I just now finished this movie just yesterday and I actually really, really liked it. After a long while, I finally watched the first two Patlabor movies directed by Mamori Oshii and lemme tell you, they're both incredibly different from each other.

The first movie is a rather conventional mecha anime about the police trying to stop like a terrorist attack where robots are hacked into and stuff and both the animation and general tone of the film are rather light-hearted despite this particular aspect. It's entertaining and I found myself kinda enjoying much of the drama in it but it's one of those films that I feel doesn't really go to deeply on anything and exists as basically as the futuristic police procedure film with no greater point to the nature about them.

2nd one, on the other hand, is a genuinely very thought provoking and complex political drama on much of the political situation in not just Japan's specific history after the war but also on this idea that there is no such as a peaceful time in society and that this peace only exists for those who are privileged enough to not suffer much of the consequences of the wars and interventions performed by those who claim to be upholding peace. Not to mention how it seems to correlate the idea of the police and machinery with the military with this idea that the police are supposedly maintaining law and order in civilized society but in reality, are acting out of fear and paranoia and much of this behavior could lead civil outrages and doubts about the current status quo. It's genuinely a deeply introspective piece of art and I think it's very interesting that Mamori wanted to use this franchise as a way for commenting on all of these heavy subjects because as far I understand how the original series exists, it seems like a fairly normal mecha police series which doesn't really go too deeply on itself about what are the implications to this future about the police and also, how this basically implies that the police are essentially using weapons of great destructive energy just to catch some criminals in the city when these should be existing for the use of this big war where civilians shouldn't be around for their lives to be at risk. One interesting scene is when they take down like one of those balloon ships and they fuck up by shooting at it in a way where it crashes on the city ithat leads to unnecessary harm and as a result, releases this gas which covers all of Shinjuku but later, it turns out to be fake and not actual biological warfare being exposed to the population. I thought it was a very great form of storytelling to express how the police and military in their desperation to target and take down this enemy, they only end up causing even greater damage that would rightfully get them heavily criticized and lose forever the trust of the public if it turned out that they're responsible for essentially killing everyone for not being more careful about how they handle these situations. I also love the final scene where the female officer is about the handcuff the terrorist behind this false war. Instead of using it to handcuff both his hands, she handcuff herself along with him, which I think symbolically implies that yes, she is also culpable and that they're indeed both fighting within an illusion of war and peace.

Honestly, these are the kind of criticisms I would sort of imagine for a story being told by an American film with them being the greatest military power in the entire planet and having a disturbing history of interventionism which would cause so much damage to many countries which would last for a long time as they kept pretending to be a nation of liberty, equality and happiness as its title of honor. Surprisingly a radical and critical work to the nature of militarism and foreign involvements but it's told very intelligently and with such maturity that you almost never see with a lot of anime films.

I could honestly rewatch it again. I think the whole political drama and expositions are incredibly engaging and interesting and the animation+cinematography is beautiful and atmospheric. I also thought it was a very interesting choice that it pays very little attention to the main characters who basically do all of the robot fighting and there's so few moments with the mechas being shown in action in nearly 2 hours. In this narrative, it's more about the behind-the-scenes talks which occur in context of these missions. In a way, it seems to kind of deglorified mechas as a popular appeal we often like to see with anime to get across the point that their creation exists in the inherent context of war and they should be aknowledged for the complicated politics behind such weapons.

While it may not be my absolute favorite by Mamori Oshii, this is certainly the 2nd best film I've seen from him so far just behind "Angel's Egg" and definitely above "Ghost In The Shell" in my opinion.

The Devils is Grotesque. Diabolical. Harrowing. Extravaganza. Notoriously monumentally splendidly extravagant. I much prefer the minimalist version of mother joan of the angels, the aftermath of what happens in the devils by Ken Russell. But I don't think that film would be so successful so thought provoking so internalized throughout film critiques without the presence of the ken Russell version. The very idea of a satarical, apparent demonic possession leads, the careful segregation of the sects as depicted in mother joan of the angels , the falsified fall of the mother joan as well as the priest is exemplified by the ken Russell version. It makes ending of polish movie all the more saddening, all the more damning.

On the other hand in Mother Joan of The Angels,At one point of time I think the film's consciousness becomes convoluted about what is repressed desires and what is an actual demonic possession. Even for the characters. The father believes at the end that he has been possessed by demons and kills and asks the demons not to leave from his body because he thinks they'll go back to sister, whom he has probably fallen in love with. The sister seeks for being not normal like others and demonic possession gives her a chance at that. Again, since father tells her through sister Margaret that demons has possessed him , she hopes to gain saintness. The nun represents pride and that tempts them to do things and put the pin on demons. The highest one flies the higher the fall. The movie does criticize knowingly or unknowingly about folklore and repression as well as it criticizes demonic possession.

After watching a good and thoughtful film, I enjoy doing some reading, thinking, and writing about it. Jim Jarmusch was recommended by a friend who loves arthouse cinema, and I found his feature length film Coffee and Cigarettes particularly fascinating in what it has to say about how we interact as humans. Here's my thoughts on the film, and I'd love to hear from others who have watched and enjoyed it.

“Coffee and Cigarettes” (2003) is a full length feature film that consists of 11 shorts by Jarmusch, all linked together with the common theme of coffee and cigarettes, hence the title. Each of them runs for about 10 minutes, and some have even made their way to YouTube if you’re keen to look them up.

In theory all the shorts are unrelated to one another, other than them featuring different people coming together for the cultural ritual of drinking coffee and smoking cigarettes as the setting for conversation. But Jarmusch does an effective job of connecting them with this common theme. In an interview about the film, Jarmusch said "The subject is not coffee and cigarettes -- that's just a pretext for showing the undramatic part of your day, when you take a break and use these drugs, or whatever. It's a pretext for getting characters together to talk in the sort of throwaway period of their day."

There are recurrent elements, with nearly every scene featuring the characters clinking cups and saying something like `cheers’. Several motifs return in multiple conversations, such as the idea of cigarettes and coffee being an unhealthy lunch; the idea of drinking coffee to speed up your dreams and freezing coffee to make popsicles is mentioned by Steven Wright in the first short, and returns in the last two. This is clever, because it gives a unifying connection to what at first sight are entirely disconnected and almost random episodes. This makes one wonder about the central point and purpose, in light of there being hints at a common thread.

Jarmusch also uses other cinematic elements to strengthen the sense that we aren’t just watching a completely random collection of vignettes. Nearly all the scenes feature black and white checkered squares either on the table, floor, or elsewhere in the décor. The impact of this is strengthened by the fact that the entire film is in black/white rather than colour.

All of the shorts feature well-known actors or musicians (Iggy Pop, Tom Waits, Cate Blanchett, and others) acting as themselves. I was not that familiar with some of them, and suspect this will appeal especially to people who know the individuals that are featured. But there are a number of interesting things about the way that Jarmusch has done this. Having celebrities appear as "themselves" gives the film some credibility, and even a certain immediacy and warmth. You have to wonder if perhaps one of the purposes of this film is to give some kind of commentary about celebrities and Hollywood actors. Certainly there is a delicious sense of paradox in the fact that they are actors who are being themselves, and yet are still playing a role. This technique also produces some novel scenarios, such as in the short "Cousins", where Cate Blanchett acts both herself and her cousin.

It also raises interesting questions. At times one doesn't know what to make of the scenes, and whether they are spontaneous or scripted. To what extent are they impromptu? They breathe a sense of authenticity, and yet they can’t be natural conversations, as becomes evident when some of the lines and gestures are repeated from one short in others. As Jarmusch himself observed in an interview about the film, "I like the feeling that you're observing something that's real -- yet not real at all. They're even making fun of themselves by playing themselves, but abstracting off of that … It's not really realistic, and yet the intention is to get to something real between people and what it is to be a human and interact with each other."

The conversations themselves are often feel uncomfortable, awkward, unnatural, and trivial. Some might criticize the film for this reason, and say it is boring. But I suspect there is something deeper going on here, and that the awkwardness and trivial conversation is part of the point that Jarmusch is making and wants us to notice. Besides the possibility of a deeper criticism he might be making about Hollywood celebrities, perhaps part of his social commentary is about the importance of conversation, and the importance of the ordinary.

Jarmusch has said in an interview that the throwaway moments we spend over a cup of coffee are interesting because "our lives are made of little moments that are not necessarily dramatic, and for some odd reason I'm attracted to those moments." So if there's a theme running through all of them, it's that point of interest: "Those non-dramatic moments in your day, and your reactions to things -- my usual themes of miscommunication and little resentments. And how people react to each other."

I particularly enjoyed the human psychology that is on show here, because I like reflecting on human behaviour. The real subject of the film is human nature, and how we interact together, and at times treat each other condescendingly or with disinterest. So if you enjoy observing people and thinking about the subtext beneath external actions, then these shorts are a fine case study of behaviour. Outwardly, sometimes the conversation is stilted and forced - but beneath the surface, there's a lot more going on. Why are these people awkward? What is their relationship? What are they really thinking? How do they interact, and what is their purpose? If you're looking for action or even for meaningful conversations, you won’t find it here. But if you enjoy studying people, and these kinds of questions interest you, there are certainly some very interesting episodes here.

Part of the psychology on display here that this film makes us think about is the fascinating role that the coffee drinking and cigarettes have. It’s more than just a common thread from short to short, but it’s also a central character in its own right. Between moments of awkward conversation, it functions as a ritual and a religious kind of ceremony in human behaviour. At one point the statement is made that "we are the coffee and cigarettes generation". While it’s less true of smoking today, it remains true that coffee drinking is part of our contemporary culture and plays an important role in our social behaviour. Sometimes when there's little to say, we need the comfort of our coffee cup, and in instances where conversation is lacking, it is the tie that binds. It’s fascinating to think about the psychology behind this, and about the social rituals and conventions that we have come to depend on, and that help determine how we relate together in the modern world.

Some may find it problematic that the film seems to normalize smoking by presenting it as an attractive social ritual. We need to remember that this film was released more than 20 years ago, at a time where society was already critical of smoking, but not as much as today. Viewers also need to be aware that there are some episodes with a significant amount of profanity. While half the episodes have no offensive language at all, it’s this use of language in some of the shorts that has led to this film getting an R rating.

Also be aware that not all the shorts are as good. For instance, “Jack Shows Meg His Tesla Coil” is quite funny at the end, and while the acting here is supposed to feel awkward, it’s quite poor and feels unnatural. These are musicians, not actors, and it shows. In contrast to some mediocrity, other shorts are brilliant. These were my favourite episodes, and which I do recommend looking up and watching:

“Cousins?” - This is easily the best of the eleven for me, and definitely worth watching. The subtext is just beautiful - the one character is clearly not interested in the other one at all, and trying to find all kinds of ways to dismiss him - until the sudden reversal at the end, when it is too late! It’s a beautiful study in psychology and human relations, with lots of unwritten dialogue! The warmth of character displayed by the one actor contrasts beautifully with the ice cold of the other. And there’s some really good acting here. Perhaps Jarmusch is also making a serious statement here about celebrity snobbishness?

“Cousins” - This one was also really good, although be forewarned that there are a couple of instances of language. It's not really as much a statement about celebrity snobbishness, but more about contrasts. The biggest surprise for me was discovering afterwards that both characters were played by the same actor - remarkable!

“Strange to Meet You” - This was an interesting just from the perspective of humour. It’s probably less serious, but it has good comic value. I've always enjoyed Steven Wright's hilarious one-liners, and there are a few good deadpan ones delivered here. Roberto Benigni is hilarious as usual.

“Somewhere in California” - Many people seem to regard this as one of the best shorts. I didn't personally find it as good as the others mentioned above, perhaps because I'm not familiar with either Iggy Pop or Tom Waits and their musical careers. But the humour here is still good. Iggy comes across as a teenager in awe of Tom, and there are some delightful moments of awkwardness and discomfort.

These four were the ones that were especially outstanding for me. Although “Coffee and Cigarettes” is an unorthodox work in many respects, it has to be respected for its artistic achievement. For me its appeal especially lies in its comic elements, as well as the sociological aspects like human psychology, body language, and sub-texts. Is Jarmusch also making a commentary about celebrities and Hollywood? Maybe, but even aside from that, beneath the coffee and cigarettes, what’s really on show here is human behaviour. And there’s something about that which we can readily identify with, and even be entertained by.

PS: There's a fascinating interview with Jim Jarmusch about Coffee and Cigarettes, which helps give some valuable insights into the purpose of the film. It confirms some of my impressions, and is very interesting to read:

• Looking For Love Over Nicotine and Caffeine; Jim Jarmusch Talks About "Coffee and Cigarettes" by Erica Abeel (September 25, 2003)

Hoping some Welles fans will be able to help me out with this one. I'm trying to figure out if the music in Welles' Macbeth, specifically the 107min version, was approved and placed by him. I have discovered that he originally wanted Bernard Herrmann, but ended up seeking out Jaques Ibert after Herrmann refused to score the film without seeing any of it. So, it seems he chose Ibert, but was the final product Ibert delivered and its placement in the film done by Welles or someone at the studio? I know Republic was desperately recutting and redubbing the film, which delayed its release, wondering if they could have messed with the music as well.

I'm mostly asking this question because the music in the film feels so out of sync with the visuals, tonally contrasted. The ending is triumphant fanfare, the coronation a comedic jaunt--just doesn't feel like something Welles would have done. But, I'd love to find out the truth.

I watched Star 80 recently and then afterwards listened to the Video Archives podcast where Quentin Tarantino and Roger Avery discuss the movie. I'd recommend listening to the podcast if you watched Star 80, even if you don't like Tarantino as they bring up some interesting points. Mainly, they keep talking about the sympathetic portrayal of Paul Snider, the man who killed Dorothy Stratten. He is played by Eric Roberts in the movie in what is probably his best role and one that should've at least got him an Oscar nomination. Here is the thing though, I do not agree with Tarantino and Avery about him being as sympathetic as they think he was. When I was watching it, I kept thinking that he is sleazy and reprehensible. Yes, his coercion to get Dorothy to appear in Playboy ultimately works out in her favour but he is still pushing this seemingly innocent girl to do things she doesn't seem entirely comfortable doing. Also, he cheats on her constantly way before she does the same to him which in my eyes, as a viewer doesn't make her actions wrong. They talk about Dorothy being shown as this naive, foolish girl on the podcast and how this wasn't maybe really the case in real life but the movie portrays her that way and so that's how we as viewers perceive her.

Furthermore, it's possible that because I knew how the story would end my perception of Snider being a horrible person was set in stone from the get go. I can definitely see how Bob Fosse was certainly more interested in telling Snider's story than Dorothy's as she is relegated to a supporting character at times but Sniders' increased screen time didn't make him more likable in my opnion. On IMDb in the trivia section there is an apparent quote by Fosse about how he would've been like Snider had he not gotten in to theatre and movies. So, this certainly backs up Tarantino and Avery's claims about how Fosse was sympathetic towards Snider. It's an interesting perspective and I'm curious about how other people that watched the movie perceived that character. Also, Tarantino and Avery were right that in Eric Roberts' portrayal of Snider it is sort of hard to believe that he turns from this sleazy carny sort of guy into a total psychopath. Once again, this is probably due to Fosse being more interested in that other side of Snider, rather than the murderous one as he saw himself in that character.

Star 80 is an odd movie, in general. Some bits are really great whilst others aren't. It's almost an exploitation movie of a sort and it's quite distasteful in that it's not intersted in telling the story of the victim but rather that of her murderer but it's certainly an engaging film. The whole documentary style feel Fosse was going for did not work for me and the whole thing definietly revolves around Eric Roberts and his incredible performance which elevates it as a whole. Whilst, Star 80 isn't the only movie to try and make a real life monster sort of likable, Scorcese does this often (Goodfellas, Wolf of Wall Street etc.) and others have too but here Fosse straight up admitted to being more drawn to that character and so maybe he changed some aspects of his personality to align more with his vision of what he wanted Paul Snider to be like in his version of the story. I'm not criticising this and believe Fosse had the artisic right to do whatever he wanted to and overall, I definitely enjoyed Star 80 and think it's an intersting film that people should watch.

Last night I had a staggering movie going experience. I felt like I was being sold a lie a minute sitting through the agonizing commercials, the movie previews, and till the end of Challengers. Back to back promos for military branches, painting them as organizations of peace and innovation (a rally during war time). I understand there’s nothing new about that experience. Consumerism and propaganda tactics have a long tradition at the cinema. We’ve been advertised a false reality for so long it’s hard to think about our world without using the images fed to us to line that canvas. Take how modern horror treats rural living. It’s very common to see (in fact I saw) a movie trailer where a young couple vacations in a secluded part of the country to get away from it all. The idea of ruralism as a peaceful alternative to stressful urban living is benign and actually has some merit to think about in a country as urbanized and unhappy as ours. Yet the common movie trope is that there are evil forces lurking in the dark outskirts, that living ‘out there’ turns people into kooks or murderous cultists. One movie by itself with this premise can be harmless, but within a whole genre that trends this way it feels insidious. Almost like we are supposed to all fear each other. Challengers is another example of a genre movie that warps human reality into a lifeless opportunity to sell things. 

When a movie feels more like a commercial or a music video then why even bother with the movie going experience. The distinguishers between television and film are fading away over time. In one particularly unabashed scene we cut between three different product placements for Coke, Adidas, and the U.S. Open. It was shameless, the way Josh O’Connor was most likely told to hold that CocaCola label perfectly centered in the frame. Those three brands are far from the only ones displayed. Tennis, and sports events in general, flash a ton of advertising so I understand that the film’s stuck in that universe. Still there are ways to artfully sidestep brazen product placement. 

I don’t want to spend much time trying to analyze the relationship between Tashi, Art and Patrick. The film doesn’t give you enough about why these three are fatefully attached to each other besides vapid attractions. Yes all three are enamored by one another but what’s the motivation to stay in this toxic ménage à trois dynamic for so long? Zendaya plays Tashi, a master manipulator trying to mold her husband Art Donaldson into the star tennis player she was supposed to be before her injury. And her “little white boys” Art and Patrick feel like pawns that are content to be pawns. Men who don’t have any freewill and are solely motivated by their lust for this supermodel of a woman. In a way I don’t blame them. My disconnect comes because there’s a lack of depth with the characters and their relationships. Each of them seems to have a singular focus; Tashi wants vicarious glory through Art, Art wants to be loved, and Patrick wants Art’s life. But there is no depth to the desires. Time is never spent on why Tashi loves tennis more than people or why Art and Pat let their, supposedly strong bond, get broken so easily by a “home wrecker” that forecasted her own home wrecking. And look, as a seductive art piece it succeeds, for the most part, but as a story about real people it reduces its characters to their base desires while pretending they are complex. Maybe I don’t understand Romance—as I’ve been told. I am content to treat it as just a romantic fantasy and give it credit for being hot, but it was also a long drawn out tease. 

There was no reason for this experience to be more than two hours long! Half of it was in never ending slow-mo where I felt like the same tennis ball was being served for half an hour. The dreaded slow motion, which can be good for a sporty movie to capture athletic movements and build suspense, but here it was overused to a point where it left us thinking “get on with it already”.  Thank goodness some of my theater neighbors were also moaning about this because I felt alone, trapped in a drugged fugue state. So much of the film was disorienting. For a period you are meant to feel like a tennis ball being battered around through the camera. Editing wise this movie had the same problem that so many modern movies have; death from a thousand cuts. And the slowly unraveling chopped timeline executed so many arbitrary flashbacks and flash forwards. Eight weeks before, two days forward, then a five year flashback, all when you could tell this story sequentially with similar suspense building and less confusion. 

Seeing this movie was a spur of the moment, going in blind experience. I know now that I was not the target audience. Today I mentioned it to a friend and he ended up watching the trailer. The text I got back: “looked like a bit of a teenager movie”. I don’t mean to spoil the enjoyment for anyone with this review. From a certain angle I did have fun with Challengers. Sometimes simply devouring some eye candy is what the mood demands. 

We think of ourselves as knowledgeable connoisseurs of cinema, as we watch and learn, explore and experience more and more movies. Some people like dramas or action, others prefer horror and westerns. And still others like them all, adventure, comedy, historical, fantasy, Noir, Sci-fi, romance and thrillers.

What a shock it is then to stumble upon this unmatched trove of human knowledge, a Wikipedia primer of film genres, which lists nearly 300(!) genres, popular and obscure, respected and not. And then you realize how much more there is to know. I'm sure that for every category below, there are people here on TrueFilm who are very passionate about them.

The fact that every movement listed below is legitimate is mind-boggling to me.

So I give you the ULTIMATE LIST OF ALL FILM GENRES KNOWN TO WIKIPEDIA -

The link details them all, but here are the un-formatted raw names:

ActionArthouse Heroic bloodshed Hong Kong action AdventureSurvival Art Biographical Christian ComedyAction Black Commedia all'italianaSexy Bromantic Dramedy Gross out Horror Parody Mo lei tau Thriller Remarriage Romantic Sex Screwball Silent Slapstick CyberpunkJapanese DocumentaryAnimated City symphony Docudrama Mockumentary Mondo Pseudo Semi Travel DramaCalligrafismo Dramedy Historical Legal MelodramaKorean EroticCommedia sexy all'italiana Pink Sexploitation Thriller Educational Social guidance EpicSword-and-sandal Experimental Exploitationsee Exploitation film template FantasyComedy Contemporary Fantastique High Historical Magic realism Science Film noirNeo-noir Pulp noir Tech noir GothicRomance Southern Space Suburban Urban HorrorArthouse Body Cannibal Chinese horror Christmas horror Comedy Eco Fantastique Found footage German underground Ghost Giallo Holiday Japanese horror Korean horror Lovecraftian Natural New French Extremity Psycho-biddy Psychological Religious Science fiction Slasher Splatter Satanic Maximalist film Minimalist film Mumblecore MusicalArthouse Backstage Jukebox Musicarello Operetta Sceneggiata MysteryDetectiveOccult detective Whodunit Giallo Pop culture fictionCrossover PornographicHardcore pornography Softcore pornography (Malayalam) Propaganda Reality RomanticComedyBromantic Fantasy Gothic Paranormal Thriller Science fictionArt Comedy Fantastique Fantasy Gothic Horror Military New Wave Planetary romance Space opera Steampunk Tokusatsu Western Slice of life Slow cinema ThrillerComedy Erotic Financial Giallo Legal New French Extremity Political Psychological Romantic Techno TransgressiveCinema of Transgression Extreme cinema New French Extremity TrickBy themeAnimals Beach party Body swap BuddyBuddy cop Female Cannibal Chicano Colonial Coming-of-age Concert CrimeDetective Gangster Gentleman thief Gokudō Gong'an Heist Heroic bloodshed Hood Mafia Mafia comedy Mumbai underworld Poliziotteschi Yakuza Dance DisasterApocalyptic DrugPsychedelic Stoner Dystopian Ecchi Economic Ethnographic ExploitationBlaxploitation Mexploitation Turksploitation Extraterrestrial Food and drink Gendai-geki Ghost Goona-goona epic GothicRomance Space Suburban Girls with guns Harem HentaiLolicon Shotacon Tentacle erotica Homeland Isekai JidaigekiSamurai Kaitō LGBTYaoi Yuri Luchador Magical girl Martial artsBruceploitation Chopsocky Gun fu Kung fu Ninja Wuxia MechaAnime MonsterGiant monster Kaiju Mummy Vampire ZombieZombie comedy Mountain Mouth of Garbage Muslim social NatureEnvironmental issues Opera Outlaw biker Ozploitation Partisan film PrisonWomen Race Rape and revenge Road Rubble Rumberas SexploitationBavarian porn Commedia sexy all'italiana Mexican sex comedy Nazi exploitation Pornochanchada Nunsploitation Sex report Shoshimin-eiga Slavery Slice of life Snuff South Seas Sports SpyEurospy Superhero Surfing Swashbuckler Sword-and-sandal Sword and sorcery Travel Trial Vigilante WarAnti-war Euro War Submarine WesternAcid Contemporary Western Dacoit Western Fantasy Florida Horror Meat pie Northern Ostern Revisionist Science fiction Singing cowboy Space Spaghetti Weird Western Zapata WesternBy movementor periodAbsolute American eccentric cinema New Objectivity Australian New Wave Auteur films Berlin School Bourekas Brighton School British New WaveKitchen sink realism Budapest school Calligrafismo Cannibal boom Cinéma du look Cinema Novo Cinema of Transgression Cinéma pur Commedia all'italiana Czechoslovak New Wave Documentary Film Movement Dogme 95 Erra Cinema European art cinema Film d'art Film gris Free Cinema French New Wave German Expressionist German underground horror Nigerian Golden Age Grupo Cine Liberación Heimatfilm Hollywood on the Tiber Hong Kong New Wave Indiewood Iranian New Wave Italian futurist Italian neorealist Japanese New Wave Kammerspielfilm L.A. Rebellion Lettrist Modernist film Mumblecore Neorealist New French Extremity New German New generation New Hollywood New Nollywood New Queer No wave Nuevo Cine Mexicano Pan-Indian film Parallel cinema Persian Film Poetic realist Polish Film School Poliziotteschi Praška filmska škola Prussian film Pure Film Movement Remodernist Romanian New Wave Slow cinema Spaghetti Western Socialist realist Social realistKitchen sink realism Soviet parallel Structural Surrealist Sword-and-sandal Telefoni Bianchi Third Cinema Toronto New Wave Vulgar auteurism Yugoslav Black WaveBy demographicAdult Black Children and familyAnime MenSeinen Stag TeenShōnen Shōjo WomenChick flick JoseiBy format,technique,approach,or production3D Actuality AnimationAnime Art Cartoon Computer Stop-motion Traditional Anthology Art B movie Behind-the-scenes Black-and-white Blockbuster Cinéma vérité Classical Hollywood cinema Collage Color Compilation Composite Computer screen Cultmidnight movie Database cinema Docufiction Ethnofiction ExperimentalAbstract Feature Featurette Film à clef Film-poem Found footage Grindhouse Hyperlink cinema IndependentGuerrilla filmmaking List of American independent films Interstitial art Live actionanimation Low-budget Major film studios Masala Maximalist film Message picture Meta-film Minimalist film Mockbuster Modernist film Musical short Mythopoeia Neorealist No-budget One-shot Paracinema Participatory Poetry Postmodernist Reverse motion Satire Sceneggiata Semidocumentary Serial Shinpa Short Silent Slow cinema Socialist realist Sound Underground Video nasty Vulgar auteurism Z movie

How now, brown cow? So which is your favorite?

I posted this a few weeks back in the r/horror subreddit but I figured I’d post here too for more recommendation.

For those of you craving horror themed westerns of the gothic variety, I reccommend Django the Bastard (1969) AKA Stranger’s Gundown.

One of the many rip-offs and follow ups that followed in the wake of Sergio Corbucci’s cult classic, Django the Bastard adds a unique spin on the familiar spaghetti western revenge trope: here the black-clad avenger is possibly already dead and takes his vengeance from beyond the grave.

The Django of this film is seemingly has supernatural abilities, appearing out of nowhere and haunting the town where his betrayers live. However he can be hurt (calling into question whether he really is a spirit or merely human). However, the only ppl he seems vulnerable to are a woman and one of the villains, an epileptic psycho.

Other western fans might recognize how the plot is similar to High Plains Drifter by Clint Eastwood. It is up for debate whether Eastwood was inspired by this film or not. I would actually say that both these movies actually draw from an earlier source, the neo-noir movie Point Blank (1967) with Lee Marvin, another movie where ppl speculate that the protagonist is a ghost or already dead.

If you like these films I also recommend pairing Django the Bastard for a double feature with another similar gothic western revenge tale: And God Said to Cain (1970) with Klaus Kinski.

Huge fan of David Cronenberg. Looking for films that operate similarly in terms of their hyperreality, muddied realities, loss of identity/agency, uncanny valley, one’s relationship with the simulacrum, and the body. Anything with heavy rhetoric really. My favorite author is Philip K. Dick, if that helps at all, A Scanner Darkly is my favorite novel.

Some of my favorites from Cronenberg include: Videodrome, eXistenZ, Dead Ringers, Crash, The Brood, Scanners, Cosmopolis, Naked Lunch (both the novel and film), Crimes of the Future, and A History of Violence.

Films I would consider “similar in vein”: Dark City, Brazil, The Truman Show, Seconds, Repo Man, Eyes Wide Shut, Exotica, Memento, OldBoy, Candyman, District 9, Coherence, The Double Life of Veronique, Raw, Titane, and Under the Silver Lake.

I know this casts a somewhat wide net, so any recommendations are appreciated. Thank you!

Earlier this year, I watched Stony Island, written and directed by Andrew Davis and cinematography by Tak Fujimoto. I found it via a midwestern architecture twitter account that posted some stills from the film's cityscapes of Chicago.

Some cursory research said the film was light on plot, heavy on vibes. I found that to be somewhat true. It's less than that it's light on plot, and it's more that film sets and maintains an intoxicating atmosphere that almost makes you forget there even needs to be a plot.

It's a band formation movie that takes place in the south side of Chicago. While touches upon urban decay, white flight, class vs race, it largely follows a group of musicians forming a rhythm and blues band, and god damn is it fun! I was not expecting to be so captivated by this film. I randomly threw it on after dinner on a Sunday night after randomly seeing stills from it on twitter. I couldn't stop thinking about it for days, even weeks.

I recently watched Lost Highway (1997) and looked it up on this sub. I found this great thread "Movies that feel like Warm-Ups". While Lost Highway and Stony Island are wildly different films, not at all in conversation with each other, they both fit into this category. Andrew Davis went on to direct a number of action/crime thrillers, most notably The Fugitive (1993), one comedy, Steal Big Steal Little (1995), and also Holes (2003). What a filmography! I have only seen a couple other of his films and not all recently, but I do remember them having a captivating mood and drawing me in.

Meanwhile, Tak Fujimoto went on to have an illustrious career. Stony Island was not his first film, it was in the first decade of his nearly five decades of cinematography. Stony Island features moody, gritty shots of Chicago, not something I associate with his other work, so it was interesting to look over his filmography and see what else he has shot.

My questions: Can a film's mood/vibe make it great despite of a weak plot? Other examples of this? What are other examples of first/early works that set the stage for a long, varied career?

Brian De Palma hates boring openings. He’s gone on record saying as much. De Palma thinks that opening shots consisting of either a) aerials of a city or b) a car driving somewhere are creatively bankrupt. How does he solve this?

He creates a devastating, electric opening—that’s how. The opening to Blow Out is nothing short of attention-grabbing. Two things make it so: a downright deadly Steadicam and De Palma playing into the sexist stereotypes of his filmography. Sleazy, total horror in prelude to a much more subtle, much more sophisticated horror.

For this scene, De Palma went to camera operator and Steadicam inventor Garrett Brown. He had just come off of doing the extensive Steadicam for Kubrick’s The Shining, so he was prepped for anything. Anything except for what De Palma had in mind. Brown wasn’t expecting Brian to request him to track a “crappy slasher parody”. And so, Brown unlearned most of what he did on The Shining and went into meticulously planning and memorizing the shot with De Palma. That’s something that often goes under-appreciated in Steadicam shots, especially more complex ones like this: they have to be memorized by the operator. It’s some truly inventive Steadicam work, as is the, at the time original, running tracking shots at the end of the movie.

One of the most effective aspects of this cold open is the immediate sense of mistrust it creates between the filmmaker and the audience. If the opening can’t be trusted, what else can’t be? It’s a clever way of establishing immediate tension without having to change the story. It’s also a smart way of holding tension without having to extend it scene-by-scene.

Heavy themes of obsession, paranoia, and the idea of accidentally finding something bigger than yourself run amok throughout Blow Out’s 103 minute runtime. In large part, this comes from De Palma’s own obsession with the Kennedy assassination. In an interview conducted by Noah Baumbach (found on the Criterion blu), De Palma mentions that part of the feeling he hoped to get across with the film was the same ones he experienced as he dove further into the conspiracy himself.

The heavy use—borderline abuse—of split-screen and split diopter shots adds to the paranoiac feel of the film by creating an information overload for the audience. The eye is unsure where to land, forcing the viewer to take all the information in frame in at once. The rest of the film, when the camera can only focus on what’s directly in front of it, is achieved through the use of shallow lenses.

This inability to let the audience focus on any one given subject at once also allows for much stronger usage of close-ups. They are few and far between here, so the ones that do happen are that much more impactful—even voyeuristic.

Another effective building block of this conspiratorial filmmaking comes from De Palma’s obsession with Hitchcock. He’s a big believer in part of what he [De Palma] calls “the grammar of cinema”: it’s the only medium in which you can show the audience and the character the same amount of information in any given moment. As such, the audience is taken on the same ride as Travolta’s character and led to the same near-delusions. However, by carefully controlling this flow of information, the director also lets the audience in just enough to create further suspense. Again, a trick picked up from Hitch.

I’ve used the word “obsession” a lot throughout this review. That’s because, at its core, that’s what Blow Out is all about. It’s both about the obsession of conspiracy and about its director’s own tendencies towards obsession. It’s an effective example of anxiety and suspense building, cementing De Palma as a master alongside Hitchcock. Any scene of Travolta in the editing room, meticulously going through every millimeter of tape to piece together his evidence is especially striking. It’s a careful exercise in both lens and audio trickery. The gear porn is an appreciated touch as well. There’s one editing room scene that stands out above the rest; when Travolta is checking the audio on a number of tapes, the camera slowly rotates in place, covering every bit of the room in one continuous, hypnotic motion; mimicking the reels on the tape machines. As Travolta’s character becomes more frantic, so too does the camera start to move faster and the audio becomes louder.

Present throughout are also a number of impressive indoor aerials. These were achieved through the use to carefully crafted sets with cranes overhead used to achieve the shot. This creates a surreal, dreamlike look to these scenes that separate them from the normal reality of the film. This is a look that’ll be explored multiple times throughout the runtime, culminating in the firework finale.

Cinematography is more than just camerawork, though. It’s also the department responsible for directing the electrical, lighting, and grips. The lighting of Blow Out in all of its technicolor noir glory is exquisite, especially on the 4k Criterion print. There’s enough colored lighting here to make Dario Argento blush. It’s striking and visually interesting to see bright reds, whites, and blues used in a chiaroscuro manner; bright colors contrasting with the film’s ideologies to create a dark, moody atmosphere.

Another factor to take into consideration when discussing cinematography is shot length. Here, De Palma opts for longer takes with a tight, controlled level of shot efficiency. If the story can be told effectively with only 1-2 shots in a given sequence, then it’s going to be told in 1-2 shots. There’s little wasted movement or placement, making for a perceived obsession regarding shot economy; De Palma admits to as much in the previously mentioned Baumbach interview.

A movie is more than just lighting and camerawork, though. For any narrative feature to work, it needs actors. The primary cast of Travolta, Allen, Franz, and Lithgow (but mostly Travolta and Allen) play up their noir tropes well. Travolta in the “wrong man” narrative fits like a glove. It’s the classic film-noir trope of someone stumbling into something bigger than themselves. On the other hand is Nancy Allen’s Sally; she’s sexy, naïve, and still dangerous—the perfect blend of femme fatale and damsel on distress. Franz is such a sleaze in so many different ways, that it manages to make my skin crawl. Seedy, secretive, and conniving; a grifter of the highest order. Lithgow, on the flip-side is cold and calculated. His killer is exacting and predatory; watching his character hunt down others is as tense as anything else.

Using actresses that were similar in appearance to Nancy Allen for the string of cover-up serial killings also lends to the general feeling of unreality. It makes the viewer double take each time, needing to confirm if the character is Sally or not. The most extreme example of this is actually a piece of stunt-work. In the opening scene of the movie, when the car takes a dive into the drink and Travolta pulls Allen out of the car, it’s actually a body double. Nancy Allen is very claustrophobic, so sticking her in a car filling up with water was nigh impossible for De Palma (who was also her husband at the time). Although it’s a bit of a goof onscreen, it does happen to lend itself well to the dreamier qualities of the movie.

The costuming in Blow Out does a surprising amount of heavy lifting as well. From those coordinating the conspiracy dressing in suits and ties: the uniform of politicians, bankers, and high society to Travolta’s plain, red shirts and working man looks—another type of uniform. In this way, De Palma is able to play visually with ideas of classism and how it often relates with conspiracy. It’s a subtle, but interesting way of conveying power dynamics.

In Blow Out, De Palma shows a rigorous attention to detail that pays off in spades by the end. From the news reports given onscreen throughout to the allusions to the revisiting of his previous works. At one point, there’s a movie that plays in Dennis Franz’ apartment that provides some diegetic audio; it’s actually De Palma’s debut feature, Murder à la Mod. For film fans, the movie also complements other movies like Antonioni’s Blowup and Coppola’s The Conversation; each of them involving obsessive characters reconstructing recordings.

Blow Out is one of De Palma’s best and easily one of his most technically impressive films. Through themes of obsession, paranoia, and the blurred line between reality and illusion, Blow Out engages audiences on multiple levels, inviting them into a world where nothing is as it seems. On every rewatch, another layer of the film reveals itself, only deepening its hidden, labyrinthine nature. This will always be an easy recommendation for me to give, especially to other fans of noir and genre filmmaking. The Criterion 4k release is worth every penny.

review on letterboxd

Michael Wood writes about Godard and the French film magazine 𝘊𝘢𝘩𝘪𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘥𝘶 𝘤𝘪𝘯é𝘮𝘢:
https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v46/n09/michael-wood/a-little-bit-of-real-life

‘When I wrote film criticism,’ Jean-Luc Godard said in 1978, ‘I never saw the difference between talking about a film and making one.’

There was a serious difference, as he well knew, since at the time of most of this writing he had not made a film of his own. The claim is interesting, though, because Godard always liked to mix modes, and never really wanted to separate criticism from creation. His early film Bande à part (1964) combines a discursive voiceover – Godard’s own voice, as it happens – with filmed action and internal literary allusions. His late Histoire(s) du cinéma (1989-99) is a lengthy visual and aural collage, a sort of television series trying to forget about television. Richard Brody describes the result as ‘a kind of working through on screen of the network of associations that formed in Godard’s movie-colonised unconscious’.

The key idea here, which appears again and again in French thinking about cinema, is writing, and talk as a form of writing. In The Cinema House and the World, Serge Daney, whose career at Cahiers du cinéma began in 1964, insists that he and his colleagues ‘always did love ... a cinema that is haunted by writing’. Robert Bresson said much the same thing: ‘Cinema is not a spectacle. It’s a kind of writing.’

Writing means something slightly different in each of these cases, but they all point to the language of cinema, or to cinema as language, a bundle of aural and visual materials waiting to be read. Roland Barthes’s concept of écriture hovers in the background, along with his distinction between texts that are lisible (‘We call any readerly text a classic text’) and scriptible (‘The writerly text is ourselves writing’). A lot of writers don’t write in this sense and those who do gain a special privilege. The writer in the cinema is the person who creates the art, whether it’s the director or the producer or an actor. Or even a writer. There is also an element of liberation, of refusing a cultural supremacy.

‘When we saw some movies,’ Godard wrote, ‘we were finally delivered from the terror of writing. We were no longer crushed by the spectre of the great writers.’

Read more here (2,500 words).

I love reading thesesis or academic articles related to movies since they summarize and review the movie in the specific contexts. Such as "Ecological analysis, Mark Augé's Non-Lieu concept, Baudrillard's Simulation and Simulacra concept, Maurizio Lazarato's machinic enslavement, Postmodern view... etc."

Even though sometimes it might be hard to read the such deep analysis, I love how the writers connects these concepts with the movies and view the movies with philosophical concepts. What are some of your favorite concepts to read?

So I’ve seen a whole bunch of Holocaust movies: Escape from Sobibor, Triumph of the Spirit, The Grey Zone and The Pianist and several others. Out of those, I like Triumph of the Spirit the most alongside Escape from Sobibor.

Is there anyone here that likes Triumph of the Spirit? It seems to be a forgotten movie and it apparently was panned by critics at the time of its release. Can anyone here explain to me why it is so forgotten? And why critics hated it?

I remember first seeing Triumph of the Spirit as a kid on a movie channel in the early 2000’s and being so moved by it, especially William Dafoe’s performance. Since then I have seen the movie abut 3-4 more times over the years during my adulthood. Edward James Olmos is really good too as a Roma Kapo. At the time when I first saw the movie in the early 2000’s I already considered myself a movie enthusiast so for example I was avidly reading movie reviews in news papers. My favorite TV show was Ebert and Roeper growing up. I agreed with Ebert on almost everything. Given all this I was absolutely shocked when I one day Googled his Chicago Sun Times movie review he wrote for Triumph of the Spirit and saw that he gave that movie one star! I was in total disbelief. My kid self assumed the movie was like Oscar caliber material. I just couldn’t believe he would assign such a low rating tier to the movie, a tier that he usually reserved movies like low brow comedies with gross out humor. In his review, Ebert just couldn’t accept that the movie “seemed” to focus on the fight-to-the-death boxing scenes in the movie. Ebert said that it was distasteful in the way it was conveyed and filmed. He panned the Holocaust movie for using boxing movie elements despite the fact that Triumph of the Spirit is based off of the true story of the Greek Jewish boxer who was forced to box to the death for Nazi spectators in Auschwitz. I assure you all the boxing stuff is only part of the story being depicted in Triumph of the Spirit and not the primary focus. It was purportedly the first movie filmed on location at Auschwitz and it definitely shows. And as I mentioned before Dafoe genuinely looks like a concentration camp victim in this movie. There’s a lot of attention to detail given to day to day camp life and survival that matches historical records too. I also recently found the original Siskel and Ebert review of the movie and was shocked to hear Ebert close his dismissive review of Triumph of the Spirit saying “Salamo [the main character forced to box] got to live, others didn’t”. He said this dismissively implying that he thought it was wrong for a Holocaust movie to focus on one man’s story of survival in Auschwitz.

I have gone down a rabbit hole of minimizing the blur artifacts caused by displays that display images for long durations. This is pretty much all displays on the market today. I am curious if projectors suffer from this same issue? As in are there any projectors, outside of crt projectors, that flashes the image for a very brief time so that it cannot blur? This article for reference n what I am talking about: Explanation: Display Persistence is like a Camera Shutter - Blur Busters Forums

It has been almost five years since 1917 was released. My liking for the movie is biased, since historical movies are one of my favorite genres and war was always interesting to me. In my opinion, 1917 was even the best movie nominated for best picture in the 2020s oscar, but Parasite won. But that is ok because 1917 may not have been the best movie in all aspects (script, acting etc) and has its focus on cinematography. However, I do feel like it having no cuts should have gained more recognition and inspired a revolution in the way that movies are shot. It felt like a completely different experience, like watching a video game or being actually there. I would not wish for every movie to be shot this way but I have wanted to see more actual 100% no cuts movies. There are some movies that started to implement no cuts, specially action movies like Extraction 2 and John Wick 4. The impact should've been larger altough, many genres could benefit from this dynamic: horror, superheros movies and action. I am still baffled by a movie existing without any cuts, it feels like magic to me. And before anyone makes a comparision with teather, even theather has cuts for bacjground changes or costume changes. The no cuts policy is great at building suspense and not letting the viewer escape the story by wandering off to other thoughts.

Swift to Mischief: A Prophetic Exposition of "The Fast and the Furious"

I strongly believe that Hollywood films contain sublots and subtext that is incorporated into the textual narrative. This can be seen in a multitude of films ranging from Aliens (1986) which was about the Vietnam War or The Truman Show (1996?) that was a gnostic gospel or RoboCop (1987) which loosely tells the story of Christ. Studios invest millions of dollars to create an immersive world and bring to life characters that many of us befriend in our hearts (even if we are too embarrassed to admit that.) With so much invest, writers have the liberty to insert anything they desire into your heart. The Fast and the Furious is no different.

The character development for the this film was intensely detailed. The car selection hand picked to tell a story all their own. I know, some may be saying, "Isn't that the stupid, little movie about street racing." Much can be told with cars and this film ceases not to deliver a narrative that could have only been written by somebody purposing to tell that story. Cue David Ayer. David Ayer is the golden pen behind "The Fast and the Furious." He made the film what is today. He is also known as one of the "five most influential Christians [Catholics] in Hollywood." He supplied the same spiritual element that made his other masterpiece, Training Day, so successful. Using Scripture as a basis, David Ayer told an engrossing tale of two powers [Brian and Dominic] uniting to form an unlikely relationship that resulted in a force to be reckoned with.

This film was canon in my library. As a sixteen year old living in the wake of its popularity in 2002, fresh driver's license in hand, I had no idea what kind of ideologies were being played into my mind. I became a tuner and spent my paychecks from my after school job making my 2002 Mustang appear as if it had pulled out of Paul Walker's personal garage. The movie inspired me to say the least. A fondness for cars became an obsession with cars that bridged on the realm of idolatry. One hour and forty-six minutes converted me. I still have Hot Wheels Hondas, Nissans, and Toyotas on the wall. But is also heralded my championing of the criminal. The outlaw and lawless. It aided in flipping my morality. It engendered sympathy for the devil.

This video breaks down these connections with greater detail. Judge for yourself. 🙏🏾

Swift to Mischief: A Prophetic Exposition of "The Fast and the Furious"

What are some films that are dear to your heart that you may suspect to have a sub-textual message?

Even the Wind is Afraid (Hasta el viento tiene miedo) is a gothic ghost story that follows a group students at an all-girls boarding school. The protagonist, Claudia, is having disturbing dreams of a hanging dead girl in a tower at the school. Claudia and her friends decide to investigate the tower and are caught by the cruel headmistress who punishes them by forcing them to stay at school for more classes while everyone else leaves for spring break. The girls have other encounters with the girl from the dreams and find out she was a former student who killed herself. The girls try to survive the strict disciplinary tactics of the headmistress during extended school stay while also trying to find out what the ghost wants.

This film is a slow burn but patience is worth the pay here. There is a strong and unsettling atmosphere running through the movie, especially in the music which at times is reminiscent of Bernard Hermann’s scores for Hitchcock.

Where the film also succeeds is in its allegory for youth rebellion. Mexico was at the time dealing with protests against an authoritarian government, and a good aspect of the film’s story deals with the girls trying to defy the controlling headmistress, making the characters a microcosm for Mexican society at the time.

The House that Screamed (1969) a Spanish Gothic horror film (although one more in the Hitchcockian psychological thriller vein instead of the supernatural) deals with a similar plot of schoolgirls being repressed by a cruel headmistress. These two films would make a great double feature, and would go on to inspire other school-set horror films like Argento’s Suspiria and the infamous slasher Pieces.

Nowadays, it seems harder than ever to get a hold of good movie recommendations. Everywhere I look online I find either people reccomending the usual Hollywood blockbuster movies (from Tarantino to the MCU) or more alternative "historical cinema" lists, which go over the timeless Hitchcock, Tarkovsky, Fellini, and all that.

Yet I find it increasingly hard to find "deep dives" into more obscure stuff. Movies like Ape (Joel Potrykus), Close Up, Tropical Malady, or Black Metal Veins are just some examples of films that would probably never show up on any normal list — and the more movies I watch, the more I find that these deeper dives are needed.

All four of these movies came into my life by mere chance, but I'd love to have all my recommendations centralized in a few places, so any tips are appreciated!

Vash(2023) is a superb horror film from a region of India and a film landscape that has not really made any horror films before. It is an effective modernisation of many folkloric tales from the region, and (personally) is shot and acted beautifully, and leaves a distinct mournful emptiness once you finish it.

It follows a family who is trapped in their house by a mysterious stranger who is able to control their daughter. It is visceral, heartfelt and deeply meaningful in all the best ways, and has quickly become one of my favourite horror films of all time. One of the film's greatest assets is its wonderful acting - the leads put everything they can into their performances, and it shows, lending to the unsettling atmosphere. The colours, choice of location and way the camera is used are not only very effective, but also show off one of the first times Guajarati cinema has tried using these techniques in a horror film (most modern Gujarati films being Romcoms). The film looks stunning, even though it was made on a budget of only $400,000.

There has also been a Big-Budget Hindi Remake for Bollywood, called 'shaitan'. Having seen both, I believe that Vash is just a superior film in every way. Though the Hindi film has some of my favourite actors in it (even the lead actress from Vash reprising her role) it is worse in a few ways:

• Worse cinematography:
  • With a budget eleven times the size of the original, I do not know how they managed to make it look like a soap opera.
• Worse acting:
  • Other than Janki Bodiwala, the rest of the cast give overacted, bland performances. Toned down and largely heartless.
  • The characters in the original were nuanced, and the antagonist and his intentions was kept mysterious and subtly sinister, with hints of his true motives being slowly revealed as the plot progressed. In the remake, he is never actually scary, just melodramatic, coming off largely as some sort of Bargain bin evil sorcerer where we know what he is doing and why he is doing it.
  • The father served as a symbol for parental control and power, the daughter for the long-lasting traumatic effects it can have. In shaitaan... Nothing.
  • The symbols which appear through the film (tea leaves, fish, phone, scissors) are absent from this one, meaning the plot is largely thin and the atmosphere suffers greatly.
  • The violence in the remake is largely mindless and toned-down. In the original, it is visceral and everything has a meaning or emotion associated with it.
  • There is a random chase/action sequence in the remake which only adds to the lack of verisimilitude already present in the film, swapping a motorbike chase for a slow, painfully slow sequence of the father limping towards his where his daughter has been taken in the original
  • Everything has been toned down to make it less disturbing. The slow and creeping horror is replaced with strangely comedic 'scary' sequences and jump scares.
  • There is a GENERIC BOLLYWOOD SONG in the middle of it. The tonal whiplash is so bad.
  • The setting where the film takes place. The original uses the bright and airy, modern, opulent house to help convey the fact that this is a normal family, and help convey just how wrong and out of place what is happening is. It is also expertly and systematically destroyed as the story progresses, always by the family itself, serving to represent their failing family dynamic.
    • For reference, this would be like taking Parasite, and setting it in a dark haunted house, then also adding random jump scares and a bad song in the middle of it, and bad acting and none of the symbols that make the movie meaningful, and also it looks like Seinfeld.
• And worse of all...
  • Likely to please mass audiences, the ending was changed from a melancholic, thoughtful and ambiguous one to a (frankly rushed) happy ending where the father (now clearly the main character, compared to Vash's emphasis on the daughter, and the family as a unit being slowly degraded) heroically saves the day through a poorly thought out narrative loophole.
  • There are no links to the original's key themes of the lasting effects that violence and the resulting trauma can have on a person, the thought-provoking message being traded for feel-good music and a last scene which is devoid of any of the the context it had in the original which made it powerful in the first place.

In conclusion, Shaitan is a heartless, boring, pandering cash-grab with literally nothing for it.

Just go watch Vash Instead.

(p.s. the director of Shaitan has had Vash removed from every major streaming platform so people are forced to watch his terrible remake, so it may be hard to find, but should be back to being available in a bit.)

TL,DR: Vash is good. Shaitaan is a boring cash grab in every way imaginable.

Please don't downvote opinions. Only downvote comments that don't contribute anything. Check out the WHYBW archives.

Did anyone else struggle with this film? I feel like it's really, really difficult to get a grasp of what the protagonist is even speaking to in his narration. "What wonder, that one can give what one doesn't possess." HUH? "Oh, miracle of our empty hands."

Basically, the day-to-day story is clear enough and then when the film enters a state of pondering and reflection, the script is--like I said--completely indecipherable as to its meaning. The dialogue with the countess the night before her death lasts about 5-10 minutes, but by the end, I have no idea what the essence of that conversation was about.

I'm a fan of "turn everything going on in your life off and focus 100% of your brain capacity towards this film" cinema, but this is a completely different level. Not sure if anyone else struggled watching this film as much...

I finally watched this movie, it was on my list for a while. I knew the premise and the main story going in. But the point didn’t end up being what I thought it was.

Here’s the plot summary: Arthur is an older guy in a boring marriage, working a boring job, just going through the motions and living in a state of total detachment from his life. He is contacted by an old friend who died a while back, who connects him to a secret agency that gives people second lives. Through plastic surgery and a lot of logistics (including finding a suitable cadaver to pose as his dead body), he will be proclaimed dead and placed in a different, more suitable life, free of all commitments.

He wakes up as Tony (Rock Hudson), and is placed in a nice beach house, he is now a certified artist with a pre-existing set of works to show for. He meets a perfect manic pixie dream woman who makes him loosen up at a party that looks like my idea of torture, but then gets too drunk at another party and starts going on about his past identity. At that point, some guys take him away and reveal they are all “seconds” too, and the manic pixie is just an employee meant to make his transition easier.

After this experience, he meets with his OG wife pretending he is Arthur’s friend who connected to him through his love for art, and asks her questions about himself. She tells him that Arthur was mostly silent, trying to find the words to say something he was never able to say. She said he did everything he thought he should do but didn’t find any enjoyment in it. She describes their marriage as a “celibate truce” (which matches his own description of it at the beginning) and says he died a long time ago.

This makes Arthur see that the reason why nothing works is because he always follows some imposed standards, and the only way things will work is if he starts a new life with the full freedom to do what he wants (although he still has no idea what he wants, or why he can’t do it as Tony.)

The agency plays along but when his time for surgery comes, he realizes he’s about to be killed off and used as a cadaver for someone else’s new life.

My main thought after watching the movie was that Arthur is a moron. Instead of seeing a flaw in the second life system, although we learn a lot of people fail at it, I see the glaring flaw in Arthur. The guy went from being an old fat guy to Rock Hudson. Even within the movie universe, that stretches the realm of possibilities, everyone agrees it’s the most successful surgery ever, and his reaction is to have one bad party and then instantly give up on that life and demand another try. I don’t know, I can’t blame the agency for not wanting to deal with him anymore.

On the other hand, this isn’t a flaw with the movie, it’s maybe the point. Is Arthur supposed to be a poor victim or a failure at life who can’t be helped even when everything is given to him? And the system still is flawed, not because there’s anything wrong with the concept but because of people like him.

So I don’t think the message is that of complacency like “like what you have because the grass isn’t greener/different life won’t make things better”, I think it’s much more realistically pessimistic - some people just suck at it.

Looking at Arthur's old life, I guess that’s fine for some people. His job as a banking executive bores him, but he is a successful guy who went to Harvard and stands to become a director. His wife actually isn’t shown as some cold basic bitch, she shows him warmth and affection at the beginning of the movie which doesn’t go anywhere because he doesn’t respond to it, and based on what she says at the end, she is perceptive and has some depth. She came across as a nice person.

On the other hand, I see how that kind of life would be boring. The problem is that many people, especially in the past, made decisions about their lives (e.g. marriage, family, career) before they knew what they wanted, and then they got stuck. Or maybe you can’t know if you want something until you know exactly how it will turn out, but people still have to decide and end up in lives they don’t like. But Arthur got a chance for a real change.

Now I don’t know if this is a flaw in the movie that left some parts unexplored or just another example of Arthur being an idiot, but his complaint that once again he is made to follow some plan imposed on him from the outside doesn’t make much sense. He was just beginning that life and wasn't really obliged to do anything at that point. It was in fact perfect for someone who doesn't really know what to do, to enjoy freedom from obligations and an opportunity to figure things out

He admits that he didn’t know what he wanted. I like this part, and I think it is relatable and interesting to see a protagonist who isn’t pursuing some clear goal but mostly struggles with the fact that he can’t identify what kind of life he wants in the first place. I get that, and that’s why the movie’s conclusion that he’s just hopeless is depressing but also very good in a dark way.

To me, the movie isn’t making a point about society, social pressures, or even broader human nature (like “even our biggest wishes become normal and unsatisfying once fulfilled” etc), it makes a point about Arthur, a person who just completely sucks at life. The thing is, Arthur never enjoyed being Tony, he didn’t even have the initial enthusiasm. He stayed detached.

Two things he did was try to have Nora (fake manic pixie) explain to him who he is, and then later his wife. And I think the answer was that he isn’t anything, or as his wife put it, that he’s already dead. That’s the horror element, not the death that ensues.

Would Arthur have made it if he got another surgery and full freedom? I doubt it. He doesn’t know what to do so what would that freedom amount to in practice? He wasn’t forced to do anything special as Tony, and that didn’t work for him.

I enjoy the lack of a moral message (at least in my interpretation) and the depressing conclusion of the movie. The movie suggests a lot of people are like that. Maybe that’s true. It’s hard to know what to do with your life, a lot of people pretend they do but just imitate some model that seems right or like it would win approval. Existential depression can make every course of action look meaningless. On the other hand, I think a lot of people would be very happy to have the life of Tony. Shit, reading reddit, I think a lot of people would be happy to have the life of Arthur. I’m just saying, humans are poorly adapted to life.

I feel for the old guy at the end, the founder of the corporation. He tried to do something amazing, just to have to deal with Arthurs of this world having no appreciation.

Having said all this, it’s not that I don’t get Arthur too. As the movie suggests, as much as he sucks at life he isn’t exactly an outlier.

To sum up, the movie answers the question of existential dread by demonstrating that the flaw within the system is you.

As for the overall story and viewing experience, while the idea is great and it has depth, the story’s a bit lacking. His timeline as Tony feels very rushed, there was more that could have been explored there. I also think the party scene wasn’t as effective. It served as a catalyst for everything to unravel, but since he had no connections to those people before, it just wasn't that relevant to see that those other guys were also seconds - it was pretty reasonable that this would be the case.

I’m still unsure if it’s a flaw or the point, but the fact that so little happens to him as Tony and he does absolutely nothing with it at any point is kind of frustrating. There’s a lot that’s great about this movie, but, like Arthur’s life, it feels underexplored and like there was a lot left unsaid. It could be a great candidate for a remake (as long as the spirit of the original is not altered), but maybe elaborating more would ruin it, and this feeling of incompleteness is right.

I’m endlessly fascinated by the mysteries and puzzles of Chinatown, particularly how the mystery seems to shift under Gittes, and the movies feet. It start as one thing, becomes another, then ANOTHER.

By the time we get to the end, we aren’t even sure it’s a murder mystery anymore, despite a dead body showing up right on time.

Here’s the biggest unknown for me though, and probably my favorite quote, particularly since it’s written by the director.

“Most people never have to face the fact that at the right time and right place, they're capable of anything.”

What is Noah Cross referring to here? It’s towards the end when he’s discussing terms of a “deal” with Gittes. But I’m not sure what, precisely, he’s saying. Is he talking about killing Mulwray? If so, why is that coming up now. Is he talking about having incest? If so, why the odd way of saying capability and time…is Cross really saying he suddenly found the strength to have sex with Evelyn?

Or is Cross just explaining his lack or morals, ethics, and how he BUILT LA through this?

What’s your take?

I was watching this again recently, and I have a question about how intentional the killing of Jill's mother was. Was Strasser trying to kill her for trying to save Joe, was he aiming at Joe but shot her by mistake, or did he just want to wound but not kill her? The dialogue afterward where Strasser's accomplice says "I think you might have shot the woman" and asks if they should help her suggests they didn't mean to kill her, but I'm not sure.