down from a building. While there is a certain nostalgic appeal to all of this, it ultimately seems disingenuous and ends up distancing the Indian moviegoer. It is a disappointment and a step down from Monsoon Wedding and Mississippi Masala.

In The Namesake we see the single-mindedness of purpose and spirituality of the first-generation Indians, that comes from the struggle to adapt and fit in. We also see success and adaptability come easier to the second generation but they too, have a plethora of issues that they must contend with. Clearly, both generations face complex problems with no easy solutions. While many of us can probably identify (or at least, empathize) with either of those, it did not make for good movie-making. Perhaps Nair was trying to put too much into one movie and the balancing act resulted in everything falling down.

On the whole, if you liked the book, then watch the movie. Otherwise, wait for the DVD.

We are all voyeurs. Why else do we watch movies? Sure, there’s the escapism, the pleasure of being moved emotionally and the satisfaction of knowing that sometimes, the good guys do win. But at the bottom of it all, we like to see how others live their lives. We enjoy the act of watching others freely, unfettered and, for the most part, guilt-free. Particularly when the other’s lives are more interesting than ours – and, really, when are they not? The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence. And it’s particularly green when the protagonist, the star of the film, our alter ego, the one who we all identify with, emerges a hero. If the movie is good, we truly feel that it is made for each of us. We feel, it is for me.

In The Lives of Others, Captain Gerd Wiesler (Ulrich M?he) is a voyeur by profession. He works in East Berlin, for the Stasi, the secret police that existed in the former German Democratic Republic prior to the dismantling of the Berlin Wall. He is paid to watch others, to ensure they are not political agitators and pose no threat to the status quo. And he is good. He can extract the truth from a potential criminal in a matter of hours. In fact, he has it down to a science. While lecturing future Stasi agents on interrogation techniques, he teaches them his formula: Keep them awake, make sure they are seated, and repeatedly ask them the same question, if necessary, for forty hours. If they are guilty, they will break. If not, they will protest. It’s that simple. He even has a tape with a real-life case-study to demonstrate the effectiveness of this technique. “Isn’t that inhuman?” one student asks, innocently. Wiesler quietly puts a cross next to his name.

At one point early on in the film, Wiesler watches a play (another form of voyeurism) written by party-friendly playwright Georg Dreyman (Sebastian Koch). In a few short minutes of observing his behavior backstage, Wiesler ascertains Dreyman’s potential perfidy to the Party. He expresses his doubts to Lieutenant Colonel Anton Grubitz (Ulrich Tukur) who denies it. After all, Dreyman is possibly the only non-subversive writer in the country. A few minutes later, during the intermission, Grubitz receives orders from Culture Minister Bruno Hempf (Thomas Thiene) to watch Dreyman – he could be a potential threat. Wiesler is smug. He is placed in charge of Operation ‘Lazlo’, as it is called. A van pulls up outside Dreyman’s apartment, bugs are planted, cameras are placed strategically and an observing-station is set up in a deserted attic in a building across the street. Dreyman’s neighbour happens to watch the men get in and get out. Says Wiesler to her, ?One word of this and Masha loses her place at the university.? He is good.

Until now, Wiesler is our protagonist. Even though we know its inherently wrong, we can’t help but admire Wiesler’s steel resolve and clean, methodical modus operandi. But now we are introduced to the life of playwright and free thinker Dreyman, who lives with his girlfriend and the country’s leading actress, Christa-Maria Sieland (Martina Gedeck). The couple who, as Wiesler notes from his in his report, have parties, fight with each other as lovers are wont to do, then make up and “presumably have intercourse.” As we observe their daily activities, and watch Dreyman do nothing in particular that is seditious, we begin to wonder: What is this movie about?

Dreyman and Sieland share a tender moment

We watch Wiesler go home one night after his shift. It is a small, drab apartment in a greyish-brown building. He eats a dinner of tomato-puree-from-a-tube with spaghetti. This is followed by sex with a prostitute who leaves before he can even zip his pants up. As we leave him, he sighs noticeably, and stares into nothingness. As he watches Dreyman and Sieland, he starts to notice this lack of color in his life. He then finds out the operation was instituted because Minister Hempf is having an affair with Sieland and the competition must be eliminated. Some time later, he steals a book by Bertolt Brecht from Dreyman and reads it. Slowly, but surely, the doubts begin to form. The change is almost imperceptible. His face still remains expressionless. He is still just as terse and monotonic with his colleagues. But he is softer now. Something has definitely changed.

The Lives of Others is about transformation through voyeurism. As Wiesler observes Dreyman, he learns of another world. A world which, despite its inherent confusion and apparent chaos, seems to be more honest than the corrupt, power-hungry members of the Stasi. As he watches them, he gets more involved in their lives and realizes the emptiness and lack of color in his own life. He realizes that merely to get the truth across, these artists must constantly play games of subterfuge and deception. He realizes that all that he has believed in thus far is a sham. Inasmuch as Wiesler’s change is the most dramatic, even Koch undergoes a transformation from party-friendly playwright, to a subversive writer. As he watches his close friend and director kill himself after being blacklisted, he decides to publish an article in the West German magazine publication Der Spiegel. The question then becomes, what will Wiesler do? How will he use his knowledge of Dreyman and his cohorts? Will he do the right thing? And will he be able to get away with it?

Wiesler at his station

The Lives of Others is Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck’s debut film, and he does nothing short of creating a masterwork. The terse plot drives this movie, keeping you on the edge of your seat. The acting by Ulrich M?he is excellent as he maintains an expressionless face betraying every emotion through subtleties in body language and consciously imperceptible actions. The movie is shot tightly, and the cinematography spares nothing to bring out the dull grays of the East German landscape. The good and bad guys are clearly demarcated however, and the film’s morality is black and white. That is, of course, except for Wiesler who gets stuck in the grays of East German reality. The last line in the film: ?Es ist f?r mich???It is for me.? is truly symbolic. Through this act of voyeurism, we have come to feel that this movie is truly for each of us. We feel, it is for me.