|
SCREENING LOG
-6/07-6/13, 2004
Back to 2004 Index
Fireworks (1947, Kenneth Anger)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0039383/
yes -- My best angle on Anger is that he's a kind of Gay
Hollywood folk artist, taking the raw materials of Hollywood
lighting and cinematography to focus on his own carefully
chosen ethnographic fetish objects (male bodies in various
forms of costuming and de-costuming, the lurid allure of oversaturated
low-fi Technicolor, close-ups on the textures of water, silk,
leather that you can practically feel against your face),
arranged along a narrative of birth, death and sexual consummation,
rituals that are unmistakably and unabashedly paganist. It's
worth noting that three of the four films I gave a yes or
YES to (RABBIT'S MOON being the exception) are the ones that
most strongly bear these elements, and have this ritualistic
feel driving the narrative.
I appreciate FIREWORKS mostly for historical significance
-- to my knowledge there is no pre-existing American film
that is explicitly gay-themed to this extent, and all the
pieces of Anger's style are more or less present: close-ups
of bare muscles and a naked sleeping man (suggesting the movie
as an experience in dream-state), men in sailor outfits, a
series of images building to an ecstatic climax suggesting
male rape.
Rabbit's Moon (1950, Kenneth Anger)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0042872/
yes
Eaux d'artifice (1953, Kenneth Anger)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0045719/
mixed - has the sparkling water going for it, but otherwise
it struck me as a precursor to a TV commercial for expensive
perfume.
Inauguration of the Pleasure Dome (1954, Kenneth Anger)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0047114/
YES (#6 for 1954 between GODZILLA and JOHNNY GUITAR) - the
one Anger film that for me transcends my prosaic descriptions
and simply becomes a marvel to behold. One bizarre character
after another gets introduced into the mix, and it's easy
to lose track of who's who, but in a way it doesn't matter.
The colors of the movie seem to bleed and morph into each
other like so many drops of technicolor paint or bodily fluids
mixing it up on a palette of celluloid, and they wash over
in waves. And I had no idea that Anais Nin was so damn hot!
I liked HENRY AND JUNE but even Maria de Madeiros doesn't
do Anais justice.
thanks zetes for
Moby Dick (1956, John Huston)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0049513/
yes
Trash (1970, Paul Morrissey)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066482/
yes (#3 for 1970 between BEYOND THE VALLEY OF THE DOLLS and
TRISTANA)
Mean Girls (2004, Mark S. Waters)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0377092/
yes (#14 for new films seen in 2004 between A TALE OF TWO
SISTERS and THE TWILIGHT SAMURAI)
Flesh (1968, Paul Morrissey)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0062979/
yes (#7 for 1968 between NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD and IF...)
(note: TRASH and FLESH combined as a diptych amount to a
YES)
Welfare (1975, Frederick Wiseman)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073887/
yes (#7 for 1975 between XALA and MONTY PYTHON AND THE HOLY
GRAIL)
Medium Cool (1969, Haskell Wexler)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0064652/
YES (#6 for 1969 between RED LION and KES) - obviously a
film that's been inspired by many New Wave influences (this
was confirmed upon listening to Haskell Wexler's commentary
on the DVD) so one could probably criticize the film as being
too derivative of other movies, but I don't buy into this.
Because looking at the film as a whole, it seems to be a swirling
vortex of so many things going on in '68, from TV and the
media to the elections to consumerism to hedonism to hippies
to women's rights to Vietman, and so the New Wave style becomes
just another one of these elements emblematic to the time
being captured. And I think all of these things are captured
quite vividly, and the film succeeds in capturing the chaos
of its time through a disruptive and fragmented narrative,
without succumbing to the chaos. Wexler makes it all very
watchable, is brave enough to try anything at the risk of
looking foolish, and moves things along quite briskly and
it just has a vibe that works for me. Especially since that
vibe resonates with so much that's going on today. In fact
it's rather unsettling to see that we really haven't gone
that far away from a time when millions of people were either
distracted by their consumer life or confused about the national
crises of a questionable war that sends so many underprivileged
young people off to die, a heated election year, and just
a whole lot of confusion about where the country is going.
Halloween (1978, John Carpenter)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077651/
yes
Titicut Follies (1967, Frederick Wiseman)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0062374/
yes
Kustom Kar Kommandos (1965, Kenneth Anger)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0059369/
mixed
Puce Moment (1949, Kenneth Anger)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0041771/
mixed
Scorpio Rising (1964, Kenneth Anger)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058555/
yes - wilder and more jarring but it too is about a pagan
ritual with the gang of crazies coming out of the woodwork
to feast on a sacrificial lamb (this one happens to be served
on top of a flaming Harley, extra well done!)
Saved! (2004, Brian Dannelly)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0332375/
In some ways it plays to basic teen movie formula, with the
characters occupying types that could exist in any high school
setting, not just a religious one. Though one could also say
that this insight is part of the movie's point -- that the
same relationship dynamics and power plays occur in Jesus
High as anywhere. What works for me is that the film paints
a world out of this high school -- not to mention the religion
that governs it -- that is vivid and alive, even as it mocks
its components. It becomes obvious how Mandy Moore's character
is going to end up two thirds of the way through, but she
did a remarkable job selling it and making her character interesting
and fun. There's a lot of sending-up all around, but the film
maintains an uppity spirit about it that keeps the ribbing
essentially good-natured. Jena Malone was good (she's an intriguing
presence, though there's nothing really distinctive about
her physically). Macauley Culkin was quite good, sort of a
disabled teenage Rupert Everett. And who was that Jewish chick!!!
I wanted to some seriously non-Christian things to her!
I can also see how the film may flatter the pre-existing
biases of politically correct social humanists who distrust
religion, esp. in its perceived intolerance of minorities,
gays, etc, just as one can obviously see how THE PASSION OF
THE CHRIST flatters fundamentalist Christians at the expense
of offending others. I think the two films complement each
other rather nicely -- the morbid, uncompromising seriousness
of Gibson vs. the hipster, peace-brokering irony of Donnelly
-- and together they make quite a statement, that religious-themed
movies can be both commercially viable and provocative in
a most constructive way, that is, if critics and audiences
are up to the task of interpreting them constructively. For
me the real strength they both share is in their vivid presentation
of the material manifestations of contemporary Christianity,
how it is not this old outdated belief system, but a way of
life that is rich and diverse and disturbing and full of as
many problems as wonders, just like any other belief system
that matters today.
yes (#11 for new films seen in 2004 between THE PASSION OF
THE CHRIST and THE SADDEST MUSIC IN THE WORLD)
Springtime in a Small Town (2002, Tian Zhuangzhuang)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0332831/
yes (#17 for 2002 between ADAPTATION and GANGS OF NEW YORK,
#16 for new films seen in 2004 between THE TWILIGHT SAMURAI
and END OF THE CENTURY: THE STORY OF THE RAMONES)
The Green Room (1978, Francois Truffaut)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077315/
yes
Back to 2004 Index
|
