THE SCHOOL OF PERSONA (and other various movie comparisons)...

The title of this entry is a little misleading as it's not really so much about Persona as a whole, but one particular scene from the film instead. For the last 6-8 months I've been struggling to come up with a part four for "School Of Tarkovsky" and a part two for "School of Godard", but this edition came out pretty effortlessly. We all know there's plenty of iconic & influential movie images that pop up in modern films (The bandit shooting at the screen in The Great Train Robbery, Robert Mitchum's Love/Hate Tattoo in Night Of The Hunter, Jimmy Stewart going insane in Vertigo, etc)...

The Great Train Robbery (L) / Goodfellas (R)

Night Of The Hunter (L) / Do The Right Thing (R)

Vertigo (L) / Lost Highway (R)

But Persona has to have one of the all time top five greatest influential scenes/moments ever. Next to the hidden images of Pazuzu in the Exorcist, the burning house from The Sacrifice or Henry's intense glare at the camera in Eraserhead, this moment from Bergman's Persona (below) may be my all time favorite movie image ever...

Persona - Ingmar Bergman (1967)

And what's strange is that the movie itself isn't even one of my all time favorites. Don't get me wrong, it's a classic and is singlehandedly responsible for influencing some of my favorite films (Mulholland Drive, La Ceramonie & 3 Women). All you need to do is read various PINNLAND EMPIRE entries from over the years (Water Lilies, La Haine, Women On The Verge Of A Nervous Breakdown, etc) to know how influential Persona is. But this standalone moment holds a lot more weight to me than the overall film. It can be looked at and interpreted in so many ways. It's truly a work of art. It represents things like desire, curiosity & fascination (the way the young boy touches the screen), love of cinema, disconnection (the movie screen coming between the young boy and the woman on the other side of the screen) etc. What makes this image so great is that it transcends the typical indie/art house scene. Sure it's influenced the work of indie/art house heavyweights like Todd Haynes & Hartley, but it's also influenced shots from big films like The Truman Show and iconic Horror films like Poltergeist. Normally I feel like I'm reaching with some of these comparisons, but I think all the images below (although some have a slight variation/twist) are on point. I'm sure I haven't captured every image that borrowed from this scene so please feel free to let me know if I missed something...

Amateur - Hal Hartley (1994) / Dottie Gets Spanked - Todd Haynes (1993)

The Truman Show - Peter Wier (1998) / Poltergiest - (1980)

Poison - Todd Haynes (1991) / Europa - Lars Von Trier (1991)

Videodrome - David Cronenberg (1984) / Cinema Paradiso - Giuseppe Tornatore(1988)

 

The Skin I Live In (2011) / The Blackout (1997)

 

THE CINEMA OF DAVID LYNCH PART TWO: THE L.A. TRILOGY (LOST HIGHWAY, MULHOLLAND DRIVE & INLAND EMPIRE)

Unlike New York City, Los Angeles can be a tough place to pin down on the big screen. It has way too many “codes” and unofficial “rules” than any other city I can think of. Obviously NYC-based films have a lot of characters, ethnicities, demographics, various neighborhoods within neighborhoods within boroughs, etc, but there's still a cohesive bond/connection among everything in New York City. The world of Martin Scorsese and/or Abel Ferrara is just around the corner from Woody Allen’s universe which is only a few blocks up the street from the world of Jim Jarmusch who's just a subway commute away from the world of Spike Lee. This six degrees of separation-type connection between these NYC filmmakers has to do a lot with the use of the same actors (Frank Vincent, Victor Argo, Giancarlo Esposito, John Turturro, John Lurie, Steve Buschemi, Harvey Keitel, etc), similar scenarios, and a lot of the same monuments & neighborhoods. Los Angeles-based films & directors are a bit different. Everyone from; David Lynch & PT Anderson to Quentin Tarantino & John Singleton all have a talent for painting their own unique portrait of Los Angeles but those worlds seem SO far apart (which is a pretty accurate representation of L.A. as everything is so spread out over there whereas everything is so condensed, tight in NYC). The worlds of PT Anderson & John Singleton might as well be in different countries even though they're only a few miles apart. F. Gary Gray & Tarantino may have both worked with Samuel L Jackson & Chris Tucker yet you still don’t associate those two filmmakers with one another like you would Scorsese & Ferrara or Jarmusch & Spike Lee. Both Robert Altman & Charles Burnett have also worked with some of the same actors but you’d never associate those two with each other either. Even the term; “New York City Filmmaker” is more common than “LA Filmmaker”. Furthermore, very few modern filmmakers show an abstract/"artistic" view of L.A. PT Anderson has his moments but next to Michael Mann (a director we explore quite a bit on PINNLAND EMPIRE), David Lynch's exploration of Los Angeles fascinates me the most because it’s so unconventional. Lynch's L.A. & Mann's L.A. are somewhat similar (they’ve both even shot the city with a similar digital/HD lens in recent years). Ever since Crash & Lost Highway got released around the same time (two films with an emphasis on highways & roads, darkness & sexuality), Cronenberg & Lynch have become spiritually connected, but in my opinion Mann & Lynch are just as connected in that they both show that (unforced) “cool” darker side of L.A. with an emphasis on the city’s modern architecture. On an architectural level Heat & Collateral DO exist in the same universe as Lost Highway & Mulholland Drive. David Lynch's films during this period feature a lot of void, open & blank spaces, walls, (especially in Lost Highway) and an emphasis on modern architecture that’s slightly dated (both interior & exterior). Both directors explore L.A. with an abstract perspective but Mann is still a bit more straight forward whereas Lynch is a bit more out there. Heat & Lost Highway don’t exactly take place in the same city the same way Bad Lieutenant (Abel Ferrara) & Straight Outta Brooklyn (Matty Rich) take place in the same New York.

Lost Highway

Lost Highway

Lost Highway

Mulholland Drive

David Lynch is clearly trying to tell us that L.A. is a place that'll drive you mad. In every one of the three key films that we’re gonna get in to in this write-up (Lost Highway, Mulholland Drive & Inland Empire), there's always a crucial scene where the protagonist loses his/her mind due to the environment around them (L.A.)...

Bill Pullman loses it in Lost Highway

Naomi Watts terrorized in Mulholland Drive

Laura Dern rushes up to the camera in the creepiest scene from Inland Empire

I recently finished reading Ashley Perry’s excellent thesis on Michael Mann’s vision of Los Angeles (with an emphasis on Collateral) and I couldn’t help but think that some of the points he makes in his thesis apply to Lynch too. Lynch's vision of Los Angeles, explored in his unofficial trilogy made up of; Lost Highway (1996), Mulholland Drive (2001) & Inland Empire (2006), is quirky & silly yet shady & uncomfortable at the same time. In Lynch's L.A., almost all the women look like old school Betty Paige burlesque dancers (Lost Highway & Inland Empire), there’s tons of male fantasy/"lipstick lesbianism" (Lost Highway & Mulholland Drive), everything is dark & everyone wears black (Lost Highway), there's always some shady movie-related business going on under the table (Mulholland Drive & Inland Empire), goblins & creepy old people come out of nowhere and startle you (Mulholland Drive) and dreams of being a big movie star are destroyed (Mulholland Drive & Inland Empire). In Lost Highway, Mulholland Drive & Inland Empire, David Lynch takes neo-noir, the psychological thriller, dark humor & a pinch of the horror genre, puts 'em all in to one giant pot and, in my opinion, makes it work somehow. The most obvious & written about connection that Lynch's three films share is that they're all psychological thrillers about someone having some kind of a mental breakdown and taking on another personality in order to escape reality. To be honest, I've never understood the whole; "those movies don’t make any sense" thing that’s attached to Lynch’s work. Yeah, they’re weird as shit, but still…the basic plot of each film is pretty straight forward - In Lost Highway we have a man ("Fred Madison") who kills his wife in a jealous rage after discovering she cheated on him, then loses his mind while on death row (I think a LARGE majority of Lost Highway is a dream). In Mulholland Drive we have an actress ("Betty") who essentially goes out to Hollywood with dreams of becoming an actress but after a failed career and a failed relationship with a more successful actress, she kills her herself. Mulholland Drive is essentially a film about how an innocent naive person can be chewed up & spit out by the "big city" (like Lost Highway, I think the large majority of Mulholland Drive is a dream as well). Inland Empire has elements of both; Lost Highway & Mulholland Drive in that it’s a look at the darker side of L.A. & the movie business (Lost Highway) and the mental breakdown of a has-been actress (Mulholland Drive). All of these stories take place in the same dark, noir-ish vision of L.A.

Lost Highway

Lost Highway

Mulholland Drive

Mulholland Drive

Inland Empire

Mulholland Drive

David Lynch surely isnt the first filmmaker to show L.A's weird/alternative/"different" side. You could credit Maya Deren, whose work took place in the 40's, as being the "first" or one of the earliest filmmakers to do so. Although her work was more concerned with experimentation of film and not so much Los Angeles, the vibe & ambiance of the city is very present in her short films. Robert Altman also deserves credit for showing LA/socal's alternative side as well - Besides The Player & Shortcuts, which were both released in the early 90's, a good chunk of his work throughout the 70's (which was a little surreal & quirky) was also set in Los Angeles.
Blue Velvet may be the single greatest thing David Lynch has ever done, but his greatest era/period of work was between '96-2006 (he also made The Straight Story during this period). Lost Highway started Lynch's L.A. fascination. It came out during this short period between 1995-1997 when movie-goers were starting to see a darker, noir-ish side of L.A. instead of just the palm trees, neon lights, Hollywood sign, blonde women with fake boobs & cocaine. During this short period we had: Safe (Haynes), Heat (Mann), The Glass Shield (Burnett), Devil In A Blue Dress (Franklin), Boogie Nights (Anderson), Lost Highway (Lynch), LA Confidential (Hanson) & Jackie Brown (Tarantino). You could even reach a little further back and throw Short Cuts & Pulp Fiction in the mix as well. Even comedies like; Swingers & Friday deserve to be included in that group of L.A. films. More filmmakers were starting to show us that issues like; AIDS (Safe) & Police corruption (The Glass Shield) weren’t just New York City problems, the dark streets of Manhattan werent the only place for a good noir (Devil In A Blue Dress & L.A. Confidential) and L.A./southern california had a genuine dark side (Lost Highway). Naturally, Chinatown predates all of these films but I can’t think of such a huge group of influential works to come out at the same time. Unlike Michael Mann's vision of Los Angeles, which is a world I wouldn’t have a problem living in, Lynch's L.A. is a world I wouldn’t mind visiting for a while...but eventually I’d have to leave.
Mulholland Drive, which brought us one of the greatest performances of the last decade (Naomi Watts), was part of a second wave of modern L.A. films to come out during another short period that produced a nice sized body of work that explored a darker/”alternative” side of L.A. These films included: Virgin Suicides (Coppola), Dogtown & Z Boys (Peralta), Mulholland Drive (Lynch), The Man Who Wasn’t There (Coen) & Ellie Parker (which co-starred 3 actors from Mulholland Drive and dealt with a lot of the same issues). As someone who's been to Los Angeles, I can honestly say that Lynch’s three films really do capture the city's vibe, atmosphere & ambience. I'm not a fan of southern California but every time I watch one of his films I'm kinda drawn to the darkness & mystery of the city…

Lost Highway

Mulholland Drive

Mulholland Drive

Mulholland Drive

Inland Empire

Inland Empire

Lynch’s "L.A. trilogy" isnt without typical shots of things like the Hollywood sign or the walk of fame but he's more interested in the darkly lit, underground nightclubs & back alleys that you wouldn’t immediately associate with Los Angeles. In Lost Highway, Fred Madison (Bill Pullman) plays Saxophone at a seedy underground club ("The Luna Lounge"). In Mulholland Drive, Betty (Naomi Watts) & Diane (Laura Hering) go to some creepy back alley theater and in Inland Empire, Nikki (Laura Dern) ducks in to an underground Burlesque show in the middle of the night. When you get through all the quirky "Lynch moments" (which should always be expected in any of his films) there's plenty nods & hints at real life moments like the OJ Simpson murder trial (which I'm convinced was the inspiration for Lost Highway) or other notorious celebrity moments like Jack Nicholson losing it and smashing someone's car windshield with a golf club in the middle of downtown L.A. (Mulholland Drive). Even the scene in Mulholland Drive where Justin Theroux's character is forced to cast an actress he doesnt want too is clearly a nod at all the times I’m sure filmmakers were bullied or strong-armed in to casting someone they didn’t want to. Just naming the film “Mulholland Drive” is an homage to the movie business as Warren Beatty, Jack Nicholson & Marlon Brando all lived on Mulholland Drive at one point. When Inland Empire screened at the 2006 NY Film Fest, Lynch was asked if he ever planned to shoot a film in NYC, but I'd personally like for him to stay put. Given that the plots & themes in his three films were very similar (not a criticism) I think he's still got more to explore.

THE CINEMA OF TERRENCE MALICK PART TWO: A MISREPRESENTATION OF WOMEN?

The Thin Red Line (1998)

After watching To The Wonder back in September, John & Chris (The Pink Smoke) kinda planted the seeds that led to this write-up. In Malick's latest film we see quite a few scenes of actress Olga Kurylenko spinning & twirling around in tall fields of grass like a little kid to the point where it borders on being obnoxious and you start to think - "Wait a minute, this is a grown woman. Why is she acting like this?" Olga's performance didn't bother me at all initially (and I’m still a big fan of the film). I actually appreciated her performance. I honestly thought Malick was trying to show a free spirit character but now it’s kinda getting to me (along with other recent female performances in Malick's work). I mean, it’s ok to be a free spirit and let go but c'mon now. Even free spirits can act mature. It would be one thing if this was just an isolated incident in one film but I started to think about the representation of women in Malick's post-Days Of Heaven work and I’m honestly starting to question if Terrence Malick actually understands women. Is he capable of showing them as actual people instead of light, child like, almost unrealistic angelic creatures? They're almost always crying (or at least on the verge of tears), pouting or moody. I'm no expert on women but I still know enough to know that (grown) women don't necessarily act the way they do in a Terrence Malick movie. I know I flip-flop a lot with Malick (one week I love his work, the next week I question everything he does), but that’s what I love about him. It makes for non-stop thought and conversation.

The Tree Of Life (2010)

I know Terrence Malick is "old school" (born in the 40's, southern christian, etc.) so maybe some of those opinions he has towards woman may have permanently stuck with him but I don't even know if he can use that as an excuse. It’s not like his style of filmmaking is "old school" or even dated. Since the 90's he’s been pretty experimental and progressive compared to his earlier work. So why does his view of women still seem a bit dated and naive? Like in real life, does he just have his wife skip & prance around the house all day in a flimsy sun dress like the women in his films? Actually, his view of and representation of women seems to be moving backwards. In the 70's Malick had a knack for creating female characters with depth and complexity. Sure, Sissy Spacek was a naive and somewhat angelic-looking teenager in Badlands, but her voice-over narration throughout the film gave her character depth and showed us she had some insight and wasn’t an empty human being (pretty much the same can be said for Linda Manz' character in Days Of Heaven as well). Brooke Adams' character in Days Of Heaven was probably the most complex character (male or female) that Malick has ever created. She's a good person but at the same time goes along with a plan to scheme a dying man out of his money by pretending to fall in love with him (at the insistence of her aggressive husband). But ever since Malick re-emerged in the late 90's with The Thin Red Line, women kinda come off like unrealistic caricatures.

Tree Of Life

In The Thin Red Line the one prominent female role is portrayed by Miranda Otto (she plays one of the soldiers’ wives in a few flashback scenes). Now I understand The Thin Red Line is a world war two film so no one should expect a strong female presence, but besides one voiceover moment she has no lines in the film and her most memorable scene is a flashback of her playing on a swing. And speaking of no lines, what point did the actress who played Sean Penn's wife in The Tree Of Life serve exactly? She said nothing and just moaped around the house for the two minutes she was actually in the film. And Jessica Chastain's role was kinda the epitome of what this write-up is about highlighted by a moment where she literally floats in the air. What some people may perceive as emptiness in these female characters are also heightened because they're usually paired next to a male performance like Brad Pitt's portrayal of the tough American father (Tree Of Life), Ben Affleck’s broodiness (To The Wonder) or soldiers in the military (The Thin Red Line). When you take Miranda Otto playing care-free on a swing, Sean Penn's pouty wife, Jessica Chastain floating in the air and Olga Kurylenko frolicking around like a little kid it can paint an overall shallow picture. And I'm well aware Malick isn’t the one and only filmmaker guilty of this. But at the same time he's one of the most prominent and talked about directors in recent years. It’s tough to find a realistic portrayal in film of any demographic that isn’t a white male. With women on film it’s still either some docile delicate thing or an unrealistic, cunty, man hating power boss like Meryl Streep in The Devil Wears Prada or Sigourney Weaver in Working Girl.

Thin Red Line

For reasons ranging from race & ethnicity to my own individual upbringing, I don’t really relate to the families or characters in Malick's work (although like I said in my Tree Of Life review, Brad Pitt's performance did kinda transcend race and the time period he came from and did remind me of certain characteristics of my own father). But I've been around enough women in my life outside of my own immediate family to know that "real women" aren’t really represented that much in Malick's work. And this wouldn’t be that big of a deal if the male characters in Malick's films were unrealistic as well. But Richard Gere (Days Of Heaven), Brad Pitt (The Tree Of Life), Ben Affleck (To The Wonder) and the all-star cast of The Thin Red Line all have what I feel are realistic male qualities for the most part - broodiness, trouble expressing personal feelings & emotions, aggressiveness, tough, arrogant, confidence, etc. Maybe if Malick showed tougher women or at least a little less delicate or always on the verge of tears things would be a bit more even.

The New World (2005)

Q'orianka Kilcher's performance in the New World is the one role that kinda challenges this theory of mine. Her portrayal of Pocahontas is caught somewhere in between the childishness of the female characters in Malick's more recent work (especially To The Wonder) and the hidden strength of the female characters in his earlier work. There's times when both Colin Ferrell & Christian Bale look at her and treat her like this exotic dark skinned creature instead of an actual person (and since most of the film is told from their point of view that's how the audience will look at her as well). And the fact that her character really doesn't have a whole lot of lines, yet is in a large majority of the 2-1/2 hour film, it makes her seem like this quiet female with nothing much to say. But on the other hand, there's times when she exudes strength and confidence that hasn't been seen in a Malick film since Linda Manz' character in Days Of Heaven. Malick's Pocahontas is a complicated one. She IS pretty much a child, so that kinda gives her the right to act childish and free. In the 2nd half of the film she's taken away from her home and plopped in to a strange world where she's kinda objectified so she has every right to act a little "off".

To The Wonder (2013)

Do you guys think I'm on to the something? I almost feel like this isn't my place and a woman should be writing this. I'd like some female movie buffs familiar with Malick's work to chime in on this.

LA HAINE: HIP-HOP GOES ART HOUSE

Well, we've reached the Top 10 of our favorite movies of the 90's list over at the pink smoke. And although each post is a surprise to all the contributors and we're never quite sure what the rankings will be or what movie made it, I think it’s safe to say that Mathieu Kassovitz' directorial debut; La Haine didn’t make the cut. Like What Happened Was, another great film that got snubbed which I was given the chance to write about last month, I really feel this was an important film from the 90's (and not just on the political tip). Europe, especially the UK, saw many documentaries on the subject of hip-hop but La Haine may have been the first major (fiction) release where hip-hop played a major role. At its core, the film is more politically fueled than anything else (racism, riots, poverty, police corruption & brutality, etc) but director Mathieu Kassovitz carefully places just about every element of hip-hop culture throughout the film from start to finish. Great filmmaking and a true representation of hip-hop culture are two entities that rarely cross paths but La Haine is an exception. Within the first few seconds of the film's opening we see a graffiti tag. Graffiti is an important factor in La Haine. There’s non-stop tags & throw-ups all throughout the film that usually read; "Fuck The Police". There’s a key scene where a DJ (popular French DJ; “Cut Killer”) is in his bedroom scratching the phrase; "Fuck The Police" with his speakers facing out the window. And there's another crucial scene where we see a group breakdancers performing just before a police raid. As you can tell, La Haine, which was made as a response to all the police brutality that was going on in France during the early 90's (where mostly youth of color were the victims), has a very anti-police tone. Anyone who knows anything about Hip-Hop knows that it’s very anti-police. No matter how much La Haine may be affiliated with "art house"; it’s still a hip-hop film. This aspect of the film was greatly overlooked upon its release (still kinda is to this day actually) because most film critics & film elitists aren’t that immersed in hip-hop culture and don’t know how to comment or write on it. Plus the political angle is so heavy that it’s easy to focus more on that than anything else. Critics were so oblivious to rap & hip-hop culture that they failed to call out the parallels between La Haine and Ernest Dickerson's Juice (a cult/iconic film in hip-hop). Both films are socially & politically fueled stories about a group of young irresponsible & carless teens on the run from police with scenes that highlight DJing/scratching, graffiti & breakdancing. And what’s so original about both films is that Dickerson & Kassovitz chose to intentionally NOT focus or highlight rap (obviously the most popular & recognizable element in hip-hop) and put a spotlight on the other three elements (DJing, Breakdancing & Graffiti). I'm not saying Mathieu Kassovitz tried to copy Juice (he may have very well not even seen it) but the similarities between the two films are pretty uncanny.

Was La Haine hip hop's first full-on venture in to the world of (good) art house film? I'm well aware that over a decade ago the downtown nyc modern art scene embraced films like Wild Style, Downtown '81 & Style Wars because of the graffiti aspect and Rammellzee had a cameo in Jarmusch's art house masterpiece; Stranger Than Paradise (along with commercial attempts to cash in on the Hip-Hop/Graffiti craze like Turk 182 which, in opinion, owes true graffiti artist; Taki 183 royalties), but I cant think of a true hip-hop film that got the kinda worldwide exposure & recognition that La Haine got at the time of its release (the scene where our three main characters in La Haine go to the art museum is very reminiscent of the scene in Wild Style where Fab 5 Freddy & Lee go to the upscale party full of rich artsy elitists)...

(L-R: Jean Michel Basquiat in Downtown 81, Fab 5 Freddy in Wildstyle & Rammellzee in Stranger Than Paradise)

Mathieu Kassovitz may be multi talented (actor,
writer, director) but due to his post-La Haine work, as a director he joins the ranks of other "sellout" filmmakers like Neil Labutte, John Singleton, David Green, etc. Cut it any way you want but you can’t go from In The Company Of Men to Death At A Funeral (Labutte) or All The Real Girls & Snow Angels to The Sitter (Green). It’s hard to believe the director responsible for Gothika & Babylon AD is also responsible for one of the best and most socially conscious films from the 90's. Only recently has Kassovitz returned to more politically fueled work. La Haine centers around three best friends, each of a different nationality/ethnic background, over the span of a 24 hour period, living in the midst of a very volatile time in Paris - Said (Arab), Vinz (Jewish) & Hubert (West African). Said is the small, talkative, almost comedic relief of the group, Vincent is the more angry & hot-headed of the three, while Hubert is the most level headed and is pretty much the leader. After one of their friends/acquaintances is killed under shady circumstances during a riot, Vinz gets a gun and makes a pact with himself to kill a random police officer before the day is over. During the course of the film they run from the police (Said & Hubert eventually become victims of police brutality), get caught up in a riot, steal a car, crash an upscale party and have a run-in with a gang of skinheads and an ending that highlights the pointlessness of senseless violence. Beyond the focus on Hip-Hop and social/political issues, La Haine is known for its cinematography. The cinematography is what sets La Haine apart from Juice. The two films are definitely spiritually connected but the La Haine is ahead of Juice in terms of craft (which is kind of disappointing because Ernest Dickerson is a masterful cinematographer, responsible for some of Spike Lee's best work, but it didn’t really show in Juice). The camerawork in La Haine has you going; "how did they pull that off" or will have you playing certain scenes back and a lot of the shots are long & unedited. Besides Juice, La Haine nods at other films like Taxi Driver (there's a scene early on in the film where Vinz reenacts the "you talkin' to me?" scene). Certain shots are reminiscent of Bergman's Persona and the black & white cinematography reminds me of Jarmusch's Down By Law & Dead Man.

La Haine (1995)                                                                                     Persona (1967)

This film couldn't have been made at a better time. The mid-90's was an era when hip-hop was at an all time high (in my opinion), you couldn't go to the rap section in strawberries/virgin/tower and NOT buy a tape or CD. It seemed like everything was good (especially when compared to today). DJ & B-Boy battles were expanding overseas big time to places like Europe & Asia and other countries seemed to just appreciate hip-hop just as much (or more) than Americans. Thanks to the Criterion Collection this film is more accessible to American audiences but it’s still pushed more on to the art house crowd instead of young hip-hop audiences which is really who the film is geared towards. To this day I come across countless hip-hop lovers from my generation, as well as the previous generation, who have no idea that this film exists. I can’t speak on today's generation, but I have all the faith in the world that anyone who came up during the golden era of hip-hop would appreciate La Haine very much.

HOLY MOTORS: LEOS CARAX'S MOVIE MIXTAPE

It's easy to call any kind of "non-traditional" film without some kind of a straight forward plot; surreal or strange (which could both easily describe Leos Carax's long anticipated return; Holy Motors). Just read a lot of my recent reviews and you'll see even I get caught up in that. But with recent works like; Post Tenebras Lux, To The Wonder, Uncle Boonmee & The Tree Of Life, I feel terms like dreamy & surreal are getting played out. The aforementioned films play more in to the stream of conscious genre and look like live-action sketchbooks - ideas that aren't necessarily finished or complete but still look beautiful, has some kind of depth or story behind it, shows talent and possibly contains something personal about the creator that's too good to be kept under wraps no matter how incomplete it may be. Like I said, there's a reason old sketchbooks of famous artists, cartoonists, designers & architects are rare collector's items. Leos Carax's Holy Motors is the perfect example of a sketchbook/stream of consciousness film. Half of Holy Motors' inspiration/influence comes from an unfinished idea (Carax's real life attempt at trying to make a big budget, English-speaking film that never panned out as well as his experiences working with non-French movie studios). The other half of Holy Motors' inspiration comes from inside Leos Carax's very own head - the random thoughts, books & films that circulate inside his mind. Holy Motors is another "movie mixtape" in the same vein as Pulp Fiction, Irma Vep, The Player, Europa & Drive (although not as straight forward) with references to everything from Eyes Without a Face (the film features Eyes Without A Face co-star; Edith Scob) to Carax's very own work from back in the day (Holy Motors makes reference to Mauvais Sang, The Lovers On The Bridge & his 2008 short Merde from the collaborative feature length film Tokyo)...

Holy Motors (2012)                                                                  Eyes Without A Face (1960)

Holy Motors                                                                                       Tokyo (2008)

Not to toot my own horn but the sketchbook analogy makes perfect sense as Holy Motors plays out like a series of comedic sketches instead of one cohesive film (which isn't a negative jab at all). The film's only consistent element comes in the form of long time Carax collaborator; Denis Lavant and Edith Scob who plays his limo driver. Carax & Lavant are one of the few long lasting director/actor combos that still manage to put out great work and kinda keep that spirit of Godard & Belmondo alive. In the film, which takes place over a 24 hour period, Lavant plays "Mr. Oscar" - some kind of a performer/actor who's hired by a nameless company to act out various scenarios throughout the streets of Paris. He gets from one location to the next in a stretch limousine that contains all his different disguises & costumes. In one scenario we see Oscar play a homeless lady begging for change on the street. In another scenario Oscar plays the infamous Godzilla-influenced "Merde" monster that wreaks havoc throughout Paris and kidnaps a super model (played by Eva Mendes). In between, he plays everything from a man that's married to a chimp to an assassin. The film is part musical (featuring a musical number from Kylie Minogue), part dark comedy and part fantasy. To best describe Holy Motors' style, imagine the randomness & humor of Soderbergh's Schizopolis, mixed with Kids In The Hall's Brain Candy with a touch of Luis Bunuel (specifically the sketch style of The Phantom Of Liberty) yet told in Leos Carax's own signature random/"off"/dry style that can't really be found anywhere else these days. The majority of the 8 scenarios in the film feel like comments on cinema today (the use of special effects, violence on film, phasing out the old and in with the new, etc). Not to sound so cliché but this really is a breath of fresh air in 2012 – an intelligent film that doesn’t take itself too seriously at the same time. Holy Motor's can honestly be enjoyed by the biggest of movie snobs who love a lot of the names I've already dropped (Bunuel, Malick, Godard, etc) to fans of The Cartoon Network's late night TV programming. Sure Holy Motors tips its hat to films & literature that everyone may not get, in the same vein as Assayas did with Irma Vep, but it doesn’t take away from the film (although it wouldn’t hurt to get familiar with Carax’s filmography before watching Holy Motors).

Edith Scob's presence isn't the films' only connection to the older generation of cinema. Michel Piccoli, who appeared in Carax's Mauvais Sang, makes a cameo in the middle of the film as well. Carax's use of Scob & Piccoli is similar to Von Trier's use of Udo Kier, Barbara Sukowa & Eddie Constantine in Europa (an homage to Rainer Werner Fassbinder) or Tarrantino's use of John Travolta in Pulp Fiction (a reference to his cult status due to movies like Grease & Saturday Night Fever as well as an homage to Blowout & Depalma).

Michel Piccoli in Carax's Holy Motors (L) & Mauvais Sang (R)

And Denis Lavant really does deserve some kind of a lifetime achievement award for his performance in Holy Motors just for the simple fact that he's over 50 years old and still managed to pull off the same physically demanding performance that he gave in Carax's mid-80's work. Lavant manages to make the audience laugh without much effort. His acting is a combination of comedic genius mixed with great dramatic acting. Given that Carax & Lavant's careers are pretty much synonymous with each other, Holy Motors is just as personal to Lavant. Along with The Avengers & Seven Psychopaths, Holy Motors is the most fun I've had at the movies all year (this says a lot because I'm usually uncomfortable while sitting in the film forum due to my height). I was laughing out loud and scratching my head at the same time. Its yet another recent film that breaks the mold and dispels the misconception that "art house" films can't be great and silly at the same time (Dogtooth, ALPS, Attenberg, Spring Breakers, etc). There's nothing worse than waiting for a great director to return after a 10+ year hiatus with a disappointment (Lynne Ramsay/We Need To Talk About Kevin, Monte Hellman/Road To Nowhere, etc) and thankfully Leos Carax delivered with a film that'll probably end up in my top five at the end of the year. It's clear from Carax's past as a film critic for Cahier Du Cinema and his obvious French new wave references all throughout his early work that he's a lover of film first and a filmmaker second. What sets the "dreaminess" of Holy Motors apart from the rest of the films I've unofficially grouped it in with is that it isn't light, airy, droning, drawn out or other typical qualities you'd expect from a film that plays out like a dream. Holy Motors is more like a traditional silly comedy hidden inside of an art house movie.

MISUNDERSTOOD MASTERPIECE (HALLOWEEN EDITION): FRANKENSTEIN AND THE MONSTER FROM HELL (SPECIAL GUEST WRITER: IAN LOFFILL)

HAPPY HALLOWEEN! You didnt think a Hurricane would stop the empire, did you? There was no way in HELL I wasnt gonna have Pink Smoke contributor; Ian Loffill as a guest writer for this Halloween-themed special. Dont get me wrong, the horror genre isnt the only thing Ian knows about (just read his recent write-ups on Henry Fool & Out For Justice on the pink smoke). But thanks to his old myspace page and his current blog (Notes & Scribblings) I've been put on to quite a few forgotten about/underrated and/or misunderstood horror films over these last few years.
Enjoy...

By the early 1970s things were looking bleak for Hammer. Besides the British film industry going through one of its routine crisis periods, Hammer were facing competition in their own Horror market in the form of Amicus and later Tyburn and Tigon. Cinemas were closing across Britain and US distribution money had dried up. Hammer’s style was unfashionable at this stage and other Horror films of this era were moving away from castles, cobwebs and cemeteries to present day settings in films like The Exorcist and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Hammer were trying to keep up with trends and a sign of how clueless they were in this respect manifested itself in the unintentionally funny Dracula A.D. 1972. Their biggest grossing efforts by this stage were appalling sex comedies like On the Buses. It was a desperate time and yet during this period some truly excellent films emerged under difficult circumstances, notably Doctor Jekyll and Sister Hyde, Vampire Circus, Blood from the Mummy’s Tomb, Captain Kronos: Vampire Hunter and Frankenstein and the Monster From Hell. Sadly a lot of this good work went unheralded as the studio drew closer to its eventual demise.

Initially Monster from Hell was regarded as a failure. Finished in 1972 but released in 1974, it’s never been entirely clear why it sat on the shelf for so long. It was granted an X certificate and opened to dismal box office and got generally dismissive reviews which cited it as too grim. For me it’s a case of a great film that came along at the wrong time, being released in the same year as the Mel Brooks spoof Young Frankenstein amongst other things. Of all the Hammer Frankenstein pictures it’s the hardest to get hold of and is quite often seen in a cut version with certain gore scenes trimmed. A frequent criticism is that the Victorian mental asylum setting is too restrictive and confined for the action taking place, obviously a budgetary factor. Peter Cushing even joked that his wig made him look like Helen Hayes. Most agree it’s “the one with the crappy looking monster” and the film’s major defect is indeed the Neolithic monster itself. The monster was quite often an afterthought in these films, as it was the doctor himself who was the real focus of the films. David Prowse had already played the monster in The Horror of Frankenstein and only fares slightly better in the role here. This is no Monster From Hell but a pitiful, suffering and hideous creation. No one goes to see Hammer films for high quality monster make-up effects but Prowse does look particularly feeble next to the iconic performances of Christopher Lee, Michael Gwynn and Freddie Jones as the Baron’s creations in previous films in the series. Depending on whom you ask the film is either a nice low key finale (my view) or a tired, overdue farewell from a studio at the end of its tether. Hammer scholars are divided on the films merits. David Pirie in his book ‘A New Heritage of Horror’ and Sinclair McKay in ‘A Thing of Unspeakable Horror’ both give damming assessments of the film, seeing it as unfortunate failure and the “dying croak” of the series. More favourable opinions are expressed in Jonathan Rigby’s ‘English Gothic’ and Barnes and Hearn’s ‘The Hammer Story’.

Although he was the central focus of the series, it wasn’t just about the Baron and the series would have memorable additions over the years. The old Hammer crew weren’t all there in Monster From Hell but there were some mainstays returning. The script was a dusted off effort by Anthony Hinds (aka John Elder), who had left the studio a few years earlier. The script is full of humorous touches and certain ironies. Hammer stalwart James Bernard provides an effectively dour score. There are some surprisingly sensitive portrayals of the mental patients, played by the likes of Charles Lloyd Pack and Lucy Griffiths. Among the new faces, Madeline Smith as mute patient Sarah effectively becomes the conscience of the film while Shane Briant as Simon Helder is a very effective protégé. His confidence and disregard for conventional society is reminiscent of Cushing’s performance in the original Curse of Frankenstein and as the film goes on you get the sense that the Baron sees something of his younger self in Helder; his boundless curiosity and recklessness. Even Helder though begins to question Frankenstein’s methods as the story progresses.

The Hammer Frankenstein series evolved in interesting ways, although I prefer to think of the other two Hammer Frankensteins which didn’t involve director Terence Fisher (1964’s The Evil of Frankenstein and 1970’s atrocious prequel Horror of Frankenstein) as misguided detours. The 5 films by Fisher with Peter Cushing starring are all excellent but their stature is far from equal in filmdom and even amongst Hammer fans. The Curse of Frankenstein has rightfully attained classic status and along with 1958’s Dracula, established Hammer’s identity and brand name. Frankenstein Created Woman won the wholesome praise of Martin Scorsese at an NFT season. The Revenge of Frankenstein and Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed also have their admirers and are regarded as fine continuations of the series but Monster from Hell clearly stands apart from the other 4 in reputation. As good as they are individually the Cushing/Fisher films have a cumulative value that’s greater than the sum of its parts. Memories of earlier films in the series add texture. The films now seem to play off each other, add layers and distinction and by this final chapter achieve a poignancy that is remarkable. A wonderful understated scene has the Baron admitting to not having felt so elated since the events of the first film but admits “that was a long time ago.” Like all great macabre entertainment it’s riveting but at the same time hard to watch, seeing the all too human error that brings about these ruined efforts. Peter Cushing’s performance as Baron Frankenstein is one of cinema’s greatest extended character studies. Callous, witty and amoral, he’s one of the most compelling antiheroes to ever grace a Horror film. The subtle touches he added to the character over the course of the series are remarkable. Thanks to Cushing’s performances we are compelled by what drives the doctor but are repulsed by the consequences of his actions. The Baron is almost a mythical figure at this stage, many daren’t speak his name. In this film he has faked his death and is conducting his experiments in a Victorian State asylum for the criminally insane. The doctor chastises the director of the asylum for maltreatment of patients, showing the contradictory nature of the character. His introduction is certainly striking; clad in black he is almost synonymous with death by this time. Known as the “gentle man of Horror”, Freddie Francis felt that Cushing was the best thing that ever happened to Hammer. The early 1970s was a period of grievance for the actor, having lost his wife to emphysema. Trying to cope with the loss he took on an increasingly prolific workload. Cushing looks shockingly gaunt here, tired and overworked like his character. This stage of his career contains some of his finest work, including his performance in Monster from Hell, his obsessive puritan witch-hunter in Twins of Evil, the malevolent shopkeeper in From Beyond the Grave and perhaps best of all, his unforgettable turn as Arthur Grimsdyke in the “Poetic Justice” segment of Tales from the Crypt. There’s an unmistakable melancholic quality to Cushing’s performances at this point (and his performance in Tales from the Crypt is downright heartbreaking) but also a very dark humour creeps through. His obsessive Baron has become an outcast, coming to terms with past failures and trying to salvage something from the wreckage of his life’s work. He remarks, “If I succeed this time then every sacrifice will have been worthwhile”.

Director Terence Fisher was nearing 70 when he made the film. Low on confidence, allegedly prone to heavy drinking and in poor health, it would prove to be his final picture. Fisher and Cushing both contested with Hammer on certain issues – specifically the title, aspects of the script and the appearance of the monster (which Fisher had wanted to be more human but clearly he lost the argument) but their objections went largely unheeded. The ending hints at further adventures for the Baron and Helder but from the tone of the film Fisher and Cushing surely knew that this would be their last in the series. One of the last lines “It’s all over now. All over.” speaks volumes as does Cushing’s mournful expression. It perhaps was meant to signify Frankenstein’s tireless, obsessive nature that he is already planning his next experiment.
When the horror genre’s practitioners decided in the 1970s to largely reject the past the effect was sadly a lasting one. I still find contemporary genre films are too rooted in the present to be wholly effective - many already seem dated within a couple of years. There’s no shortage of contemporary anxieties to examine but by ignoring the genre’s gothic roots they tend to lose the timeless appeal of horror tales, something that you can still find in Frankenstein and the Monster from Hell. It never got the recognition it deserved and while some of the shortcomings detractors point to are valid, they all too often ignore its strengths. Considering the circumstances – an anachronistic picture made with Cushing grieving, Fisher ailing and Hammer itself in terminal decline - it’s the unlikeliest of triumphs and somehow fits the themes of the film itself. The history of the series on and off screen is part of its identity, making it a dignified and relatively subdued farewell. For me it provides perfect closure to a classic series, and how often does that happen? The disdain that some have for this film is slightly baffling, given that it seems to be a classic case of Hammer doing what it so often did best: Gothic Horror with a Home Counties flavour, made with meagre resources but also a tireless spirit, ingenuity and enthusiasm.