I watched Save the Tiger (1973) yesterday. Another in a long line of moves for which I’d seen bits and pieces but never the complete thing all in one sitting.
What a strange movie. It takes place over the course of one day documenting a “successful” president of a fashion company. He’s got all the trappings - a maid, a car phone, a mistress; it’s a 70’s cornucopia of, “holy shit that’s what we used to call luxury” - who’s company isn’t as successful as it seems. He jumps through every corrupt hoop to try to wrangle one more season. Beyond that, it’s really full-on art house. It’s a think piece about longing for the good life at the expense of one’s morality. There are elements of anti-war, anti-capitalism, questions of generation gaps. Many, many fantastic scenes with crisp dialogue and amazing acting from Jack Lemmon and Jack Gilford.
Me needing to switch from reading the subtitles to watching the actors and back again to reading the subtitles. In a foreign film, I know that I need to read the subtitles every time someone speaks, and I adjust to that. Here, I only needed to read the subtitles at more or less random intervals, which detracted from my enjoyment, which was minimal for other reasons.
Interesting. I never had any problem with it. Just chalk it up to differences in language processing, I guess.
Speaking of brain differences, one of the co-writers of EEAAO was trying to make a movie that reflects the feeling of having ADHD. In the course of his research he realized he has ADHD. (From their Death, Sex & Money podcast interview.)
I have ADHD. Never made the connection while watching it.
Just saw Tär. To be frank, I’m not too sure it was a good movie? Maybe a bit quieter than I was expecting, her downfall seemed amazingly quick, which I can only explain as her assistant letting loose the Dogs of War prior to her quitting.
If you like movies about pretentious people doing pretentious things who get pretentious comeuppances, Tär was written for you. I’ll give it 4 of 5, mostly because I think I wasn’t prepared for how subtle some of it is. I think the thing I missed, especially early in the movie, is that nobody really liked or supported her, and her political support within her world was razor thin.
I watched Sophie’s Choice again after not seeing it since soon after its release.
I found it as powerful a film as ever. Meryl Streep’s performance deserves all the accolades it has received—nuanced and flawless. Streep is known for nailing foreign languages for roles and her German and Polish accents in this film (which she learned specifically for the film) were quite convincing. And, of course, her “choice scene” will forever go down as one of the finest scenes in film history. Her silent scream with only the sound of her daughter’s scream seemingly coming out of her mouth is painful to watch, but unforgettable.
Kevin Klein also nailed his portrayal of a manic depressive paranoid schizophrenic, and his performance deserves all the accolades it received.
I’ve read reviews that say Peter MacNicol’s performance as Stingo and narrator was the weak link in the film, but I beg to differ. It was like Ringo Star’s role in the Beatles—no flash, but necessary for finding the groove and keeping the beat. Ringo/Stingo: coincidence? I think not.
Watched this and it seems to me that it is full of itself. I would say the same for the filmmaker Martin McDonagh - IMDb.
It seemed to repeat some motifs of the makers previous work, Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri - main character is super grumpy about something, and acts out in unpredictable outrageous ways, everyone else kinda stands back and goes WTF? Oh, and there’s a fire.
Yes, the setting and historical placement are visually compelling, and the references to the nearby war give it some potential metaphorical layering, but ultimately I was not a fan. I feel that in the future I will avoid McDonagh’s works.
Triangle of Sadness. What a pretentious load of crap. I’ve lost all respect for the judges at Cannes.
Our story is presented in three parts. It could’ve started in part two and it would have made perfect sense. It could’ve started in part three and worked perfectly well. So why didn’t it? It’s 2.5 hours long as it is.
Our Director likes to place the action as far away from the camera as possible, or put his actors out of frame entirely. It’s edited in a way that makes you constantly think you missed a scene. Why did the ship blow up? Who cares. Let’s have more shots of passengers vomiting.
The most interesting story line is the one that’s ripped off from The Admirable Crichton, but the Director loses interest in that quickly. It ends ambiguously just as a final “fuck you” to his audience.
My favorite Woody Allen films are What’s Up, Tiger Lily? (a hilariously redubbed Japanese spy movie), Sleeper (a sardonic sf parody), Take the Money and Run (terrific mocumentary about a bungling criminal), Crimes and Misdemeanor (a powerful meditation on sin) and Midnight in Paris (Corey Stoll as a young, intense Hemingway is alone worth the price of admission).
I was just thinking of this film the other day, because I watched The Leopard. Long, slow, historical epic, but on an intimate scale. Beautifully subtle performance by Burt Lancaster. He was dubbed, but he was obviously speaking his lines in Italian. Once I adjusted to a different voice coming out of his mouth (took very little time) it just seemed natural. Gorgeous production with strong historical accuracy. I loved the quick scene at the final ball where he peeks into the little room a the army of chamber pots. More humor than I was expecting, but it was still a bittersweet farewell to an era.
A divorced Scottish father and his 11-year-old daughter spend a holiday in a Turkish resort. This film is best watched without knowing much about it beforehand. It’s naturalistic, with a seemingly inconsequential plot. But in the small details, the context is gradually revealed. Director Charlotte Wells achieves astonishing poignancy from what is not spelled out.
A 1988 horror(?) movie about a guy who is having a mental breakdown and talks to his father’s anatomy doll(his father is a doctor). The anatomy dummy is named Pin and via unaware ventriloquism, our protagonist has back and forth conversations with Pin.
This movie is weirder than it sounds and was really great. I kind of loved parts of it. Despite its ridiculous premise, the lead actor portrays a full mental breakdown very well. At no point in this movie doe they pretend like any supernatural elements to it. He’s just nuts and boy is it gripping.
Highly recommended Only available on DVD, so search your local library network for it. I believe no Blu-ray or Streaming options are available.
Here’s a NYT gift article on the new Pooh movie. I don’t think I’d pay money to see it, but if it was on a platform that I already have, I’d take a look just for shits and giggles. (The link looks ugly, hope it works.)
I agree! I’ve tried watching it three times and have fallen asleep within the first 15 minutes every time. Granted I was watching it while in bed, but it was just bo-ring!