The Dark Knight (Christopher Nolan, 2008)

We are nearing the end of 2008, and so far cinematically it has been fairly disappointing compared to the phenomenal year of 2007. The rave of the year has been the follow up to Batman Begins, the new instalment of a series of Batman films, furthering the concept since the interpretation started by Tim Burton. I asked myself: Is it really a good idea to create a realistic environment around a character and idea that in of itself is unrealistic and stylistic. Furthermore, the role of the Joker has been hyped up to a great degree, to the degree of annoyance, due to the unfortunate death of Heath Ledger. These things make me suspicious rather than expecting anything good, and before I heard of his death I hadn’t seen him in anything, and before I saw The Dark Knight I had only seen him in I’m Not There (Todd Haynes, 2007) where he didn’t impress me that much.

Well, as usual, not everything is sunshine and flowers in Gotham City, when a maniacal clown is on the loose and wreaking havoc. So it’s up to Batman and his merry band of friends to save the day, and so they do, at least for this round. It is hard for any Batman film to surprise its audience, particularly because of how we have been familiar with these characters for so long. I guess this is inevitable for any film based on a popular hero franchise, such as Spiderman and Superman. However, unlike a lot of such films that have been released recently, Christopher Nolan does do a fair and honest stab at revitalizing the franchise. The main problem is that, with the legions of rabid fans waiting at the doors of the cinema, demanding a “correct” interpretation of the source material, it becomes problematic to creatively make a film that pleases both the hardcore fans of the series and the more casual audiences not too familiar with the original comics. It can to a certain degree be said as a fact that Nolan succeeded this, the film did exceedingly well in the cinemas and soaring high, currently fourth, on the IMDB Top 250 Films list. Although I don’t really agree with such lists, it does point towards the films success. So why bother writing this, the film is already praised to the skies and the fans all across the board love it. However, I feel I should express my thoughts on some of the problems in the film, as well as a concern for the popularity of the film, few films of this sorts have seen anything like.

One of the main problems is that while Nolan is striving for more realism, I wonder exactly how that realism includes a masked man with super strength and reflexes wearing a suit and calls himself Batman works in that realism? I know it is not to wise to question the realism of Batman, but somehow I feel the set reality of a film should work throughout all the elements, and thus the old Burton’s Batman films were in sort more realistic, as they worked in conjunction with Batman’s own realism. There is an attempt to work around this by making the Joker more realistic. There are different incarnations of how the Joker came to be, but the most common one is that he fell in some toxic waste which bleached his face, turned his hair green and froze his mouth into a smile. In the film, however, they chose to make him into an ambiguous maniac with a questionable sense of fashion. But lo and behold, it actually does work to some degree. Somehow the Joker now seems much more menacing. And yes, I will buy into the hype and agree that Heath Ledger’s acting is one of the highlights of the film, and makes the Joker disturbing and fascinating to watch on the screen. However, a lot of great chances to make the Joker an even more interesting character are wasted, making him more watered down and essentially undermining a lot of the effort put into the character by Ledger. The performance individually still stands out though.

There is also a structural problem in the film, in that it lacks a good cohesive structure, wavering too much around, the film has so much to tell and despite the long running time it seems like the film could have said a lot more. Essentially, some parts should have been cut, and more depth should have been added to other parts. The character Two-Face, who is introduced later in the film, is probably the root problem of this, disturbing the interesting balance between the Joker and the Batman characters. He is essentially supposed to support both and create some depth, however, the character takes something away from the main conflict, and suffers from poor execution. The later part of the film is the most unappealing of the film, a lot due to this. The film tries to go deep into psychology and philosophy, and sets up for something great, but eventually decides to provide easy answers to complicated questions and avoids provoking disturbing questions about human nature. The Joker character sets up such questions throughout the film, and does genuinely seem provocative and interesting, but towards the end this is undermined and becomes less interesting. Also, one would think that Hollywood had managed to get away from the inevitable romance that complicates the hero’s journey, however they have not, and this further muddles a lot of the efforts that went into trying to say something deeper.

The Dark Knight is a good entertainment film, but other than that, the idea that it poses serious questions on society and has much depth is an illusion. The film has excellent potential for all that, but eventually falls flat and undermines its own strengths for mainstream purposes. Also, others saying this is the darkest Batman film made, sure, the Joker character is disturbing, but Tim Burton’s Batman Returns (1992) was much darker and depressing. In the end, the film had much going for it, but poor choices and executions did a lot of hard to an otherwise fine film. I was a big fan of Batman as a kid, and I’m not entirely sure how this is so popular to such a mature audience, but there you go. The Joker character is fascinating at times, but falls flat throughout. Apparently there is going to be more Batman films by Nolan & Co, but I personally think this is as good as it’s going to get for this team, and will reserve my enthusiasm until they decide to make Batman: The Musical.

There Will Be Blood (Paul Thomas Anderson, 2007)

In contemporary cinema, 2007 was one of the best years of American films in quite a while. One of the new proclaimed “classics” that I hadn’t yet seen was There Will Be Blood. But other than that, I had seen some quite remarkable films from 2007, like I’m Not There (Todd Haynes, 2007), No Country for Old Men (Joel Coen; Ethan Coen, 2007), and some maybe not fantastic movies but still really good, such as Sweeney Todd (Tim Burton, 2007) and The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford (Andrew Dominik, 2007). So I was very much looking forward to watching There Will Be Blood, considering what a good year it had been for Hollywood cinema.

I’m not that familiar with Paul Thomas Anderson, I’ve seen Magnolia, which was quite good, but other than that I haven’t seen anything else by him. However, Magnolia is very different from There Will Be Blood, and in every aspect, in my opinion, There Will Be Blood is superior to Magnolia. In fact, I believe in 20 or so years this will be remembered as one of the defining classics of the early 21st century, together with No Country for Old Men of course. I was in a period where I despised anything from Hollywood, seeing it as “garbage” and “sell-out”. And while that does indeed apply for a lot of the cinema there, or in fact anywhere, There Will Be Blood proves that great films still are created in Hollywood, challenging any of the great Classics from the Golden Era and the 70’s Hollywood. There Will Be Blood is a character study and drama. Daniel Day-Lewis creates a fascinating character on screen, and entrepreneur who relishes in defeating and besting his opponents. There is a certain calmness to the character though, but the sub-text all comes through from the face and voice of Lewis. His performance in this film is so important, because the film is basically centred on his character, and in this respect is somewhat similar to Raging Bull (Martin Scorsese, 1980). These character dramas so easily fall and stumble, and much power is left to the actor, and Day-Lewis indeed does this justice, and deserved the Oscar he won. In fact, 2007 was a great year for Oscars, actually going to films and people who deserved them (2006 was disappointing, sure, it was nice of Scorsese winning an overdue Oscar, but best film and script as well? Please). I’m not sure whether I like No Country for Old Men or There Will Be Blood, but for certain, both would have deserved the Oscar.

The film has some superb cinematography; the beautiful wide shots of the wilderness capture the harsh terrain that the oil prospectors have to work with, and also stand as a great background element for the action on the screen. Some images will stick to your head forever, in particular the scene where the oil well burns. This is accompanied by the wonderful and original score, composed by Radiohead band member Johnny Greenwood. Anderson brings it all together with his directing, which throughout the film is spot on, creating all focus around Day-Lewis’ character. As the character develops, his environment and the people are all affected and develop too. While some say this is the story of a prospector building up his fortune, I find this interpretation slightly uninteresting. The most important part of the film and its core is the development and mental state of the character. It is in many ways quite a complicated film in this respect, and much interpretation can be brought to the character. This is one of the things that makes me believe this film will stay alive for many years to come, because there will always be something interesting to discuss and wonder about the character and the themes evoked by the film. It is quite universal, and will always feel relevant. I will want to watch this again soon, because I find it very fascinating, and I am sure the film will with each new viewing have something new to bring to me.

For me there is little doubt, There Will Be Blood is in every respect a modern masterpiece, and it is a pleasure to be around when it came out. Like so many other films from the old days, this one will be remembered, while the box-office films will be forgotten in the dust. There Will Be Blood will stand as a testament that Hollywood still can make world class quality films that are fascinating and have depth. A very positive trend last year, probably the strongest year of American cinema in the new century.

To Have and Have Not (Howard Hawks, 1944)

My Bogart ranting will go on. As I mentioned earlier, the combination of Howard Hawks and Humphrey Bogart is a great mix indeed. I loved The Big Sleep, and was equally looking forward to seeing this, which was the first to feature the legendary relationship of Bogart and Bacall. I’m now not sure which I like better, this or The Big Sleep, because they are both great, but have very different qualities that makes them classics.

To Have and Have Not in many ways remind me of Casablanca. It’s a love story in a foreign country. But while I still think Casablanca is a better film, the romance itself is better here. The chemistry between Bogart and Bacall sparks, and they have a wonderful, teasing and a little hostile relationship. Bacall was at the time of filming 19 years old, which is almost unbelievable. She is truly a natural, and seemed bound for the screen. Particularly the gaze she gives Bogart, with her head tilted and staring at him, is literally imprinted in my head. Across the film there is also a good cast of characters that give the two stars something to bounce off, and it works. Still, while The Treasure of the Sierra Madre was very different from most Hollywood, this was more formulaic. This is saved however by Hawks’ compelling and unique directing, which IS different from most other film directors at the time. He has a fairly detached style, using little overdramatic music, refraining from using too much editing and close-ups. Coupled with wonderful lighting this creates some scenes that individually are some of the best of the director’s work, and it stands quite close to his other great work The Big Sleep.

Some of the parts of the film that works less well are the suspense parts. This is in part due to the fact that the romance itself takes a front seat, with a lot of the main story just working as a backdrop for the scenes between Bogart and Bacall. That is in a way fine, but I wished the film didn’t contain this and just focused on creating a drama between Bogart and Bacall, which could have been fantastic. The story elements aren’t really that interesting compared to this, and as such the film feels a bit unnecessarily fractured. We don’t really care if someone else survives, as long as the romance does. But this is compelling enough to keep the rest of the film going, and the fracture never ruins the film. In fact, as a whole the film is still very good, but doesn’t hold up to its similar Casablanca. Actually I should re-watch Casablanca soon. Anyway, the film as a whole was very pleasing, and in many ways I’m just nit-picking. But there is a fairly good reason why this didn’t receive the same legendary status as many of the other Bogart films, because it lacks that little extra quality, but it still stands as a classic from the Hollywood golden age.

I was maybe a tad disappointed with this, but then again, the more you dig through films the lower the quality is going to get, although the pay-off is that once in a while you’ll stumble across something unique and fantastic. To Have and Have Not is not this, however, it does stand on its own, firstly because it is a genuinely interesting love story, second because of Hawks’ wonderful directing, and thirdly as it was the first film that introduced the Bogart – Bacall dynamic.

The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (John Huston, 1948)

John Huston and Humphrey Bogart seem to be a good team, just as well as Howard Hawks and Humphrey Bogart was. I liked The Maltese Falcon a lot, and was one of my first experiences with the golden age of Hollywood. However, all the good things I was expecting from The Treasure of the Sierra Madre couldn’t prepare me for the experience I was in for. Because this film is probably the best of the old Hollywood, and stands as Bogart’s best performance together with In a Lonely Place, and is probably Huston’s best directing and writing job.

The story is simple, three men out of luck far away from home pool their money together and decide to dig for gold and make their fortune. But soon the paranoia and treachery kicks in. This is expanded by Huston’s tight directing, building up the tension throughout the great dialogue scenes. It is also helped by the great performance by Bogart. Bogey won the Oscar for The African Queen, but I cannot understand how he wasn’t even nominated for this role, as it is one of his seminal best. The theme of greed is studied mostly throughout the film, but it also explores how people can turn at and to each other as the situation defines the relationship. The wilderness seem to create both tranquillity and madness, all depending on ones character, although the film empathises that no one is truly evil, but anyone can fall. The films main strength is the building of tension, social tension and thrilling tension, such as the shootout scenes. This is not a western though, although it shares some of its traits. The film works more as a social drama though, and in this part it is riveting. The film was also shot on locations, and although some scenes are obviously shot in a studio, this gives the film some charm and builds the atmosphere of the wild quite well.

Of the early Hollywood films, this one is quite bleak, and hasn’t got all of the established norms of a typical Hollywood film. There is no love interest, the characters aren’t necessarily relatable and we aren’t given access to their thoughts as much as we usually are privileged. This again helps to build the tension, as one can never be quite sure who to trust. The ending is also fairly dark, and very uncharacteristic for most of these types of film. Bogart’s role is also unusual for him. Although he had become the star anti-hero, his character here is more ambiguous than before, and is not the smooth talking detective many had loved him for being. But what makes the film so great is the simplicity of it all, and it is extremely watch able, while still retaining depth and subtlety. Bogart also has throughout the years since his golden days become somewhat typecast in the heads of modern audiences, but here he proves really what sort of an icon he was. He’s unafraid of the challenges the film gives his character, unafraid of doing something quite different from what made him famous, and needs credit for this. He is quickly becoming my favourite actor. But while I do love Bogart for his body of work, the success of this film should be unanimously credited to writer and director John Huston. I liked some of his films I’ve seen, but never grew to love him before now, he truly transcends time and filmmaking with this wonderfully crafted film.

One of my new favourite films, what else can be said, it is wonderful in every way. The acting, the writing, the cinematography and directing meld together into an intriguing, simple, yet subtle film which shows how great filmmaking will always shine through, and never grow old. This film certainly never will.

Quiet for a while

I haven't been able to write here for a while due to a lot of work at the university. I also haven't seen many films to write about. Hopefully, I'll be able to come with something during the christmas Holiday, and come 2009 will be back on track.

Sommarlek (Ingmar Bergman, 1951)

Ah, Ingmar Bergman, one of the greatest filmmakers, his films can be so simple, yet so sublime, particularly in the case of Sommarnattens leende (1955) and Smultronstället (1957). I do also love his films that are a bit heavier handed, but most of the films across his canon that I’ve seen are great. That being said, I haven’t seen any film by him in quite some time, a couple of years actually. The reason for this is that I had a period when I watched many of his films across two years, and after that felt fairly satisfied with the range in which I had explored his filmmaking, and went on to explore other directors. Lately though I’ve wanted to come back to Bergman and check out more of his films, particularly some of his lesser known films. The first in line was Sommarlek, a film made some years before Bergman became internationally famous.

I like it when Bergman doesn’t overcomplicate things and make it simple. Not because I can’t handle complex films, but it seems to me that a film will have more resonance and can create just as much meaning in simple terms. Also, Bergman is excessively good at this. Sommarlek is a fairly simple film, but contains a lot of the issues Bergman would later handle, although it does seem to brush over them quite quickly. Love, death, psychological angst and nostalgia all feature in here, although I feel some of the themes could have been fleshed out a bit more. Some of these themes are brushed over or touched upon at the very end, with no real fore building. However, the themes that are focused upon are developed quite nicely. The two most important aspects of the film I guess are nostalgia and love, specifically young love. A girl meets boy story, but with flashbacks and quite a bit of bitterness. In terms of depth the film is a bit shallower than Bergman’s usual output, but then again, this is an early work by him and he is still developing himself as a filmmaker. I know I’ve not been too positive towards the film, however, I did like the film, but it is sub-par to most of Bergman’s later films. The best aspect of the film is how Bergman captures the landscape with the camera; he creates a real sense of summer vacation, which is a central idea to the film. The film also deals with having to accept bad things happening in ones life, and try to go on no matter what. In this way it has a more positive note than some of his other films, particularly his later ones, and this I quite like.

From a historical point of view it is interesting to watch the film, because while not being stunning, it does point towards Bergman’s future filmmaking, and you can tell several aspects of the filmmaking style that will flourish in just a few years. It’s always interesting to watch how a filmmaker has progressed throughout his or hers output. Bergman surely walked a fine line throughout his career and every film progresses to some degree or in some way from the last. While there are several central ideas in his filmmaking, he also varied the style in many of his films, particularly Persona (1966). I always knew of Sommarlek, but few had talked about it, and I can kind of see why. The film is nice, has some interesting stuff in it and some good actors, but overall it lacks that certain depth that later Bergman films had. It’s still better than the average film you’ll see, but for a Bergman film one cannot avoid being slightly disappointed. However, the most enjoyable part of the film for me was seeing how the past affected the character in the present through flashbacks, and at this the film was quite good, giving us what we needed but not hitting us over the head with a hammer.

I would recommend Sommarlek to some degree; however it shouldn’t be the first Bergman film you watch. If your intent is to watch loads of Bergman films then this should definitely be on your list, because it is quite good. Not brilliant, but an enjoyable little film made by the Swedish master.

Stroszek (Werner Herzog, 1977)

America is one of the strangest countries I’ve been to. There is so much going on there, but at the same time everything has a plastic feel to it and everywhere smells of greasy fast food. I’ve rarely seen a film that have conveyed a similar visual of America as I experienced it, but then again American filmmakers probably don’t sense these similar things that a foreigner would. That is why I was so pleased with Werner Herzog’s depiction of America, because it came quite damn close to what I experienced. When you visit a foreign country you are usually quite alienated towards it, and that sense is perfectly captured in Stroszek.

Stroszek is tired of Berlin and decides to immigrate to America with his old friend and his girlfriend. However as it turns out, the American dream is not exactly what myth says it is. What makes this film is the character Stroszek, or rather, Bruno S who portrayed him. Although many celebrate the relationship between Herzog and Kinski, Bruno S is a real find by Herzog. Throughout his whole life, Bruno S did two feature films, this and Jeder für sich und Gott gegen alle (Werner Herzog, 1974), and he deliver himself completely in both. There is something strange, almost naïve and childlike about his person and I don’t believe he actually ever performs, he is just being himself. He helps create a feeling of “otherness” in those two Herzog films. While Kinski was a professional actor and had worked before he started making films with Herzog, Bruno S was without doubt a discovery made by Herzog, and this is one of the examples that shows how great Herzog was at spotting the right talent or person to create his films. Everything about Bruno S is perfect for the two movies he did, his facial expression, the strange ways he structures his sentences verbally, it all makes for quite a fascinating character. There is something very real about the character, and much of the screenplay is based on Bruno S himself. Indeed, the characters name is Bruno Stroszek, he plays his own instruments in the film and some of it was filmed on his own flat. Herzog was always concerned with the “real”, and we see clearly this in the character of Stroszek, which is in many ways trying to be based on Bruno S himself.

But this is in many other ways also a very interesting film. The wonderfully sarcastic portrait of the USA is very funny while also being very true. In many ways Stroszek is a dark comedy, and very dark at that. The character Stroszek is a fighter who tries to survive and make it despite his own inadequacies and quirks. But from the beginning we know that poor Bruno is doomed. His monologue about his feelings on America later in the film is great, and captures the feeling of the film. The film is very concerned with small physical object, and manages to create resonance of meaning through them. Some of these aspects aren’t in any way important to the narrative, but gives the film strength as a whole and establishes a very peculiar mood. But I guess these sorts of things have always been true for Herzog’s film. In fact, Herzog is a director that at the same time as impressing also confuses one; his films have a truly strange sense of mood to them, bordering on the insane at times. There is a good reason why Herzog remains one of the most bewildering and fascinating characters in the world of cinema, and while he has his eccentric qualities, this never overshadows the genuine originality and quality of his films

Stroszek was quite a good film, with a lot of quirky moments and objects, not to mention the characters and settings. The way Herzog captures America is very true to my own observations and experiences, and for me that made the film even more interesting. The core of the film though is the tragic figure of Bruno S, who truly manages to convey some of the really dark moments of our existence.