Change Your Image
Scott-344
Reviews
Brainwashed: Sex-Camera-Power (2022)
A risible piece of misandry
Menkes lays out her premise early on: the portrayal of women in film leads to discrimination in the workplace and to rape. My question then is did discrimination and rape begin in the silent era--or did men wait to begin committing atrocities against women until "The Jazz Singer" and talking pictures?
The concept of the "male gaze" began with one reference in one academic paper by a feminist film theorist/critic, and it's been distorted ever since, especially in pieces like this film. Yes, the male point of view is predominant throughout much of film history, though that's changing. But no, seeing women as male characters and/or male filmmakers see them isn't some inherently malign attempt at subjugation--a naive interpretation of authorial voice--but rather an expression of biological and psychological reality. Heterosexual men like looking at attractive women, be those women showgirls or CEOs.
Polemicists like Menkes often use inexactitudes in our language to exploit words like "objectification." An honest description of male desire and arousal by the sight of a woman wouldn't equate sexual desire with interest in objects (though there's room in this world for people of whatever gender to be turned on by any manner of actual objects), but rather with evolution-driven and healthy biology. Men see women's bodies and faces as--wait for it--desirable human anatomy. I may see an ice sculpture of a woman and find its shape appealing as art, but I don't want to have sex with it. It's an object, not a woman. Not by any stretch of my imagination do I think of objects as responsive human beings whose bodies arouse me. (I suppose Menkes could argue that men who find sex dolls erotic are guilty of objectification, but that seems more relevant to an analysis of fetishism than the real problems of workplace discrimination and sexual assault.)
Halfway through the film Menkes reveals that she had the privilege of going to UCLA for her graduate degree in film and could throw around money so she could get exclusive use of facilities. Okay, fine. There are plenty of spoiled people around. But then she complains that she didn't know how to dress on dates and that was because of the movies. She proceeds to show us some photos of herself wearing ill-fitting and unflattering outfits. I'd say, Menkes, if you felt you wanted to look good on dates and didn't know how, then you should've asked someone for help; perhaps you could've slipped someone with fashion sense a twenty. You looked attractive and fine and I'm sure there were men who would have, and did, find you to be an "object" of desire, i.e, appreciated you as a sexually arousing female human being. I hope that brought you joy. But the oppression you say you experienced then wasn't because there were attractive actresses showing their bodies in movies, but rather because of systemic inequality. Younger women are getting chances in the film industry that you never had. Don't begrudge them the freedom to embrace or satirize or criticize heteronormative behavior on their own terms. Don't try to be the sex police (a criticism you try to head off, a bit of defensiveness which in itself is telling).
I understand that Menkes is rightfully, frustrated and angry over discrimination from male studio executives. But that has more to do with the content of male studio executives' character than the content of the films she's carefully chosen--cherry-picked. Her revenge seems to be an attempt at some kind of thought-police. In fact, one of her interviewees goes so far as to instruct filmmakers on what they "should" do. Beware those who would impose their whims on others. The "should" authoritarians gave us Stalin and Mao. The results were deadly.
Menkes ignores so many counter examples I don't know where to begin, but... Brad Pitt showing off his body for the benefit of the female gaze in "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood," likewise "Daniel Craig in "Casino Royale," and John Cena in "Trainwreck." Men's great-looking bodies are increasingly "objectified" in the movies. I say that's terrific. Maybe I don't have Daniel Craig's physique, but I don't have to wallow in self-pity because of it.
I watched the film with a woman who has her own graduate degree in communications. She said that had she presented this film's thesis to her professors it would've been torn apart, perhaps laughed out of the room. The film was an insult to her as a woman who has fought for equality and endured terrible acts of misogyny. She left the room about halfway through. That indictment was far stronger than anything I might add.
The Anarchists (2022)
Could Just As Easily Be Called "The Idiots"
Episode 5 Update: I want to be fair to the show. Four stars out of ten doesn't mean terrible, but rather low mediocre. There are so many ideas that could have been explored here, but the main threads aren't about philosophical ideas or interesting personalities, but rather about greedy or foolish or alcoholic people who think they're on the road to utopia. I watch because I want to respect the work of the filmmakers... but this still isn't adding up to much. Contrary to the series' title, its promise, it's not about anarchy. Some episodes are about how bitcoin swindlers can hijack a concept (Anarchapulco). Other episodes are about bad things happening to people who've made bad decisions and at the same time been burned by life and by others. Yet other episodes are about grief. The series is a bit of a rambling mess. It's become background music to me, even though I really wanted to see an exciting exploration of anarchy. --
Anarcho-capitalism only works in a world in which homesteading can legitimately be practiced. In other words, not on earth. It's basically the philosophy of "I'm in the lifeboat, pull in the lifelines."
The people in this doc are very un-Randian takers and losers, not builders. The alcoholic quasi-leader Jeff Berwick made enough money to sail around the world before starting his little cult in Acupulco. Where did his money come from? Wealthy investors pouring money into his '90s dot-com that went bankrupt a few years later because his dot-com business was actually vapor, nothing, hot air. His partner in the venture tried to kill himself by jumping from the eighth floor of a building... but somehow failed. And yet, hobbling on crutches, he was able to recommend a book ("The Creature From Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve") to Berwick that set him to thinking how great it would to be totally free. You know, to have other people do stuff for you while you drink on your boat that you bought after the company that you openly admit you had no idea how to run lost all its value for other investors but whose structure allowed you to escape with the loot.
Another set of winners is a young couple facing decades in prison for a 2015 pot bust who decide to become fugitives... and get money from their family to go on the run to Acupulco. You know, just like true entrepreneurs do. (This couple is somewhat sympathetic to me, though. I hope they shed some of the battiness around them and have a decent life.)
And then there are Berwick's organizers (because Berwick knows how to open a bottle of hooch but not much else of practical value), a couple from Georgia who advocate "unschooling." Because what good is a society where people might actually learn a thing or two that isn't just based on their childish whims? In fact, when your child gets an illness or a serious injury, who cares if your unschooled, untaxed society hasn't provided roads, ambulances, medical training, money for biotech research? You can simply heal your kid with herbs from your tomato patch, right? The one your parents wired you the money for.
Yes, government can be a problem. It definitely overreaches. But government is nothing more than an organizing principle, a means to resolve disputes and to provide defense, including from environmental disaster. The "anarchists" spewing nonsense here want to tear down American democracy so they can start over. In other words, they have absolutely no concern for the disabled, for the elderly, for anyone at all who will get mowed down as society is destroyed. Theirs is a sociopath's philosophy.
I'm barely two episodes in. As the filmmaker spent six years making this, starting with his initial flirtation with anarchy, i'm not quite sure if he'll have the chops to provide reasonable counter arguments to the nonsensical arguments put forward by this motley crew. As my headline suggests, I think these people reveal their naivete every time they open their mouths, but it would still be nice to hear a sober perspective.
JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass (2021)
CONSPIRACIES? SURE. BUT NOT THIS DULL NONSENSE
I've admired some of Olive Stone's work, but he is just a dog with a bone when it comes to disproved JFK assassination conspiracy theories. And he continues to try to make a buck be lying about the evidence. Recent ballistics tests show exactly how Oswald fired three shots from his book-carton walled-off sniper's west in the book depository. There was not "magic" in any bullet nor is the first bullet "pristine." Kennedy and Connelly were not sitting in a direct line, but Connelly was diagonally in from of the president. And Oswald shot the men from behind because that's how you shoot a president if you hope to get away with it. The problem I've had with the "Grassy Knoll" tramps/shooters theories over the years isn't just the ballistics, but that any professional assassins lying in wait there would have to be complete idiots to think they could get away with the crime; I doubt they could tie their shoes let alone hitting a moving target. I don't doubt there where many people who wanted JFK dead, and probably many who conspired with others to that end (we know of plans or attempts in Chicago, Tampa, and even in Palm Beach as early as December 1960), but Lee Harvey Oswald, hoping to be a hero of Cuba, beat them all to the punch. There were cover-ups and lies around the Warren Commission Report. The FBI lied about tracking Oswald to cover their ass. CIA lied about assassination attempts on Castro. Reasonable people have reasonable grounds to be suspicious. But when you step back from the cottage industry of conspiracy books and movies, you find that the mundane conclusion that Oswald acted alone holds up. He was a wannabe Communist hero. He was an abusive and estranged husband. He killed a cop as he tried to get out of town. He was, in some respects, like some of the fringe QAnon supporters we see spouting their nonsense today. Oliver Stone, I know you'll never give up this bone, but know that people who used to respect you think you're doing more harm than good these days.
Minnie and Moskowitz (1971)
I don't want these characters to be together
I saw M&M as a teen at the Orson Welles Cinema in Cambridge, MA on a double-bill with Preston Sturges's "Sullivan's Travels." Sturges's film largely stayed with me, but beyond the feel of its handheld camerawork Cassavetes's film was forgotten. Watching it recently, as an adult who realizes an earlier world that thought threats of violence against women could be cute or quirky was not a world worth sustaining, I think I would have been better off leaving this one in the ash heap. Cassavetes is an icon of indie cinema, but I wonder is it enough for him to have directed wonderful performances (and they are), while leaving the greater questions of our responsibilities to other humans out of the picture? Do artists have any responsibility? (Does Hemingway bear any responsibility for legitimating anti-Semitism in "The Sun Also Rises" and other works?) Yes, women have stayed with and been attracted to abusive men, but did it ever cross Cassavetes's mind that in the interest of his version realism, or his deconstructing cinematic myths, he was missing a theme that really screams out from this movie: M&M is not a screwball beauty and the beast; it's a screaming-fit beauty and the abuser, for an abuser is what Moskowitz, cutesy eccentricities aside, really is. I'm not charmed seeing the abuser win the heart of the abused in this film. I'm deeply saddened.
Truth Is the Only Client: The Official Investigation of the Murder of John F. Kennedy (2019)
Inconvenient truths are still true
An excellent compilation of interviews with surviving members of the Warren Commission staff and other investigators and witnesses. Conspiracy theories are addressed, including what some regard as a loose end -- was there a link between Oswald and organized crime figure Carlos Marcello? As a one-time advocate of the conspiracy school -- too many shady occurrences, right? Too many cover-ups by CIA and the FBI, no? -- I'm pleased and relieved that the men of the commission and the late former prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi have diligently continued to present the facts and rebutted speculation and myriad conspiracy theories. I accept that there were men who hated Kennedy and perhaps some who were conspiring to kill him, but I also accept beyond a shadow of a doubt that Lee Harvey Oswald beat them all to the punch and acted alone on November 22, 1963. There are plenty of reasons to be skeptical about "official" positions, but the Warren Commission's work should no longer be one of those reasons.
Mein Name ist Fleming, Ian Fleming (2015)
Nice retelling of Fleming's legacy
I enjoyed this. I spent a good deal of my youth (and, okay, adulthood) obsessed with James Bond, and that obsession has allowed me to meet Bond authors (John Pearson, Jeffery Deaver) and performers and crew (Moore and Lazenby and editor/director Peter Hunt, and several of the Bond actresses, including a memorable tea with Nadja Regan) and win prizes in Bond trivia contests, and to work on several Bond documentaries for home video releases. So there aren't too many surprises a film like this is going to deliver. But there are good interviews -- Fleming family members, the daughter of one of the publishers at Jonathan Cape, "Solo" author William Boyd, and, interestingly, two women who recently translated Fleming's novels for new German editions. I was amused by the views of one opinionated Bond devotee who is aghast that M was recast as a woman because, he claims, this ruins the dynamic of Bond as sexist womanizer. His opinion is contrasted with that of the German translators, who find the original incarnation of Bond to be rather romantic. (In defense of the old school Bond devotee, I do understand there's a father-son-dynamic between Bond and M, with Bond constantly trying to prove himself, but I also think it's fair to say that the Craig films handle the Bond-female M relationship well -- Bond is still seeking parental approval, and having a female boss does little to hamper his love life.) There's some solid Fleming-related location photography, and all in all it's a pleasant view, like a visit from an old friend.
The Ballad of Buster Scruggs (2018)
Well, they took the lens cap off, but not a film for the suicidal
The Coen brothers occasionally come off as teenage boys ripping the wings off of flies for the sheer... humor of it. "Buster Scruggs" is one of those occasions.
If your point is the pointlessness of human relations, then your film might very well be pointless. C'mon, Coens. We get it. Everybody dies. And you two are frequently amused by the pain and suffering that precedes the deaths of other human beings. Fine. I guess there's nothing objectively wrong about that approach to storytelling. The writing instructor John Gardner once counseled his students to be aware that some of their readers might be contemplating suicide, and to proceed with humanity, empathy, and, perhaps, a point. But that was just the opinion of someone with humanity, empathy, and a point. The Coen brothers are free to make their brand of ironic film school-like drivel all they want. You see, greed is a thing (news flash), and people kill because of greed -- and our clever Coen brothers can even fashion a punchline when those killings happen. At least two of the episodes in "BS" are literally just set-ups to a punchline. (I just saved you two hours and 13 minutes.)
The Coen brothers have avoided the sociopath path a few times in their career. "Fargo" with its wonderful female protagonist had some humanity along with the funny deaths. "No Country for Old Men" explored the burden of violence on the decent. I think that was more Cormac McCarthy than Coen brothers. "The Big Lebowski" was a romp, and original. "Hail, Caesar!" was a romp, but unoriginal.
More frequently in the Coens' career it's been a matter of finding the funny last image seen by a dying human being. A leaky sink in "Blood Simple." A bullet wound in one's body in "Buster Scruggs." Funny stuff. If you're a clever prepubescent boy with a movie camera but no conscience.
I will credit the film for not mucking up its look. Of course, it is hard to make some of the most beautiful locations on earth look ugly, but to their credit the Coens avoided the temptation to do so (because... irony). Three stars for that.
Orson Welles once told a film school class that every film is a political statement. That seemed a bit pretentious to me at first, but I think at heart he was right. Comedies and musicals provide sheer joy -- something for the political order to protect. Mysteries and thrillers warn against the dark side of human nature -- something for the political order to protect against. Dramas explore our humanity -- again something else for the political order to protect. But with the Coens nothing is worth anything. You may think that the one life you have is at least worth living, but nope -- to the Coens anything that might give life meaning, even if for only a moment or two, is fodder for cackling derision. And when everything is meaningless there's really nothing for anyone, whether an individual or the political order, to protect. In Coen World, you're nothing more than a punchline.
Red Sparrow (2018)
Russian bots and apologists hate it -- Americans who know spy movies will enjoy
Spy movies in a le Carré vein can be judged on how well they handle issues of deceit and personal loyalty. "Red Sparrow" does a solid job of creating a plot that's complex, making us wonder who's deceiving whom, without being so jumbled it doesn't make sense. Solid performances, directing, and -- this I admire -- clear and impactful editing of fight scenes earn this a solid recommendation from me, an aficionado of spy movies. 4 stars out 5, 8 out of 10 for IMDB.
The film is violent and sexy in the way "Marathon Man" was in the '70s, and while there's no villain here as memorable as Laurence Olivier's Nazi dentist Zel, there are some nice supporting characters. Performances are first rate. Accents didn't bother me one bit. This is an American film geared toward English-speaking audiences. It doesn't need to have dialogue in Russian, as one clueless reviewer suggested. (I think there was one line in Russian at the beginning) Gimmicks like the one used at the beginning of "The Hunt for Red October" -- Connery et al speaking Russian until the moment the camera pushes into Connery's mouth and then pulls back and the rest of the movie is in English -- are fine, but not necessary. We've been there and done that. It's good to just get going with the story with dialogue we can understand.
I love non-realistic Bond movies for their action, humor, and production value, and I also love gritty spy films like "The Spy Who Came in from the Cold" and "Three Days of the Condor" (even though Condor is a pure political statement -- unrelated to the actual world of CIA in any way). "Red Sparrow" falls somewhere in-between Bond and grittier '60s and '70s spy films. If you're a puritan who hates male and female nudity, then stick with Nickelodeon. And if you're a Russian kleptocrat's lackey who hates the way this film portrays the bankruptcy of modern Russia, then stick with... I don't know... "Battleship Potemkim."
Reviewers who give "Red Sparrow" one-star either have an agenda unrelated to film reviewing on their minds, or they don't know what they're talking about. "Red Sparrow" is a worthy entry in the spy movie canon.
Julia (1977)
Brilliant acting, directing... and a script by Alvin Sargent to be studied and treasured.
"Julia" holds a special place in my heart. It was one of the first times I read a screenplay before seeing the film and was completely enthralled -- in suspense and moved to tears. Notice how characterization drives the slowly building suspense culminating in a fantastic third act devoid of pyrotechnics or gimmicks. (Never mind that the story is almost 100% fiction; this is adaptation at its finest.)
A well-deserved Oscar-winner for Alvin Sargent, the script belongs on any screen writing student's bookshelf alongside "Chinatown" and "Ordinary People" two other Oscar-winners from the era.
Confession - by "era" I mean from my USC screen writing class, where I also read terrific scripts like "Marathon Man" (the Hoffman-Devane-Keller lunch scene a textbook example of "reversal" writing), "Breaking Away" and "Cutter's Way."
The Night Before (2015)
A Movie to Make You Hate Movies
Horrible script, flat performances, directionless direction. I sat through this entire travesty because, well, sometimes you want to know what all the fuss with "Plan 9 From Outer Space" was about. This movie has everything: Actors standing in place reciting meaningless, unfunny dialogue. A camera that occasionally and for no reason repeatedly encircles the three leads. Every "shock" cliché that's been in far better efforts of the last 20 years. In fact, it's not that this is a movie that will make you hate movies, it very likely will make you hate life. Highly recommended (to my enemies). Everyone else, skip this one; you'll be happier on your death bed.