Monday, October 09, 2006
And another
I can't remember now what possessed me to rent Lion of the Desert. I think I read an article that referred to Omar Mukhtar, of whom I'd never heard, and I was curious. Considering the length of the movie, I would have been better off reading a book. Speaking of the length, the IMDb reports it as 173 minutes, but the DVD says 206. I can't vouch for which is correct; all I can say is that it felt like it went on for about a week. Then again, Mukhtar, the "Lion of the Desert", fought the Italians for 22 years.
The movie, ineptly directed by Moustapha Akkad, best known as the producer of the Hallowe'en series, cost $35 million to make and grossed about $1 million. That ought to tell you something. I'm not sure where the money went - a lot of the battle scenes are pretty cheesy. I would have guessed some went on Oliver Reed's bar bill, but according to Akkad's commentary, he was well behaved. His performance is also pretty restrained by his standards, and the same goes for Rod Steiger as Mussolini. Anthony Quinn, in the title role, is actually quite good, and brings whatever dignity that this deeply cliched movie has.
Unfortunately, it has all the flaws of a big "international cast" epic - not the least of which is the silliness of an actor like John Gielgud playing an Arab who sounds exactly like John Gielgud. The score by Maurice Jarre is dreadful: I think he just took snippets of his other scores and spliced them together.
Finally, this movie does not get the "no animals were harmed" sticker. I'm afraid a lot of horses died in this desert.
The movie, ineptly directed by Moustapha Akkad, best known as the producer of the Hallowe'en series, cost $35 million to make and grossed about $1 million. That ought to tell you something. I'm not sure where the money went - a lot of the battle scenes are pretty cheesy. I would have guessed some went on Oliver Reed's bar bill, but according to Akkad's commentary, he was well behaved. His performance is also pretty restrained by his standards, and the same goes for Rod Steiger as Mussolini. Anthony Quinn, in the title role, is actually quite good, and brings whatever dignity that this deeply cliched movie has.
Unfortunately, it has all the flaws of a big "international cast" epic - not the least of which is the silliness of an actor like John Gielgud playing an Arab who sounds exactly like John Gielgud. The score by Maurice Jarre is dreadful: I think he just took snippets of his other scores and spliced them together.
Finally, this movie does not get the "no animals were harmed" sticker. I'm afraid a lot of horses died in this desert.
Sunday, October 08, 2006
Another review by Bunuel
Robert Bresson's Pickpocket is a very famous movie. It is ranked 41st on the 2002 Sight and Sound directors' list of best movies. Well, all I can say is, there's no accounting for taste.
As most people probably know before they've seen the picture - and if they don't, they'll figure it out soon enough - it is, despite Bresson's denials, based on Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment. I'm afraid I consider that work also grossly overrated. More to the point, unless one is familiar with the model, the imitation simply makes no sense. Bresson is famous for eschewing psychological realism. If one does not find a spiritual or metaphysical meaning to the story, it is totally unconvincing. (Even on these terms, I find it baffling: petty theft is not murder.)
Bresson is also famous for using non-actors, and for what I would call a very schematic approach to directing his "models". Look down, look up, hold it for 10 seconds, look away – that sort of thing. This has what Brecht called an alienation effect, forcing the viewer (although not the performer, as in Brecht's case) to think about what is the non-psychological meaning of the gesture. Since, as I've suggested, there is no meaning, it's simply off-putting.
On the other hand, I do find Bresson's visual style very interesting. His use of space in the frame and of anticipating or following the action – say, by focussing on an empty hallway for 10 seconds – are techniques that have now been copied endlessly, but seeing them here pursued with total commitment and rigour is compelling. He also uses sound in a very focussed way.
I give high marks to the compiler of the DVD: the features are much more interesting than the movie. First, there is an introduction by Paul Schrader. I thought what he said was rubbish – I don't like his movies either – but it was revealing as an example of why some people (including many directors) admire Bresson. The commentary by James Quandt of the Cinematheque Ontario combines a mastery of the literature on Bresson with an astounding capacity for bullshit. Fascinating was a set of interviews made in 2003 with the three leads, which shed much light on Bresson's method of working with his performers. There are also two very funny contemporary French TV features: a somewhat confrontational interview with Bresson; and a clip of the night club act of the actual pickpocket Kassagi, who appears in the film and who was the technical adviser for it.
In summary, I would say this is a film worth watching for people with a serious interest in the history of the form ... but don't expect to enjoy it. Any spiritual enlightenment you find, you brought it with you.
As most people probably know before they've seen the picture - and if they don't, they'll figure it out soon enough - it is, despite Bresson's denials, based on Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment. I'm afraid I consider that work also grossly overrated. More to the point, unless one is familiar with the model, the imitation simply makes no sense. Bresson is famous for eschewing psychological realism. If one does not find a spiritual or metaphysical meaning to the story, it is totally unconvincing. (Even on these terms, I find it baffling: petty theft is not murder.)
Bresson is also famous for using non-actors, and for what I would call a very schematic approach to directing his "models". Look down, look up, hold it for 10 seconds, look away – that sort of thing. This has what Brecht called an alienation effect, forcing the viewer (although not the performer, as in Brecht's case) to think about what is the non-psychological meaning of the gesture. Since, as I've suggested, there is no meaning, it's simply off-putting.
On the other hand, I do find Bresson's visual style very interesting. His use of space in the frame and of anticipating or following the action – say, by focussing on an empty hallway for 10 seconds – are techniques that have now been copied endlessly, but seeing them here pursued with total commitment and rigour is compelling. He also uses sound in a very focussed way.
I give high marks to the compiler of the DVD: the features are much more interesting than the movie. First, there is an introduction by Paul Schrader. I thought what he said was rubbish – I don't like his movies either – but it was revealing as an example of why some people (including many directors) admire Bresson. The commentary by James Quandt of the Cinematheque Ontario combines a mastery of the literature on Bresson with an astounding capacity for bullshit. Fascinating was a set of interviews made in 2003 with the three leads, which shed much light on Bresson's method of working with his performers. There are also two very funny contemporary French TV features: a somewhat confrontational interview with Bresson; and a clip of the night club act of the actual pickpocket Kassagi, who appears in the film and who was the technical adviser for it.
In summary, I would say this is a film worth watching for people with a serious interest in the history of the form ... but don't expect to enjoy it. Any spiritual enlightenment you find, you brought it with you.
