'70s etiketine sahip kayıtlar gösteriliyor. Tüm kayıtları göster
'70s etiketine sahip kayıtlar gösteriliyor. Tüm kayıtları göster

27 Mayıs 2015 Çarşamba

DEEP RED AND THE HANDS OF A MASTER...

You know you have to smile sometimes when critics bang on about how we are desensitized, how technology means that we expect more and bigger thrills and more stimulus, it is easy to dismiss films made earlier in the 20th century as “easy watching”. Especially when it comes to genres like horror where we have come to depend so much on special effects. I am thinking, for example, of the upcoming horror film Crimson peak by master director Guillermo Del Toro – the fantastic and eerie world we see (so far only from the trailers) could not have been created if it were not for the magic of technology.
That said, in the right hands, the technology of the ‘70s can become a dangerous and terrifying tool. Dario Argento is, without shadow of a doubt, one of these directors. The atmosphere he creates, the world we are plunged into is so chilling that our imaginations are more than enough – we do not need the monsters of technology…

Deep Red begins with a psychic, a psychic who inadvertently sees into the mind of a murderer. And who promptly gets murdered herself. A passing pianist gets pulled into the story. There is a plucky journalist and a cynical police officer. In the midst of this setting the psychic’s prediction seems to be quite on the mark. But the problem is, whenever anyone gets even remotely close to uncovering a clue, there is another grizzly murder. Our pianist, an eye witness to the whole affair, is in especial danger as he has come closer to the murderer than he might have liked. Yet, his time seems to be rapidly running out and the police seem helpless as his allies fall around him like flies and the murderer’s net slowly and inexorably closes…
At the opening of the film, you may well be forgiven for thinking that this is going to be a film overly relying on slightly dodgy acting, ‘70s visual effects and magical powers. Well, you would be wrong. What Dario Argento succeeds in doing rather brilliantly is taking the makings of quite an ordinary thriller and cranks it up to a level of a bona fide bone-chilling horror film. Yes the psychic is real, but there the magic ends. We never have any doubt that the killer is a human being. It is simply a rather able human being – but human none the less. Which is quite befitting really, after all in this world, there are no monsters as scary as human beings. Argento uses and magnifies the tricks our minds play on us when we’re at home alone. You know the feeling, that creek, was that movement – that sound, did it come from the street…  For most of us it’s our minds playing tricks on us. For the heroes and heroines of Deep Red, this is not always the case. Let’s just say that I felt very glad indeed that I live in a house with three flatmates and two cats - I’m rarely alone enough to hear little creaks and squeaks around the house.
I also have to remark on the camerawork, the images created by Argento are always deeply striking in some way, Deep red is characterized by striking close-ups at key points that makes ones hair stand on end. The colours of the film are also striking, dark shadows mixing with glowing red blood…
But the thing I always seem to love about Argento’s films is the soundtrack. I mean, I still hum the signature tune from Suspiria when I am distracted – and I watched the film quite a few months ago – and this is no exception. Deep Red is no exception to this rule. Then again, that might be because they were both composed and performed by the same band, Goblin, an Italian progressive rock band known for their soundtrack work. This time around, Deep Red uses – brilliantly and quite effectively – the trick of using something normally innocent and everyday and transposing it into a horror setting to make it even more unsettling. This time around, it’s a children’s song (as you may or may not have been able to guess). The only thing I will say is that precious little is given in the way of explanations as to why this song is present in the film (because it is present in the actual film as well).


In fact, the only weakness of the film is that, when you settle your shivers and look at it closely, actual in depth explanations are exceedingly thin on the ground. However, the film does its job of creeping us out and scaring us so well that it can be forgiven – well, sort of - especially since it does such a good job of providing plot twists and surprises. Still, I don’t know,  another couple of minutes spent explaining properly WHY any of this happened may well have been all together a bad thing…  I do advise you don’t get too hung up on that though… You’ll miss out on an atmosphere well worth experiencing and being terrified in… 

26 Kasım 2014 Çarşamba

TAKE A STEP BACK IN TIME AND SPACE WITH "WALKABOUT"

I was constantly surprised by this film. I mean , not least because it seems to have received not one honour nor nomination… I don’t know why I let that surprise me really – there is a lot of talent and good artwork out in the universe that doesn’t get recognition. Besides, I don’t think Walkabout is one of those films that will appeal to everyone these days…  It has some classic ‘70s themes running through it, but also some very accomplished acting from the young cast and some touching messages…
You know how life is all about the journey and not the destination… That’s why it’s kinda hard to give a blurb of this particular film, so I will give it a go. Through circumstance, a teenage girl (a young Jenny Agutter – you know, Sister Julienne from Call the Midwife!) and her young brother (played by Luc Roeg, director Nicolas Roeg’s son!) get stranded in the deserts of the Australian outback all alone, with no mode of transport and very little in the way of food (I know, how the heck do you pull that one off, right – that’s what I asked myself when I first read the blurb. But fear not, the film actually pulls this off with remarkable little need for suspense of disbelief. I was impressed). So there they are, basically, stranded and lost in the desert with no way of getting home and very little in the way of means to survive. All seems almost lost when they come across a young aboriginal man who is on “walkabout” (an aboriginal rite of passage where the young men of the tribe are sent forth into the world to live off the land alone for a certain period of time). It is the start of an unusual friendship, not least because there is no common language except body language between the two groups. And yet as the walkabout in the outback continues, it quickly transpires the two groups have much to learn from each other…

Looking back on the last paragraph, it’s not quite a fair description of the end – it is mainly the brother and sister who learn from their local guide and this in more ways than one. The film makes it very, very clear what its theme is from the start. It is all about man’s relationship with nature, how far what we call “progress” has taken us from our original habitat. The point is made over and over all through the film - starting from the fact that the children are actually English and already “strangers” in this foreign land. Apart from that, like in many children’s films (not least among them Mary poppins) the younger brother is the one who is more in touch with nature. He still instinctively “remembers” how to be in nature and can actually communicate with the Aboriginal boy after a fashion – but he has to act as interpreter for his sister… The radio they carry about with them (and that can, bizarrely enough, still receive signals and broadcast perfectly clearly in the middle of a desert) is a nice if rather forced contrast with the silence of the desert. In fact the film walks a fine line – it could very easily have had a bit of slip up into the realm of the didactic. But it does not.
One especially interesting theme pursued (and a very, very ‘70s summer of love one, may I add) is how our teenage heroine slowly bWALKABOUT
I was constantly surprised by this film. I mean , not least because it seems to have received not one honour nor nomination… I don’t know why I let that surprise me really – there is a lot of talent and good artwork out in the universe that doesn’t get recognition. Besides, I don’t think Walkabout is one of those films that will appeal to everyone these days…  It has some classic ‘70s themes running through it, but also some very accomplished acting from the young cast and some touching messages…
You know how life is all about the journey and not the destination… That’s why it’s kinda hard to give a blurb of this particular film, so I will give it a go. Through circumstance, a teenage girl (a young Jenny Agutter – you know, Sister Julienne from Call the Midwife!) and her young brother (played by Luc Roeg, director Nicolas Roeg’s son!) get stranded in the deserts of the Australian outback all alone, with no mode of transport and very little in the way of food (I know, how the heck do you pull that one off, right – that’s what I asked myself when I first read the blurb. But fear not, the film actually pulls this off with remarkable little need for suspense of disbelief. I was impressed). So there they are, basically, stranded and lost in the desert with no way of getting home and very little in the way of means to survive. All seems almost lost when they come across a young aboriginal man who is on “walkabout” (an aboriginal rite of passage where the young men of the tribe are sent forth into the world to live off the land alone for a certain period of time). It is the start of an unusual friendship, not least because there is no common language except body language between the two groups. And yet as the walkabout in the outback continues, it quickly transpires the two groups have much to learn from each other…
Looking back on the last paragraph, it’s not quite a fair description of the end – it is mainly the brother and sister who learn from their local guide and this in more ways than one. The film makes it very, very clear what its theme is from the start. It is all about man’s relationship with nature, how far what we call “progress” has taken us from our original habitat. The point is made over and over all through the film - starting from the fact that the children are actually English and already “strangers” in this foreign land. Apart from that, like in many children’s films (not least among them Mary poppins) the younger brother is the one who is more in touch with nature. He still instinctively “remembers” how to be in nature and can actually communicate with the Aboriginal boy after a fashion – but he has to act as interpreter for his sister… The radio they carry about with them (and that can, bizarrely enough, still receive signals and broadcast perfectly clearly in the middle of a desert) is a nice if rather forced contrast with the silence of the desert. In fact the film walks a fine line – it could very easily have had a bit of slip up into the realm of the didactic. But it does not.
One especially interesting theme pursued (and a very, very ‘70s summer of love one, may I add) is how our teenage heroine slowly becomes aware of her own sexuality. Her lithe teenage guide, after all, goes around with practically no clothes on (mind you, their school uniforms are getting pretty ragged at this point – yet another signifier of their contrast with their surroundings) and the implication is that her time spent in nature is liberating a sexuality that is repressed by modern society.

In short this delicate little number is very much a film of its time. The lack of big action, a workable soundtrack and any kind of special effects will probably mean it will not survive the scrutiny of the average movie-goers today that need a film to viscerally grab and shake them…  But for those who want to step away from the man-made (or rather films that absolutely scream “man made”) and towards the more naturalistic, Walkabout has a wonderful treat in store…  

13 Nisan 2014 Pazar

A WHOLE LOTTA WOMAN AND A WHOLE LOTTA FILM HISTORY - "FOXY BROWN"

Aaah the ‘70s… A wonderful, intriguing era. If you’re one of those people who reckon they were born too late, chances are you wanted to be a teen in the late ‘60s and early ‘70s. I know I’d like to give it a try. I mean, don’t get me wrong, I will always be an ‘80s child. But I have a soft spot for the ‘70s, kind of like a cool older sibling or something. It wasn’t the luckiest of eras as far as special effects went. I defy you not to giggle at the opening sequence of Foxy Brown, it’s almost a video clip but with ‘70s special effects…  But that aside the decade through up some iconic films, characters, actors and actresses that continue to set the standard for the rest of us today. This is how we get to Pam Grier who starred as one of the first female action stars of cinema, the legendary Miss Foxy Brown… And you better not be just pooh-poohing this one off as just another old blacksploitation movie… Because this one is a whole lotta film!
Foxy Brown is excited. She is about to embark on a wonderful new life with the man she loves. Michael used to be a government agent – but all that was in the past. He has got a new identity and even a new face; they are both ready to ride off into the sunset together. However, you do not double cross the mob and then just waltz away from everything “scot-free”. The mob gets to Michael and kills him before he and Foxy can so much as enjoy one day of happiness together. Now Foxy is heartbroken but she sure isn’t a damsel in distress. And if she knows anything about anything, the mobsters who killed Michael are getting their come-uppance…
Now a cursory glance at this film might make you want to put it down and walk away. It is not high art, this much anyone can vouch for. But the fact that it has labels like “Blaxploitation” and “B movie” attached to it does NOT mean this film is not both an important part of cinematic history and when all is said and done, really, really good fun.
First of all, let’s talk about Foxy herself for a second. Pam Grier is, without any shadow of a doubt, one of the most important and impressive leading ladies of all times. And Foxy Brown is one of the screen’s first female action heroines. I mean I grant you, the genre of the film means that Foxy is highly sexualised – there is nakedness galore and sex is in almost every frame of the film. We would tut at a lot of that today and it does have something to do with the film’s genre but we must not forget that films today highly sexualise all the characters, especially the women, so the issue is more that of explicit content than anything else. Plus, even if she is highly sexualised one thing Foxy most definitely is not is a trophy. She takes an active part in shaping her own destiny; she is assertive and aggressive – traditionally “male” cinematic qualities – without letting anything go as far as femininity goes.
What I like the most about the film itself though, is the fact that the film tries to make itself as realistic as it possibly can. For example take the villains Steve Ellias and Katheryn Wall. They are two of the most horrible villains you can find. Steve has the looks of a typical psychopath of the era mixed with an actual psychopath. His partner in love and crime Katheryn is a cold hearted “madam” selling poor young women into prostitution. She is such a horrible character that the final “I want you to suffer” from Foxy hits right home. And yet they are clearly and truly in love. It’s rather sweet in a bizarre kind of way. “True love strikes in all kinds of places it seems” says Foxy at some point, referring to the two villains, and she couldn’t be more right. The other good “realistic” touch about the film is that Foxy actually gets hurt and harmed. Now, let it not be said that I am rooting for our heroine being harmed. But come on, in real life, if you  are harmed by the mafia and decide to take it on, chances are, even if you do win, that you will acquire a couple of substantial scars on the way.  Of course this is a film so ultimately Foxy defeats the mafia but hey… At least she does not just spectacularly destroy them “Punisher” style. There is some actual conflict in the film with actual danger to the characters success but also her life. I reckon that’s one of the things I dislike the most about action films. The way the hero seems to end up “destroying” the enemy and just winning so easily. No matter how many “acrobatics” you insert, it just doesn’t give me something to get my teeth sunk into. Foxy, on the other hand, gives you a lot to chew on.

And lastly, of course, it’s not just a female action hero we have here; we have a realistic female villain too. Katheryn Wall is both odious and a complete character in her own right… I mean you can argue how realistic it is to have a woman “running” the mafia like that but hey… I refer you to the websites online deconstructing the physical possibilities of the much admired “acrobatics” on some of the high market films. For all it’s “B” quality, Foxy Brown is an entertaining, exciting film with the rare added bonus of very realistic female characters that would stand up to the Bechdel test any day of the week… And given the rarity of the last type of film these days, if that alone does not make it worth watching, I don’t know what does. 

18 Nisan 2013 Perşembe

MEANWHILE, ACROSS THE POND... : "MEAN STREETS"


Now we skip a few years. And an ocean – but I digress. What I like about Mean Steets – in conjunction to this weeks’ entries that is, I like a lot of things about the film but more of that in a sec – is that it is actually almost contemporary with Call the Midwife. At a push they are just about 10 years apart. But they both are, basically, a slice of life from impoverished, dangerous areas in two countries literally across the pond from each other. If you think about it, Johnny Boy or Charlie (ok, perhaps not Johnny Boy, but definitely Charlie) could well be one of the husbands of Jenny Lee’s patients. What we have here, you might say, is a simple reversal of perspective. Here however, there is no benign convent and nuns watching over people. Here, it’s a dog eat dog world and it’s really and truly every man for himself…
Charlie (Harvey Keitel) only knows this too well. Of course this is America, you can always build and live your dream, but in Little Italy, it can be a bit harder to do that than your average neighbourhood. Luckily Charlie knows how to use his head. And he has the right connections in the shape of his uncle Giovanni, an influential man in the neighbourhood, a businessman and unofficial moneylender. Giovanni likes Charlie a lot and is even considering making him manager of one of his restaurants, a job that Charlie dreams of and that would secure him for life. However, Charlie is a man torn between his head and his heart. Although his head shows him clearly what path to follow to become a “big man” of the neighbourhood like Giovanni, Charlie’s heart leads him directly to his distant cousin Teresa of whom Giovanni does not approve (on the grounds that she is “sick in the head” i.e. has epilepsy). That could be sidestepped, albeit with difficulty, if they manage to keep the relationship under the radar, which Charlie is doing despite loud protests from Teresa. But then there’s Johnny Boy (Robert De Niro). Charlie’s young, irresponsible and slightly mad cousin is nothing but trouble. Johnny Boy owes money to the entire neighbourhood and has neither a glimmer of hope of paying it back nor an ounce of respect for anyone. He is, as you can imagine, constantly in and out of trouble and heading straight for a very sticky end.  If he wants to achieve his own dreams Charlie may well have to stop bailing him out and concentrate on his own life. But that’s the problem with these head – heart conflicts you see…
This film is, of course, one of Martin Scorsese’s first films. But even so early on we can see the themes the cast and the style that will preoccupy Martin Scorsese for most of his career. This particular film is not for the most part quite as “hard hitting” as his later films. But in a funny kind of way, I like that. Yes, there is a very clear storyline, but the style of the film is a clever mix; that of a fly on the wall documentary mixed with a commercial film. So events unfurl a lot more slowly and less predictably then they would in your “average” Hollywood flic. This also matches Johnny Boy’s character very well, I guess the character in his early twenties (De Niro is 30 at the time but as you know that means very little in the world of film) and in any case Johnny Boy has the level of responsibility of a particularly air-headed 12 year old. He lives with utter disregard for the consequences of his actions and that means things can “erupt” at pretty much any moment. In short, be prepared for surprises.
This is, in fact, the classic story of a main character caught between his heart and his logic. Here the pull of the heart is twofold, because not only does Charlie desperately want to help Johnny Boy out, there is the matter of the woman he loves, Teresa. The dynamic there is also interesting because all Teresa wants is to get out of Little Italy, get a nice little flat and have a quiet life. Charlie however, is determined he will become a man of the neighbourhood. And leaving Little Italy is categorically out of the question. So already we see the strong feel of “neighbourhood” present in a lot of Scorsese films. Here, perversely it almost acts as the ultimate curse that brings Charlie down. To be fair, he would have had a calmer life if he had gone along with Teresa’s plan. Ah, but would their story then be worth making a film about? That, my dears, is a totally different story all together…

4 Nisan 2013 Perşembe

THE FILM THAT POSSIBLY INVENTED STRANGE LOVE : "HAROLD AND MAUDE"


Ok, this is one of those films I really struggle to review. My instincts tell me this is not a film for everyone and to try and record it accordingly. My heart tells me one would have to be both blind and deaf not to watch the film and fall in love with it on the spot. This film has a double significance – as it were. Not only is it one of the cinematically most important films around it is, in my opinion, one of those expressive, sensitive films that warms you to the cockles of your heart. And it’s chock-full of rather dark absurd comedy. So… Yeah, you see why I say it may not be for everyone. But then again, you kinda know my taste in films by now. If you reckon it’s parallel to mine, I say definitely go for it. It’s a good ‘un. It’s a classic for a reason – no questions about that.
Well, we all need to have our hobbies in this life. Harold’s hobby is committing suicide. That and going to funerals. In his hearse. His mother told him he could have any car he wanted, they are not a badly off family so she had meant a Jaguar or a Mercedes. Harold, however, wanted a hearse. His mother does anything and everything to drag Harold back to normality; therapy, marriage, the army… But even with this no-holds barred approach, nothing seems to work and Harold refuses to follow her example. 79 year-old Maude, however, is a completely different story. You see, the thing about having hobbies is that they also permit you to meet like-minded people and Maude is just such a person. Although, her eccentricity is at such a level that even our friend Harold is slightly taken aback. Maude is, in a way, the mother-figure Harold never had in a random funeral attending, car stealing and nude posing sort of way…  This is a story that proves that love is something that bypasses minor issues like age and gender – and unites… But also has very, very unexpected consequences.
Ok, I am not going to actually make a list of all the parallels I drew with films today as I watched this one. First of all, it would spoil it for all of you who, like me, enjoy that kind of “treasure hunting”. Secondly, it would just make the post far too long. Even by my rather verbose standards. But, just as a small example, the going to random funerals thing. Ok, so, Harold and Maude like going to funerals. Not the funerals of anyone they know. Just, any funerals that happen to be going that day. Who does that remind you of? Mayhaps a certain narrator, played by Edward Norton, who visited support groups for a plethora of ailments he didn’t have and then met a woman who had the same hobby as him (played by Helena Bonham-Carter) ? Yes, I AM talking about Fight Club. And that’s just the start of a rather long list of prestigious movies. I mean, it’s worth a check-out for that alone. And please don’t get upset just because Fight Club appears to have got part of its inspiration from some other film. That’s what life – not to mention creative industries – are all about. Constant creative cross-inspiration. Finding stuff like this is like tracing a family tree. And it’s fun. Movie geeks like me will understand.
But then of course, I do implore you, do watch the film in its own right too. It is an absolute treasure trove for those, like me, who particularly enjoy dark comedy and absurd comedy in particular. But it isn’t just a joy-ride. Oh no. There are a lot of serious issues; and genuine emotion in this little number too.  And all tightly yet exquisitely packed into around 90 minutes of film, unlike the 2 hour + sagas of today that are very, very pretty to look at but barely manage to pack half the content into themselves… Goodness, I didn’t really see myself turning into an old fogey complaining that “things” were better in the “good old days” but hey… In this instance, I may well be right, I’m not quite sure…  Anyway. You guys watch Harold and Maude and then we can discuss all that later…