Movie: Little Children (second time)

Without looking back at my entry upon seeing it in the theatre, I think I liked it less this second time (on DVD).  The forcings of the plot seemed more inexcusable, although I did see that it has these fable-like trappings that try to pave the way for that.  At the time I think I saw it as almost perfection in some way verging more toward the real, but that may have been a bit myopic.  The ending still seems kind of touching but also ridiculous to the point of undermining.  Don't know if I made the Kubrick connection before on the narration, a very Barry Lyndon-ish choice of voice and manner in which to comment and move story forward.   Interesting how I remembered the torrid romance parts but they take up surprisingly tiny screen time.  Everything advances by alternation of scenes, with the pedophile subplot coming in to advance and stand for passage of time for the lovers relationship.  Interesting that once they get their clothes off, they are unclothed for the next several scenes as we return to them, though time has passed.  I think the feeling of childish evasion of the real challenges of their lives came across better this time, probably because I'm not so myopic and escapist on that subject a year or so hence as I remember being.  Still, the point she makes about Mme Bovary's hunger is compelling, even as this movie ultimately stops short of condoning it.  It basically puts human emotions (of the destructive kind) back in the box at the end, as a kind of resolution.  interesting but leaves you with a bit of a sigh.

 

Weston trailer on BlipTV

John Jay Video

Movie: My Kid Could Paint That

Came away feeling a lot of respect for the sincerity of the filmmaker,
which is very odd, given that the thing you admire him for is for
apparently going with his instinct and turning against the subjects of
his film. But it is persuasive, and seemingly not so manipulative,
when you see the paintings Marla has been documented doing versus some
of the earlier work. What's missing, and what might cloud the case of
the filmmaker, is a clear temporal understanding of work she did
subsequent to the supposedly vindicating work "Ocean" (the one that
fails to convince the filmmakers, and me as a viewer, and even the
wife of the prospective buyer who is clearly shown being kind of
browbeaten into choosing it.) Did she do similarly accomplished work
subsequent to it (while not being filmed?). A fascinating element of
this film is the realist painter/promoter who goes from saying Marla's
work is genius, to at the nadir of the period she is discredited
following the 60 minutes expose, revealing that he has no feeling or
insight into this work, only into the power of marketing, to then
rally and begin proclaiming her genius again on the upswing. The
father comes across as seriously, increasingly duplicitous, which is
also fascinating, because it's understandable that certain people
under suspicion "would" behave that way. He always seems caught in an
echo-chamber of awareness. The mother on the other hand is this self-
righteous beacon of truth, self-proclaimed shy and constantly
reiterating that she wished none of this had ever happened, and yet
she is actually the real expert before camera because she makes her
case so persuasively you feel horrible questioning it. But question
it the filmmaker does, and won't let go of the suspicion. While I
found the paintings sort of interesting and allowed some of the
passionate commentary to make the case felt, I found the gambit of the
filmmakers most fascinating, and the fact that they do come off as
somehow objective judges, despite their even throwing in the NY Times
writer's making us aware of inherent fiction in all documentary film.
It's actually a very calculating work that anticipates the viewer in
the manner of the best suspense film (although the film certainly has
no literally high suspense in its structure. Still, the doubts are
planted, their role held up to the mirror, their judgments made, and
they acquit themselves of any wrongdoing essentially...and you're WITH
them. It comes across as a very ingenuous treatment and the family
comes across by the end as the antagonists. Can't remember a film
with a similar dynamic. "Capturing the Friedmans" comes to mind as
perhaps a similar genre of the "judgment documentary" but I remember
(probably wrote about it at the time, look it up) that it's structural
omissions were pretty blatant to produce the verdict that it did (even
if you felt you would have agreed with it in any case,
hypothetically). Here it all seems right out in the open, unless what
hit the editing room floor were interviews, say, with the father
coming out with reasoned arguments or other such things that would
have heightened the ambiguity, but for whatever reason (truth or
skilled filmmaking) I just tend to doubt these exist. You get a
feeling for the rectitude of the filmmaker that seems to relegate that
to unlikelihood.

Noted the use of Nino Rota from 8 1/2 and elsewhere particularly when
looking at paintings, taken from the moment where Guido visits the
ghosts of his parents near the catacombs? Music so dear to me.
Also, coincidentally some Orff from Schulwerke, from which Badlands
also borrowed. Clearly a filmmaker at work...

The film was very uneven in look but that didn't really matter. Some
stuff I can tell was definitely Nelson (the good stuff) while some
other was just on the fly arbitrary camera.

Anthony Minghella RIP

Was sad to learn that Anthony Minghella died today. While I just
couldn't stand The English Patient, after seeing "Truly Madly Deeply"
an early film he both wrote and directed, I felt here was a unique
sensibility. I got a lot out of that film.

Movie: Michael Clayton

Inspired genre piece. A bit of a temporal confusion for me about when
the flashforward ended at the beginning, but not a biggy. All scenes
tight and suspenseful. Like a good genre piece, however, the elements
were pretty bare, there to serve, but not so much intrinsically
whole. Tilda Swinton was the put-upon villain, Tom Wilkinson the
amazingly good lawyer who couldn't take it anymore (a la Network) and
the evil handiwork was deftly carried out. But the plaintiffs, some
rube dairy folk were just so clearly the necessary elements in the
story that they failed to convince. Likewise Clooney's kid. More
convincing performance and treatment than most, but still just not
part of an alive whole. Have a hard time watching Sydney Pollack act,
although he sure exudes being a nice guy no matter how world-weary and
compromised he's supposed to be, so I guess the casting could have
been worse. Liked the actor who played the cop brother, and in
particular the contrition shot near the end, where he communicated so
much in one shot (after having basically damned his brother, as he had
their third brother, in the previous scene). The end in the cab
playing over the credits recalled the end of the Graduate for me
(Hoffman and bride in the bus) but somehow with a lot less going on.
It seemed almost a task Clooney wasn't up to. Without an ensemble to
play against he's sort of out of tricks.

Bartleby the Cabbie

note to self. write this.

etymology of "deliberation"

"from freedom"

the genius died

the genius died
mediocrity mourns
over its sandwich
with spasms of survivor's guilt
and beatific tears easing
penetration