Funny Games (2007)

by Thomas Flanagan (guest blogger)

Warning: Spoilers follow.

2007’s Funny Games, much like its 1997 Austrian predecessor, chronicles the demise of an upper middle-class family as they are harangued, tormented, tortured, and eventually murdered by two malicious, albeit eloquent, youths (Michael Pitt and Brady Corbet). The movie opens with the family serenely driving to their summer home, amicably listening to a piece by Handel. The harmony elicited by that composition is interrupted by the cacophonous sound of Naked City ’s discordant song “Bonehead,” signaling to the audience that a nightmarish, macabre experience lay in wait for the unsuspecting family. As the family arrives we see that their neighbors are apprehensively entertaining two teenagers dressed in all white apparel. The two groups tensely exchange pleasantries, and then the family departs to their home to begin to arrange things for their stay. Shortly after arriving. One of the young men arrives asking to borrow eggs for the next-door neighbors. This marks the beginning of the hellish journey the family must undertake as the two adolescents kidnap the family and force them to participate in a series of charades where survival is the grand prize. Ultimately the entire family is massacred by this “gruesome twosome”, after which the duo eagerly arrives at the home of the next credulous victim, continuing the circle of lunacy and butchery.

Now I will relieve you, the moviegoer, of the burden of having to watch this beastly, rubbish film. The problem with this particular motion picture is its potential. The movie itself is visually and emotionally breathtaking. The cinematography is state of the art; the wardrobe and set were elegantly designed (the camera work combined with the Long Island backdrop truly gives the feeling of a vibrant New England morning at the film’s onset). The cast was not only well selected, all involved performed quite admirably. Tim Roth turns in an astonishing portrayal of the patriarch of the family, and Naomi Watts also delivers a solid performance. I was especially pleased with the performance of young Devon Gearhart, who played the family’s son. I often find myself thoroughly unimpressed with child actors, but this young man captured the panic of a youngster thrust into a ludicrous, atrocious situation (the fear he exudes is palpable when the gun he has aimed at Michael Pitt’s character misfires). And speaking of Michael Pitt, everyone knows he is a quite talented thespian. Thus, with all of the other elements in place for a noteworthy picture, it was ultimately the writing that damned this film.

The central point of this film is to illustrate to the viewer how inherently violent we as a people are. As previously stated, Michael Pitt does a superior job in depicting a character the viewer will love to despise. And justly so, we as the viewer want to see this character unreservedly punished. This, however, never occurs. Instead, in the only moment when vengeance can be exacted, Naomi Watts’s character shoots the dim-witted Peter. An infuriated Paul grabs a remote, rewinds the movie to the part immediately preceding Peter’s slaying, and knocks the gun from her hands. The couple then proceeds to ultimately castigate the family. Intermittently throughout the film as the chaos is ensuing the character of Paul will break the fourth wall, directly addressing the audience members, mocking us and continuously reasserting that the family is doomed. Therein lies the flaw with this picture. This movie directly, personally insults you as the viewer. This is not a general indictment of society, as was the case with A Clockwork Orange. In that particular story, Alex had to triumph in order to perfectly illustrate author Anthony Burgess’s point. In Funny Games Peter and Paul win merely to infuriate you the audience member.

The error in the logic of infuriation is that Funny Games seems to be geared towards two moviegoing minds—the arthouse film buff crowd and the horror enthusiasts. When the film buff views Funny Games, they will neither be excited nor enjoy the trite message that we as humans are inherently violent, and if those fans cannot support that message, the horror-movie purist (which I admittedly relate to) will detest it. It’s no secret that humans are beastly, and this fact is not only embraced by horror-movie fans, it is lauded. Give us violence and give us manslaughter, and for everything sacred don’t try to make us ashamed of it! Just look at one of the most widely accepted horror films ever. Wes Craven’s 1972 picture Last House on the Left serves as gourmet cuisine for the horror-movie purist. In fact, one of the most memorable scenes occurs when one of the tormentors of the murdered girl has a dream where the child’s parents have him fastened to an operating chair, calmly performing invasive and rather unnecessary dental work. As horror movie fans, our only regret was that this action was taken only in the confines of a dream. Thus, as it relates to Funny Games, of course we only want the worst for Peter and Paul, and it is impossible to make us abashed by this desire. We don’t shy away from implacable intentions, we proclaim them. Don’t pompously preach to us the cautionary tales of allowing our bloodlust to take hold, feed us! By not “wetting our beaks” it is impossible for us as a people to not be completely subdued by this film.

Sadly enough the need for reprisal for a subpopulation of the audience did not escape the grasp of Michael Haneke. Haneke was well aware that the horror-movie fanatic would never accept ignominy for his or her barbaric nature, thus he tried to create two despicable characters that a subset of the population would root for. This is not uncommon in the genre of fright, as John Carpenter, George Romero, and numerous directors from the Friday the 13th series can attest. Clive Barker created a character of Pinhead in Hellraiser, and over the course of seven movies, Pinhead performed no charitable or merciful deed, yet he still managed to receive fan mail. In addition, purists have even latched on to the Groucho Marx-loving, eccentric Firefly family of Rob Zombie fame (although I find them quite irritating). The Fireflys, Pinhead and the Cenobites, Freddy Krueger, Jason Voorhees, Hannibal Lecter, and Michael Myers are all villainous, murdering scum; however, there is some innate quality that makes them highly attractive to horror-movie fans. Some enjoy being frightened by characters such as Krueger and Voorhees because they understand that due to some past traumatic event they were created, not born. Many appreciate Lecter’s wit, his artistic taste, and his intellect. A case can even be made that Myers’s silence adds great mystery and depth to his character. This is nothing to celebrate in the one-dimensional, grating characters of Peter and Paul. They share none of Lecter’s charm, there is no backstory that exists with Krueger and Voorhees, and unlike Myers, they will not keep their mouths shut. Being subjected to 111 minutes of Peter and Paul’s murderous spree is equivalent to watching a movie about a spoiled, rich kid who faces no obstacle and respects no other person, and at the end of the film ends up with Diane Kruger. It’s Andie choosing Blane over Duckie, or if Gene Hackman’s character in Unforgiven arrests Clint Eastwood and ruthlessly beats him to death, instead of the tremendously gratifying frontier justice that befell sheriff Bill Daggett. The trailer for this film is accompanied by Grieg’s “In the Hall of the Mountain King,” and I believe this is the perfect vehicle for this film. That particular composition evokes feeling of exasperation, irritation, and aggravation for me, and that is exactly what this movie does. This movie is insidiously irksome, thus the two go hand in hand.

If you enjoy the soothing sound of a root canal, relish in the hollow feeling of just having been dumped, or are energized when vandals destroy your property, I believe this is an excellent film for you. However, if you love film, it’s mysticism, it’s ability to transport you to different worlds via imagination, and motion picture’s marvelous ability to inspire, this is not the picture for you. If you encounter this movie at any point in your travels, I encourage you to leave it where you found it, which is most likely in the bargain-bin of some second-rate gas station.

Rating: 0 stars

Trash Humpers (2009)

By Thomas Flanagan (guest blogger)

As the film’s title so brazenly implies, Trash Humpers is truly a picture that pulls no punches. The drama, shot with a VHS camcorder, follows the exploits of four individuals shrouded in senior citizenesque masks as they proceed to perform activities honoring the movie’s namesake. Over an unspecified time period, the gang partakes in multiple acts of perversion and horror, including burglary, prostitution, corruption, kidnapping, and even murder (and yes, the film does deliver many scenes of the dry-humping of trash receptacles). For 78 minutes the viewer is treated to a nightmarish reality which appears to have been edited by a schizophrenic, and by the conclusion of the movie, the only certainty the audience is left with is that the individuals shooting this film are criminally deranged.

However, It is the desire to shock which hampers this film. Director Harmony Korine’s self-described portrait of the current “American landscape” revolves around a series of "park garages, back alleyways, and beautiful lamp posts that light up the gutter." It is this middle-class ambiance that Korine is able to so masterfully portray. Anyone familiar with Korine’s work can derive the “junior high” mood which is palpable in all of his movies. The sometimes barbarous need for carnal pleasures, the loneliness and isolation, and the frightening absurdity which plague cities like Pulaski, Tennessee; Brandon, Mississippi; Pork Van, Utah; Wampum, Pennsylvania; and Visalia, California (thank-you Platoon), Korine expertly captures these absurdities via motion picture and presents them in such a manner that repressed pre-teen memories are inevitably conjured. In the 1995 film KIDS (directed by Larry Clark, featuring a screenplay written by Korine), the audience is horrified as we follow an HIV-stricken teen in his quest to “de-virginize” as many adolescent girls as possible. However, it is impossible not to recall many of our own desires to experience intimacy at so early an age and our failure to understand sex’s gravity (it is implicit that none care to tangle with these issues under the veil of AIDS). 2002’s Ken Park more blatantly displays these “tween” primal urges, but importantly it captures the previously described mind-numbing insanity that is prevalent in American suburbs. It is also in this film, however, in which we see the errors of Korine’s excess.

Korine’s brilliance resides in the harnessing of his talents. In Chuck Klosterman’s book Fargo Rock City, Klosterman questions the fine line of guitar virtuosos and their contribution to the genre of heavy metal in terms of technical wizardry versus greatness. A guitarist such as Eddie Van Halen was capable of delivering fingertip-melting solos, but the band’s songs and production often favored David Lee Roth’s vocals. Thus, the listener was granted only snippets of the guitarist’s skill, leaving the captivated guitarphile yearning for more, while the casual music-lover was never subjected to the technical arrogance pervasive in a guitarist such as Yngwie Johann Malmsteen (as Klosterman used as an example). Diamond Dave’s “prison” is similar to the service director Larry Clark was able to provide for Korine. In KIDS we are treated to only two images of teen sexual encounters, both of which are more vulgar in the feelings they evoke than in their imagery. In Ken Park the union between Clark and Korine began to dissolve, and we see the consequence of that divorce as Ken Park devolves into a shock flick. Fast-forward to modern day, and we see the result of what Kramer from Seinfeld would call “unbridled enthusiasm.” Trash Humpers has the ability to shock the audience (a particularly disturbing scene involves the foursome’s interaction with what at first appears to be a mild-mannered church-going youth), but in his need to instill emotion, Korine leaves the audience numb to his musings. Throughout the film the gang elicits hyena-like shrieks to punctuate moments of abnormality. There is little doubt this was intended to showcase the horrifying nature of the group, however all it leaves is an irritated movie-goer. In addition between many of the stomach-turning scenes it appears as if Korine had no answer on how to bridge the gap, thus these moments are characterized by the peeping Toms performing mundane or played activities in which the viewer’s ears are unfortunately subjected to the piercing hyena cackles (how many scenes can you watch of masked individuals attempting to hump trash before it gets quite stale?). By going for broke, Korine plays his hand far too early and leaves the audience quite accustomed to his act. This is highly disappointing when viewed under the context of what Korine is capable of under the proper guidance.

For those familiar with Korine’s work, I would recommend this film. Despite the annoying feature characters and the multiple dead moments, when the film delivers, it is quite poignant. Korine’s own character’s treatise on his actions is particularly thought-provoking, and the “Three Little Devils” song interspersed at various points in the film adds a truly haunting aura. For those who are novices to Harmony Korine, perhaps a screening of previous directoral efforts Gummo or Julien Donkey-Boy would be necessary before trying to size-up this film.

Rating: 2 ½ stars

Toy Story 3 (2010)

Toy Story 3 is a more than worthy addition to the Toy Story series, and it continues Pixar’s streak as the premiere animation studio working in feature films today. The story takes place as Andy is about to leave for college, and our fabled heroes are preparing for the move…into the attic. At least that’s Woody’s plan for the rest of the toys, whether they agree or not. Over a mishap in communication, however, the toys end up at the local daycare center, where toys are given a second life and a chance to play with children again. The toys also meet the patriarch of the center, a wise, gregarious teddy bear named Lotso (as in “Lotso Hugs”) and Barbie’s famed boyfriend Ken. Things go ok upon arrival, but then the toys suddenly realize that the daycare turns out to be run more or less like a prison, and the toys begin to plan their escape.

The second half of the film cleverly plays homage to prison films of the past, primarily The Great Escape and Cool Hand Luke. Thankfully, the film always keeps the characters in mind first and foremost and never devolves into straight imitation. Woody and co.’s plans for escape have to get more and more elaborate in order to fool the likes of the antagonists, which is often played off as both clever and very funny. One sequence involves Mr. Potato Head “shedding” his skin to become Mr. Tortilla Head, and hilarity ensues as he tries to adjust to his new body. As usual, Pixar’s animation and attention to detail are beyond comparison, and the voice acting is once again top notch. In addition to the regulars, Ned Beatty does an excellent job as the aforementioned Lotso, and Michael Keaton shows up to give a humorous turn as Ken. There are also notable cameos from Bonnie Hunt and Timothy Dalton, playing some of Woody’s newfound friends.

Of all three Toy Story films, this third installment probably packs the most action, especially during the toys’ actual escape and subsequent unexpected trip to the garbage facility. However, it’s final 20 minutes also hold probably the most gravitas found not only within the series but almost anything Pixar has attempted thus far. The harrowing sequence at the garbage facility is played with the utmost seriousness concerning the plight of the toys, and it’s almost too unbearable to watch. Whereas other films might try and make light of the situation by inserting a cheap gag or two, this film chooses to linger on their traumatic situation, all without a word spoken from any of the toys. This decision pays off masterfully, as we really feel for the characters and wonder how much differently we ourselves would react to such a situation. The final scene is also a bittersweet goodbye to the toys that we have come to know and love over the years, and as we see Andy drive away for college, we feel a sudden twinge as well.

Sequels can often times become a cause for concern, where something might get lost in the attempt to make everything bigger and top the previous installment. Thankfully, Toy Story 3 sidesteps this trap by keeping the focus on the characters and giving them a situation that feels less forced and more like their natural progression. Although the film could be classified as a kid’s movie, it’s really made for the ones that grew up with the Toy Story franchise, and it’s only fitting that we get a proper chance to say goodbye to some of our favorite toys.

Rating: 4 ½ stars

So...

Will return 11/01/2010...stay tuned.

Ran (1985)

Ran is one of the most epic films ever made, a masterful achievement for director Akira Kurosawa. A loose adaptation of King Lear, the film is set in 16^th century medieval Japan and tells the story of a warlord named Hidetora who decides to split up his kingdom among his three sons. While the elder two sons agree, the youngest son is dubious of the plan, questioning the sense of loyalty that all three sons will stick together to keep the kingdom alive. What follows is a story about pride, greed, betrayal and ultimately, defeat. It’s a bleak and nihilistic tale that is told with such weight that it could become suffocating, but Kurosawa’s sense of visuals and composition help maintain the film’s visceral qualities.

Kurosawa was 75 years old and nearly blind when he was filming Ran, and it’s amazing that the end product is filled with such depth and visual poetry. The film plays much like a visual tone poem, where the colors and landscapes come alive like few films do. Even the weather seems to come alive, as there are multiple shots of ominous clouds overtaking the landscape. The clouds eventually give way into wind and storms, seemingly commenting on the chaos that is destroying the kingdom.

The film’s main setpiece comes about an hour into the film, when the two elder sons have been plotted against each other, and both are storming the castle with the aging warlord trapped inside. One army comes decked in red; the other in yellow. It helps the viewer identify each army, but the colors also create a sort of moving painting. As the ghost-like Hidetora sits at the top of his castle, the armies wage war below. The first part of the battle is done mainly in silence with just the soundtrack playing over the battle, very much creating a poetic scene. Then, a gunshot goes off, and we are brought right back into the battle, the sound effects now reflecting the scene, with swords clashing, horses racing, and battle cries everywhere. The sequence ends on a powerful shot of Hidetora walking down the steps of his burning castle, slowly leaving his kingdom in a trance-like state. No words are needed to convey the weight of the sequence—Hidetora realizes his reign is over and his kingdom will fall at the hands of his own family, and all the wisdom he’s acquired throughout his life will not save him.

As mentioned before, the film is very bleak in its view of humanity. The title ‘ran’ translates to ‘chaos’, which is exactly what the kingdom is experiencing. Hidetora realizes that his power has now been reduced to nothing, as his sons bicker and fight, tearing apart piece by piece the kingdom that he had created. However, Hidetora isn’t necessarily a heroic character himself, as it is referenced earlier that the way he came into power was through murder and other ruthless tactics. Even Saburo, the most honorable son (the only son who expression dissention to his father’s original plan) ends up dying a cheap, pointless death.

Ran is not a particularly fast paced film, but it doesn’t need rush things along to convey its themes. The first hour establishes the characters and how the power in the kingdom isn’t necessarily based on loyalty. The rest of the film is spend tearing down that power, where by the end nothing is sacred and everyone has experienced defeat, whether it be through death or extreme suffering. The final shot of the film shows a blind peasant (the blindness was caused by Hidetora years ago) left all alone near a cliffside. As he inches closer and closer towards the cliff, he barely catches himself before plunging to his death, but the fact still remains that he has nowhere to go and nobody to help him.

Kurosawa directed many masterpieces in his time, and to have yet another near the end of his career proves all the more impressive. Ran remains to this day a masterpiece of visual style and kinetic storytelling.

Rating: 5 stars

The Top 5 Films of 2010 (So Far)

I realize it’s a bit past the halfway point of the year, and there are still plenty of films I haven’t seen yet, but based on what I have seen, here are my picks for best of the year (so far):

5. Inception – No matter what your thoughts are about the film, Christopher Nolan’s latest has at least been something worth discussing in this disappointing summer movie season. Its stunning visuals and inventive sequences (Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s anti-gravity fight scene stands out) help create an entertaining heist film. The dream sequences could have been a bit more inventive, and there was probably a bit too much exposition in the first half, but despite its flaws, Inception remains one of the highlights of the year so far.

4. Exit Through the Gift Shop – Street artist Banksy’s debut film is a playful, highly entertaining documentary about artists, wannabe artists, the nature of art and how we react to art. It’s also funny as hell. (see my review here)

3. Toy Story 3 – Pixar has been on a bit of hot streak lately (you could also make the argument that they’ve never made a bad film). Toy Story 3 continues with the adventures of Woody, Buzz and co., and it definitely holds its own with the first two films. The second half plays as a nice homage to prison escape films of the past (The Great Escape, Cool Hand Luke) while also keeping the wit and humor of the series. It also has two of the most effective scenes in recent memory in terms of emotional impact near the end of the film. You’ll know them when you see them.

2. Winter’s Bone – Based on Daniel Woodrell’s novel, this film noir via Ozark adventure is one of the most gripping films you’ll see all year. Jennifer Lawrence gives an excellent performance as the teenage heroine, and John Hawkes gives one of the best performances of his career as the heroine’s intimidating uncle. The atmosphere in the backwoods of Missouri is like a character unto itself, always in the background like an ominous force.

1. A Prophet (Un prophète) – Technically released in 2009 in France (and nominated for Best Foreign Language Film in last year’s Oscars), this film didn’t get a stateside release until this yearr. The ambitious film is an instant classic in the gangster genre, all told through the viewpoint of the lead character primarily within the confines of a French prison. His rise to power can be seen as reminiscent of Scarface, but the film never gets as campy as that film not glorifies the lifestyle, instead presenting it in a much more harrowing manner. Tahar Rahim gives an outstanding performance in the lead role, and he effortlessly shows the character's rise within the prison ranks from scared newcome to head boss.

Honorable mentions: “June 17, 1994” (part of ESPN’s “30 For 30” series), Greenberg, Best Worst Movie (also a 2009 film via festival circuit), Shutter Island, The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo

Many more films to see this year, many more reviews to write (and catch up on). Stay tuned.

Chinatown (1974)

“Forget it, Jake. It’s Chinatown.” Those are the infamous words spoken at the end of Chinatown, and probably the most well known line from the film. Yet, it carries such a weight that explains everything that has come before and still remains entirely elusive. Everything’s changed, yet nothing is really different at all. Not matter how hard he tried, how much he learned, Jake Gittes is powerless to what happens, but it’s his fault at the same time. It’s quite possibly one of the saddest, most devastating endings in all of cinema, made all the more heartbreaking that despite his best efforts, Jake won’t forget what happens in Chinatown.

To call Chinatown a perfect film isn’t that far from the truth. It fits squarely in the neo-noir genre, but it ever so subtly takes those noir conventions and turns them into something much deeper than most hard-boiled detective stories of the past. Detective Jake “J.J.” Gittes, as played by Jack Nicholson, at first seems like the stereotypical film detective from ‘40s noir—detached, business-minded, sharp-witted. But we soon learn that he empathizes much greater with the plight of some of his clients than the detectives you may find in a Raymond Chandler novel. The plot is downright labyrinthine at times, but it never buckles under the weight of its own ambition. The plotting never panders to the audience, however, so while everything is laid out in the plot, it’s a film that requires careful viewing. It’s made all the more interesting that the detective in this noir story is not on the hunt for gold or jewels, but rather is chasing a much larger, much more abstract—the corruption of the water department of Los Angeles. What begins innocently enough as a case to uncover an affair ends in real human tragedy for some of the characters.

While the production and filming of Chinatown has a very storied history, the effort created by the cast and crew is practically flawless. Director Roman Polanski was at the peak of his talents here, eclipsing even previous efforts such as Rosemary’s Baby. Robert Towne’s script is masterful in its ability to create a complex plot that deals with the idea of corruption at a macro level while never losing sight of the characters at the core. The cinematography by John A. Alonzo is also well worth noting, as the world of the noir is usually accented in black and white, with sharp shadows and negative space. Here, the rich yellow and orange hues of the desert and sun come alive over Los Angeles, creating an even more foreboding notion that evil and corruption doesn’t always hide in the shadows and can often times be found in plain sight. The acting is great, as Jack Nicholson gives one of his best performances, as he plays Gittes with a sense of restraint and a little defeatism; a nice guy who is just trying to make it in a world that is full of betrayal and corruption. His performance is key in holding the film together, especially since he appears in every single scene. Faye Dunaway, playing a variation of the femme fatale character in the film, gives an emotionally vulnerable performance while remaining mysterious through most of the film. Once her motives and secrets are revealed, it’s impossible not to sympathize with her plight. Director John Huston (who directed such classics as The Maltese Falcon and The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, so he probably knows a thing or two about film noir) gives an outstanding performance as the intimidating millionaire Noah Cross, a man whose charm and power have given him free reign over a city that he helped shape, but his crimes and intricate webs of deception take on a dark and disturbing undercurrent to the revelations found near the end of the film.

There is one scene in the film where Evelyn Mulwray (Dunaway) and Jake Gittes are lying in bed, and Mulwray asks about his life in Chinatown. He tells her that the entire area was corrupt, and he was told to do “as little as possible”, followed by a sign a resignation over his face as he explains that a woman that he was trying to protect only ended up getting hurt in the end. It’s a brief moment of true vulnerability for Gittes, which makes it all the more sad when this scenario is replayed exactly at the end of the film, complete with a confrontation in Chinatown. As he stands there in disbelief viewing the damage that has been done, he mutters to himself, “…as little as possible.” Gittes knows this cycle will never end for him, no matter how hard he tries to change the outcome. Best he just forget everything that happened, right? After all, it’s Chinatown.

Rating: 5 stars