Author: Jandy Page 107 of 145

FB100: #96 – The Exterminating Angel

On January 28, 2008

This post is part of a project to watch the Film Bloggers’ 100 Favorite Non-English Films. See my progress here. Note: I have skipped #97 on the list, Satantango, because I have been unable to get it to watch and decided to move on. When I have the opportunity to see it, I will.

The Exterminating Angel
Mexico 1962; dir: Luis Buñuel
starring: Enrique Rambal, Lucy Gallardo, Claudio Brook
screened 1/9/08; VHS

“The best explanation of the film is that, from the standpoint of pure reason, there is no explanation.” – title card

Previous Viewing Experience: I have seen this once before, in June 2006.

Previous Reactions: The first time I saw this, I knew to expect something surreal and weird, because I’d already seen a couple of other Buñuel films; I got pretty much what I was expecting. While I found it a bit slow the first time through, I also found it compelling. I rated it Above Average then.

Brief Synopsis: A group of upperclass dinner guests find themselves unable to leave the drawing room after dinner, held there by an overwhelming apathy and inability to act. Meanwhile, the police and family members have gathered outside the house, unable to enter.

Response: I didn’t find it at all slow or repetitive this time. I was impressed by the strength of the plotting, especially since there’s really so little story to plot. It’s done with remarkable economy without sacrificing any depth, and the last sequence is the perfect cap off, bringing us full-circle and beyond. The film is a scathing attack on the privileged classes, really–a sort of counterpart to Buñuel’s later The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie, except instead of a dinner party which can’t get started, The Exterminating Angel is about one that won’t end. I wasn’t as attuned to the surrealists’ hatred of the upperclass the first time I saw this, so I didn’t note with as much care the almost constant distinction being made between the upperclass guests and the servants, who all had an inexplicable desire to leave before the party started, and did so. Throughout the film, the guests make disparaging remarks about lower classes: “I think persons of the lower classes are less sensitive to pain. Have you ever seen a wounded bull? Absolutely numb.” Being confined in the drawing room for days and weeks, they experience what they imagine as the living conditions of the lower classes (though whether they realize the connection is unclear)–as the host of the party, one of the more level-headed in the group, puts it: “What I have hated since my youth, coarseness, violence, filth, are now our constant companions.”

It all becomes very Lord of the Flies-ish by the end, as they turn on each other. It’s much easier to blame someone else for unpleasant conditions rather than do something about it yourself. And this is, finally, their ultimately failure. They fail to act. They lack the willpower. And the most interesting thing is that they know they do! When Nobile, the host, says they need to work up a supreme amount of willpower and all leave the room together, rather than take his advice, they start blaming him for causing the whole problem by inviting them; eventually, they blame their absent families for not rescuing them. The other level-head, the doctor, at one point tells the now nearly barbaric guests that their behavior “is unworthy of us. Gentlemen, don’t forget your breeding.” But that’s the point. Their upperclass status isn’t going to help them in this situation, and it is in fact their apathetic, sophisticated, actionless aristocratic tendencies that threaten to destroy them.

(Since I’ve seen this before and remembered it pretty well, I opted not to include two responses; the response above can be considered a reflective response as well as an immediately-after-viewing response. I said my previous rating was Above Average; after this viewing, I re-evaulate that to Well Above Average. Give it a few more viewings, especially as I see more Bunuel films to add to the conversation, and it may quite easily move higher–especially if I can see a better print.)

Fox News on Mass Effect; or, Play the Darn Game!

By Jandy

On January 24, 2008

In Gaming

So, according to this clip from major news outlet Fox News (which I have no overarching gripe about), Mass Effect is chock-full of graphic violence and sex and should be rated Adults Only and kept out of the hands of most gamers, since virtually all gamers are prepubescent boys. And this they know because some psychologist who hasn’t played the game, who in fact laughs at the hinted suggestion that she might ought to play the game before she rails on it, says so. Geoff Keighley tried his best to counter these ludicrous claims, but kept getting cut off before he could fully make his point. Which is, of course, that these are absolutely untrue, ludicrous claims, as anyone who’d actually, like, played the game would know.

Yes, there is a sex scene in the game. It comes after about 30 hours of play and lasts less than a couple of minutes, as Keighley points out. And there is no graphic nudity in it. In fact, it’s rather tastefully done; so “tastefully” that it’s almost funny, in the bad ’80s movie sort of way. And it’s presented as part of a long story/relationship-arc that has to be handled in a certain way to even get to it. It’s quite possible to play the entire game multiple times and never see the sex scene. Oh, and the anchor at one point, while showing a clip of the beginning of said sex scene, says “the player gets to decide exactly what happens between these two characters, if you know what I mean,” her tone intimating that you’re controlling the sex act itself, which is utterly untrue. It’s a cinematic cut scene; you control the dialogue and relationship choices that may or may not lead up to the scene, but you do nothing during it.

There are so many other little things here mostly stemming from people talking about things they know nothing about. Talking about ESRB game ratings, the anchor says you have to pick up the box and read the back to find out the rating; not true–the ratings are ALWAYS prominently displayed on the front (much more prominently than MPAA ratings are displayed on DVD cases, for example); as if reading the back were such a chore anyway. One of the other panel members at the end mentions buying an inappropriate game for his daughter because he either didn’t see the rating or didn’t know what it meant. I don’t know about all game stores, but certainly the ones I’ve shopped at have the ratings and their meanings displayed all over the store. The psychologist states categorically that most gamers are teenage boys, but the average gaming age is over 30 now. My favorite is when one of the panelists says she doesn’t understand why Mass Effect isn’t rated AO (adults only, the equivalent of NC-17 for movies) instead of M (mature, the equivalent of R for movies). Well, if any of these people had bothered to play the game instead of just condemn it, they would know that had Mass Effect been a movie, with the exact same amount of violence and sexual content, it would almost certainly have been rated PG-13.

I think that’s what really gets me; I understand the principle of not wanting sex and violence in games, but I don’t understand the double standard whereby games are vilified for having shades of things in them that movies have had for ages and very few people get unduly up in arms about anymore. No one goes, OMG, Shakespeare in Love has a sex scene with nudity, without at least considering the rest of the film and whether there’s value in it. But that’s exactly what people do with video games; forget the fact that Mass Effect has a film-quality story and script, excellent acting, incredible graphics, and groundbreaking gameplay. Nope, it’s got one sorta sex scene that we’ll blow all out of proportion and thereby condemn the game entirely. (At least the anchor does attempt to be somewhat fair by pointing out how gorgeous the game is.) And believe me, when you finish Mass Effect, the thing you remember from it won’t be the fact that your character got laid. Unless the media continues to hype it this way to the point where you can’t remember anything else.

(via Joystiq.

FB100:#98 – The Gospel According to St. Matthew

By Jandy

On January 22, 2008

In Film

This post is part of a project to watch the Film Bloggers’ 100 Favorite Non-English Films. See my progress here.

The Gospel According to St. Matthew
Italy 1964; dir: Pier Paolo Pasolini
starring: Enrique Irazoqui, Settimo Di Porto, Giacomo Morante
screened 12/30/07; VHS

Previous Viewing Experience: I have tried to watch this film, unsuccessfully. I think I made it through about the first five or ten minutes before I got really bored and quit. This was probably eight or ten years ago, though, when I was a teenager, so we’ll see if my attention span has improved.

Knowledge Before Viewing: My previous experience of trying to watch it has left me thinking it’s slow-moving and sort of…non-commital. The second thing fits with what I’ve heard about the film being a cinema verite, almost documentary-like version of Christ’s life.

Brief Synopsis: Exactly what you’d expect; the story of Jesus as told by Matthew’s gospel.

Initial Viewing Response: Right, so I’m perfectly willing to acclaim this as pretty much the most straight-forward, accurate version of Jesus’ life (perhaps excepting the Jesus movie, which is primarily used as an evangelical tool). But what catapults it into the realm of great cinema I haven’t yet figured out. My initial expectation of a non-commital storytelling style is spot-on, but I had thought it was supposed to be highly realistic and naturalistic; instead many of the scenes felt very staged and the actors were all very measured and stiff. I’ll need to read a bit about the production–that could be a side-effect of casting non-actors, who are sometimes paradoxically less naturalistic than trained actors (there are exceptions, like the girl Vittorio De Sica cast in Umberto D). Only the various scenes that have children in them (Palm Sunday, for example) have any sense of spontaneity and immediacy. This isn’t to say that there aren’t powerful scenes. Obviously the source material is powerful on its own, and that shows through in the Pharisee-conflict scenes and the slaughter of the innocents (which actually reminded me of Potemkin‘s Odessa Steps sequence). I also found the use of English-language spirituals interesting, mixed in with more traditional church choir music. The idea of Jesus as an Italian peasant isn’t as strong as I expected it to be, though most of the costumes and buildings are believable as either Italy or Rome-occupied Israel. Basically, I’m trying to figure out what it is that I’m meant to get out of the film that I can’t get from reading the Bible, and I haven’t found anything yet. It’s a very literal adaptation, but where is Pasolini in it? (I haven’t seen any other Pasolini films, so I may be at a bit of a disadvantage there.)

Reflective Response: I was supposed to write this a few days after seeing the film, but it’s ended up being about three weeks. Ah well. After I wrote the initial response, I read the back of the video case, and it mentioned that the simplicity and directness of the film was in some ways at odds with the opulence of the Italian Roman Catholic Church, which I can definitely see. So what I may have missed in my initial viewing was the fact that presenting a peasant-class Jesus in a simple setting might have actually been quite radical when Pasolini made the film; it doesn’t seem that way to me, because that’s how I tend to think of Jesus anyway (perhaps as a Protestant, perhaps as a Biblical literalist). In any case, my initial reaction sounds as though I don’t find any value at all in literal adaptations, which isn’t entirely true–I just don’t think they’re as interesting, and while I might put a film like The Gospel According to St. Matthew on a list of great adaptations, I don’t know that I would put it on a list of great films. On the other hand, I’m fairly sure I’ve missed something.

American Idol 7×02: Dallas Auditions

By Jandy

On January 17, 2008

In Television

I pretended to be a good grad student tonight and went over to watch a series of lectures on Victorian Britain from the Learning Company with some friends instead of watching American Idol live. So no live-Twittering went on.

Overall, I’d say the show was a bit better tonight than last night. The judges seemed to be having marginally more fun, though I think Simon’s getting even more jaded than usual. Kady Malloy (the girl who can do a Britney Spears impression) is probably one of the better ones through so far, and I liked the cute farmer/cowboy guy. But mostly because he’s cute. Also cute: the newly married couple with the husband who came in to choose his wife’s songs for her. She couldn’t sing terribly well, but he could come on the show and just stand there, and it would make me happy. Because he was hot. But they were also cute together.

I’m really hating how they’re depicting rock singers, though. Every single contestant who leans toward a rock sound turns out to totally suck (yes, even the one they inexplicably let through), which then reinforces the idea that rock singers suck, which they don’t. Are they consciously trying to only let through the most bland pop, boyband, country crossover, and divalicious belters they can find? Or are those the only people willing to try out anymore?

American Idol 7×01: Philadelphia Auditions

By Jandy

On January 15, 2008

In Television

Selected Twitterings:

Joey Catalano – nice if we’re looking for boyband leads. But boybands are pretty much over, aren’t they? But yeah, good enough for now.
You know, the angry contestant clips all start to look the same after six years. Maybe they just reuse the same ones.
Melanie Nyema – I wonder how many back-up singers we’re going to have this year after Melinda did so well last year.
Usually a bad sign when the contestant hopes the judges will find their voice “unique.” ….. Yep, bad sign. [this was the guy with the really low voice who did “Go Down, Moses”]
Someday contestants are going to learn not to sing “Unchained Melody.” Or not.
Weren’t they supposed to have instruments this year? What happened to that? Or are they going to do that later?
Randy’s always so optimistic. “Yeah, this is gonna be great!” No, no it isn’t. And no, no it’s not. Sinatra sounds nothing like that.
“Let me try My Way again!” Paula: “Oh, my Lord!” Hee. For some reason it makes me happy when Paula’s mean. I’m a bad, bad person.
Alexis – Not an American Idol singer, but honestly, she could front a punk or rock band with little trouble. Girl, Simon wasn’t mean to you.
Thing is, AI isn’t looking for the best musician/artist, but the best pop singer. Most of my favorite front singers wouldn’t get through.
This is sad, with the daughter with the syndrome. Hope the girl can sing–too often the ones with the tear-jerker stories can’t. [referring to Angela Martin, cf below]
Angela Martin – Nice voice! Oversung, but definitely has the raw materials. I’m glad.
Alyse – Good influences, bad song choice, and…what the hell? Okay, I don’t like Feelin’ Good, but I’m not down with murdering it.
Milo, stop giving singer-songwriters a bad name! I really want more singer-songwriters on the show, but for serious.
Christy – I like this one. I hope she can sing (she was in some of the promos as a good singer, right?). Yeah, she’ll be through.
Beth – Ooh, singing a standard! I’m a fan. I like her. But will she be the kind of old-fashioned Simon likes or hates?
Chris Watson – Like so many others today, yes, good, but in a style I don’t care for. WHERE ARE THE MUSICIANS THEY PROMISED ME?
Brooke – Aw, she’s sweet. Not sure she can make it the whole way, but I do like her. And Simon, quit being a douche about her husband.

Overall Impressions

Bland. Bland bland bland. There were four or five people who had good enough voices, but no one with any pow, you know? Nobody that made me sit up and notice. Way too much melisma, way too much pop sensibility, no originality. And what happened to the instruments? There were supposed to be instruments this year, I swear I read that. Watching Australian Idol has definitely spoiled me. I think I’ll go watch some more of it right now.