The Matrix (1999)

☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ½

The Matrix (1999) – The Wachowskis

So, yes, at its heart The Matrix is an action movie – and the various scenes of kung fu fighting (including the climatic battle between Keanu Reeves and Hugo Weaving) are great fun, especially because the actors were really trained by Hong Kong veteran Woo-Ping Yuen and also because special effects allow them to defy the laws of gravity.  But just having a few great fight scenes wouldn’t be enough – the Matrix is special because of the mystical acid-trip it lays on the viewer (written by Lilly and Lana Wachowski, who also directed).  Keanu Reeves is a computer hacker who is contacted by a mysterious group led by Laurence Fishburne (as Morpheus) and Carrie-Anne Moss (as Trinity) who then reveal to him that our reality is not what it seems and that we are really slaves subjugated to heartless masters.  If only the scales could fall from our eyes!  Of course, viewers could easily be thinking about the 1% who control resources and the world and keep us down but The Matrix is much weirder than that – and if our success with AI holds up, perhaps prophetic.  For those who haven’t seen this film (anyone?), Keanu is Neo, a.k.a. the One foretold to be the saviour who rescues our species.  Of course, the world is trashed in this version of the future, so it’s hard to say whether we are worth saving and where we would live if we were (underground, I guess).  But the quasi-religious sci-fi dystopian overlay here is enough to keep the brain tickled until the next action set-piece rolls out.  Seen on blu-ray, the run-down green-tinged cityscapes and ruined/underwater futuristic vistas aren’t particularly beautiful but they are effective and the costumes are mighty stylish.  I watched the two sequels back in the day but I don’t feel the need to see them again now – with luck, the 4^th film now in production will remember to fill in the gaps.  If you’ve never seen this, the first time is probably the best (but remarkably it still holds up).

Down by Law (1986)

☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ½

Down by Law (1986) – J. Jarmusch

Jim Jarmusch follows Tom Waits, John Lurie, and Roberto Benigni from the streets of New Orleans into jail, then out of jail and into the bayou.  So, it’s a road movie of sorts, aided immensely by Robby Müller’s gorgeous black and white cinematography. The images range from extremely low-key high-contrast (New Orleans at night) to low contrast (shades of grey in prison and in the woods at the very end of the picture).  Just a delight to look at.  Of course, the script meanders in laid-back Jarmusch-style, allowing the actors to establish their characters and to emit often funny dialogue (probably improvised at times – though showing the director’s proclivities: the Italian loves Walt Whitman).  Tom Waits (“Zack”) is relatively restrained (given what we know of his verbal abilities) as a DJ framed for stealing a car (or worse) – but we do get some good patter from him and his acting is top notch.  John Lurie (“Jack”) is sullen as the pimp (also set up) who forms an adversarial friendship with Waits.  But Roberto Benigni (“Bob”) is riotous as the Italian tourist (in for murder with an eight-ball) who lets loose with absurd English expressions and also engineers their escape (and ultimately their way out of the swamp).  So, is it an homage to the prison films of the Thirties? That might be a stretch.  Is it something more existential about life and how to live it? Probably not.  Is it a chance for this team to stretch out and show their talents in a memorably funny (and sad and beautiful) picture? Definitely yes.

Open Your Eyes (1997)

☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

Open Your Eyes (1997) – A. Amenábar

Watching this some 20 years later (and knowing the surprise twist in advance), perhaps some of its shock value and basic weirdness have been lost, leaving instead a very human story about selfishness and awkwardness in relationships.  (This is the film that was subsequently remade in the US as Vanilla Sky, which I haven’t seen). Eduardo Noriega plays a wealthy self-centered but handsome playboy who treats women (and his best friend, Pelayo) poorly. When he ditches his current fling for Sofia (Penelope Cruz), the other girl forces him to pay a heavy price by crashing the car they are driving in, leaving her dead and him disfigured.  Naturally, he struggles with his new identity and the film shows his pain and ostracism. Is it karma? Possibly.  But then, maybe, miracles do happen.  Or perhaps they don’t.  The film doesn’t shy away from the darkness and poses some metaphysical hypotheticals that methinks won’t ever become reality in our world.  But the sci-fi angle does elevate a story that might otherwise be pretty sombre (although human) and makes it unique.  If you haven’t seen it (and can bear some nineties Spanish soapiness), it is definitely worth seeing (the first time at least).

  

Do the Right Thing (1989)

☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

Do the Right Thing (1989) – S. Lee

I’m sure it has been a couple of decades since I watched this last – and it really holds up.  Spike Lee’s loving look at the denizens of one Brooklyn street in Bed-Stuy over the course of one very hot day is also a careful analysis of a race riot.  Lee himself plays Mookie the pizza delivery man working for Sal (Danny Aiello) who runs his restaurant in an all black neighbourhood with his two sons, Pino (John Tuturro) and Vito (Richard Edson).  All seems friendly and community-like until Buggin Out (played by Giancarlo Esposito) notices that Sal’s “wall of fame” holds pictures only of Italian Americans.  This omission (a more passive form of racism than actual hostility) rankles him and he calls for a boycott of the restaurant.  Most of the (black) people on the street ignore him or actively dissuade him from the campaign (for example, Da Mayor Ossie Davis, a sweet old drunk), given their friendship with Sal.  But as the day gets hotter, everyone starts to get under each other’s skin and Pino’s explicit racism doesn’t help anyone.  Lee includes a great (non-naturalistic) bit where the central characters (including the Korean grocer across the street) hurl racist slang at each other (comic, though painful/real deep down).  Eventually, the easy-going day turns into a violent night – Lee’s script manages to engineer this change gradually and subtly; it’s possible no one is to blame or everyone is to blame – no one seems to have intended this outcome.  It might be better to say that society is to blame (racism is institutionalised), particularly as those with power wield it to very ill effect against those with no power.  Public Enemy on the soundtrack signals the call for change (Fight the Power!).  At the end, Lee leaves us with two quotes, one from Martin Luther King (advocating non-violent protest) and one from Malcolm X (advocating any means necessary).  To its credit, Do the Right Thing knows it’s complicated -- but we should all adhere to the title’s admonition if there is to be any justice in this world.

Pulp Fiction (1994)

☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

Pulp Fiction (1994) – Q. Tarantino

There are parts of Pulp Fiction that have not aged well or perhaps they were always flaws (excessive use of profanity including the N word, glamorisation of drug use and violence, Tarantino's own very bad acting), but on the whole, those things that made it feel fresh in 1994 still work. I still chuckled at Samuel L. Jackson and John Travolta (two hit men) discussing foot massages and the Royale with cheese, the nonlinear narrative structure and triptych of stories creates interest rather than confounds, and the soundtrack is cracking and perfectly edited into the picture.  One wonders how much writing partner Roger Avary contributed (his career shared similar sensibilities but has not taken off in the same way).  Although the title says it all, and allows us to accept that the stories here will wallow in the gutter a bit, there is still a degree of crassness in Tarantino that might masquerade as hep coolness, cherishing bad grindhouse features, but is also still sexist, homophobic, racist or what-have-you (not that these prejudices all contaminate Pulp Fiction -- but they aren’t shied away from in Tarantino’s oeuvre either; perhaps he feels authentic by not hiding them away?).  But perhaps I’m denigrating Pulp Fiction too much – it is still a pop entertainment, not seeking depth or anything more than relishing a fanboy’s joy at paying homage and tweaking classic film noir genres (the boxer who throws the fight or doesn’t, the hitman who has a moment of clarity, the fixer who averts crises for the gang, the Deliverance style bad trip that brings foes together, the hitman who takes his boss’s wife out and screws up, and so on) and tipping us to the music he loves. (Not to mention his goal of reinvigorating careers, such as with Travolta’s ace turn here).  Did Tarantino continue to feel such joy in filmmaking as he progressed in his career?  Sometimes yes, maybe sometimes no.  I haven’t seen his latest yet but will be interested to see if he has transcended his limitations by now. 

  

Shoplifters (2018)

☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ½

Shoplifters (2018) – H. Kore-eda

By the end of the film, even the title takes on new significance -- it's more about humans than things -- just as the word family seems to lose its formal definition and take on new (perhaps better) meanings.  Such is director Hirokazu Kore-eda's mastery that we don't object to these redefinitions because they have been supported gradually and subtly throughout the story.  More specifically, we are asked to contemplate whether this rascally collection of people: “father” (Lily Franky), “mother” (Sakura Andô), “auntie” (Mayu Matsuoka), “brother” (Jyo Kairi), “sister” (Miyu Sasaki), and “grandmother” (Kirin Kiki) really represent a family through their actions rather than their formal relationships (in comparison to other families briefly portrayed in the film).  The first two acts of the film show us how they live, with loving (but not sentimental) attention to detail and some comedy – we get to know them and how they struggle with poverty (through shoplifting and demeaning jobs). The acting by all members of the cast is tremendous. At the same time, Kore-eda critiques the Japanese society that allows this situation to happen to these people.  In the third act, however, the rug is pulled out from under the viewer and we are asked whether we _still_ accept this “family” when new information is provided. If we do, we must accept that everyone is imperfect and that certain actions are more important for judging character than other actions.  In the end, then, it is another humanist message from this director who is building up an oeuvre in the same “family drama” genre that revered master Yasujiro Ozu worked in (albeit without the strict formalist camera set-ups).  Perhaps, just as Ozu made his themes explicit and continually returned to and reworked them, the same is true of Kore-eda (see Nobody Knows, 2004; Still Walking, 2008; I Wish, 2012; Like Father, Like Son, 2013; Our Little Sister, 2015; After the Storm, 2016).  In fact, we should soon decide that he is one of the great masters himself; Shoplifters is a strong argument in favour and deservedly won the Palme D’or at Cannes this year. 

All About Eve (1950)

☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ½

All About Eve (1950) – J. L. Mankiewicz

It is the screenplay by director Joseph L. Mankiewicz that really carries the film, rather than the cinematography or direction (which are no frills) – and, of course, the larger-than-life portrayal of aging actress Margo Channing by Bette Davis (then 42 herself).  Who can forget “Fasten your seatbelts, it’s going to be a bumpy night!” (spoken when Channing is going on a drunken tear after realising that up-and-comer Eve Harrington, played by Anne Baxter, is angling for a plum role earmarked for her).  There are a lot of minor characters here, most played with panache by well-cast players – chief among them is George Sanders as theatre critic Addison De Witt.  Did he ever play the sleazy heel better? (One of his “associates” is a young Marilyn Monroe, playing a dim-witted actress trying to break in).  He’s a perfect match for scheming Eve Harrington who fools most of the others (but not assistant Thelma Ritter or director Gary Merrill, Davis’s real-life husband-to-be), including the playwright (Hugh Marlowe) and his wife (Celeste Holm).  The ways Harrington plays everyone in order to cynically force her way to the top suggests an acidic view of human nature – or just the reality of competitive professions such as actor/acting.  The fact that she doesn’t exactly get what she wants in the end suggests that using people to get ahead could backfire.  As a result, we have more sympathy for Davis’s Channing -- although a tempestuous prima donna, she’s more human because of it.  Davis herself managed to extend her career time and again by accepting new and different roles (for example, What Ever Happened to Baby Jane, 1962, for which she was nominated for the Oscar, as she was for this film).  But it’s hard to say whether her strong-willed personality was cause or effect of this longevity…   

À bout de souffle (1960)

☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ½

À bout de souffle (1960) – J.-L. Godard

I just read that the famous “jump cuts” that this film introduced were the result of Godard needing to trim the film’s length but not wanting to remove any scenes.  I don’t think I knew that before – and what a major change to cinema because they don’t even seem novel anymore (60 years later).  Breathless is, of course, one of the major statements of the French Nouvelle Vague (New Wave) along with films by Truffaut, Chabrol, Varda, Resnais, Rohmer, and Rivette, which reinvented the language of cinema for a new generation.  Godard used natural lighting, location shooting, a jazzy score, partially improvised dialogue, a very loose plot, and those jump cuts to create an homage of sorts to the gangster films of his youth.  Jean-Pierre Melville (himself an auteur of the gangster film) has an extended cameo where he pontificates about gender relations.  Indeed, although the film can be seen as a character study of Belmondo’s Michel Poiccard and his actions (pursuing a relationship with Jean Seberg) after impulsively killing a motorcycle cop, it also offers up some philosophizing – however, it is nothing like what Godard would insert into his films in the future (even now as he continues into his 80s).  In fact, À bout de souffle is rather lightweight in the context of the filmmaker’s oeuvre but that also accounts for its wider popular acclaim.  It’s breezy and easy, with a beautiful eye for Paris (courtesy of Raoul Coutard) and a quick jump into the future of film.