Films you've seen lately

[smittims]

You make me glad I didn't see it! I'll stick to listening to the real woman in her prime, on my old Columbias.

Maybe it's just me, but I can't see the point of films about people who themselves featured plentifully in film and recordings., e.g. I never wanted to watch 'The Crown' as the late Queen was vivid to me in reality, with no need of imitation.

[Ian Thumwood]

The problem with biographies is that they tend to disappoint if you know the subject matter. Biographies of musicians tend to be boring or inaccurate. I have resisted the chance to see the Robbie Williams chimp film which , at least , is different. I would love to see a film about someone like Blind Lemon Jefferson who had an interesting life despite his disability. It would make a change from stories about troubled artists.

[Belgrove]

The Brutalist may appeal if you’re feeling a bit Randy (insofar as it’s about a philosopher/architect who is unwilling to compromise his values or integrity). It’s being feted as a masterpiece and gaining comment (and limited release) on account of its length, over 3 1/2 hours with an integral intermission. This makes for a film, both literally and metaphorically, of two halves, comprising a rise and fall story (with a coda tacked on). Adrien Brody plays a Hungarian Jewish architect, László Tóth, who seeks a new life in the USA after being interned in a concentration camp during the war. After a bumpy start in Philadelphia, he is eventually commissioned by a rich magnate (played magnificently by Guy Pierce), to build a visionary civic centre for a local community in the Bauhaus style. The first half is compelling. But it’s in the second half where the wheels go a bit wonky if not entirely falling off. Tóth’s wife joins him, together with their adopted niece, but the war has caused a terrible toll on them that creates strains in the marriage. Costs on the build spiral, accidents happen, compromises are enforced on Tóth, and it all goes a bit pear-shaped. But there are specific events that, for all the careful character building, are both incongruous and unearned, and this undermines the film’s narrative style, and even its purpose. The coda contains a reveal that wasn’t hinted at, which again feels unearned.

It looks wonderful (and it’s difficult to believe it was made for just $10m), with industrial vistas with the scale of Sheeler paintings. And the score by Daniel Blumberg (featuring a four note motif that varies with the musical idiom of the age) is rather good at matching with the visuals. Yet, films that have been decreed ‘epic’ are usually worth a second watch, but I think I’ve extracted from this what juice there is. Is it essentially no more than ‘plutocrats are exploitative and racist’, and ‘he who pays the piper calls the tune’? But for all its length, I was never bored.

[Ian Thumwood]

We watched 'Flight Risk last night and I felt that it was a far fetched but entertaining B movie. The violence was a bit slap which always annoys me . The ending was satisfying even if parts of it were predictable.

Not sure if there is anything decent on for the next month.

[Serial_Apologist]

We watched 'Flight Risk last night and I felt that it was a far fetched but entertaining B movie. The violence was a bit slap which always annoys me . The ending was satisfying even if parts of it were predictable.

Not sure if there is anything decent on for the next month.

Back to the wedding party footage then, Ian?

[smittims]

Mention of an 'architect who refuses to compromise' reminded me of one of my favourite films, Antonioni's 'L'Avventura' about an architect who has compromised and feels he's living a lie afterwards. I never tire of watching it. It contains an ingenious plot twist I've never seen elsewhere; a young woman who appearsto bethe main character disappears inexplicably shortly into the film, and naturally one expects her to reappear dramatically later . But she never does, and seems to become forgotten.

[Ian Thumwood]

The best twist ever in a film has to be Lift to the Scaffold where , for the protagonist to evade conviction for a murder he did not commit, he would need to admit to murder commuted by the person who stole his car. Absolutely brilliant and the music is by Miles Davis too.

[johncorrigan]

The Brutalist may appeal if you’re feeling a bit Randy (insofar as it’s about a philosopher/architect who is unwilling to compromise his values or integrity). It’s being feted as a masterpiece and gaining comment (and limited release) on account of its length, over 3 1/2 hours with an integral intermission. This makes for a film, both literally and metaphorically, of two halves, comprising a rise and fall story (with a coda tacked on). Adrien Brody plays a Hungarian Jewish architect, László Tóth, who seeks a new life in the USA after being interned in a concentration camp during the war. After a bumpy start in Philadelphia, he is eventually commissioned by a rich magnate (played magnificently by Guy Pierce), to build a visionary civic centre for a local community in the Bauhaus style. The first half is compelling. But it’s in the second half where the wheels go a bit wonky if not entirely falling off. Tóth’s wife joins him, together with their adopted niece, but the war has caused a terrible toll on them that creates strains in the marriage. Costs on the build spiral, accidents happen, compromises are enforced on Tóth, and it all goes a bit pear-shaped. But there are specific events that, for all the careful character building, are both incongruous and unearned, and this undermines the film’s narrative style, and even its purpose. The coda contains a reveal that wasn’t hinted at, which again feels unearned.

It looks wonderful (and it’s difficult to believe it was made for just $10m), with industrial vistas with the scale of Sheeler paintings. And the score by Daniel Blumberg (featuring a four note motif that varies with the musical idiom of the age) is rather good at matching with the visuals. Yet, films that have been decreed ‘epic’ are usually worth a second watch, but I think I’ve extracted from this what juice there is. Is it essentially no more than ‘plutocrats are exploitative and racist’, and ‘he who pays the piper calls the tune’? But for all its length, I was never bored.

I noticed you had posted about 'The Brutalist', Belgrove. Intending to go to see the film, and keen to know as little as possible about it, I decided not to read your comments until after I had been to the cinema, thinking 'Belgrove usually hits the nail on the head re films'.
I went on my own. Mrs C didn't fancy three and a half hours in front of a screen, and who can blame her. On my return late last night her first comment was, 'Did you manage to stay awake through it?', (knowing my propensity for a wee snooze).

I thought about this - I had happily sat awake through the film and the intermission. I said that it was perhaps because it was a straight narrative - nothing difficult about it - nothing very challenging. Good central performances; looked very good in places; the soundtrack was good. But, as you say Belgrove, there were ridiculous holes in the narrative, things that didn't make sense; and as for the scenes at the end, before the epilogue - that was just nonsensical. As were some other parts in the film - why did she start talking again?
Re the coda, there was one small hint, which was when Tóth's wife is looking at his drawings and makes a comment about looking at his drawings is looking at him, and that the bit he is paying for by forfeiting his payment is the extra height. I did think that the scene with the train was going to offer some insight into László's troubles in the camps, but that proved a ridiculous distraction.

Anyway, I enjoyed the film fine; I'm glad I saw it on the big screen. I just don't think it's as good as it thinks it is. And I thought your summation of it, Belgrove, is just about on the money.

[richardfinegold]

I noticed you had posted about 'The Brutalist', Belgrove. Intending to go to see the film, and keen to know as little as possible about it, I decided not to read your comments until after I had been to the cinema, thinking 'Belgrove usually hits the nail on the head re films'.
I went on my own. Mrs C didn't fancy three and a half hours in front of a screen, and who can blame her. On my return late last night her first comment was, 'Did you manage to stay awake through it?', (knowing my propensity for a wee snooze).

I thought about this - I had happily sat awake through the film and the intermission. I said that it was perhaps because it was a straight narrative - nothing difficult about it - nothing very challenging. Good central performances; looked very good in places; the soundtrack was good. But, as you say Belgrove, there were ridiculous holes in the narrative, things that didn't make sense; and as for the scenes at the end, before the epilogue - that was just nonsensical. As were some other parts in the film - why did she start talking again?
Re the coda, there was one small hint, which was when Tóth's wife is looking at his drawings and makes a comment about looking at his drawings is looking at him, and that the bit he is paying for by forfeiting his payment is the extra height. I did think that the scene with the train was going to offer some insight into László's troubles in the camps, but that proved a ridiculous distraction.

Anyway, I enjoyed the film fine; I'm glad I saw it on the big screen. I just don't think it's as good as it thinks it is. And I thought your summation of it, Belgrove, is just about on the money.

I enjoyed Belgrove’s review, and read it the morning before we went to see it last night.
I suspect there were some editing choices in the long film. I to thought the train scene was going to be followed up with some scenes from Toth’s past and was wondering if something was left deleted. I was not bothered by the Niece regaining her ability to speak. Cases like this were well documented in the Holocaust, Rwanda. After all she was a side character and we are seeing her years later in a film that spanned a quarter century.
As for the Guy Pearce character last scene, it’s of a piece WTH the tantalizing suggestions alluded to elsewhere, such as the train. Let the viewer supply the missing parts.
It’s not a perfect film and one can poke many holes in it. However it’s the best film I’ve seen in years and I laud it for its ambition

[Belgrove]

… - why did she start talking again?

This was the first ‘eh?’ moment. I wasn’t aware, as richard says, that such cases are documented by Holocaust survivors, but how about this for an alternative interpretation (warning, spoilers ahead).

At the picnic Zsófia is seen in her bathing costume, where Van Buren’s son comes onto her. The next time we see her she is joining the other revellers and conspicuously adjusting her dress. The next time we see her after that, she’s talking. Could this be a Denis Potteresque ‘Brimstone and Treacle’ conversion, whereby the dirty deed has a transformative impact?

I don’t mind there being unresolved allusions in a drama, it provides something to talk about. But I found Van Buren’s brutality against Tóth out of character, there only to provide consequences that the rest of the film shows. Nevertheless it’s still an impressive achievement - glad you both enjoyed it.

[richardfinegold]

This was the first ‘eh?’ moment. I wasn’t aware, as richard says, that such cases are documented by Holocaust survivors, but how about this for an alternative interpretation (warning, spoilers ahead).

At the picnic Zsófia is seen in her bathing costume, where Van Buren’s son comes onto her. The next time we see her she is joining the other revellers and conspicuously adjusting her dress. The next time we see her after that, she’s talking. Could this be a Denis Potteresque ‘Brimstone and Treacle’ conversion, whereby the dirty deed has a transformative impact?

I don’t mind there being unresolved allusions in a drama, it provides something to talk about. But I found Van Buren’s brutality against Tóth out of character, there only to provide consequences that the rest of the film shows. Nevertheless it’s still an impressive achievement - glad you both enjoyed it.

I think that there is some foreshadowing that Van Buren finds himself attracted to Toth. When he first has him to a dinner party he seems smitten with him, and at the party in Italy when Toth is flirting with a woman we see Van Buren looking on from above with an air of what could be a neglected lover. And we know that Van Buren likes to dominate and humiliate people, as with his story of his treatment of his biological grandparents. So the attraction and the need for domination make the outcome plausible, while still shocking.
As for the abuse of the niece curing her Psychological Disorder, I guess that the movie might create that impression. It could also have just resolved of its own accord, perhaps with some Psychtherapy. Obviously it is left deliberately vague

[Dave2002]

Went to see Maria. Gripping film in many ways, though possibly much of it has been fabricated. Very difficult to know really.

[kernelbogey]

I strongly recommend Vermiglio - if you can catch it: it's had a rather limited distribution. It's set in the Trentino mountains in 1944. A Sicilian deserter from the army is sheltered by a peasant family in a remote village. He and a local girl fall in love and marry. The characters and dynamics in both families are acutely observed, and dramatic plot twists bring out deep-seated cultural and social issues. The director Maura Delpero brings a feminist perspective to the story, the local culture and the era. (I'm going to see it for the second time tonight.)