REVIEW: “Diabolique” (1955)

2017blindspot

Henri-Georges Clouzot is a name rarely mentioned among the great French filmmakers. In a way it’s understandable since Clouzot never had the career of a Truffaut, Bresson, Resnais, or Godard. He has never been considered as prominent or as influential. But his signature movies, most notably “Diabolique”, reveal a shrewd cinematic prowess often reserved for the most gifted of his craft.

Clouzot was known for his iron-fisted approach to filmmaking. He was hard on his cast and crew which often led to frustration and animosity. For Clouzot suffering on screen could best be depicted by a suffering cast. He’s been called a tyrannical director who was always angry and who let everyone know who was in charge of the production. But off the set he was different and revealed a surprisingly gentler side.

dio1

Practically all of Clouzot’s films toyed with the darker sides of human nature. Many of his characters were devious and manipulative. Much of his subject matter was dark and depraved, often drawn from his own troubled life experiences. It’s all personified in “Diabolique”, a twisted tale of abuse and betrayal that would fit perfectly among any of Alfred Hitchcock’s movies.

The story revolves around a truly messed up situation. Michel Delassalle (Paul Meurisse) is the headmaster of a boarding school for boys outside of Paris. His wife Christina (played by Véra Clouzot, the director’s wife at the time) actually owns the school but her serious heart ailment and his iron hand keeps her from running the place. To make things weirder, Michel’s mistress Nicole (Simone Signoret) also works at the school. What could possibly go wrong?

dio2

But there’s a twist (one of many), Christina and Nicole are aware of each other and the roles they play in Michel’s life. Michel is a detestable man, not just due to his infidelity. He is demeaning and abusive to both women which sparks an unusual friendship between them. Eventually Christina and Nicole get their fill of Michel’s mistreatment and together they concoct the perfect crime to knock him off.

Clouzot co-wrote the screenplay which is based on a 1951 French novel that Alfred Hitchcock had intended to adapt. Clouzot beat Hitch to the screen rights and his film became a huge box office success. Another spike in the movie’s popularity would come a few years later when Véra Clouzot died of a heart ailment at age 46. But unlike the malicious, self-absorbed Michel from “Diabolique”, Clouzot was devastated and fell into a deep depression. He would only make one more film after his wife’s death.

dio3

“Diabolique” reveals so many layers as it maneuvers from a domestic drama to a psychological thriller. There are even distinct horror elements that show up the further the story spins out of control. There are a couple of particularly haunting scenes made more effective by Clouzot’s strong visual emphasis. But just as unsettling is Michel’s cruelty which the film never softens or tones down. Call it a collective ugliness that works really well.

Even with the moral muck of its story, “Diabolique” is a delight – a tense thriller boiling with suspense. It’s driven by three wonderful central performances and an artful approach by a director known for his adamant demands from his cast. For Clouzot projecting mood and emotion were pivotal in developing the darker tones of his subject matter. “Diabolique” shows just how effective his approach could be.

VERDICT – 4.5 STARS

4.5 STARS

REVIEW: “The Fate of the Furious”

fate poster

It remains the most unlikely and surprising movie mega-franchise, yet that’s exactly what the “Fast and Furious” films have become. Now we are eight movies in (yes, EIGHT) and it has done nothing to lessen its position as a box office juggernaut. “Furious 8” had a worldwide debut of $532.5 million, shattering the global record for an opening weekend. And after three weeks it has already cleared $1 billion. Not bad for a series once about street racing in Los Angeles.

I heard it speculated that the previous film got a box office boost from being the last installment featuring Paul Walker following his sad, untimely death. That may be selling the franchise short. Since it’s identity shift in 2011’s “Fast Five” the series has steadily grown in budget and gross. “Fate” sports a whopping $250 million budget which helps it follow its successful formula – bigger, louder, and more over-the-top that its predecessor.

fate2

The gang’s all back plus a few (or should I say the family is back since that is the one thin but central running theme). Big names have steadily been added including Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson, Kurt Russell, and Jason Statham to name a few. But this is still Vin Diesel’s show and he returns as Dominic Toretto. Dom is enjoying his honeymoon with Letty (Michelle Rodriguez) in Havana, Cuba. That is until he is confronted by a shadowy cyberterrorist ominously named Cipher (Charlize Theron).

Cipher has a big secret and uses it to force Dom to do her bidding. Doing so requires him to turn on his family and go rogue. Hobbs (Johnson), Letty, Roman (Tyrese Gibson), Tej (Chris “Ludacris” Bridges), and Ramsey (Nathalie Emmanuel) are approached by the mysterious Mr. Nobody (Russell) and tasked with stopping Dom before he enables Cipher to carry out her nefarious master plan.

F. Gary Gray takes the directing baton from James Wan and crafts a FF installment that hits on every cylinder particularly for fans of the series (interesting fact – “Fate” has already become the highest grossing film for an African-American director). Writer Chris Morgan returns and has now written six of the franchise’s eight movies. It can’t be easy for Morgan to meet the ‘bigger, crazier’ expectations nor can it be a breeze for Gray to capture it with such mammoth studio demands. For the most part they pull it off.

fate3

Now don’t get me wrong, “Fate” still requires you to turn off an entire portion of your brain. It’s absurdities can’t be calculated by the human mind. But it works because it maintains a keen sense of self-awareness. It knows it’s nuts and doesn’t shy away from it. In fact it has fun with the craziness of its scenarios. It consistently flashes its vital sense of humor which is absolutely essential. And one thing about it, you can sense everyone on screen is having a blast (I say that despite the much publicized real-life heat between Diesel and Johnson. But don’t worry, all it well now between the two stars meaning a ninth installment is all but assured).

Like most of its predecessors “The Fate of the Furious” is true to its ambitions. Fans of the series are sure to be pleased; detractors will be able to use their same arguments. I tend to enjoy these things. They’re goofy, action-packed, escapist entertainment. That’s why I had a good time with “Fate”. The characters are still fun, the action is a hoot, and the story had enough interesting turns to keep me engaged. Still, let’s be honest, these will never be considered ‘great movies’, but there seems to be enough under the the hood to keep it going. How long it can continue, well, that’s the real question.

VERDICT – 3.5 STARS

3-5-stars

5 Phenomenal “Red” Movies

PHENOM 5

Throughout my many Phenomenal 5 lists I’ve never been beyond putting together lists that are completely random or arbitrary. And why not? It adds to the fun. This is definitely one of those lists. By “Red” movies the criteria is simple – it must be a movie with “Red” in the title. Simple enough. Now obviously there are many films that fit so I wouldn’t call this the definitive list. Still, there’s no denying that these five “Red” movies are certainly phenomenal.

#5 – “Red River”

redriver

Even if you aren’t a fan of Western movies there is so much to love about Howard Hawk’s 1948 classic “Red River”. This story of an arduous cattle drive gone wrong stood out for bucking many of the genre’s common tropes. Sticking with that “out of the norm” uniqueness was John Wayne’s character, a considerably different role for an actor recognized for his rugged heroic manliness. Aside from its new take on Wayne’s persona, it’s also one of his best performances.

# 4 – “The Thin Red Line”

redline

In 1998 Terrence Malick made an epic return to filmmaking after a 20 year hiatus. It came in the form of his ensemble war film “The Thin Red Line”. Armed with an extensive cast and Malick’s incredible eye for visual flair, the movie is unorthodox yet captivating. It features some of Malick’s most stunning imagery and is contemplative even during some of its more intense sequences. The carousel of cameos can be a little distracting, but it doesn’t take away from the film’s visual and narrative power.

#3 – “Red Dawn”

RED DAWN, Charlie Sheen, Patrick Swayze, 1984, (c)MGM/courtesy Everett Collection

Go ahead and laugh at me. Rib me all you want. But I would be dishonest if I didn’t admit that I love 1984’s homeland war movie “Red Dawn”. I’ve often said “Red Dawn” is too easily dismissed by many as some lightweight, teen-oriented fluff. I couldn’t disagree more. Unlike the abysmal remake, the original didn’t turn its kids into superheroes. They were scared, uncertain, and in way over their heads. It was also deeply grounded into the politics of its day which may make it harder for some audiences to embrace. I still find it exciting and entertaining.

#2 – “The Red Balloon”

redballoon

Albert Lamorisse’s 34 minute short “The Red Balloon” from 1956 has several impressive distinctions. Perhaps its best is being the only film short ever to win the Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay. Its simple tale of a young boy and his relationship with a seemingly sentient bright red balloon is both playful and heartbreaking. But there are also several other implications Lamorisse may be dealing with. It’s beautifully shot around Paris’ 20th arrondissement and its dialogue is supplanted by a thoughtful Maurice Le Roux score. Ultimately it is both delicate and brutal in capturing both the joys and sorrows of being a kid.

#1 – “Three Colors: Red”

red1

My recent exploration of Krystof Kieslowski’s Three Colors trilogy was the inspiration of this Phenomenal 5. “Red” was the final film of the trilogy and a perfect ending to Kieslowski’s project. This a film of many moving narrative parts – parallel storylines, deep thought-provoking themes, and thoughtful explorations of the human experience. Two great performances from Irene Jacob and Jean-Louis Trintignant anchor the film and Piotr Sobociński’s gorgeous red-tinted cinematography is warm and meaningful. “Red” is such a rich movie full of intelligence and craft and a great ending to Kieslowski’s brilliant career.

And those are my five phenomenal ‘red’ movies. Agree or disagree? See something I missed? Please take time to share your thoughts below.

REVIEW: “After Hitler”

AFTER poster

Countless high quality documentaries have been made about World War 2, Adolph Hitler, the Holocaust, etc. Their importance can’t be understated especially as we grow further away from that period of time. Over the years documentarians have challenged viewers with their insightful explorations from an assortment of angles. Jonathan Martin’s “World War II in Color” is a superbly exhaustive series. Claude Lazmann’s “Shoah” and Marcel Ophüls’ “The Sorrow and the Pity” are seminal works on the Jewish Holocaust. I could go on.

“After Hitler” puts its unique focus on a scarred post-war Europe delving into the war’s emotional, economic, societal, and political after-effects. Co-writer and director David Korn Brzoza covers a lot of ground starting in late 1945 and moving to the end of the decade. An incredible collection of colorized video footage from across the continent paints the picture of a weary, ravaged but optimistic people.

AFTER1

But their optimism is quickly squashed as many countries face painful and often violent new realities. Brzoza and narrator Vincent Lindon present an array of truths concerning the new landscape of Europe – dark and disturbing pictures that have often gone forgotten. And exploration isn’t reserved for the countries Hitler’s Naziism terrorized. A big chunk of the documentary highlights Germany and the disaster left there by Hitler’s reign.

“After Hitler” hits its audiences with some brutal facts: the astonishing number of war orphans, a death toll of nearly 40 million European men, women, and children, disturbing ethnic post-war retaliations. This just scratches the surface of what Brzoza reveals. Deeper revelations from the Nuremberg trials, mass displacement, starvation – the scars of World War 2 are visualized in bone-shaking reality.

AFTER2

There is also the political side which the film pays close attention to particularly in the second half. Starting with Churchill’s prediction and early warnings of Stalin’s rise. From there we see the rise of Communism, the birth of the single-party state, and eventually the solidification of the Iron Curtain. Brzoza shows that not only did Hitler’s devastating aggression dramatically change the landscape of Europe, but it opened the door for a new threat that would define the landscape for years to come.

There is one sobering quote from the film regarding post-war Europe that has stuck with me – “It’s as if before the page can be turned it must be stained with violence.” Brzoza does a superb job of realizing that. “After Hitler” does indeed cover a lot of ground and for the most part does so sufficiently. There were subjects that I wish the film sat down and explored more thoroughly, but for such a comprehensive undertaking it does a fine job. The ending is a bit abrupt, but it puts all the pieces together and smartly connects one violent decade to the ominous next one.

VERDICT – 4 STARS

4-stars

REVIEW: “Sing Street”

sing-poster

Damien Chazelle’s “La La Land” wasn’t the only delightful, endearing musical of 2016. John Carney’s “Sing Street” also celebrates the wonder of music but not in the star-studded dreamland of Los Angeles. Instead Carney plants us in inner-city Dublin circa 1985. There isn’t an ounce of glitz or pageantry in “Sing Street” yet its music, just like in “La La Land”, is packed with spirit and meaning.

Following the blueprint of his 2007 film “Once”, Carney cast musicians ahead of actors for “Sing Street”. The premise is as simple as they come – a boy forms a rock band to impress a girl. It doesn’t get much more complicated than that. But the film comes alive as Carney fills in the gaps around that simple premise. His characters brim with personality. And of course there is the music.

sing1

Leading Carney’s group of acting unknowns is Ferdia Walsh-Peelo who plays Conor, the youngest of three siblings. His family’s financial woes lead his parents (nicely played by Aiden Gillen and Maria Doyle Kennedy) to make the decision to remove Conor from his expensive private school to a free but significantly rowdier state school. As the new kid, Connor quickly finds himself the outsider among the school’s many ruffians. Constant run-ins with the class bully and the abusive principal only make things worse.

At home things aren’t much better. His parents’ marriage is falling apart and their disconnect effects the entire family. Conor’s sister Ann (Kelly Thorton) is an aspiring architect drowning in melancholy. Jack Reynor is a scene-stealer playing Conor’s older brother Brendan, a disillusioned college dropout who spends the bulk of his time listening to his records and waxing eloquently on the virtues of rock-and-roll. You could say he is Conor’s music and life professor.

Life brightens up a bit when Conor meets and instantly falls for Raphina (Lucy Boynton with a surprisingly layered performance). She’s an aspiring model who Conor convinces to star in his band’s  music video. But there’s one problem – he doesn’t have a band. So he puts together a misfit group of musicians and calls their band Sing Street. As they begin to create music it not only draws him closer to Raphina but it offers him a form of expression and an escape from the cruddy life surrounding him.

sing222

“Sing Street” is Carney’s semi-autobiographical reflection on his teen years in Dublin. He pulls a lot from personal experience which is a key reason the story and the characters feel so authentic. I would also challenge anyone who grew up on 80s music to watch this and not be giddy with excitement. There is so much eye-lined, hair-sprayed, acid-washed nostalgia. Duran Duran, A-Ha, Hall and Oates, Joe Jackson – just some of the artists we get to hear. And wait till you see Conor’s fashion choices which change with each new band he discovers.

I’m still wrestling with its ending, but for the most part “Sing Street” hits all the right notes (horrible music pun absolutely intended). Carney juggles well timed humor with deep-seated realism and surrounds both with a head-bobbing collection of classic tunes and original songs. There are good performances throughout, particularly from Boynton and Reynor, but the real surprises may be Carney’s collection of acting unknowns who make up the band. Their camaraderie is infectious and watching them create music and find fulfillment gets to the true heart of “Sing Street”. And what a big heart it is.

VERDICT – 4 STARS

4-stars

REVIEW: “Jane Got A Gun”

jane-poster

Aside from its patently awkward title, Gavin O’Connor’s “Jane Got a Gun” still had a draw, namely its two stars Natalie Portman and Joel Edgerton and its tight-knit story in a Western setting. Unfortunately it became better known for the carousel of people joining and then leaving the film as well as the distribution turmoil. The Weinstein Company eventually dropped the film into the January wasteland of releases. Predictably it bombed.

It’s amazing that the film was ever completed. Michael Fassbender, Jude Law, and Bradley Cooper were all cast in important roles but left the project. Director Lynn Ramsay left and was replaced by O’Connor. Cinematographer Darius Khondji left and was replaced by Mandy Walker. Brian Duffield’s script received substantial rewrites by Joel Edgerton and Anthony Tambakis. That the film manages the cohesion it does is impressive.

jane-1

But I think all of those production woes put up some insurmountable hurdles. While there is a simple but interesting premise, “Jane Got a Gun”struggles to sustain any level of energy. It putters along towards its obvious conclusion giving us a few good character moments but not enough to save the film from its mediocrity.

Portman plays Jane Hammond who has settled down on a patch of land with her daughter and husband Bill (Noah Emmerich). But Bill can’t shed his outlaw ways. After wrangling with a gang called the Bishop Boys and their leader John Bishop (Ewan McGregor), he returns home full of bullets and with the gang hot on his heels. What a great guy.

With Bill incapacitated Jane asks her ex-fiancé Dan Frost (Joel Edgerton) to help her protect her husband and house. The two must navigate several emotional mine fields include their past relationship and Dan’s glaringly obvious (and reasonable) disdain for Bill. The movie plants itself here for a bit exploring the history of these two through a number of pointed conversations and flashbacks. It doesn’t add much to the film and only pushes back the inevitable conclusion.

jane2

I certainly can’t fault the performances although there are moments where Portman struggles mightily with her Old West accent. Edgerton is good even though his character isn’t nearly as layered as he could have been. Ewan McGregor is fun in a cheesy, evil, mustache-twirling way. The problem is I’m not convinced the movie is intentionally playing him that way.

In the end “Jane Got a Gun” is the definition of bland. Its faults aren’t egregious or due to creative incompetence. It simply lacks that pivotal spark in the relationships, in the dialogue, and even in the action. The frustration comes in knowing it isn’t a terrible film. It’s just a flavorless western that can’t seem to capitalize on its decent ideas.

VERDICT – 2.5 STARS

2.5 stars