TheManWithNoShame
Posts: 6767
Joined: 1/8/2006
|
Im having a hard time placing quite a few films at the moment- strangely the few films each year I cant make my mind up on have all come up at once. Firstly the Coen's No Country For Old Men is undoubtably an impressive return to form, but a masterpiece? Ultimately it spends far too much time on the admittedly thrilling cat and mouse antics of Brolin and Bardem's characters and not enough on Lee Jones' weary sheriff for the self-concious deconstructive ending to fully work. The ending is brave though, instead of burning out its like a car crash with a crumple-zone, spreading the impact over a longer period of time replacing the mechanical destruction of the the chase and final murders with something more quiet and human. I'd like to watch the film again, this time paying closer attention to Lee Jones' character, but on first impressions its attempt to show the passing of the codes and honour of an old order seems to be lacking somewhat and sidelined in favour of brutality and heart-stopping showdowns, and its unrelenting nihilism is a bit too much to take. And what was with Harellson's entirely superfluous bounty hunter? But the dark script laced with pitch-black deadpan humour, the three wholly different but brilliant lead performances and the assured, understated direction with a lack of trademark Coen-esque goofiness makes it one of the best films this year; and one that hopefully has the potential to improve on a further viewing. Then theres Lola Montes and L'Argent, two films by two of my favourite directors which disappoint somewhat. Lola Montes seems to be some kind of flawed masterpiece; the circus motif is an ingenious and fittingly grotesque method of portraying the hollowness of celebrity and the attitudes of society towards strong women, but the film is constantly undermined by the lifelessness of Martine Carol's performance and a few uninvolving scenes; meaning the opportunity for trademark Ophulsian warmth and sensuality are wasted, and his light touch seems more heavy-handed and gaudy. Still, an impressive affair with a fantastic ending and two great performances from Ustinov and Walbrook as Lola Montes' admirers. L'Argent has a great premise (Tolstoy no less) and engages for the first half, but half-way through the opaqueness of Bresson's themes and the limpid performances become hard-work and the pessimism almost overbearing. Perhaps this is one of my 'chrisscott' reactions to Bresson or I just can't hack late Bresson (I couldnt get into The Devil, Probably either). I also must mention The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse which I was very lucky to see. Having heard a lot about Rex Ingram from Michael Powell's autobiography, it was fascinating to finally see one of his films on the big screen. Its also easy to see where Powell got his flair for florid melodrama from, as it pervades this work entirely aided by Ingram's talent for pictorial beauty and the sumptous, impressionistic camerawork by John Seitz (later to photograph Double Indemnity). The film is perhaps uneven, and the addition of a religious subtext and a rather bizarre Christ figure is rather portentious, but theres much to admire including a young Valentino in his first role as the epitome of exotic manliness and Alice Terry showing exactly why Powell practically fell in love with her on set a few years later. Its rare to see any of Ingram's films, so watching it was one of the most enjoyable experiences this year, even if it isn't the best film Ive watched.
_____________________________
sorry jbg :( i promise to stop being such a silly boy.
|