#87 of 2010: Daisies

they giggle, maniacally; they're thin and peppy in swimsuits, dresses, heels; they'll hang out with a rich old dude for a meal and entertainment. but after they get bored of teasing and frolicking, they'll light wads of crepe paper on fire in their room and cut phallic foods (pickle, sausage, crescent roll, banana) into tiny pieces with scissors to the soundtrack of a lovesick butterfly collector on the phone.

it might be possible to miss the feminism of this film- the message isn't militant or presented in an altogether serious fashion- but you aren't watching very closely if you do. "Daisies" continuously points out contradictions in society's opinions on propriety and feminine behavior [example: stylized drunkeness and suggestive dancing by a couple performers doing a flapper number are enjoyed by a chuckling, clapping audience, but the crowd is completely indignant when the two girls get drunk and dance for real. ACTUALLY having fun instead of faking a good time is NOT ok].

far from being a manifesto, or even suggesting how things "should" be, Chytilova's attention-getting early feature film is an absurd/surreal interpretation of the current (as of the 60's, and we can argue how far we've come since then) state of womanhood, which was and still is rather absurd on its own. this is the point. it is made with joyous, psychedelic, and well-paced deftness. and you should watch it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daisies_(film)

#82 of 2010: Cat People

"Cat People" has a lot in common with "I Walked With a Zombie" in terms of its ambiguity about what is really going on here. Both films utilize the exotic foreignness of non-American legend as a portal into the "unknown" and cross-examine seemingly supernatural phenomena (which is rarely evidenced visually) with the opinions of psychologists or doctors, and it is the viewer hirself who must ultimately judge whether disturbed minds or demonic curses are to blame for the trouble that transpires. In addition to ethnic and religious differences, "Cat People" also deals rather thoughtfully with the problem of defining love, as the storyline absolutely demolishes the lead male's simplistic ideals concerning the subject. So it goes like this: there are two beautiful, charming, decent women in the story. One is the delicate, dark (but still generally cutesy), sexually abstinent wife who possesses an undeniable, almost primal magnetism. The other is a peppy, self-assured office buddy who shares professional interests and skills (designing/engineering ships) with Mr. Golly Gee. After his marriage based on "I love you and you love me, even though I'm totally dismissive of your deeply held and life-guiding beliefs", he finds that (surprise) he's unhappy for the first time in his life- the bulk of which he describes as a happy childhood plus a great time at school plus lots of fun at the office. At this point is the scene during which office pal both describes a more solid (though still pretty idealistic) view of love and complicates the idea by professing the relationship between them to be a perfect example of it, but concluding the conversation without seeming to want anything decidedly romantic from him. I knew better than to get too hopeful about what a film made in 1942 might have to say about cross-gender friendships or acceptable gender relations, but (ultimate conclusions aside) "Cat People" was willing to engage the topic interestingly, and often in a way that demonstrated the weaknesses in patriarchal assumptions. I haven't even gone into the best part of the movie where the wife is following the office buddy down the street in the dark, but you gotta see it so WATCH THIS MOVIE.

#75 of 2010: Together

besides the oblique jabs which consist of the inclusion of a "crazy hippie aunt" or "weird psychic/naturopath", i feel like movies in general shy away from critically examining political and social liberalism in a serious way (i'm not counting outright satires like Allen's "everyone says i love you"). bucking that trend (as i perceive it), "Together" offers a sizable helping of pros and cons concerning practices like communal living, political sexuality, and liberal parenting. Though aspects of radical counter-culture are introduced as stark theoretical oppositions to mainstream family values, the narrative allows a much more complex exploration of the left-leaning continuum to take place. By the still-uncertain (but happy anyway) denouement, we've gotten to know left-wing counterparts to every right-wing stereotype: the protective parent, the self-serving hypocrite, the political evangelist, the sheepish proponent of the most idealistic version of hir beliefs (in place of the right's "american dream" of freedom to prosper is the left's ideal of "harmonious equality" in which the group prospers because of the altruism of its members), and so on. all this anthropological/sociological documentary (the zooms, quick turns, and handheldiness of the camera work are reminiscent of early, possible-to-presume-unscripted reality shows) is part of a complete narrative package, with interesting and interwoven plot lines and a really great brother-sister-parallel-yelling-at-significant-others scene. the subtitles on netflix's disc were definitely shoddy, but who doesn't love listening to Swedish, even if there are big holes in the translation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Together_(2000_film)

#71 of 2010: Lola

as i mentioned before, "Lola" is the genetically identical graft of it's Marlene Dietrich-starring predecessor, "The Blue Angel". still, in R.W. Fassbinder's hands, it certainly became it's own plant as it progressed. obvious comparisons to be made: a seemingly non-sexual older man in a socially respectable position is at odds with the people at work while he falls in love with a singer in the adult entertainment industry and is subsequently "corrupted"; the woman is financially dependent on men but finds plenty of other ways to be in charge of her own life; idealism doesn't have much of an effect, if any. basic contrasts: more developed rivalries; more circularity and interconnectivity amongst characters; this film is not only in color, it is in hyper-color, with tinted lighbulbs on screen and richly-hued stage-lighting to create giant planes of color which envelope characters or intersect. the second contrast, the interconnectivity, is elemental in developing the complexity of the woman around whom all the other characters orbit. Lola's scenes show her in different costumes (standard vocal performance stage-clothes, lingerie, her conservative and high-class sunday best, 20-something around-the-house wear, etc.) as she interacts with different combinations of friends, coworkers, clients, and family. she's casual at home with her daughter, mother, and friend/coworker Esslin; she's in her room at the brothel being fought over by Shuckert and Esslin while wearing her prostitute uniform; she's singing at a church in a modest (though head-turning) hat and dress while von Bohm sings beside her; she's at her wedding with all the women from work, her mother, and her new husband. but even as she changes costumes- presumably playing different roles in order to be what people want her to be- she has a consistent resilience, a self-reliance, and a kind of ambition that drives her to gather up love and admiration (and to withstand the abuse that comes with them) for her own practical benefit. she isn't attention hungry, she's business-minded, and she knows enough about how to survive in her environment that she allows herself to mix business with pleasure. her predicament (along with her perspective) is summed up well in her response to Esslin when he asks, rhetorically, "you want to live in a world that has lost all morality, where there's only evil and depravity and corruption?" she answers, "gladly. my only problem is that they never let me really join in." though she's left out when it comes to the distribution of clear-cut power, Lola has smarts, is willing to use what she's got, and is adaptable in the extreme. whether or not these abilities can also count as detriments is ultimately left up to each viewer's own system of priorities and moral evaluation. i love when flimmakers allow viewers the privilege of judging for themselves, and i'm starting to really love Armin Mueller-Stahl, so i'm recommending "Lola" highly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lola_(1981_film)

#66 of 2010: Strictly Sexual

as a story it was decent, if strictly heterocentric and also improbable (but since when is improbable in itself a problem, right?). the title is ironic; the film actually offers some refreshing takes on love and sexuality (though it seems to lose any ground it gains during intercut "men on relationships" and "women on relationships" counseling sessions. on the other hand, this could simply be a reflection on how we are generally socialized to view the opposite sex and not the opinions of those who made the film. after all, what is said during this scene calls into question a lot of the simple binary assumptions we've been led to make about the four characters [2 men and 2 women], and the advice that is given is shown to be ineffective later in the movie. ok i've changed my mind, there is a net progress regarding gender stereotypes) i agree with the netflix reviewer who mentioned that a serious re-edit would do this some good, and i found some of the dialogue a bit "intro to fiction" sounding. some scenes, however, did achieve the recognizable realism that the entire movie was struggling towards: i.e. the scene where stannie describes his strained (now non-existent) relationships with his parents. it sounds convincing, his somewhat careful, slightly vague (but absolutely effective) in-a-nutshell description of why he and his family mutually opted out of keeping in contact when he was a teenager, and it lays a good foundation for our understanding of what happens to his relationship with donna. overall, though, this is another case of the movie being less interesting than the life of the movie - it has been released almost solely on the internet, streaming on netflix and hulu, and through those channels has managed to make 10 times it's production budget thus far. it may be a landmark in film distribution, but certainly is not one in filmmaking or storytelling. read the press on "strictly sexual", but skip seeing it unless you don't find less-than-good acting or hurried plot climaxes distracting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strictly_Sexual