Movies: The Official "Movie of the Week" Club Thread IV

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Ponyo
Miyazaki (2008)
“She loves ham and she can do magic.”

Big movie confession time: Before this assignment, I have never seen a Miyazaki or Studio Ghibli movie. I know the reputation and how beloved they are. When I was younger, it just didn’t intrigue me. As I got older, I was open to it, but it just wasn’t something I ever decided to prioritize. Became something of a comedy bit between myself and a few of my friends who love the movies. Me just being obstinate and saying I’ll never watch one. But it was just a bit.

Thanks @Jevo for making me break my vow. Going to need a new bit.

I think I overuse the word delightful (and charming). But what a damn delightful and charming movie. A magical fish(?) flees its creator and winds up with Souske, a young boy whose family sits on a cliff overlooking the sea. But a small taste of his blood sparks a conversion in her and the want to become a person. Ponyo, as he names her, loves Souske. Ponyo loves ham. But there are consequences as her wants throws the sea into turmoil and threatens Souske’s town.

It's a fairy tale. Clear echoes of The Little Mermaid but I don’t know enough to know if it’s an original story or something from Japanese culture. It certainly has the aura of a classic fairy tale. I just liked how damn likable it is. The threats aren’t that threatening. Souske and Ponyo never seem to register any real danger. I like that though her magical scientist dad sorta gives off bad vibes, he’s not really bad. He’s just an adult who understand the potential chaos. It’s simple in all the best ways.

Most of all, of course, there’s the animation itself. The opening sequence of Ponyo’s escape is a wonderful wave of colors. The water itself is art with its undulations. It’s not surreal, but it’s an effective effect. The character faces seem in a perpetual wonder mode. I was also struck by a few scenes I just wouldn’t expect to see given the work and deliberate nature of animation, like Souske watching his mom’s car drive off in to the distant woods, headlights appearing then disappearing, then appearing again. Not needed but I’m glad it’s there.

I’ve been given two suggested routes for Miyazki – some have told me Ponyo (or My Neighbor Totoro) are the idea place to start, being his most straightforward and kid friendly. I’ve had others tell me to start with one of the more grown up features like Spirited Away. I suppose this doesn’t matter now because I’ve made my choice. I certainly don’t feel discouraged.

 

[kihei]

Ponyo
Miyazaki (2008)
“She loves ham and she can do magic.”

Big movie confession time: Before this assignment, I have never seen a Miyazaki or Studio Ghibli movie. I know the reputation and how beloved they are. When I was younger, it just didn’t intrigue me. As I got older, I was open to it, but it just wasn’t something I ever decided to prioritize. Became something of a comedy bit between myself and a few of my friends who love the movies. Me just being obstinate and saying I’ll never watch one. But it was just a bit.

Thanks @Jevo for making me break my vow. Going to need a new bit.

I think I overuse the word delightful (and charming). But what a damn delightful and charming movie. A magical fish(?) flees its creator and winds up with Souske, a young boy whose family sits on a cliff overlooking the sea. But a small taste of his blood sparks a conversion in her and the want to become a person. Ponyo, as he names her, loves Souske. Ponyo loves ham. But there are consequences as her wants throws the sea into turmoil and threatens Souske’s town.

It's a fairy tale. Clear echoes of The Little Mermaid but I don’t know enough to know if it’s an original story or something from Japanese culture. It certainly has the aura of a classic fairy tale. I just liked how damn likable it is. The threats aren’t that threatening. Souske and Ponyo never seem to register any real danger. I like that though her magical scientist dad sorta gives off bad vibes, he’s not really bad. He’s just an adult who understand the potential chaos. It’s simple in all the best ways.

Most of all, of course, there’s the animation itself. The opening sequence of Ponyo’s escape is a wonderful wave of colors. The water itself is art with its undulations. It’s not surreal, but it’s an effective effect. The character faces seem in a perpetual wonder mode. I was also struck by a few scenes I just wouldn’t expect to see given the work and deliberate nature of animation, like Souske watching his mom’s car drive off in to the distant woods, headlights appearing then disappearing, then appearing again. Not needed but I’m glad it’s there.

I’ve been given two suggested routes for Miyazki – some have told me Ponyo (or My Neighbor Totoro) are the idea place to start, being his most straightforward and kid friendly. I’ve had others tell me to start with one of the more grown up features like Spirited Away. I suppose this doesn’t matter now because I’ve made my choice. I certainly don’t feel discouraged.

How out of character that decision seems. My jaw dropped. Glad you enjoyed Ponyo, though. Next to My Neighbor Totoro and maybe The Tale of the Princess Kaguya, I think it might be my favourite.

 

[kihei]

Ponyo (2008) Directed by Hiyao Miyazaki

I have always loved this film, but I hadn't seen Ponyo in a while, anyway not since the arrival of my two grandsons, now two years old and 15 months. The thing that struck me this time is that how magically Ponyo captures a child's imagination and puts you in their world. Children have a curiosity and an openness and a very direct way of seeing things some times, and they tend to wear their hearts on their sleeve. Ponyo encapsulates all of that beautifully. The movie is such a wonderful work of pure fantasy, and it is complemented beautifully by some of the most gorgeous and creative animation that I have seen. I know the story pretty well having seen the movie three or four times. The English-language version was getting on my nerves--the one self-imposed unforced error of the translated version is Liam Neeson's voice. Somehow I found it jarring in this context. Either it was the familiarity of it that seemed to stick out or, maybe, it was his line-readings. I don't know, for sure, but it just didn't fit in this movie at all. So I turned the sound down for the last hour or so. What an effect that had. Suddenly my sole focus was the animation, and with only the animation to concentrate on alone, it was pretty much mind-blowing. Not just how beautiful and often unexpected it was, but all the little nuances and touches that I hadn't noticed before, little things like a small octupus sneaking its way into the house while Ponyo makes the toy boat bigger. Who would even think of a tiny detail like that? And such a lovely colour spectrum, with a minimum of garishness and a maximum of painterly sophistication. How lovingly and with such great care the film seemed to be visually executed. The greatest compliment that I can give Ponyo is that the story-telling and the sensitivity to a child's world is as superb as the actual animation. This is a movie a five-year-old will immediately understand and better than I now can do. I don't use the adjective "joyous" much but I think I will use it in this case: Ponyo is a joyous film to behold. I can't wait to take my grand kids when they are a little older.

 

[Pink Mist]

Ponyo / 崖の上のポニョ(Hiyao Miyazaki, 2008)

Like @KallioWeHardlyKnewYe , Miyazaki has always been a director on my radar that I know is beloved by many, but a director who I haven't really engaged with (unlike Kallio, I have seen a couple of his films though - Spirited Away and Princess Mononoke). I get the appeal - beautiful hand drawn animation, a magical mix of myth and fantasy, and a childlike sensibility palatable for adults. But I hate to say it, but even after watching Ponyo, Miyazaki doesn't do much for me. I've engaged with the variance in his style with the two films I had seen prior definitely lean more for films for adults, whereas Ponyo is the most accessible as a borderline children's movie. But they still feel more like films that I appreciate rather than enjoy.

For Ponyo, I do love how Miyazaki takes his ecological message found elsewhere in his films and distills it for a younger audience. It would be a great film to show to a child to introduce ecological conservation and the harm humans can have on the natural world. Its an effectively made children's film, and if I had a child it would be on a shortlist of films I would try to get them to watch over other crap. The animation is also stunning, especially that opening scene with Ponyo's initial escape from her father. (Speaking of her father, I'm glad I watched the original Japanese version instead of the English dub, as Liam Neeson seems like a bizarre casting choice for the voicework.) But still for me, the film just feels a little too cute, too straightforward, and perhaps too familiar (both in the sense that its message is covered elsewhere by Miyazaki, and narratively it feels like a Spielberg film such as E.T.) But although I don't necessarily love it, I would gladly pass it off as a recommendation to others if someone is looking to get into Miyazaki or looking for a good children's film.

 

[Pink Mist]

Lessons of Darkness / Lektionen in Finsternis (Werner Herzog, 1992)

Over the last decade or so, Werner Herzog has become a bit of a meme director. His filmmaking style and presence has been easily parodied and he frequently guest stars, often as himself, in sitcoms, cartoons, and films (in part, it seems, to help finance his films, so perhaps a clever way to cash in on his celebrity). Herzog is known for his poetic monologues and voiceovers in his films, his unique way to describe the modern world as if he's an alien from another planet, and to ask absolutely odd ball questions of his documentary subjects. But his recent films also have bordered on self-parody as his presence in the films are almost overbearing and distracting as he tends to get in the way of his subjects.

Lessons of Darkness has the perfect amount of Herzog though and is one of his best documentaries. Lessons of Darkness is filmed almost as if an alien landed in post-Gulf War Kuwait and tried to communicate back home what was encountered in the flaming oil fields. Ostensibly it is about the Gulf War, but if you had no background on the conflict you would not gain much knowledge on what happened during the war aside from a couple brief vignettes. It's largely context free narration and imagery of a brutal conflict that was well known at the time (but today overshadowed by more recent conflicts in the Middle East over the past 20 years).

Herzog has never been too concerned with the truth, rather his films try to portray an emotional truth that may not be factual but in their essence speak a truth. For example, the film leads with a quote by mathematician and physicist Blaise Pascal, "The collapse of the stellar universe will occur – like creation – in grandiose splendor." Except Pascal never actually said this and the quote was in fact created by Herzog as he felt it suited the film and fit a truth he was trying to capture. Like an anthropologist, he is trying to capture instead the sensory experience of how it felt to be in Kuwait after the Gulf War through the landscape of the country. Herzog's decontextualized depictions of the war told through the landscape of Kuwait are not the best or most honest portrayals of the war but his apocalyptical vision of the war and its ecological fallout certainly feels truthful on the human ability to destroy ourselves and the world we live in.

Strangely beautiful and disturbing, the cinematography - filmed largely through aerial shots above the cratered Mars like landscape and the smoke and fires - the operatic score and Herzog's poetic narration (sparse and restrained compared to today!) creates an incredibly haunting film.

 

[Pink Mist]

My next pick will be Woody Allen's Crimes and Misdemeanors

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

My next pick will be Woody Allen's Crimes and Misdemeanors

This has been on my possible pick list for a while.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Lessons of Darkness
Herzog (1992)
“All we could find were traces that human beings used to live here.”

This is a heck of a conceit. A post-war Gulf War documentary presented as if from the POV of an Earth visiting alien. It’s a strong, striking visual essay. It reminded me of post-apocalyptic films, of Mad Max with its hellscape of dirt and flame. But it’s not fiction, it’s very real. Real flame. Real destruction. Real rain of oil.

There are no guideposts here. No context. No subtitles. No explanation. Just elements — fire, water, earth. The film is divided into multiple chapters. Satan’s National Park is a particularly evocative title. The music is opera. Big, booming Wagner and Greig and whatnot.

It’s beautiful and awful.

I didn't learn much. But that's ok. That's not always the goal. Memorable all the same.

I am part of the problem that @Pink Mist talks about with Herzog. I greatly enjoy his out-of-pocket appearances as himself or in rando acting roles (pretty much playing himself). He’s become a deeply comic character. I see the point though about the memeification of himself though and how it’s taken a little bit of the edge off his serious work. I can’t help but let some of that modern feeling creep into watching this, which is decades before he’d pop up as a goober in a Star Wars show or Parks & Recreation. But only a bit. The visuals more than outweigh the memes.

 

[Jevo]

Lessons of Darkness (1992) dir. Werner Herzog

With only limited narration Werner Herzog shows us the aftermath of the first Gulf War, and the hundreds of oil wells which had been lit on fire by the Iraqi army. When he does narrate, he does with his usual poetic style and monotone delivery. But mostly he just lets the pictures speak for themselves, accompanied by classical music.

Much of the film consists of slow moving aerial shots over the barren landscape which has been ravaged by war, sometimes featuring burning oil wells or huge lakes of oil. The aerial shots are shot almost like the camera is on a cable, movnig at a set speed, or like a pre-programmed drone. Not the erratic and fast moving shots that helicopters have often been used for. It gives the film part of its hypnotic quality.

Herzog doesn't waste time on exposition. The conflict he was filming was on everyone's mind in 1992, so there was no need back then. Now the conflict is not as well known. But I'm sure Herzog would do the same again. I don't think he finds the specific conflict or location to be that important. The idea is the same. He might even prefer if conflict is ambigious to the viewer, so that they can imprint the movie onto whatever current conflict is interesting to them.

Lessons of Darkness is not a good movie to watch if you want to learn about the Gulf War. But it's a great movie to watch if you want to see the human, environmental and cultural damage that a war causes.

 

[Jevo]

I've forgotten to pick a new film. My next pick is The Naked Island by Kaneto Shindo.

 

[kihei]

Lessons of Darkness (1992) Directed by Werner Herzog

Landscape can be pretty damn articulate, and, in the instance of Lessons of Darkness, director Werner Herzog lets nature's massive defacement do most of the talking. Focusing on the burning oil fields of Iraq, we watch the aftermath of a level of mindless destruction that has burrowed its way right past the barbaric and into some strange realm where devastation and poetry co-exist. Herzog is a director with great curiosity and a lot of varied interests. His many meanderings as a documentarian have an odd thing in common: whatever the natural or unnatural phenomenon on display, it is almost always seductively photogenic. While I am sure Herzog is genuinely appalled at the violence and stupidity on display here, I doubt that tempered his realization that there were some beautiful, otherwordly images to be had, too. Yes, they help him make his point, but the fact that these images are so enthralling, so stunning to look at almost made me feel a little guilty this time around. Beyond these images, people are suffering, and soldiers are standing on the head of children and pressing their foot down hard. The unspeakable is happening. Yet, even knowing the context of this documentary, I was still fascinated by the aesthetic quality of the pictures on display as objects of beauty in themselves. Not without feeling a little uncomfortable about it, though.

Lessons of Darkness reminded me of a work by Canadian documentarian Jennifer Baichwal, Manufactured Landscapes. Manufactured Landscapes documents the work of Edward Burtynsky, a photographer interested in changes in landscape brought about by industrial destruction and commercial overkill. Similar to Herzog, Baichwal lets her images do the heavy lifting, but the pictures that we see are enthralling all in themselves. I found it hard to take my eyes off some of them even though they represent an extreme violation of nature. But, then, I guess this is all part of the magic of art, as well. It is possible to find a kind of beauty in the most unlikely of places. Perhaps, my fascination exists partly because what I am seeing is so beyond the norm, something out of a Mad Max film. It is so difficult to connect these images in both directors' works to people in offices somewhere making decisions that lead to this. To be able to create art from this kind of material is one of our species saving graces. To contribute to the creation of such destruction, though, too many people seem fine with promoting our basest tendencies. Hard to understood how such opposites co-exist, but they do.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Life of Brian
Jones (1979)
“Judean People’s Front. Wankers.”

I’ve tried to bring some comedy to this little club of ours in the past with little success as picks by Mel Brooks and Albert Brooks seem to have missed the mark. I still feel bad about What a Way to Go. Putney Swope fared ok, I think. But Buster Keaton always works!

I am not a religious person by I grew up watching Jesus movies at Easter and tend to still put one or two on at that time of year. So this year those interests merged and I thought? How about Monty Python’s tangential tale of a mistaken messiah. From birth to death, Brian is just a degree away from the Jesus. This is not a good thing for him.

Not as funny as Holy Grail and not quite as zany, but perhaps smarter than its more popular predecessor. Called blasphemous at the time, I think it’s pretty clear about its aims at the religious institution and not a takedown of Jesus himself (who’s offscreen over there somewhere. What did he say about the cheesemakers?). More political in many ways.

The risk with stuff like this is that it’s essentially a string of bits and sketches knit together. Some better than others. There’s a story here, sure, but as much as I love it, I don’t have a lot of insightful things to say. There’s a lot of great humor milked out of bickering or the insanity of crowds. (Holy Grail mined a lot of these techniques as well). Bureaucracy and exacerbation about said bureaucracy. Are the Pythons the best at meshing humor both high brow and low brow? Maybe.

I’m sorta spinning my wheels here and trying not to just devolve into recounting bits oh what the hell, here goes. My favorite is probably Michael Palin’s leper who complains about Jesus putting lepers out of work and how he’d like to have a disease/affliction again, but perhaps just one that only kinda impacts him so he can both make money and still live life. The graffiti-grammar scene is a hoot as well. The People’s Front of Judea and the Judean People’s Front. The simple, yet effective, joke of having clearly visible people just ducking under chairs or behind curtains and being magically unseen. The end, of course, is legendary.

Looking at my running list of movie ideas this might actually be the last comedy I have there (at least straightforward comedy). So you're all now spared.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Next pick: King Vidor's The Crowd

 

[kihei]

Life of Brian (1979) Directed by Terry Jones

Life of Brian, the Pythons semi-blasphemous look at a parallel Christ story, contains the usual inspired silly humour but also has some acerbic things to say about those who choose to follow messiahs. The religious satire was sharper than I remembered it, and sometimes more subtle if only because I don't usually expect much actual content from Monty Python humour, certainly not when I first saw the film. I actually liked the movie better this time than when it first came out. I mean, I liked it initially, but I wanted it to be funnier than I found it at that time. A couple of the weaknesses I noted back then are still apparent in the movie. My primary reservation had to do with Graham Chapman as Brian, the mis-identified Messiah. In terms of charisma and comic timing, he is the least gifted member of the comedy troop. The usual result in the movie is that his character gets steamrolled in any scene directly involving any of his more expressive colleagues. John Cleese, Michael Palin and Eric Idle. It's not a killer problem as those guys are really funny, but it does mean there is a bit of a blank hole where the central character of the movie should be. The other slight annoyance that I felt regarded the fact that the parts of the movie, funny as many of them are, don't lead to a very satisfying whole. It is like watching a series of sketches strung together instead of a cohesive plot. While this is true of most Monty Python works, Life of Brian is one of the rare occasions where the Pythons seem to want to make actual points, and a more impactful plot might have actually allowed them to do so more effectively.. But that's the end of my complaints. While I wouldn't rate the movie among top-of-the-line Monty Python works, Life of Brian is still exceptionally funny and even still satisfyingly outrageous after all these years.

 

[NyQuil]

Life of Brian is my favourite feature film by Monty Python, precisely because it does manage to ninja in some rather sharp satirical criticism of organized religion and poke fun at social conventions, gender roles, political activism and bureaucratic banality.

Among the highlights:
-women not being allowed to stone people and yet the entire stoning community comprised of women in fake beards, aside from poor Cleese and his whistle
-Cleese the revolutionary forced to grudgingly accept a few Roman innovations as being beneficial to society, including the aqueduct, sanitation, education, the wine, the roads, public health, and it's safe to walk the streets at night
-the patient but threatening Roman soldier who moonlights as an instructor in Latin grammar (Cleese again)
-"Blessed are the cheesemakers?" "Obviously it's not meant to be taken literally - it refers to any manufacturer of dairy products"
-"What happened to the Popular Front? He's over there."
-Some of the best uses of the term "f***" in cinema. "He IS the Messiah." "Now f*** off." "Are you the Judean's People's Front?" "f*** off. We're the People's Front of Judea."

How prescient was poor Loretta wanting to be a woman to have babies?

I agree with kihei that Graham Chapman exists as a sort of whiny, permanent victim with very little to do comedically (Bigus Dickus is his only other major role), but it's fairly common to have a straight man as the anchor for the rest of them to do their stuff. It's very much in keeping with many of his roles on the sketch show and in Holy Grail as well.

Ultimately it's primarily Cleese, and to a lesser extent, Palin, who make the most of their many characters. Terry Jones' screechy mother becomes tiresome after awhile, serving only as a means of exposition.

As with any Monty Python film, the jokes are fast and furious and not all of them land. There is little resembling an overarching narrative, but rather loosely connected comedic sequences. The space sequence is absurd but unnecessary, for example, but does serve the film's purposes of returning the protagonist from the top of a tower to the bottom of the tower without using the stairs.

However, unlike Holy Grail and Meaning of Life, there's more care to create an underlying message with sharply barbed commentary that skewers all manner of authority figures AND well-meaning revolutionaries. As a child, I found Holy Grail to be far funnier, but as an adult, they swapped positions accordingly.

I was asked by a much younger colleague for a funny film recommendation, and he reported back that he only got about 15 minutes into it before he turned it off. I think it helps if you have a bit of an anglophile bent, and perhaps some familiarity with the absurd humour of the Pythons and of history in general.

 

[Pink Mist]

Life of Brian (Terry Jones, 1979)

Growing up as a young teen I owned a box set of Monty Python films (Life of Brian, Meaning of Life, and of course, The Holy Grail). I more or less ruined the disk for The Holy Grail watching it countless times, but I think I only saw the others a couple of times. Maybe because I was young (and unreligious) they never really resonated with me other than being silly comedies. So I was curious how Life of Brian would hold up knowing the biblical stories a bit better.

First things I noticed returning to Monty Python is that the jokes come fast and furious. Blink and you'll miss a quip, but it doesn't matter because another one's coming up quickly after. For the most part they're sharp and biting satirical jokes. My favourite gags are the Latin grammar instructions from the Roman soldier which is a scene that only really Oxbridge educated comedians could come up with. My other favourite is the scenes of the infighting and bureaucracy of leftist groups, which as someone who is familiar with those types of groups, they really do be like that. The second thing I noticed with Life of Brian is how much more of an actual story runs through these sketches, rather than the vignette approach taken in their other films. It doesn't always work as some plot lines seems forced into the sketches, but for the most part it works really well.

Now the parts I wasn't fond of, which is primarily everything to do with the Loretta character. Yes, I know a lot of the jokes are of their times, and its expected that not all comedy will age well etc etc. (although I might argue it was still pretty ugly even for its time) Point taken. But it doesn't help the case when John Cleese is still publicly a transphobe, so it comes off as hateful rather than mocking or being satirical. Also not a really insightful sketch as every hack comedian has been doing some variation of it in the past 20 years.

That said, on the whole I enjoy Life of Brian and I think it improved upon those early viewings when I was much younger. Not sure how well The Holy Grail will hold up as I haven't seen it in at least 15 years.

 

[Jevo]

Life of Brian (1979) dir. Terry Jones

Brian of Nazareth lives a parallel life to Jesus Christ. Born to single mother in a stable next to that stable in Bethlehem, the Three Wise Men briefly confuse Brian with Jesus, but quickly correct their mistake. As an adult Brian joins the revolutionary group The People's Front of Judea, despite having recently learned of his half-roman heritage. While Brian wants to strike against the Roman occupiers, the PFJ is more interested in fighting The Judean People's Front, not to mention the Popular People's Front. As seems to be the norm in Judea around the year 30, Brian gets declared The Messiah by a very dedicated group of people, despite Brian wanting nothing to do with them or being The Messiah.

Monty Python are no strangers to mixing sketches, and combining seemingly unrelated sketches to something that works. In Flying Circus they often used call backs, had characters from sketches suddenly join other sketches and more. They had even made a full length movies with the semblence of a story before. But The Holy Grail very much feels like a set of sketches who happen to be set within the same world. The story itself is rather weak. In Life of Brian it's of course still sketches. But the exist in a story that works as a story. It's no Oscar winning story, but there is an actual plot that can be reasonably summarised. But despite the story I don't feel the sketches or jokes suffer at all. As a singular work, I think Life of Brian is the best Monty Python has ever made. Better sketches exist in The Holy Grail and Flying Circus, but it doesn't combine to as great a final product as this.

I have watched Life of Brian a lot of times over the last 15+ years as I've went from teenager to young adult to real adult. And I find there's been different things that I've focused on over time. And I think there's still new things that I notice when I watch it. Life of Brian is probably my favourite comedy film of all time, and I doubt I'm gonna tire of it any time soon.

 

[Jevo]

Looks like I won't be able to find a copy of Daddy Nostalgia. I will be back for The Naked Island.