Fight Club (1999)

 ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

Fight Club (1999) – D. Fincher

I’m not sure why I watched this again; the primary emotions elicited are disgust and fear (anxiety). Perhaps it was the result of all that free-floating angst just before y2k? In any event, 20+ years later, the moral quandaries raised by the film are even more fraught. If Edward Norton’s unnamed Narrator sees “disruption” as freedom from the constraints of society and perhaps a Good Thing, is this acceptable now, in the context of the Trumpian disruptors? Was it even acceptable in the context of the film itself in 1999 when pitched ultimately as terrorism (albeit against economic systems rather than people)? But those culture jammers (such as Negativland) were such heroes! Moreover, if Tyler Durden (Brad Pitt), who starts a no holds barred “fight club” with the Narrator, represents unfettered masculinity, is this what we want now, when the toxic variety has clearly made life worse for everyone anywhere on the gender continuum? (Hard to say how love interest Helena Bonham-Carter feels – ambivalent to say the least?). Director David Fincher took Chuck Palahniuk’s novel and made it into a hyper-stylised film (music by the Dust Brothers) that doesn’t pull its punches (so to speak) – it’s violent and unrelenting, looking into the gaping hole in the average consumer’s heart and trying to find something to fill it, something more primal and yes, amoral. This is probably not the answer we need.  But the film itself is visceral and daring, encouraging viewers to identify with its flawed characters and to become morally compromised as a result. Or not -- if you accept that the Narrator is insane, which he may very well be.

 

Who Framed Roger Rabbit (1988)

 ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

Who Framed Roger Rabbit (1988) – R. Zemekis

Earlier in the day, I had the occasion to listen to my Carl Stalling Project CD, a disc of Warner Brothers Cartoon (“Looney Tunes”) soundtracks composed by Stalling.  One thing lead to another and I found myself watching Roger Rabbit for the first time in 30+ years.  Although great strides have been made in synthesizing live-action and animation, I have to say this old-school product still holds up, probably because of the care and attention the animators applied to each and every frame by hand.  Bob Hoskins plays a burnt-out private investigator, still lamenting the death of his brother/partner at the hands of a Toon, the cartoon minority group that is segregated into its own neighbourhood of L. A.  As a result, he doesn’t want to work for Toons; however, he is willing to take some dirty pictures on behalf of Maroon Studios in order to convince their star, Roger, that his wife, Jessica (“I’m not bad, I’m just drawn that way”), is cheating on him.  Of course, she isn’t but when her supposed partner, the boss of Acme gadgets, is bumped off, then Roger is the main suspect.  Eventually, Eddie (Hoskins) decides to help him out.  So, it’s a noir frame but mostly fun because of the cameos by WB and Disney stars from the past.  It’s also not exactly for children, given all the drinking, sex references, comic violence, and scary Christopher Lloyd as the menacing Judge Doom.  Worth another look, if you are in the mood.

 

Ghost in the Shell (1995)

 ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

Ghost in the Shell (1995) – M. Oshii

Landmark anime film (based on the manga by Masamune Shirow) directed by Mamoru Oshii (and yes, this was recently remade live-action style with Scarlett Johannsen). I never watched the original 25 years ago but surprisingly, its sci-fi plot does not feel out-of-date (as far as I understand it – somewhat complex!).  Major Motoko Kusanagi is a (frequently nude) cyborg working for Section 6, presumably government special agents, although she does have some natural biological brain cells which may make her different from the film’s bad “guy”, the Puppetmaster, later revealed to be Project 2501 (who may have no biological origin at all).  When Section 6 has finally captured the cyborg body of the Puppetmaster, Section 9 turns up to bargain for it – but soon the cyborg is out of the building and a big chase ensues. I don’t think the plot is the real reason to watch this (although there are some interesting philosophical questions about souls – “ghosts” -- within artificially intelligent bodies). Instead, it is the melancholy tone and the cinematic direction of the animation – sometimes just pictures of computer screens (that green font foreshadowing The Matrix, 1999), sometimes sad cityscapes. There’s something reminiscent of Blade Runner, 1981, too, in that you’d expect a private detective to walk these grey futuristic (2029) streets.

The Incredibles (2004)

 ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

The Incredibles (2004) – B. Bird

I skipped this back in the day (no kids, no interest in animation beyond Miyazaki) but decided to give it a shot with the boys.  I didn’t realise until now that the same director (Brad Bird) made The Iron Giant (1999) which we watched a couple of years ago and really liked.  However, the kids only rated this one as fair – methinks too much went over their heads.  Although we start with superhero fight scenes, soon lawsuits put the superheroes into government protection and hiding – Mr Incredible (Craig T. Nelson) has to resort to processing claims for a dodgy insurance company to make ends meet.  His wife, the former Elastigirl (Holly Hunter), is a stereotypic homemaker raising two children and waiting for her husband to come home from work (although occasionally he sneaks out to listen to the police scanner with old friend, Frozone (Samuel L. Jackson)).  It’s all a bit dull – until Mr Incredible is lured to a tropical island to help an unknown figure fight a menacing robot war machine. Things go bad from there and soon the whole family is helping out.  Then there is action galore (and perhaps even too much violence for an 8 year old – who says that’s not true). There are so many adult themes and references here, it is hard to imagine that kids would get it all – a few too many references to potential divorce perhaps, a lot of nods to James Bond (including an echo of the theme music). To sum up:  I enjoyed it.

 

The Ox-Bow Incident (1942)

 ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

The Ox-Bow Incident (1942) – W. Wellman

There seems like no time like the present to revisit this classic.  Men in a lonesome western town hear that a nearby rancher has been murdered and some cattle rustled. They decide to get together a posse and they have lynching on their minds. We observe these events somewhat dispassionately along with Henry Fonda and Harry Morgan who have just returned to town after some time away.  Soon, however the local shopkeeper (Harry Davenport) questions whether it is a good idea to take the law into their own hands and shouldn’t they just let the sheriff and local judge know?  It turns out the sheriff is out of town and the man he deputised also wants blood.  An old confederate major (Frank Conroy) takes charge. So, off they go and soon they capture Dana Andrews, Anthony Quinn and an old codger, seemingly red-handed with some cattle from the dead rancher. The prisoners claim to have bought the cattle fair and square, but no one believes them.  The major declares that they will have a vote to decide whether to lynch them or not – majority rules.  Wellman’s film is a moral challenge to populism, arguing that mob rule cannot be substituted for the rule of law. It’s impossible not to think of the travesties of the death penalty, even with that rule of law, and all the mistakes that led innocent men to the chair (or other horrible means).  Even so, an eye-for-an-eye mentality allows for no mercy, no rehabilitation. A society based on fundamental and fair moral principles knows better.

Blood Simple (1984)

 ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

Blood Simple (1984) – J. Coen & E. Coen

The Coen Brothers’ first feature which I always remember as being dark (in lighting and tone) and impossibly confusing.  So, I watched it again to see if I was right.  There are four principals: Frances McDormand as Abby the wife; Den Hedaya as Julian Marty the husband and bar owner; John Getz as Ray the lover and employee; and M. Emmett Walsh as the private detective.  Our story opens (after a voiceover from Walsh about how things are different in Texas) with Ray helping Abby to flee her husband for Houston – but instead they turn around and discover they were being followed … by Walsh, who subsequently films their sexual tryst and offers the pictures to Julian Marty, who decides to have them killed. But things don’t work out so well for Marty. That said, he doesn’t quite stay put when he ought to.  The Coens’ subversive sense of humour is already in play here (they worked first with Sam Raimi, so there’s that) and their eye for little details that add up big is also well developed.  The surprise for me was just how much work was done with the sound design and soundtrack (by Carter Burwell) – some oddities and a nice 80s piano line.  Still, there’s something very hard to fathom as the chips fall, even if it might actually fit together properly. You can definitely see why it kickstarted the Coens’ career.