Le Mans (1971)- Review

Watched. 

My rating: 9.5/10. 

 

 In 2019's December, I watched Ford VS Ferrari (2019). In 2020's December, I watched Porche VS Ferrari. Is this the best film made about car racing? Probably.

 Le Mans stars Steve McQueen as the driver for Porche in the 24 hours long race known as Le Mans. The film opens with a grey-black Porche driving down the road steadily, declaring that the film is not about the characters. Its about cars; fast ones. The car stops at the race track and Steve steps out of the vehicle and can see the guard rail he is facing. We see his wrists resting on top of the door, wearing a watch around one and a bracelet around the other. We cut back to the back of his head and the camera starts to slowly swing around to reveal the face of our quiet character who has a curious look on his face. A moment. The camera zooms in to his eyes. Cut to guard rail, zoom in and the shot goes blur. The frame, black now. Bokeh lights appear, gliding effortlessly on the screen. Hues of blue, yellow and green shine through a chain-link fences.

 Before we know it, we're thrown in the middle of a race. Cars crash. Belgetti- McQueen's character's name is printed on the spoiler of the car, surrounded by flames. Match cut to a red Jacket with the Name Belgetti wrtten on it, worn by a woman with worried expressions. Its his wife. McQueen is being taken to a hospital. Its a flashback! Cut back to him staring at the guard rail. He gets back in the car, and drives away on the track.

 You understand this character. You know where he is coming from, and you know where he is going. Not a word is said up until now. The title "Le Mans" appears with its bold yellows, proclaiming that this film is about the race. The event. The event known as life. And that's just the first seven minutes of this film.

 There are so many such brilliant, purely cinematic, moments in this. Watching other racing films, I always thought how hard could it possibly be. 'I could do that with a bit of a practice!' said my past self, with with words rich in ignorance. But this film conveys the true weight of driving at insane speeds. A palpable sense of risk is maintained throughout the runtime. Even when the character is not driving, you can hear the cars rushing somewhere on the track, outside the building. The race is always present; even when the character's loved ones don't want it to.

 Editing this whole movie together must've been a nightmare. But its some of the best I've ever seen. There is one sequence which cuts back and forth between two shots which I'll definitely steal if I ever get to make an action movie. The cars gunning down the road with a blanket of rain around them is now imprinted in my memory.

 The cast does bare minimum, and that's absolutely fine. Its not a drama. It has dramatic elements but that does not make it a drama. But it does have a killer conversation between two characters which I won't spoil.

 Le Mans is an exciting, creative and ingenious film which has a lot to teach. I think this is now my favorite movie about racing.

Chronicle (2012)- Review

Watched. 

My rating: 10/10. 

 

 I was gonna give it a 9.9 but then I thought, 'Screw it!'. Holy hell, bloody sandwiches is this a good movie!

 Its the most realistic superhero movie ever made, probably. Its about a three teenagers who get telekinetic powers but one of them- Dane DeHaan's Andrew- can't help but use them to ease his pain as a victim of abuse, both in at his home and in his social life. And when I say "ease his pain", what I really mean screw everybody up who ever bullied him. Its this really steady decent of this character who is the prey at the beginning of the story and evolves/devolves into this "apex predator", as he himself puts it in the film. This is what I wanted from a alternate reality Superman origin story. And its really freaky how similar it is to a short story I wrote four or five years ago, I wonder where it is.

 The performances are all top notch. Dane Dehaan, Michael B Jordan and Alex Russel share this perfect chemistry with each other that the scenes feel improvised at many points. The writing makes the movie feel like a modern fable. Its to believe that this film was written and directed by Josh Trank; I was never going to forgive him for Fant4stick (2015) but, now I think he deserves the credit where he's due. The decision to utilize found footage style to make this movie was so creative and absolutely perfect. The shaky, handheld footage hides the flaws in CGI and make the visuals that much more immersive; I'm not a big fan of jump scares, but this film has some of the best. The sound design is a cherry on top of this delicious sundae.  

 Alright, so here's how I read this movie (spoilers). When we meet our main character, Andrew, he has just turned on a camera that he bought for his protection. The camera is just a tool for him to record everything, so that his father, or hopefully anyone else, doesn't hit him. He takes the camera everywhere with him, recording his - apparently- every waking hour. But when he takes it outside, he realizes that he can't just put it on a tripod somewhere. By carrying it, he realizes that he has to frame the shots.

 Later, he attends a party, still recording, where he meets this other girl who is also recording. She explains that she is getting videos for her blog (vlog?). And soon after that scene, he gets his telekinetic powers from an asteroid-like object buried in the ground.

 So here's the thing. I think that this whole story is really about an artist falling into the bottomless pit of arrogance. To be more specific, by artist I mean a writer/director. Like many filmmakers, Andrew just starts to use his camera for practical purposes. But after spending some time with it, he realizes that it can be so much more than just a mundane tool.

 So he starts framing his shots in different ways. For instance, at the party he shoots a DJ's hands working on his station, composing the dancing crowd at different heights. Because of the girl who makes videos for her blog, he realizes that he can use his camera for his creative outputs.

 He later finds the buried asteroid which gives him and his two friends superpowers. That's him discovering his talent for writing. The talent for writing, like the asteroid, crashed from space (his environment) and buried itself deep in his subconscious. Its only after he meets the girl that he finds the crater asteroid made.

 Let me elaborate. What superpower does he get in the movie? Telekinesis, the ability to move objects with the power of mind (that's probably not the best definition, but you get the point). And what does writing do? Somebody somehow reads your words, and magically the thoughts you had written turn up in the head of the reader; kind of like telepathy!

 We later see them moving objects around telekinetically and Andrew is recording everything. They are amazed by what they can do with this new found ability, so they try testing it in front of other people. When other people, their audience (readers), are baffled by what they had witnessed, it makes the fiction become reality for the three of them. Fiction affecting reality, would be the better way to put it.

 So they record all the experiments they do with their powers. That is basically them making movies. Andrew is a natural at using his abilities and he knows how to actually use the camera, which makes him stronger than the other two. He is the writer and director. Throughout the runtime, we can see him getting better with the camera and his powers. He begins to frame much more complex shots. He starts to use dramatic push ins and push outs, the god's eye view etc. The camera, instead of just sitting idly on a tripod, flies around him in with grace, as if dancing with him. After a time, he doesn't even consciously think about operating the camera; he would always keep it exactly the way he wants it and do something else simultaneously. He is now the best writer and director. Unfortunately, he is not the best at writing his own faith.

 In his artistic pursuits, he soon starts believing that he is better than everyone else. And because of that, he becomes a less observant person which ultimately becomes his downfall. You don't observe something which you consider is beneath you. You might notice it but, you won't observe it. And to be a successful artist, you must observe your surroundings and the people who are in it. You can't believe that you are the apex predator and still go on being an artist. And that's why his competition, his friend Matt, kills (beats) him; because he never lost his humble demeanor.

 But that's just how I read it. There were a few more details that I wanted to talk about, but unfortunately they've slipped my mind. This film really cured my writer's block. This was the wave I was waiting for.

 Chronicle is a cautionary tale for artists disguised as a superhero movie.

Tenet (2020)- Review

Watched. 

My rating: 5.9/10. 

 

 Let me just get this out of the way first: I never in a million years would've predicted that I will hear "Jhumka Gira Re" (a famous Indian song; classic) in a Christopher Nolan film.

  Ladies and gentlemen, Tenet is, how shall I put it? Bad. Its pretty bad, especially by Nolan standards. Which begs the question: Why? Its a well shot film. It has great shot composition and blocking. Why is it bad? Well, it is terribly written. And how the conversations are edited together do not help it. Yes the action sequences look quite good with the hyperactive cuts but, it butchers the conversations. You're trying to pay attention to the needlessly complicated exposition but the camera keeps jumping around. Which is surprising because the editor of this film is Jennifer Lame, the woman behind "Manchester by the Sea" (2016), "Midsommar" (2019) and "Marriage Story" (2019), which are all dialogue heavy movies and they have some of the best editing in recent years. Tenet is largely comprised of conversations between characters, and the editing really hurts them. I don't know what went wrong, Jennifer, but I hope you recover from this misstep.

  In the writing department, there is no character development. It seems, Nolan can't be bothered with depth in his characters. As if he has transcended above the commotion of us peasants where we bicker over each other and our characters every waking hour to add some substance to our writing. It is kind of infuriating to watch. To see that Nolan has become such a huge name that he can do whatever he wants, and he is just pissing it all away.

  His knack for ascribing bare minimum backstory to his characters have worked up until now because of his complex, interesting and, above all, comprehensible plots. Of course there are exceptions such as Joker from The Dark Knight (2008) and Cooper from The Interstellar (2014). Joker had a twisted yet compelling sense of morality and Cooper had his love for his family and his love for science clashing with each other, like the same sides of two magnets. What does "The Protagonist" have? He doesn't even have a name! Tenet's plot is complex, seldom interesting and, above all, incomprehensible.

  What's the point of having a puzzle of a narrative, if I don't have any emotional engagement with it? I won't even have any incentives to research about the movie to understand it (which I will anyway, because time is of little value to me, ha ha). Plus the sound design is really bad in certain sequences for a big budget film. The explosions completely camouflage the dialogues in action scenes.

  I watched Dunkirk (2017) last year, and declared it Nolan's finest work yet. And, sadly, I'll continue to say it. I'm not the biggest Nolan fan, even though I like his movies. Inception (2010) and Interstellar (2014) rank second and third respectively. I'm not too keen on most of his films is because I don't believe he is a strong writer of characters. I love how he manages to create these intricate worlds with their own intricate rules and how he plays with time. Dunkirk, the way its structured, the way its written, allows Nolan to not only play with time but also ignore the character backstories. The kind of story Dunkirk is, you don't need rich, deep characters to connect with. They are soldiers in a dire situation and that's all you need to know to empathize with them. Dunkirk fits perfectly with Nolan's signature style and that's why I believe that it sits on the throne of his filmography.

  To add shitty icing on a shitty cake, the end credits plays a third rate song, the kind you find in a 12 year old's playlist. Like the soundtrack- including the background score- the film is forgettable.

 Tenet is a film which feels pretentious and arrogant not only in its presentation, but also in its expectation of it's audience. I expected better from you Nolan. Maybe its time for you to hang up your hat? I hope not. I hope you return stronger then ever.

Enter the Void (2009)- Review

Watched. 

My rating: 7.6/10. 

 

 Watching this movie and then confronting absolutely frustrating people in real life afterwards, has really resulted in a bad mood. The worst part about such confrontations is that the scenario keeps playing in loop long after the quarrel itself. The argument is not over because you're still there, in that time, among those toxic idiots in your brain. Still yelling and shouting and screaming like a maniac. I'm not a violent person, but sometimes I wish I was. Wouldn't it be so great to utilize brawn without any consequences?

  Anyways, Enter the Void is my third Gaspar Noe film. Its about a young drug dealer who gets dies while he's high on D.M.T. We experience the story through his first person perspective. In the afterlife, he travels through time and space, visiting and watching over the people he knew. Because he is a spirit now, the camera conveniently flies through walls, doors, ceilings and even human bodies. The unbreakable barrier between the present and the past can't even stop our protagonist, and us to visit the characters back story.

  Oscar, the protagonist has died, but its after death that we realize that the characters left behind in the "alive" world are the ones who are stuck in their own personal hells. Just think about it, you think your loved one is dead but, they are always have an eye on you, even when you don't want them to. They are always there, listening, even when you're in your most vulnerable state... they basically know all your dark and dirty secrets. Just like how god is described, the person who has died has become a creep.

  It is also a commentary on how we, the audience, extract pleasure from perversity in art. You read a novel, or watch a movie, what is it that you are really doing? You are watching people (the characters). You're watching them in their happiness and their sadness, their highs and their lows, their public and their intimate moments. And the more intimate the details, the moments, get, the more thrill we get from them. Why? Is it that we get high on perversity and call it art? I don't think so. Art is more than just exploitation because of it's pursuit of understanding the human condition.

  That's the other thing about Gaspar Noe films: they walk the thin line between art and exploitation so masterfully, that it is difficult to imagine anyone else tackling the subject matter with such grace. From a technical standpoint, his films are such taut creations that you cannot, in good conscience, say that Gaspar doesn't know what he is doing. Such artistry is rare, and should be embraced instead of dismissing it as hogwash.

  The negatives for me were that I didn't feel emotionally invested in these characters. I loved that all of them were damaged, lost souls, but that was, apparently, not enough for me start welling up on their misfortunes. Another aspect of this film which I'm not really sure if it works all that well, is traversing. A lot of run time is spent on just traveling from point A to point B in this. Yes, it is visually very impressive (maybe this is where GTA 5 got character-switiching-animation idea from), but is it necessary? I guess the point of those scenes is that we spend most of our lives doing mundane tasks, lacking any action or drama. But does it make for good cinema? For some it does (like me), for some it doesn't.

  Enter the Void is a bold invitation of exploration in cinema, which declares in capital letters that it is not afraid of what it might encounter in the process.

Sad Hill Unearthed (2017; Documentary) - Review

Watched. 

My rating: 8.5/10. 

 

 I don't think I've ever enjoyed myself so much during a talking-heads documentary. By the end of this film, my face and eyes were burning, my cheeks ached from the widest grin, and, to top it all off, my cold as steel, profusely sweating feet and hands gave my excitement away. Maybe I'm saying it because I haven't watched any films in the past few days, but, I believe, this film has a very, very satisfying climax.

 Climax! Its all about one classic film's climax and the location where it was shot: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly (1966). Il Buono, Il Brutto, Il Cattivo (Yes, its so good, you've to name it twice!) is a film much loved by me and so many others like me. The music, the editing, the camera work, , the sets, the performances-- don't get me started!
 
 The cemetery where the exhilarating Mexican stand-off was shot, was a set built for the film in Spain. Just a few years ago, the place had become unrecognizable because of the vegetation. Nature had reclaimed the 'Arena of Destiny', as Sergio Leone himself liked to call it. But, as it happens, a group of people who love and worship the film, came together to restore the sacred place. People traveled from other countries to volunteer and breath in new life to this mythic place, ancient in its stature.

 Brick by brick, they remade it. Just so you could stand on the stones where Clint Eastwood must've stood; fall on the ground, where Lee Van Cleef must've fallen; and put your neck through the noose where Eli Wallach must've been hung. Cinema can be a "spiritual" experience, and the story of Sad Hill just goes to show how it can and does affect people. To say that a particular piece of art had such a profound affect on an individual, that they are willing to dig and dig and dig, day in and day out, just so they can preserve that experience for others? Man... that is something. The passion just seeps through the screen.

 What I love the most about it is how Good, Bad, Ugly sort of parallels the stature and history of another non-American Western, called Sholay (1975). Both films have cemented themselves in our culture. Their characters have evolved into these mythic figures of folklore. I can't go into much detail here, but I would encourage you to watch both movies and read up on their histories; you'd be surprised how similar they were. (P.S, my dad visited Gabbar's (Sholay's antagonist) den; unfortunately, it is slowly drowning in nature)