Cinematic Adventures Around the World - Part 3: Berlin

Before I started my travels Germany generally wasn't a country I was looking forward to. Even Berlin, which has been one of my favourite cities to date, I only started getting excited for in the week leading up to my time there, and wasn't expecting to write a blog on it. The thing that struck me about Berlin initially was how the city's history was so visible. In Berlin I was staying right across from Alexanderplatz where the symbol of communist Berlin, the TV tower, stands. Chunks of the Berlin Wall too can be found all over the city. Berlin's achitecture blends classic, modern, communist and even the occasional Nazi-style building. My tour guide highlighted throughout the day that more so than almost any other city, Berlin hasn't shirked from its history, but has taken responsibility for it. The city abounds in memorials to victims of Nazicism, or those who died scaling the Berlin Wall. When thinking about this I realised it was present too in German filmmaking. Some of the most internationally successful German movies of the last decade are films such as Downfall, Goodbye Lenin!, and The Lives of Others; all of which explore difficult periods of Germany's past. As I took a visit to Berlin's Museum of Film and Television I realised that German film can always be seen to have reflected its history, more so than the film culture of other nations.

The early '20s saw the success of films such as The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (incidentally, my favourite silent film) and FW Murnau's Nosferatu. Both significant films for the horror genre, the museum highlighted it was hardly surprising that such a genre should flourish in the years following the loss of WWI. As Germany moved into the modern age, Fritz Lang's Metropolis, a cautionary tale about modernity, gained international success and remains one of the most well-known films from that era. The early '30s were the era of Marlene Dietrich, both in German and American film. Dietrich herself was the symbol of Weimar Germany; liberal, confident and sexually ambiguous. Her defection to the US signalled the end of liberalism in German cinema, while the rise of directors such as Leni Riefenstahl ushered in a new era of cinema as propaganda. Riefenstahl's documentary style in particular, seen in films such as Triumph of the Will and Olympia, indicated a new seriousness in the German psyche. But beyond here unfortunately there is a yawning gap in my knowledge of German cinema. As far as I can tell, following WWII the German film industry remained quiet for about 30 years (I'm very happy to be corrected on this by someone who knows more than I do). But even if this is so, we can read a lack of prominent cinema as a reflection of German society too. It shows us a society consumed with its rebuilding and paralysed by its fracturing. Given the importance of cinematic propaganda to the Nazis we could also see the apparent abandonment of the film industry as a distancing of the country from this past.

Unfortunately, the Museum of Film did little to educate me on this topic. Organised chronologically, the museums exhibition of German cinema between the wars (including 3 whole rooms dedicated to Marlene Dietrich) was spectacular, but German cinema post-WWII is confined to only 2 rooms. Disappointing too was that the temporary exhibition (which seemed like a pretty cool exhibition on the figure of the hero) was only in German. There wasn't even much on the difference between East and West cinema - if much of one existed at all. I found this particularly strange given how much the division features in other areas of Berlin's culture. The only other real success of the museum was the architecture of the building itself, which seemed to reflect German history. Some parts with exposed and damaged brick walls; a reminder of the heavy bombing suffered in WWII, other parts floor to ceiling mirrors; representing the East/West division, others still modern steel and glass showcasing Germany's emergence as a European superpower. That such attention could be payed to the interior design, rather than on the exhibition post-1945 only reinforces my view that it's only recently that German cinema has regained international prominence, and that, still mindful of its damaging use in Nazicism, the content of German cinema today seeks to apologise and make sense of past atrocities.

To end with something a little more light-hearted, a clip from one of my favourite German films of the last decade. Enjoyhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBhaXQ3UaDo

Cinematic Adventures Around the World - Part 2: New York

Oh New York. A city altogether more sophisticated with its relationship to cinema than Los Angeles. Not that the cities aren't without their similarities in their depictions on film. Most notably in the way they are both shown to be cities of extremes. LA with its glamorous movie stars and underlying racism, NYC as the world of Marty Scorsese's gangsters and loners against Woody Allen's neurotic, intellectual flanerie. Manhattan certainly seems to be divided along extreme lines, but in reality seemed to be full of more hipsters and homeless than the works of those two filmmakers would suggest.

The differences between LA and NY I found more in the cities' relationships to the film industry. While LA seems to focus more on the high concept side of cinema; blockbusters and stars, New York is more well-rounded in its acceptance of varying types of film. I was able to catch a couple of films at the TriBeCa Film Festival and at both screenings directors and writers showed up for Q&A sessions after. This seems to be pretty common for New York, but something I know to be a rare and special treat at film festivals in Australia. It seems to perpetuate the idea that New Yorkers are more intellectual than their West Coast counterparts. While people in the film industry block out commoners in LA with their high walls, CCTV cameras and security guards, in New York they will happily mingle with them. But perhaps this acceptance by the film industry of New Yorkers is the cause and not just the effect of their supposed filmic sophistication.

The Museum of the Moving Image in NY too seems to support their elitist film attitudes. I found no such museums in LA, instead only studio tours implicitly indication the city's preference for celebrating the producers rather than the artists. The studio tours seemed to place their focus on the major advancements in special effects of the last 20 years which, while spectacular, didn't really leave me feeling that I'd learned that much about cinema's history or future direction. The Museum of the Moving Image however focused on no aspect of cinema specifically; instead it featured a chronology of film, from its birth out of the vaudevillian entertainment scene to today. It showed advances in technology, like a display of movie cameras and projectors from the late 1800s to the middle of the 20th century, and sections on each stage of the filmmaking process, from sound editing to make-up to merchandising, highlighting the collaborative aspect of filmmaking. It also had temporary exhibits of installation and performance art utilising new media and showing the evolution of film as art. Overall it depicted a view of the moving image that was equal parts art and entertainment, unlike LAs studio tours which focus on the cinema of attractions; special effects and stars.

Yet despite this I can't say that I have an entirely positive view of film and New York. Though I really appreciated the filmmaker Q&As at TriBeCa, the majority of the questions asked of the makers were pretentious and featured long-winded explanations of the viewers personal interpretation of the film. The most pretentious receiving a round of applause from the other viewers. While it's true New York has a much better and broader film culture than LA, my gosh, don't they just know it?

Cinematic Adventures Around the World - Part 1: LA

Firstly a warning; though my title says "Part 1: LA" I have no intention of writing an entry for every city and in all liklihood this will be the only one I bother to write while travelling.

When talking about my trip before I left home a lot of people warned me to get out of LA as soon as I could. No one outside of LA seems to like it. But being interested in film history I figured I at least needed to spend a few days there. Although I didn't hate my time in LA, and was never bored, there's no denying that the city's seeming lack of personality and soul meant it didn't endear itself to me. It took me days to figure out what LA was all about, what its thing was, and even now I'm not sure I've got it right. As far as personality and culture goes, LA is Hollywood and nothing more. The film industry which fuelled the city's development seemingly robbed it of the chance to be anything more than that.

You can't do a sight-seeing tour without being dragged through the hills at a crawl to glimpse celebrities' houses and cars. Every landmark visited is accompanied by the phrase "you might remember this from movies such as..." Walking through Chinatown I found this:


The pole is in the way. Guess which Jackie Chan "Best Seller Movie" it is!

 Venice Beach, famous for its murals features one of what the area would have looked like in the late 19th century. This mural includes Charlie Chaplin, who wouldn't have been famous until decades later. This choronological inaccuracy reflects the city's inability to remember its own existence before the movies.




Yes the villain from Kindergarten Cop


 My cynicism towards the city's celebrity worship was the reason behind my ironic excitement about meeting Richard Tyson =>
and my reason for only taking a photo of Boyz II Men on Hollywood Boulevard. But perhaps even this parody justifies the culture.







I think the thing that bothered me most about LA was its people's lack of respect for the privacy of its celebrities failures. My tour guide cheerfully pointed out the intersection where Halle Berry did a hit and run, and the Saks Fifth Ave. where Winona Ryder was caught shoplifting. Souvenir stores too boast "maps to movies stars homes and crime scenes". With the city's inhabitants so willing to air its dirty laundry and flog its misfortune for profit it's no wonder LA comes across as soulless. But if the film industry has destroyed LA's chance of a real history and culture, perhaps its inhabitants are justified in milking it for all its worth.

For those who are intersted in the relationship between LA and Hollywood I would highly recommend a documentary called Los Angeles Plays Itself. The entire thing is on Youtube.

It's hard to read, but yes, they have a star. Yes it is the only one I photographed.

Hunger Games: Battle Royale for the whole family

Right now as I post this cinemas Australia over are about to play their first screenings of the latest novel-turned-big-film franchise to hit us: The Hunger Games. This film seemed to come out of nowhere for me. I’d never even heard of the books until the first film posters arrived at my work a few months back, but since then I’ve done a little research (though admittedly, really couldn’t be bothered reading the books) and gotten a little outraged (as I am prone to do). Now, if the phrase “it’s the new Twilight” hasn’t been enough to put you off yet, here’s some other reasons why you should not give The Hunger Games your monies.

1. It’s Kinda a Rip-Off

I read an article on The Hunger Games a week or so ago that suggested the film had “a touch” of the Japanese classic novel/graphic novel/film Battle Royale about it. I had to read that sentence twice. If by “a touch” the journalist meant “the entire freaking plot was ripped off” I think he’d hit a little closer to the mark. If the two stories had nothing more in common than ‘people forced to kill each other’ I wouldn’t have such an issue, but once you include the young age of the contestants in the competition, the fictional dystopian and militarised future portrayed, the competition as punishment for rebellion against an all-powerful system, and the broadcast of the events, the worlds depicted start to seem alarmingly similar. What’s more, in both cases the protagonists desire to win is motivated both by developing romantic feelings for another contestant, and care of and sacrifice for a sibling after the loss of their father. I’m not a spoiler, but the endings too have far much more in common than they do different.

2. It’s Battle Royale for Nannas

A lot of what I’ve read about The Hunger Games alludes to the films high level of violence compared with other tween fare such as Twilight. But the thing I find most concerning is how a film featuring such confronting and violent subject matter has only achieved an M rating (and even only a PG13 in the US). The extent to which The Hunger Games has been watered down and romanticized is its primary point of difference from Battle Royale. The deaths onscreen in The Hunger Games are all clean and neat, not to mention unrealistic for such a situation. While the set up of Battle Royale is every bit as extreme and unrealistic, commendably the film displays realistic character actions in such a scenario and doesn’t shy away from the situation’s necessary brutality. Teen sexuality too is far more interestingly examined in Battle Royale. While the manipulation of sexuality for gain is touched on in The Hunger Games, where Katniss stages feelings for Peeta to garner audience sympathy, in Battle Royale sex itself becomes both a weapon and a weakness for the contestants. This is all the more surprising when you consider the fact that Battle Royale intentionally used actors of the correct ages, limiting the amount of sexuality the film could include, while The Hunger Games uses 21yos. The use of older actors in The Hunger Games could once again be seen as an attempt by the filmmakers to limit the confronting nature of the story. Though I’m not exactly sure I want to advocate high violence movies for tweens, arguably romanticizing violence for a youth audience is far more dangerous than letting them see the explicit and realistic stuff up front.

3. It’s Kinda Shallow

Aside from the realistic and confronting world portrayed, the main reason for my respect of Battle Royale, compared to something like The Hunger Games, is the extent to which the film is such a perfect allegory of the social climate in which it was produced. The book was written in Japan in 1999, in the aftermath of the bursting of the bubble economy. Though the book is set in a dystopian future, many of the social problems depicted were those facing Japanese youth at the time of the book’s release. High levels of unemployment impacted on depression and suicide rates, leaving Japanese teenagers with few adult role models and a negative outlook for their futures. Rising distrust in education led to teenage behavioural issues in schools, like those depicted in the film. School leavers found it almost impossible to gain employment, with the competition for jobs reflecting the competition for life in Battle Royale. Comparatively, The Hunger Games does not fare well for broader underlying themes. The most interesting point the books seem to make concerns contemporary society’s obsession with voyeurism and publicly humiliating competition. But this too is prevalent in Battle Royale, written almost a decade before The Hunger Games. It took the place of foreshadowed warning in the late ‘90s, but by 2012 such a metaphor seems both obvious and shallow. Beyond this, even from interviews with Suzanne Collins herself, the only other themes I can gather from the story are along the lines of “war is bad” and “poverty is bad”. Even the film’s intended audience of teens is surely a little beyond this.

4. Complete Lack of Beat Takeshi

So your film has Stanley Tucci, Woody Harrelson, Donald Sutherland and hell, even Lenny Kravitz? Still doesn’t have the cool power of this guy:

So Badass

Ok. So I’ve done a whole lotta ragging on The Hunger Games here, now its time to give a little back. I accept that this film is going to top the box office, and I’m glad because I genuinely would rather teenage girls watch this than Twilight. But chances are if you’re reading this blog you’re probably a little over the target age-range for this film. So if you’re over 18, please ditch the kid’s version of this story :)

Hugo: A Scorsese Film Through and Through

In the lead up to Hugo I’ve read a number of articles and reviews posing the question; can Martin Scorsese do a kids film? I never really viewed that particular question as one worth asking, and having now seen Hugo my suspicions have been confirmed. Though perhaps best known by some for his gangster pictures and his thrillers, Scorsese has never been a director to shy away from certain genres. A film aimed at a younger audience is one of the very few types he was yet to tackle in his long career.

Instead the central element to Scorsese’s entire body of work, in my opinion, is the presence of a male, socially-isolated protagonist. One who either lives outside of society or is trapped within one that doesn’t understand him and that he can never fit in with. Across all Scorsese’s genres we can see this character from Travis Bickle in Taxi Driver, to Henry Hill in Goodfellas, from Jake La Motta in Raging Bull, to Newland Archer in The Age of Innocence. These characters allow Scorsese to explore his central themes of masculinity and its implicit melancholia.

Hugo Cabret in Hugo is the natural progression of Scorsese’s work, exploring the birth of this melancholia as a boy comes of age. For Hugo it begins with the loss of his father and the resentment of his uncle as an unsatisfactory replacement. All Hugo’s failures of masculinity serve as reminders to him of his grief. His impotence becomes intricately linked with his pathos. His search for a replacement father leads him to idolise George Melies, though he too is another example of Scorsese’s flawed and isolated males, denying his past work as an artist since becoming less successful than he used to be. He also befriends Isabelle, a girl who despite her cheery demeanour has clearly lived a childhood as isolated as his own, and prefers the company of books to other people. Additionally, despite the friends he makes throughout the film he continues to be forever in public and rarely noticed.

Even the film’s happy ending masks the continuation of Hugo’s sense of isolation and loss. His success is in facilitating George’s acceptance of his past and the re-emerging of his films, but Hugo himself stagnates. Though by the end he has discovered the mystery of the automaton and delved into the idealised past of Melies’ films, he does this with the continued aim of reconnecting with his father, an aim that can never be realised. Hugo finds companionship but never accepts a replacement father-figure or moves on from his grief, ensuring his continued melancholia and sense of impotence.

This lack of conclusion for his suffering males is another recurring element in Scorsese’s work. Henry Hill hates suburban life after selling out his friends, Teddy Daniels in Shutter Island refuses to accept reality, Newland Archer ultimately refuses to break with social convention despite a life-long opposition. Though overall Hugo is an uplifting film, its protagonist carries a masculine melancholia that makes it Scorsese through and through.

What I'm Watching This Christmas

I don’t know about you, but Christmas Eve for me is always a time of ignoring my family to retreat to my room to watch Christmas movies and await my presents the next day. If you’re like me and looking for something to watch tonight, here’s a list of Christmas movies that don’t suck

1. It’s A Wonderful Life (1946)

A classic for a very good reason. Jimmy Stewart (aka the love of my life) is miserable on Christmas Eve and considering ending it all when he’s visited by an angel/hobo who shows him how much worse everyone would be if he’d never been born. The fact that it’s about suicide stops it from being too soppy and just the right level of heart-warming.

2. Love Actually (2003)

I feel it would be entirely unnecessary to explain this film so let’s just cut to why it doesn’t suck. It’s cheesy in a way where you know that the film is laughing with you. There are a few ridiculous moments but the film doesn’t take them too seriously. Most importantly not everyone ends up happy – a necessary element for me to enjoy a romantic comedy. Plus, it is impossible for ALAN RICKMAN to suck. Fact.

3. Home Alone (1990)

To remind you that there was once a time when Macaulay Culkin was cute rather than kinda creepy and that even if you find your family unbearable on Christmas Day, your parents could be less competent. Also, great ideas for how to protect your home if dim-witted bandits are trying to rob you. RIP John Hughes – Patron Saint of Youth Angst

4. A Muppet Christmas Carol (1992)

I freaking LOVE Muppets! A classic Christmas tale turned into a musical and narrated by The Great Gonzo, what more could a girl want for Christmas? In my opinion this film is quite possibly Michael Caine’s finest work.

5. Die Hard (1988)

First, thanks to my friend Ed for reminding me what a great Christmas film this is. For those who think that something soppy like Love Actually might just induce vomiting, comes a heart warming tale about a family reunited by terrorists just in time for Christmas. Not to mention it provides me with the double dose of ALAN RICKMAN required for a perfect holiday season. I know what I’ll be watching tonight.

Merry Christmas guys

Three Musketeers

The latest version of The Three Musketeers by Paul W.S. Anderson can best be described as a little bit embarrassing. I was never expecting a traditionalist re-telling, so the flying ships and machine guns didn’t bother me. What bothered me was that I was expecting something totally ridiculous that was at least fun to watch. Instead it was something totally ridiculous that often induced cringes and impassioned sobs of ‘Why?’

The three titular characters are not half-bad, played with some competence and sense of character by their respective actors, but Logan Lerman as D’Artagnan irritated me throughout. He was so Hollywood that even in this Hollywood-ised, explosion-filled version of the tale he seemed out of place. His accent and mannerisms could not even briefly be removed from a 21^st century Hollywood setting.

On the issue of accents, it certainly takes you out of the world of the film when you realise that every character has a different one. Having a mix of French, German, British and American accents, while modernist is just confusing. I know that making all the actors put on French accents would sound a bit too ‘Allo ‘Allo,  but surely there’s a middle ground somewhere.

I also thought this film might be something of a career revival for Orlando Bloom, following getting cut from the last Pirates of the Caribbean and, to the best of my knowledge, having not really done anything of note in 4 years. But despite the fact that he appears to be having a lot of fun with this he can’t seem to get over the hurdle that he’s not a particularly talented actor. He does an ok job, but he needs to put some work in if he still wants to be getting gigs when he’s 40+.

Christoph Waltz however, as Richelieu makes a perfectly acceptable villain (as always) and Freddie Fox is pretty good as King Louis XIII, though I must say that the facial hair on a 14-year old confused me throughout. Mostly because a joke is never made of it despite the set-up being there.

Possibly the biggest problem with the film is that its script panders to the lowest common denominator. There are far too many moments when character motivations are stated plainly in the dialogue, leaving absolutely no room for audience interpretation. Although it’s a common affliction of mainstream cinema, it does bother me when a film assumes that its viewers are such sociopaths that they can’t interpret human emotion on their own.

Visually the film at least delivers, with plenty of opulent sets and explosions to keep most viewers happy. Thankfully, Anderson also knows that 3D doesn’t just mean stuff flying out of the screen. The 3D is subtle and inoffensive, largely being used to add depth rather than assault the corneas.

The film is not completely devoid of fun, but the sheer level of ridiculousness you need to accept to gain access to that fun was usually beyond the capacity of this viewer. Should have gone with my gut and seen Contagion instead.