![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
thehefnerI've seen a handful of films over the past couple days. First was THE VISITOR, an indie by the writer/director of the Dinklage* classic THE STATION AGENT (which I've never seen). I knew absolutely nothing about THE VISITOR, making it one of those rare and wonderful cinematic experiences where I walk into a film with no idea who's in it or where's it's going to go. So just like the characters themselves, every unfolding moment is another surprise and you have no idea where things are going to go.
Of course, some films are so formulaic that you could figure it out, but what was extra refreshing about THE VISITOR was how it could have gone a whole number of ways in the hands of a lesser filmmaker, but the final result was... rather wonderful, really.
A major plus is the leading performance by character actor Richard Jenkins, most famous as the father from SIX FEET UNDER. It's always wonderful when character actors get their moments to shine, and makes me long for the days when we had shows like THE TWILIGHT ZONE where we could get all kinds of mini-showcases from such actors.
THE VISITOR is getting buzz as the sleeper indie of the year, so it'll be interesting to see what attention it gets. I've refrained from talking about the actual plot just because I wouldn't know how exactly to sum up the film without giving away its little surprises. I almost posted the trailer here, but it gives far too much away, and comes off looking more sentimental and touchy-feely than the actual film is, so just take my word for it.
Then with![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
cisic and tompurdue, I saw LES CHANSONS D'AMOUR (LOVE SONGS), a French musical about a ménage à trois. The consensus was that the film was "so goddamn damn French, but in a good way."
Honestly, when it comes to most French films, that's the most for which I can hope. Also, the cast was crazy hot, so that was a plus. Stupid sexy French.
But I saved the best for last, and even though I knew it was an obvious classic, I still hadn't been prepared for what I was about to see.
After about ten years of dilly-dallying since the restored reissue back in 1998, I have finally, finally seen Orson Welles' TOUCH OF EVIL. I saw it about fourteen hours ago and I am still floored.
From the brilliant five-minute long single take opening, I knew I was in for something amazing:
After that, though, I started to have my doubts. First and foremost (and how many of you can guess what I'm gonna say?), Charlton Heston plays a Mexican. Let that sink in. Is it sunk? Yeah, well, I was worried it would sink the film, between the brownface make-up and Heston's trademark overwrought delivery.
But then I soon noticed that Heston wasn't the only one with odd delivery. Everyone seemed to speaking in some bizarre tone that was... over the top? Campy? Bizarre? Hard to nail down, although one theory that I liked is that Welles directed everyone to speak like him. In any case, that was another element that took some adjustment, especially the way they overlapped each other as if they were in an Altman film but with the naturalism replaced with a style that...
... then it hit me: this was a Coen Brothers film before there was ever a Coen Brothers.
And the more I watched TOUCH OF EVIL, the more its influence became apparent. The Coens must have been all over this, a true prototype for BLOOD SIMPLE and NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN. And Welles' own character, the infamous and grotesque Sheriff Hank Quinlan, has been a quietly powerful icon ever since, reflected in Ray Liotta's powerful Henry Oak from NARC and especially William Hootkins' Lieutenant Eckhart ("HEY ECKHART! THINK ABOUT THE FUTURE!") from Burton's BATMAN.
And oh lord, what a character Welles created in Quinlan. As if he wasn't corpulent enough, he threw on padding and prosthetics and played him as a character both towering and teetering, dripping with sweat and malice, spending the film becoming more reprehensible and vile as he slips from his past greatness deeper and deeper into corruption.
Check out this somewhat spoil-y scene for a perfect five-minute example of Welles' brilliance behind and in front of the camera:
But the thing that mainly floored me about this film was the final minute in which the "twist" of sorts is revealed, along with a pivotal insight into Quinlan's character and motivations. In an understated way, due largely to lack of explicitly show or discussed backstory, Quinlan is every bit the figure that Charles Foster Kane and Daniel Plainview are: driven men who are not evil but flawed, who eventually lose both their humanities and their souls along the way.
And yeah, Heston plays a Mexican. Heston's character was originally white, with a Mexican wife, but Welles switched it around, which was a frankly masterful movie story-wise, making Quinlan and Vargas living-but-complex symbols for America and Mexico. But that's a subject better film historians than I can and have discussed at length.
Like CITIZEN KANE, movie fans can watch this and thrill over seeing something that has influenced so many filmmakers over the years. But unlike (what many think of) CITIZEN KANE, TOUCH OF EVIL holds up as a goddamn brilliant film in its own right, one of the greatest and most unique film noirs ever made.
Or maybe not. Maybe just like KANE, many will see it and just shrug. After all, Welles made the film with the intent to "infuriate" his audience, but I can only imagine him truly succeeding with an audience that doesn't like to think. I'd be interested to know what others here would or do think about TOUCH OF EVIL. I will say this, though: this will be the first film in months that I'm actually gonna buy for my DVD library. After I watch the rented version again.
*Honestly, I didn't have much interest in seeing PRINCE CASPIAN until I hear that the good dwarf was Peter Dinklage and the bad dwarf was Warwick Davies. The visual of the Dink's ELF character getting into a fistfight with the Leprechaun has filled me with a surplus of glee.
Of course, some films are so formulaic that you could figure it out, but what was extra refreshing about THE VISITOR was how it could have gone a whole number of ways in the hands of a lesser filmmaker, but the final result was... rather wonderful, really.
A major plus is the leading performance by character actor Richard Jenkins, most famous as the father from SIX FEET UNDER. It's always wonderful when character actors get their moments to shine, and makes me long for the days when we had shows like THE TWILIGHT ZONE where we could get all kinds of mini-showcases from such actors.
THE VISITOR is getting buzz as the sleeper indie of the year, so it'll be interesting to see what attention it gets. I've refrained from talking about the actual plot just because I wouldn't know how exactly to sum up the film without giving away its little surprises. I almost posted the trailer here, but it gives far too much away, and comes off looking more sentimental and touchy-feely than the actual film is, so just take my word for it.
Then with
cisic and tompurdue, I saw LES CHANSONS D'AMOUR (LOVE SONGS), a French musical about a ménage à trois. The consensus was that the film was "so goddamn damn French, but in a good way." Honestly, when it comes to most French films, that's the most for which I can hope. Also, the cast was crazy hot, so that was a plus. Stupid sexy French.
But I saved the best for last, and even though I knew it was an obvious classic, I still hadn't been prepared for what I was about to see.
After about ten years of dilly-dallying since the restored reissue back in 1998, I have finally, finally seen Orson Welles' TOUCH OF EVIL. I saw it about fourteen hours ago and I am still floored.
From the brilliant five-minute long single take opening, I knew I was in for something amazing:
After that, though, I started to have my doubts. First and foremost (and how many of you can guess what I'm gonna say?), Charlton Heston plays a Mexican. Let that sink in. Is it sunk? Yeah, well, I was worried it would sink the film, between the brownface make-up and Heston's trademark overwrought delivery.
But then I soon noticed that Heston wasn't the only one with odd delivery. Everyone seemed to speaking in some bizarre tone that was... over the top? Campy? Bizarre? Hard to nail down, although one theory that I liked is that Welles directed everyone to speak like him. In any case, that was another element that took some adjustment, especially the way they overlapped each other as if they were in an Altman film but with the naturalism replaced with a style that...
... then it hit me: this was a Coen Brothers film before there was ever a Coen Brothers.
And the more I watched TOUCH OF EVIL, the more its influence became apparent. The Coens must have been all over this, a true prototype for BLOOD SIMPLE and NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN. And Welles' own character, the infamous and grotesque Sheriff Hank Quinlan, has been a quietly powerful icon ever since, reflected in Ray Liotta's powerful Henry Oak from NARC and especially William Hootkins' Lieutenant Eckhart ("HEY ECKHART! THINK ABOUT THE FUTURE!") from Burton's BATMAN.
And oh lord, what a character Welles created in Quinlan. As if he wasn't corpulent enough, he threw on padding and prosthetics and played him as a character both towering and teetering, dripping with sweat and malice, spending the film becoming more reprehensible and vile as he slips from his past greatness deeper and deeper into corruption.
Check out this somewhat spoil-y scene for a perfect five-minute example of Welles' brilliance behind and in front of the camera:
But the thing that mainly floored me about this film was the final minute in which the "twist" of sorts is revealed, along with a pivotal insight into Quinlan's character and motivations. In an understated way, due largely to lack of explicitly show or discussed backstory, Quinlan is every bit the figure that Charles Foster Kane and Daniel Plainview are: driven men who are not evil but flawed, who eventually lose both their humanities and their souls along the way.
And yeah, Heston plays a Mexican. Heston's character was originally white, with a Mexican wife, but Welles switched it around, which was a frankly masterful movie story-wise, making Quinlan and Vargas living-but-complex symbols for America and Mexico. But that's a subject better film historians than I can and have discussed at length.
Like CITIZEN KANE, movie fans can watch this and thrill over seeing something that has influenced so many filmmakers over the years. But unlike (what many think of) CITIZEN KANE, TOUCH OF EVIL holds up as a goddamn brilliant film in its own right, one of the greatest and most unique film noirs ever made.
Or maybe not. Maybe just like KANE, many will see it and just shrug. After all, Welles made the film with the intent to "infuriate" his audience, but I can only imagine him truly succeeding with an audience that doesn't like to think. I'd be interested to know what others here would or do think about TOUCH OF EVIL. I will say this, though: this will be the first film in months that I'm actually gonna buy for my DVD library. After I watch the rented version again.
*Honestly, I didn't have much interest in seeing PRINCE CASPIAN until I hear that the good dwarf was Peter Dinklage and the bad dwarf was Warwick Davies. The visual of the Dink's ELF character getting into a fistfight with the Leprechaun has filled me with a surplus of glee.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-06-09 12:58 am (UTC)You are so taking me back to my college days. One of my best friends from the outside (aka, the adult world) was the projectionist at one of those big, ol' classic theatres and would get me tickets whenever I wanted. So when the re-issue of this came along I got tickets for my dad and I (he was in town to help me move home) to see it. I remember loving it but I don't remember all the details. I'll have to see it again.
Speaking of great, classic movies, have you seen Grand Illusion yet? (Oh, and I just saw Perfume. I have to admit I was one of those who thought 'you can't make a (good) movie out of this' but darned if it wasn't exquisite. Highly recommended!)
no subject
Date: 2008-06-09 01:11 am (UTC)Ach, I envy you having that kind of cinematic experience! It just makes me long for the Prince Charles Theater.
I have not seen GRAND ILLUSION, although it's certainly on my freaky-long "must-see" list. Actually, I've never seen any Renoir film. I'm just always hesitant about French films because--by and large--they're all just so damn French.
That said, have youuuuuu seen DIABOLIQUE?
Really, PERFUME was great? Because I've heard nothing but disappointed and mixed, but if it has your recommendation, then hell yes, I'll check it out. I have the book but have never read it. Should I hold off till I see the film?
no subject
Date: 2008-06-09 01:44 am (UTC)Do me a favor and see Grand Illusion before you see Rules of the Game. Rules is more like an extended riff on how people you feel sympathetic for (like your friends) can do insanely bad stuff and you still feel for them, even while wanting to grab them by the shoulders and say 'Stop that!' He meant it as a look at a decadent group of people but he's such a warm, humane film director that some people took it as a recommendation of that lifestyle. It was really more like 'Yes, your dumbnity leads to tragedy and, yes, I'm talking to you!'
As for Grand Illusion, Roosevelt said that everyone who believes in democracy should see it and the Nazis declared it 'cultural public enemy number one.' Seriously, that was what they called it. (How awesome is that?) The most fantastic thing about Grand Illusion is that, other than one brief scene it has no conflict. And yet it's still riveting because it's the original of the great escape flicks. The tension comes from outside (which is also the film's message, but I digress...).
Also, have fun spotting the moment Casablanca totally five-finger-discounted from it.
As for Perfume, read the book first so you can get an idea of how totally unfilmable it seemed. It's not that it couldn't be done, it's that you'd think you'd have to sacrifice so much of the original story's texture and intimacy. But somehow the result just works. It's not perfect, but it's a lot more than just good enough. Visually, it feels like some Dutch painting from the Renaissance. It's one of the few films I've seen that uses nudes the same way painting does. You never think 'that's gratuitous' any more than you'd think it looking at some centuries old masterpiece. It's like some shots were done in oils.
no subject
Date: 2008-06-09 02:37 am (UTC)Rock, I'll check the book out first, then. The last time I had that sort of situation was THE UNBEARABLE LIGHTNESS OF BEING. The film was actually excellent, but compared to the "unfilmable" novel, it was no contest. But then, I fell hard in love with that book when I read it that the film didn't stand much of a chance, even with Daniel Day-Lewis.
no subject
Date: 2008-06-09 01:10 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-06-09 01:11 am (UTC)OFF TOPIC
Date: 2008-06-09 04:36 pm (UTC)So, um, HI! *waves*
Re: OFF TOPIC
Date: 2008-06-09 06:05 pm (UTC)eBay might be the most tedious and labor intensive, but it often is the most rewarding. Chances are good that--unless you have a real prize single issue or two in the collection--you won't get much, but if you're willing to put the effort into eBay, that might be a better bet than the online stores. But check around.
Finally, I'd suggest bringing what you have to a big comic convention. The soonest major one (the only major mainstream comic convention in the Baltimore/DC area) is the Baltimore Comic Con in September:
http://www.comicon.com/baltimore/
There are many dealers there who buy used comics. Shop around, compare prices.
I've never been to http://www.comicspriceguide.com, but it sounds like they collect and list the values of comics of various sources (such as The Overstreet Price Guide, which is the best guide out there). But remember, ultimately, they're only worth as much as somebody's willing to pay for them.
Anything you can't sell, or don't want to go through the trouble of selling, I'd suggest donating to Salvation Army and/or Children's Hospital, so they at least go to a good cause. Anything but throwing them out!
Hope that helped! :)
Re: OFF TOPIC
Date: 2008-06-09 08:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-06-10 01:22 pm (UTC)(PS: How YOU doing?)
no subject
Date: 2008-06-10 03:40 pm (UTC)(HI!!! I was afraid they turned you into haggis and stuck you in their bagpipes, or whatever they do!)