Wednesday, May 31, 2017

Martin Scorsese's World Cinema Project, No. 2


Criterion Collection, Dual Format, Release Date May 30, 2017
Review by Christopher S. Long

At least Criterion wasn't just teasing us when they slapped a “No. 1” on their first boxed set of “Martin Scorsese's World Cinema Project” back in 2013. It took three-and-a-half years to get to. “No. 2” but it was well worth the wait.

The initial set expanded the scope of the Criterion Collection in a valuable way. Criterion takes its mission to distribute “important classic and contemporary films” very seriously, but that mission has inevitably focused greater attention on a handful of national cinemas, with France, Italy, and Japan being much better represented than most others.

The World Cinema Project, an outgrowth of Martin Scorsese's The Film Foundation,also “preserves and restores neglected films from around the world” making them a perfect complement as they cover geographies not always highlighted by Criterion. The first “World Cinema Project” volume included films from Senegal, Mexico, India, Turkey, Morocco, and South Korea, and gave me my first chance to see work by major directors I had only read about before like Djibril Diop Mambety and Ritwik Ghatak (their films “Touki Bouki” and “A River Called Titas” were, in my opinion, the best on the set).

The second volume of the project brings us another film from Turkey, but also makes stops in the Philippines, Thailand, Brazil, Kazakhstan, and Taiwan, and spans a range from 1931 to the very end of the 20th century. 


“Insiang” (1976) opens with the graphic depiction of pigs being gutted in on a slaughterhouse floor, and a quick location shift to a slum town built along a river promises a continuation of the blood-letting, at least in figurative terms, though viewers shouldn't be quick to rule out the literal either. Filipina star Hilda Koronel plays the title character, a young woman clinging to innocence and decency under harrowing circumstances. She's saddled with a bitter, vengeful mother (Mona Lisa) who blames Insiang for her father abandoning the family: “Wherever your father is now, I hope he and his girlfriend drop dead!” That's one of mom's more affectionate outpourings. The situation worsens significantly when a hunky young bully (Ruel Vernal) moves in with mom while clearly having his eyes set on the lovely Insiang as well.

Filipino director Lino Brocka was absurdly prolific, shooting over sixty features in just a twenty-year span before his death in a car accident in 1991 at age 52. Like many of his films, “Insiang” was shot quickly (furiously might be a better term), in just seven days with little time for retakes, and the film's lean shooting schedule contributes to its sense of immediacy and authenticity. “Insiang” marries heated melodrama with gritty social realism, grounding the more lurid plot developments in a vividly depicted setting where the options for just everyone from the most vulnerable on up to the aspiring alpha male are severely limited. Sweaty, muscle-bound young men drunk on faux-machismo drive much of the action, but the true core of the film is the mother-daughter love/hate relationship which ultimately transforms into a revenge tale. The accomplished Koronel is always riveting as the thoughtful, resourceful protagonist, but Mona Lisa dives deep into the tormented soul of a spiteful woman who has abandoned all hope and inflicts misery on anyone she perceives as being under her control. She bares her fangs in scene after scene, but the film pulls off a minor miracle by making her a sympathetic figure in the end, if only for a fleeting moment or two.

Mysterious Object

“Mysterious Object at Noon” (2000) is the debut film of the Thai director Apichatpong Weerasethakul who has come to define 21st century art-house cinema as much as any world filmmaker. Apichatpong has sent modern cinephiles swooning with gorgeous, enigmatic films like “Tropical Malady” (2004), “Syndromes and a Century” (2006), and the contemplative Palme d'Or-winner “Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives” (2010). Modern masterpieces all.

Apichatpong is often bundled in with the so-called “slow cinema” directors who have formed a rebellious vanguard against commercial cinema's frenetic, ever-intensifying pace, but the seductive power of his work stems from much more than just the power of the long, languorous take. The ending of “Syndromes and a Century”... oh my, I'm swooning again.

Anyway, it all started (feature-wise, anyway) with strange (yes, mysterious) hybrid movie that appears to blend documentary and fiction elements, though perhaps it's more accurate to say it shuttles back-and-forth between different fictional elements in an amorphous, chimerical structure that ultimately renders such distinctions irrelevant.

Taking its cue from the surrealist “exquisite corpse” game, “Mysterious Object” opens with a woman tearfully recounting the story of how her father sold her for bus fare only to be prompted by a man off -screen (presumably Apichatpong) to tell another story next. Real, make-believe, it doesn't matter. The camera then continues to rove the Thai countryside filming new subjects who each asked to add their own chapter to a constantly-evolving tale that begins as the simple story of a student and his caring teacher Dogfahr (played by multiple actresses) before turning into a science-fiction/horror tale with a touch of “Body Snatchers” about it, but with ample time for a boxing match, a plane crash, medical melodrama, musical interludes, and even fourth-wall busting moments when the cast takes a lunch break and the camera boom droops well into the shot.

The film surprises at every turn, excites even when it becomes, quite frankly, a bit boring, and defies ready description. I had seen it before, though I suspect even many die-hard Apichatpong fans are getting their first opportunity to see it with this release. I'll be interested to learn if they had the same thought that occurred to me on this second viewing: “Mysterious Object” is the rare debut film that may well need to be seen after viewers have watched the rest of the director's work in order to fully appreciate it. “Mysterious Object” contains so much of the Apichatpong-verse that was still waiting to be unpacked over the ensuing years (with, presumably, much more to come) that it feels like you're watching oracular previews of “Syndromes” and “Boonmee” and so forth. In that sense, it reminds me of the early Werner Herzog film “Fata Morgana” (1971), also a weird docu-fiction hybrid that features traces of most ofthe images and motifs that would later come to be known as Herzogian.

What I really mean to say is that I absolutely love this movie.

It's a real head-scratcher, though, no argument there. So is “Limite” (1931), a 1931 Brazilian silent film that has almost no right to exist. First of all, it was made by a 22-year-old aspiring poet from Brazil named Mario Peixoto who had no previous filmmaking experience and was eager to make a movie inspired by a single photograph (pictured at the top) he had seen in a newspaper in Paris. Tough sell there and when he pitched his idea to a few accomplished filmmakers, he was rejected. Undaunted, he somehow managed to make the movie on his own, working with an amateur cast and crew consisting mostly of his friends.

Second of all, the film was a commercial flop and Peixoto would never make another movie though, fortunately, the poetry thing worked out well for him. The movie was admired in certain cinephilic circles, but was seldom screened, and was confiscated in 1966 by the military government. It may well have ceased to exist entirely if not for a heroic restoration effort undertaken in 1975.

“Limite” tells the tale of a man and two women stranded at sea in a tiny boat, but, no, I can see I've already led you astray. It's not really a tale at all, but a series of associative images that may or may not be recounting the story of how each of them wound up on the boat. That's not really important. The young, enthusiastic tyro filmmaker seems much more interested in exploring the formal limits of this new-to-him medium than in constructing a narrative.

I suspect the best way for me to explain is to recount the images that have endured since I watched it a week ago. In one sequence, a woman works intently at a sewing machine, and the film cuts in to extreme closeups of fabric, buttons, and tape measures. In another scene, the camera swoops like a raptor at a man's face over and over again. Peixoto loves closeups that isolate body parts – a hand partially covering an open mouth, gangly legs, overhead shots of a man's parted hair. All with frequent cuts to rolling waves dappled by sunlight.

Does it add up to anything? I don't know that Peixoto cared either way, but I'm sure I can't tell you after a single viewing. I was enraptured by lengthy stretches, but ultimately felt the poetic experience was stretched out too long at just under two hours. On the other hand, I'm also a firm believer that saying a movie is too long is kind of a dopey thing to say, but I'm stuck with it now. Even dopier is the fact that I've yet to mention this silent film's lush score which is just as much of a structuring element as the images. Reconstructed closely from the original score, it consists of classical standards by Debussy, Satie, Prokofiev, and others, and sure sounds great in this restored version.


“Revenge” (1989) is a straightforward enough title for a film that is anything but straightforward. Directed by Ermek Shinarbaev with a screenplay by the esteemed writer Anatoli Kim, “Revenge” is considered one of the defining films of the Kazakh(stan) New Wave, a wave I freely admit I was unaware of and which emerged as the Soviet Union was dissolving. The film takes place in Korea and on Sakhalin Island (north of Japan) and begins in the 18th century before jumping ahead to 1915 for a tale that will unfold slowly over several decades. A drunken teacher kills a girl in his charge, prompting her father to hatch a complex revenge plot which involves a long and fruitless pursuit, then turns to siring a child with his new wife and raising the boy to seek vengeance for the half-sister who died before he was born.

The simple title turns out, of course, to be ironic, as the pursuit of vengeance consumes multiple lifetimes and spans half a continent, only to wind up... well, I won't reveal it, but as you're watching the film, I'm sure you can figure out that Shinarbaev and Kim have no plans to present a linear tale with a neat, conclusive finish.

Law of the Border
On one of the set's extras, film producer Mevlut Akkaya compares Turkish writer-actor Yilmaz Guney to Marlon Brando and James Dean. I don't think he intends primarily to compare their acting styles, but rather refers to the iconic status Guney has in Turkish film culture. From what little I've read about Guney, this may understate the case as Guney didn't just play rebels on screen, but was a real-life crusader and outlaw, spending time in jail which didn't stop him from directing films by proxy.

Guney doesn't direct “Law of the Border” (1966) – that honor belongs to veteran Lutfi O. Akad – but he is the star of this frontier Western (by way of rural Turkey, that is) which pits impoverished villagers against government forces. Lean, ruggedly handsome Guney plays Hidir, one of the local leaders in a town where smuggling is effectively the only career option. Said occupation involves the precarious crossing of a border constantly patrolled by the military and protected by mine fields – oh, those poor sheep.

This sleek film (just 76 minutes long) wastes little time, but doesn't indulge in a simple good guy-bad guy dichotomy. Hidir is noble, but also stubborn and impulsive, while a new lieutenant sincerely wants to improve the declining towns under his watch with the help of a teacher eager to build a school to educate the boys (no mention of the girls' prospects, alas) so they have more choices than their fathers. Tradition and pride prove frustratingly resistant to change. Hidir tries his best to be a hero, but it's tough to overcome your social programming.

“Law of the Border” is yet another movie that was almost lost for good when a new military government in 1980 seized many films deemed critical. Only a single and incomplete print of the film survived, making this the perfect salvage operation for the World Cinema Project. 

Taipei Story

I won't go so far as to say this boxed set saves the best for last, but Edward Yang's “Taipei Story” (1985) is pretty tough to beat. Actually, that's not true. I think that Yang's “A Brighter Summer Day” (1991) and “Yi Yi” (2000), both also released by the Criterion Collection, are slightly better, but consider that high praise for Yang, not an indictment of the film.

The stories of “Taipei Story” have, in a sense, lurched to a halt just as the film picks them up. Lung (played by famed director Hou Hsiao-hsien, who also co-wrote the film) and Chin (pop singer Tsai Chin) profess to still have dreams, but it's uncertain if they even still have a life together. They can barely muster any enthusiasm while looking at a new apartment in the opening scene, and their vague plan to “go to America” doesn't convince anyone, including them. Chin's professional plans have been derailed by a corporate takeover which serves as a bitter reminder that personal loyalty has no value on a balance sheet. Lung's only fading pleasure revolves around his (also fading) memories of his youthful days as a baseball star.

Traditional slogans of the Chiang Kai-shek era provide neither comfort nor guidance, but turning to mainland China, Japan, or America for a new direction seems no more promising, the latter being defined as a place where you can shoot someone in your backyard, then drag him in your house and claim self-defense. Freedom!

The study of modern alienation, along with the numerous shots of sterile, imposing city architecture, glass facades reflecting the abyss, inevitably bring to mind comparisons to Antonioni, but Yang's protagonists aren't quite as glamorous in their disaffection. Lung may be wallowing in his own misery, but he's still a down-to-earth guy (Hou looks like like an everyday fellow, not a dashing leading man) who can muster enough energy to try to help both an old friend who's down on his luck and Chin's deadbeat father, providing brief sparks of warmth, or at least the prospect thereof.

“Taipei Story” is immaculately filmed and edited, as are all of Yang's films that I've seen. He was a modern master, and his death in 2006 at age 59 was a devastating loss for the film community. My only disappointment is that this really feels like a movie that should have its own solo release with ample extras, the same treatment Criterion gave to “A Brighter Summer Day” and “Yi Yi.” I hope that having it available (for now) only in this set won't limit its potential viewership.

“Revenge” and “Taipei Story” both look sharp and mostly damage-free, as you would expect from two of the most recent films on the set.

“Insiang” has a naturally “grubby” look to it, so it doesn't pop as vividly as the other two films just mentioned, but this high-def transfer provides a surprisingly sharp and detailed image with an appropriately subtle color palette.

“Mysterious Object” was shot in black-and-white on 16mm reversal stock and also has its own “grubby” look that is an integral part of the viewing experience. I can't quite say this features the same sharp image detail as other films on the set, but I think it looks just like it's supposed to, so no complaints here.

“Limite” and “Law of the Border” each show considerable damage related to their perilous journeys through life. One extended sequence in “Limite” is missing entirely. Some other shots are badly damaged enough that only the center of the image can be seen in the middle of the decaying edges. In a strange way, this adds to its appeal, though I'm sure everyone involved would prefer pristine, intact prints to work from. The undamaged shots are often quite breathtaking to look at in this high-def transfer. “Law of the Border” has significant scratches and other damage visible in many shots and had to rely on multiple sources, but we're fortunate it exists at all.

“Law of the Border” has the tinniest sound, but it's fine, and the other films get treated with Mono mixes for all except “Mysterious Object” which gets a 5.1 surround mix. Optional subtitles are provided for each film.

There are three double-sized keepcases tucked into the cardboard case for this box set. Each case includes three discs: a Blu-ray which contains two films, and then also a single DVD with each of the films on it. The first disc has “Insiang” and “Mysterious Object.” The second has “Revenge” and “Limite.” The third: “Law of the Border” and “Taipei Story.”

For each film, we get a two-minute introduction from Martin Scorsese, speaking on behalf of the World Cinema Project, and providing a little information about the filmmakers and the restoration involved.

Each film is also accompanied by a brief interview as the only other extra. For “Insiang” we get an interview with film historian and “man of cinema” Pierre Rissient (14 min.) For “Mysterious Object,” director Apichatpong Weerasethakul holds court (18 min.) On “Limite” filmmaker Walter Salles talks about the challenges in preserving the film (14 min.) For “Revenge” there's an interview with director Ermek Shinarbaev (19 min.) On “Law of the Border” film producer Mevlut Akkaya speaks (17 min.) and for “Taipei Story” we get a conversation between filmmakers Hou Hsiao-hsien and Edmond Wong (18 min.)

A thick, square-bound booklet is also tucked into the cardboard box alongside the three discs and includes individual essays for each film.

Final Thoughts:
Back when I reviewed the first volume of the World Cinema Project, I guessed that “Mysterious Object” and “A Brighter Summer Day” would be part of the next set, so I'm going to give myself one-and-a-half points for that. How about “Memories of Underdevelopment” and “Soleil O” for the next set? (Yes, I'm just scrolling through the titles listed at the World Cinema Project site) Considering how strong the first two sets have been, we can reasonably trust the selection process for the next one. Let's just hope it arrives a little quicker this time around.

Tuesday, May 16, 2017

Jeanne Dielman, 23 Quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles

Criterion Collection, DVD, Release Date August 25, 2009
Blu-ray Released on May 9, 2017
Review by Christopher S. Long

(This review of Chantal Akerman's masterpiece was written for the 2009 DVD release by the Criterion Collection. Sections below have been updated to discuss the 2017 Blu-ray re-release of the film.)

I have to dispel the rumor that Chantal Akerman's brilliant "Jeanne Dielman, 23 Quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles" (1975) consists of three hours of a woman doing housework. That's nonsense. It's three hours and twenty minutes. And she also goes shopping.

Each room in Jeanne's cramped Belgian apartment is filmed from one or two fixed camera set-ups, always the same ones (at least for the first half of the movie; it opens up a bit later on). The camera, placed about waist high, never moves and the action in each shot is filmed in real time with no analytical editing. When Jeanne prepares dinner, we watch the entire process from when she spreads flour on the table, whips the eggs, breads the cutlets and so on.

In some ways, “Jeanne Dielman” feels like the first spycam movie ever made. Usually Jeanne is in the shot but sometimes she wanders in and out as she completes her chores. The camera doesn't budge. It's almost as if the cameras in each room are rolling 24/7 and simply waiting for Jeanne to enter their field of vision, and for viewers to switch channels to watch the next room. When Jeanne's not there, we stare at the sink or the tureen on the dining room table or the bedroom closet. The film provides an uncomfortably intimate exploration of this tiny, titular space that almost completely defines Jeanne Dielman's claustrophobic world.

"Jeanne Dielman" traces three days in the life of its title character, a widow and homemaker who receives male “clients" once a day to pay the bills. Each day is rigidly segmented, a series of domestic tasks and rituals performed at the same time every day, a comfortable tedium which protects Jeanne from the horror of having free time to contemplate her life. At least until something goes wrong on the second day and disrupts her delicate, hard-earned stasis. Then she leaves the lid off the tureen, fumbles with the silverware, overcooks the potatoes, and wakes up a little earlier than usual. Chaos theory style, these minor variations eventually lead to major consequences, and the potential energy built up by three-plus hours of this rigorously structured study of a body (often not) in motion erupts into an unexpectedly kinetic final sequence.

Chantal Akerman was only 25 when she made "Jeanne Dielman." It's hard to believe someone so young could have such a clear and unique vision and the ability to realize it so well, but it's best not to fall into the trap of lauding her as a solitary genius. She had many collaborators on this film, crewed mostly by women, chief among them cinematographer Babette Mangolte and leading actress Delphine Seyrig.

Mangolte teamed up with Akerman to produce this "spycam" film, adapting a shooting style to fit the restricted space of the real apartment the film was shot in (some scenes were re-staged in a studio, but this footage wasn't used). Unable to knock out walls or remove ceilings, Mangolte and Akerman devised a way to cover each room with just a few set-ups and still create an asphyxiating immediacy.

Delphine Seyrig was a huge star by the time she agreed to work with this young and relatively unknown director. There was little chance for money or glory in the role, but she believed in the project. Jeanne Dielman in her dowdy sweaters is almost the polar opposite of the glamorous fashion icon Seyrig played in "Last Year at Marienbad" (1961), but in both films Seyrig is asked to "behave" more than she is to act. In "Marienbad" she was mostly a shape situated in her environment. Jeanne Dielman is a relatively expressionless woman, a robo-mom who performs her chores mechanically and, at least on the first go round, with total efficiency. It's hard to imagine that Seyrig had much fun with the role (and we see evidence of this on one of the DVD features) but she inhabits the body of Jeanne Dielman with a stolid blankness that would be anathema to many actresses. By gradual accumulation and uncomfortably close observation, Jeanne becomes one of the most tangible presences the cinema has ever witnessed. For my money, she's the greatest film character of all-time.

"Jeanne Dielman" is a transfixing experience that inspires a kind of solemn awe on an initial viewing, but upon reflection it also yields its fair share of humor. There's that painfully awkward scene where Jeanne wanders around the apartment with her pot of overcooked potatoes and winds up in the bathroom for some reason. And her wimpy, dependent son (Jan Decorte) who barely speaks and never once says thank you, the little bastard, when mom clears off each course. And the most enduring image of all, both creepy and funny, is that of the frugal Jeanne obsessively clicking the lights on and off as she exits one room and enters another. Has anyone counted the number of times we see her flick a light switch? Dozens for sure, possibly in the hundreds.

Did I mention the baby scene? No? Well let's just say it's not funny at all. In fact it's one of the saddest, most gut-wrenching scenes ever put on film. Just another of many remarkable moments from a remarkable film.

Spycams indulge voyeuristic impulses, of course. "Jeanne Dielman" is certainly not intended to appeal to prurient interests. Even a scene in which Jeanne bathes (waist-level camera unmoving, of course) isn't the least bit erotic. But the film does provide viewers the opportunity to see images (or "images between the images" in Akerman's terms) that they would not otherwise get a chance to see. More specifically, the film provides images of the domestic space previously deemed unfit for cinematic treatment, at least in such detail and clarity. Akerman relocates the traditional epic to the kitchen, the bedroom, and the dining room, turning the camera on a world known to hundreds of millions of women throughout the world but seldom the subject of cinema. I'd say that's the greatest accomplishment of "Jeanne Dielman," but there's a long list of accomplishments to choose from.

"Jeanne Dielman" is on the short list of films that changed the way I understood film. Every bit as much as Kubrick's “2001,” this domestic odyssey is the ultimate trip.

The film is presented in a 1.66:1 widescreen (anamorphic) ratio. The progressive transfer was digitally restored under Akerman's supervision. The grainy, textured image looks great. Sharp contrast, everything you expect from Criterion. Except that it's not high-def. But maybe someday soon...

Update for 2017 Blu-ray release: ...and maybe eight years isn't soon, but now it's here in glorious Blu-ray. Sure, sure, the jokes are easy. Man, you can really see Jeanne work that veal cutlet now! Watch those potatoes boil! But one of the greatest films ever made deserves the best presentation possible, and this high-def upgrade from Criterion renders 23, quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles in vivid detail. From the Criterion booklet, this 1080p transfer is sourced from a “new 2K digital restoration” and was “supervised by director Chantal Akerman and cinematographer Babette Mangolte.” In addition to the improved detail evident throughout, the colors look a bit warmer overall than the prior SD transfer. The frame also shows more a bit more information around the edges – more of the room is visible on each side of the frame. You see just a smidge more of the cabinets overhead, etc. All in all, it looks pretty great.

The DVD is presented in Dolby Digital Mono. Optional English subtitles support the French audio.

Update for 2017 Blu-ray release: I sure wasn't too wordy when I wrote this before. That's because the sound design on "Jeanne Dielman" is pretty spare and straightforward. This linear PCM mono track is still a welcome improvement even if said improvement isn't particularly noticeable.

This two-disc package is absolutely loaded.

Update for 2017 Blu-ray release: Criterion has imported all of the extras, including the insert booklet, from the 2009 release. The only difference is that they are now rendered in high-def, and are all included on a single Blu-ray rather than on the two discs from before.

"Autour de ‘Jeanne Dielman'" (69 min.) is the best on-set feature I have ever seen. Filmed by actor Sami Frey, this feature shows Chantal Akerman and Delphine Seyrig at work on set, and demonstrates the degree to which collaboration can also be a battle of wills. Seyrig struggles to understand what Akerman wants while Akerman strives to communicate as little as possible. Just enough to give the actress what she needs but not so much that she runs the risk of introducing too much psychology into the project. The back-and-forth conversations between them are fascinating. Seyrig is frustrated but always cordial. Akerman obviously has a crystal clear vision in her mind of what she wants, but some difficulty (and reluctance) in verbalizing it. It's an amazing feature, and deserves to be a staple on film school curricula.

"Saute ma ville" (1968) is Akerman's first short film. The 18-year-old Akerman stars as (does this sound familiar?) a woman in a kitchen who tends to a few chores and quickly falls apart. This is much more playful than "Jeanne Dielman" and has a lovely soundtrack which consists of (I presume) Akerman humming. It's wonderful to have an opportunity to see the first film by such a great director.

"Chantal Akerman on Filmmaking" is excerpted from a 1997 episode of "Cinéma, de notre temps" in which Akerman directs an episode about herself. It is basically a monologue in which she shares some fairly personal reflections on her craft.

The collection includes several interviews: Chantal Akerman (20 min, recorded in April 2009 for Criterion), cinematographer Babette Mangolte (23 min, April 2009), and a 2007 interview in which Akerman interrogates her mother Natalia (28 min.)

A brief interview with Akerman and Seyrig is excerpted from the February 15, 1976 episode of "Les rendez-vous du dimanche" (7 min.)

The insert booklet features an essay by Ivone Margulies, author of "Nothing Happens: Chantal Akerman's Hyperrealist Everyday."

Final Thoughts:
Chantal Akerman is a much celebrated figure in cinephilic and academic circles, but largely unknown even to many fans of Francophone cinema. Criterion's release of "Jeanne Dielman" will, I hope, begin to remedy the situation. "Jeanne Dielman" is indisputably one of the greatest and most important films of the past half century. Though it is probably Akerman's greatest achievement, it's hardly the only highlight on her resume. "Je, tu, il, elle" (1974) is an intensely personal film that can be just as harrowing as "Jeanne Dielman." "News From Home" (1977) and "From The East" (1993) are exceptional as well. And “La chambre” (1972). And “Hotel Monterey” (1972). Well, you get the picture.

Update for 2017 Blu-ray release: And now Chantal Akerman is gone, and her loss still stings nearly two years later. I wrote "probably" before just to emphasize that Akerman made many great films, but I am confident that "Jeanne Dielman" is her masterpiece, as well as one of the masterpieces of world cinema. In fact, I wouldn't argue too strongly with anyone who claimed it was the greatest film ever made. And that makes this Blu-ray update, even without any new features, one of the most significant and welcome home theater releases of 2017.

Monday, May 15, 2017

Good Morning

GOOD MORNING (Ozu, 1959)
Criterion Collection, Blu-ray, Release Date May 16, 1959
Review by Christopher S. Long

As an adult who remains baffled by the ubiquitous small talk that comprises most social interactions, I can empathize strongly with the young protagonists of Yasujiro Ozu's “Good Morning” (1959). After thirteen-year-old Minoru and seven-year-old Isamu brattily demand their parents buy a television so they can watch sumo wrestling and baseball, their father (Ozu stalwart Chishu Ryu) scolds them for their sassy backtalk. A petulant Minoru retorts that adults spend all their time saying stupid things like “Good morning” (and “No, you can't have a TV!”) and enlists his little brother in a vow of total silence until they get their television and, perhaps, until the adults understand just how absurd their constant prattle sounds.

The boys' refusal to observe the expected social niceties and to comply with the inherent power structure between generations sets off a chain reaction in their tiny suburban neighborhood. Gossipy housewives, who, like everyone, consider themselves the main characters in the story, take the boys' rudeness as a personal rebuke, and more specifically as a sign of their parents' haughtiness. Their mother thinks she's better than us? Well, we'll show her!

The neighborhood's delicate social structure shakes, but never comes particularly close to collapsing in one this lightly comic offering from Ozu. And the boys' blinkered but sincere perspective ultimately underscores the significance of the insignificant interactions they protest. The content may be superficial, but the form of a “Good morning” or “This weather sure is crazy” is essential to enable humans to live together in relative harmony. Sometimes it even opens the door for far more intimate exchanges.

I point all of this out mostly because I wanted to become one of the very few critics ever to make it to the fourth paragraph of a review of “Good Morning” without talking about farts. Fart jokes may not be the first thing that spring to mind when you think of the director of “Tokyo Story” (1953) and “An Autumn Afternoon” (1962) but farts (huh huh, he said “but farts”) grease the social skids as surely as any other form of communication in this film. The boys' ability to fart on command (indicating by peppery musical toots on the soundtrack) assures their place in the playground pecking order, and at least one of their fathers takes great pride in his firm and resonant tuba-farts that repeatedly trick his poor wife into thinking he's calling for her.

It's tempting, at least for me, to think that Ozu is suggesting that no matter what orifice we use to communicate we're really all just talking out our asses, but he's much more appreciative of the nuances of daily social interaction than I am. Ozu and co-writer Kogo Noda have an uncanny knack for depicting complex, dynamic characters in just a few seconds of screentime; even the shameless gossips aren't allowed to turn into one-dimensional shrews. People are cranky when they think they've been treated unfairly, sunny when they're getting a fair shake, confident in private, and more tentative in less-controlled social situations. Even a romantic subplot between an unemployed teacher and his neighbor feels fully realized despite only being glimpsed intermittently, and pays off in a final scene which is a gentle but full-blast ode to the beauty and vitality of small talk.

Ozu veterans might except Chishu Ryu to dominate the film, but Ozu gives his young stars ample room to shine, and wisely returns over and over to the little miracle he discovered in young Masahiko Shimazu, who plays Isamu. His chubby face with its awkwardly proportioned features plays like a live-action cartoon, and his exaggerated gestures echo the perfect calibration of a silent comedian. And he can fart like a champ.

Periodic cuts to meticulously composed shots of the neighborhood's modest buildings, usually arranged in sharp diagonals, remind the viewer that it doesn't take a big (or naked) city to generate eight million stories. The film even ends by spotlighting a previously minor character, the one boy whose flailing attempts at flatulence end in disappointment, not to mention extra laundry for his confused and irritated mother. As the boy sits there brokenhearted, Ozu gleefully cuts to one final visual joke, a clothesline full of underwear just flapping away in the cool breeze. 

Criterion released “Good Morning” on a bare-bones DVD way back in another century (Aug 22, 2000), and while I don't have that one for a point of reference, most reports describe the old transfer as one of their weaker ones.

Never fear. This 1080p upgrade, sourced from a 4K digital restoration, renders the film in sharp detail with a bright but never garish color palette. Close-ups really show off the detail in this high-def transfer which should make fans quite happy.

The linear PCM mono track is sharp, like just about every Criterion release. Toshiro Mayuzumi's jaunty score can't help but remind listeners of Jacques Tati, and it sounds quite good on this lossless audio. Optional English subtitles support the Japanese dialogue.

Cinephiles recognize David Bordwell as one of the most insightful film scholars still writing today. Bordwell helped to popularize the application of Vladmir Propp's narrative analysis in film studies and is renowned for his close stylistic breakdowns of art-house enigmas and Hong Kong action films. In a new 2017 interview (19 min.) recorded for the Criterion Collection, David Bordwell finally gets to talk about farts. Few could be more eloquent.

Except maybe David Cairns who aptly describes “Good Morning” as “Ozu's fartiest film” in “Transcendental Style and Flatulence” (17 min.) Cairns also touches on a few non-flatulent topics, as does Bordwell.

Criterion has also included a high-def upgrade of Ozu's 1932 silent film “I Was Born, But...” (90 min.), also included on the “Silent Ozu” set from what appears now to be Criterion's defunct Eclipse line. “Good Morning” is often described as a remake of “I Was Born, But..” as the earlier film also features two children who go on a strike (hunger strike this time) to express their frustration with the adult world. However, the two films are considerably different, with “Good Morning” being the much lighter of the two.

The disc also includes the 14 surviving minutes of Ozu's 1929 silent film “A Straightforward Boy.” This is an odd semi-comedy in which the title boy gets kidnapped, but turns the tables on his shady kidnapper – it ends with children pursuing the kidnapper, eager to get the same treatment he gave to the title boy which is... kinda weird.

The slim fold-out insert booklet includes an essay by critic Jonathan Rosenbaum, who also talks about farts, but not as extensively as in the video features on the disc.

Final Thoughts:
It's easy to dismiss “Good Morning” as a slight entry in the Ozu canon, but even the gentlest of comedies can still provide profound insights. The film convincingly captures the daily rhythms of a small neighborhood, and penetrates deeply to see what makes it work and what threatened to tear it all apart at the seams. With the inclusion of “I Was Born, But...” as an extra, this is a significant upgrade over the old SD release and a must-own for Ozu fans.

Thursday, May 11, 2017

The Max Linder Collection

Max Linder at his most dapper

THE MAX LINDER COLLECTION (Four Films Starring Max Linder)
Kino Lorber, DVD, Release Date May 27, 2014
Review by Christopher S. Long

You want to talk about instant sensations? Less than a year after Charlie Chaplin's 1914 film debut, he was one of the most popular entertainers in America and the country had caught a acute case of Chaplinitis that would linger for decades. Demand for his films was so intense he easily parlayed his initial $150/week acting contract into a much-publicized “million dollar contract” in 1917 and soon his own studio. His Tramp was probably the most recognizable fictional figure of the early 20th century, and Chaplin is frequently described as one of the first international film stars.

Chaplin himself was keen to point out his trail to glory had already been blazed by Max Linder, the French-born star who Chaplin once described as his “professor.” Linder had a similarly meteoric rise to fame, making his screen debut in 1905 (after several years honing his craft in live theater), premiering his urbane “Max” character (a dapper figure with top hat and cane whose slapstick exploits generated even more laughs from their incongruity with his apparent suavity) in 1908, and signing a “million franc” contract in 1912. Max was instantly recognizable to European audiences and was at the very height of his popularity in the years immediately preceding the Tramp's arrival on the world stage.

Max wasn't entirely displaced by the Tramp as there was plenty of room for more than one draw at nickelodeons and other theater houses, but Linder heeded the siren call of an American studio that wanted a competitor to Chaplin. The career gamble was mostly a failure as American movie-goers weren't quite as enchanted by the “sophisticated slapstick” of Linder's European dandy-about-town, preferring the more knockabout exploits of Chaplin and peers. While moving back and forth from France to America over the next several years, the star was never able to regain his former dominance. Linder also battled severe depression during this period, a battle he would lose in 1925 when he and his young wife committed suicide in Paris in 1925.

The films on Kino Lorber's “The Max Linder Collection” do not represent Linder at his commercial peak, but provide strong evidence that his less lucrative films of the 1920s merit a place of pride in his often-overlooked legacy. “Seven Years Bad Luck” (1921, 64 min.) spins the kind of thin narrative line upon which Linder liked to string his inventive gags and set-pieces. Linder (playing a character with his stage name) is engaged to be married, but fears an ill fate when he breaks a large mirror in his room. In his effort to avoid any risky situations, he generates nothing but risk. The film features one of the earliest instances of the oft-copied mirror gag (two actors ape each other's movements through both sides of an empty mirror frame) and a lengthy chase scene (consuming much of the final half hour) that begins on a train and ends in a lion's cage at the zoo. Linder is not quite as gymnastic as either Chaplin or Harold Lloyd, but his combination of determination and ingenuity spark the action and the laughs in a film that cannily pays only the slightest attention to plot-based needs.

Poster for Be My Wife

“Be My Wife” (1921, 58 min.) is somewhat more burdened by story and suffers for it. Max competes for the hand of the lovely Mary (Alta Allen) with the portly Archie (Lincoln Stedman). Some of the film's best bits involve Max trying to avoid Archie's pesky dog (though viewers might have concerns when the poor dog gets tossed out a window) but it bogs down in a series of irritating miscommunications that advance the shopworn plot to its inevitable conclusion. It's the least successful film on the set, at least to my taste, but still of interest if for no other reason than the fact that the beefy Stedman is a mere fourteen years old here but looks and plays a completely convincing adult. Tall, thin, stern-looking Caroline Rankin also cuts a unique and memorable figure as Mary's judgmental, protective aunt. 

Linder laughs at danger in The Three Must-Get-Theres

“The Three Must-Get-Theres” (1922, 57 min.) sees Linder, eager to connect with American audiences, dropping his signature character and donning period garb as the not-so-dashing Dart-In-Again in a parody of Douglas Fairbanks Jr.'s smash hit “The Three Musketeers” (1921). Dart-In-Again spends the first reel trying to mount a donkey (oh get your mind out of the gutter) and repeatedly kissing his very clingy father goodbye before stumbling (sometimes literally) into royal court intrigue and battling the evil forces of Cardinal Richie-loo. There are some nifty bits of slapstick and swordplay, but the film is most successful as a send-up of the macho movie hero; I laughed hardest at a scene when the overconfident Dart-in-Again bursts in to a room to present his professional credentials with the line: “Here's a letter from my daddy.” The period movie is loaded with intentional anachronisms (phones, motorcycles, a reference to the NYC subway) and gleefully showcases it silliness as men dispatched by the deadly blade of Dart-in-Again keep moving and even speaking after their deaths. The humor is broader than any barn side and no less satisfying for it.

The disc also includes one short film, “Max Wants a Divorce” (1917, 27 min.) The short was one of Linder's first American flops, but has its merits. Max is newly married, but receives notice of an inheritance that requires him to be a bachelor. After bribing his bride (Martha Mansfield) with a pearl necklace in order to go along with his scheme, he arranges to be caught cheating so they can divorce and later re-marry after he cashes his inheritance check. Jealousies and general incompetence prevent a simple plan from falling to pieces, and some of the ensuing mayhem is quite amusing if not exactly inspired.

The copy on the back of the DVD case (housing the single disc that contains the three features and one short) states that the films have been “meticulously restored from archival materials.” Unfortunately, the only information regarding these restorations is presented as pre-credit notes for two of the films. “Be My Wife” was restored in 2008 by Lobster Films in collaboration with Fondazzione Cineteca Italiana, Milano from two original nitrate color-tinted prints with addition digital restoration in 2014 by Lobster Films.

The original American version of “The Three Must-Get-Theres” disappeared and this edition was restored in 1995 by Stiftung Deutsche Kinemathek from a nearly complete copy in the Netherlands Filmmuseum with supplemental material from the collection of filmmaker Gerhard Lamprecht. English titles were adapted from a German release.

No information is included on restoration (if any) of the other two films in the collection except for the notation “Digital restoration and special contents by Lobster Films.”

As you would expect with silent films over ninety years old, even restored versions are far from flawless. Of the two that clearly indicated as restored, “Be My Wife” is the strongest with only a few scenes (esp one where Mary goes to a clothing store) showing significant wear. “The Three Must-Get-Theres” displays minor damage in many shots, vertical scratches or white/dark splotches on the print, but it still holds together fairly well overall. “Seven Years Bad Luck” may be the best looking of the bunch with only relatively minor wear visible throughout. “Max Wants a Divorce” is in much rougher shape than the other three, looking like a well-worn print in various states of deterioration from scene to scene. The action is still clear but the image is soft in most shots. Still, it's a wonder it survives at all.

The films are each accompanied by relatively recent scores: “The Three Must-Get-Theres” by Maud Nelissen, “Be My Wife” by Eric Le Guen, “Seven Years Bad Luck” by Robert Israel, and “Max Wants a Divorce” by Donald Sosin. Obviously the music is the only sound for these silent films and the Dolby Digital mix presents the various scores clearly and without distortion.

Unfortunately, Kino Lorber has not included any extras, opting to save room on the single DVD for the 205 minutes worth of films in the set. A booklet or a text feature on the disc with more information about the restorations and/or background on Max Linder would have been nice, but then again I guess that's what the Internet is for.

Final Thoughts:
Before Chaplin, Keaton, and Lloyd, there was Max Linder. One of the very first superstars of cinema, his fame has been eclipsed by the comedians for whom he helped pave the way, but this collection from Kino Lorber provides viewers a taste of his American-produced films. Since Linder was best known to audiences for French short films, this set doesn't showcase him in his popular prime, but the films certainly show off his wit and talent. I had a lot of fun “discovering” one of the true titans of silent cinema with this set, and I hope you will too.

Wednesday, May 10, 2017

Dillinger is Dead

DILLINGER IS DEAD (Ferreri, 1969)
Criterion Collection, DVD, Release Date March 16, 2010
Review by Christopher S. Long

Marco Ferreri’s films are completely insane but “Dillinger is Dead” (1969), while batshit crazy, is a classically constructed film in the old school sense. It follows a single character in a single location over the course of a single evening. Aristotle would have been proud.

Proud, yes, but confused as hell.

As is the case with Ferreri’s stark raving mad “Bye Bye Monkey” (1978), the best way to approach “Dillinger is Dead” is with a straightforward plot summary since that won't actually spoil anything. A gas mask designer (never named in the film, but called Glauco in the script) heads home after a boring day at work. His beautiful but slothful wife (Rolling Stones fan Anita Pallenberg) never gets out of bed, and his maid (Annie Girardot) is done working for the night (sort of) so he’s left on his own to kill time in this ancient pre-Internet era. 

Glauco is a twitchy ball of short attention span. He sits down to eat his prepared dinner, but doesn’t like the wobbly flan, so he starts to cook a steak. But, no, he doesn’t want steak, so he makes pasta instead. But that has to wait because he wants to watch something on TV, but not that thing on TV; something else instead. While rummaging through the spice closet, he discovers something else to distract his attention: a gun. And not just any gun, but a gun wrapped in a newspaper carrying the headline stories from the day after John Dillinger was shot. So he plays with the gun. And cooks dinner. And plays with the gun. Then eats dinner. Watches TV. Plays with the gun. Watches home movies. Plays with the gun. And so on.

Glauco is played by the great Michel Piccoli who was passed around like a bong to most of the great European directors of the era (Melville, Godard, Varda, Demy, Clement, Buñuel, Costa-Gavras, even Mario Bava.) He turns in a marvelous, mostly silent, mostly solo performance. At first it seems like Glauco is just a bit stir crazy but as the evening wears on he regresses gradually into childhood. He clutches at the breasts of the women in his home movies, pretends to swim in the ocean on the screen and becomes obsessed with his special new toy. He cleans the gun like a military expert, reassembles it, points it at the mirror (the “You talkin’ to me?” is subtextual here), pretends to blow his brains out, and even paints it fire-engine red with white polka dots.

If you’re the sort to waste your time worrying about what movies mean, you can do so at your leisure here. The title suggests that a certain kind of machismo “is dead” and poor Glauco doesn’t quite know what to do with himself in a feminist late-60s world. Or maybe it’s a “Targets” style study of sudden psychological breakdown. Or just a total lark by crazy-ass Ferreri. Have at it, interpretation addicts.

The film’s effectiveness stems not from the why, but the what. Ferreri’s sometimes hand-held camera, awkward POV shots, haphazard zooms, and his less-than-immaculate compositions bring an amateurish intimacy to the proceedings. We hover somewhere right next to this strange, lonely man as he wanders through the house in something approaching real-time. There’s some method to his madness, some motivations for his constant shifts in focus, but we’re not privy to them. He eats. He watches TV. He paces around. And we watch, wondering if and when he is finally going to snap. Piccoli says that Ferreri kept him mostly in the dark, showing him only a 10-page script and telling him what to do each day on the set with little explanation. Ferreri wasn’t flying by the seat of his pants. He had a meticulous plan, but he also wanted to make sure his actors couldn’t screw anything up by psychologizing their roles. Mission accomplished.

“Dillinger is Dead” is surrealist in the most transgressive, violent manifestation of the term. The film strongly implies a sense of alienation in the modern world that can’t lead anywhere but total dysfunction. The status quo is untenable and the only way out is to opt all the way out, no matter what needs to be done. That doesn’t make Glauco a hero, but he is at least a perfect case study for Ferreri’s glowering, darkly humorous view of bourgeois society.

“Dillinger is Dead” was a surprise critical hit for Ferreri whose eccentric work was not always popular with the cognoscenti. It kicked off a brief period when Ferreri was in favor, one that lasted up until “La bouffe” (1973.) 1974 brought the off-the-rails sort-of-Western “Don’t Touch the White Woman” (also with Piccoli) and with an exception or two Ferreri soon fell off the critical radar. Until recently, his films were largely unavailable in America but a few have begun to trickle out on DVD. Last year witnessed the American theatrical re-release of “Dillinger is Dead” by Rialto Pictures, which will, we can hope, pave the way for the release of the bulk of the prolific director’s work in Region 1.

The film is presented in its original 1.66:1 aspect ratio. The progressive, anamorphic transfer was approved by director of photography Mario Vulpani. It’s very solid work that perhaps isn’t quite on par with the very best Criterion transfers, but is still more than satisfactory. The colors are bright (Glauco’s red apron – good grief!) and the image resolution is sharp. No complaints.

The DVD is presented in Dolby Digital Mono. The sound mix isn’t too complex and it all sounds clean and sharp. There are a lot of pop songs and TV broadcasts played throughout the film and they are all well-presented. Optional English subtitles support the Italian audio.

Since “Dillinger is Dead” is the first Marco Ferreri film in the Criterion Collection, we could have hoped for more extras. The three that are included are interesting but not particularly deep.

The disc includes newly recorded (2009) interviews with Michel Piccoli (13 min.) and film historian Adriano Aprà (20 min.) Piccoli speaks of his first meeting with Ferreri and about their close friendship. Aprà’s interview provides a perspective on Ferreri’s career and analyzes “Dillinger” in some detail. Aprà appears on TV in the film.

The only other substantive extra is a 1997 round-table discussion (13 min.) recorded weeks after Ferreri’s death. The feature includes clips of Ferreri speaking shortly before his death and excerpts from the discussion by his friends Bernardo Bertolucci, Francesco Rosi, and film historian Aldo Tassone. The excerpts are taken from the May 14, 1997 episode of “Le circle de minuit.” The show is hosted by Laure Adler and directed by Pierre Desfons.

I wish modern trailers could be more like the Trailer included here. It doesn’t tell you a damn thing about the movie and shows plenty of cleavage. That’s quality.

The 32-page insert booklet includes an essay by film critic Michael Joshua Rowin and excerpts from interviews with Marco Ferreri: the April 1969 issue of “Ombre rosse,” interview conducted by Goffredo Fofi and Ruggero Savinio, and the November/December issue of “Cinemesessanta,” interview conducted by Giacomo Martini.

Final Thoughts:
“Dillinger is Dead” is a one-of-a-kind experience. I suspect that’s true of every Marco Ferreri film though I haven’t seen enough to be an expert on the subject. Though it appears downright amateurish at times, it’s a finely calibrated exercise in inspired lunacy that displays a formal mastery not often associated with Ferreri’s work. The scenes of Glauco bathed in the light of the projector, literally becoming part of the home movies flickering across the wall, are pretty damned brilliant. And so is the movie.

The modest collection of Extras is a disappointment but I’m not sure how much archival material exists about Marco Ferreri. In any case, the Criterion release of “Dillinger is Dead” is strongly recommended.

Saturday, May 6, 2017

Lola Montes

LOLA MONTES (Ophuls, 1955)
Criterion Collection, Blu-ray/DVD, Release Date Feb 26, 2010
Review by Christopher S. Long

I acknowledge that auteurism is often applied as a lazy critical shorthand. I understand why directors are often amused by the many brilliant creative decisions attributed solely to their vision that were really not their ideas at all or were just pragmatic solutions to the unexpected problems that crop up during any shoot. Still, when people say “I don't believe in the auteur theory” I honestly don't know what the hell they're talking about. I think they mean they really like actors a lot and that directors aren't nearly as cute. But if they sincerely doubt that a true auteur (there aren't a lot of them) can shape any material to suit and express his or her vision, then I point them in the direction of Max Ophuls’ final film “Lola Montès” (1955.)

Ophuls didn’t originate the project and wasn’t even the studio’s first choice as director. He was forced to work with a screenwriter he didn’t want (Cecil Saint-Laurent), a bombshell actress he had minimal respect for (Martine Carol), and was required to shoot in CinemaScope, color, and stereo, none of which made him happy according to his son Marcel Ophuls. The net result is pure Ophuls, his signature recognizable in nearly every scene and, despite its very poor initial reception, one hell of a movie.

Ophuls is the then-and-now master of the tracking camera and he indulges his sinuous obsession as much here as in “The Earrings of Madame De…”(1953). As his camera tripped along with the dancers of “Madame De…” here it twirls with the acrobats and clowns of the circus in which the title character performs. The real Lola Montez was an infamous courtesan who toured/tore through multiple continents, parlaying a mediocre combination of dancing, singing, and acting skills into a spectacular piece of performance art. Born in Ireland, she transformed herself into a Spanish seductress and later the Countess of Landsfeld, a title granted her by her lover King Ludwig I of Bavaria (played perfectly in the film by Anton Walbrook), one of the many conquests that helped make her Lola Montez.

In the film, Ophuls spins Montez’s carefully cultivated legend into a legend of his own, one so far removed from the original script that Saint-Laurent was only given a “based on the novel by” credit even though there was no novel. Ophuls’ Lola spends her latter days as the star attraction of a cut-rate circus that exploits her scandalous life story for mere pennies. The ringmaster (Peter Ustinov) teases the crowd with tales of her bawdy exploits while Lola, seldom doing anything other than sitting center stage and being Lola, flashes back to various moments in her life, ones that bear only a passing resemblance to the version being recounted by the ringmaster.

The flashback structure is awkward, downright clunky at times, but Ophuls’ mise-en-scene stitches everything together. Cinematographer Christian Matras, Ophuls’ collaborator on his last several films, and his camera crew built up marathon endurance with a winding camera that constantly doubles back on itself and opens up new spaces that make sets look infinite. Ophuls may not have wanted to work in CinemaScope (then 2.55:1) but he exploits it to tremendous advantage with action constantly taking place at the edges as well as the center. What better environment for that than a circus? Perhaps to show his resistance, though, Ophuls masks several scenes, forcing them back to Academy ratio or something in between. Even more notably he explores the vertical as much as the horizontal, and a camera that starts on the ground is likely to finish above a chandelier, revealing new planes of action, adding new characters to each scene as it rises. This is real 3-D technology.

Much has been made of the shortcomings of lead actress Martine Carol, cast primarily for her ability to fill out a dress and to fuel the fantasies of adolescents of all ages. It’s fair to say that she has limited range, but the role doesn’t require much. Under the camera's gaze Lola is an object of curiosity, and even her personal recollections don’t reframe the story from her perspective. I’m not sure this does justice to the historical figure who has been adopted as a feminist icon in some circles. One of the few moments when we see that “What Lola wants, Lola gets” is her aggressive seduction of a rosy-cheeked university student/leftist revolutionary (Oskar Werner, later to be Jules to Jim) who, like every man who has shared her company, becomes devoted to her for life. Much of the rest of the time, Lola is oddly passive or at least restrained. Carol doesn’t bring the white-hot intensity to the role that one might expect, but her reserved performance is well-suited to Ophuls’ purposes and it’s not her fault that unimaginative audiences laughed when she played a 16 year-old version of herself.

Though Ophuls appears fond of Lola, he depicts her life as more tragedy than triumph. Undone by historical forces beyond her control, she is forced to become a sideshow attraction, now no longer in charge of crafting her public image. In the film’s grotesque finale, Lola stands in a cage, hands extended through the bars so that men who have ponied up a dollar apiece can kiss her. Ophuls’ roving camera, of course, cuts a path through the crowd of horny gawkers, pulling away from Lola and ultimately closing the curtain on the film and her life.

“Lola Montès” was, to say the least, not well received. After an infamous and rowdy debut screening, it was savaged by critics both as lousy art and as a waste of money. It was, to date, the most expensive European production and failed to recoup its budget. The desperate studio heads decided that the best solution was to chop it down to a 90-minute mutilated and defanged version that might play a little “easier” to a broader demographic. Harvey Weinstein must get teary-eyed just thinking about it.

After lingering for more than a decade in this pathetic state, the film was purchased by producer Pierre Braunberger who went to painstaking efforts to restore the film as close to its original version as possible. Braunberger died in 1990 but later his daughter Laurence picked up the project. Over the last several years, the film has gone through extensive digital restoration which has reconstructed its original color and stereo track. It was released in its new/old state in 2008 and was a hit at Cannes and later in a theatrical run.

Now Criterion has made “Lola Montès” available in its original form (or at least as close as can be) on both SD and Blu-Ray and it is a joy to behold. Each scene is an audio-visual treat unto itself, worth soaking in over and over again. Saddled with a writer, a star and a format he didn’t want, Ophuls produced a personal work with the technical polish of a true virtuoso. In other words, an auteur. 

The film is presented in its original 2.55:1 aspect ratio. CinemaScope was one of several innovations introduced by movie studios in the 1950s to combat the very real threat of television. “The Robe” was the first feature released in ‘Scope in 1953 by 20th Century Fox and other studios were eager to follow suit. European studio Gamma Films wanted the potentially scandalous spectacle of “Lola Montès” filmed in glorious ‘Scope to pack the house. Ophuls might not have been thrilled with the idea but viewers like us can certainly appreciate it. This was also during the brief time before CinemaScope became more or less standardized at 2.35:1 due to changes in optical sound recording. The 2.55:1 is no doubt best appreciated on the big screen, but still looks great in this digitally restored transfer of a film with a lengthy restoration history (see above.)

With such an intricate restoration, there are occasional inconsistencies in the image quality but overall the transfer is excellent. The image resolution on the Blu-Ray is a solid step up from the SD release, making up for the only minor weakness of the standard transfer. Colors are even sharper than on the SD which was already quite fine.

According to the Criterion insert booklet, “Lola Montès” was recorded in 4-track magnetic stereo, an early surround sound technology then only available with CinemaScope.

To capture the original quality, Criterion has presented the Blu-Ray in DTS-HD Master 3.0. I didn’t notice a major difference in audio quality between the Blu-Ray and the SD release. The music sounds perhaps a bit sharper but otherwise they’re fairly similar.

The Blu-Ray includes optional English subtitles.

This Criterion package doesn’t offer quite as many extras as we might hope for such an important film, but what we have is still respectable.

The film is accompanied with a commentary track by Susan White, author of “The Cinema of Max Ophuls.” White also provided commentary for the Criterion releases of Ophuls’ “La ronde” (1950) and “The Earrings of Madame De…” Her knowledge is extraordinary detailed. She often falls into the “play-by-play” mode of commentary which isn’t my favorite, describing each movement as it happens, but her analysis is so penetrating that it works well in this case.

The longest extra is a Oct 26, 1965 episode of the French TV program “Cinéastes de notre temps,” a long-time Criterion staple. The episode, titled “Max Ophuls ou le plaisir de tourner” (53 min.) is directed by Michel Mitrani and features clips from Ophuls’ films (in dreadful condition, helping us appreciate the glory of modern restoration) and extensive interviews with Ophuls’ crew and cast from several films, among them Danielle Darrieux, Simone Simon and John Houseman.

“Max by Marcel” is a new short feature (2009, 32 min.) by Max’s son, filmmaker Marcel Ophuls. It discusses the troubled production history of “Lola Montès” from an insider’s perspective (whether that makes it more or less reliable is up to you to decide). Marcel worked as an assistant director on the film. I thought this was a much more interesting feature than the “Cinéastes” episode.

The DVD also includes silent footage (1 min.) of Martine Carole showing off several hair styles from the film. It originally aired on French TV on Aug 3, 1958. Finally, the collection wraps with a Re-Release Trailer from 2008 by Rialto Pictures.

All extra features are presented in HD.

The insert booklet features a superb, incisive essay by Gary Giddins, one of the best essays Criterion has ever offered. When I grow up, I want to write like that.

Film Value:
Ophuls was deeply hurt by the poor reception of “Lola Montès”as well as its manhandling by studio hacks, and it turned out to be his final film. Ophuls died in 1957 from heart disease and wouldn’t live to see the film restored both physically and critically.

Andrew Sarris famously proclaimed “Lola Montès” to be “the greatest film ever made.” That’s a difficult position to defend, but it’s certainly one of Ophuls’ finest moments. And thanks to an extensive, decades-long restoration effort it has been preserved for new generations. Unlike the Lola of the film, “Lola Montès” has been set free to bask in well-deserved glory forever.

Friday, May 5, 2017

The Big Chill

THE BIG CHILL (Kasdan, 1983)
Criterion Collection, Blu-ray, Release Date July 29, 2014
Review by Christopher S. Long

The suicide of old college friend Alex reunites a group of thirty-something professionals, former '60s revolutionary wannabes who tuned in, turned on, and then sold out. Lawrence Kasdan's “The Big Chill” (1983) is nothing if not unsubtle, providing each of the now solidly bourgeois adults time to bemoan the loss of youthful idealism as the pack spends the weekend after the funeral together to reminisce.

All of them save for drug-dealing Vietnam vet Nick (William Hurt) are now among the elite, but worry that they've paid too high a price for success. Meg (Mary Kay Place) the lawyer was shocked to find out her clients were “scum”; Michael (Jeff Goldblum) cashes a nice check writing for “People” magazine but has to pander to subscribers who only read on the toilet; Sam (Tom Berenger) is an actor with his own weekly TV show but none of the self-esteem one might expect to accompany fame. Dr. Sarah (Glenn Close) appears the most content but still wonders what might have been.

Alex, so it seems, is the only one who didn't knuckle under to societal expectations and look what it got him. He reminds me of the doomed protagonist of Louis Malle's “The Fire Within” whose unfulfilled hope was for things to “stay still around me.” Staying the same is a curse when everyone you know changes; things don't turn out very well for Malle's hero either. The takeaway from both films, emphasized more prominently in “The Big Chill,” is that conformity is the safest solution. It doesn't guarantee happiness, but it's essential to survival and that's all you're genetically coded for anyway. Nick the hold-out will “learn his lesson” over the course of the long weekend and settle down with a good woman and a constructive project, and if we're supposed to feel good about that development all I can think is that I wish this movie was told from Alex's perspective instead. I might have liked him.

I'm now several years older than the Baby Boomer protagonists of the movie yet they seem incredibly old and quite alien to me, so complacently assimilated they can air their self-recriminations for a few days in a safe space then happily go back to enjoying success and being productive members of society, which is what really matters. Sure, suicide is sad, but why not squeeze some lemonade out of it by repurposing tragedy as a gigantic group hug? Michael might even get a good article out of it. You've got to take advantage of your opportunities.

Perhaps the film wouldn't seem so much like a glib celebration of the Boomer generation if not for its paradoxical soundtrack, loaded with great songs but still a detriment to the movie. The film kicks off with Marvin Gaye's “I Heard It Through The Grapevine” and rips through the Stones' “You Can't Always Get What You Want,” Procol Harum's “A Whiter Shade of Pale,” CCR's “Bad Moon Rising,” Three Dog Night's “Joy to the World” and pretty much every '60s (to very early '70s) super-mega-famous-cultural-touchstone except for “White Rabbit.” Yes, even The Band's “The Weight.”

These are many of the best rock tracks ever recorded, most of which are among my all-time favorites, but wallpapering the movie (some songs are played nearly in their entirety) with K-Tel's Greatest Hits of the Decade is the audio equivalent of lazy contemporary filmmakers who signify the '60s with the obligatory montage of Martin Luther King Jr.'s “I Have A Dream” speech, hippies dancing, and aerial footage of a Vietnam jungle being napalmed. These are the songs you've heard 10,000 times now all together so you can make it 10,001!

The overly familiar musical accompaniment undermines any sense that the friends are engaging in any serious self-examinations, settling instead for a heavily-processed nostalgia of the most generic possible kind. The film's real heart seems to be in the upbeat but vapid scene where they all dance to Gaye's “Ain't Too Proud To Beg” while cleaning up leftovers in the kitchen. Mary Poppins would be proud.

There's an undeniable appeal to a long weekend with old friends during which you can instantly tap into a decades-old non-judgmental camaraderie, but deep it ain't. This is more the hippie “Hangover” than a generational commentary or a comment on much of anything at all, save the implicit recommendation that everyone just get with the program and save themselves a lot of grief in the struggle.

The film is presented in its original 1.85:1 aspect ratio. This newly-restored 4K digital transfer offers sharp image detail and rich colors as you would expect from a Criterion high-definition release. Not a lot to say here. I'm sure nobody will have any complaints.

This is a dual-format release with two DVDs and a single Blu-ray. The DVD transfer has not been reviewed here.

The default option is the original mono track (in LPCM) but Criterion has also included a DTS-HD Master Audio 5.1 surround option. I say always stick with the original, but the surround is a nice option. Dialogue is clearly mixed and the music, the main sound attraction here, sounds rich and resonant. For you sticklers, Criterion indicates that “For the alternate 5.1 surround presentation, stereo music masters were used in tandem with elements from the 3-track dialogue, music, and effects stems.” Optional English subtitles support the English audio.

Perhaps in keeping with the spirit of the film, none of the extras here are particularly deep, but Criterion has dug up about two hours of material.

The best is a short interview with director and co-writer Lawrence Kasdan (2014, 12 min.) who talks about the challenges of doing meaningful, personal work within the Hollywood studio system.

Appropriately, the two longest features are all about nostalgia. “The Big Chill: A Reunion” (1998, 56 min.) is directed by Laurent Bouzereau. Released for the 15th anniversary of the film, it consists mostly of interviews with cast and crew. The other feature is a recording of the 30th Anniversary Reunion which occurred on stage at the 2013 Toronto International Film Festival. Critic Scott Foundas moderates with Kasdan and most of the cast members reminiscing for 44 minutes.

The disc also includes Deleted Scenes (9 min.) and a Trailer (3 min.)

The 20-page insert booklet includes an essay by Lena Dunham (surely marking “The Big Chill” as the most recent film to receive a Criterion essay by a writer not alive when it was released) and a 1983 review by critic Harlan Jacobson that was originally published in the September 1983 issue of “Film Comment.”

Film Value:
“The Big Chill” seems like an odd choice for a Criterion release, but I guess you can put it on the shelf next to “Armageddon.” The transfer's good, at least.