The Moon’s Our Home (1936) and other 5 movie recommendations

YES! It is i. It’s been a long time since I blogged, but I’m coming back with a vengeance! Lots has happened since I was away, democratic nominee chosen, Olympics in Beijing and most importantly, the beginning of Burning Man.

In a recent job applications I had the opportunity of thinking of recommending 5 movies to my favorite film. Not an easy task considering that my favorite film goes under the radar, but none the less, I think I did a good job. I was only allowed to used 20 words in the job application, but I’ll use more here because I can.

The Moon’s Our Home (Seiter; 1936)
– Only currently found on VHS and very rarely on TV, but worth the search; it is my all-time favorite movie. It is a story about a movie starlet and an explorer/author who despise one another and fall in love without knowing who the other really is. Opposites never attracted so beautifully as in this film. If you have had the privilege of seeing this ‘screw-ball’, then you know why this is my fav. The sheer disgust and resentment on their faces at times, both Henry Fonda and Margret Sullivan play their parts unequivocally, small glances that you could easily miss the first few viewings tell so much and add layers of comedic genius. Then the times when they hold and gaze in each others eyes is a celluloid wonder. This movie, in my humble opinion, is one of the first inventive uses of talkies though a decade after the first. Why? Because of their simultaneous talk that is so crucial to the comedic tension and story it is difficult to think of how the script must have looked. Why this movie is not on DVD is beyond comprehension. I’ll see if I can get a clip up soon of some of the goodiness.

In the movie, both characters are jealous of each others accolade, never seeing who it is that is getting all the attention. Yet, they both smoke a cigarette as they slip into bed for the night, ah the good ol’ days. Match made in heaven they get married under their aliases in a ceremony that is by far the best ever. They run separate directions and then try to find each other under their alias names, but cannot. Ah, I can’t describe the gold, you’ll just have to sniff this one out like a bloodhound like I had to.

Recommendations:

The Lady Eve (Stuges; 1941) – How does a professional con-artist swoon for, and then capture an upstanding brewery heir? By being herself. Henry Fonda plays the target for a con-artist family, but Barbara Stanwycks character eventually falls in love with the charming, gullible guy. He finds out who she really is, they have a falling out, obviously. Do they get back together? She’s a con, of course she finds a way. Basically by making him marrying a whore, who is Barbara Stanwyck’s character. Great film.

You’ve got Mail (Ephron; 1998)
– Corny? Yes. Very much so. Comparable because they fall in love with each other, while hating the maligned idea of one another. Now, I actually didn’t watch this movie for the longest time because of the ridiculous name and AOL reference, but since it is Nora Ephron one must at least give it a shot (it’s got Dave Chappelle in it.). For those ‘too cool’ to see it; Tom Hanks, plays a family that has a chain of bookstores like Barnes & Noble, Meg Ryan plays an owner of a small bookstore. Of course they hate each other. That is the beauty of this movie. They are both internet geeks when they go home like we all have become that are reading this and writing blogs and chatting via internet. So if you were like me, don’t judge.

Swept Away (Wertmüller; 1975) – Laboring working man and a pampered rich woman get stranded on an island… oh, how the tables turn. Sad ending though. If you know and like anything about the D/s scene, you will be enthralled with this film. I haven’t seen the remake yet, this one seems dated at first, the porno-style music, the rich fast-talk a lot of nonsense at the beginning that turned me off to the first couple of viewings of this film. That is purposefully of course because you are meant to want these spoiled rich folk talk about seemingly meaningless crap, you feel like the one of the ship-hands having to listen to it, and wanting to strangle them into silence. When the hired hand and bratty minx get on the island, the man-slave becomes the Master and the Mistress becomes the slave. The intensity of the film you will have to see for yourself. I will say you need to stay for when they get on the island before you turn it off, it’s worth it, trust me. Funny stuff.

*note: I love rich people, I myself will be one, however, there is a difference between wealthy/rich and spoiled/rich. Actually, it is a common theme in Lena Wertmüllers body of work. One of my favorite women directors, always provocative and clever.

Clueless (Heckerling; 1995) – One irresponsible growing teen and a dependable young law intern. Two people who never seem to match, yet perfect? I was fortunate enough to meet Amy Heckerling while I was going to college at Brooks Institute of Photography, very cool woman, she would hold South Park parties. Anyway, if you haven’t seen this one, I don’t know what to tell you. It’s a great flick. It brings back those days of the cute John Cusack doing his honorable, nice-guy thing character. He’s the perfect match for an overprivileged Alicia Silverstone with his non-judgmental adversary role that Paul Rudd plays wonderfully.

The Love Parade (Lubitch; 1929) – Battle of sexes must have been a great time to be alive. Switching gender roles, this movie takes ‘sexist’ to a whole new level. Okay, so basically a unwed Queen finds a suitor in a promiscuous French soldier, they get married. Not happily ever after though, he is a prince and she the Queen, as the manly ‘macheesmo’ gets sucked from out of the Frenchman the Queen becomes the Dominant role of their Kingdom. While this film enforces stereotypical gender roles like “hunter/gatherer” and “stay-at-home/nurturer” its a great flick and actually, its shiz that many relationships argue over to this day… who wears the pants.

That’s all I got for now, but know that I have several more reviews on the horizon, some of them include:

Summer Lovers: Sleeper classic from the 80′s

Pennies from Heaven: Best (yet most overlooked) musical evah!

Seven Year Itch: Censorship and Monroe

Farrelly Brothers movies; retrospective

A Short Film about Love v.s. A Short Film about Killing

I’ve been working on these every so often so stay tuned for these coming up. I bid you adieu and many gracias-es.

I’ve been neglectful

Sorry blog. I haven’t been keeping you up like i intended to.  It’s just that X3 review took a lot out of me.  Since St. Valentines day… damn, i feel like an ass.

My Aphrodisiacs: Charlotte Rampling and Helen Mirren

Charlotte rampling night porter Helen Mirren The Cook, The Theif, His Wife and Her Lover

Mmmm, the two names i wish i knew when i was 15 and getting shot down in high school. The time i wasted on the girls and bad porn i used in their stead. Damn shame. This is an ode to my aphrodisiacs; Charlotte Rampling and Helen Mirren.

For those who don’t know, both of these women were and for that matter still are, goddesses of the gray and silver screen. And if you are in the ripe age of discovering, um [throat clear], yourself, boy or girl; Helen Mirren and Charlotte Rampling are a must.

Sex exuded from Helen Mirren since her first major film, Age of Consent (directed by Michael Powell of the infamous Powell and Pressburger.) Wonder what it’s about? Me too. From what i gather it’s about a washed up artist who finds new inspiration through Helen’s young character, a creative muse… and the hilarity ensues. By the time she was in the quintessential The Cook, The Thief, His Wife and Her Lover, she was a woman who was so comfortable in her body it’s infallible. And just in case your a woman and you’re wondering, yes; that is the sexiest thing to a man, ever, period. And i gather it is the same for women. Mirren has this sexual presence that acts similar to spanish fly; pheromones raise the hair on the back of ones neck with a look, because with that look you can see what she wants and how she’s going to get it.

Not in a cheap, gonzo pornish way either.

The first time i saw Charlotte Rampling was in the very sadistic and masochistic The Night Porter, and what a great first time it was. Saw it with a woman film affectionado, best night ever. The film’s about a chance encounter between a survivor of the holocaust and one of the German army officers that held her captive. They react to each other at first like you would an old acquaintance; you remember them or their face but you wonder if the other remembers you. I don’t want to give too much away because i think you should see it, however i should say that it has a fair deal of S&M… mmmm, and um… oh what the hell, it’s between the Jew and the Nazi, there i said it. You may want to skip this one if that disturbs you, either that or lighten up and get in touch with your sadomasochistic self, i suggest the latter. If you ask me it’s the human condition wrapped in sex, who doesn’t like that? I like Charlotte for different reasons then Helen, Charlotte, especially in The Night Porter, represents all that’s rough, messy, nasty and even wrong about sex. It’s great.

These women both are sexual iconoclasts, oozing the qualities that ancient greeks knew as Aphrodite, the Goddess of sensuality, sexuality and love. To me, they still do even as they’re pushing 60, if given the chance to make sweet sweet love to them, i definitely would, i’m not alone. I can list 10 heterosexual women that would if given that chance as well. Both of these women aged beautifully into magnificent mature adults, both embody the beautiful deity Aphrodite, Helen and Charlotte, my lovely aphrodisiacs.
Young Helen Mirren:

Age of Consent (1969)

Hussy (1980)

The Cook, The Thief, his Wife and her Lover (1989)

Young Charlotte Rampling:

Farewell My Lovely (1975)

The Night Porter (1974)

On Ne Meurt Que Deux Fois (1985)

A more “mature” Helen Mirren:

The Roman Spring of Mrs. Stone (2003)

Calendar Girls (2003)

The Passion of Ayn Rand (1999)

A more “mature” Charlotte Rampling:

Swimming Pool (2003)

Désaccord Parfait (2006)

Under The Sand (2000)

The Link and Un-Link Between American Film Geniuses: Cassavetes V.S. Kubrick

John Cassavetes Stanley Kubrick

When first seeing a film from each director, one has opposing reactions in their opposing styles. John Cassavetes had a raw, edgy style that one now sees as commonplace in TVshows that have shaky camera and each contain more slapping of faces than all Three Stooges episodes combine. Stanley Kubrick had a scrutinizing, analytical mind who would make films like a grandmaster chess champion, he would set his moves very carefully and very precise.

What they have in common? A lot, actually. Aside from their completely different styles, they where both about discovery. They would both film with a very limited crew, nothing too grandiose. Technique and method: both would have very solid scripts and have a very clear picture of the performance ahead of time and rehearsals and amount of takes until they were satisfied were numerous. They both directed about 12 feature films, they are both currently deceased and haven’t risen yet.

When first thinking of this idea, i thought this will be a hard one, but in the beginning of writing this, i had already come to my conclusion. Studio V.S. Independent.

In the end, the choice was an easy one. At the risk of getting much grief from many fellow film geeks, i regret to inform, Cassavetes wins! Hands dizzown, fo sheezy. After all, Kubrick doesn’t have songs written tributing him or his films. (Le Tigre – “What’s Yr Take On Cassavetes”, Fugazi – “Cassavetes”, Joan of Arc – “John Cassavetes, Assata Shakur, and Guy Debord Walk Into a Bar..”)

Now that i scared off 85% of the people reading this who know the Kubrick name, we can now go into how i even compared the two, because it wasn’t at all an easy task, as those who are familiar with both will no doubt agree.

I compared the two on many levels; Cinematic Presence, Framing, Lens Focus, Entertainment Value, Mise-en-sen (the surroundings of the character) etc. Kubrick won all of these, even the ones i didn’t list here, they tied for Artistic Merit. Cassavetes only excelled in one category that blew the rest of the list out of the water for Kubrick who was winning by a Mississippi mile.

Emotional Complexity. This category is so expansive and so far reaching that once you take a long look at it, it’s very easy to see why Cassavetes came out on top. Humanity, Humanization (two different things, but similar), Erratic behavior, Viewer participation, Viewer reaction, Intuition, i could go on.

It’s a broad statement to say that Cassavetes has very little fans, but i’ll make it, its sad but true. I’ll venture to say that you don’t even know who Cassavetes is, though, his number is growing everyday. Many might not know they are Cassavetes fans… even upon first viewing of one or two of his films; i was one of them. I bought a $100 Cassavetes set released by Criterion on a hunch that i would like his work, at first, i was so absolutely convinced that i had just wasted hours of my life watching, money i could have used at a strip club, cardboard and plastic that went into the packaging of the set, not to mention the hours i wasted at my minimum wage job ($5.75 at the time)… what the fuck was i thinking? what had i done? what had i done.

I was too busy trying to see something like a Kubrick that i couldn’t see what Cassavetes was about. Though lacking in making each frame a moving painting, he makes up for in spades with pure, raw emotion; so much so that it turned me off upon first viewing. In fact, i still don’t like some of his films, i can’t muscle through the first 30 minutes of a couple of them. Never even attempted to view others based on scenes i’ve watched from them… but i’ll view them when i need them the most in my life, i’m sure. But the Cassavetes films that i have seen and have developed to love and feel for, stick with me more than any Kubrick will.

Cassavetes, for those unfamiliar, is very hard to describe. Cinema Verté (shaky handheld camera) is one way, but that is so limiting to a person who gave his entire life to the pursuit of human emotion and experience. He immersed himself in theatre, rehearsing over and over, breaking through, finding a unfamiliar grounds for an actor but so familiar in life. Sometimes confusing, unrealistic, unmotivated, slightly disturbed (as we all are), but after time, you see none of the afore mentioned are true, and you wonder how or why you ever did before… sometimes. You can see how much he cared for each character, their reserve, their intensity, their pain, their sadness, their joy, their love, their growth, their hope. He didn’t like acting, he loved people in situations. You can tell by his films that this is true because he didn’t care if the focus was off, just as long as he got the emotion invested in those characters in frame. The best way to describe him i guess, is a humanist/artist, in the truest sense of the words. And although all of his films are verily tumultuous, in the end, you shouldn’t be depressed, you should have a good feeling of what you have just witnessed. Usually a happy ending, which is not seen today in most “indie films”, most of which nowadays are produced with studio backing anyway.

Kubrick, is an artist too, not so much of a humanist (though i’ve read he was very fond of certain people and animals.) His films are very plot oriented, leaving a sensitive person very distant from emotion in his pieces, but all are very entertaining, even his less known films like Barry Lyndon. Kubrick is very good at making the fantastic a reality, very intelligent in framing, acting and story. I liked all of Kubrick’s films from day one, the more i saw them however, the more i noticed how much he distanced himself from the characters he was capturing on film. He used the actor or actress to convey the idea that he wrote in a script. He was very into the ideas of his, when he visualized them into a reality, it is a sight to behold. Although i admire his work, i can see a divide when i try to find answers in life in his work, they simply do not provide them (to me at least). Even as an early photographer for a magazine, he still looked upon the subject instead of being the subject, even when he was the subject in a self-portrait. Kubrick taking a Self-Portrait

If you haven’t seen a Kubrick, you’ve been living somewhere evil or you’re one of those intellectual types who are proud to say “i’ve read the book, never seen the movie” or “i don’t own a t.v.” Either way, it’s somewhere evil.

For those who have never seen a Cassavetes film, i’m both very excited and as cautious as a mother who wants their baby to experience life on your own, but doesn’t want you to be misguided. My best advice to you is start toward the middle of his career, the beautiful 70’s, gradually, working your way to his earlier stuff, while throwing in his 80’s here and there. Something that i wish, i was told when viewing Cassavetes for the first time. For those who have seen Cassavetes once and never again, good, more for me. They are not films that do the work for you, i hope you have better second viewing, if you choose to. For those who love Cassavetes and studied the man, you know what i’m saying and i don’t have to convince you, why are you reading this? Possibly because, like me, you hope that John Cassavetes will one day be available at your local Lackluster Video, or at least a household name, even if it is like almost every other great artist, posthumously. And with the work of all of his offspring (Nick, Xan, and Zoe), he will be in no time.

Suggested Viewing order of John Cassavetes for the person who is used to the current movie method:

Opening Night (79), Killing of a Chinese Bookie (78 version), A Woman Under the Influence (74), Minnie and Moskowitz (71), Love Steams (84) Husbands (70), Gloria (80), Faces (), Shadows (59 version). there are allegedly two versions of Killing, Faces and Shadows, the Cassavetes estate prefer you watch the ones he intended as final cuts.

Filmography of Stanley Kubrick:

The Killing (56), Paths of Glory (57), Spartacus (60), Lolita (62), Dr. Strangelove (64), 2001: Space Odyssey (68), A Clockwork Orange (71), Barry Lyndon (75), The Shining (80), Full Metal Jacket (87), Eyes Wide Shut (99)

Filmography of Nick Cassavetes:
John Q., The Notebook, Alpha Dog

Filmography of Alexandra Cassavetes:
Z Channel: A Magnificent Obsession

Filmography of Zoe Cassavetes:
Broken English

Feel free to use the above as a checklist of movies you must see before you DIE!